{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_50857/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_50857","id":"gutenberg_50857","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50857","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Colossians -- Commentaries","Bible. Colossians -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Bible. Philemon -- Commentaries","Bible. Philemon -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nThis version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.\nItalics are delimited with the \u2018_\u2019 character as _italic_. Bold font is\ndelimited by the \u2018=\u2019 character. Superscripted and subscripted characters\nare shown as \u2018^2\u2019 and \u2018_{2}\u2019 respectively. Emphasized words in Greek\nare, by convention, printed using wider spacing (_gesperrt_). The \u2018_\u2019\ncharacter is used as a delimiter in this version, e.g. (\u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03af _\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5_).\n\nThe original text includes annotations on two Greek texts, the Epistle\nto the Colossians, and an Epistle to Philemon. On each page, several\nlines of Greek are accompanied by a double column of notations on key\nwords. It was not possible to follow that convention in this version,\ngiven the nature of our medium.\n\nAny hyphenations in the Greek text that occurred on page breaks have\nbeen removed, and the word's end has been moved to the previous page. On\nmany occasions, a note appears on an earlier page than the text it\nglosses. In this version, the notes have been arranged so that each\n_follows_ the text to which it refers.\n\nThere are Greek inscriptions printed in an uncial font, and using a\nlunate sigma (\u03f2). These will appear here as ==\u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03f2\u03b8\u03b5==.\nThe occasional blackletter font appears here as \u2018=blackletter\ntext=\u2019.\n\nFootnotes have been moved to follow each paragraph, and are resequenced\nto be unique across the text. Any internal references to those notes\nhave been modified as well.\n\nThe section entitled AD LAODICENSES presents the text of an apocryphal\nletter from St Paul. Given the brevity of the text, these notes are\ngathered after the letter.\n\nThe index includes references to both pages and to the verses of the two\nEpistles included here. Those references to a verse may refer to either\nthe Greek itself, or to any of the notes on that verse.\n\nPlease consult the note at the end of this text for any other issues\nthat arose during its presentation.\n\n\n\n\n                        THE EPISTLES OF ST PAUL.\n\n                                  III.\n\n                       THE FIRST ROMAN CAPTIVITY.\n\n                                   2.\n\n                       EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.\n\n                                   3.\n\n                          EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n                          =Cambridge:=\n                      PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A.\n                        AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.\n\n                               ST PAUL\u2019S\n                       EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS\n                                 AND TO\n                               PHILEMON.\n\n                            _A REVISED TEXT_\n\n                                  WITH\n\n                INTRODUCTIONS, NOTES, AND DISSERTATIONS.\n\n\n\n\n                                   BY\n\n                         J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D.\n\n                          CANON OF ST PAUL\u2019S;\n                     HULSEAN PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY,\n                                  AND\n             HONORARY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.\n\n\n\n\n                            =London:=\n                          _MACMILLAN AND CO._\n                                 1875.\n\n                        [_All Rights reserved._]\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n         ==\u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03f2\u03b8\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03f2 \u03ba\u1f00\u03b3\u1f7c \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.==\n\n                         ---------------------\n\n              \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n                                                    CLEMENT.\n\n                               ----------\n\n       \u039f\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2,\n       \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd\n          \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n                                                   IGNATIUS.\n\n                               ----------\n\n     \u039f\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f45\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u03af \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n            \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a0\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n                                                   POLYCARP.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                PREFACE.\n\n\nOn the completion of another volume of my commentary, I wish again to\nrenew my thanks for the assistance received from previous labourers in\nthe same field. Such obligations must always be great; but it is not\neasy in a few words to apportion them fairly, and I shall not make the\nattempt. I have not consciously neglected any aid which might render\nthis volume more complete; but at the same time I venture to hope that\nmy previous commentaries have established my claim to be regarded as an\nindependent worker, and in the present instance more especially I have\nfound myself obliged to diverge widely from the treatment of my\npredecessors, and to draw largely from other materials than those which\nthey have collected.\n\nIn the preface to a previous volume I expressed an intention of\nappending to my commentary on the Colossian Epistle an essay on\n\u2018Christianity and Gnosis.\u2019 This intention has not been fulfilled in the\nletter; but the subject enters largely into the investigation of the\nColossian heresy, where it receives as much attention as, at all events\nfor the present, it seems to require. It will necessarily come under\ndiscussion again, when the Pastoral Epistles are taken in hand.\n\nThe question of the genuineness of the two epistles contained in this\nvolume has been deliberately deferred. It could not be discussed with\nany advantage apart from the Epistle to the Ephesians, for the three\nletters are inseparably bound together. Meanwhile however the doctrinal\nand historical discussions will, if I mistake not, have furnished\nanswers to the main objections which have been urged; while the\ncommentary will have shown how thoroughly natural the language and\nthoughts are, if conceived as arising out of an immediate emergency.\nMore especially it will have been made apparent that the Epistle to the\nColossians hangs together as a whole, and that the phenomena are\naltogether adverse to any theory of interpolation such as that recently\nput forward by Professor Holtzmann.\n\nIn the commentary, as well as in the introduction, it has been a chief\naim to illustrate and develope the theological conception of the Person\nof Christ, which underlies the Epistle to the Colossians. The Colossian\nheresy for instance owes its importance mainly to the fact that it\nthrows out this conception into bolder relief. To this portion of the\nsubject therefore I venture to direct special attention.\n\nI cannot conclude without offering my thanks to Mr A. A. VanSittart who,\nas on former occasions, has given his aid in correcting the proof sheets\nof this volume; and to the Rev. J. J. Scott, of Trinity College, who has\nprepared the index. I wish also to express my obligations to Dr\nSchiller-Szinessy, of whose Talmudical learning I have freely availed\nmyself in verifying Frankel\u2019s quotations and in other ways. I should add\nhowever that he is not in any degree responsible for my conclusions and\nhas not even seen what I have written.\n\n    TRINITY COLLEGE,\n        _April 30, 1875_.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                               CONTENTS.\n\n                       EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.\n\n     _INTRODUCTION._\n\n                                                              PAGE\n\n          I.   _The Churches of the Lycus_                    1\u201372\n\n          II.  _The Colossian Heresy_                       73\u2013113\n\n               _On some points connected with the\n               Essenes._\n\n               1. _The name Essene_                        114\u2013119\n\n               2. _Origin and Affinities of the            119\u2013157\n               Essenes_\n\n               3. _Essenism and Christianity_              158\u2013179\n\n          III. _Character and Contents of the Epistle_     180\u2013194\n\n     _TEXT AND NOTES_                                      197\u2013311\n\n          _On some Various Readings in the Epistle_        312\u2013322\n\n          _On the meaning of \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1_                      323\u2013339\n\n          _The Epistle from Laodicea_                      340\u2013366\n\n                          EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.\n\n     _INTRODUCTION_                                        369\u2013395\n\n     _TEXT AND NOTES_                                      399\u2013412\n\n     _INDEX_                                               415\u2013424\n\n\n\n\n                                   I.\n                       THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Situation of the three cities.]\n\nLying in, or overhanging, the valley of the Lycus, a tributary of the\nM\u00e6ander, were three neighbouring towns, Laodicea, Hierapolis, and\nColoss\u00e6[1]. The river flows, roughly speaking, from east to west; but at\nthis point, which is some few miles above its junction with the M\u00e6ander,\nits direction is more nearly from south-east to north-west[2]. Laodicea\nand Hierapolis stand face to face, being situated respectively on the\nsouthern and northern sides of the valley, at a distance of six\nmiles[3], and within sight of each other, the river lying in the open\nplain between the two. The site of Coloss\u00e6 is somewhat higher up the\nstream, at a distance of perhaps ten or twelve miles[4] from the point\nwhere the road between Laodicea and Hierapolis crosses the Lycus. Unlike\nLaodicea and Hierapolis, which overhang the valley on opposite sides,\nColoss\u00e6 stands immediately on the river-bank, the two parts of the town\nbeing divided by the stream. The three cities lie so near to each other,\nthat it would be quite possible to visit them all in the course of a\nsingle day.\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  The following are among the most important books of travel relating to\n  this district; Pococke _Description of the East and Some Other\n  Countries_, Vol. II, Part II, London 1745; Chandler _Travels in Asia\n  Minor_ etc., Oxford 1775; Leake _Tour in Asia Minor_, London 1824;\n  Arundell _Discoveries in Asia Minor_, London 1834; Hamilton\n  _Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus, and Armenia_, London 1842; Fellows\n  _Asia Minor_, London 1839, _Discoveries in Lycia_, London 1840; de\n  Tchihatcheff _Asie Mineure, Description Physique, Statistique et\n  Arch\u00e9ologique_, Paris 1853 etc., with the accompanying Atlas (1860);\n  de Laborde _Voyage de l\u2019Asie Mineure_ (the expedition itself took\n  place in 1826, but the date on the title-page is 1838, and the\n  introduction was written in 1861); Le Bas _Voyage Arch\u00e9ologique en\n  Gr\u00e8ce et en Asie Mineure_, continued by Waddington and not yet\n  completed; Texier _Description de l\u2019Asie Mineure_, Vol. I (1839). It\n  is hardly necessary to add the smaller works of Texier and Le Bas on\n  _Asie Mineure_ (Paris 1862, 1863) in Didot\u2019s series _L\u2019Univers_, as\n  these have only a secondary value. Of the books enumerated, Hamilton\u2019s\n  work is the most important for the topography, etc.; Tchihatcheff\u2019s\n  for the physical features; and Le Bas and Waddington\u2019s for the\n  inscriptions, etc. The best maps are those of Hamilton and\n  Tchihatcheff; to which should be added the _Karte von Klein-Asien_ by\n  v. Vincke and others, published by Schropp, Berlin 1844.\n\n  Besides books on Asia Minor generally, some works relating especially\n  to the Seven Churches may be mentioned. Smith\u2019s _Survey of the Seven\n  Churches of Asia_ (1678) is a work of great merit for the time, and\n  contains the earliest description of the sites of these Phrygian\n  cities. It was published in Latin first, and translated by its author\n  afterwards. Arundell\u2019s _Seven Churches_ (1828) is a well-known book.\n  Allom and Walsh\u2019s _Constantinople and the Scenery of the Seven\n  Churches of Asia Minor illustrated_ (1850) gives some views of this\n  district. Svoboda\u2019s _Seven Churches of Asia_ (1869) contains 20\n  photographs and an introduction by the Rev. H. B. Tristram. This is a\n  selection from a larger series of Svoboda\u2019s photographs, published\n  separately.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  The maps differ very considerably in this respect, nor do the\n  statements of travellers always agree. The direction of the river, as\n  given in the text, accords with the maps of Hamilton and Tchihatcheff,\n  and with the accounts of the most accurate writers.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  _Anton. Itin._ p. 337 (Wesseling) gives the distance as 6 miles. See\n  also Fellows _Asia Minor_ p. 283, Hamilton I. p. 514. The relative\n  position of the two cities appears in Laborde\u2019s view, pl. xxxix.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  I do not find any distinct notice of the distance; but, to judge from\n  the maps and itineraries of modern travellers, this estimate will\n  probably be found not very far wrong.\n\n[Sidenote: Their neighbourhood and intercourse.]\n\nThus situated, they would necessarily hold constant intercourse with\neach other. We are not surprised therefore to find them so closely\nconnected in the earliest ages of Christianity. It was the consequence\nof their position that they owed their knowledge of the Gospel to the\nsame evangelist, that the same phases of thought prevailed in them, and\nthat they were exposed to the same temptations, moral as well as\nintellectual.\n\n[Sidenote: Physical forces at work.]\n\nThe physical features of the neighbourhood are very striking. Two potent\nforces of nature are actively at work to change the face of the country,\nthe one destroying old land-marks, the other creating fresh ground.\n\n[Sidenote: Frequent earthquakes.]\n\nOn the one hand, the valley of the Lycus was and is especially liable to\nviolent earthquakes. The same danger indeed extends over large portions\nof Asia Minor, but this district is singled out by ancient writers[5]\n(and the testimony of modern travellers confirms the statement[6]), as\nthe chief theatre of these catastrophes. Not once or twice only in the\nhistory of Laodicea do we read of such visitations laying waste the city\nitself or some flourishing town in the neighbourhood[7]. Though the\nexterior surface of the earth shows no traces of recent volcanoes, still\nthe cavernous nature of the soil and the hot springs and mephitic\nvapours abounding here indicate the presence of those subterranean\nfires, which from time to time have manifested themselves in this work\nof destruction.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  See especially Strabo xii. 8. 16 (p. 578) \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  _\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f54\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd_\u00b7 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f54\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039a\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  Thus Pococke (p. 71) in 1745 writes of Denizli, which is close to\n  Laodicea, \u2018The old town was destroyed about 25 years past by an\n  earthquake, in which 12,000 people perished.\u2019\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  See below p. 38.\n\n[Sidenote: Deposits of travertine.]\n\nBut, while the crust of the earth is constantly broken up by these\nforces from beneath, another agency is actively employed above ground in\nlaying a new surface. If fire has its fitful outbursts of devastation,\nwater is only less powerful in its gradual work of reconstruction. The\nlateral streams which swell the waters of the Lycus are thickly\nimpregnated with calcareous matter, which they deposit in their course.\nThe travertine formations of this valley are among the most remarkable\nin the world, surpassing even the striking phenomena of Tivoli and\nClermont[8]. Ancient monuments are buried, fertile lands overlaid,\nriver-beds choked up and streams diverted, fantastic grottos and\ncascades and archways of stone formed, by this strange capricious power,\nat once destructive and creative, working silently and relentlessly\nthrough long ages. Fatal to vegetation, these incrustations spread like\na stony shroud over the ground. Gleaming like glaciers on the hill-side\nthey attract the eye of the traveller at a distance of twenty miles[9],\nand form a singularly striking feature in scenery of more than common\nbeauty and impressiveness.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  Tchihatcheff P. I. _Geogr. Phys. Comp._ p. 344 sq., esp. p. 353. See\n  the references below, pp. 9 sq., 15.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  Fellows _Asia Minor_ p. 283.\n\n[Sidenote: Produce and manufactures of the district.]\n\nAt the same time, along with these destructive agencies, the fertility\nof the district was and is unusually great. Its rich pastures fed large\nflocks of sheep, whose fleeces were of a superior quality; and the trade\nin dyed woollen goods was the chief source of prosperity to these towns.\nFor the bounty of nature was not confined to the production of the\nmaterial, but extended also to the preparation of the fabric. The\nmineral streams had chemical qualities, which were highly valued by the\ndyer[10]. Hence we find that all the three towns, with which we are\nconcerned, were famous in this branch of trade. At Hierapolis, as at\nThyatira, the guild of the dyers appears in the inscriptions as an\nimportant and influential body[11]. Their colours vied in brilliancy\nwith the richest scarlets and purples of the farther east[12]. Laodicea\nagain was famous for the colour of its fleeces, probably a glossy black,\nwhich was much esteemed[13]. Here also we read of a guild of dyers[14].\nAnd lastly, Coloss\u00e6 gave its name to a peculiar dye, which seems to have\nbeen some shade of purple, and from which it derived a considerable\nrevenue[15].\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  See note 13.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ no. 3924 (at Hierapolis) \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f21\u03c1\u1ff7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\n  _\u1f21 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03ce\u03bd_. See Laborde\u2019s view, pl. xxxv. In another\n  inscription too (Le Bas and Waddington, no. 1687) there is mention of\n  the purple-dyers, \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  Strabo xiii. 4. 14 (p. 630) \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c2\n  \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1, \u1f64\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1fe5\u03b9\u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\n  \u1f10\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f34\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03ba\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  Strabo xii. 8. 16 (p. 578) \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f96 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u039c\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f41\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\n  \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. For this strange adjective \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03cc\u03c2 (which seems to\n  be derived from \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03be and to mean \u2018raven-black\u2019) see the passages in\n  Hase and Dindorf\u2019s _Steph. Thes._ In Latin we find the form\n  _coracinus_, Vitruv. viii. 3 \u00a7 14 \u2018Aliis coracino colore,\u2019 Laodicea\n  being mentioned in the context. Vitruvius represents this as the\n  natural colour of the fleeces, and attributes it to the water drunk by\n  the sheep. See also Plin. _N. H._ viii. 48 \u00a7 73. So too Hieron. _adv.\n  Jovin._ ii. 21 (II. p. 358) \u2018Laodice\u00e6 indumentis ornatus incedis.\u2019 The\n  ancient accounts of the natural colour of the fleeces in this\n  neighbourhood are partially confirmed by modern travellers; e.g.\n  Pococke p. 74, Chandler p. 228.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3938 [\u1f21 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1] \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad[\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd]\n  (\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3[\u1ff6]\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  See the passage of Strabo quoted p. 4, note 13. The place gives its\n  name to the colour, and not conversely, as stated in Blakesley\u2019s\n  Herod. vii. 113. See also Plin. _N. H._ xxi. 9 \u00a7 27, \u2018In vepribus\n  nascitur cyclaminum ... flos ejus _colossinus_ in coronas admittitur,\u2019\n  a passage which assists in determining the colour.\n\n[Sidenote: 1. LAODICEA.]\n\n[Sidenote: Its name and history.]\n\n1. Of these three towns LAODICEA, as the most important, deserves to be\nconsidered first. Laodice was a common name among the ladies of the\nroyal house of the Seleucid\u00e6, as Antiochus was among the princes. Hence\nAntiochia and Laodicea occur frequently as the designations of cities\nwithin the dominions of the Syrian kings. Laodicea on the Lycus[16], as\nit was surnamed to distinguish it from other towns so called, and more\nespecially perhaps from its near neighbour Laodicea Catacecaumene, had\nborne in succession the names of Diospolis and Rhoas[17]; but when\nrefounded by Antiochus Theos (B.C. 261\u2013246), it was newly designated\nafter his wife Laodice[18]. It is situated[19] on an undulating hill, or\ngroup of hills, which overhangs the valley on the south, being washed on\neither side by the streams of the Asopus and the Caprus, tributaries of\nthe Lycus[20]. Behind it rise the snow-capped heights of Cadmus, the\nlofty mountain barrier which shuts in the south side of the main\nvalley[21]. [Sidenote: Its growing prosperity.] A place of no great\nimportance at first, it made rapid strides in the last days of the\nrepublic and under the earliest C\u00e6sars, and had become, two or three\ngenerations before St Paul wrote, a populous and thriving city[22].\nAmong its famous inhabitants are mentioned the names of some\nphilosophers, sophists, and rhetoricians, men renowned in their day but\nforgotten or almost forgotten now[23]. More to our purpose, as\nillustrating the boasted wealth and prosperity of the city, which\nappeared as a reproach and a stumblingblock in an Apostle\u2019s eyes[24],\nare the facts, that one of its citizens, Polemo, became a king and a\nfather of kings, and that another, Hiero, having accumulated enormous\nwealth, bequeathed all his property to the people and adorned the city\nwith costly gifts[25]. To the good fortune of her principal sons, as\nwell as to the fertility of the country around, the geographer Strabo\nascribes the increase and prosperity of Laodicea. The ruins of public\nbuildings still bear testimony by their number and magnificence to the\npast greatness of the city[26].\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u039b\u03cd\u03ba\u1ff3, Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ no. 3938, Ptol. _Geogr._ v. 2, Tab.\n  Peut. \u2018laudicium pilycum\u2019; \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 [\u03c4\u1ff7] \u039b\u03cd\u03ba\u1ff3, Eckhel _Num. Vet._ III. p.\n  166, Strabo l.c., Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 5881, 5893; \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039b\u03cd\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, Boeckh\n  _Corp. Inscr._ 6478. A citizen was styled \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039b\u03cd\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5, Diog.\n  Laert. ix. 12 \u00a7 116.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  Plin. _N. H._ v. 29.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  Steph. Byz. s.v., who quotes the oracle in obedience to which (\u1f61\u03c2\n  \u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c8\u03b9\u03b2\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2) it was founded.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  For descriptions of Laodicea see Smith p. 250 sq., Pococke p. 71 sq.,\n  Chandler p. 224 sq., Arundell _Seven Churches_ p. 84 sq., _Asia Minor_\n  II. p. 180 sq., Fellows _Asia Minor_ 280 sq., Hamilton I. p. 514 sq.,\n  Tchihatcheff P. I. p. 252 sq., 258 sq. See also the views in Laborde,\n  pl. xxxix, Allom and Walsh II. p. 86, and Svoboda phot. 36\u201338.\n\n  The modern Turkish name is Eskihissar, \u2018the Old Castle,\u2019 corresponding\n  to the modern Greek, Pale\u00f3kastro, a common name for the sites of\n  ancient cities; Leake p. 251. On the ancient site itself there is no\n  town or village; the modern city Denizli is a few miles off.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  The position of Laodicea with respect to the neighbouring streams is\n  accurately described by Pliny _N.H._ v. 29 \u2018Imposita est Lyco flumini,\n  latera affluentibus Asopo et Capro\u2019; see Tchihatcheff P. I. p. 258.\n  Strabo xii. (l.c.) is more careless in his description (for it can\n  hardly be, as Tchihatcheff assumes, that he has mistaken one of these\n  two tributaries for the Lycus itself), \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u039a\u03ac\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\n  \u039b\u03cd\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039c\u03b1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2, where \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1\n  refers to \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, and where by the junction of\n  the stream with the M\u00e6ander must be intended the junction of the\n  _combined_ stream of the Lycus and Caprus. On the coins of Laodicea\n  (Eckhel III. p. 166, Mionnet IV. p. 330, ib. Suppl. VII. p. 587, 589)\n  the Lycus and Caprus appear together, being sometimes represented as a\n  wolf and a wild-boar. The Asopus is omitted, either as being a less\n  important stream or as being less capable of symbolical\n  representation. Of modern travellers, Smith (p. 250), and after him\n  Pococke (p. 72), have correctly described the position of the streams.\n  Chandler (p. 227), misled by Strabo, mistakes the Caprus for the Lycus\n  and the Lycus for the M\u00e6ander. The modern name of the Lycus is Tchoruk\n  S\u00fa.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  The modern name of Cadmus is Baba-Dagh, \u2018The father of mountains.\u2019\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  Strabo xii. l.c. \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f40\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f00\u03cd\u03be\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u2019\n  \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n  \u039c\u03b9\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f18\u03c5\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. Strabo flourished in the time of Augustus\n  and the earlier years of Tiberius. The growing importance of Laodicea\n  dates from before the age of Cicero: see p. 7.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  Strabo l.c.; Diog. Laert. ix. 11 \u00a7 106, 12 \u00a7 116; Philostr. _Vit.\n  Soph._ i. 25; Eckhel _Doctr. Num. Vet._ III. p. 162, 163 sq.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  Rev. iii. 17; see below p. 43.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  Strabo l.c.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  The ruins of Laodicea have formed the quarry out of which the modern\n  town of Denizli is built. Yet notwithstanding these depredations they\n  are still very extensive, comprising an amphitheatre, two or three\n  theatres, an aqueduct, etc. The amphitheatre was built by the\n  munificence of a citizen of Laodicea only a few years after St Paul\n  wrote, as the inscription testifies; Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ no. 3935.\n  See especially Hamilton I. p. 515 sq., who describes these ruins as\n  \u2018bearing the stamp of Roman extravagance and luxury, rather than of\n  the stern and massive solidity of the Greeks.\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: Its political rank, as the capital of a _conventus_.]\n\nNot less important, as throwing light on the Apostolic history, is the\npolitical status of Laodicea. Asia Minor under the Romans was divided\ninto districts, each comprising several towns and having its chief city,\nin which the courts were held from time to time by the proconsul or\nlegate of the province, and where the taxes from the subordinate towns\nwere collected[27]. Each of these political aggregates was styled in\nLatin _conventus_, in Greek \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\u2014a term afterwards borrowed by the\nChristian Church, being applied to a similar ecclesiastical aggregate,\nand thus naturalised in the languages of Christendom as _diocese_. At\nthe head of the most important of these political dioceses, the\n\u2018Cibyratic convention\u2019 or \u2018jurisdiction,\u2019 as it was called, comprising\nnot less than twenty-five towns, stood Laodicea[28]. Here in times past\nCicero, as proconsul of Cilicia, had held his court[29]; hither at\nstated seasons flocked suitors, advocates, clerks, sheriffs\u2019-officers,\ntax-collectors, pleasure-seekers, courtiers\u2014all those crowds whom\nbusiness or leisure or policy or curiosity would draw together from a\nwealthy and populous district, when the representative of the laws and\nthe majesty of Rome appeared to receive homage and to hold his\nassize[30]. To this position as the chief city of the Cibyratic union\nthe inscriptions probably refer, when they style Laodicea the\n\u2018metropolis[31].\u2019 And in its metropolitan rank we see an explanation of\nthe fact, that to Laodicea, as to the centre of a Christian diocese\nalso, whence their letters would readily be circulated among the\nneighbouring brotherhoods, two Apostles address themselves in\nsuccession, the one writing from his captivity in Rome[32], the other\nfrom his exile at Patmos[33].\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  See Becker and Marquardt _R\u00f6m. Alterth._ III. 1. p. 136 sq.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  See Cic. _ad Att._ v. 21,\u2018Idibus Februariis ... forum institueram\n  agere Laodice\u00e6 Cibyraticum,\u2019with the references in the next note:\n  comp. also Plin. _N.H._ v. 29 \u2018Una (jurisdictio) appellatur\n  Cibyratica. Ipsum (i.e. Cibyra) oppidum Phrygi\u00e6 est. Conveniunt eo xxv\n  civitates, celeberrima urbe Laodicea.\u2019\n\n  Besides these passages, testimony is borne to the importance of the\n  Cibyratic \u2018conventus\u2019 by Strabo, xiii. 4 \u00a7 17 (p. 631), \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n  \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f21 \u039a\u03b9\u03b2\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae. It will be\n  remembered also that Horace singles out the _Cibyratica negotia_\n  (_Epist._ i. 6. 33) to represent Oriental trade generally. The\n  importance of Laodicea may be inferred from the fact that, though the\n  union was named after Cibyra, its head-quarters were from the first\n  fixed at or soon afterwards transferred to Laodicea.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  See _ad Fam._ ii. 17, iii. 5, 7, 8, ix. 25, xiii. 54, 67, xv. 4; _ad\n  Att._ v. 16, 17, 20, 21, vi. 1, 2, 3, 7. He visited Laodicea on\n  several occasions, sometimes making a long stay there, and not a few\n  of his letters are written thence. See especially his account of his\n  work there, _ad Att._ vi. 2, \u2018Hoc foro quod egi ex Idibus Februariis\n  Laodice\u00e6 ad Kalendas Maias omnium dioecesium, pr\u00e6ter Cilici\u00e6,\n  mirabilia qu\u00e6dam efficimus; ita mult\u00e6 civitates, etc.\u2019 Altogether\n  Laodicea seems to have been second in importance to none of the cities\n  in his province, except perhaps Tarsus. See also the notice, _in\n  Verr._ Act. ii. I. c. 30.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  The description which Dion Chrysostom gives in his eulogy of Cel\u00e6n\u00e6\n  (Apamea Cibotus), the metropolis of a neighbouring \u2018dioecesis,\u2019\n  enables us to realise the concourse which gathered together on these\n  occasions: _Orat._ XXXV (II. p. 69) \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f51\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  On this word see Becker and Marquardt l.c. p. 138 sq. It had lost its\n  original sense, as the mother city of a colony. Laodicea is styled\n  \u2018metropolis\u2019 on the coins, Mionnet IV. p. 321.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  Col. iv. 16 with the notes. See also below p. 37, and the introduction\n  to the Epistle to the Ephesians.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  Rev. iii. 14.\n\n[Sidenote: Its religious\n           worship.]\n\nOn the religious worship of Laodicea very little special information\nexists. Its tutelary deity was Zeus, whose guardianship had been\nrecognised in Diospolis, the older name of the city, and who, having\n(according to the legend) commanded its rebuilding, was commemorated on\nits coins with the surname Laodicenus[34]. Occasionally he is also\ncalled Aseis, a title which perhaps reproduces a Syrian epithet of this\ndeity, \u2018the mighty.\u2019 If this interpretation be correct, we have a link\nof connexion between Laodicea and the religions of the farther East\u2014a\nconnexion far from improbable, considering that Laodicea was refounded\nby a Syrian king and is not unlikely to have adopted some features of\nSyrian worship[35].\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  See Eckhel III. p. 159 sq. (passim), Mionnet IV. p. 315 sq., ib.\n  Suppl. VII. p. 578 sq. (passim). In the coins commemorating an\n  alliance with some other city Laodicea is represented by Zeus; e.g.\n  Mionnet IV. pp. 320, 324, 331 sq., Suppl. VII. pp. 586, 589.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  ==\u03b1\u03f2\u03b5\u03b9\u03f2== or ==\u03b1\u03f2\u03b5\u03b9\u03f2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd==. See Waddington _Voyage en Asie\n  Mineure au point de vue Numismatique_ (Paris 1853) pp. 25, 26 sq. Mr\n  Waddington adopts a suggestion communicated to him by M. de Longp\u00e9rier\n  that this word represents the Aramaic \u05e2\u05d6\u05d9\u05d6\u05d0 \u2018the strong, mighty,\u2019\n  which appears also in the Arabic \u2018Aziz.\u2019 This view gains some\n  confirmation from the fact, not mentioned by Mr Waddington, that\n  \u1f0c\u03b6\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03c2 was an epithet of the Ares of Edessa: Julian _Orat._ iv; comp.\n  Cureton _Spic. Syr._ p. 80, and see de Lagarde _Gesamm. Abhandl._ p.\n  16. On the other hand this Shemitic word elsewhere, when adopted into\n  Greek or Latin, is written \u1f0c\u03b6\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03c2 or Azizus: see Garrucci in the\n  _Arch\u00e6ologia_ XLIII. p. 45 \u2018Tyrio Septimio Azizo,\u2019 and Boeckh _Corp.\n  Inscr._ 9893 \u1f0c\u03b6\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b3\u03c1\u03af\u03c0\u03b1 \u03a3\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. M. de Longp\u00e9rier offers the\n  alternative that \u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03f2, _i.e._ \u1f08\u03c3\u03af\u03c2, is equivalent to \u1f08\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2. An\n  objection to this view, stronger than those urged by Mr Waddington, is\n  the fact that \u1f08\u03c3\u03af\u03c2 seems only to be used as a feminine adjective. M.\n  Renan points to the fact that this \u03b6\u03b5\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 is represented with his\n  hand on the horns of a goat, and on the strength of this coincidence\n  would identify him with \u2018the Azazel of the Semites\u2019 (_Saint Paul_, p.\n  359), though tradition and orthography alike point to some other\n  derivation of Azazel (\u05e2\u05d6\u05d0\u05d6\u05dc).\n\n[Sidenote: 2. HIERAPOLIS.]\n\n[Sidenote: Its situation.]\n\n2. On the north of the valley, opposite to the sloping hills which mark\nthe site of Laodicea, is a broad level terrace jutting out from the\nmountain side and overhanging the plain with almost precipitous sides.\nOn this plateau are scattered the vast ruins of HIERAPOLIS[36]. The\nmountains upon which it abuts occupy the wedge of ground between the\nM\u00e6ander and the Lycus; but, as the M\u00e6ander above its junction with the\nLycus passes through a narrow ravine, they blend, when seen from a\ndistance, with the loftier range of the Mesogis which overhangs the\nright bank of the M\u00e6ander almost from its source to its embouchure, and\nform with it the northern barrier to the view, as the Cadmus range does\nthe southern, the broad valley stretching between. Thus Hierapolis may\nbe said to lie over against Mesogis, as Laodicea lies over against\nCadmus[37].\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  For descriptions of Hierapolis, see Smith p. 245 sq., Pococke p. 75\n  sq., Chandler 229 sq., Arundell _Seven Churches_ p. 79 sq., Hamilton\n  p. 517 sq., Fellows _Asia Minor_ p. 283 sq. For the travertine\n  deposits see especially the description and plates in Tchihatcheff P.\n  I. p. 345, together with the views in Laborde (pl. xxxii-xxxviii), and\n  Svoboda (photogr. 41\u201347). Tchihatcheff repeatedly calls the place\n  Hieropolis; but this form, though commonly used of other towns (see\n  Steph. Byz. s.v. \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2, Leake _Num. Hell._ p. 67), appears not to\n  occur as a designation of the Phrygian city, which seems always to be\n  written Hierapolis. The citizens however are sometimes called\n  \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 on the coins.\n\n  The modern name is given differently by travellers. It is generally\n  called Pambouk-Kalessi, i.e. \u2018cotton-castle,\u2019 supposed to allude to\n  the appearance of the petrifactions, though cotton is grown in the\n  neighbourhood (Hamilton I. p. 517). So Smith, Pococke, Chandler,\n  Arundell, Tchihatcheff, Waddington, and others. M. Renan says\n  \u2018_Tambouk_, et non _Pambouk, Kalessi_\u2019 (_S. Paul_ p. 357). Laborde\n  gives the word _Tambouk_ in some places and _Pambouk_ in others; and\n  Leake says \u2018Hierapolis, now called _Tab\u00fak-Kale_ or _Pambuk-Kale_\u2019 (p.\n  252).\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  Strabo xiii. 4. 14 (p. 629) says \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c9\u03b3\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 ...\n  \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f76\u03b4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f7a \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2,\n  \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. He cannot mean that Hierapolis was situated immediately in or\n  by the Mesogis (for the name does not seem ever to be applied to the\n  mountains between the Lycus and M\u00e6ander), but that with respect to\n  Laodicea it stood over against the Mesogis, as I have explained it in\n  the text. The view in Laborde (pl. xxxix) shows the appearance of\n  Hierapolis from Laodicea. Strabo had himself visited the place and\n  must have known how it was situated. Some modern travellers however\n  (e.g. Chandler and Arundell) speak of the plateau of Hierapolis as\n  part of the Mesogis. Steiger (_Kolosser_ p. 33) gets over the\n  difficulty by translating Strabo\u2019s words, \u2018near the Mesogis but on the\n  opposite side (i.e. of the M\u00e6ander) is the Laodicean Hierapolis\u2019 (to\n  distinguish it from others of the name); but \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f7a cannot be\n  separated from \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 without violence.\n\n[Sidenote: Remarkable physical features.]\n\nIt is at Hierapolis that the remarkable physical features which\ndistinguish the valley of the Lycus display themselves in the fullest\nperfection. Over the steep cliffs which support the plateau of the city,\ntumble cascades of pure white stone, the deposit of calcareous matter\nfrom the streams which, after traversing this upper level, are\nprecipitated over the ledge into the plain beneath and assume the most\nfantastic shapes in their descent. At one time overhanging in cornices\nfringed with stalactites, at another hollowed out into basins or broken\nup with ridges, they mark the site of the city at a distance, glistening\non the mountain-side like foaming cataracts frozen in the fall.\n\n[Sidenote: Their relation to the Apostolic history.]\n\nBut for the immediate history of St Paul\u2019s Epistles the striking beauty\nof the scenery has no value. It is not probable that he had visited this\ndistrict when the letters to the Colossians and Laodiceans were written.\nWere it otherwise, we can hardly suppose, that educated under widely\ndifferent influences and occupied with deeper and more absorbing\nthoughts, he would have shared the enthusiasm which this scenery\ninspires in the modern traveller. Still it will give a reality to our\nconceptions, if we try to picture to ourselves the external features of\nthat city, which was destined before long to become the adopted home of\nApostles and other personal disciples of the Lord, and to play a\nconspicuous part\u2014second perhaps only to Ephesus\u2014in the history of the\nChurch during the ages immediately succeeding the Apostles.\n\n[Sidenote: Hierapolis a famous watering-place.]\n\nLike Laodicea, Hierapolis was at this time an important and a growing\ncity, though not like Laodicea holding metropolitan rank[38]. Besides\nthe trade in dyed wools, which it shared in common with the neighbouring\ntowns, it had another source of wealth and prosperity peculiar to\nitself. The streams to which the scenery owes the remarkable features\nalready described, are endowed with valuable medicinal qualities, while\nat the same time they are so copious that the ancient city is described\nas full of self-made baths[39]. An inscription, still legible among the\nruins, celebrates their virtues in heroic verse, thus apostrophizing the\ncity:\n\n             Hail, fairest soil in all broad Asia\u2019s realm;\n             Hail, golden city, nymph divine, bedeck\u2019d\n             With flowing rills, thy jewels[40].\n\nCoins of Hierapolis too are extant of various types, on which \u00c6sculapius\nand Hygeia appear either singly or together[41]. To this fashionable\nwatering-place, thus favoured by nature, seekers of pleasure and seekers\nof health alike were drawn.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  On its _ecclesiastical_ title of metropolis, see below, p. 70, note\n  277.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  Strabo l.c. \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f04\u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2\n  \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3909, \u1f08\u03c3\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2\n  \u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9 \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9, \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u039d\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n  \u1f00\u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u0390\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  Mionnet IV. p. 297, 306, 307, ib. Suppl. VII. p. 567; Waddington\n  _Voyage_ etc. p. 24.\n\n[Sidenote: The magnificence of its ruins.]\n\nTo the ancient magnificence of Hierapolis its extant ruins bear ample\ntestimony. More favoured than Laodicea, it has not in its immediate\nneighbourhood any modern town or village of importance, whose\ninhabitants have been tempted to quarry materials for their houses out\nof the memorials of its former greatness. Hence the whole plateau is\ncovered with ruins, of which the extent and the good taste are equally\nremarkable; and of these the pal\u00e6stra and the therm\u00e6, as might be\nexpected, are among the more prominent.\n\n[Sidenote: Its religious worship.]\n\nA city, which combined the pursuit of health and of gaiety, had fitly\nchosen as its patron deity Apollo, the god alike of medicine and of\nfestivity, here worshipped especially as \u2018Archegetes,\u2019 the Founder[42].\nBut more important, as illustrating the religious temper of this\nPhrygian city, is another fact connected with it. [Sidenote: The\nPlutonium.]In Hierapolis was a spot called the Plutonium, a hot well or\nspring, from whose narrow mouth issued a mephitic vapour immediately\nfatal to those who stood over the opening and inhaled its fumes. To the\nmutilated priests of Cybele alone (so it was believed) an immunity was\ngiven from heaven, which freed them from its deadly effects[43]. Indeed\nthis city appears to have been a chief centre of the passionate mystical\ndevotion of ancient Phrygia. But indications are not wanting, that in\naddition to this older worship religious rites were borrowed also from\nother parts of the East, more especially from Egypt[44]. By the\nmultitude of her temples Hierapolis established her right to the title\nof the \u2018sacred city,\u2019 which she bore[45].\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3905, 3906; Mionnet iv. pp. 297, 301, 307, ib.\n  Suppl. vii. p. 568, 569, 570. In coins struck to commemorate alliances\n  with other cities, Hierapolis is represented by Apollo Archegetes:\n  Mionnet IV. p. 303, ib. Suppl. VII. 572, 573, 574; Waddington _Voyage_\n  etc. p. 25; and see Eckhel III. p. 156. On the meaning of\n  _Archegetes_, under which name Apollo was worshipped by other cities\n  also, who regarded him as their founder, see Spanheim on Callim.\n  _Hymn. Apoll._ 57.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  Strabo l.c. He himself had seen the phenomenon and was doubtful how to\n  account for the immunity of these priests, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u1fb3 ... \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5\n  \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. See also Plin. _N. H._\n  ii. 93 \u00a7 95 \u2018locum ... matris tantum magn\u00e6 sacerdoti innoxium.\u2019 Dion\n  Cass. (Xiphil.) lxviii. 27, who also witnessed the phenomenon, adds \u03bf\u1f50\n  \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9, \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f05 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f03 \u1f24\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f24\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1. Ammian. Marc. xxiii. 6. 18 also mentions this\n  marvel, but speaks cautiously, \u2018ut asserunt quidam,\u2019 and adds \u2018quod\n  qua causa eveniat, rationibus physicis permittatur.\u2019 Comp. Anthol.\n  VII. p. 190 \u0395\u1f34 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f40\u03ba\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6, \u1f10\u03be \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2\n  \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b9\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9; Stob\u00e6us _Ecl._ i. 34, p. 680. Laborde states\n  (p. 83) that he discovered by experiment that the waters are sometimes\n  fatal to animal life and sometimes perfectly harmless; and if this be\n  substantiated, we have a solution of the marvel. Other modern\n  travellers, who have visited the Plutonium, are Cockerell (Leake p.\n  342), and Svoboda. In Svoboda\u2019s work a chemical analysis of the waters\n  is given.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  On a coin of Hierapolis, Pluto-Serapis appears seated, while before\n  him stands Isis with a sistrum in her hand; Waddington _Voyage_ etc.\n  p. 24. See also Mionnet IV. pp. 296, 305; Leake _Num. Hell._ p. 66.\n\n  The worship of Serapis appears elsewhere in this neighbourhood. At\n  Chon\u00e6 (Coloss\u00e6) is an inscription recording a vow to this deity; Le\n  Bas _Asie Mineure_ inscr. 1693 b.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  Steph. Byz. s.v. \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n[Sidenote: The birth-place of Epictetus.]\n\nThough at this time we have no record of famous citizens at Hierapolis,\nsuch as graced the annals of Laodicea, yet a generation or two later she\nnumbered among her sons one nobler far than the rhetoricians and\nsophists, the millionaires and princes, of whom her neighbour could\nboast. The lame slave Epictetus, the loftiest of heathen moralists, must\nhave been growing up to manhood when the first rumours of the Gospel\nreached his native city. Did any chance throw him across the path of\nEpaphras, who first announced the glad-tidings there? [Sidenote:\nEpictetus and Christianity.]Did he ever meet the great Apostle himself,\nwhile dragging out his long captivity at Rome, or when after his release\nhe paid his long-promised visit to the valley of the Lycus? We should be\nglad to think that these two men met together face to face\u2014the greatest\nof Christian, and the greatest of heathen preachers. Such a meeting\nwould solve more than one riddle. A Christian Epictetus certainly was\nnot; his Stoic doctrine and his Stoic morality are alike apparent: but\nnevertheless his language presents some strange coincidences with the\nApostolic writings, which would thus receive an explanation[46]. It must\nbe confessed however, that of any outward intercourse between the\nApostle and the philosopher history furnishes no hint.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  See _Philippians_, pp. 312, 313.\n\n[Sidenote: 3. COLOSS\u00c6.]\n\n3. While the sites of Laodicea and Hierapolis are conspicuous, so that\nthey were early identified by their ruins, the same is not the case with\nCOLOSS\u00c6. [Sidenote: Difficulty of determining its site.]Only within the\npresent generation has the position of this once famous city been\nascertained, and even now it lacks the confirmation of any inscription\nfound _in situ_ and giving the name[47]. [Sidenote: Subterranean channel\nof the Lycus.]Herodotus states that in Coloss\u00e6 the river Lycus\ndisappears in a subterranean cave, emerging again at a distance of about\nfive stades[48]; and this very singular landmark--the underground\npassage of a stream for half a mile\u2014might be thought to have placed the\nsite of the city beyond the reach of controversy. But this is not the\ncase. In the immediate neighbourhood of the only ruins which can\npossibly be identified with Coloss\u00e6, no such subterranean channel has\nbeen discovered. But on the other hand the appearance of the river at\nthis point suggests that at one time the narrow gorge through which it\nruns, as it traverses the ruins, was overarched for some distance with\nincrustations of travertine, and that this natural bridge was broken up\nafterwards by an earthquake, so as to expose the channel of the\nstream[49]. This explanation seems satisfactory. If it be rejected, we\nmust look for the underground channel, not within the city itself, as\nthe words of Herodotus strictly interpreted require, but at some point\nhigher up the stream. In either case there can be little doubt that\nthese are the ruins of Coloss\u00e6. [Sidenote: Petrifying stream.]The fact\nmentioned by Pliny[50], that there is in this city a river which turns\nbrick into stone, is satisfied by a side stream flowing into the Lycus\nfrom the north, and laying large deposits of calcareous matter; though\nin this region, as we have seen, such a phenomenon is very far from\nrare. The site of Coloss\u00e6 then, as determined by these considerations,\nlies two or three miles north of the present town of Chonos, the\nmedi\u00e6val Chon\u00e6, and some twelve miles east of Laodicea. The Lycus\ntraverses the site of the ruins, dividing the city into two parts, the\nnecropolis standing on the right or northern bank, and the town itself\non the left.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  See however a mutilated inscription (Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3956) with\n  the letters ...==\u03b7\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd==, found near Chon\u00e6.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  Herod. vii. 30 \u1f00\u03c0\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c2, \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039b\u03cd\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\n  \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac \u03ba\u1fc3 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039c\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  This is the explanation of Hamilton (I. p. 509 sq.), who (with the\n  doubtful exception of Laborde) has the merit of having first\n  identified and described the site of Coloss\u00e6. It stands on the Tchoruk\n  S\u00fa (Lycus) at the point where it is joined by two other streams, the\n  Bounar Bashi S\u00fa and the Ak-S\u00fa. In confirmation of his opinion,\n  Hamilton found a tradition in the neighbourhood that the river had\n  once been covered over at this spot (p. 522). He followed the course\n  of the Lycus for some distance without finding any subterranean\n  channel (p. 521 sq.).\n\n  It is difficult to say whether the following account in Strabo xii. 8\n  \u00a7 16 (p. 578) refers to the Lycus or not; \u1f44\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u039a\u03ac\u03b4\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f53 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\n  \u039b\u03cd\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f44\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03c5\u1f72\u03b9\u03c2\n  \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03cd\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f54\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. If the Lycus is meant,\n  may not \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd imply that this remarkable feature had changed\n  before Strabo wrote?\n\n  Laborde (p. 103), who visited the place before Hamilton, though his\n  account was apparently not published till later, fixes on the same\n  site for Coloss\u00e6, but thinks that he has discovered the subterranean\n  course of the Lycus, to which Herodotus refers, much higher up a\n  stream, close to its source (\u2018\u00e0 dix pas de cette source\u2019), which he\n  describes as \u2018\u00e0 deux lieues au nord de Coloss\u00e6.\u2019 Yet in the same\n  paragraph he says \u2018Or il [H\u00e9rodote, exact cicerone] savait que _le\n  Lycus dispara\u00eet pr\u00e8s de Coloss\u00e6, ville consid\u00e9rable de la Phrygie_\u2019\n  (the italics are his own). He apparently does not see the vast\n  difference between his _pr\u00e8s de Coloss\u00e6_ thus widely interpreted and\n  the precise \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 of Herodotus himself. Obviously no great reliance\n  can be placed on the accuracy of a writer, who treats his authorities\n  thus. The subterranean stream which Laborde saw, and of which he gives\n  a view (pl. xl), may possibly be the phenomenon to which Herodotus\n  alludes; but if so, Herodotus has expressed himself very carelessly.\n  On the whole Hamilton\u2019s solution seems much more probable.\n\n  Arundell\u2019s account (_Seven Churches_ p. 98 sq., _Asia Minor_ p. 160\n  sq.) is very confused, and it is not clear whether he has fixed on the\n  right site for Coloss\u00e6; but it bears testimony to the existence of two\n  subterranean courses of rivers, though neither of them is close enough\n  to the city to satisfy Herodotus\u2019 description.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  Plin. _N.H._ xxxi. 2 \u00a7 20. This is the Ak-S\u00fa, which has strongly\n  petrifying qualities.\n\n[Sidenote: Its ancient greatness]\n\nCommanding the approaches to a pass in the Cadmus range, and standing on\na great high-way communicating between Eastern and Western Asia, Coloss\u00e6\nat an early date appears as a very important place. Here the mighty host\nof Xerxes halted on its march against Greece; it is mentioned on this\noccasion as \u2018a great city of Phrygia[51].\u2019 Here too Cyrus remained seven\ndays on his daring enterprise which terminated so fatally; the Greek\ncaptain, who records the expedition, speaks of it as \u2018a populous city,\nprosperous and great[52].\u2019 But after this time its glory seems to wane.\nThe political supremacy [Sidenote: and later decline.]of Laodicea and\nthe growing popularity of Hierapolis gradually drain its strength; and\nStrabo, writing about two generations before St Paul, describes it as a\n\u2018small town[53]\u2019 in the district of which Laodicea was the capital. We\nshall therefore be prepared to find that, while Laodicea and Hierapolis\nboth hold important places in the early records of the Church, Coloss\u00e6\ndisappears wholly from the pages of history. Its comparative\ninsignificance is still attested by its ruins, which are few and\nmeagre[54], while the vast remains of temples, baths, theatres,\naqueducts, gymnasia, and sepulchres, strewing the extensive sites of its\nmore fortunate neighbours, still bear witness to their ancient\nprosperity and magnificence. It is not even mentioned by Ptolemy, though\nhis enumeration of towns includes several inconsiderable places[55].\nWithout doubt Coloss\u00e6 was the least important Church, to which any\nepistle of St Paul was addressed.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  Herod. vii. 30. See p. 14, note 48.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  Xen. _Anab._ i. 2. 6 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 ... \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c2, \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\n  \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p. 576). Plin. _N. H._ v. 32 \u00a7 41 writes\n  \u2018Phrygia ... oppida ibi celeberrima pr\u00e6ter jam dicta, Ancyra, Andria,\n  Cel\u00e6n\u00e6, Coloss\u00e6,\u2019 etc. The commentators, referring to this passage,\n  overlook the words \u2019pr\u00e6ter jam dicta,\u2019 and represent Pliny as calling\n  Coloss\u00e6 \u2018oppidum celeberrimum.\u2019 Not unnaturally they find it difficult\n  to reconcile this expression with Strabo\u2019s statement. But in fact\n  Pliny has already exhausted all the considerable towns, Hierapolis,\n  Laodicea, Apamea, etc., and even much less important places than these\n  (see v. 28, 29 \u00a7 29), so that only decayed and third-rate towns\n  remain. The Ancyra here mentioned is not the capital of Galatia, but a\n  much smaller Phrygian town.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  Laborde p. 102 \u2018De cette grande c\u00e9l\u00e9brit\u00e9 de Coloss\u00e6 il ne reste\n  presque rien: ce sont des substructions sans suite, des fragments sans\n  grandeur; les restes d\u2019un th\u00e9\u00e2tre de m\u00e9diocre dimension, une acropole\n  sans hardiesse,\u2019 etc.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n  _Geogr._ v. 2.\n\n[Sidenote: Uncertain orthography of the name.]\n\nAnd perhaps also we may regard the variation in the orthography of the\nname as another indication of its comparative obscurity and its early\nextinction. Are we to write _Coloss\u00e6_ or _Colass\u00e6_? So far as the\nevidence goes, the conclusion would seem to be that, while Coloss\u00e6 alone\noccurs during the classical period and in St Paul\u2019s time, it was\nafterwards supplanted by Colass\u00e6, when the town itself had either\ndisappeared altogether or was already passing out of notice[56].\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  All Greek writers till some centuries after the Christian era write it\n  \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03af: so Herod. vii. 30, Xen. _Anab._ i. 2. 6, Strabo xii. 8. 13,\n  Diod. xiv. 80, Poly\u00e6n. _Strat._ vii. 16. 1; though in one or more MSS\n  of some of these authors it is written \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03af, showing the tendency\n  of later scribes. _Coloss\u00e6_ is also the universal form in Latin\n  writers. The coins moreover, even as late as the reign of Gordian\n  (A.D. 238\u2013244) when they ceased to be struck, universally have\n  ==\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03f2\u03f2\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9== (or ==\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03f2\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9==); Mionnet IV. p. 267 sq.: see\n  Babington _Numismatic Chronicle_ New series III. p. 1 sq., 6. In\n  Hierocles (_Synecd._ p. 666, Wessel.) and in the _Apostolic\n  Constitutions_ (vii. 46) \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03af seems to be the original reading of\n  the text, and in later Byzantine writers this form is common. If Prof.\n  Babington (p. 3) were right in supposing that it is connected with\n  \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03c2, the question of the correct spelling might be regarded as\n  settled; but in a Phrygian city over which so many Eastern nations\n  swept in succession, who shall say to what language the name belonged,\n  or what are its affinities?\n\n  Thus, judging from classical usage, we should say that \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03af was\n  the old form and that \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03af did not supplant it till some time\n  after St Paul\u2019s age. This view is confirmed by a review of the\n  authorities for the different readings in the New Testament.\n\n  In the opening of the epistle (i. 1) the authorities for \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n  are overwhelming. It is read by \u05d0BDFGL (A is obliterated here and C is\n  wanting); and in the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Armenian Versions. On the\n  other hand \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 is read by KP. 17. 37. 47, and among the\n  versions by the Memphitic and the Philoxenian Syriac (\u0729\u0718\u0720\u0710\u0723\u0718\u0724, though\n  the marg. gives ==\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03f2\u03f2\u03b1\u03b9\u03f2==). In the Peshito also the present\n  reading represents \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, but as the vowel was not expressed\n  originally and depends on the later pointing, its authority can hardly\n  be quoted. The Thebaic is wanting here.\n\n  In the _heading_ of the epistle however there is considerably more\n  authority for the form in \u03b1. \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 is the reading of AB^* KP. 37\n  (\u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2). 47. C is wanting here, but has \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 in the\n  subscription. On the other hand \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 (or \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2) appears in\n  \u05d0B^1 (according to Tregelles, but B^3 Tisch.; see his introd. p.\n  xxxxviii) DFG (but G has left \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 in the heading of one page,\n  and \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 in another) L. 17 (\u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2), in the Latin Version,\n  and in the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac. The readings of both\n  Peshito and Philoxenian (text) here depend on the vocalisation; and\n  those of other versions are not recorded. In the _subscription_ the\n  preponderance of authority is even more favourable to \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n  Taking into account the obvious tendency which there would be in\n  scribes to make the title \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 or \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 conform\n  to the opening \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 or \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, as shown in G, we seem to\n  arrive at the conclusion that, while \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 was indisputably the\n  original reading in the opening, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 was probably the\n  earlier reading in the title. If so, the title must have been added at\n  a somewhat later date; which is not improbable.\n\n  Connected with this question is the variation in the adjectival form,\n  -\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 or -\u03b1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2. Parallels to this double termination occur in other\n  words; e.g. \u0394\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, \u0394\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2; \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2; \u039d\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2,\n  \u039d\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2; \u03a3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, \u03a3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, etc. The coins, while they\n  universally exhibit the form in \u03bf, are equally persistent in the\n  termination -\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, ==\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03f2\u03f2\u03b7\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd==; and it is curious that to the\n  form \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03af in Strabo xii. 8 \u00a7 16 (p. 578) there is a various\n  reading \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2. Thus, though there is no necessary connexion\n  between the two, the termination -\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 seems to go with the \u03bf form,\n  and the termination -\u03b1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 with the \u03b1 form.\n\n  For the above reasons I have written confidently \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 in the\n  text, and with more hesitation \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 in the superscription.\n\n[Sidenote: Ethnological relations of the three cities.]\n\nConsidered ethnologically, these three cities are generally regarded as\nbelonging to Phrygia. But as they are situated on the western border of\nPhrygia, and as the frontier line separating Phrygia from Lydia and\nCaria was not distinctly traced, this designation is not persistent[57].\nThus Laodicea is sometimes assigned to Caria, more rarely to Lydia[58];\nand again, Hierapolis is described as half Lydian, half Phrygian[59]. On\nthe other hand I have not observed that Coloss\u00e6 is ever regarded as\nother than Phrygian[60], partly perhaps because the notices relating to\nit belong to an earlier date when these several names denoted political\nas well as ethnological divisions, and their limits were definitely\nmarked in consequence, but chiefly because it lies some miles to the\neast of the other cities, and therefore farther from the doubtful border\nland.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  Strabo, xiii. 4. 12 (p. 628) \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f11\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03a6\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\n  \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u039b\u03cd\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u039c\u03c5\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1\u00b7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03cd\u03b3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70\n  \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1fec\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u1fe6\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  To _Phrygia_, Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p. 576), Polyb. v. 57, and so\n  generally; to _Caria, Orac. Sibyll._ iii. 472 \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5, Ptol.\n  v. 2, Philostr. _Vit. Soph._ i. 25 (though in the context Philostratus\n  adds that at one time \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u1fb3 \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf); to _Lydia_, Steph. Byz.\n  s.v. On the coins the city is sometimes represented as seated between\n  two female figures ==\u03c6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1== and ==\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1==; Eckhel III. p. 160,\n  comp. Mionnet IV. p. 329. From its situation on the confines of the\n  three countries Laodicea seems to have obtained the surname\n  _Trimitaria_ or _Trimetaria_, by which it is sometimes designated in\n  later times: see below, p. 65, note 205, and comp. Wesseling, _Itin._\n  p. 665.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  Steph. Byz. s.v. says \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u1f7a \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039b\u03c5\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2. But generally\n  Hierapolis is assigned to Phrygia: e.g. Ptol. v. 2, Vitruv. viii. 3 \u00a7\n  10.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  Coloss\u00e6 is assigned to Phrygia in Herod. vii. 30, Xen. _Anab._ i. 2.\n  6, Strabo xii. 8. 13, Diod. xiv. 80, Plin. _N. H._ v. 32 \u00a7 41, Poly\u00e6n.\n  _Strat._ vii. 16. 1.\n\n[Sidenote: Their political relations.]\n\nPhrygia however ceased to have any political significance, when this\ncountry came under the dominion of the Romans. Politically speaking, the\nthree cities with the rest of the Cibyratic union belonged at this time\nto Asia, the proconsular province[61]. As an _Asiatic_ Church\naccordingly Laodicea is addressed in the Apocalyptic letter. To this\nprovince they had been assigned in the first instance; then they were\nhanded over to Cilicia[62]; afterwards they were transferred and\nre-transferred from the one to the other; till finally, before the\nChristian era, they became a permanent part of Asia, their original\nprovince. Here they remained, until the close of the fourth century,\nwhen a new distribution of the Roman empire was made, and the province\nof Phrygia Pacatiana created with Laodicea as its capital[63].\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n  After the year B.C. 49 they seem to have been permanently attached to\n  \u2018Asia\u2019: before that time they are bandied about between Asia and\n  Cilicia. These alternations are traced by Bergmann _de Asia provincia_\n  (Berlin, 1846) and in _Philologus_ II. 4 (1847) p. 641 sq. See Becker\n  and Marquardt _R\u00f6m. Alterth._ III. I. p. 130 sq. Laodicea is assigned\n  to \u2018Asia\u2019 in Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 6512, 6541, 6626.\n\n  The name \u2018Asia\u2019 will be used throughout this chapter in its political\n  sense, as applying to the Roman province.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n  Cic. _ad Fam._ xiii. 67 \u2018ex provincia mea Ciliciensi, cui scis \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 Asiaticas [i.e. Cibyraticam, Apamensem, Synnadensem]\n  attributas fuisse\u2019; _ad Att._ v. 21 \u2018mea expectatio Asi\u00e6 nostrarum\n  di\u0153cesium\u2019 and \u2018in hac mea Asia.\u2019 See also above p. 7, notes 2, 3.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n  3 Hierocles _Synecd._ p. 664 sq. (Wessel.): see below p. 69.\n\n[Sidenote: Important Jewish settlement in this neighbourhood.]\n\nThe Epistle to the Colossians supposes a powerful Jewish colony in\nLaodicea and the neighbourhood. We are not however left to draw this\ninference from the epistle alone, but the fact is established by ample\nindependent testimony. When, with the insolent licence characteristic\nof Oriental kings, Antiochus the Great transplanted two thousand\nJewish families from Babylonia and Mesopotamia into Lydia and\nPhrygia[64],[Sidenote: Colony of Antiochus the Great.] we can hardly\ndoubt that among the principal stations of these new colonists would\nbe the two most thriving cities of Phrygia, which were also the two\nmost important settlements of the Syrian kings, Apamea and Laodicea,\nthe one founded by his grandfather Antiochus the First, the other by\nhis father Antiochus the Second. If the commercial importance of\nApamea at this time was greater (for somewhat later it was reckoned\nsecond only to Ephesus among the cities of Asia Minor as a centre of\ntrade), the political rank of Laodicea stood higher[65]. When mention\nis made of Lydia and Phrygia[66], this latter city especially is\npointed out by its position, for it stood near the frontier of the two\ncountries. A Jewish settlement once established, the influx of their\nfellow-countrymen would be rapid and continuous. Accordingly under the\nRoman domination we find them gathered here in very large\nnumbers.[Sidenote: Confiscations of Flaccus.] When Flaccus the\npropr\u00e6tor of Asia (B.C. 62), who was afterwards accused of\nmaladministration in his province and defended by Cicero, forbade the\ncontributions of the Jews to the temple-worship and the consequent\nexportation of money to Palestine, he seized as contraband not less\nthan twenty pounds weight in gold in the single district of which\nLaodicea was the capital[67]. Calculated at the rate of a half-shekel\nfor each man, this sum represents a population of more than eleven\nthousand adult freemen[68]; for women, children, and slaves were\nexempted. It must be remembered however, that this is only the sum\nwhich the Roman officers succeeded in detecting and confiscating; and\nthat therefore the whole Jewish population would probably be much\nlarger than this partial estimate implies. The amount seized at\nApamea, the other great Phrygian centre, was five times as large as\nthis[69]. [Sidenote: Other evidence.]Somewhat later we have a document\npurporting to be a decree of the Laodiceans, in which they thank the\nRoman Consul for a measure granting to Jews the liberty of observing\ntheir sabbaths and practising other rites of their religion[70]; and\nthough this decree is probably spurious, yet it serves equally well to\nshow that at this time Laodicea was regarded as an important centre of\nthe dispersion in Asia Minor. To the same effect may be quoted the\nextravagant hyperbole in the Talmud, that when on a certain occasion\nan insurrection of the Jews broke out in C\u00e6sarea the metropolis of\nCappadocia, which brought down upon their heads the cruel vengeance of\nking Sapor and led to a massacre of 12,000, \u2018the wall of Laodicea was\ncloven with the sound of the harpstrings\u2019 in the fatal and premature\nmerriment of the insurgents[71]. This place was doubtless singled out,\nbecause it had a peculiar interest for the Jews, as one of their chief\nsettlements[72]. It will be remembered also, that Phrygia is\nespecially mentioned among those countries which furnished their quota\nof worshippers at Jerusalem, and were thus represented at the baptism\nof the Christian Church on the great day of Pentecost[73].\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n  Joseph. _Antiq._ xii. 3, 4.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n  Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p. 576) \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f08\u03c0\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f21 \u039a\u03b9\u03b2\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u1f76\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f35\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd. Below \u00a7 15\n  (p. 577) he says \u1f08\u03c0\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2\n  \u1f08\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f1c\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd. The relative importance of Apamea\n  and Laodicea two or three generations earlier than St Paul may be\n  inferred from the notices in Cicero; but there is reason for thinking\n  that Laodicea afterwards grew more rapidly than Apamea.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n  In Josephus l.c. the words are \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039b\u03c5\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, the two\n  names being under the vinculum of the one article: while immediately\n  afterwards Lydia is dropped and Phrygia alone named, \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 ...\n  \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n  Cic. _pro Flacc._ 28 \u2018Sequitur auri illa invidia Judaici.... Quum\n  aurum Jud\u00e6orum nomine quotannis ex Italia et ex omnibus provinciis\n  Hierosolyma exportari soleret, Flaccus sanxit edicto ne ex Asia\n  exportari liceret ... multitudinem Jud\u00e6orum, flagrantem nonnumquam in\n  concionibus, pro republica contemnere gravitatis summ\u00e6 fuit.... Apame\u00e6\n  manifesto comprehensum ante pedes pr\u00e6toris in foro expensum est auri\n  pondo centum paullo minus ... Laodice\u00e6 viginti pondo paullo amplius.\u2019\n\n  Josephus (_Antiq._ xiv. 7. 2), quoting the words of Strabo, \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72\n  \u039c\u03b9\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u039a\u1ff6 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5 ... \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f40\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1,\n  explains this enormous sum as composed of the temple-offerings of the\n  Jews which they sent to Cos for safety out of the way of Mithridates.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n  This calculation supposes (1) That the half-shekel weighs 110 gr; (2)\n  That the Roman pound is 5050 gr; (3) That the relation of gold to\n  silver was at this time as 12 : 1. This last estimate is possibly\n  somewhat too high.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n  The coinage of Apamea affords a striking example of Judaic influence\n  at a later date. On coins struck at this place in the reigns of\n  Severus, Macrinus, and the elder Philip, an ark is represented\n  floating on the waters. Within are a man and a woman: on the roof a\n  bird is perched; while in the air another bird approaches bearing an\n  olive-branch in its claws. The ark bears the inscription \u03bd\u03c9\u03b5. Outside\n  are two standing figures, a man and a woman (apparently the same two\n  who have been represented within the ark), with their hands raised as\n  in the attitude of prayer. The connexion of the ark of Noah with\n  Apamea is explained by a passage in one of the Sibylline Oracles (i.\n  261 sq.), where the mountain overhanging Apamea is identified with\n  Ararat, and the ark (\u03ba\u03b9\u03b2\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2) is stated to have rested there. Whether\n  this Apamea obtained its distinctive surname of Cibotus, the Ark or\n  Chest, from its physical features, or from its position as the centre\n  of taxation and finance for the district, or from some other cause, it\n  is difficult to say. In any case this surname might naturally suggest\n  to those acquainted with the Old Testament a connexion with the deluge\n  of Noah; but the idea would not have been adopted in the coinage of\n  the place without the pressure of strong Jewish influences. On these\n  coins see Eckhel _Doctr. Num. Vet._ III. p. 132 sq., and the paper of\n  Sir F. Madden in the _Numismatic Chronicle_ N. S. VI. p. 173 sq.\n  (1866), where they are figured.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n  Joseph. _Ant._ xiv. 10. 21.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n  Talm. Babl. _Mo\u00ebd Katon_ 26a, quoted by Neubauer, _La G\u00e9ographie du\n  Talmud_ p. 319, though he seems to have misunderstood the expression\n  quoted in the text, of which he gives the sense, \u2018Cette ville\n  tremblait au bruit des fl\u00e8ches qu\u2019on avait tir\u00e9es.\u2019\n\n  It is probably this same Laodicea which is meant in another Talmudical\n  passage, Talm. Babl. _Baba Metziah_ 84a (also quoted by Neubauer, p.\n  311), in which Elijah appearing to R. Ishmael ben R. Jose, says \u2018Thy\n  father fled to Asia; flee thou to Laodicea,\u2019 where Asia is supposed to\n  mean Sardis.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n  An inscription found at Rome in the Jewish cemetery at the Porta\n  Portuensis (Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 9916) runs thus; ==\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 . \u03ba\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5 .\n  \u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1 . [\u03b5]\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u03b1 . \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf . \u03bb\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1\u03f2.== \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. i.e. \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f08\u03bc\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\n  \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. Probably Laodicea on the Lycus is meant.\n  Perhaps also we may refer another inscription (6478), which mentions\n  one Trypho from Laodicea on the Lycus, to a Jewish source.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n  Acts ii. 10.\n\n[Sidenote: Special attractions of Hierapolis.]\n\nMention has already been made of the traffic in dyed wools, which formed\nthe staple of commerce in the valley of the Lycus[74]. It may be\ninferred from other notices that this branch of trade had a peculiar\nattraction for the Jews[75]. If so, their commercial instincts would\nconstantly bring fresh recruits to a colony which was already very\nconsiderable. But the neighbourhood held out other inducements besides\nthis. Hierapolis, the gay watering place, the pleasant resort of idlers,\nhad charms for them, as well as Laodicea the busy commercial city. At\nleast such was the complaint of stricter patriots at home. \u2018The wines\nand the baths of Phrygia,\u2019 writes a Talmudist bitterly, \u2018have separated\nthe ten tribes from Israel[76].\u2019\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n  See p. 4.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n  Acts xvi. 14. Is there an allusion to this branch of trade in the\n  message to the Church of Laodicea, Rev. iii. 17 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03cd \u03b5\u1f36 \u1f41\n  ... \u03b3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 ... \u1f31\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u1f70 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u1fc3,\n  \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.? The only other of the seven messages, which contains an\n  allusion to the white garments, is addressed to the Church of Sardis,\n  where again there might be a reference to the \u03b2\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1 \u03a3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\n  (Arist. _Pax_ 1174, _Acharn._ 112) and the \u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03a3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\n  (Plato Com. in Athen. II. p. 48 E) of the comic poets.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n  Talm. Babl. _Sabbath_ 147 b, quoted by Neubauer _La G\u00e9ographie du\n  Talmud_ p. 317: see Wiesner _Schol. zum Babyl. Talm._ p. 259 sq., and\n  p. 207 sq. On the word translated \u2018baths,\u2019 see Rapoport\u2019s _Erech\n  Millin_ p. 113, col. 1.\n\n[Sidenote: St Paul had not visited the district when he wrote.]\n\nThere is no ground for supposing that, when St Paul wrote his Epistle to\nthe Colossians, he had ever visited the church in which he evinces so\ndeep an interest. Whether we examine the narrative in the Acts, or\nwhether we gather up the notices in the epistle itself, we find no hint\nthat he had ever been in this neighbourhood; but on the contrary some\nexpressions indirectly exclude the supposition of a visit to the\ndistrict.\n\n[Sidenote: What is meant by _Phrygia_ in St Luke?]\n\nIt is true that St Luke more than once mentions Phrygia as lying on St\nPaul\u2019s route or as witnessing his labours. But Phrygia was a vague and\ncomprehensive term; nor can we assume that the valley of the Lycus was\nintended, unless the direction of his route or the context of the\nnarrative distinctly points to this south-western corner of Phrygia. In\nneither of the two passages, where St Paul is stated to have travelled\nthrough Phrygia, is this the case.\n\n[Sidenote: 1. St Paul\u2019s visit to Phrygia on his second missionary\n           journey.]\n\n1. On his second missionary journey, after he has revisited and\nconfirmed the churches of Pisidia and Lycaonia founded on his first\nvisit, he passes through \u2018the Phrygian and Galatian country[77].\u2019 I have\npointed out elsewhere that this expression must be used to denote the\nregion which might be called indifferently Phrygia or Galatia\u2014the land\nwhich had originally belonged to the Phrygians and had afterwards been\ncolonised by the Gauls; or the parts of either country which lay in the\nimmediate neighbourhood of this debatable ground[78]. This region lies\nconsiderably north and east of the valley of the Lycus. Assuming that\nthe last of the Lycaonian and Pisidian towns at which St Paul halted was\nAntioch, he would not on any probable supposition approach nearer to\nColoss\u00e6 than Apamea Cibotus on his way to \u2018the Phrygian and Galatian\ncountry\u2019, nor indeed need he have gone nearly so far westward as this.\nAnd again on his departure from this region he journeys by Mysia to\nTroas, leaving \u2018Asia\u2019 on his left hand and Bithynia on his right. Thus\nthe notices of his route conspire to show that his path on this occasion\nlay far away from the valley of the Lycus.\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n  Acts xvi. 6 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, the correct reading. For\n  this use of \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd as an adjective comp. Mark i. 5 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f21 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\n  \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1, Joh. iii. 22 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd, Luke iii. 1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03a4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, Acts xiii. 14 \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd (the correct\n  reading).\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n  See _Galatians_, p. 18 sq., 22.\n\n[Sidenote: 2. His visit on his third missionary journey.]\n\n2. But if he was not brought into the neighbourhood of Coloss\u00e6 on his\nsecond missionary journey, it is equally improbable that he visited it\non his third. So far as regards Asia Minor, he seems to have confined\nhimself to revisiting the churches already founded; the new ground which\nhe broke was in Macedonia and Greece. Thus when we are told that during\nthis third journey St Paul after leaving Antioch \u2018passed in order\nthrough the Galatian country and Phrygia, confirming all the\ndisciples,\u2019[79] we can hardly doubt that \u2018the Galatian country and\nPhrygia\u2019 in this latter passage denotes essentially the same region as\n\u2018the Phrygian and Galatian country\u2019 in the former. The slight change of\nexpression is explained by the altered direction of his route. In the\nfirst instance his course, as determined by its extreme limits\u2014Antioch\nin Pisidia its starting point, and Alexandria Troas its\ntermination\u2014would be northward for the first part of the way, and thus\nwould lie on the border land of Phrygia and Galatia; whereas on this\nsecond occasion, when he was travelling from Antioch in Syria to\nEphesus, its direction would be generally from east to west, and the\nmore strictly Galatian district would be traversed before the Phrygian.\nIf we suppose him to leave Galatia at Pessinus on its western border, he\nwould pass along the great highway\u2014formerly a Persian and at this time a\nRoman road\u2014by Synnada and Sardis to Ephesus, traversing the heart of\nPhrygia, but following the valleys of the Hermus and Cayster, and\nseparated from the M\u00e6ander and Lycus by the high mountain ranges which\nbound these latter to the north[80].\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n  Acts xviii. 23.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n  M. Renan (_Saint Paul_ pp. 51 sq., 126, 313) maintains that the\n  Galatia of St Paul and St Luke is not the country properly so called,\n  but that they are speaking of the Churches of Pisidian Antioch,\n  Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, which lay within the _Roman province_ of\n  Galatia. This interpretation of Galatia necessarily affects his view\n  of St Paul\u2019s routes (pp. 126 sq., 331 sq.); and he supposes the\n  Apostle on his third missionary journey to have passed through the\n  valley of the Lycus, without however remaining to preach the Gospel\n  there (pp. 331 sq., 356 sq., 362). As Antioch in Pisidia would on this\n  hypothesis be the farthest church in \u2018Galatia and Phrygia\u2019 which St\n  Paul visited, his direct route from that city to Ephesus (Acts xviii.\n  23, xix. 1) would naturally lie by this valley. I have already\n  (_Galatians_ pp. 18 sq., 22) stated the serious objections to which\n  this interpretation of \u2018Galatia\u2019 is open, and (if I mistake not) have\n  answered most of M. Renan\u2019s arguments by anticipation. But, as this\n  interpretation nearly affects an important point in the history of St\n  Paul\u2019s dealings with the Colossians, it is necessary to subject it to\n  a closer examination.\n\n  Without stopping to enquire whether this view is reconcilable with St\n  Paul\u2019s assertion (Col. ii. 1) that these churches in the Lycus valley\n  \u2018had not seen his face in the flesh,\u2019 it will appear (I think) that M.\n  Renan\u2019s arguments are in some cases untenable and in others may be\n  turned against himself. The three heads under which they may be\n  conveniently considered are: (i) The use of the name \u2018Galatia\u2019; (ii)\n  The itinerary of St Paul\u2019s travels; (iii) The historical notices in\n  the Epistle to the Galatians.\n\n  (i) On the first point, M. Renan states that St Paul was in the habit\n  of using the _official_ name for each district and therefore called\n  the country which extends from Antioch in Pisidia to Derbe \u2018Galatia,\u2019\n  supporting this view by the Apostle\u2019s use of Asia, Macedonia, and\n  Achaia (p. 51). The answer is that the names of these elder provinces\n  had very generally superseded the local names, but this was not the\n  case with the other districts of Asia Minor where the provinces had\n  been formed at a comparatively late date. The usage of St Luke is a\n  good criterion. He also speaks of Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia; but at\n  the same time his narrative abounds in historical or ethnographical\n  names which have no official import; e.g. Lycaonia, Mysia, Pamphylia,\n  Pisidia, Phrygia. Where we have no evidence, it is reasonable to\n  assume that St Paul\u2019s usage was conformable to St Luke\u2019s. And again,\n  if we consider St Luke\u2019s account alone, how insuperable are the\n  difficulties which this view of Galatia creates. The part of Asia\n  Minor, with which we are immediately concerned, was comprised\n  officially in the provinces of Asia and Galatia. On M. Renan\u2019s\n  showing, St Luke, after calling Antioch a city of Pisidia (xiii. 14)\n  and Lystra and Derbe cities of Lycaonia (xiv. 6), treats all the\n  three, together with the intermediate Iconium, as belonging to Galatia\n  (xvi. 6, xviii. 23). He explains the inconsistency by saying that in\n  the former case the narrative proceeds in detail, in the latter in\n  masses. But if so, why should he combine a historical and ethnological\n  name Phrygia with an official name Galatia in the same breath, when\n  the two are different in kind and cannot be mutually exclusive?\n  \u2018Galatia and Asia,\u2019 would be intelligible on this supposition, but not\n  \u2018Galatia and Phrygia.\u2019 Moreover the very form of the expression in\n  xvi. 6, \u2018the Phrygian and Galatian country\u2019 (according to the correct\n  reading which M. Renan neglects) appears in its studied vagueness to\n  exclude the idea that St Luke means the province of Galatia, whose\n  boundaries were precisely marked. And even granting that the Christian\n  communities of Lycaonia and Pisidia could by a straining of language\n  be called Churches of Galatia, is it possible that St Paul would\n  address them personally as \u2018ye foolish Galatians\u2019 (Gal. iii. 1)? Such\n  language would be no more appropriate than if a modern preacher in a\n  familiar address were to appeal to the Poles of Warsaw as \u2018ye\n  Russians,\u2019 or the Hungarians of Pesth as \u2018ye Austrians,\u2019 or the Irish\n  of Cork as \u2018ye Englishmen.\u2019\n\n  (ii) In the itinerary of St Paul several points require consideration.\n  (_a_) M. Renan lays stress on the fact that in Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23,\n  the order in which the names of Phrygia and Galatia occur is inverted.\n  I seem to myself to have explained this satisfactorily in the text. He\n  appears to be unaware of the correct reading in xvi. 6, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd (see _Galatians_ p. 22), though it has an\n  important bearing on St Paul\u2019s probable route. (_b_) He states that\n  Troas was St Paul\u2019s aim (\u2018l\u2019objectif de Saint Paul\u2019) in the one case\n  (xvi. 6), and Ephesus in the other (xviii. 23): consequently he argues\n  that Galatia, properly so called, is inconceivable, as there was no\n  reason why he should have made \u2018this strange detour towards the\n  north.\u2019 The answer is that Troas was not his \u2018objectif\u2019 in the first\n  instance, nor Ephesus in the second. On the first occasion St Luke\n  states that the Apostle set out on his journey with quite different\n  intentions, but that after he had got well to the north of Asia Minor\n  he was driven by a series of divine intimations to proceed first to\n  Troas and thence to cross over into Europe (see _Philippians_ p. 48).\n  This narrative seems to me to imply that he starts for his further\n  travels from some point in the western part of Galatia proper. When he\n  comes to the borders of Mysia, he designs bearing to the left and\n  preaching in Asia; but a divine voice forbids him. He then purposes\n  diverging to the right and delivering his message in Bithynia; but the\n  same unseen power checks him again. Thus he is driven forward, and\n  passes by Mysia to the coast at Troas (Acts xvi. 6\u20138). Here all is\n  plain. But if we suppose him to start, not from some town in Galatia\n  proper such as Pessinus, but from Antioch in Pisidia, why should\n  Bithynia, which would be far out of the way, be mentioned at all? On\n  the second occasion, St Paul\u2019s primary object is to revisit the\n  Galatian Churches which he had planted on the former journey (xviii.\n  23), and it is not till after he has fulfilled this intention that he\n  goes to Ephesus. (_c_) M. Renan also calls attention to the difficulty\n  of traversing \u2018the central steppe\u2019 of Asia Minor. \u2018There was\n  probably,\u2019 he says, \u2018at this epoch no route from Iconium to Ancyra,\u2019\n  and in justification of this statement he refers to Perrot, _de Gal.\n  Rom. prov._ p. 102, 103. Even so, there were regular roads from either\n  Iconium or Antioch to Pessinus; and this route would serve equally\n  well. Moreover the Apostle, who was accustomed to \u2018perils of rivers,\n  perils of robbers, perils in the wilderness\u2019 (2 Cor. xi. 26), and who\n  preferred walking from Troas to Assos (Acts xx. 13) while his\n  companions sailed, would not be deterred by any rough or unfrequented\n  paths. But the facts adduced by Perrot do not lend themselves to any\n  such inference, nor does he himself draw it. He cites an inscription\n  of the year A.D. 82 which speaks of A. C\u00e6sennius Gallus, the legate of\n  Domitian, as a great road-maker throughout the Eastern provinces of\n  Asia Minor, and he suggests that the existing remains of a road\n  between Ancyra and Iconium may be part of this governor\u2019s work. Even\n  if the suggestion be adopted, it is highly improbable that no road\n  should have existed previously, when we consider the comparative\n  facility of constructing a way along this line of country (Perrot p.\n  103) and the importance of such a direct route. (_d_) \u2018In the\n  conception of the author of the Acts,\u2019 writes M. Renan, \u2018the two\n  journeys across Asia Minor are journeys of confirmation and not of\n  conversion (Acts xv. 36, 41, xvi. 5, 6, xviii. 23).\u2019 This statement\n  seems to me to be only partially true. In both cases St Paul _begins_\n  his tour by confirming churches already established, but in both he\n  advances beyond this and breaks new ground. In the former he starts\n  with the existing churches of Lycaonia and Pisidia and extends his\n  labours to Galatia: in the latter he starts with the then existing\n  churches of Galatia, and carries the Gospel into Macedonia and Achaia.\n  This, so far as I can discover, was his general rule.\n\n  (iii) The notices in the Galatian Epistle, which appear to M. Renan to\n  favour his view, are these: (_a_) St Paul appears to have \u2018had\n  intimate relations with the Galatian Church, at least as intimate as\n  with the Corinthians and Thessalonians,\u2019 whereas St Luke disposes of\n  the Apostle\u2019s preaching in Galatia very summarily, unless the\n  communities of Lycaonia and Pisidia be included. But the Galatian\n  Epistle by no means evinces the same close and varied personal\n  relations which we find in the letters to these other churches, more\n  especially to the Corinthians. And again; St Luke\u2019s history is more or\n  less fragmentary. Whole years are sometimes dismissed in a few verses.\n  The stay in Arabia which made so deep an impression on St Paul himself\n  is not even mentioned: the three months\u2019 sojourn in Greece, though\n  doubtless full of stirring events, only occupies a single verse in the\n  narrative (Acts xx. 3). St Luke appears to have joined St Paul after\n  his visit to Galatia (xvi. 10); and there is no reason why he should\n  have dwelt on incidents with which he had no direct acquaintance.\n  (_b_) M. Renan sees in the presence of emissaries from Jerusalem in\n  the Galatian Churches an indication that Galatia proper is not meant.\n  \u2018It is improbable that they would have made such a journey.\u2019 But why\n  so? There were important Jewish settlements in Galatia proper\n  (_Galatians_ p. 9 sq.); there was a good road through Syria and\n  Cilicia to Ancyra (_Itin. Anton._ p. 205 sq., _Itin. Hierosol._ p. 575\n  sq. ed. Wessel.); and if we find such emissaries as far away from\n  Jerusalem as Corinth (2 Cor. xi. 13, etc.), there is at least no\n  improbability that they should have reached Galatia. (_c_) Lastly; M.\n  Renan thinks that the mention of Barnabas (Gal. ii. 1, 9, 13) implies\n  that he was personally known to the churches addressed, and therefore\n  points to Lycaonia and Pisidia. But are we to infer on the same\n  grounds that he was personally known to the Corinthians (1 Cor. ix.\n  6), and to the Colossians (Col. iv. 10)? In fact the name of Barnabas,\n  as a famous Apostle and an older disciple even than St Paul himself,\n  would not fail to be well known in all the churches. On the other hand\n  one or two notices in the Galatian Epistle present serious obstacles\n  to M. Renan\u2019s view. What are we to say for instance to St Paul\u2019s\n  statement, that he preached the Gospel in Galatia \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f00\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n  \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 (iv. 13), i.e. because he was detained by sickness (see\n  _Galatians_ pp. 23 sq., 172), whereas his journey to Lycaonia and\n  Pisidia is distinctly planned with a view to missionary work? Why\n  again is there no mention of Timothy, who was much in St Paul\u2019s\n  company about this time, and who on this showing was himself a\n  Galatian? Some mention would seem to be especially suggested where St\n  Paul is justifying his conduct respecting the attempt to compel Titus\n  to be circumcised.\n\n[Sidenote: The inference from]\n\nThus St Luke\u2019s narrative seems to exclude any visit of the Apostle to\nthe Churches of the Lycus before his first [Sidenote: St Luke\u2019s\nnarrative]Roman captivity. And this inference is confirmed by St Paul\u2019s\nown language to the Colossians.\n\n[Sidenote: borne out by St Paul\u2019s own language.]\n\nHe represents his knowledge of their continued progress, and even of\ntheir first initiation, in the truths of the Gospel, as derived from the\nreport of others. He describes himself as _hearing_ of their faith in\nChrist and their love to the saints[81]. He recalls the day when he\nfirst _heard_ of their Christian profession and zeal[82]. .[Sidenote:\nSilence of St Paul.]Though opportunities occur again and again where he\nwould naturally have referred to his direct personal relations with\nthem, if he had been their evangelist, he abstains from any such\nreference. He speaks of their being instructed in the Gospel, of his own\npreaching the Gospel, several times in the course of the letter, but he\nnever places the two in any direct connexion, though the one reference\nstands in the immediate neighbourhood of the other[83]. Moreover, if he\nhad actually visited Coloss\u00e6, it must appear strange that he should not\nonce allude to any incident occurring during his sojourn there, for this\nepistle would then be the single exception to his ordinary practice. And\nlastly; in one passage at least, if interpreted in its natural sense, he\ndeclares that the Colossians were personally unknown to him: \u2018I would\nhave you know,\u2019 he writes, \u2018how great a conflict I have for you and them\nthat are in Laodicea and as many as have not seen my face in the\nflesh\u2019[84].\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n  Col. i. 4.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n  i. 9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c6\u2019 \u1f25\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n  This corresponds to ver. 6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c6\u2019 \u1f27\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3. The day when they first\n  heard the preaching of the Gospel, and the day when he first heard the\n  tidings of this fact, are set against each other.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n  e.g. i. 5\u20138, 21\u201323, 25, 28, 29. ii. 5, 6.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n  ii. 1 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n  \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The question of\n  interpretation is whether the people of Coloss\u00e6 and Laodicea belong to\n  the same category with the \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9, or not. The latter view is taken by\n  one or two ancient interpreters (e.g. Theodoret in his introduction to\n  the epistle), and has been adopted by several modern critics. Yet it\n  is opposed alike to grammatical and logical considerations. (1) The\n  grammatical form is unfavourable; for the preposition \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 is not\n  repeated, so that all the persons mentioned are included under a\n  vinculum. (2) No adequate sense can be extracted from the passage, so\n  interpreted. For in this case what is the drift of the enumeration? If\n  intended to be exhaustive, it does not fulfil the purpose; for nothing\n  is said of others whom he had seen beside the Colossians and\n  Laodiceans. If not intended to be exhaustive, it is meaningless; for\n  there is no reason why the Colossians and Laodiceans especially should\n  be set off against those whom he had not seen, or indeed why in this\n  connexion those whom he had not seen should be mentioned at all. The\n  whole context shows that the Apostle is dwelling on his spiritual\n  communion with and interest in those with whom he has had no personal\n  communications. St Jerome (_Ep._ cxxx. ad Demetr. \u00a7 2) has rightly\n  caught the spirit of the passage; \u2018Ignoti ad ignotam scribimus,\n  dumtaxat juxta faciem corporalem. Alioquin interior homo pulcre sibi\n  cognitus est illa notitia qua et Paulus apostolus Colossenses\n  multosque credentium noverat quos ante non viderat.\u2019 For parallels to\n  this use of \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9, see the note on the passage.\n\n[Sidenote: Epaphras was the evangelist of this district.]\n\nBut, if he was not directly their evangelist, yet to him they were\nindirectly indebted for their knowledge of the truth. Epaphras had been\nhis delegate to them, his representative in Christ. By Epaphras they had\nbeen converted to the Gospel. This is the evident meaning of a passage\nin the opening of the epistle, which has been much obscured by\nmisreading and mistranslation, and which may be paraphrased thus: \u2018The\nGospel, which has spread and borne fruit throughout the rest of the\nworld, has been equally successful among yourselves. This fertile growth\nhas been manifested in you from the first day when the message of God\u2019s\ngrace was preached to you, and accepted by you\u2014preached not as now with\nadulterations by these false teachers, but in its genuine simplicity by\nEpaphras our beloved fellowservant; he has been a faithful minister of\nChrist and a faithful representative of us, and from him we have\nreceived tidings of your love in the Spirit\u2019[85].\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n  i. 6 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c6\u2019 \u1f24\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd\n  \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f18\u03c0\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u1fb6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c2\n  \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n  \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9.\n\n  The various readings which obscure the meaning are these. (i) The\n  received text for \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 has \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5. With this\n  reading the passage suggests that the instructions of Epaphras were\n  _superadded to_, and so distinct from, the original evangelization of\n  Coloss\u00e6; whereas the correct text identifies them. (ii) For \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\n  the received reading is \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. Thus the fact that St Paul did not\n  preach at Coloss\u00e6 in person, but _through his representative_, is\n  obliterated. In both cases the authority for the readings which I have\n  adopted against the received text is overwhelming.\n\n  The obscurity of rendering is in \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 [\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76] \u1f10\u03bc\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f18\u03c0\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u1fb6,\n  translated in our English Version by the ambiguous expression, \u2018as ye\n  also learned of Epaphras.\u2019 The true force of the words is, \u2018according\n  as ye were taught by Epaphras,\u2019 being an explanation of \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3.\n  See the notes on the passage.]\n\n[Sidenote: St Paul\u2019s residence at Ephesus instrumental in their\n           conversion.]\n\nHow or when the conversion of the Colossians took place, we have no\ndirect information. Yet it can hardly be wrong to connect the event with\nSt Paul\u2019s long sojourn at Ephesus. Here he remained preaching for three\nwhole years. It is possible indeed that during this period he paid short\nvisits to other neighbouring cities of Asia: [Sidenote: A.D. 54\u201357.] but\nif so, the notices in the Acts oblige us to suppose these interruptions\nto his residence in Ephesus to have been slight and infrequent[86]. Yet,\nthough the Apostle himself was stationary in the capital, the Apostle\u2019s\ninfluence and teaching spread far beyond the limits of the city and its\nimmediate neighbourhood. It was hardly an exaggeration when Demetrius\ndeclared that \u2018almost throughout all Asia this Paul had persuaded and\nturned away much people\u2019[87]. The sacred historian himself uses equally\nstrong language in describing the effects of the Apostle\u2019s preaching;\n\u2018All they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and\nGreeks\u2019[88]. In accordance with these notices, the Apostle himself in an\nepistle written during this sojourn sends salutations to Corinth, not\nfrom the Church of Ephesus specially, as might have been anticipated,\nbut from the \u2018Churches of Asia\u2019 generally[89]. St Luke, it should be\nobserved, ascribes this dissemination of the Gospel, not to journeys\nundertaken by the Apostle, but to his preaching at Ephesus itself[90].\nThither, as to the metropolis of Western Asia, would flock crowds from\nall the towns and villages far and near. Thence they would carry away,\neach to his own neighbourhood, the spiritual treasure which they had so\nunexpectedly found.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n  See especially xx. 18 \u2018Ye know, from the first day when I set foot on\n  Asia, how I was with you _all the time_\u2019, and ver. 31 \u2018For three years\n  _night and day I ceased not_ warning every one with tears.\u2019 As it\n  seems necessary to allow for a brief visit to Corinth (2 Cor. xii. 14,\n  xiii. 1) during this period, other interruptions of long duration\n  should not be postulated.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n  Acts xix. 26.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n  Acts xix. 10.\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n  1 Cor. xvi. 19 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f31 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. In accordance\n  with these facts it should be noticed that St Paul himself alluding to\n  this period speaks of \u2018Asia\u2019, as the scene of his ministry (2 Cor. i.\n  8, Rom. xvi. 5).\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n  Acts xix. 10 \u2018disputing daily in the School of Tyrannus; and this\n  continued for two years, so that all they which dwelt in Asia, etc.\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: Close alliance of these cities with Ephesus.]\n\nAmong the places thus represented at the Asiatic metropolis would\ndoubtless be the cities lying in the valley of the Lycus. The bonds of\namity between these places and Ephesus appear to have been unusually\nstrong. The _Concord of the Laodiceans and Ephesians_, the _Concord of\nthe Hierapolitans and Ephesians_, are repeatedly commemorated on medals\nstruck for the purpose[91]. [Sidenote: The work of Philemon and\nNymphas,] Thus the Colossians, Epaphras and Philemon, the latter with\nhis household[92], and perhaps also the Laodicean Nymphas[93], would\nfall in with the Apostle of the Gentiles and hear from his lips the\nfirst tidings of a heavenly life.\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n  \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd . \u03b5\u03c6\u03b5\u03f2\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd . \u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1, Eckhel III. p. 165, Mionnet IV. p. 324,\n  325, 331, 332, _Suppl._ VII. p. 583, 586, 589; \u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd . \u03b5\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\n  . \u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1, Eckhel III. p. 155, 157, Mionnet IV. p. 299, 300, 307,\n  _Suppl._ VII. p. 569, 571, 572, 574, 575. See Steiger _Kolosser_ p.\n  50, and comp. Krause _Civitat. Neocor._ \u00a7 20.\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n  Philem. 1, 2, 19.\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n  Col. iv. 15. On the question whether the name is _Nymphas_ or\n  _Nympha_, see the notes there.\n\n[Sidenote: but especially Epaphras.]\n\nBut, whatever service may have been rendered by Philemon at Coloss\u00e6, or\nby Nymphas at Laodicea, it was to Epaphras especially that all the three\ncities were indebted for their knowledge of the Gospel. Though he was a\nColossian by birth, the fervency of his prayers and the energy of his\nlove are represented as extending equally to Laodicea and\nHierapolis[94]. It is obvious that he looked upon himself as responsible\nfor the spiritual well-being of all alike.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n  iv. 12, 13.\n\n[Sidenote: St Paul still a stranger to this district.]\n\nWe pass over a period of five or six years. St Paul\u2019s first captivity in\nRome is now drawing to a close. During this interval he has not once\nvisited the valley of the Lycus. He has, it is true, skirted the coast\nand called at Miletus, which lies near the mouth of the M\u00e6ander; but,\nthough the elders of Ephesus were summoned to meet him there[95], no\nmention is made of any representatives from these more distant towns.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n  Acts xx. 16, 17.\n\n[Sidenote: His imprisonment at Rome.]\n\nI have elsewhere described the Apostle\u2019s circumstances during his\nresidence in Rome, so far as they are known to us[96]. It is sufficient\nto say here, that though he is still a prisoner, friends new and old\nminister freely to his wants. Meanwhile the alienation of the Judaic\nChristians is complete. Three only, remaining faithful to him, are\ncommemorated as honourable exceptions in the general desertion[97].\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n  See _Philippians_ p. 6 sq.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n  Col. iv. 10, 11. See _Philippians_ p. 17 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: Coloss\u00e6 brought before his notice by two incidents.]\n\nWe have seen that Coloss\u00e6 was an unimportant place, and that it had no\ndirect personal claims on the Apostle. We might therefore feel surprise\nthat, thus doubly disqualified, it should nevertheless attract his\nspecial attention at a critical moment, when severe personal trials were\nsuperadded to \u2018the care of all the churches.\u2019 But two circumstances, the\none affecting his public duties, the other private and personal,\nhappening at this time, conspired to bring Coloss\u00e6 prominently before\nhis notice.\n\n[Sidenote: 1. The mission of EPAPHRAS.]\n\n1. He had received a visit from EPAPHRAS. The dangerous condition of the\nColossian and neighbouring churches had filled the mind of their\nevangelist with alarm. A strange form of heresy had broken out in these\nbrotherhoods\u2014a combination of Judaic formalism with Oriental mystic\nspeculation\u2014and was already spreading rapidly. His distress was extreme.\nHe gratefully acknowledged and reported their faith in Christ and their\nworks of love[98]. But this only quickened his anxiety. He had \u2018much\ntoil for them\u2019; he was \u2018ever wrestling in his prayers on their behalf,\u2019\nthat they might stand fast and not abandon the simplicity of their\nearlier faith[99]. He came to Rome, we may suppose, for the express\npurpose of laying this state of things before the Apostle and seeking\nhis counsel and assistance.\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n  i. 4, 8.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n  iv. 12, 13.\n\n[Sidenote: 2. ONESIMUS a fugitive in Rome.]\n\n2. But at the time when Epaphras paid this visit, St Paul was also in\ncommunication with another Colossian, who had visited Rome under very\ndifferent circumstances. ONESIMUS, the runaway slave, had sought the\nmetropolis, the common sink of all nations[100], probably as a\nconvenient hiding place, where he might escape detection among its\ncrowds and make a livelihood as best he could. Here, perhaps\naccidentally, perhaps through the intervention of Epaphras, he fell in\nwith his master\u2019s old friend. The Apostle interested himself in his\ncase, instructed him in the Gospel, and transformed him from a\ngood-for-nothing slave[101] into a \u2018faithful and beloved brother[102].\u2019\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n  Tac. _An._ xv. 44.\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n  Philem. 11 \u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n  Col. iv. 9; comp. Philem. 16.\n\n[Sidenote: The Apostle despatches three letters simultaneously.]\n\nThis combination of circumstances called the Apostle\u2019s attention to the\nChurches of the Lycus, and more especially to Coloss\u00e6. His letters,\nwhich had been found \u2018weighty and powerful\u2019 in other cases, might not be\nunavailing now; and in this hope he took up his pen. Three epistles were\nwritten and despatched at the same time to this district.\n\n[Sidenote: 1. The EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.]\n\n1. He addresses a special letter to the COLOSSIANS, written in the joint\nnames of himself and Timothy, warning them against the errors of the\nfalse teachers. He gratefully acknowledges the report which he has\nreceived of their love and zeal[103]. He assures them of the conflict\nwhich agitates him on their behalf[104]. He warns them to be on their\nguard against the delusive logic of enticing words, against the vain\ndeceit of a false philosophy[105]. [Sidenote: The theological and the\npractical error of the Colossians.]The purity of their Christianity is\nendangered by two errors, recommended to them by their heretical\nleaders\u2014the one theological, the other practical\u2014but both alike\nspringing from the same source, the conception of matter as the origin\nand abode of evil. Thus, regarding God and matter as directly\nantagonistic and therefore apart from and having no communication with\neach other, they sought to explain the creation and government of the\nworld by interposing a series of intermediate beings, emanations or\nangels, to whom accordingly they offered worship. At the same time,\nsince they held that evil resided, not in the rebellious spirit of man,\nbut in the innate properties of matter, they sought to overcome it by a\nrigid ascetic discipline, which failed after all to touch the springs of\naction. [Sidenote: The proper corrective to both lies in the Christ of\nthe Gospel.]As both errors flowed from the same source, they must be\ncorrected by the application of the same remedy, the Christ of the\nGospel. In the Person of Christ, the one mediator between heaven and\nearth, is the true solution of the theological difficulty. Through the\nLife in Christ, the purification of the heart through faith and love, is\nthe effectual triumph over moral evil[106]. [Sidenote: References to\nEpaphras.]St Paul therefore prescribes to the Colossians the true\nteaching of the Gospel, as the best antidote to the twofold danger which\nthreatens at once their theological creed and their moral principles;\nwhile at the same time he enforces his lesson by the claims of personal\naffection, appealing to the devotion of their evangelist Epaphras on\ntheir behalf[107].\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n  i. 3\u20139, 21 sq.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n  ii. 1 sq.\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n  ii. 4, 8, 18.\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n  i. 1\u201320, ii. 9, iii. 4. The two threads are closely interwoven in St\n  Paul\u2019s refutation, as these references will show. The connexion of the\n  two errors, as arising from the same false principle, will be\n  considered more in detail in the next chapter.\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n  i. 7, iv. 12.\n\nOf Epaphras himself we know nothing beyond the few but significant\nnotices which connect him with Coloss\u00e6[108]. He did not return to\nColoss\u00e6 as the bearer of the letter, but remained behind with St\nPaul[109]. As St Paul in a contemporary epistle designates him his\nfellow-prisoner[110], it may be inferred that his zeal and affection had\ninvolved him in the Apostle\u2019s captivity, and that his continuance in\nRome was enforced. But however this may be, the letter was placed in the\nhands of Tychicus, a native of proconsular Asia, probably of\nEphesus[111],[Sidenote: Tychicus and Onesimus accompany the letter.] who\nwas entrusted with a wider mission at this time, and in its discharge\nwould be obliged to visit the valley of the Lycus[112]. At the same time\nhe was accompanied by Onesimus, whom the Colossians had only known\nhitherto as a worthless slave, but who now returns to them with the\nstamp of the Apostle\u2019s warm approval. St Paul says very little about\nhimself, because Tychicus and Onesimus would be able by word of mouth to\ncommunicate all information to the Colossians[113]. [Sidenote: The\nsalutations.]But he sends one or two salutations which deserve a few\nwords of explanation. Epaphras of course greets his fellow-townsmen and\nchildren in the faith. Other names are those of Aristarchus the\nThessalonian, who had been with the Apostle at Ephesus[114] and may\npossibly have formed some personal connexion with the Colossians at that\ntime: Mark, against whom apparently the Apostle fears that a prejudice\nmay be entertained (perhaps the fact of his earlier desertion, and of St\nPaul\u2019s dissatisfaction in consequence[115], may have been widely known),\nand for whom therefore he asks a favourable reception at his approaching\nvisit to Coloss\u00e6, according to instructions which they had already\nreceived; and Jesus the Just, of whose relations with the Colossians we\nknow nothing, and whose only claim to a mention may have been his\nsingular fidelity to the Apostle at a critical juncture. Salutations\nmoreover are added from Luke and from Demas; and here again their close\ncompanionship with the Apostle is, so far as we know, the sole cause of\ntheir names appearing[116].\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n  For the reasons why Epaphras cannot be identified with Epaphroditus,\n  who is mentioned in the Philippian letter, see _Philippians_ p. 60,\n  note 4. The later tradition, which makes him bishop of Coloss\u00e6, is\n  doubtless an inference from St Paul\u2019s language and has no independent\n  value. The further statement of the martyrologies, that he suffered\n  martyrdom for his flock, can hardly be held to deserve any higher\n  credit. His day is the 19th of July in the Western Calendar. His body\n  is said to lie in the Church of S. Maria Maggiore at Rome.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n  Col. iv. 12.\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n  Philem. 23 \u1f41 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c7\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5. The word may possibly have a\n  metaphorical sense (see _Philippians_ p. 11); but the literal meaning\n  is more probable. St Jerome on Philem. 23 (VII. p. 762) gives the\n  story that St Paul\u2019s parents were natives of Giscala and, when the\n  Romans invaded and wasted Jud\u00e6a, were banished thence with their son\n  to Tarsus. He adds that Epaphras may have been St Paul\u2019s\n  fellow-prisoner at this time, and have been removed with his parents\n  to Coloss\u00e6. It is not quite clear whether this statement respecting\n  Epaphras is part of the tradition, or Jerome\u2019s own conjecture appended\n  to it.\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n  Acts xx. 4, 2 Tim. iv. 12.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n  See below, p. 37.\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n  Col. iv. 7\u20139.\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n  Acts xix. 29.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n  Acts xiii. 13, xv. 37\u201339.\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n  Col. iv. 10\u201314.\n\n[Sidenote: Charge respecting Laodicea.]\n\nLastly, the Laodiceans were closely connected with the Colossians by\nlocal and spiritual ties. To the Church of Laodicea therefore, and to\nthe household of one Nymphas who was a prominent member of it, he sends\ngreeting. At the same time he directs them to interchange letters with\nthe Laodiceans; for to Laodicea also he had written. And he closes his\nsalutations with a message to Archippus, a resident either at Coloss\u00e6 or\nat Laodicea (for on this point we are left to conjecture), who held some\nimportant office in the Church, and respecting whose zeal he seems to\nhave entertained a misgiving[117].\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n  iv. 15\u201317.\n\n[Sidenote: 2. The LETTER TO PHILEMON.]\n\n2. But, while providing for the spiritual welfare of the whole Colossian\nChurch, he did not forget the temporal interests of its humblest member.\nHaving attended to the solicitations of the evangelist Epaphras, he\naddressed himself to the troubles of the runaway slave Onesimus. The\nmission of Tychicus to Coloss\u00e6 was a favourable opportunity of restoring\nhim to Philemon; for Tychicus, well known as the Apostle\u2019s friend and\nfellow-labourer, might throw the shield of his protection over him and\navert the worst consequences of Philemon\u2019s anger. But, not content with\nthis measure of precaution, the Apostle himself writes to PHILEMON on\nthe offender\u2019s behalf, recommending him as a changed man[118], and\nclaiming forgiveness for him as a return due from Philemon to himself as\nto his spiritual father[119].\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n  Philem. 11, 16.\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n  ver. 19.\n\nThe salutations in this letter are the same as those in the Epistle to\nthe Colossians with the exception of Jesus Justus, whose name is\nomitted[120]. Towards the close St Paul declares his hope of release and\nintention of visiting Coloss\u00e6, and asks Philemon to \u2018prepare a lodging\u2019\nfor him[121].\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n  vv. 23, 24.\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n  ver. 22.\n\n[Sidenote: 3. The CIRCULAR LETTER, of which a copy is sent to LAODICEA.]\n\n3. But at the same time with the two letters destined especially for\nColoss\u00e6, the Apostle despatched a third, which had a wider scope. It has\nbeen already mentioned that Tychicus was charged with a mission to the\nAsiatic Churches. It has been noticed also that the Colossians were\ndirected to procure and read a letter in the possession of the\nLaodiceans. These two facts are closely connected. The Apostle wrote at\nthis time a circular letter to the Asiatic Churches, which got its\nultimate designation from the metropolitan city and is consequently\nknown to us as the Epistle to the EPHESIANS[122]. It was the immediate\nobject of Tychicus\u2019 journey to deliver copies of this letter at all the\nprincipal centres of Christianity in the district, and at the same time\nto communicate by word of mouth the Apostle\u2019s special messages to\neach[123]. Among these centres was Laodicea. Thus his mission brought\nhim into the immediate neighbourhood of Coloss\u00e6. But he was not charged\nto deliver another copy of the circular letter at Coloss\u00e6 itself, for\nthis Church would be regarded only as a dependency of Laodicea; and\nbesides he was the bearer of a special letter from the Apostle to them.\nIt was sufficient therefore to provide that the Laodicean copy should be\ncirculated and read at Coloss\u00e6.\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n  See the introduction to the epistle.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n  Ephes. vi. 21, 22.\n\n[Sidenote: Personal links connecting the three letters.]\n\nThus the three letters are closely related. Tychicus is the personal\nlink of connexion between the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the\nColossians; Onesimus between those to the Colossians and to Philemon.\n\nFor reasons given elsewhere[124], it would appear that these three\nletters were written and despatched towards the close of [Sidenote:\nEarthquake in the Lycus Valley.]the Apostle\u2019s captivity, about the year\n63. At some time not very distant from this date, a great catastrophe\novertook the cities of the Lycus valley. An earthquake was no uncommon\noccurrence in this region[125]. But on this occasion the shock had been\nunusually violent, and Laodicea, the flourishing and populous, was laid\nin ruins. Tacitus, who is our earliest authority for this fact, places\nit in the year 60 and is silent about the neighbouring towns[126].\nEusebius however makes it subsequent [Sidenote: Its probable date.]to\nthe burning of Rome (A.D. 64), and mentions Hierapolis and Coloss\u00e6 also\nas involved in the disaster[127]; while later writers, adopting the date\nof Eusebius and including the three cities with him, represent it as one\nof a series of divine judgments on the heathen world for the persecution\nof the Christians which followed on the fire[128]. Having no direct\nknowledge of the source from which Eusebius derived his information, we\nshould naturally be disposed to accept the authority of Tacitus for the\ndate, as more trustworthy. But, as indications occur elsewhere that\nEusebius followed unusually good authorities in recording these\nearthquakes[129], it is far from improbable that he [Sidenote: Bearing\non the chronology of these letters.] gives the correct date[130]. In\nthis case the catastrophe was subsequent to the writing of these\nletters. If on the other hand the year named by Tacitus be adopted, we\ngain a subsidiary confirmation of the comparatively late date which I\nhave ventured to assign to these epistles on independent grounds; for,\nif they had been written two years earlier, when the blow was recent, we\nmight reasonably have expected to find some reference to a disaster\nwhich had devastated Laodicea and from which Coloss\u00e6 cannot have escaped\naltogether without injury. The additional fact mentioned by the Roman\nhistorian, that Laodicea was rebuilt from her own resources without the\nusual assistance from Rome[131], is valuable as illustrating a later\nnotice in the Apostolic writings[132].\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n  See _Philippians_ p. 29 sq.; where reasons are given for placing the\n  Philippian Epistle at an earlier, and the others at a later stage in\n  the Apostle\u2019s captivity.\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n  See above, p. 3. Laodicea was visited by the following earthquakes in\n  the ages preceding and subsequent to the Christian era.\n\n  (1) Before about B.C. 125, _Orac. Sibyll._ iii. 471, if the date now\n  commonly assigned to this Sibylline Oracle be correct, and if the\n  passage is to be regarded as a prophecy after the event. In iii. 347\n  Hierapolis is also mentioned as suffering in the same way; but it may\n  be questioned whether the Phrygian city is meant.\n\n  (2) About B.C. 12, Strabo xii. 8, p. 579, Dion Cass. liv. 30. Strabo\n  names only Laodicea and Tralles, but Dion Cassius says \u1f21 \u1f08\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf.\n\n  (3) A.D. 60 according to Tacitus (_Ann._ xiv. 27); A.D. 64 or 65\n  according to Eusebius (_Chron._ s.a.), who includes also Hierapolis\n  and Coloss\u00e6. To this earthquake allusion is made in a Sibylline Oracle\n  written not many years after the event; _Orac. Sibyll._ iv. 107 (see\n  also v. 289, vii. 23).\n\n  (4) Between A.D. 222 and A.D. 235, in the reign of Alexander Severus,\n  as we learn from another Sibylline Oracle (xii. 280). On this occasion\n  Hierapolis also suffered.\n\n  This list will probably be found not to have exhausted all these\n  catastrophes on record.\n\n  The following earthquakes also are mentioned as happening in the\n  neighbouring towns or in the district generally: the date uncertain,\n  _Carura_ (Strabo xii. 8, p. 578); A.D. 17 the _twelve cities_,\n  _Sardis_ being the worst sufferer (Tac. _Ann._ ii. 7, Plin. _N.H._ ii.\n  86, Dion Cass. lvii. 17, Strabo xii. 8, p. 579); A.D. 23 _Cibyra_\n  (Tac. _Ann._ iv. 13); A.D. 53 _Apamea_ (Tac. _Ann._ xii. 58): about\n  A.D. 155, under Antoninus Pius, \u2018Rhodiorum et _Asi\u00e6_ oppida\u2019 (Capitol.\n  _Anton. Pius_ 9); A.D. 178, under M. Aurelius, _Smyrna_ and other\n  cities (_Chron. Pasch._ I. p. 489, ed. Dind., Aristid. _Or._ xx, xxi,\n  xli; see Clinton _Fast. Rom._ I. p. 176 sq., Hertzberg _Griechenland_\n  etc. II. pp. 371, 410); A.D. 262, under Gallienus II (Trebell.\n  _Gallien._ 5 \u2018Malum tristius in _Asi\u00e6_ urbibus fuit ... hiatus terr\u00e6\n  plurimis in locis fuerunt, cum aqua salsa in fossis appareret,\u2019 ib. 6\n  \u2018vastatam _Asiam_ ... elementorum concussionibus\u2019). Strabo says (p.\n  579) that _Philadelphia_ is more or less shaken daily (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd),\n  and that _Apamea_ has suffered from numerous earthquakes.\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n  Tac. _Ann._ xiv. 27 \u2018Eodem anno ex inlustribus Asi\u00e6 urbibus Laodicea,\n  tremore terr\u00e6 prolapsa, nullo a nobis remedio propriis opibus\n  revaluit.\u2019 The year is given \u2018Nerone iv, Corn. Cosso consulibus\u2019 (xiv.\n  20). Two different writers, in _Smith\u2019s Dictionary of Geography_ and\n  _Smith\u2019s Dictionary of the Bible_, s.v. Laodicea, place the\n  destruction of Laodicea in the reign of Tiberius, confusing this\n  earthquake with an earlier one (_Ann._ ii. 47). By this earlier\n  earthquake \u2018duodecim celebres Asi\u00e6 urbes conlaps\u00e6,\u2019 but their names\n  are given, and not one is situated in the valley of the Lycus.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n  Euseb. _Chron._ Ol. 210 (II. p. 154 sq., ed. Sch\u00f6ne) \u2018In Asia tres\n  urbes terr\u00e6 motu conciderunt Laodicea Hierapolis Coloss\u00e6.\u2019 The\n  Armenian version and Jerome agree in placing it the next event in\n  order after the fire at Rome (A.D. 64), though there is a difference\n  of a year in the two texts. If the Sibylline Oracle, v. 317, refers to\n  this earthquake, as seems probable, we have independent testimony that\n  Hierapolis was involved in the catastrophe; comp. _ib._ v. 289.\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n  This is evidently the idea of Orosius, vii. 7.\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n  I draw this inference from his account of the earthquake in the reign\n  of Tiberius. Tacitus (_Ann._ ii. 47) states that _twelve_ cities were\n  ruined in one night, and records their names. Pliny also, who mentions\n  this earthquake as \u2018the greatest within the memory of man\u2019 (_N.H._ ii.\n  86), gives the same number. Eusebius however, _Chron._ Ol. 198 (II. p.\n  146 sq., ed. Sch\u00f6ne), names _thirteen_ cities, coinciding with Tacitus\n  as far as he goes, but including Ephesus also. Now a monument was\n  found at Puteoli (see Gronov. _Thes._ _Gr\u00e6c. Ant._ VII. p. 433 sq.),\n  and is now in the Museum at Naples (_Museo Borbonico_ XV, Tav. iv, v),\n  dedicated to Tiberius and representing _fourteen_ female figures with\n  the names of fourteen Asiatic cities underneath; these names being the\n  same as those mentioned by Tacitus with the addition of Ephesus and\n  Cibyra. There can be no doubt that this was one of those monuments\n  mentioned by Apollonius quoted in Phlegon (_Fragm._ 42, M\u00fcller\u2019s\n  _Fragm. Hist. Gr\u00e6c._ III. p. 621) as erected to commemorate the\n  liberality of Tiberius in contributing to the restoration of the\n  ruined cities (see Eckhel _Doct. Num. Vet._ VI. 192 sq.). But no\n  earthquake at Ephesus is mentioned by Tacitus. He does indeed speak of\n  such a catastrophe as happening at Cibyra (_Ann._ iv. 13) six years\n  later than the one which ruined the twelve cities, and of the relief\n  which Tiberius afforded on this latter occasion as on the former. But\n  we owe to Eusebius alone the fact that Ephesus also was seriously\n  injured by an earthquake in the same year\u2014perhaps not on the same\n  night\u2014with the twelve cities: and this fact is necessary to explain\n  the monument. It should be added that Nipperdey (on Tac. _Ann._ ii.\n  47) supposes the earthquake at Ephesus to have been recorded in the\n  lost portion of the fifth book of the _Annals_ which comprised the\n  years A.D. 29\u201331; but this bare hypothesis cannot outweigh the direct\n  testimony of Eusebius.\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n  Hertzberg (_Geschichte Griechenlands unter der Herrschaft der R\u00f6mer_,\n  II. p. 96) supposes that Tacitus and Eusebius refer to two different\n  events, and that Laodicea was visited by earthquakes twice within a\n  few years, A.D. 60 and A.D. 65.\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n  Tac. _Ann._ xiv. 27, quoted above, p. 38, note 126. To this fact\n  allusion is made in the feigned prediction of the Sibyllines, iv. 107\n  \u03a4\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c3\u1f72 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03be\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\n  \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03c5\u03ac\u03b3\u03c5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, where \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 must be the 2nd person, \u2018Thou wilt\n  rebuild thy city with its broad streets.\u2019 This Sibylline poem was\n  written about the year 80. The building of the amphitheatre mentioned\n  above (p. 6, note 6), would form part of this work of reconstruction.\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n  See below, p. 43.\n\n[Sidenote: St Mark\u2019s intended visit.]\n\nIt has been seen that, when these letters were written, St Mark was\nintending shortly to visit Coloss\u00e6, and that the Apostle himself,\nlooking forward to his release, hoped at length to make a personal\nacquaintance with these Churches, which hitherto he knew only through\nthe report of others. Whether St Mark\u2019s visit was ever paid or not, we\nhave no means of determining[133]. Of St Paul himself it is reasonable\nto assume, [Sidenote: St Paul probably visits Coloss\u00e6.] that in the\ninterval between his first and second Roman captivity he found some\nopportunity of carrying out his design. At all events we find him at\nMiletus, near to the mouth of the M\u00e6ander[134]; and the journey between\nthis place and Laodicea is neither long nor difficult.\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n  Two notices however imply that St Mark had some personal connexion\n  with Asia Minor in the years immediately succeeding the date of this\n  reference: (1) St Peter, writing to the Churches of Asia Minor, sends\n  a salutation from St Mark (1 Pet. v. 13); (2) St Paul gives charge to\n  Timothy, who appears to be still residing at Ephesus, to take up Mark\n  and bring him to Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\n  \u03c3\u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6). Thus it seems fairly probable that St Mark\u2019s projected visit\n  to Coloss\u00e6 was paid.\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n  2 Tim. iv. 20. By a strange error Lequien (_Oriens Christ._ I. p. 833)\n  substitutes Hierapolis for Nicopolis in Tit. iii. 12, and argues from\n  the passage that the Church of Hierapolis was founded by St Paul.\n\n[Sidenote: St John in Asia Minor.]\n\nAt the time of this visit\u2014the first and last, we may suppose, which he\npaid to the valley of the Lycus\u2014St Paul\u2019s direction of the Asiatic\nChurches is drawing to a close. With his death they pass into the hands\nof St John[135], who takes up his abode in Asia Minor. Of Coloss\u00e6 and\nHierapolis we hear nothing more in the New Testament: but from his exile\nin[Sidenote: The message to Laodicea.] Patmos the beloved disciple\ndelivers his Lord\u2019s message to the Church of Laodicea[136]; a message\ndoubtless intended to be communicated also to the two subordinate\nChurches, to which it would apply almost equally well.\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n  It was apparently during the interval between St Paul\u2019s first\n  captivity at Rome and his death, that St Peter wrote to the Churches\n  of Asia Minor (1 Pet. i. 1). Whether in this interval he also visited\n  personally the districts evangelized directly or indirectly by St\n  Paul, we have no means of deciding. Such a visit is far from unlikely,\n  but it can hardly have been of long duration. A copy of his letters\n  would probably be sent to Laodicea, as a principal centre of\n  Christianity in Proconsular Asia, which is among the provinces\n  mentioned in the address of the First Epistle.\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n  Rev. iii. 14\u201321.\n\n[Sidenote: Correspondences between the Apocalypse and St Paul\u2019s\n           Epistles.]\n\nThe message communicated by St John to Laodicea prolongs the note which\nwas struck by St Paul in the letter to Coloss\u00e6. An interval of a very\nfew years has not materially altered the character of these Churches.\nObviously the same temper prevails, the same errors are rife, the same\ncorrection must be applied.\n\n[Sidenote: 1. The doctrine of the Person of Christ,]\n\n1. Thus, while St Paul finds it necessary to enforce the truth that\nChrist is the image of the invisible God, that in Him all the divine\nfulness dwells, that He existed before all things, that through Him all\nthings were created and in Him all things are sustained, that He is the\nprimary source (\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae) and has the pre-eminence in all things[137]; so in\nalmost identical language St John, speaking in the person of our Lord,\ndeclares that He is the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the primary\nsource (\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae) of the creation of God[138]. Some lingering shreds of the\nold heresy, we may suppose, still hung about these Churches, and instead\nof \u2018holding fast the Head\u2019 they were even yet prone to substitute\nintermediate agencies, angelic mediators, as links in the chain which\nshould bind man to God. They still failed to realise the majesty and\nsignificance, the _completeness_, of the Person of Christ.\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n  Col. i. 15\u201318.\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n  Rev. iii. 14. It should be observed that this designation of our Lord\n  (\u1f21 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6), which so closely resembles the language\n  of the Colossian Epistle, does not occur in the messages to the other\n  six Churches, nor do we there find anything resembling it.\n\n[Sidenote: and practical duties which follow upon it.]\n\nAnd the practical duty also, which follows from the recognition of the\ntheological truth, is enforced by both Apostles in very similar\nlanguage. If St Paul entreats the Colossians to seek those things which\nare above, where Christ is seated on the right hand of God[139], and in\nthe companion epistle, which also he directs them to read, reminds the\nChurches that God raised them with Christ and seated them with him in\nheavenly places in Christ Jesus[140]; in like manner St John gives this\npromise to the Laodiceans in the name of his Lord: \u2018He that overcometh,\nI will grant to him to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame\nand did sit with my Father in His throne[141]\u2019.\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n  Col. iii. 1.\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n  Ephes. ii. 6 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n  Rev. iii. 21 \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Here again it must be\n  noticed that there is no such resemblance in the language of the\n  promises to the faithful in the other six Churches. This double\n  coincidence, affecting the two ideas which may be said to cover the\n  whole ground in the Epistle to the Colossians, can hardly, I think, be\n  fortuitous, and suggests an acquaintance with and recognition of the\n  earlier Apostle\u2019s teaching on the part of St John.\n\n[Sidenote: 2. Warning against lukewarmness.]\n\n2. But again; after a parting salutation to the Church of Laodicea St\nPaul closes with a warning to Archippus, apparently its chief pastor, to\ntake heed to his ministry[142]. Some signs of slackened zeal seem to\nhave called forth this rebuke. It may be an accidental coincidence, but\nit is at least worthy of notice, that lukewarmness is the special sin\ndenounced in the angel of the Laodiceans, and that the necessity of\ngreater earnestness is the burden of the message to that Church[143]. As\nwith the people, so is it with the priest. The community takes its\ncolour from and communicates its colour to its spiritual rulers. The \u2018be\nzealous\u2019 of St John is the counterpart to the \u2018take heed\u2019 of St Paul.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n  Col. iv. 17.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n  Rev. iii. 19. If the common view, that by the angel of the Church its\n  chief pastor is meant, were correct, and if Archippus (as is very\n  probable) had been living when St John wrote, the coincidence would be\n  still more striking; see Trench\u2019s _Epistles to the Seven Churches in\n  Asia_, p. 180. But for reasons given elsewhere (Philippians p. 197\n  sq.), this interpretation of the angels seems to me incorrect.\n\n[Sidenote: 3. The pride of wealth denounced.]\n\n3. Lastly; in the Apocalyptic message the pride of wealth is sternly\ncondemned in the Laodicean Church: \u2018For that thou sayest I am rich and\nhave gotten me riches and have need of nothing, and knowest not that\nthou art utterly wretched and miserable and beggarly and blind and\nnaked, I counsel thee to buy gold of me refined with fire, that thou\nmayest have riches[144].\u2019 This proud vaunt receives its best\nillustration from a recent occurrence at Laodicea, to which allusion has\nalready been made. Only a very few years before this date an earthquake\nhad laid the city in ruins. Yet from this catastrophe she rose again\nwith more than her former splendour. [Sidenote: The vaunt of\nLaodicea.]This however was not her chief title to respect. While other\ncities, prostrated by a like visitation, had sought relief from the\nconcessions of the Roman senate or the liberality of the emperor\u2019s\npurse, it was the glory of Laodicea that she alone neither courted nor\nobtained assistance, but recovered by her own resources. \u2018Nullo a nobis\nremedio,\u2019 says the Roman historian, \u2018propriis opibus revaluit[145].\u2019\nThus she had asserted a proud independence, to which neither far-famed\nmetropolitan Ephesus, nor old imperial Sardis, nor her prosperous\ncommercial neighbours, Apamea and Cibyra, could lay claim[146]. No one\nwould dispute her boast that she \u2018had gotten riches and had need of\nnothing.\u2019\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n  Rev. iii. 17, 18, where the correct reading with the repetition of the\n  definite articles, \u1f41 \u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03c0\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, signifies the type, the\n  embodiment of wretchedness, etc.\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n  Tac. Ann. xiv. 27.\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n  In all the other cases of earthquake which Tacitus records as\n  happening in these Asiatic cities, Ann. ii. 47 (the twelve cities),\n  iv. 13 (Cibyra), xii. 58 (Apamea), he mentions the fact of their\n  obtaining relief from the Senate or the Emperor. On an earlier\n  occasion Laodicea herself had not disdained under similar\n  circumstances to receive assistance from Augustus: Strabo, xii. p.\n  579.\n\n[Sidenote: Pride of intellectual wealth.]\n\nBut is there not a second and subsidiary idea underlying the Apocalyptic\nrebuke? The pride of intellectual wealth, we may well suspect, was a\ntemptation at Laodicea hardly less strong than the pride of material\nresources. When St Paul wrote, the theology of the Gospel and the\ncomprehension of the Church were alike endangered by a spirit of\nintellectual exclusiveness[147] in these cities. He warned them against\na vain philosophy, against a show of wisdom, against an intrusive mystic\nspeculation, which vainly puffed up the fleshly mind[148]. He tacitly\ncontrasted with this false intellectual wealth \u2018the riches of the glory\nof God\u2019s mystery revealed in Christ[149],\u2019 the riches of the full\nassurance of understanding, the genuine treasures of wisdom and\nknowledge[150]. May not the same contrast be discerned in the language\nof St John? The Laodiceans boast of their enlightenment, but they are\nblind, and to cure their blindness they must seek eye-salve from the\nhands of the great Physician. They vaunt their wealth of knowledge, but\nthey are wretched paupers, and must beg the refined gold of the Gospel\nto relieve their wants[151].\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n  See the next chapter of this introduction.\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n  Col. ii. 8, 18, 23.\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n  i. 27.\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n  ii. 2, 3.\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n  Comp. Eph. i. 18 \u2018The _eyes of your understanding being enlightened_,\n  that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, what the _riches of\n  the glory of his inheritance_ in the saints.\u2019\n\nThis is the last notice in the Apostolic records relating to the\nChurches in the valley of the Lycus; but during the succeeding ages the\nChristian communities of this district play a conspicuous part in the\nstruggles and the development of the Church. [Sidenote: The early\ndisciples settle in proconsular Asia]When after the destruction of\nJerusalem St John fixed his abode at Ephesus, it would appear that not a\nfew of the oldest surviving members of the Palestinian Church\naccompanied him into \u2018Asia,\u2019 which henceforward became the head-quarters\nof Apostolic authority. In this body of emigrants Andrew[152] and Philip\namong the Twelve, Aristion and John the presbyter[153] among other\npersonal disciples of the Lord, are especially mentioned.\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n  _Canon Murator._ fol. 1, l. 14 (p. 17, ed. Tregelles), Cureton\u2019s\n  _Ancient Syriac Documents_ pp. 32, 34. Comp. Papias in Euseb. _H.E._\n  iii. 39.\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n  Papias in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39.\n\n[Sidenote: and especially at Hierapolis.]\n\nAmong the chief settlements of this Christian dispersion was Hierapolis.\nThis fact explains how these Phrygian Churches assumed a prominence in\nthe ecclesiastical history of the second century, for which we are\nhardly prepared by their antecedents as they appear in connexion with St\nPaul, and which they failed to maintain in the history of the later\nChurch.\n\nHere at all events was settled Philip of Bethsaida[154], the [Sidenote:\nPhilip the Apostle with his daughters.] early friend and fellow-townsman\nof St John, and the first Apostle who is recorded to have held\ncommunication with the Gentiles[155]. Here he died and was buried; and\nhere after his decease lived his two virgin daughters, who survived to a\nvery advanced age and thus handed down to the second century the\ntraditions of the earliest days of the Church. A third daughter, who was\nmarried, had settled in Ephesus, where her body rested[156]. [Sidenote:\nTheir traditions collected by Papias.]It was from the two daughters who\nresided at Hierapolis, that Papias heard several stories of the first\npreachers of the Gospel, which he transmitted to posterity in his\nwork[157].\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n  Polycrates in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 31, v. 24 \u03a6\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd [\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd] _\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd_, \u1f43\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2\n  \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b7\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f20 \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7, \u1f23 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. To this third daughter the\n  statement of Clement of Alexandria must refer, though by a common\n  looseness of expression he uses the plural number (Euseb. _H.E._ iii.\n  30), \u1f23 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2_ \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u00b7 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03a6\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u03a6\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n  \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5. On the other hand in the _Dialogue between Caius and\n  Proclus_, Philip the Evangelist was represented as residing at\n  Hierapolis (Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 31) \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2\n  \u03b1\u1f31 \u03a6\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f08\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f41 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, where the mention of the _four_\n  daughters _prophesying_ identifies the person meant (see Acts xxi. 8).\n  Nothing can be clearer than that St Luke distinguishes Philip the\n  Evangelist from Philip the Apostle; for (1) When the Seven are\n  appointed, he distinctly states that this new office is created to\n  relieve the Twelve of some onerous duties (Acts vi. 2\u20135). (2) After\n  Philip the Evangelist has preached in Samaria, two of the Twelve are\n  sent thither to convey the gifts of the Spirit, which required the\n  presence of an Apostle (viii. 14\u201317). (3) When St Paul and his\n  companions visit Philip at C\u00e6sarea, he is carefully described as \u2018the\n  Evangelist, being one of the Seven\u2019 (xxi. 8). As St Luke was a member\n  of the Apostle\u2019s company when this visit was paid, and stayed \u2018many\n  days\u2019 in Philip\u2019s house, the accuracy of his information cannot be\n  questioned. Yet Eusebius (_H.E._ iii. 31) assumes the identity of the\n  Apostle with the Evangelist, and describes the notice in the _Dialogue\n  of Caius and Proclus_ as being \u2018in harmony with (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u1fb4\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd)\u2019 the\n  language of Polycrates. And accordingly in another passage (_H.E._\n  iii. 39), when he has occasion to mention the conversations of Papias\n  with Philip\u2019s daughters at Hierapolis, he again supposes them to be\n  the same who are mentioned in the Acts.\n\n  My reasons for believing that the Philip who lived at Hierapolis was\n  not the Evangelist, but the Apostle, are as follows. (1) This is\n  distinctly stated by the earliest witness, Polycrates, who was bishop\n  of Ephesus at the close of the second century, and who besides claimed\n  to have and probably had special opportunities of knowing early\n  traditions. It is confirmed moreover by the notice in Clement of\n  Alexandria, who is the next in order of time, and whose means of\n  information also were good, for one of his earliest teachers was an\n  Ionian Greek (_Strom._ I. 1, p. 322). (2) The other view depends\n  solely on the authority of the _Dialogue of Caius and Proclus_. I have\n  given reasons elsewhere for questioning the separate existence of the\n  Roman presbyter Caius, and for supposing that this dialogue was\n  written by Hippolytus bishop of Portus (_Journal of Philology_ I. p.\n  98 sq., Cambridge, 1868). But however this may be, its author was a\n  Roman ecclesiastic, and probably wrote some quarter of a century at\n  least after Polycrates. In all respects therefore his authority is\n  inferior. Moreover it is suspicious in form. It mentions four\n  daughters instead of three, makes them all virgins, and represents\n  them as prophetesses, thus showing a distinct aim of reproducing the\n  particulars as given in Acts xxi. 9; whereas the account of Polycrates\n  is divergent in all three respects. (3) A life-long friendship would\n  naturally draw Philip the Apostle of Bethsaida after John, as it also\n  drew Andrew. And, when we turn to St John\u2019s Gospel, we can hardly\n  resist the impression that incidents relating to Andrew and Philip had\n  a special interest, not only for the writer of the Gospel, but also\n  for his hearers (John i. 40, 43\u201346, vi. 5\u20138, xii. 20\u201322, xiv. 8, 9).\n  Moreover the Apostles Andrew and Philip appear in this Gospel as\n  inseparable companions. (4) Lastly; when Papias mentions collecting\n  the sayings of the Twelve and of other early disciples from those who\n  heard them, he gives a prominent place to these two Apostles \u03c4\u03af\n  \u1f08\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 ... \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u1f22 \u03c4\u03af \u03a6\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, but there is no reference to Philip\n  the Evangelist. When therefore we read later that he conversed with\n  the daughters of Philip, it seems natural to infer that the Philip\n  intended is the same person whom he has mentioned previously. It\n  should be added, though no great value can be assigned to such\n  channels of information, that the Acts of Philip place the Apostle at\n  Hierapolis; Tischendorf, _Act. Apost. Apocr._ p. 75 sq.\n\n  On the other hand, those who suppose that the Evangelist, and not the\n  Apostle, resided at Hierapolis, account for the other form of the\n  tradition by the natural desire of the Asiatic Churches to trace their\n  spiritual descent directly from the Twelve. This solution of the\n  phenomenon might have been accepted, if the authorities in favour of\n  Philip the Evangelist had been prior in time and superior in quality.\n  There is no improbability in supposing that both the Philips were\n  married and had daughters.\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n  John xii. 20.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n  See above p. 45, note 154.\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n  Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39. This is the general reference for all those\n  particulars respecting Papias which are derived from Eusebius.\n\nThis Papias had conversed not only with the daughters of Philip, but\nalso with at least two personal disciples of the Lord, Aristion and John\nthe presbyter. He made it his business to gather traditions respecting\nthe sayings of the Saviour and His Apostles; and he published a work in\nfive books, entitled _An Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord_, using\nthe information thus collected to illustrate the discourses, and perhaps\nthe doings, of Christ as recorded in the Gospels[158]. Among other\nstories he related, apparently on the authority of these daughters of\nPhilip, how a certain dead man had been restored to life in his own day,\nand how Justus Barsabas, who is mentioned in the Acts, had drunk a\ndeadly poison and miraculously escaped from any evil effects[159].\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n  See Westcott, _Canon_ p. 63. On the opinions of Papias and on the\n  nature of his work, I may perhaps be allowed to refer to an article in\n  the _Contemporary Review_ Aug. 1867, where I have collected and\n  investigated all the notices of this father. The object of Papias\u2019\n  work was not to construct a Gospel narrative, but to interpret and\n  illustrate those already existing. I ought to add that on two minor\n  points, the martyrdom of Papias and the identity of Philip with the\n  Evangelist, I have been led to modify my views since the article was\n  written.\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n  Euseb. l.c. \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ae\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 [\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf]; \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n  \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f56 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n  \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u0392\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u1fb6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The information respecting the\n  raising of the dead man might have come from the daughters of Philip,\n  as the context seems certainly to imply, while yet the event happened\n  in Papias\u2019 own time (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd). It will be remembered that even\n  Iren\u00e6us mentions similar miracles as occurring in his own age (_H\u00e6r._\n  ii. 32. 4). Eusebius does not say that the miraculous preservation of\n  Justus Barsabas also occurred in the time of Papias.\n\n[Sidenote: Life and teaching of PAPIAS.]\n\nIf we may judge by his name, PAPIAS was a native of Phrygia, probably of\nHierapolis[160], of which he afterwards became bishop, and must have\ngrown up to youth or early manhood before the close of the first\ncentury. He is said to have suffered martyrdom at Pergamum about the\nyear 165; but there is good reason for distrusting this statement,\nindependently of any chronological difficulty which it involves[161].\nOtherwise [Sidenote: Account of Eusebius.]he must have lived to a very\nadvanced age. Eusebius, to whom chiefly we owe our information\nrespecting him, was repelled by his millennarian views, and describes\nhim as a man of mean intelligence[162], accusing him of misunderstanding\nthe Apostolic sayings respecting the kingdom of Christ and thus\ninterpreting in a material sense expressions which were intended to be\nmystical and symbolical. This disparaging account, though one-sided, was\nindeed not altogether undeserved, for his love of the marvellous seems\nto have overpowered his faculty of discrimination. But the adverse\nverdict of Eusebius must be corrected by the more sympathetic language\nof Iren\u00e6us[163], who possibly may have known him personally, and who\ncertainly must have been well acquainted with his reputation and\ncharacter.\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n  Papias, or (as it is very frequently written in inscriptions) Pappias,\n  is a common Phrygian name. It is found several times at Hierapolis,\n  not only in inscriptions (Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ no. 3930, 3912 a add.)\n  but even on coins (Mionnet IV. p. 301). This is explained by the fact\n  that it was an epithet of the Hierapolitan Zeus (Boeckh 3817 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u1fb3 \u0394\u03b9\u1fd2\n  \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b9), just as in Bithynia this same god was called \u03a0\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 (Lobeck\n  _Aglaoph._ p. 1048; see Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ III. p. 1051). Hence as\n  the name of a mortal it is equivalent to the Greek Diogenes; e.g.\n  Boeckh no. 3912 a add., \u03a0\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2. In\n  an inscription at Trajanopolis we meet with it in a curious\n  conjunction with other familiar names (Boeckh no. 3865 i add.) \u03a0\u03b1\u03c0\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n  \u03a4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (see Waddington on Le Bas, Inscr. no.\n  718). This last belongs to the year A.D. 199. Other analogous Phrygian\n  names are Ammias, Tatias (with the corresponding feminines), which\n  with Latin terminations become Ammianus, Tatianus.\n\n  Thus at Hierapolis the name Papias is derived from heathen mythology,\n  and accordingly the persons bearing it on the inscriptions and coins\n  are all heathens. It may therefore be presumed that our Papias was of\n  Gentile origin. The inference however is not absolutely certain, since\n  elsewhere it is found borne by Jews; see the Talmudical references in\n  Zunz _Namen der Juden_ p. 16.\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n  _Chron. Pasch._ sub ann. 163 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u1ff3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n  \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03a3\u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03bd\u1fc3\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2\n  \u1f27\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03af, \u1f67\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1.\n  See also the Syrian epitome of Euseb. _Chron._ (II. p. 216 ed. Sch\u00f6ne)\n  \u2018Cum persecutio in Asia esset, Polycarpos martyrium subiit et Papias,\n  quorum martyria in libro (scripta) extant,\u2019 but the Armenian version\n  of the _Chronicon_ mentions only Polycarp, while Jerome says\n  \u2018Polycarpus et Pionius fecere martyrium.\u2019 In his history (iv. 15)\n  Eusebius, after quoting the _Martyrdom of Polycarp_ at length, adds \u1f10\u03bd\n  \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf_ ... \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u2019\n  \u1f67\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03bf\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf _\u03a0\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2_ ... \u1f11\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u1ff3\n  \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u039a\u03ac\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  _\u03a0\u03b1\u03c0\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5_ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. He here falls into the\n  serious error of imagining that Metrodorus, Pionius, Carpus, Papylus,\n  and the others were martyred under M. Aurelius, whereas we know from\n  their extant Acts that they suffered in the Decian persecution. For\n  the martyrdoms of Pionius and Metrodorus see _Act. SS. Bolland._ Feb.\n  1; for those of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonica, _ib._ April 13. The\n  Acts of the former, which are included in Ruinart (_Act. Sinc. Mart._\n  p. 120 sq., 1689) are apparently the same which were seen by Eusebius.\n  Those of the latter are a late compilation of the Metaphrast, but were\n  probably founded on the earlier document. At all events the tradition\n  of the persecution in which they suffered could hardly have been\n  perverted or lost. Eusebius seems to have found their Acts bound up in\n  the same volume with those of Polycarp, and without reading them\n  through, to have drawn the hasty inference that they suffered at the\n  same time. But notwithstanding the error, or perhaps owing to it, this\n  passage in the Ecclesiastical History, by a confusion of the names\n  Papias and Papylus, seems to have given rise to the statement\n  respecting Papias in the Chronicon Paschale and in the Syrian epitome,\n  as it obviously has misled Jerome respecting Pionius. If so, the\n  martyrdom of Papias is a fiction, and he may have died a natural death\n  at an earlier date; so that the not very serious difficulty of his\n  longevity will disappear. The time of Polycarp\u2019s martyrdom is fixed by\n  various data as Easter A.D. 166 (see Clinton\u2019s _Fast. Rom._ I. p.\n  157).\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n  _H E._ iii. 39 \u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd. In another passage (iii. 36),\n  as commonly read, Eusebius makes partial amends to Papias by calling\n  him \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ae\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, but\n  this passage is found to be a spurious interpolation (see\n  _Contemporary Review_ l.c. p. 12), and was probably added by some one\n  who was acquainted with the work of Papias and desired to do him\n  justice.\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n  Iren. v. 33. 3, 4.\n\nMuch has been written respecting the relation of this writer to the\nCanonical Gospels, but the discussion has no very direct bearing on our\nspecial subject, and may be dismissed here[164]. One question however,\nwhich has a real importance as affecting the progress of the Gospel in\nthese parts, has been raised by modern criticism and must not be passed\nover in silence.\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n  See on this subject Westcott _Canon_ p. 64 sq.; _Contemporary Review_\n  l.c. p. 12 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: A modern hypothesis respecting Christianity in Asia Minor\n           stated and discussed.]\n\nIt has been supposed that there was an entire dislocation and\ndiscontinuity in the history of Christianity in Asia Minor at a certain\nepoch; that the Apostle of the Gentiles was ignored and his teaching\nrepudiated, if not anathematized; and that on its ruins was erected the\nstandard of Judaism, around which with a marvellous unanimity deserters\nfrom the Pauline Gospel rallied. Of this retrograde faith St John is\nsupposed to have been the great champion, and Papias a typical and\nimportant representative[165].\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n  The theory of the T\u00fcbingen school may be studied in Baur\u2019s\n  _Christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte_ or in Schwegler\u2019s\n  _Nachapostolisches Zeitalter_. It has been reproduced (at least as far\n  as regards the Asiatic Churches) by Renan _Saint Paul_ p. 366 sq.\n\nThe subject, as a whole, is too wide for a full investigation here. I\nmust content myself with occupying a limited area, showing not only the\nhistorical baselessness, but the strong inherent improbability of the\ntheory, as applied to Hierapolis and the neighbouring churches. As this\ndistrict is its chief strong-hold, a repulse at this point must involve\nits ultimate defeat along the whole line.\n\n[Sidenote: The position of St John]\n\nOf St John himself I have already spoken[166]. It has been shown that\nhis language addressed to these Churches is not only not opposed to St\nPaul\u2019s teaching, but presents remarkable coincidences with it. So far at\nleast the theory finds no support; and, when from St John we turn to\nPapias, the case is not different. [Sidenote: and of Papias.]The\nadvocates of the hypothesis in question lay the chief stress of their\nargument on the silence of Papias, or rather of Eusebius. Eusebius\nquotes a passage from Papias, in which the bishop of Hierapolis mentions\ncollecting from trustworthy sources the sayings of certain Apostles and\nearly disciples; but St Paul is not named among them. He also gives\nshort extracts from Papias referring to the Gospels of St Matthew and St\nMark, and mentions that this writer made use of the first Epistle of St\nJohn and the first Epistle of St Peter; but here again there is no\nallusion to St Paul\u2019s writings. Whether referring to the personal\ntestimony or to the Canonical writings of the Apostles, Papias, we are\nreminded, is equally silent about St Paul.\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n  See above p. 41 sq.\n\nOn both these points a satisfactory answer can be given; but the two\ncases are essentially different, and must be considered apart.\n\n[Sidenote: 1. The traditions collected by Papias.]\n\n(1) The range of _personal testimony_ which Papias would be able to\ncollect depended on his opportunities. Before he had grown up to\nmanhood, the personal reminiscences of St Paul would have almost died\nout. The Apostle of the Gentiles had not resided more than three years\neven at Ephesus, and seems to have paid only one brief visit to the\nvalley of the Lycus, even if he visited it at all. Such recollections of\nSt Paul as might once have lingered here would certainly be overshadowed\nby and forgotten in the later sojourn of St John, which, beginning where\nthey ceased, extended over more than a quarter of a century. To St John,\nand to those personal disciples of Christ who surrounded him, Papias and\nhis contemporaries would naturally and almost inevitably look for the\ntraditions which they so eagerly collected. This is the case with the\nleading representative of the Asiatic school in the next generation,\nIren\u00e6us, whose traditions are almost wholly derived from St John and his\ncompanions, while at the same time he evinces an entire sympathy with\nthe work and teaching of St Paul. But indeed, even if it had been\notherwise, the object which Papias had directly in view did not suggest\nany appeal to St Paul\u2019s authority. He was writing an \u2018Exposition of the\nOracles of the Lord,\u2019 and he sought to supplement and interpret these by\ntraditions of our Lord\u2019s life, such as eyewitnesses only could give. St\nPaul could have no place among those personal disciples of Christ, of\nwhom alone he is speaking in this preface to his work, which Eusebius\nquotes.\n\n[Sidenote: 2. His references to the Canonical writings.]\n\n(2) But, though we have no right to expect any mention of St Paul where\nthe appeal is to personal testimony, yet with quotations from or\nreferences to the _Canonical writings_ the case, it may be argued, is\ndifferent. Here at all events we might look for some recognition of St\nPaul. To this argument it would perhaps be a sufficient reply, that St\nPaul\u2019s Epistles do not furnish any matter which must necessarily have\nbeen introduced into a work such as Papias composed. But the complete\nand decisive answer is this; that the silence of Eusebius, so far from\ncarrying with it the silence of Papias, does not [Sidenote: No weight to\nbe attached to the silence of Eusebius.] even afford a presumption in\nthis direction. Papias may have quoted St Paul again and again, and yet\nEusebius would see no reason to chronicle the fact. His usage in other\ncases is decisive on this point. The Epistle of Polycarp which was read\nby Eusebius is the same which we still possess. Not only does it teem\nwith the most obvious quotations from St Paul, but in one passage it\ndirectly mentions his writing to the Philippians[167]. Yet the\nhistorian, describing its relation to the Canonical Scriptures, contents\nhimself with saying that it \u2018employs some testimonies from the former\nEpistle of Peter[168].\u2019 Exactly similar is his language respecting\nIren\u00e6us also. Iren\u00e6us, as is well known, cites by name almost every one\nof St Paul\u2019s Epistles; yet the description which Eusebius gives under\nthis same head, after quoting this writer\u2019s notices respecting the\nhistory of the Gospels and the Apocalypse, is that \u2018he mentions also the\nfirst Epistle of John, alleging very many testimonies from it, and in\nlike manner also the former Epistle of Peter[169].\u2019 There is every\nreason therefore to suppose that Eusebius would deal with Papias as he\nhas dealt with Polycarp and Iren\u00e6us, and that, unless Papias had\nintroduced some curious fact relating to St Paul, it would not have\noccurred to him to record mere quotations from or references to this\nApostle\u2019s letters. It may be supposed that Eusebius records with a fair\namount of attention references to the Catholic Epistles in early\nwriters, because the limits of the Canon in this part were not\naccurately fixed. On the other hand the Epistles of St Paul were\nuniversally received and therefore did not need to be accredited by any\nsuch testimony. But whatever may be the explanation, the fact is patent,\nand it furnishes a complete answer to the argument drawn from his\nsilence in the case of Papias[170].\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n  \u00a7 3.\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n  _H.E._ iv. 14 \u1f41 \u03b3\u03ad \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n  \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc7 \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf \u03ba\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2. This is all that Eusebius says with reference to\n  Polycarp\u2019s knowledge of the Canonical writings. It so happens that in\n  an earlier passage (iii. 36) he has given an extract from Polycarp, in\n  which St Paul\u2019s name is mentioned; but the quotation is brought to\n  illustrate the life of Ignatius, and the mention of the Apostle there\n  is purely accidental.\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n  _H.E._ v. 8 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f10\u03be\n  \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n  It is necessary to press this argument, because though it has never\n  been answered and (so far as I can see) is quite unanswerable, yet\n  thoughtful men, who have no sympathy with the T\u00fcbingen views of early\n  Christian history, still continue to argue from the silence of\n  Eusebius, as though it had some real significance. To illustrate the\n  omissions of Eusebius I have given only the instances of Polycarp and\n  Iren\u00e6us, because they are historically connected with Papias; but his\n  silence is even more remarkable in other cases. Thus, when speaking of\n  the epistle of the Roman Clement (_H.E._ iii. 38), he alludes to the\n  coincidences with the Epistle to the Hebrews, but omits to mention the\n  direct references to St Paul\u2019s First Epistle to the Corinthians which\n  is referred to by name, and is even silent about the numerous and\n  patent quotations from the Epistle of St James.\n\n[Sidenote: The views of Papias inferred from his associates.]\n\nBut, if the assumption has been proved to be baseless, have we any\ngrounds for saying that it is also highly improbable? Here it seems fair\nto argue from the well-known to the unknown. Of the opinions of Papias\nrespecting St Paul we know absolutely nothing; of the opinions of\nPolycarp and Iren\u00e6us ample evidence lies before us. _Noscitur a sociis_\nis a sound maxim to apply in such a case. Papias was a companion of\nPolycarp, and he is quoted with deference by Iren\u00e6us[171]. Is it\nprobable that his opinions should be diametrically opposed to those of\nhis friend and contemporary on a cardinal point affecting the very\nconception of Christianity (for the rejection of St Paul must be\nconsidered in this light)? or that this vital heterodoxy, if it existed,\nshould have escaped an intelligent critic of the next generation who had\nthe five books of his work before him, who himself had passed his early\nlife in Asia Minor, and who yet appeals to Papias as preserving the\ndoctrinal tradition which had been handed down from the Apostles\nthemselves to his own time? I say nothing of Eusebius himself, who, with\na distinct prejudice against Papias, accuses him of no worse heresy in\nhis writings than entertaining millennarian views.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n  Iren. _H\u00e6r._ v. 33. 4.\n\n[Sidenote: Millennarian views consistent with the recognition of St\n           Paul.]\n\nIt may indeed be confessed that a man like Papias, whose natural bent,\nassisted by his Phrygian education, was towards sensuous views of\nreligion, would not be likely to appreciate the essentially spiritual\nteaching of St Paul; but this proves nothing. The difference between\nunconscious want of sympathy and conscious rejection is all important\nfor the matter in hand. The same charge might be brought against\nnumberless theologians, whether in the middle ages or in more modern\ntimes, into whose minds it never entered to question the authority of\nthe Apostle and who quote his writings with the utmost reverence.\nNeither in the primitive days of Christianity nor in its later stages\nhas the profession of Chiliastic views been found inconsistent with the\nfullest recognition of St Paul\u2019s Apostolic claims. In the early Church\nIren\u00e6us and Tertullian are notable instances of this combination; and in\nour own age and country a tendency to millennarian speculations has been\ncommonly associated with the staunchest adherence to the fundamental\ndoctrines of St Paul.\n\n[Sidenote: ABERCIUS probably his successor.]\n\nAs the successor of Papias and the predecessor of Claudius Apollinaris\nin the see of Hierapolis, we may perhaps name ABERCIUS or AVIRCIUS[172].\nHis legendary Acts assign his episcopate to the reign of Marcus\nAurelius; and, though they are disfigured by extravagant fictions, yet\nthe date may perhaps be accepted, as it seems to be confirmed by other\nevidence. An inscription on his tombstone recorded how he had paid one\n[Sidenote: His journeys.] visit to the city of Rome, and another to the\nbanks of the Euphrates. These long journeys are not without parallels in\nthe lives of contemporary bishops. Polycarp of Smyrna visited Rome,\nhoping to adjust the Paschal controversy; Melito of Sardis went as far\nas Palestine, desiring to ascertain on the spot the facts relating to\nthe Canon of the Old Testament Scriptures. These or similar motives may\nhave influenced Abercius to undertake his distant journeys. If we may\nassume the identification of this bishop with one Avircius Marcellus who\nis mentioned in a contemporary document, he took an active interest in\nthe Montanist controversy, as from his position he was likely to do.\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n  The life of this Abercius is printed in the Bollandist _Acta\n  Sanctorum_ Oct. 22. It may safely be pronounced spurious. Among other\n  incidents, the saint goes to Rome and casts out a demon from Lucilla,\n  the daughter of M. Aurelius and Faustina, at the same time compelling\n  the demon to take up an altar from Rome and transport it through the\n  air to Hierapolis. But these Acts, though legendary themselves,\n  contain an epitaph which has the ring of genuineness and which seems\n  to have suggested the story to the pious forger who invented the Acts.\n  This very interesting memorial is given and discussed at length by\n  Pitra, _Spicil. Solesm._ III. p. 532 sq. It is inscribed by one\n  Abercius of Hierapolis on his tomb, which he erected during his\n  life-time. He declares himself a disciple of the good shepherd, who\n  taught him trustworthy writings (\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac) and sent him to visit\n  queenly Rome, where he saw a people sealed with the bright seal [of\n  baptism]. He recounts also a journey to Syria and the East, when he\n  crossed the Euphrates. He says that faith served up to him as a\n  banquet the \u03b9\u03c7\u03b8\u03c5\u03c2 from the fountain, giving him bread and wine. He\n  states that he has reached his 72nd year. And he closes by threatening\n  with severe penalties those who disturb his tomb. The resemblance of\n  this inscription to others found _in situ_ in the cemetery at\n  Hierapolis, after allowance made for the Christian element, is very\n  striking. The commencement \u1f18\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 closely resembles the form\n  of another Hierapolitan inscription, Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3906; the\n  enumeration of foreign tours has a counterpart in the monument of one\n  Flavius Zeuxis which states that the deceased had made 72 voyages\n  round the promontory of Malea to Italy (_ib._ 3920); and lastly, the\n  prohibition against putting another grave upon his, and the imposition\n  of fines to be paid to the treasury and the city if this injunction is\n  violated, are echos of language which occurs again and again on\n  tombstones in this city (_ib._ 3915, 3916, 3922, 3923, etc.). Out of\n  this epitaph, which he found probably at Hierapolis, and which, as he\n  himself tells us (\u00a7 41), was in a much mutilated condition, the\n  legend-writer apparently created his story, interpreting the queen, by\n  which Abercius himself probably meant the city of Rome, to be the\n  empress Faustina, with whom the saint is represented as having an\n  interview, M. Aurelius himself being absent at the time on his German\n  campaign. This view, that the epitaph is genuine and gave rise to the\n  Acts, is also maintained by Garrucci (_Civilt\u00e0 Cattolica_ 1856, I. p.\n  683, II. p. 84, quoted in the _Acta Sanct._ l.c.), whose criticisms\n  however are not always sound; and indeed as a whole it bears every\n  mark of authenticity, though possibly it may contain some\n  interpolations, which its mutilated condition would encourage.\n\n  The inscription itself however does not tell us what office Abercius\n  held or when he lived. There was a person of this name bishop of\n  Hierapolis present at the Council of Chalcedon A.D. 451 (Labb. _Conc._\n  IV. 862, 1204, 1341, 1392, 1496, 1744, ed. Coleti). But a chief pastor\n  of the Church at this late date would have declared his office\n  plainly; and the inscription points to a more primitive age, for the\n  expressions are archaic and the writer seems to veil his profession of\n  Christianity under language studiously obscure. The open profession of\n  Christianity on inscriptions occurs at an earlier date in these parts\n  than elsewhere. Already the word \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03f2 or \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03f2\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03f2 is found on\n  tombstones of the third century; Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3857 g, 3857 p,\n  3865 l; see Renan _Saint Paul_ p. 363. Thus we are entirely at fault\n  unless we accept the statement in the Acts.\n\n  And it is not unreasonable to suppose that, so far as regards the date\n  and office of Abercius, the writer of these Acts followed some\n  adequate historical tradition. Nor indeed is his statement altogether\n  without confirmation. We have evidence that a person bearing this name\n  lived in these parts of Asia Minor, somewhere about this time. An\n  unknown writer of a polemical tract against Montanism dedicates his\n  work to one Avircius Marcellus, at whose instigation it was written.\n  Eusebius (_H.E._ v. 16), who is our authority for this fact, relates\n  that Montanism found a determined and formidable opponent in\n  Apollinaris at Hierapolis and \u2018several other learned men of that day\n  with him,\u2019 who left large materials for a history of the movement. He\n  then goes on to say; \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 _\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2_ ... \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 ... \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f18\u03ba\n  \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f31\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u1f72 \u1f08\u03bf\u03c5\u03af\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03b5 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5,\n  \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., i.e. \u2018One of the\n  aforesaid writers at the commencement of his treatise against them\n  (the Montanists) etc.\u2019 May not the person here addressed be the\n  Abercius of the epitaph?\n\n  But if so, who is the writer that addresses him, and when did he live?\n  Some MSS omit \u03b4\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, and others substitute \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7, thus making\n  Apollinaris himself the writer. But the words seem certainly to have\n  been part of the original text, as the sense requires them; for if\n  they are omitted, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd must be connected with \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd,\n  where it is not wanted. Thus Eusebius quotes the writer anonymously;\n  and those who assign the treatise to Apollinaris cannot plead the\n  authority of the original text of the historian himself.\n\n  But after all may it not have been written by Apollinaris, though\n  Eusebius was uncertain about the authorship? He quotes in succession\n  three \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 or treatises, speaking of them as though they\n  emanated from the same author. The first of these, from which the\n  address to Avircius Marcellus is quoted, might very well have been\n  composed soon after the Montanist controversy broke out (as Eusebius\n  himself elsewhere states was the case with the work of Apollinaris,\n  iv. 27 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 ... \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c6\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2); but\n  the second and third distinctly state that they were written some time\n  after the death of Montanus. May not Eusebius have had before him a\n  volume containing a collection of tracts against Montanism \u2018by\n  Claudius Apollinaris and others,\u2019 in which the authorship of the\n  several tracts was not distinctly marked? This hypothesis would\n  explain the words with which he prefaces his extracts, and would also\n  account for his vague manner of quotation. It would also explain the\n  omission of \u03b4\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 in some texts (the ancient Syriac version boldly\n  substitutes the name of Apollinaris), and would explain how Rufinus,\n  Nicephorus, and others, who might have had independent information,\n  ascribed the treatise to this father. I have already pointed out how\n  Eusebius was led into a similar error of connecting together several\n  martyrologies and treating them as contemporaneous, because they were\n  collected in the same volume (p. 48, note 161). Elsewhere too I have\n  endeavoured to show that he mistook the authorship of a tract which\n  was bound up with others, owing to the absence of a title (_Caius or\n  Hippolytus?_ in the _Journal of Philology_ I. p. 98 sq.).\n\n  On this hypothesis, Claudius Apollinaris would very probably be the\n  author of the first of these treatises. If so, it would appear to have\n  been written while he was still a presbyter, at the instigation of his\n  bishop Avircius Marcellus whom he succeeded not long after in the see\n  of Hierapolis.\n\n  If on the other hand Eusebius has correctly assigned the first\n  treatise to the same writer as the second and third, who must have\n  written after the beginning of the third century, Avircius Marcellus\n  to whom it is addressed cannot have held the see of Hierapolis during\n  the reign of M. Aurelius (A.D. 161\u2013180); and, if he was ever bishop of\n  this city, must have been a successor, not a predecessor, of Claudius\n  Apollinaris. In this case we have the alternative of abandoning the\n  identification of this Avircius with the Hierapolitan bishop of the\n  same name, or of rejecting the statement of the Acts which places his\n  episcopate in this reign.\n\n  The occurrence of the name Abercius in the later history of the see of\n  Hierapolis (see p. 55) is no argument against the existence of this\n  earlier bishop. It was no uncommon practice for the later occupants of\n  sees to assume the name of some famous predecessor who lived in\n  primitive or early times. The case of Ignatius at Antioch is only one\n  of several examples which might be produced.\n\n  There is some ground for supposing that, like Papias and Apollinaris,\n  Abercius earned a place in literary history. Baronio had in his hands\n  an epistle to M. Aurelius, purporting to have been written by this\n  Abercius, which he obviously considered genuine and which he describes\n  as \u2018apostolicum redolens spiritum,\u2019 promising to publish it in his\n  Annals (_Martyr. Rom._ Oct. 22). To his great grief however he\n  afterwards lost it (\u2018doluimus vehementer e manibus nostris elapsam\n  nescio quomodo\u2019), and was therefore unable to fulfil his promise\n  (_Annal._ s. a. 163, n. 15). A \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 by Abercius is\n  mentioned in the Acts (\u00a7 39); but this, if it ever existed, was\n  doubtless spurious.\n\n[Sidenote: CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS bishop of Hierapolis.]\n\nThe literary character of the see of Hierapolis, which had been\ninaugurated by Papias, was ably sustained by CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS. His\nsurname, which seems to have been common in these parts[173], may have\nbeen derived from the patron deity of Hierapolis[174] and suggests a\nGentile origin. His intimate acquaintance with heathen literature, which\nis mentioned by more than one ancient writer, points in the same\ndirection. During the reign of M. Aurelius he had already made himself a\nname by his writings, and seems to have been promoted to the see of\nHierapolis before the death of that emperor[175].\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n  Some of the family, as we may infer from the monuments, held a high\n  position in another Phrygian town. On a tablet at \u00c6zani, on which is\n  inscribed a letter from the emperor Septimius Severus in reply to the\n  congratulations of the people at the elevation of Caracalla to the\n  rank of Augustus (A.D. 198), we find the name of ==\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03f2 .\n  \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03f2 . \u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03f2==, Boeckh 3837 (see III. p. 1066 add.). In\n  another inscription at the same place, the same or another member of\n  the family is commemorated as holding the office of pr\u00e6tor for the\n  second time, ==\u03f2\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03f2 . \u03c4\u03bf . \u03b2 . \u03ba\u03bb . \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5==; Boeckh\n  3840, _ib._ p. 1067. See also the inscriptions 3842 c, 3846 z (_ib._\n  pp. 1069, 1078) at the same place, where again the name Apollinarius\n  occurs. It is found also at Appia no. 3857 b (_ib._ p. 1086). At an\n  earlier date one Claudius Apollinaris appears in command of the Roman\n  fleet at Misenum (Tac. _Hist._ iii. 57, 76, 77). The name occurs also\n  at Hierapolis itself, Boeckh, no. 3915. ==\u03c0 . \u03b1\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03f2 . \u03c0 . \u03b1\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 .\n  \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 . \u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf[\u03c5] . \u03c5\u03b9\u03bf\u03f2 . \u03f2\u03b5[...] . \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2 . \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd\n  .== \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., which shows that both the forms, _Apollinaris_ and\n  _Apollinarius_, by which the bishop of Hierapolis is designated, are\n  legitimate. The former however is the correct Latin form, the latter\n  being the Greek adaptation.\n\n  More than a generation later than our Apollinaris, Origen in his\n  letter to Africanus (_Op._ I. 30, Delarue) sends greeting to a bishop\n  bearing this name (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd), of whom nothing\n  more is known.\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n  Apollo Archegetes; see above p. 12, note 42.\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n  Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26, _Chron._ s. a. 171, 172, \u2018Apollinaris Asianus,\n  Hierapolitanus episcopus, insignis habetur.\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: His literary works.]\n\nOf his works, which were very numerous, only a few scanty fragments have\nsurvived[176]. The imperfect lists however, which have reached us, bear\nample testimony both to the literary activity of the man, and to the\nprominence of the Church, over which he presided, in the great\ntheological and ecclesiastical controversies of the age.\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n  Collected in Routh\u2019s _Reliqui\u00e6 Sacr\u00e6_ I. p. 159 sq., and quite\n  recently in Otto\u2019s _Corp. Apol. Christ._ IX. p. 479 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: He takes part in the two chief controversies of the day.]\n\nThe two questions, which especially agitated the Churches of Asia Minor\nduring the last thirty years of the first century, were the celebration\nof the Easter festival and the pretensions of the Montanist prophets. In\nboth disputes Claudius Apollinaris took an active and conspicuous part.\n\n[Sidenote: 1. The Paschal question.]\n\n1. The Paschal controversy, after smouldering long both here and\nelsewhere, first burst into flames in the neighbouring Church of\nLaodicea[178]. An able bishop of Hierapolis therefore must necessarily\nhave been involved in the dispute, even if he had been desirous of\navoiding it. What side Apollinaris took in the controversy the extant\nfragments of his work do not by themselves enable us to decide; for they\ndeal merely with a subsidiary question which does not seriously affect\nthe main issue[179]. But we can hardly doubt that with Polycarp of\nSmyrna and Melito of Sardis and Polycrates of Ephesus he defended the\npractice which was universal in Asia[180], observing the Paschal\nanniversary on the 14th Nisan whether it fell on a Friday or not, and\ninvoking the authority of St John at Ephesus, and of St Philip at his\nown Hierapolis[181], against the divergent usage of Alexandria and\nPalestine and the West.\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n  See below, p. 63.\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n  The main point at issue was whether the exact day of the month should\n  be observed, as the Quartodecimans maintained, irrespective of the day\n  of the week. The fragment of Apollinaris (preserved in the _Chron.\n  Pasch._ p. 13) relates to a discrepancy which some had found in the\n  accounts of St Matthew and St John.\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n  Eusebius represents the dioceses of \u2018Asia\u2019 and the neighbourhood, as\n  absolutely unanimous; _H.E._ v. 23 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0391\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, v.\n  24 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0391\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. \u2018Asia\u2019\n  includes all this district, as appears from Polycrates, _ib._\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n  See Polycrates of Ephesus in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.\n\n[Sidenote: 2. Montanism.]\n\n2. His writings on the Montanist controversy were still more famous, and\nare recommended as an authority on the subject by Serapion of Antioch a\nfew years after the author\u2019s death[182]. Though later than many of his\nworks[183], they were written soon after Montanus had divulged the\nextravagance of his pretensions and before Montanism had attained its\ncomplete development. If a later notice may be trusted, Apollinaris was\nnot satisfied with attacking Montanism in writing, but summoned at\nHierapolis a council of twenty-six bishops besides himself, where this\nheresy was condemned and sentence of excommunication pronounced against\nMontanus together with his adherent the pretended prophetess\nMaximilla[184].\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n  In Euseb. _H.E._ v. 19.\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n  Eusebius (_H.E._ iv. 27) at the close of his list of the works of\n  Apollinarius gives \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u1f03 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1_ \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 [\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd]\n  \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd\n  \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c6\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039c\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, _i.e._ the vagaries\n  of Montanus and his followers had already begun when Apollinaris\n  wrote, but Montanism assumed a new phase shortly after.\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n  Included in the _Libellus Synodicus_ published by Pappus; see Labb.\n  _Conc._ I. 615, ed. Coleti. Though this council is not mentioned\n  elsewhere, there is no sufficient ground for questioning its\n  authenticity. The important part taken by Apollinaris against the\n  Montanists is recognised by Eusebius _H.E._ v. 16, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03a6\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f05\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f45\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n  \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n  After mentioning the council the compiler of this Synodicon speaks\n  thus of the false prophets; \u03bf\u1f33 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03ae\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ce\u03c2\n  \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 [_i.e._ \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2], \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd, \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd\n  \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03b1. He evidently has before\n  him the fragments of the anonymous treatises quoted by Eusebius\n  (_H.E._ v. 16), as the following parallels taken from these fragments\n  shew: \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9_ ... _\u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd_\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b7\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 ... _\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9_ \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd ... \u03bf\u1f36\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\n  _\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd_ \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u039c\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  _\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2_ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae. Thus he must have had before\n  him a text of Eusebius which omitted the words \u03b4\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 at the\n  commencement, as they are omitted in some existing MSS (see above, p.\n  56, note); and accordingly he ascribed all the treatises to\n  Apollinaris. The parallels are taken from the first and second\n  treatises; the first might have been written by Apollinaris, but the\n  second was certainly not by his hand, as it refers to much later\n  events (see above, p. 56).\n\n  Hefele (_Conciliengeschichte_ I. p. 71) places the date of this\n  council before A.D. 150. But if the testimony of Eusebius is worth\n  anything, this is impossible; for he states that the writings of\n  Claudius Apollinaris against the Montanists were later than his\n  Apology to M. Aurelius (see p. 59, note 183), and this Apology was not\n  written till after A.D. 174 (see p. 61, note 187). The chronology of\n  Montanism is very perplexing, but Hefele\u2019s dates appear to be much too\n  early. The _Chronicon_ of Eusebius gives the rise of Montanism under\n  A.D. 172 or 173, and this statement is consistent with the notices in\n  his History. But if this date be correct, it most probably refers to\n  Montanism as a distinct system; and the fires had probably been\n  smouldering within the Church for some time before they broke out.\n\n  It will be observed that the writer of the Synodicon identifies\n  Theodotus the Montanist (see Euseb. _H.E._ v. 3) with Theodotus the\n  leather-seller who was a Monarchian. There is no authority for this\n  identification in Eusebius.\n\n[Sidenote: His other h\u00e6resiological writings.]\n\nNor were his controversial writings confined to these two topics. In one\nplace he refuted the Encratites[185]; in another he upheld the orthodox\nteaching respecting the true humanity of Christ[186]. It is plain that\nhe did not confine himself to questions especially affecting Asia Minor;\nbut that the doctrine and the practice of the Church generally found in\nhim a vigorous advocate, who was equally opposed to the novelties of\nheretical teaching and the rigours of overstrained asceticism.\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n  Theodoret. _H.E._ i. 21.\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n  Socr. _H.E._ iii. 7.\n\nNor again did Apollinaris restrict himself to controversies carried on\nbetween Christian and Christian. He appears alike as the champion of the\nGospel against attacks from without, and as the promoter of Christian\nlife and devotion within the pale of the Church. [Sidenote: His\napologetic] On the one hand he was the author of an apology addressed to\nM. Aurelius[187], of a controversial treatise in five books against the\nGreeks, and of a second in two books against the Jews[188]; on the other\nwe find mentioned among his [Sidenote: and didactic works.] writings a\nwork in two books _on Truth_, and a second _on Piety_, besides several\nof which the titles have not come down to us[189]. He seems indeed to\nhave written on almost every subject which interested the Church of his\nage. He was not only well versed in the Scriptures, but showed a wide\nacquaintance with secular literature also[190]. His style is praised by\na competent judge[191], and his orthodoxy was such as to satisfy the\ndogmatic precision of the post-Nicene age[192].\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n  Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26, 27. He referred in this Apology to the incident\n  of the so-called Thundering Legion, which happened A.D. 174; and as\n  reported by Eusebius (_H.E._ v. 5), he stated that the legion was thus\n  named by the emperor in commemoration of this miraculous thunderstorm.\n  As a contemporary however, he must probably have known that the title\n  _Legio Fulminata_ existed long before; and we may conjecture that he\n  used some ambiguous expression implying that it was fitly so named\n  (_e.g._ \u1f10\u03c0\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2), which Eusebius and later writers\n  misunderstood; just as Eusebius himself (v. 24) speaks of Iren\u00e6us as\n  \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03bf\u03c2. Of the\n  words used by Eusebius, \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2\n  \u03b5\u1f30\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, we may suspect that \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd is an expression borrowed from Apollinaris himself, while\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 gives Eusebius\u2019 own erroneous\n  interpretation of his author\u2019s meaning.\n\n  The name of this legion was _Fulminata_, not _Fulminatrix_, as it is\n  often carelessly written out, where the inscriptions have merely\n  FVLM.; see Becker and Marquardt _R\u00f6m. Alterth._ III. 2, p. 353.\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n  The words \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd are omitted in some\n  MSS and by Rufinus. They are found however in the very ancient Syriac\n  version, and are doubtless genuine. Their omission is due to the\n  hom\u0153oteleuton, as they are immediately preceded by \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n  \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n  A list of his works is given by Eusebius (_H.E._ iv. 27), who explains\n  that there were many others which he had not seen. This list omits the\n  work on the Paschal Feast, which is quoted in the _Chronicon Paschale_\n  p. 13 (ed. Dind.), and the treatise _on Piety_, of which we know from\n  Photius _Bibl._ 14.\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n  Theodoret. _H\u00e6r. Fab._ iii. 2 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u1f72\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03be\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03ce\u03c2. So too Jerome, _Ep._ 70 (I.\n  p. 428, ed. Vallarsi), names him among those who were equally versed\n  in sacred and profane literature.\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n  Photius l.c., \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n  Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 21, Jerome l.c., Theodoret. l.c., Socr. _H.E._ iii.\n  7.\n\n[Sidenote: Important bearing of these facts on the history of\n           Christianity.]\n\nThese facts are not unimportant in their bearing on the question which\nhas been already discussed in relation to Papias. If there had been such\na discontinuity of doctrine and practice in the Church of Hierapolis as\nthe theory in question assumes, if the Pauline Gospel was repudiated in\nthe later years of the first century and rank Judaism adopted in its\nstead, how can we explain the position of Apollinaris? Obviously a\ncounter-revolution must have taken place, which undid the effects of the\nformer. One dislocation must have been compensated by another. And yet\nIren\u00e6us knows nothing of these religious convulsions which must have\nshaken the doctrine of the Church to its foundations, but represents the\ntradition as one, continuous, unbroken, reaching back through the elders\nof the Asiatic Churches, through Papias and Polycarp, to St John\nhimself\u2014Iren\u00e6us who received his Christian education in Asia Minor, who\nthroughout life was in communication with the churches there, and who\nhad already reached middle age when this second revolution is supposed\nto have occurred. The demands on our credulity, which this theory makes,\nare enormous. And its improbability becomes only the more glaring, as we\nextend our view.[Sidenote: Solidarity of the Church in the second\ncentury.] For the _solidarity_ of the Church is the one striking fact\nunmistakably revealed to us, as here and there the veil which shrouds\nthe history of the second century is lifted. Anicetus and Soter and\nEleutherus and Victor at Rome, Pant\u00e6nus and Clement at Alexandria,\nPolycrates at Ephesus, Papias and Apollinaris at Hierapolis, Polycarp at\nSmyrna, Melito at Sardis, Ignatius and Serapion at Antioch, Primus and\nDionysius at Corinth, Pothinus and Iren\u00e6us in Gaul, Philippus and\nPinytus in Crete, Hegesippus and Narcissus in Palestine, all are bound\ntogether by the ties of a common organization and the sympathy of a\ncommon creed. The Paschal controversy is especially valuable, as showing\nthe limits of divergence consistent with the unity of the Church. The\nstudy of this controversy teaches us to appreciate with ever increasing\nforce the pregnant saying of Iren\u00e6us that the difference of the usage\nestablishes the harmony of the faith[193].\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n  Iren. in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24 \u1f21 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (the fast which\n  preceded the Paschal festival) \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n[Sidenote: Activity of Laodicea.]\n\nThough Laodicea cannot show the same intellectual activity as Hierapolis\nduring the second century, yet in practical energy she is not wanting.\n\n[Sidenote: Martyrdom of Sagaris. c. A.D. 165.]\n\nThe same persecution, which, permitted if not encouraged by the imperial\nStoic, was fatal to Polycarp at Smyrna, deprived Laodicea also of her\nbishop Sagaris[194]. The exact year in which he fell a martyr is not\nknown; but we can hardly be wrong in assuming that his death was nearly\ncoincident with those of Polycarp and his companions. His name appears\nto have been held in great honour[195].\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n  Melito in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03a3\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a0\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c5\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n  \u1f08\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u1fa7 \u03a3\u03ac\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f74 \u1f10\u03bd \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3\n  \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 (_i.e._ Melito\u2019s own treatise on the Paschal festival).\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n  Besides Melito (l.c.), Polycrates of Ephesus refers to him with\n  respect; Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24, \u03c4\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03a3\u03ac\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1, \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[Sidenote: Outbreak of the Paschal controversy.]\n\nBut while the Church of Laodicea was thus contending against foes\nwithout, she was also torn asunder by feuds within. Coincident with the\nmartyrdom of Sagaris was the outburst of the Paschal controversy, of\nwhich mention has been already made, and which for more than a century\nand a half disturbed the peace of the Church, until it was finally laid\nat rest by the Council of Nic\u00e6a. The Laodiceans would naturally regulate\ntheir festival by the Asiatic or Quartodeciman usage, strictly observing\nthe day of the month and disregarding the day of the week. But a great\ncommercial centre like Laodicea must have attracted large crowds of\nforeign Christians from Palestine or Egypt or Rome or Gaul, who were\naccustomed to commemorate the Passion always on a Friday and the\nResurrection on a Sunday according to the western practice; and in this\nway probably the dispute arose. The treatise _on the Paschal Festival_\nby Melito of Sardis was written on this occasion to defend the Asiatic\npractice. The fact that Laodicea became the head-quarters of the\ncontroversy is a speaking testimony to the prominence of this Church in\nthe latter half of the second century.\n\n[Sidenote: Hierapolis and Laodicea in later history.]\n\nAt a later date the influence of both Hierapolis and Laodicea has\nsensibly declined. In the great controversies of the fourth s and fifth\ncenturies they take no conspicuous part. Among their bishops there is\nnot one who has left his mark on history. And yet their names appear at\nmost of the great Councils, in which they bear a silent part. [Sidenote:\nThe _Arian_ heresy. NIC\u00c6A A.D. 325.]At Nic\u00e6a Hierapolis was represented\nby Flaccus[196], Laodicea by Nunechius[197]. They both acquiesced in its\ndecrees, and the latter as metropolitan published them throughout the\nPhrygian Churches[198]. Soon after, both sees lapsed into Arianism.\n[Sidenote: Philippopolis A.D. 347.] At the synod of Philippopolis,\ncomposed of bishops who had seceded from the Council of Sardica, the\nrepresentatives of these two sees were present and joined in the\ncondemnation of the Athanasians. On this occasion Hierapolis was still\nrepresented by Flaccus, who had thus turned traitor to his former\nfaith[199]. On the other hand Laodicea had changed its bishop twice\nmeanwhile. Cecropius had won the imperial favour by his abuse of the\northodox party, and was first promoted to Laodicea, whence he was\ntranslated to Nicomedia[200]. He was succeeded by Nonnius, who signed\nthe Arian decree at Philippopolis[201]. When these sees recovered their\northodoxy we [Sidenote: CONSTANTINOPLE. A.D. 381.]] do not know; but it\nis perhaps a significant fact, that neither is represented at the second\ngeneral Council, held at Constantinople [Sidenote: The _Nestorian_ and\n_Eutychian_ heresies. EPHESUS. A.D. 431.] (A.D. 381)[202]. At the third\ngeneral Council, which met at Ephesus, Laodicea is represented by\nAristonicus, Hierapolis by Venantius[203]. Both bishops sign the decrees\ncondemning Nestorius. Again in the next Christological controversy which\nagitated the Church the two sees bear their part. At the notorious\n[Sidenote: Latrocinium. A.D. 449.] Robbers\u2019 Synod, held also at Ephesus,\nLaodicea was represented by another Nunechius, Hierapolis by Stephanus.\nBoth bishops committed themselves to the policy of Dioscorus and the\nopinions of the heretic Eutyches[204]. Yet with the fickleness which\ncharacterized these sees at an earlier date during the Arian\ncontroversy, we find their representatives two years [Sidenote:\nCHALCEDON. A.D. 451.] later at the Council of Chalcedon siding with the\northodox party and condemning the Eutychian heresy which they had so\nlately supported[205]. Nunechius is still bishop of Laodicea, and\nreverses his former vote. Stephanus has been succeeded at Hierapolis by\nAbercius, whose orthodoxy, so far as we know, had not been compromised\nby any previous expression of opinion[206].\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n  Labb. _Conc._ II. 57, 62, ed. Coleti; Cowper\u2019s _Syriac Miscellanies_\n  p. 11, 28. It is remarkable that after Papias all the early bishops of\n  Hierapolis of whom any notice is preserved, have Roman names; Avircius\n  Marcellus (?), Claudius Apollinaris, Flaccus, Lucius, Venantius.\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n  Labb. _Conc._ II. 57, 62; Cowper\u2019s _Syriac Miscellanies_ pp. 11, 28,\n  34. He had also been present at the Synod of Ancyra held about A.D.\n  314 (see _Galatians_ p. 34); _ib._ p. 41.\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n  Labb. _Conc._ II. 236.\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n  _ib._ 744.\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n  Athanas. _ad Episc. \u00c6gypt._ 8 (_Op._ I. p. 219), _Hist. Arian. ad\n  Mon._ 74 (_ib._ p. 307).\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n  Labb. _Conc._ II. 744.\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n  Cowper\u2019s _Syriac Miscell._ p. 39.\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n  Labb. _Conc._ III. 1085, 1222, Mans. _Conc._ IV. 1367. The name of\n  this bishop of Hierapolis is variously written, but Venantius seems to\n  be the true orthography. For some unexplained reason, though present\n  in person he signs by deputy. He had before subscribed the protest to\n  Cyril against commencing the proceedings before the arrival of John of\n  Antioch (Mans. _Conc._ V. 767), and perhaps his acquiescence in the\n  decisions of the Council was not very hearty.\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n  Labb. _Conc._ IV. 892, 925, 928, 1107, 1170, 1171, 1185. In the Acts\n  of this heretical council, as occasionally in those of the Council of\n  Chalcedon, Laodicea is surnamed _Trimitaria_ (see above, p. 18, note\n  2). Following Le Quien (_Or. Christ._ I. p. 835), I have assumed the\n  Stephanus who was present at the _Latrocinium_ to have been bishop of\n  the _Phrygian_ Hierapolis, though I have not found any decisive\n  indication which Hierapolis is meant. On the other hand the bishop of\n  the _Syrian_ Hierapolis at this time certainly bore the name Stephanus\n  (Labb. _Conc._ IV. 727, 1506, [1550], 1644, 1836, V. 46); and the\n  synod held under Stephanus A.D. 445, which Wiltsch (_Geography and\n  Statistics of the Church_ I. p. 170, Eng. Trans.) assigns to our\n  Hierapolis, belongs to the Syrian city of the same name, as the\n  connexion with Perrha shews: Labb. _Conc._ IV. 727, 1644.\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n  Labb. _Conc._ IV. 853, 862, 1195, 1204, 1241, 1312, 1337, 1383, 1392,\n  1444, 1445, 1463, 1480, 1481, 1496, 1501, 1505, 1716, 1732, 1736,\n  1744, 1746, 1751.\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n  The bishops of both sees are addressed by the Emperor Leo in his\n  letter respecting the Council of Chalcedon: but their replies are not\n  preserved. Nunechius is still bishop of Laodicea; but Hierapolis has\n  again changed hands, and Philippus has succeeded Abercius (Labb.\n  _Conc._ IV. 1836 sq.). Nunechius of Laodicea was one of those who\n  signed the decree against simony at the Council of Constantinople\n  (A.D. 459): _Conc._ V. 50.\n\n[Sidenote: Later vacillation of these sees.]\n\nThe history of these churches at a later date is such as might have been\nanticipated from their attitude during the period of the first Four\nGeneral Councils. The sees of Laodicea and Hierapolis, one or both, are\nrepresented at all the more important assemblies of the Church; and the\nsame vacillation and infirmity of purpose, which had characterized their\nholders in the earlier councils, marks the proceedings of their later\nsuccessors[207].\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n  See for instance the tergiversation of Theodorus of Laodicea and\n  Ignatius of Hierapolis in the matter of Photius and the 8th General\n  Council.\n\n[Sidenote: Their comparative unimportance.]\n\nBut, though the two sees thus continue to bear witness to their\nexistence by the repeated presence of their occupants at councils and\nsynods, yet the real influence of Laodicea and Hierapolis on the Church\nat large has terminated with the close of the second century. On one\noccasion only did either [Sidenote: COUNCIL OF LAODICEA an exception.]\ncommunity assume a position of prominence. About the middle of the\nfourth century a council was held at Laodicea[208]. It [Sidenote: Its\ndecree on the Canon.] was convened more especially to settle some points\nof ecclesiastical discipline; but incidentally the assembled bishops\nwere led to make an order respecting the Canon of Scripture[209]. As\nthis was the first occasion in which the subject had been brought\nformally before the notice of an ecclesiastical assembly this Council of\nLaodicea secured a notoriety which it would not otherwise have obtained,\nand to which it was hardly entitled by its constitution or its\nproceedings. Its decrees were confirmed and adopted by later councils\nboth in the East and in the West[210].\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n  This council cannot have been held earlier than the year 344, as the\n  7th canon makes mention of the Photinians, and Photinus did not\n  attract notice before that year: see Hefele, _Conciliengesch._ I. p.\n  722 sq. In the ancient lists of Councils it stands after that of\n  Antioch (A.D. 341), and before that of Constantinople (A.D. 381). Dr\n  Westcott (_History of the Canon_, p. 400) is inclined to place it\n  about A.D. 363, and this is the time very generally adopted.\n\n  Here however a difficulty presents itself, which has not been noticed\n  hitherto. In the Syriac MS _Brit. Mus._ Add. 14,528, are lists of the\n  bishops present at the earlier councils, including Laodicea (see\n  Wright\u2019s _Catalogue of the Syriac MSS in the British Museum_, DCCCVI,\n  p. 1030 sq.). These lists have been published by Cowper (_Syriac\n  Miscell._ p. 42 sq., _Analecta Nic\u00e6na_ p. 36), who however has\n  transposed the lists of Antioch and Laodicea, so that he ascribes to\n  the Antiochian Synod the names which really belong to the Laodicean.\n  This is determined (as I am informed by Prof. Wright) by the position\n  of the lists.\n\n  The Laodicean list then, which seems to be imperfect, contains twenty\n  names; and, when examined, it yields these results. (1) At least\n  three-fourths of the names can be identified with bishops who sat at\n  Nic\u00e6a, and probably the exceptions would be fewer, if in some cases\n  they had not been obscured by transcription into Syriac and by the\n  errors of copyists. (2) When identified, they are found to belong in\n  almost every instance to C\u0153lesyria, Ph\u0153nicia, Palestine,\n  Cilicia, and Isauria, whereas apparently not one comes from Phrygia,\n  Lydia, or the other western districts of Asia Minor.\n\n  Supposing that this is a genuine Laodicean list, we are led by the\n  first result to place it as near in time as possible to the Council of\n  Nic\u00e6a; and by the second to question whether after all the Syrian\n  Laodicea may not have been meant instead of the Phrygian. On the other\n  hand tradition is unanimous in placing this synod in the Phrygian\n  town, and in this very Syriac MS the heading of the canons begins \u2018Of\n  the Synod of Laodicea of Phrygia.\u2019 On the whole it appears probable\n  that this supposed list of bishops who met at Laodicea belongs to some\n  other Council. The Laodicean Synod seems to have been, as Dr Westcott\n  describes it (l.c.), \u2018A small gathering of clergy from parts of Lydia\n  and Phrygia.\u2019\n\n  In a large mosaic in the Church at Bethlehem, in which all the more\n  important Councils are represented, we find the following inscription;\n  [\u1f29] \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21 \u1f10\u03bd \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u039c\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u1f72 [\u03c4]\u1f70[\u03c2] \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd[\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2] \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u1f10\u03c7\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f21 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd (Ciampini _de Sacr.\n  \u00c6dif. a Constant. constr._ p. 156; comp. Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 8953).\n  From its position we might infer that the synod to which this\n  inscription refers was supposed to have taken place before the Council\n  of Nic\u00e6a; and if so, it may have been one of those Asiatic synods held\n  against Montanism at the end of the second or beginning of the third\n  century. But, inasmuch as no record of any such synod is preserved\n  elsewhere, we must probably refer it to the well-known Council of\n  Laodicea in the fourth century. In this case however the description\n  is not very correct, for though Montanism is incidentally condemned in\n  the eighth canon, yet this condemnation was not the main object of the\n  council and occupies a very subordinate place. The Bethlehem mosaics\n  were completed A.D. 1169: see Boeckh _C. I._ 8736.\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n  The canons of this Council, 59 in number, will be found in Labb.\n  _Conc._ I. 1530 sq., ed. Coleti. The last of these forbids the reading\n  of any but \u2018the Canonical books of the New and Old Testament.\u2019 To this\n  is often appended (sometimes as a 60th canon) a list of the Canonical\n  books; but Dr Westcott has shown that this list is a later addition\n  and does not belong to the original decrees of the council (_Canon_ p.\n  400 sq.).\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n  By the Quinisextine Council (A.D. 692) in the East (Labb. _Conc._ VII.\n  1345), and by the Synod of Aix-la-Chapelle (A.D. 789) in the West\n  (_Conc._ IX. 10 sq.).\n\n[Sidenote: Its decrees illustrate the Epistle to the Colossians.]\n\nMore important however for my special purpose, than the influence of\nthis synod on the Church at large, is the light which its canons throw\non the heretical tendencies of this district, and on the warnings of St\nPaul in the Colossian Epistle. To illustrate this fact it will only be\nnecessary to write out some of these canons at length:\n\n[Sidenote: Col. ii. 14, 16, 17.]\n\n29. \u2018It is not right for Christians to Judaize and abstain from labour\non the sabbath, but to work on this same day. They should pay respect\nrather to the Lord\u2019s day, and, if possible, abstain from labour on it as\nChristians. But if they should be found Judaizers, let them be anathema\nin the sight of Christ.\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: Col. ii. 18.]\n\n35. \u2018It is not right for Christians to abandon the Church of God and go\naway and invoke angels (\u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd)[211] and hold conventicles\n(\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd); for these things are forbidden. If therefore any one\nis found devoting himself to this secret idolatry, let him be anathema,\nbecause he abandoned our Lord Jesus Christ and went after idolatry.\u2019\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n  Theodoret about a century after the Laodicean Council, commenting on\n  Col. ii. 18, states that this disease (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2) which St Paul\n  denounces \u2018long remained in Phrygia and Pisidia.\u2019 \u2018For this reason\n  also,\u2019 he adds, \u2018a synod convened in Laodicea of Phrygia forbad by a\n  decree the offering prayer to angels; and even to the present time\n  oratories of the holy Michael may be seen among them and their\n  neighbours.\u2019 See also below p. 71, note 219. A curious inscription,\n  found in the theatre at Miletus (Boeckh _C. I._ 2895), illustrates\n  this tendency. It is an inscription in seven columns, each having a\n  different planetary symbol, and a different permutation of the vowels\n  with the same invocation ==\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b5 . \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd . \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd . \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd . \u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03f2\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd .\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 . \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03f2 . \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03f2 . \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03f2==, while at the common base is\n  written ==\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 . \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03f2\u03f2\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 . \u03b7 . \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03f2 . \u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03f2\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd . \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 .\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03f2 . \u03bf\u03b9 . \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4...== Boeckh writes, \u2018Etsi hic titulus Gnosticorum\n  et Basilidianorum commentis prorsus congruus est, tamen potuit ab\n  ethnicis Milesiis scriptus esse; quare nolui eum inter Christianos\n  rejicere, quum pr\u00e6sertim public\u00e6 Milesiorum superstitionis documentum\n  insigne sit.\u2019 The idea of the seven h\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, combined in the one\n  \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03ac\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, seems certainly to point to Jewish, if not Christian,\n  influences: Rev. i. 4, iii. 1, iv. 5, v. 6.\n\n36. \u2018It is not right for priests or clergy to be magicians or enchanters\nor mathematicians or astrologers[212], or to make safe-guards\n(\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1) as they are called, for such things are prisons\n(\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1) of their souls[213]: and we have enjoined that they which\nwear them be cast out of the Church.\u2019\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n  Though there is no direct mention of \u2018magic\u2019 in the letter to the\n  Colossians, yet it was a characteristic tendency of this part of Asia:\n  Acts xix. 19, 2 Tim. iii. 8, 13. See the note on Gal. v. 20. The term\n  \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 is used in this decree in its ordinary sense of\n  astrologers, soothsayers.\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n  A Play on the double sense of \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (1) a safeguard or amulet,\n  (2) a guard-house.\n\n37. \u2018It is not right to receive from Jews or heretics the festive\nofferings which they send about, nor to join in their festivals.\u2019\n\n38. \u2018It is not right to receive unleavened bread from the Jews or to\nparticipate in their impieties.\u2019\n\nIt is strange, at this late date, to find still lingering in these\nchurches the same readiness to be \u2018judged in respect of an holiday or a\nnew moon or a sabbath,\u2019 with the same tendency to relinquish the hold of\nthe Head and to substitute \u2018a voluntary humility and worshipping of\nangels,\u2019 which three centuries before had called forth the Apostle\u2019s\nrebuke and warning in the Epistle to the Colossians.\n\n[Sidenote: Ecclesiastical status of Laodicea and Hierapolis.]\n\nDuring the flourishing period of the Eastern Church, Laodicea appears as\nthe metropolis of the province of Phrygia Pacatiana, counting among its\nsuffragan bishoprics the see of Coloss\u00e6[214]. On the other hand\nHierapolis, though only six miles distant, belonged to the neighbouring\nprovince of Phrygia Salutaris[215], whose metropolis was Synnada, and of\nwhich it was one of the most important sees. The stream of the Lycus\nseems to have formed the boundary line between the two ecclesiastical\nprovinces. At a later date Hierapolis itself was raised to metropolitan\nrank[216].\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n  A list of the bishoprics belonging to this province at the time of the\n  Council of Chalcedon is given, Labb. _Conc._ IV. 1501, 1716.\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n  _Conc._ IV. 1716, 1744.\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n  At the 5th and 6th General Councils (A.D. 553 and A.D. 680) Hierapolis\n  is styled a metropolis (Labb. _Conc._ VI. 220, VII. 1068, 1097, 1117);\n  and in the latter case it is designated metropolis of _Phrygia\n  Pacatiana_, though this same designation is still given to Laodicea.\n  Synnada retains its position as metropolis of _Phrygia Salutaris_.\n\n  From this time forward Hierapolis seems always to hold metropolitan\n  rank. But no notice is preserved of the circumstances under which the\n  change was made. In the _Notiti\u00e6_ it generally occurs twice\u2014first as a\n  suffragan see of Phrygia Salutaris, and secondly as metropolis of\n  another Phrygia Pacatiana (distinct from that which has Laodicea for\n  its metropolis): _Hieroclis Synecdemus et Notiti\u00e6_ (ed. Parthey) Not.\n  1, pp. 56, 57, 69, 73; Not. 3, pp. 114, 124; Not. 7, pp. 152, 161;\n  Not. 8, pp. 164, 176, 180; Not. 9, pp. 193, 197; Not. 10, pp. 212,\n  220. In this latter position it is placed quite out of the proper\n  geographical order, thus showing that its metropolitan jurisdiction\n  was created comparatively late. The number of dioceses in the province\n  is generally given as 9; Nilus _ib._ p. 301. The name of the province\n  is variously corrupted from \u03a0\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2, e.g. \u039a\u03b1\u03c0\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2, \u039a\u03b1\u03c0\u03c0\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n  Unless the ecclesiastical position of Hierapolis was altogether\n  anomalous, as a province within a province, its double mention in the\n  _Notiti\u00e6_ must be explained by a confusion of its earlier and later\n  status.\n\n[Sidenote: Obscurity of Coloss\u00e6.]\n\nBut while Laodicea and Hierapolis held the foremost place in the records\nof the early Church, and continued to bear an active, though\ninconspicuous part, in later Christian history, Coloss\u00e6 was from the\nvery first a cipher. The town itself, as we have seen, was already\nwaning in importance, when the Apostle wrote; and its subsequent decline\nseems to have been rapid. Not a single event in Christian history is\nconnected with its name; and its very existence is only rescued from\noblivion, when at long intervals some bishop of Coloss\u00e6 attaches his\nsignature to the decree of an ecclesiastical synod. The city ceased to\nstrike coins in the reign of Gordian (A.D. [Sidenote: It is supplanted\nby Chon\u00e6.] 238\u2013244)[217]. It fell gradually into decay, being supplanted\nby the neighbouring town Chon\u00e6, the modern Chonos, so called from the\nnatural funnels by which the streams here disappear in underground\nchannels formed by the incrustations of travertine[218]. We may\nconjecture also that its ruin was hastened by a renewed assault of its\nancient enemy, the earthquake[219]. It is commonly said that Chon\u00e6 is\nbuilt on the site of the ancient Coloss\u00e6; but the later town stands at\nsome distance from the earlier, as Salisbury does from Old Sarum. The\nepiscopal see necessarily followed the population; though for some time\nafter its removal to the new town the bishop still continued to use the\nolder title, with or without the addition of Chon\u00e6 by way of\nexplanation, till at length the name of this primitive Apostolic Church\npasses wholly out of sight[220].\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n  See Mionnet IV. p. 269, Leake _Numism. Hellen._ p. 45.\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n  Joannes Curopalata p. 686 (ed. Bonn.) \u03c6\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7 ... \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03a4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n  \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03ce\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03cc\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n  \u03b8\u03b1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bd\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u1fb3 ...\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03bb\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ae\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f31\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b5 _\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9_ \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\n  \u03c4\u1f78 \u1fe5\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03b9\u1f70\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03b5\u03c5\u03b3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9,\n  \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The \u2018worship of angels\u2019 is curiously connected with the\n  physical features of the country in the legend to which Curopalata\n  refers. The people were in imminent danger from a sudden inundation of\n  the Lycus, when the archangel Michael appeared and opened a chasm in\n  the earth through which the waters flowed away harmlessly: Hartley\u2019s\n  _Researches in Greece_ p. 53. See another legend, or another version\n  of the legend, in which the archangel interposes, in Laborde p. 103.\n\n  It was the birth-place of Nicetas Choniates, one of the most important\n  of the Byzantine historians, who thus speaks of it (_de Manuel_ vi. 2,\n  p. 230, ed. Bonn.); \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c2\n  \u03a7\u03ce\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u1f7c\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.,\n  where a corrupt reading \u03a0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u1f70\u03c2 for \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u1f70\u03c2 has misled some. It will\n  be remembered that the words \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd are borrowed\n  from Xenophon\u2019s description of Coloss\u00e6 (_Anab._ i. 2. 6): see above,\n  p. 15, note 52.\n\n  He again alludes to his native place, _de Isaac._ ii. 2, pp. 52, 3\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a6\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c7\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a7\u03c9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, and _Urbs Capta_ 16, p. 842, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f24\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u039d\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03a7\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\n  \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n  Thus Hamilton (I. p. 514) reports that an earthquake which occurred at\n  Denizli about a hundred years ago caused the inhabitants to remove\n  their residences to a different locality, where they have remained\n  ever since. Earthquakes have been largely instrumental in changing the\n  sites of cities situated within the range of their influence.\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n  At the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) Nunechius of Laodicea\n  subscribes \u2018for the absent bishops under him,\u2019 among whom is mentioned\n  \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd (Labb. _Conc._ IV. 1501, ed. Coleti; comp.\n  _ib._ 1745). At the Quinisextine Council (A.D. 692) occurs the\n  signature of \u039a\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fc6\u03c2 (_sic_) \u03a0\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2\n  (_Conc._ VII. 1408). At the 2nd Council of Nic\u00e6a (A.D. 787) the name\n  of the see is in a transition state; the bishop Theodosius (or\n  Dositheus) signs himself sometimes \u03a7\u03c9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd, sometimes\n  \u03a7\u03c9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd simply (_Conc._ VIII. 689, 796, 988, 1200, 1222, 1357, 1378,\n  1432, 1523, 1533, in many of which passages the word \u03a7\u03c9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd is grossly\n  corrupted). At later Councils the see is called \u03a7\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9; and this is the\n  name which it bears in the _Notiti\u00e6_ (pp. 97, 127, 199, 222, 303, ed.\n  Parthey).\n\n[Sidenote: Turkish conquest.]\n\nThe Turkish conquest pressed with more than common severity on these\ndistricts. When the day of visitation came, the Church was taken by\nsurprise. Occupied with ignoble quarrels and selfish interests, she had\nno ear for the voice of Him who demanded admission. The door was barred\nand the knock unheeded. The long-impending doom overtook her, and the\ngolden candlestick was removed for ever from the Eternal Presence[221].\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n  For the remains of Christian churches at Laodicea see Fellows _Asia\n  Minor_ p. 282, Pococke p. 74. A description of the three fine churches\n  at Hierapolis is given in Fergusson\u2019s _Illustrated Handbook of\n  Architecture_ II. p. 967 sq.; comp. Texier _Asie Mineure_ I. p. 143.\n\n\n\n\n                                  II.\n                         THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Two elements in the Colossian heresy.]\n\nFrom the language of St Paul, addressed to the Church of Coloss\u00e6, we may\ninfer the presence of two disturbing elements which threatened the\npurity of Christian faith and practice in this community. These elements\nare distinguishable in themselves, though it does not follow that they\npresent the teaching of two distinct parties.\n\n[Sidenote: 1. JUDAIC.]\n\n1. A mere glance at the epistle suffices to detect the presence of\nJUDAISM in the teaching which the Apostle combats. The observance of\nsabbaths and new moons is decisive in this respect. The distinction of\nmeats and drinks points in the same direction[222]. Even the enforcement\nof the initiatory rite of Judaism may be inferred from the contrast\nimplied in St Paul\u2019s recommendation of the spiritual circumcision[223].\n\n[Sidenote: 2. GNOSTIC.]\n\n2. On the other hand a closer examination of its language shows that\nthese Judaic features do not exhaust the portraiture of the heresy or\nheresies against which the epistle is directed. We discern an element of\ntheosophic speculation, which is alien to the spirit of Judaism proper.\nWe are confronted with a shadowy mysticism, which loses itself in the\ncontemplation of the unseen world. We discover a tendency to interpose\ncertain spiritual agencies, intermediate beings, between God and man, as\nthe instruments of communication and the objects of worship[224].\nAnticipating the result which will appear more clearly hereafter, we may\nsay that along with its Judaism there was a GNOSTIC element in the false\nteaching which prevailed at Coloss\u00e6.\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n  Col. ii. 16, 17, 21 sq.\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n  ii. 11.\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n  ii. 4, 8, 18, 23.\n\n[Sidenote: Are these combined or separate?]\n\nHave we then two heresies here, or one only? Were these elements\ndistinct, or were they fused into the same system? In other words, Is St\nPaul controverting a phase of Judaism on the one hand, and a phase of\nGnosticism on the other; or did he find himself in conflict with a\nJud\u00e6o-Gnostic heresy which combined the two[225]?\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n  The Colossian heresy has been made the subject of special\n  dissertations by SCHNECKENBURGER _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Einleitung ins N. T._\n  (Stuttgart 1832), and _Ueber das Alter der j\u00fcdischen Proselyten-Taufe,\n  nebst einer Beilage \u00fcber die Irrlehrer zu Coloss\u00e4_ (Berlin 1828); by\n  OSIANDER _Ueber die Colossischen Irrlehrer_ (_T\u00fcbinger Zeitschrift_\n  for 1834, III. p. 96 sq.); and by RHEINWALD _De Pseudodoctoribus\n  Colossensibus_ (Bonn 1834). But more valuable contributions to the\n  subject will often be found in introductions to the commentaries on\n  the epistle. Those of BLEEK, DAVIES, MEYER, OLSHAUSEN, STEIGER, and DE\n  WETTE may be mentioned. Among other works which may be consulted are\n  BAUR _Der Apostel Paulus_ p. 417 sq.; BOEHMER _Isagoge in Epistolam ad\n  Colossenses_, Berlin 1829, p. 56 sq., p. 277 sq.; BURTON _Inquiry into\n  the Heresies of the Apostolic Age_, Lectures IV, V; EWALD _Die\n  Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus_ p. 462 sq.; HILGENFELD _Der\n  Gnosticismus u. das Neue Testament_ in the _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch.\n  Theol._ XIII. p. 233 sq.; R. A. LIPSIUS in _Schenkels Bibel-Lexikon_,\n  s.v. Gnosis; MAYERHOFF _Der Brief an die Colosser_ p. 107 sq.; NEANDER\n  _Planting of the Christian Church_ I. p. 319 sq. (Eng. Trans.); DE\n  PRESSENS\u00c9 _Trois Premiers Si\u00e8cles_ II. p. 194 sq.; STORR _Opuscula_\n  II. p. 149 sq.; THIERSCH _Die Kirche im Apostolischen Zeitalter_ p.\n  146 sq. Of all the accounts of these Colossian false teachers, I have\n  found none more satisfactory than that of Neander, whose opinions are\n  followed in the main by the most sober of later writers.\n\n  In the investigation which follows I have assumed that the Colossian\n  false teachers were Christians in some sense. The views maintained by\n  some earlier critics, who regarded them as (1) Jews, or (2) Greek\n  philosophers, or (3) Chaldean magi, have found no favour and do not\n  need serious consideration. See Meyer\u2019s introduction for an\n  enumeration of such views. A refutation of them will be found in\n  Bleek\u2019s _Vorlesungen_ p. 12 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: General reasons for supposing one heresy only, in which they\n           are fused.]\n\nOn closer examination we find ourselves compelled to adopt the latter\nalternative. The epistle itself contains no hint that the Apostle has\nmore than one set of antagonists in view; and the needless\nmultiplication of persons or events is always to be deprecated in\nhistorical criticism. Nor indeed does the hypothesis of a single complex\nheresy present any real difficulty. If the two elements seem\nirreconcileable, or at least incongruous, at first sight, the\nincongruity disappears on further examination. It will be shown in the\ncourse of this investigation, that some special tendencies of religious\nthought among the Jews themselves before and about this time prepared\nthe way for such a combination in a Christian community like the Church\nof Coloss\u00e6[226]. Moreover we shall find that the Christian heresies of\nthe next succeeding ages exhibit in a more developed form the same\ncomplex type, which here appears in its nascent state[227]; this later\ndevelopment not only showing that the combination was historically\npossible in itself, but likewise presupposing some earlier stage of its\nexistence such as confronts us at Coloss\u00e6.\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n  See below, p. 83 sq.\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n  See below, p. 107 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: S. Paul\u2019s language is decisive on this point.]\n\nBut in fact the Apostle\u2019s language hardly leaves the question open. The\ntwo elements are so closely interwoven in his refutation, that it is\nimpossible to separate them. He passes backwards and forwards from the\none to the other in such a way as to show that they are only parts of\none complex whole. On this point the logical connexion of the sentences\nis decisive: \u2018Beware lest any man make spoil of you through philosophy\nand vain deceit after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the\nworld.... Ye were circumcised with a circumcision not made with\nhands.... And you ... did He quicken, ... blotting out the handwriting\nof ordinances which was against you.... Let no man therefore judge you\nin meat or drink, or in respect of a holy day or a new moon or a\nsabbath.... Let no man beguile you of your prize in a self-imposed\nhumility and service of angels.... If ye died with Christ from the\nrudiments of the world, why ... are ye subject to ordinances ... which\nthings have a show of wisdom in self-imposed service and humility and\nhard treatment of the body, but are of no value against indulgence of\nthe flesh[228].\u2019 Here the superior wisdom, the speculative element which\nis characteristic of Gnosticism, and the ritual observance, the\npractical element which was supplied by Judaism, are regarded not only\nas springing from the same stem, but also as intertwined in their\ngrowth. And the more carefully we examine the sequence of the Apostle\u2019s\nthoughts, the more intimate will the connexion appear.\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n  Col. ii. 8\u201323. Hilgenfeld (_Der Gnosticismus_ etc. p. 250 sq.)\n  contends strenuously for the separation of the two elements. He argues\n  that \u2018these two tendencies are related to one another as fire and\n  water, and nothing stands in the way of allowing the author after the\n  first side-glance at the Gnostics to pass over with ver. 11 to the\n  Judaizers, with whom Col. ii. 16 sq. is exclusively concerned.\u2019 He\n  supposes therefore that ii. 8\u201310 refers to \u2018pure Gnostics,\u2019 and ii.\n  16\u201323 to \u2018pure Judaizers.\u2019 To this it is sufficient to answer (1)\n  That, if the two elements be so antagonistic, they managed\n  nevertheless to reconcile their differences; for we find them united\n  in several Jud\u00e6o-Gnostic heresies in the first half of the second\n  century, \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u03af\u03bd, \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd; (2) That the two passages are directly connected\n  together by \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, which occurs in both vv. 8, 20;\n  (3) That it is not a simple transition once for all from the Gnostic\n  to the Judaic element, but the epistle passes to and fro several times\n  from the one to the other; while no hint is given that two separate\n  heresies are attacked, but on the contrary the sentences are connected\n  in a logical sequence (e.g. ver. 9 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9, 10 \u1f43\u03c2, 11 \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7, 12 \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7, 13\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76, 16 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd). I hope to make this point clear in my notes on the\n  passage.\n\n  The hypothesis of more than one heresy is maintained also by Heinrichs\n  (Koppe N. T. VII. Part 2, 1803). At an earlier date it seems to be\n  favoured by Grotius (notes on ii. 16, 21); but his language is not\n  very explicit. And earlier still Calvin in his argument to the epistle\n  writes, \u2018Putant aliqui duo fuisse hominum genera, qui abducere\n  tentarent Colossenses ab evangelii puritate,\u2019 but rejects this view as\n  uncalled for.\n\n  The same question is raised with regard to the heretical teachers of\n  the Pastoral Epistles, and should probably be answered in the same\n  way.\n\n[Sidenote: Gnosticism must be defined and described.]\n\nHaving described the speculative element in this complex heresy\nprovisionally as Gnostic, I purpose enquiring in the first place, how\nfar Judaism prior to and independently of Christianity had allied itself\nwith Gnostic modes of thought; and afterwards, whether the description\nof the Colossian heresy is such as to justify us in thus classing it as\na species of Gnosticism. But, as a preliminary to these enquiries, some\ndefinition of the word, or at least some conception of the leading ideas\nwhich it involves, will be necessary. With its complex varieties and\nelaborate developments we have no concern here: for, if Gnosticism can\nbe found at all in the records of the Apostolic age, it will obviously\nappear in a simple and elementary form. Divested of its accessories and\npresented in its barest outline, it is not difficult of\ndelineation[229].\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n  The chief authorities for the history of Gnosticism are NEANDER\n  _Church History_ II. p. 1 sq.; BAUR _Die Christliche Gnosis_\n  (T\u00fcbingen, 1835); MATTER _Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme_ (2nd ed.,\n  Strasbourg and Paris, 1843); R. A. LIPSIUS _Gnosticismus_ in Ersch u.\n  Gruber _s.v._ (Leipzig, 1860); and for Gnostic art, KING _Gnostics and\n  their Remains_ (London 1864).\n\n[Sidenote: 1. Intellectual exclusiveness of Gnosticism.]\n\n1. As the name attests[230], Gnosticism implies the possession of a\nsuperior wisdom, which is hidden from others. It makes a distinction\nbetween the select few who have this higher gift, and the vulgar many\nwho are without it. Faith, blind faith, suffices the latter, while\nknowledge is the exclusive possession of the former. Thus it recognises\na separation of intellectual _caste_ in religion, introducing the\ndistinction of an esoteric and an exoteric doctrine, and interposing an\ninitiation of some kind or other between the two classes. In short it is\nanimated by the exclusive _aristocratic_ spirit[231], which\ndistinguishes the ancient religions, and from which it was a main\nfunction of Christianity to deliver mankind.\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n  See esp. Iren. i. 6. 1 sq., Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. p. 433 sq.\n  (Potter). On the words \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af, by which they designated\n  the possessors of this higher _gnosis_, see the notes on Col. i. 28,\n  and Phil. iii. 15.\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n  See Neander l.c. p. 1 sq., from whom the epithet is borrowed.\n\n[Sidenote: Speculative tenets of Gnosticism.]\n\n2. This was its spirit; and the intellectual questions, on which its\nenergies were concentrated and to which it professed to hold the key,\nwere mainly twofold. How can the work of creation be explained? and, How\nare we to account for the existence of evil[232]? To reconcile the\ncreation of the world and [Sidenote: Creation of the world, and\nexistence of evil.] the existence of evil with the conception of God as\nthe absolute Being, was the problem which all the Gnostic systems set\nthemselves to solve. It will be seen that the two questions cannot be\ntreated independently but have a very close and intimate connexion with\neach other.\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n  The fathers speak of this as the main question about which the\n  Gnostics busy themselves; _Unde malum?_ \u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b1; Tertull. _de\n  Pr\u00e6scr._ 7, _adv. Marc._ I. 2, Eus. _H.E._ v. 27; passages quoted by\n  Baur _Christliche Gnosis_ p. 19. On the leading conceptions of\n  Gnosticism see especially Neander, l.c. p. 9 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: Existence of evil, how to be explained?]\n\nThe Gnostic argument ran as follows: Did God create the world out of\nnothing, evolve it from Himself? Then, God being perfectly good and\ncreation having resulted from His sole act without any opposing or\nmodifying influence, evil would have been impossible; for otherwise we\nare driven to the conclusion that God created evil.\n\n[Sidenote: Matter the abode of evil.]\n\nThis solution being rejected as impossible, the Gnostic was obliged to\npostulate some antagonistic principle independent of God, by which His\ncreative energy was thwarted and limited. This opposing principle, the\nkingdom of evil, he conceived to be the world of matter. The precise\nidea of its mode of operation varies in different Gnostic systems. It is\nsometimes regarded as a dead passive resistance, sometimes as a\nturbulent active power. But, though the exact point of view may shift,\nthe object contemplated is always the same. In some way or other evil is\nregarded as residing in the material, sensible world. Thus Gnostic\nspeculation on the existence of evil ends in a dualism.\n\n[Sidenote: Creation, how to be explained?]\n\nThis point being conceded, the ulterior question arises: How then is\ncreation possible? How can the Infinite communicate with the Finite, the\nGood with the Evil? How can God act upon matter? God is perfect,\nabsolute, incomprehensible.\n\nThis, the Gnostic went on to argue, could only have been possible by\nsome self-limitation on the part of God. God must express Himself in\nsome way. There must be some evolution, some effluence, of Deity.\n[Sidenote: Doctrine of emanations.] Thus the Divine Being germinates, as\nit were; and the first germination again evolves a second from itself in\nlike manner. In this way we obtain a series of successive emanations,\nwhich may be more or fewer, as the requirements of any particular system\ndemand. In each successive evolution the Divine element is feebler. They\nsink gradually lower and lower in the scale, as they are farther removed\nfrom their source; until at length contact with matter is possible, and\ncreation ensues. These are the emanations, \u00e6ons, spirits, or angels, of\nGnosticism, conceived as more or less concrete and personal according to\nthe different aspects in which they are regarded in different systems.\n\n[Sidenote: 3. Practical errors of Gnosticism.]\n\n3. Such is the bare outline (and nothing more is needed for my immediate\npurpose) of the speculative views of Gnosticism. But it is obvious that\nthese views must have exerted a powerful influence on the ethical\nsystems of their advocates, and thus they would involve important\npractical consequences. If matter is the principle of evil, it is of\ninfinite moment for a man to know how he can avoid its baneful influence\nand thus keep his higher nature unclogged and unsullied.\n\n[Sidenote: Two opposite ethical rules.]\n\nTo this practical question two directly opposite answers were\ngiven[233]:\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n  On this point see Clem. _Strom._ iii. 5 (p. 529) \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f22 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2\n  \u03b6\u1fc6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f22 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, with the whole passage which follows.\n  As examples of the one extreme may be instanced the Carpocratians and\n  Cainites: of the other the Encratites.\n\n[Sidenote: (i) Rigid asceticism.]\n\n(i) On the one hand, it was contended that the desired end might best be\nattained by a rigorous abstinence. Thus communication with matter, if it\ncould not be entirely avoided, might be reduced to a minimum. Its\ngrosser defilements at all events would be escaped. The material part of\nman would be subdued and mortified, if it could not be annihilated; and\nthe spirit, thus set free, would be sublimated, and rise to its proper\nlevel. Thus the ethics of Gnosticism pointed in the first instance to a\nstrict _asceticism_.\n\n[Sidenote: (ii) Unrestrained license.]\n\n(ii) But obviously the results thus attained are very slight and\ninadequate. Matter is about us everywhere. We do but touch the skirts of\nthe evil, when we endeavour to fence ourselves about by prohibitive\nordinances, as for instance, when we enjoin a spare diet or forbid\nmarriage. Some more comprehensive rule is wanted, which shall apply to\nevery contingency and every moment of our lives. Arguing in this way,\nother Gnostic teachers arrived at an ethical rule directly opposed to\nthe former. \u2018Cultivate an entire indifference,\u2019 they said, \u2018to the world\nof sense. Do not give it a thought one way or the other, but follow your\nown impulses. The ascetic principle assigns a certain importance to\nmatter. The ascetic fails in consequence to assert his own independence.\nThe true rule of life is to treat matter as something alien to you,\ntowards which you have no duties or obligations and which you can use or\nleave unused as you like[234].\u2019 In this way the reaction from rigid\nasceticism led to the opposite extreme of unrestrained _licentiousness_,\nboth alike springing from the same false conception of matter as the\nprinciple of evil.\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n  See for instance the description of the Carpocratians in Iren. i. 25.\n  3 sq., ii. 32. 1 sq., Hippol. _H\u00e6r._ vii. 32, Epiphan. _H\u00e6r._ xxvii. 2\n  sq.; from which passages it appears that they justified their moral\n  profligacy on the principle that the highest perfection consists in\n  the most complete contempt of mundane things.\n\n[Sidenote: Original independence of Gnosticism and its subsequent\n           connexion with Christianity.]\n\nGnosticism, as defined by these characteristic features, has obviously\nno necessary connexion with Christianity[235]. Christianity would\nnaturally arouse it to unwonted activity, by leading men to dwell more\nearnestly on the nature and power of evil, and thus stimulating more\nsystematic thought on the theological questions which had already\narrested attention. After no long time Gnosticism would absorb into its\nsystem more or fewer Christian elements, or Christianity in some of its\nforms would receive a tinge from Gnosticism. But the thing itself had an\nindependent root, and seems to have been prior in time. The\nprobabilities of the case, and the scanty traditions of history, alike\npoint to this independence of the two[236]. If so, it is a matter of\nlittle moment at what precise time the name \u2018Gnostic\u2019 was adopted,\nwhether before or after contact with Christianity; for we are concerned\nonly with the growth and direction of thought which the name\nrepresents[237].\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n  It will be seen from the description in the text, that Gnosticism (as\n  I have defined it) presupposes only a belief in one God, the absolute\n  Being, as against the vulgar polytheism. All its _essential_ features,\n  as a speculative system, may be explained from this simple element of\n  belief, without any intervention of specially Christian or even Jewish\n  doctrine. Christianity added two new elements to it; (1) the idea of\n  _Redemption_, (2) the person of _Christ_. To explain the former, and\n  to find a place for the latter, henceforth become prominent questions\n  which press for solution; and Gnosticism in its several developments\n  undergoes various modifications in the endeavour to solve them.\n  Redemption must be set in some relation to the fundamental Gnostic\n  conception of the antagonism between God and matter; and Christ must\n  have some place found for Him in the fundamental Gnostic doctrine of\n  emanations.\n\n  If it be urged that there is no authority for the name \u2018Gnostic\u2019 as\n  applied to these pre-Christian theosophists, I am not concerned to\n  prove the contrary, as my main position is not affected thereby. The\n  term \u2018Gnostic\u2019 is here used, only because no other is so convenient,\n  or so appropriate. See note 239, p. 81.\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n  This question will require closer investigation when I come to discuss\n  the genuineness of the Epistle to the Colossians. Meanwhile I content\n  myself with referring to Baur _Christliche Gnosis_ p. 29 sq. and\n  Lipsius _Gnosticismus_ p. 230 sq. Both these writers concede, and\n  indeed insist upon, the non-Christian basis of Gnosticism, at least so\n  far as I have maintained it in the text. Thus for instance Baur says\n  (p. 52), \u2018Though Christian gnosis is the completion of gnosis, yet the\n  Christian element in gnosis is not so essential as that gnosis cannot\n  still be gnosis even without this element. But just as we can abstract\n  it from the Christian element, so can we also go still further and\n  regard even the Jewish as not strictly an essential element of\n  gnosis.\u2019 In another work (_Die drei ersten Jahrhunderte_, p. 167, 1st\n  ed.) he expresses himself still more strongly to the same effect, but\n  the expressions are modified in the second edition.\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n  We may perhaps gather from the notices which are preserved that,\n  though the substantive \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 was used with more or less precision\n  even before contact with Christianity to designate the superior\n  illumination of these opinions, the adjective \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af was not\n  distinctly applied to those who maintained them till somewhat later.\n  Still it is possible that pre-Christian Gnostics already so designated\n  themselves. Hippolytus speaks of the Naassenes or Ophites as giving\n  themselves this name; _H\u00e6r._ v. 6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n  \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2, \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd; comp. \u00a7\u00a7 8, 11. His\n  language seems to imply (though it is not explicit) that they were the\n  first to adopt the name. The Ophites were plainly among the earliest\n  Gnostic sects, as the heathen element is still predominant in their\n  teaching, and their Christianity seems to have been a later graft on\n  their pagan theosophy; but at what stage in their development they\n  adopted the name \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af does not appear. Iren\u00e6us (_H\u00e6r._ i. 25. 6)\n  speaks of the name as affected especially by the Carpocratians. For\n  the use of the substantive \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 see 1 Cor. viii. 1, xiii. 2, 8, 1\n  Tim. vi. 20, and the note on Col. ii. 3: comp. Rev. ii. 24 \u1f44\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n  \u1f14\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (as explained by the passage\n  already quoted from Hippol. _H\u00e6r._ v. 6; see _Galatians_, p. 298, note\n  3).\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: Its alliance with Judaism before Christianity.]\n\nIf then Gnosticism was not an offspring of Christianity, but a direction\nof religious speculation which existed independently, we are at liberty\nto entertain the question whether it did not form an alliance with\nJudaism, contemporaneously with or prior to its alliance with\nChristianity. There is at least no obstacle which bars such an\ninvestigation at the outset. If this should prove to be the case, then\nwe have a combination which prepares the way for the otherwise strange\nphenomena presented in the Epistle to the Colossians.\n\n[Sidenote: The three sects of the Jews.]\n\nThose, who have sought analogies to the three Jewish sects among the\nphilosophical schools of Greece and Rome, have compared the Sadducees to\nthe Epicureans, the Pharisees to the Stoics, and the Essenes to the\nPythagoreans. Like all historical parallels, this comparison is open to\nmisapprehension: but, carefully guarded, the illustration is pertinent\nand instructive.\n\n[Sidenote: Sadduceeism, purely negative.]\n\nWith the Sadducees we have no concern here. Whatever respect may be due\nto their attitude in the earlier stages of their history, at the\nChristian era at least they have ceased to deserve our sympathy; for\ntheir position has become mainly _negative_. They take their stand on\ndenials\u2014the denial of the existence of angels, the denial of the\nresurrection of the dead, the denial of a progressive development in the\nJewish Church. In these negative tendencies, in the materialistic\nteaching of the sect, and in the moral consequences to which it led, a\nvery rough resemblance to the Epicureans will appear[238].\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n  The name _Epicureans_ seems to be applied to them even in the Talmud;\n  see Eisenmenger\u2019s _Entdecktes Judenthum_ i. pp. 95, 694 sq.; comp.\n  Keim _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_ i. p. 281.\n\n[Sidenote: Phariseeism and Essenism compared.]\n\nThe two _positive_ sects were the Pharisees and the Essenes. Both alike\nwere strict observers of the ritual law; but, while the Pharisee was\nessentially _practical_, the tendency of the Essene was to _mysticism_;\nwhile the Pharisee was a man of the world, the Essene was a member of a\nbrotherhood. In this respect the Stoic and the Pythagorean were the\nnearest counterparts which the history of Greek philosophy and social\nlife could offer. These analogies indeed are suggested by Josephus\nhimself[239].\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n  For the Pharisees see Vit. 2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03a3\u03c4\u03c9\u03ca\u03ba\u1fc7\n  \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3: for the Essenes, _Ant._ xv. 10. 4 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019\n  \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3.\n\n[Sidenote: Elusive features of Essenism.]\n\nWhile the portrait of the Pharisee is distinctly traced and easily\nrecognised, this is not the case with the Essene. The Essene is the\ngreat enigma of Hebrew history. Admired alike by Jew, by Heathen, and by\nChristian, he yet remains a dim vague outline, on which the highest\nsubtlety of successive critics has been employed to supply a substantial\nform and an adequate colouring. An ascetic mystical dreamy recluse, he\nseems too far removed from the hard experience of life to be capable of\nrealisation.\n\n[Sidenote: A sufficiently distinct portrait of the sect attainable.]\n\nAnd yet by careful use of the existing materials the portrait of this\nsect may be so far restored, as to establish with a reasonable amount of\nprobability the point with which alone we are here concerned. It will\nappear from the delineations of ancient writers, more especially of\nPhilo and Josephus, that the characteristic feature of Essenism was a\nparticular direction of mystic speculation, involving a rigid asceticism\nas its practical consequence. Following the definition of Gnosticism\nwhich has been already given, we may not unfitly call this tendency\n_Gnostic_.\n\n[Sidenote: Main features of Essenism.]\n\nHaving anticipated the results in this statement, I shall now endeavour\nto develope the main features of Essenism; and, while doing so, I will\nask my readers to bear in mind the portrait of the Colossian heresy in\nSt Paul, and to mark the resemblances, as the enquiry proceeds[240].\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n   The really important contemporary sources of information respecting\n  the Essenes are JOSEPHUS, _Bell. Jud._ ii. 8. 2\u201313, _Ant._ xiii. 5. 9,\n  xviii. 1. 5, _Vit._ 2 (with notices of individual Essenes _Bell. Jud._\n  i. 3. 5, ii. 7. 3, ii. 20. 4, iii. 2. 1, _Ant._ xiii. 11. 2, xv. 10.\n  4, 5); and PHILO, _Quod omnis probus liber_ \u00a7 12 sq. (II. p. 457 sq.),\n  _Apol. pro Jud._ (II. p. 632 sq., a fragment quoted by Eusebius _Pr\u00e6p.\n  Evang._ viii. 11 ). The account of the Therapeutes by the latter\n  writer, _de Vita Contemplativa_ (II. p. 471 sq.), must also be\n  consulted, as describing a closely allied sect. To these should be\n  added the short notice of PLINY, _N.H._ v. 15. 17, as expressing the\n  views of a Roman writer. His account, we may conjecture, was taken\n  from Alexander Polyhistor, a contemporary of Sulla, whom he mentions\n  in his prefatory elenchus as one of his authorities for this 5th book,\n  and who wrote a work _On the Jews_ (Clem. Alex. _Strom._ i. 21, p.\n  396, Euseb. _Pr\u00e6p. Ev._ ix. 17). Significant mention of the Essenes is\n  found also in the Christian HEGESIPPUS (Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 22) and in\n  the heathen DION CHRYSOSTOM (Synesius _Dion_ 3, p. 39). EPIPHANIUS\n  (_H\u00e6r._ pp. 28 sq., 40 sq.) discusses two separate sects, which he\n  calls _Essenes_ and _Oss\u00e6ans_ respectively. These are doubtless\n  different names of the same persons. His account is, as usual,\n  confused and inaccurate, but has a certain value. All other\n  authorities are secondary. HIPPOLYTUS, _H\u00e6r._ ix. 18\u201328, follows\n  Josephus (_Bell. Jud._ ii. 8. 2 sq.) almost exclusively. PORPHYRY also\n  (_de Abstinentia_, iv. II sq.) copies this same passage of Josephus,\n  with a few unimportant exceptions probably taken from a lost work by\n  the same author, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, which he mentions by name.\n  EUSEBIUS (_Pr\u00e6p. Evang._ viii. II sq., ix. 3) contents himself with\n  quoting Philo and Porphyry. SOLINUS (_Polyh._ xxxv. 9 sq.) merely\n  abstracts Pliny. TALMUDICAL and RABBINICAL passages, supposed to\n  contain references to the Essenes, are collected by Frankel in the\n  articles mentioned in a later paragraph; but the allusions are most\n  uncertain (see the appendix to this chapter). The authorities for the\n  history of the Essenes are the subject of an article by W. Clemens in\n  the _Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol._ 1869, p. 328 sq.\n\n  The attack on the genuineness of Philo\u2019s treatise _De Vita\n  Contemplativa_ made by Gr\u00e4tz (III. p. 463 sq.) has been met by Zeller\n  (_Philosophie_, III. ii. p. 255 sq.), whose refutation is complete.\n  The attack of the same writer (III. p. 464) on the genuineness of the\n  treatise _Quod omnis probus liber_> Zeller considers too frivolous to\n  need refuting (_ib._ p. 235). A refutation will be found in the\n  above-mentioned article of W. Clemens (p. 340 sq.).\n\n  Of modern writings relating to the Essenes the following may be\n  especially mentioned; BELLERMANN _Ueber Ess\u00e4er u. Therapeuten_, Berlin\n  1821; GFR\u00d6RER _Philo_ II. p. 299 sq.; D\u00c4HNE _Ersch u. Gruber\u2019s\n  Encyklop\u00e4die_ s.v.; FRANKEL _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die religi\u00f6sen Interessen\n  des Judenthums_ 1846 p. 441 sq., _Monatschrift f\u00fcr Geschichte u.\n  Wissenschaft des Judenthums_ 1853 p. 30 sq., 61 sq.; B\u00d6TTGER_Ueber den\n  Orden der Ess\u00e4er_, Dresden 1849; EWALD _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_\n  IV. p. 420 sq., VII. p. 153 sq.; RITSCHL _Entstehung der\n  Altkatholischen Kirche_ p. 179 sq. (ed. 2, 1857), and _Theologische\n  Jahrb\u00fccher_ 1855, p. 315 sq.; JOST _Geschichte des Judenthums_ I. p.\n  207 sq.; GRAETZ _Geschichte der Juden_ III. p. 79 sq., 463 sq. (ed. 2,\n  1863); HILGENFELD _J\u00fcdische Apocalyptik_ p. 245 sq., and _Zeitschr. f.\n  Wiss. Theol._ X. p. 97 sq., XI. p. 343 sq., XIV. p. 30 sq.; WESTCOTT\n  _Smith\u2019s Dictionary of the Bible_ s.v.; GINSBURG _The Essenes_, London\n  1864, and in _Kitto\u2019s Cyclop\u00e6dia_ s.v.; DERENBOURG _L\u2019Histoire et la\n  G\u00e9ographie de la Palestine_ p. 166 sq., 460 sq.; KEIM _Geschichte Jesu\n  von Nazara_ I. p. 282 sq.; HAUSRATH _Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte_\n  I. p. 133 sq.; LIPSIUS _Schenkel\u2019s Bibel Lexikon_ s.v.; HERZFELD\n  _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_ II. 368 sq., 388 sq., 509 sq. (ed. 2,\n  1863); ZELLER _Philosophie der Griechen_ III. 2. p. 234 sq. (ed. 2,\n  1868); LANGEN _Judenthum in Pal\u00e4stina_ p. 190 sq.; L\u00d6WY\n  _Kritisch-talmudisches Lexicon_ s.v. (Wien 1863); WEISS _Zur\n  Geschichte der j\u00fcdischen Tradition_ p. 120 sq. (Wien).\n\nThe Judaic element is especially prominent in the life and teaching of\nthe sect. The Essene was exceptionally rigorous in his observance of the\nMosaic ritual. In his strict abstinence [Sidenote: Observance of the\nMosaic law.] from work on the sabbath he far surpassed all the other\nJews. He would not light a fire, would not move a vessel, would not\nperform even the most ordinary functions of life[241]. The whole day was\ngiven up to religious exercises and to exposition of the\nScriptures[242]. His respect for the law extended also to the law-giver.\nAfter God, the name of Moses was held in the highest reverence. He who\nblasphemed his name was punished with death[243]. In all these points\nthe Essene was an exaggeration, almost a caricature, of the Pharisee.\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n  _B.J._ ii. 8. 9 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 ... \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n  \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03cd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\n  \u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u1fe6\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1fe5\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Hippolytus (_H\u00e6r._ ix. 25) adds\n  that some of them do not so much as leave their beds on this day.\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n  Philo _Quod omn. prob. lib._ \u00a7 12. Of the Therapeutes see Philo _Vit.\n  Cont._ \u00a7 3, 4.\n\nFootnote 243:\n\n  _B.J._ l.c. \u00a7 9 \u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u1f02\u03bd \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd (i.e. \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd),\n  \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3: comp. \u00a7 10.\n\n[Sidenote: External elements superadded.]\n\nSo far the Essene has not departed from the principles of normal\nJudaism; but here the divergence begins. In three main points we trace\nthe working of influences, which must have been derived from external\nsources.\n\n[Sidenote: 1. Rigid asceticism, in respect to]\n\n1. To the legalism of the Pharisee, the Essene added an asceticism,\nwhich was peculiarly his own, and which in many respects contradicted\nthe tenets of the other sect. The honourable, and even exaggerated,\nestimate of marriage, which was characteristic of the Jew, and of the\nPharisee as the typical Jew, found no favour with the Essene[244].\n[Sidenote: marriage,]Marriage was to him an abomination. Those Essenes\nwho lived together as members of an order, and in whom the principles of\nthe sect were carried to their logical consequences, eschewed it\naltogether. To secure the continuance of their brotherhood they adopted\nchildren, whom they brought up in the doctrines and practices of the\ncommunity. There were others however who took a different view. They\naccepted marriage, as necessary for the preservation of the race. Yet\neven with them it seems to have been regarded only as an inevitable\nevil. They fenced it off by stringent rules, demanding a three years\u2019\nprobation and enjoining various purificatory rites[245]. The conception\nof marriage, as quickening and educating the affections and thus\nexalting and refining human life, was wholly foreign to their minds.\nWoman was a mere instrument of temptation in their eyes, deceitful,\nfaithless, selfish, jealous, misled and misleading by her passions.\n\nFootnote 244:\n\n  _B.J._ l.c. \u00a7 2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c8\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 ... \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u1f00\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1\n  \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, _Ant._ xviii. 1. 5; Philo _Fragm._ p. 633 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fc3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\n  \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1, \u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b6\u03b7\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd\n  \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f24\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, with more to the same purpose. This\n  peculiarity astonished the heathen Pliny, _N.H._ v. 15, \u2018gens sola et\n  in toto orbe pr\u00e6ter ceteros mira, sine ulla femina, venere\n  abdicata.... In diem ex \u00e6quo convenarum turba renascitur large\n  frequentantibus.... Ita per s\u00e6culorum millia (incredibile dictu) gens\n  \u00e6terna est, in qua nemo nascitur. Tam f\u0153cunda illis aliorum vit\u00e6\n  p\u0153nitentia est.\u2019\n\nFootnote 245:\n\n  _B.J._ l.c. \u00a7 13. Josephus speaks of these as \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, \u1f43\n  \u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03b8\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc7\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u1fc3. We may suppose that they corresponded to the third\n  order of a Benedictine or Franciscan brotherhood; so that, living in\n  the world, they would observe the rule up to a certain point, but\n  would not be bound by vows of celibacy or subject to the more rigorous\n  discipline of the sect.\n\n[Sidenote: meats and drinks,]\n\nBut their ascetic tendencies did not stop here. The Pharisee was very\ncareful to observe the distinction of meats lawful and unlawful, as laid\ndown by the Mosaic code, and even rendered these ordinances vexatious by\nminute definitions of his own. But the Essene went far beyond him. He\ndrank no wine, he did not touch animal food. His meal consisted of a\npiece of bread and a single mess of vegetables. Even this simple fare\nwas prepared for him by special officers consecrated for the purpose,\nthat it might be free from all contamination[246]. Nay, so stringent\nwere the rules of the order on this point, that when an Essene was\nexcommunicated, he often died of starvation, being bound by his oath not\nto take food prepared by defiled hands, and thus being reduced to eat\nthe very grass of the field[247].\n\nFootnote 246:\n\n  _B.J._ l.c. \u00a7 5; see Philo\u2019s account of the Therapeutes, _Vit. Cont._\n  \u00a7 4 \u03c3\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u1f72\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u1fc6\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f44\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd \u1f05\u03bb\u03b5\u03c2,\n  \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c3\u03c3\u03ce\u03c0\u1ff3\u00b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd\n  \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd; and again more to the same effect in \u00a7 9: and compare\n  the Essene story of St James in Hegesippus (Euseb. _H.E._ ii. 23)\n  \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c0\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03bc\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5. Their abstention from\n  animal food accounts for Porphyry\u2019s giving them so prominent a place\n  in his treatise: see Zeller, p. 243.\n\nFootnote 247:\n\n  _B.J._ l.c. \u00a7 8.\n\n[Sidenote: and oil for anointing.]\n\nAgain, in hot climates oil for anointing the body is almost a necessary\nof life. From this too the Essenes strictly abstained. Even if they were\naccidentally smeared, they were careful at once to wash themselves,\nholding the mere touch to be a contamination[248].\n\nFootnote 248:\n\n  _B.J._ l.c. \u00a7 3 \u03ba\u03b7\u03bb\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; Hegesippus\n  l.c. \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f20\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf.\n\n[Sidenote: Underlying principle of this asceticism.]\n\nFrom these facts it seems clear that Essene abstinence was something\nmore than the mere exaggeration of Pharisaic principles. The rigour of\nthe Pharisee was based on his obligation of obedience to an absolute\nexternal law. The Essene introduced a new principle. He condemned in any\nform the gratification of the natural cravings, nor would he consent to\nregard it as moral or immoral only according to the motive which\nsuggested it or the consequences which flowed from it. It was in itself\nan absolute evil. He sought to disengage himself, as far as possible,\nfrom the conditions of physical life. In short, in the asceticism of the\nEssene we seem to see the germ of that Gnostic dualism which regards\nmatter as the principle, or at least the abode, of evil.\n\n[Sidenote: 2. Speculative tenets.]\n\n2. And, when we come to investigate the speculative tenets of the sect,\nwe shall find that the Essenes have diverged appreciably from the common\ntype of Jewish orthodoxy.\n\n[Sidenote: (i) Tendency to sun-worship.]\n\n(i) Attention was directed above to their respect for Moses and the\nMosaic law, which they shared in common with the Pharisee. But there was\nanother side to their theological teaching. Though our information is\nsomewhat defective, still in the scanty notices which are preserved we\nfind sufficient indications that they had absorbed some foreign elements\nof religious thought into their system. Thus at day-break they addressed\ncertain prayers, which had been handed down from their forefathers, to\nthe Sun, \u2018as if entreating him to rise[249].\u2019 They were careful also to\nconceal and bury all polluting substances, so as not \u2018to insult the rays\nof the god[250].\u2019 We cannot indeed suppose that they regarded the sun as\nmore than a symbol of the unseen power who gives light and life; but\ntheir outward demonstrations of reverence were sufficiently prominent to\nattach to them, or to a sect derived from them, the epithet of\n\u2018Sun-worshippers[251],\u2019 and some connexion with the characteristic\nfeature of Parsee devotion at once suggests itself. The practice at all\nevents stands in strong contrast to the denunciations of worship paid to\nthe \u2018hosts of heaven\u2019 in the Hebrew prophets.\n\nFootnote 249:\n\n  _B.J._ l.c. \u00a7 5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n  \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03b3\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03ce\u03c9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n  \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03ac\u03c2, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f31\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9. Compare what Philo says of the\n  Therapeutes, _Vit. Cont._ \u00a7 3 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n  \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, and _ib._ \u00a7 11. On the attempt of Frankel (_Zeitschr._\n  p. 458) to resolve this worship, which Josephus states to be offered\n  to the sun (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd), into the ordinary prayers of the Pharisaic Jew\n  at day-break, see the appendix to this chapter.\n\nFootnote 250:\n\n  _B.J._ l.c. \u00a7 9 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f51\u03b2\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. There can be no\n  doubt, I think, that by \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 is meant the \u2018sun-god\u2019; comp. Eur.\n  _Heracl._ 749 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u03b1\u03af, _Alc._ 722 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03ad\u03b3\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, Appian _Pr\u00e6f._ 9 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, _Lib._ 113 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n  \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u1f11\u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _Civ._ iv. 79 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6: comp.\n  Herod. ii. 24. Dr Ginsburg has obliterated this very important touch\n  by translating \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u2018the Divine rays\u2019 (_Essenes_ p. 47).\n  It is a significant fact that Hippolytus (_H\u00e6r._ ix. 25) omits the\n  words \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, evidently regarding them as a stumbling-block. How\n  Josephus expressed himself in the original Hebrew of the _Bellum\n  Judaicum_, it is vain to speculate: but the Greek translation was\n  authorised, if not made, by him.\n\nFootnote 251:\n\n  Epiphan. _H\u00e6r._ xix. 2, xx. 3 \u1f48\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03ca\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n  \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f35\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, liii. 1, 2 \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u1f29\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03af, from the Hebrew \u05e9\u05de\u05e9 \u2018the sun.\u2019 The historical connexion of\n  the Samps\u00e6ans with the Essenes is evident from these passages: though\n  it is difficult to say what their precise relations to each other\n  were. See the appendix.\n\n[Sidenote: (ii) Resurrection of the body denied.]\n\n(ii) Nor again is it an insignificant fact that, while the Pharisee\nmaintained the resurrection of the body as a cardinal article of his\nfaith, the Essene restricted himself to a belief in the immortality of\nthe soul. The soul, he maintained, was confined in the flesh, as in a\nprison-house. Only when disengaged from these fetters would it be truly\nfree. Then it would soar aloft, rejoicing in its newly attained\nliberty[252]. This doctrine accords with the fundamental conception of\nthe malignity of matter. To those who held this conception a\nresurrection of the body would be repulsive, as involving a perpetuation\nof evil.\n\nFootnote 252:\n\n  _B.J._ l.c. \u00a7 11 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f15\u03c1\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f25\u03b4\u03b5 \u1f21 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1, \u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n  \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n  \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd ... \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f70\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f37\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f74\n  \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u1ff6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. To this doctrine the teaching of the Pharisees stands in direct\n  contrast; _ib._ \u00a7 13: comp. also _Ant._ xviii. 1. 3, 5.\n\n  Nothing can be more explicit than the language of Josephus. On the\n  other hand Hippolytus (_H\u00e6r._ ix. 27) says of them \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f43\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u1f00\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2\n  \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; but his authority is worthless on this point, as\n  he can have had no personal knowledge of the facts: see Zeller p. 251,\n  note 2. Hilgenfeld takes a different view; _Zeitschr._ XIV. p. 49.\n\n[Sidenote: (iii) Prohibition of sacrifices.]\n\n(iii) But they also separated themselves from the religious belief of\nthe orthodox Jew in another respect, which would provoke more notice.\nWhile they sent gifts to the temple at Jerusalem, they refused to offer\nsacrifices there[253]. It would appear that the slaughter of animals was\naltogether forbidden by their creed[254]. It is certain that they were\nafraid of contracting some ceremonial impurity by offering victims in\nthe temple. Meanwhile they had sacrifices, bloodless sacrifices, of\ntheir own. They regarded their simple meals with their accompanying\nprayers and thanksgiving, not only as devotional but even as sacrificial\nrites. Those who prepared and presided over these meals were their\nconsecrated priests[255].\n\nFootnote 253:\n\n  _Ant._ xviii. 1. 5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n  \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f03\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9. So Philo\n  _Quod omn. prob. lib._ \u00a7 12 describes them as \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b6\u1ff7\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019\n  \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 254:\n\n  The following considerations show that their abstention should\n  probably be explained in this way: (1) Though the language of Josephus\n  may be ambiguous, that of Philo is unequivocal on this point; (2)\n  Their abstention from the temple-sacrifices cannot be considered apart\n  from the fact that they ate no animal food: see above p. 86, note 246.\n  (3) The Christianized Essenes, or Ebionites, though strong Judaizers\n  in many respects, yet distinctly protested against the sacrifice of\n  animals; see Clem. _Hom._ iii. 45, 52, and comp. Ritschl p. 224. On\n  this subject see also Zeller p. 242 sq., and the appendix to this\n  chapter.\n\nFootnote 255:\n\n  _Ant._ xviii. 1. 5 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 [\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9] \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03b2\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, _B.J._ ii. 8. 5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.;\n  see Ritschl p. 181.\n\n[Sidenote: (iv) Esoteric doctrine of angels.]\n\n(iv) In what other respects they may have departed from, or added to,\nthe normal creed of Judaism, we do not know. But it is expressly stated\nthat, when a novice after passing through the probationary stages was\nadmitted to the full privileges of the order, the oath of admission\nbound him \u2018to conceal nothing from the members of the sect, and to\nreport nothing concerning them to others, even though threatened with\ndeath; not to communicate any of their doctrines to anyone otherwise\nthan as he himself had received them; but to abstain from robbery, and\nin like manner to guard carefully the books of their sect, and _the\nnames of the angels_[256].\u2019 It may be reasonably supposed that more\nlurks under this last expression than meets the ear. This esoteric\ndoctrine, relating to angelic beings, may have been another link which\nattached Essenism to the religion of Zoroaster[257]. At all events we\nseem to be justified in connecting it with the self-imposed service and\nworshipping of angels at Coloss\u00e6: and we may well suspect that we have\nhere a germ which was developed into the Gnostic doctrine of \u00e6ons or\nemanations.\n\nFootnote 256:\n\n  _B.J._ l.c. \u00a7 7 \u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c6\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 ... \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f02\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n  \u03c4\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bc\u03bd\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f22 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f00\u03c6\u03ad\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u1fc3\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n  \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1.\n  With this notice should be compared the Ebionite \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, or\n  protest of initiation, prefixed to the _Clementine Homilies_, which\n  shows how closely the Christian Essenes followed the practice of their\n  Jewish predecessors in this respect. See Zeller p. 254.\n\nFootnote 257:\n\n  See below, in the appendix.\n\n[Sidenote: (v) Speculations on God and Creation.]\n\n(v) If so, it is not unconnected with another notice relating to Essene\npeculiarities. The Gnostic doctrine of intermediate beings between God\nand the world, as we have seen, was intimately connected with\nspeculations respecting creation. Now we are specially informed that the\nEssenes, while leaving physical studies in general to speculative idlers\n(\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2), as being beyond the reach of human nature, yet\nexcepted from their general condemnation that philosophy which treats of\nthe existence of God and the generation of the universe[258].\n\nFootnote 258:\n\n  Philo _Omn. prob. lib._ \u00a7 12 (p. 458) \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n  \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03c0\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n  \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[Sidenote: (vi) Magical charms.]\n\n(vi) Mention has been made incidentally of certain secret books peculiar\nto the sect. The existence of such an apocryphal literature was a sure\ntoken of some abnormal development in doctrine[259]. In the passage\nquoted it is mentioned in relation to some form of angelology. Elsewhere\ntheir skill in prediction, for which they were especially famous, is\nconnected with the perusal of certain \u2018sacred books,\u2019 which however are\nnot described[260]. But more especially, we are told that the Essenes\nstudied with extraordinary diligence the writings of the ancients,\nselecting those especially which could be turned to profit for soul and\nbody, and that from these they learnt the qualities of roots and the\nproperties of stones[261]. This expression, as illustrated by other\nnotices, points clearly to the study of occult sciences, and recalls the\nalliance with the practice of magical arts, which was a distinguishing\nfeature of Gnosticism, and is condemned by Christian teachers even in\nthe heresies of the Apostolic age.\n\nFootnote 259:\n\n  The word _Apocrypha_ was used originally to designate the secret books\n  which contained the esoteric doctrine of a sect. The secondary sense\n  \u2018spurious\u2019 was derived from the general character of these writings,\n  which were heretical, generally Gnostic, forgeries. See Prof.\n  Plumptre\u2019s article _Apocrypha_ in Smith\u2019s _Dictionary of the Bible_,\n  and the note on \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9 below, ii. 3.\n\nFootnote 260:\n\n  _B.J._ ii. 8. 12 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f33 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n  \u1f51\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. Dr Ginsburg (p. 49) translates \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n  \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u2018_the_ sacred Scripture,\u2019 and \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u2018_the_\n  sayings of _the_ prophets\u2019; but as the definite articles are wanting,\n  the expressions cannot be so rendered, nor does there seem to be any\n  reference to the Canonical writings.\n\n  We learn from an anecdote in _Ant._ xiii. II. 2, that the teachers of\n  this sect communicated the art of prediction to their disciples by\n  instruction. We may therefore conjecture that with the Essenes this\n  acquisition was connected with magic or astrology. At all events it is\n  not treated as a direct inspiration.\n\nFootnote 261:\n\n  _B.J._ ii. 8. 6 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f60\u03c6\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\u00b7\n  \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd \u1fe5\u03af\u03b6\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. This passage might seem at first sight to\n  refer simply to the _medicinal_ qualities of vegetable and mineral\n  substances; but a comparison with another notice in Josephus invests\n  it with a different meaning. In _Ant._ viii. 2. 5 he states that\n  Solomon, having received by divine inspiration the art of defeating\n  demons for the advantage and healing of man (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f60\u03c6\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2), composed and left behind him charms\n  (\u1f10\u03c0\u1ff3\u03b4\u03ac\u03c2) by which diseases were allayed, and diverse kinds of\n  exorcisms (\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c1\u03ba\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd) by which demons were cast out. \u2018This\n  mode of healing,\u2019 he adds, \u2018is very powerful even to the present day\u2019;\n  and he then relates how, as he was credibly informed (\u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1), one\n  of his countrymen, Eleazar by name, had healed several persons\n  possessed by demons in the presence of Vespasian and his sons and a\n  number of officers and common soldiers. This he did by applying to the\n  nose of the possessed his ring, which had concealed in it one of the\n  _roots_ which Solomon had directed to be used, and thus drawing out\n  the demon through the nostrils of the person smelling it. At the same\n  time he adjured the evil spirit not to return, \u2018making mention of\n  Solomon and repeating the charms composed by him.\u2019 On one occasion\n  this Eleazar gave ocular proof that the demon was exorcized; and thus,\n  adds Josephus, \u03c3\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03a3\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1. On these\n  books relating to the occult arts and ascribed to Solomon see\n  Fabricius _Cod. Pseud. Vet. Test._ I. p. 1036 sq., where many curious\n  notices are gathered together. Comp. especially Origen, _In Matth.\n  Comm._ xxxv. \u00a7 110 (III. p. 910), Pseudo-Just. _Qu\u00e6st._ 55.\n\n  This interpretation explains all the expressions in the passage. The\n  \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 naturally points to the use of charms or amulets, as\n  may be seen e.g. from the treatise, Damigeron _de Lapidibus_, printed\n  in the _Spicil. Solemn._ III. p. 324 sq.: comp. King _Antique Gems_\n  Sect. IV, _Gnostics and their Remains_. The reference to \u2018the books of\n  the ancients\u2019 thus finds an adequate explanation. On the other hand\n  the only expression which seemed to militate against this view,\n  \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u1fe5\u03af\u03b6\u03b1\u03b9, is justified by the story in the _Antiquities_. It\n  should be added also that Hippolytus (_H\u00e6r._ ix. 22) paraphrases the\n  language of Josephus so as to give it this sense; \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f72\n  _\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03c2_ \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, _\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9_\n  \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n  The sense which \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 (\u2018curiosus\u2019) bears in Acts xix. 19 and\n  elsewhere, referring to magical arts, illustrates its use here.\n\n  Thus these Essenes were dealers in charms, rather than physicians. And\n  yet it is quite possible that along with this practice of the occult\n  sciences they studied the healing art in its nobler forms. The works\n  of Alexander of Tralles, an eminent ancient physician, constantly\n  recommend the use of such charms, of which some obviously come from a\n  Jewish source and not improbably may have been taken from these\n  Solomonian books to which Josephus refers. A number of passages from\n  this and other writers, specifying charms of various kinds, are given\n  in Becker and Marquardt _Rom. Alterth._ IV. p. 116 sq. See also\n  Spencer\u2019s note on Orig. _c. Cels._ p. 17 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: 3. Exclusive spirit of Essenism.]\n\n3. But the notice to which I have just alluded suggests a broader\naffinity with Gnosticism. Not only did the theological speculations of\nthe Essenes take a Gnostic turn, but they guarded their peculiar tenets\nwith Gnostic reserve. They too had their esoteric doctrine which they\nlooked upon as the exclusive possession of the privileged few; their\n\u2018mysteries\u2019 which it was a grievous offence to communicate to the\nuninitiated. This doctrine was contained, as we have seen, in an\napocryphal literature. Their whole organisation was arranged so as to\nprevent the divulgence of its secrets to those without. The long period\nof noviciate, the careful rites of initiation, the distinction of the\nseveral orders[262] in the community, the solemn oaths by which they\nbound their members, were so many safeguards against a betrayal of this\nprecious deposit, which they held to be restricted to the inmost circle\nof the brotherhood.\n\nFootnote 262:\n\n  See especially _B.J._ ii. 8. 7, 10.\n\n[Sidenote: The three notes of Gnosticism found in the Essenes.]\n\nIn selecting these details I have not attempted to give a finished\nportrait of Essenism. From this point of view the delineation would be\nimperfect and misleading: for I have left out of sight the nobler\nfeatures of the sect, their courageous endurance, their simple piety,\ntheir brotherly love. My object was solely to call attention to those\nfeatures which distinguish it from the normal type of Judaism, and seem\nto justify the attribution of Gnostic influences. And here it has been\nseen that the three characteristics, which were singled out above as\ndistinctive of Gnosticism, reappear in the Essenes; though it has been\nconvenient to consider them in the reversed order. This Jewish sect\nexhibits the same exclusiveness in the communication of its doctrines.\nIts theological speculations take the same direction, dwelling on the\nmysteries of creation, regarding matter as the abode of evil, and\npostulating certain intermediate spiritual agencies as necessary links\nof communication between heaven and earth. And lastly, its speculative\nopinions involve the same ethical conclusions, and lead in like manner\nto a rigid asceticism. If the notices relating to these points do not\nalways explain themselves, yet read in the light of the heresies of the\nApostolic age and in that of subsequent Jud\u00e6o-Gnostic Christianity,\ntheir bearing seems to be distinct enough; so that we should not be far\nwrong, if we were to designate Essenism as Gnostic Judaism[263].\n\nFootnote 263:\n\n  I have said nothing of the Cabbala, as a development of Jewish thought\n  illustrating the Colossian heresy: because the books containing the\n  Cabbalistic speculations are comparatively recent, and if they contain\n  ancient elements, it seems impossible to separate these from later\n  additions or to assign to them even an approximate date. The\n  Cabbalistic doctrine however will serve to show to what extent Judaism\n  may be developed in the direction of speculative mysticism.\n\n[Sidenote: How widely were the Essenes dispersed?]\n\nBut the Essenes of whom historical notices are preserved were\ninhabitants of the Holy Land. Their monasteries were situated on the\nshores of the Dead Sea. We are told indeed, that the sect was not\nconfined to any one place, and that members of the order were found in\ngreat numbers in divers cities and villages[264]. But Jud\u00e6a in one\nnotice, Palestine and Syria in another, are especially named as the\nlocalities of the Essene settlements[265]. Have we any reason to suppose\nthat they were represented among the Jews of the Dispersion? In Egypt\nindeed we find ourselves confronted with a similar ascetic sect, the\nTherapeutes, who may perhaps have had an independent origin, but who\nnevertheless exhibit substantially the same type of Jewish thought and\npractice[266]. But the Dispersion of Egypt, it may be argued, was\nexceptional; and we might expect to find here organisations and\ndevelopments of Judaism hardly less marked and various than in the\nmother country. [Sidenote: Do they appear in Asia Minor?] What ground\nhave we for assuming the existence of this type in Asia Minor? Do we\nmeet with any traces of it in the cities of the Lycus, or in proconsular\nAsia generally, which would justify the opinion that it might make its\ninfluence felt in the Christian communities of that district?\n\nFootnote 264:\n\n  Philo _Fragm._ p. 632 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2,\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2; Joseph.\n  _B.J._ ii. 8. 4 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc3\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03af. On the notices of the settlements and dispersion of\n  the Essenes see Zeller p. 239.\n\nFootnote 265:\n\n  Philo names _Jud\u00e6a_ in _Fragm._ p. 632; _Palestine_ and _Syria_ in\n  _Quod omn. prob. lib._ 12 p. 457. Their chief settlements were in the\n  neighbourhood of the Dead Sea. This fact is mentioned by the heathen\n  writers Pliny (_N.H._ v. 15) and Dion Chrysostom (Synesius _Dio_ 3).\n  The name of the \u2018Essene gate\u2019 at Jerusalem (_B.J._ v. 4. 2) seems to\n  point to some establishment of the order close to the walls of that\n  city.\n\nFootnote 266:\n\n  They are only known to us from Philo\u2019s treatise _de Vita\n  Contemplativa_. Their settlements were on the shores of the Mareotic\n  lake near Alexandria. Unlike the Essenes, they were not gathered\n  together in convents as members of a fraternity, but lived apart as\n  anchorites, though in the same neighbourhood. In other respects their\n  tenets and practices are very similar to those of the Essenes.\n\n[Sidenote: How the term _Essene_ is to be understood.]\n\nNow it has been shown that the colonies of the Jews in this\nneighbourhood were populous and influential[267]; and it might be argued\nwith great probability that among these large numbers Essene Judaism\ncould not be unrepresented. But indeed throughout this investigation,\nwhen I speak of the Judaism in the Colossian Church as Essene, I do not\nassume a precise identity of origin, but only an essential affinity of\ntype, with the Essenes of the mother country. As a matter of history, it\nmay or may not have sprung from the colonies on the shores of the Dead\nSea; but as this can neither be proved nor disproved, so also it is\nimmaterial to my main [Sidenote: Probabilities of the case.] purpose.\nAll along its frontier, wherever Judaism became enamoured of and was\nwedded to Oriental mysticism, the same union would produce substantially\nthe same results. In a country where Phrygia, Persia, Syria, all in turn\nhad moulded religious thought, it would be strange indeed if Judaism\nentirely escaped these influences. Nor, as a matter of fact, are\nindications wanting to show that it was not unaffected [Sidenote: Direct\nindications.] by them. If the traces are few, they are at least as\nnumerous and as clear as with our defective information on the whole\nsubject we have any right to expect in this particular instance.\n\nFootnote 267:\n\n  See above, p. 19 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: St Paul at Ephesus A.D. 54\u201357.]\n\nWhen St Paul visits Ephesus, he comes in contact with certain strolling\nJews, exorcists, who attempt to cast out evil spirits[268]. Connecting\nthis fact with the notices of Josephus, from which we infer that\nexorcisms of this kind were especially [Sidenote: Exorcisms and]\npractised by the Essenes[269], we seem to have an indication of their\npresence in the capital of proconsular Asia. If so, it is a significant\nfact that in their exorcisms they employed the name of our Lord: for\nthen we must regard this as the earliest notice of those overtures of\nalliance on the part of Essenism, which involved such important\nconsequences in the subsequent history of the Church[270]. It is also\nworth observing, that the next incident in St Luke\u2019s narrative is the\nburning [Sidenote: magical books.] of their magical books by those whom\nSt Paul converted on this occasion[271]. As Jews are especially\nmentioned among these converts, and as books of charms are ascribed to\nthe Essenes by Josephus, the two incidents, standing in this close\nconnexion, throw great light on the type of Judaism which thus appears\nat Ephesus[272].\n\nFootnote 268:\n\n  Acts xix. 13 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 269:\n\n  See above p. 91, note 261.\n\nFootnote 270:\n\n  On the later contact of Essenism with Christianity, see the appendix,\n  and _Galatians_ p. 310 sq.\n\nFootnote 271:\n\n  There is doubtless a reference to the charms called \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 in\n  this passage: see Wetstein ad loc., and the references in Becker and\n  Marquardt _R\u00f6m. Alterth._ IV. p. 123 sq. But this supposition does not\n  exclude the Jews from a share in these magical arts, while the context\n  points to some such participation.\n\nFootnote 272:\n\n  I can only regard it as an accidental coincidence that the epulones of\n  the Ephesian Artemis were called _Essenes_, Pausan. viii. 13. 1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n  \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f18\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2: see Guhl _Ephesiaca_ 106 sq. The _Etymol. Magn._ has\n  \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03ae\u03bd: \u1f41 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f18\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, and adds several absurd derivations\n  of the word. In the sense of \u2018a king\u2019 it is used by Callimachus _Hymn.\n  Jov. 66_ \u03bf\u1f54 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c3\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. It is probably not a Greek\n  word, as other terms connected with the worship of the Ephesian\n  Artemis (e.g. \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03b2\u03c5\u03b6\u03bf\u03c2, a Persian word) point to an oriental or at\n  least a non-Greek origin; and some have derived it from the Aramaic\n  \u05d4\u05e1\u05d9\u05df _chasin_ \u2018strong\u2019 or \u2018powerful.\u2019 But there is no sufficient\n  ground for connecting it directly with the name of the sect \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03af or\n  \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, as some writers are disposed to do (e.g. Spanheim on\n  _Callim._ l.c., Creuzer _Symbolik_ IV. pp. 347, 349); though this view\n  is favoured by the fact that certain ascetic practices were enjoined\n  on these pagan \u2018Essenes.\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: Sibylline Oracle A.D. 80.]\n\nSomewhat later we have another notice which bears in the same direction.\nThe Sibylline Oracle, which forms the fourth book in the existing\ncollection, is discovered by internal evidence to have been written\nabout A.D. 80[273]. It is plainly a product of Judaism, but its Judaism\ndoes not belong to the normal Pharisaic type. With Essenism it rejects\nsacrifices, even regarding the shedding of blood as a pollution[274],\nand with Essenism also it inculcates the duty of frequent washings[275].\nYet from other indications we are led to the conclusion, that this poem\nwas not written in the interests of Essenism properly so called, but\nrepresents some allied though independent development of Judaism. In\nsome respects at all events its language seems quite inconsistent with\nthe purer type of Essenism[276]. But its general tendency is clear: and\nof its locality there can hardly be a doubt. The affairs of Asia Minor\noccupy a disproportionate space in the poet\u2019s description of the past\nand vision of the future. The cities of the M\u00e6ander and its\nneighbourhood, among these Laodicea, are mentioned with emphasis[277].\n\nFootnote 273:\n\n  Its date is fixed by the following allusions. The temple at Jerusalem\n  has been destroyed by Titus (vv. 122 sq.), and the cities of Campania\n  have been overwhelmed in fire and ashes (vv. 127 sq.). Nero has\n  disappeared and his disappearance has been followed by bloody contests\n  in Rome (vv. 116 sq.); but his return is still expected (vv. 134 sq.).\n\nFootnote 274:\n\n  See vv. 27\u201330 \u03bf\u1f33 \u03bd\u03b7\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2,\n  \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd \u1f31\u03b4\u03c1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c9\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f05\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\n  \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. In an earlier passage vv. 8 sq. it is said of God,\n  \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bd\u03b1\u1ff7 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u1f31\u03b4\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c9\u03c6\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03c9\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5, \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03b1\u03bb\u03b3\u03ad\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ce\u03b2\u03b7\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 275:\n\n  ver. 160 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f10\u03bd\u03ac\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9. Another point of\n  contact with the Essenes is the great stress on prayers before meals,\n  ver. 26 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03c0\u03b9\u03ad\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5. Ewald (_Sibyll. B\u00fccher_ p.\n  46) points also to the prominence of the words \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03ae\u03c2,\n  \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03af\u03b1 (vv. 26, 35, 42, 45, 133, 148, 151, 162, 165, 181, 183) to\n  designate the elect of God, as tending in the same direction. The\n  force of this latter argument will depend mainly on the derivation\n  which is given to the name _Essene_. See the appendix.\n\nFootnote 276:\n\n  Thus for instance, Ewald (l.c., p. 47) points to the tacit approval of\n  marriage in ver. 33. I hardly think however that this passage, which\n  merely condemns adultery, can be taken to imply so much. More\n  irreconcilable with pure Essenism is the belief in the resurrection of\n  the body and the future life on earth, which is maintained in vv. 176\n  sq.; though Hilgenfeld (_Zeitschr._ XIV. p. 49) does not recognise the\n  difficulty. See above p. 88. This Sibylline writer was perhaps rather\n  a Hemerobaptist than an Essene. On the relation of the Hemerobaptists\n  and Essenes see the appendix. Alexandre, _Orac. Sibyll._ (II. p. 323),\n  says of this Sibylline Oracle, \u2018Ipse liber haud dubie Christianus\n  est,\u2019 but there is nothing distinctly Christian in its teaching.\n\nFootnote 277:\n\n  vv. 106 sq., 145 sq.; see above p. 40, note 131. It begins \u03ba\u03bb\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b5\u1f7c\u03c2\n  \u1f08\u03c3\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03c7\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5.\n\n[Sidenote: Phrygia and Asia congenial to this type of religion.]\n\nAnd certainly the moral and intellectual atmosphere would not be\nunfavourable to the growth of such a plant. The same district, which in\nspeculative philosophy had produced a Thales and a Heraclitus[278], had\ndeveloped in popular religion the worship of the Phrygian Cybele and\nSabazius and of the Ephesian Artemis[279]. Cosmological speculation,\nmystic theosophy, religious fanaticism, all had their home here.\nAssociated with Judaism or with Christianity the natural temperament and\nthe intellectual bias of the people would take a new direction; but the\nold type would not be altogether obliterated. Phrygia reared the hybrid\nmonstrosities of Ophitism[280]. She was the mother of Montanist\nenthusiasm[281], and the foster-mother of Novatian rigorism[282]. The\nsyncretist, the mystic, the devotee, the puritan, would find a congenial\nclimate in these regions of Asia Minor.\n\nFootnote 278:\n\n  The exceptional activity of the forces of nature in these districts of\n  Asia Minor may have directed the speculations of the Ionic school\n  towards physics, and more especially towards cosmogony. In Heraclitus\n  there is also a strong mystical element. But besides such broader\n  affinities, I venture to call attention to special dicta of the two\n  philosophers mentioned in the text, which curiously recall the tenets\n  of the Jud\u00e6o-Gnostic teachers. Thales declared (Diog. Laert. i. 27)\n  \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03bc\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7, or, as reported by Aristotle\n  (_de An._ i. 5, p. 411), \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30^\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. In a recorded\n  saying of Heraclitus we have the very language of a Gnostic teacher;\n  Clem. Alex. _Strom._ v. 13, p. 699, _\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b2\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7\n  \u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd_ \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b7 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f29\u03b7\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\n  \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. See above pp. 77, 92.\n\nFootnote 279:\n\n  For the characteristic features of Phrygian religious worship see\n  Steiger _Kolosser_ p. 70 sq.\n\nFootnote 280:\n\n  The prominence, which the Phrygian mysteries and Phrygian rites held\n  in the syncretism of the Ophites, is clear from the account of\n  Hippolytus _H\u00e6r._ v. 7 sq. Indeed Phrygia appears to have been the\n  proper home of Ophitism. Yet the admixture of Judaic elements is not\n  less obvious, as their name _Naassene_, derived from the Hebrew word\n  for a serpent, shows.\n\nFootnote 281:\n\n  The name, by which the Montanists were commonly known in the early\n  ages, was the sect of the \u2018Phrygians\u2019; Clem. _Strom._ vii. 17, p. 900\n  \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 [\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd] \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 [\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9], \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd\n  (comp. Eus. _H.E._ iv. 27, v. 16, Hipp. _H\u00e6r._ viii. 19, x. 25). From\n  \u03bf\u1f31 (or \u1f21) \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03ac\u03c2 (Eus. _H.E._ ii. 25, v. 16, 18, vi. 20) comes\n  the sol\u0153cistic Latin name _Cataphryges_.\n\nFootnote 282:\n\n  Socrates (iv. 28) accounts for the spread of Novatianism in Phrygia by\n  the \u03c3\u03c9\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7 of the Phrygian temper. If so, it is a striking\n  testimony to the power of Christianity, that under its influence the\n  religious enthusiasm of the Phrygians should have taken this\n  direction, and that they should have exchanged the fanatical orgiasm\n  of their heathen worship for the rigid puritanism of the Novatianist.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: Previous results summed up.]\n\nIt has thus been shown _first_, that Essene Judaism was Gnostic in its\ncharacter; and _secondly_, that this type of Jewish thought and practice\nhad established itself in the Apostolic age in those parts of Asia Minor\nwith which we are more directly concerned. It now remains to examine the\nheresy of the [Sidenote: Is the Colossian heresy Gnostic?] Colossian\nChurch more nearly, and to see whether it deserves the name, which\nprovisionally was given to it, of Gnostic Judaism. Its Judaism all will\nallow. Its claim to be regarded as Gnostic will require a closer\nscrutiny. And in conducting [Sidenote: Three notes of Gnosticism.] this\nexamination, it will be convenient to take the three notes of Gnosticism\nwhich have been already laid down, and to enquire how far it satisfies\nthese tests.\n\n[Sidenote: 1. Intellectual exclusiveness.]\n\n1. It has been pointed out that Gnosticism strove to establish, or\nrather to preserve, an _intellectual oligarchy_ in religion. It had its\nhidden wisdom, its exclusive mysteries, its privileged class.\n\nNow I think it will be evident, that St Paul in this epistle [Sidenote:\nSt Paul contends for the universality of the Gospel,] feels himself\nchallenged to contend for the _universality_ of the Gospel. This indeed\nis a characteristic feature of the Apostle\u2019s teaching at all times, and\nholds an equally prominent place in the epistles of an earlier date. But\nthe point to be observed is, that the Apostle, in maintaining this\ndoctrine, has changed the mode of his defence; and this fact suggests\nthat there has been a change in the direction of the attack. It is no\nlonger against national exclusiveness, but against intellectual\nexclusiveness, that he contends. His adversaries do not now plead\nceremonial restrictions, or at least do not plead these alone: but they\nerect an artificial barrier of spiritual privilege, even more fatal to\nthe universal claims of the Gospel, because more specious and more\ninsidious. It is not now against Jew as such, but against the Jew become\nGnostic, that he fights the battle of liberty. In other words; it is not\nagainst Christian Pharisaism but against Christian Essenism that he\ndefends his position. Only in the light of such an antagonism can we\nunderstand the emphatic iteration with which he claims to \u2018warn _every_\nman and teach _every_ man in _every_ wisdom, that he may present\n[Sidenote: against the pretentions of an aristocracy of intellect.]\n_every_ man perfect in Christ Jesus[283].\u2019 It will be remembered that\n\u2018wisdom\u2019 in Gnostic teaching was the exclusive possession of the few; it\nwill not be forgotten that \u2018perfection\u2019 was the term especially applied\nin their language to this privileged minority, as contradistinguished\nfrom the common herd of believers; and thus it will be readily\nunderstood why St Paul should go on to say that this universality of the\nGospel is the one object of his contention, to which all the energies of\nhis life are directed, and having done so, should express his intense\nanxiety for the Churches of Coloss\u00e6 and the neighbourhood, lest they\nshould be led astray by a spurious wisdom to desert the true\nknowledge[284]. This danger also will enable us to appreciate a novel\nfeature in another passage of the epistle. While dwelling on the\nobliteration of all distinctions in Christ, he repeats his earlier\ncontrasts, \u2018Greek and Jew,\u2019 \u2018circumcision and uncircumcision,\u2019\n\u2018bondslave and free\u2019; but to these he adds new words which at once give\na wider scope and a more immediate application to the lesson. In Christ\nthe existence of \u2018barbarian\u2019 and even \u2018Scythian,\u2019 the lowest type of\nbarbarian, is extinguished[285]. As culture, civilisation, philosophy,\nknowledge, are no conditions of acceptance, so neither is their absence\nany disqualification in the believer. The aristocracy of intellectual\ndiscernment, which Gnosticism upheld in religion, is abhorrent to the\nfirst principles of the Gospel.\n\nFootnote 283:\n\n  i. 28 \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 _\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1_ \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 _\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1_\n  \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd _\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3_ \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd _\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1_ \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n  _\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd_ \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The reiteration has offended the\n  scribes; and the first \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd is omitted in some copies, the\n  second in others. For \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd see the note on the passage.\n\nFootnote 284:\n\n  The connexion of the sentences should be carefully observed. After the\n  passage quoted in the last note comes the asseveration that this is\n  the one object of the Apostle\u2019s preaching (i. 29) \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f43 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u1ff6\n  \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; then the expression of concern on behalf of the Colossians\n  (ii. 1) \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9 _\u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1_ \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; then the desire that they may be brought (ii. 2) \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n  _\u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd_ \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 _\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2_ \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n  _\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd_ \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6; then the definition of this\n  mystery (ii. 2, 3), \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd _\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2_ \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76\n  \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; then the warning against the false teachers (ii. 4) \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\n  \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nFootnote 285:\n\n  Col. iii. 11 after \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 the Apostle adds \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2,\n  \u03a3\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2. There is nothing corresponding to this in the parallel\n  passage, Gal. iii. 28.\n\n[Sidenote: He contrasts the true wisdom with the false,]\n\nHence also must be explained the frequent occurrence of the words\n\u2018wisdom\u2019 (\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1), \u2018intelligence\u2019 (\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), \u2018knowledge\u2019 (\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2),\n\u2018perfect knowledge\u2019 (\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), in this epistle[286]. St Paul takes up\nthe language of his opponents, and translates it into a higher sphere.\nThe false teachers put forward a \u2018philosophy,\u2019 but it was only an empty\ndeceit, only a plausible display of false-reasoning[287]. They pretended\n\u2018wisdom,\u2019 but it was merely the profession, not the reality[288].\nAgainst these pretentions the Apostle sets the true wisdom of the\nGospel. On its wealth, its fulness, its perfection, he is never tired of\ndwelling[289]. The true wisdom, he would argue, is essentially spiritual\nand yet essentially definite; while the false is argumentative, is\nspeculative, [Sidenote: and dwells on the veritable mystery.] is vague\nand dreamy[290]. Again they had their rites of initiation. St Paul\ncontrasts with these the one universal, comprehensive mystery[291], the\nknowledge of God in Christ. This mystery is complete in itself: it\ncontains \u2018all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge hidden\u2019 in\nit[292]. Moreover it is offered to all without distinction: though once\nhidden, its revelation is unrestricted, except by the waywardness and\ndisobedience of men. The esoteric spirit of Gnosticism finds no\ncountenance in the Apostle\u2019s teaching.\n\nFootnote 286:\n\n  For \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 see i. 9, 28, ii. 3, iii. 16, iv. 5; for \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 i. 9, ii.\n  2; for \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 ii. 3; for \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 i. 9, 10, ii. 2, iii. 10.\n\nFootnote 287:\n\n  ii. 4 \u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1, ii. 8 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7.\n\nFootnote 288:\n\n  ii. 23 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, where the \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd suggests the contrast of\n  the suppressed clause.\n\nFootnote 289:\n\n  e.g. i. 9, 28, iii. 16 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3; ii. 2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. For the\n  \u2018wealth\u2019 of this knowledge compare i. 27, ii. 2, iii. 16; and see\n  above p. 44.\n\nFootnote 290:\n\n  ii. 4, 18.\n\nFootnote 291:\n\n  i. 26, 27, ii. 2, iv. 3.\n\nFootnote 292:\n\n  ii. 2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n  \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9. For the meaning of \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9 see above p. 90, and the note\n  on the passage.\n\n[Sidenote: 2. Speculative tenets.\n           Cosmogony and theology.]\n\n2. From the informing spirit of Gnosticism we turn to the speculative\ntenets\u2014the cosmogony and the theology of the Gnostic.\n\nAnd here too the affinities to Gnosticism reveal themselves in the\nColossian heresy. We cannot fail to observe that the [Sidenote: St Paul\nattacks the doctrine of angelic mediators,] Apostle has in view the\ndoctrine of intermediate agencies, regarded as instruments in the\ncreation and government of the world. Though this tenet is not\ndistinctly mentioned, it is tacitly assumed in the teaching which St\nPaul opposes to it. Against the philosophy of successive evolutions from\nthe Divine nature, angelic mediators forming the successive links in the\nchain which binds the finite to the Infinite, he sets the doctrine\n[Sidenote: setting against it the doctrine of the Word Incarnate,] of\nthe one Eternal Son, the Word of God begotten before the worlds[293].\nThe angelology of the heretics had a twofold bearing; it was intimately\nconnected at once with cosmogony and with religion. Correspondingly St\nPaul represents the mediatorial function of Christ as twofold: it is\nexercised in the natural creation, and it is exercised in the spiritual\ncreation. In both these spheres His initiative is absolute, His control\nis universal, His action is complete. By His agency the world of matter\nwas created and is sustained. He is at once the beginning and the\n[Sidenote: as the reconciler of heaven and earth.] end of the material\nuniverse; \u2018All things have been created through Him and unto Him.\u2019 Nor\nis His office in the spiritual world less complete. In the Church, as in\nthe Universe, He is sole, absolute, supreme; the primary source from\nwhich all life proceeds and the ultimate arbiter in whom all feuds are\nreconciled.\n\nFootnote 293:\n\n  The two great Christological passages are i. 15\u201320, ii. 9\u201315. They\n  will be found to justify the statements in this and the following\n  paragraphs of the text. For the meaning of individual expressions see\n  the notes on the passages.\n\n[Sidenote: His relations to (1) Deity; as God manifested.]\n\nOn the one hand, in relation to Deity, He is the visible image of the\ninvisible God. He is not only the chief manifestation of the Divine\nnature: He exhausts the Godhead manifested. In Him resides the totality\nof the Divine powers and attributes. For this totality Gnostic teachers\nhad a technical [Sidenote: The _pleroma_ resides in Him.] term, the\n_pleroma_ or _plenitude_[294]. From the pleroma they supposed that all\nthose agencies issued, through which God has at any time exerted His\npower in creation, or manifested His will through revelation. These\nmediatorial beings would retain more or less of its influence, according\nas they claimed direct parentage from it or traced their descent through\nsuccessive evolutions. But in all cases this pleroma was distributed,\ndiluted, transformed and darkened by foreign admixture. They were only\npartial and blurred images, often deceptive caricatures, of their\noriginal, broken lights of the great central Light. It is not improbable\nthat, like later speculators of the same school, they found a place\nsomewhere or other in their genealogy of spiritual beings for the\nChrist. If so, St Paul\u2019s language becomes doubly significant. But this\nhypothesis is not needed to explain its reference. In contrast to their\ndoctrine, he asserts and repeats the assertion, that the pleroma abides\nabsolutely and wholly in Christ as the Word of God[295]. The entire\nlight is concentrated in Him.\n\nFootnote 294:\n\n  See the detached note on \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 295:\n\n  i. 19 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, ii. 9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2.\n\n[Sidenote: (2) Created things; as absolute Lord.]\n\nHence it follows that, as regards created things, His supremacy must be\nabsolute. In heaven as in earth, over things immaterial as over things\nmaterial, He is king. Speculations on the nature of intermediate\nspiritual agencies\u2014their names, their ranks, their offices\u2014were rife in\nthe schools of Jud\u00e6o-Gnostic thought. \u2018Thrones, dominations, princedoms,\nvirtues, powers\u2019\u2013these formed part of the spiritual nomenclature which\nthey had invented to describe different grades of angelic mediators.\nWithout entering into these speculations, the Apostle asserts that\nChrist is Lord of all, the highest and the lowest, whatever rank they\nmay hold and by whatever name they are called[296], for they are parts\nof creation and He is the source of creation. Through Him they became,\nand unto Him they tend.\n\nFootnote 296:\n\n  See especially i. 16 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5\n  \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., compared with the parallel passage in Eph. i. 21\n  \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Compare also ii. 10 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2\n  \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, and ii. 15 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n  \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n[Sidenote: Angelolatry is therefore condemned]\n\nHence the worship of angels, which the false teachers inculcated, was\nutterly wrong in principle. The motive of this angelolatry it is not\ndifficult to imagine. There was a show of humility[297], for there was a\nconfession of weakness, in this subservience to inferior mediatorial\nagencies. It was held feasible to grasp at the lower links of the chain\nwhich bound earth to heaven, when heaven itself seemed far beyond the\nreach of man. The successive grades of intermediate beings were as\nsuccessive steps, by which man might mount the ladder leading up to the\nthrone of God. This carefully woven web of sophistry the Apostle tears\nto shreds. The doctrine of the false teachers was based on confident\nassumptions respecting angelic beings of whom they could know nothing.\nIt was moreover a denial of Christ\u2019s twofold personality and His\n[Sidenote: as a denial of His perfect mediation.] mediatorial office. It\nfollows from the true conception of Christ\u2019s Person, that He and He\nalone can bridge over the chasm between earth and heaven; for He is at\nonce the lowest and the highest. He raises up man to God, for He brings\ndown God to man. Thus the chain is reduced to a single link, this link\nbeing the Word made flesh. As the _pleroma_ resides in Him, so is it\ncommunicated to us through Him[298]. To substitute allegiance to any\nother spiritual mediator is to sever the connexion of the limbs with the\nHead, which is the centre of life and the mainspring of all energy\nthroughout the body[300].\n\nFootnote 297:\n\n  ii. 18 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nFootnote 298:\n\n  ii. 10; comp. i. 9.\n\nFootnote 300:\n\n  ii. 18.\n\n[Sidenote: The Apostle\u2019s practical inference.]\n\nHence follows the practical conclusion, that, whatever is done, must be\ndone in the name of the Lord[301]. Wives must submit to their husbands\n\u2018in the Lord\u2019: children must obey their parents \u2018in the Lord\u2019: servants\nmust work for the masters as working \u2018unto the Lord[302].\u2019 This\niteration, \u2018in the Lord,\u2019 \u2018unto the Lord,\u2019 is not an irrelevant form of\nwords; but arises as an immediate inference from the main idea which\nunderlies the doctrinal portion of the epistle.\n\nFootnote 301:\n\n  iii. 17.\n\nFootnote 302:\n\n  iii. 18, 20, 23.\n\n[Sidenote: 3. Moral results of Gnostic doctrine.]\n\n3. It has been shown that the speculative tenets of Gnosticism might\nlead (and as a matter of fact we know that they did lead) to either of\ntwo practical extremes, to rigid asceticism or to unbridled license. The\nlatter alternative appears to some extent in the heresy of the Pastoral\nEpistles[303], and still more plainly in those of the Catholic\nEpistles[304] and the Apocalypse[305]. It is constantly urged by\nCatholic writers as a reproach against later Gnostic sects[306].\n\nFootnote 303:\n\n  At least in 2 Tim. iii. 1\u20137, where, though the most monstrous\n  developments of the evil were still future, the Apostle\u2019s language\n  implies that it had already begun. On the other hand in the picture of\n  the heresy in 1 Tim. iv. 2 the ascetic tendency still predominates.\n\nFootnote 304:\n\n  2 Pet. ii. 10 sq., Jude 8.\n\nFootnote 305:\n\n  Apoc. ii. 14, 20\u201322.\n\nFootnote 306:\n\n  See the notes on Clem. Rom. _Ep._ ii. \u00a7 9.\n\n[Sidenote: Asceticism of the Colossian heresy]\n\nBut the former and nobler extreme was the first impulse of the Gnostic.\nTo escape from the infection of evil by escaping from the domination of\nmatter was his chief anxiety. This appears very plainly in the Colossian\nheresy. Though the prohibitions to which the Apostle alludes might be\nexplained in part by the ordinances of the Mosaic ritual, this\nexplanation will not cover all the facts. Thus for instance drinks are\nmentioned as well as meats[307], though on the former the law of Moses\nis silent. Thus again the rigorous denunciation, \u2018Touch not, taste not,\nhandle not[308],\u2019 seems to go very far beyond the Levitical enactments.\nAnd moreover the _motive_ of these prohibitions [Sidenote: not explained\nby its Judaism.] is Essene rather than Pharisaic, Gnostic rather than\nJewish. These severities of discipline were intended \u2018to check\nindulgence of the flesh[309].\u2019 They professed to treat the body with\nentire disregard, to ignore its cravings and to deny its wants. In\nshort; they betray a strong _ascetic_ tendency[310], of which normal\nJudaism, as represented by the Pharisee, offers no explanation.\n\nFootnote 307:\n\n  ii. 16.\n\nFootnote 308:\n\n  ii. 21.\n\nFootnote 309:\n\n  ii. 23.\n\nFootnote 310:\n\n  Asceticism is of two kinds. There is the asceticism of dualism\n  (whether conscious or unconscious), which springs from a false\n  principle; and there is the asceticism of self-discipline, which is\n  the training of the Christian athlete (1 Cor. ix. 27). I need not say\n  that the remarks in the text apply only to the former.\n\n[Sidenote: St Paul\u2019s reply shows its Gnostic bearing.]\n\nAnd St Paul\u2019s answer points to the same inference. The difference will\nappear more plainly, if we compare it with his treatment of Pharisaic\nJudaism in the Galatian Church. This epistle offers nothing at all\ncorresponding to his language on that occasion; \u2018If righteousness be by\nlaw, then Christ died in vain\u2019; \u2018If ye be circumcised, Christ shall\nprofit you nothing\u2019; \u2018Christ is nullified for you, whosoever are\njustified by law; ye are fallen from grace[311].\u2019 The point of view in\nfact is wholly changed. With these Essene or Gnostic Judaizers the\nMosaic law was neither the motive nor the standard, it was only the\nstarting point, of their austerities. Hence in replying the [Sidenote:\nIt is no longer the contrast of law and grace.] Apostle no longer deals\nwith law, as law; he no longer points the contrast of grace and works;\nbut he enters upon the _moral_ aspects of these ascetic practices. He\ndenounces them, as concentrating the thoughts on earthly and perishable\nthings[312]. He points out that they fail in their purpose, and are\nfound valueless against carnal indulgences[313]. In their place he\noffers the true and only remedy against sin\u2014the elevation of the inner\nlife in Christ, the transference of the affections into a higher\nsphere[314], where the temptations of the flesh are powerless. Thus\ndying with Christ, they will kill all their earthly members[315]. Thus\nrising with Christ, they will be renewed in the image of God their\nCreator[316].\n\nFootnote 311:\n\n  Gal. ii. 21, v. 2, 4.\n\nFootnote 312:\n\n  ii. 8, 20\u201322.\n\nFootnote 313:\n\n  ii. 23 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2: see the note on\n  these words.\n\nFootnote 314:\n\n  iii. 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 315:\n\n  iii. 3, 5.\n\nFootnote 316:\n\n  iii. 10.\n\n[Sidenote: The truth of the above result tested by]\n\nIn attempting to draw a complete portrait of the Colossian heresy from a\nfew features accidentally exhibited in St Paul\u2019s epistle, it has been\nnecessary to supply certain links; and some assurance may not\nunreasonably be required that this has not been done arbitrarily. Nor is\nthis security wanting. In all such cases the test will be twofold. The\nresult must be consistent with itself: and it must do no violence to the\nhistorical conditions under which the phenomena arose.\n\n[Sidenote: (1) Its inherent consistency and symmetry.]\n\n1. In the present instance the former of these tests is fully satisfied.\nThe consistency and the symmetry of the result is its great\nrecommendation. The postulate of a Gnostic type brings the separate\nparts of the representation into direct connexion. The speculative\nopinions and the practical tendencies of the heresy thus explain, and\nare explained by, each other. It is analogous to the hypothesis of the\ncomparative anatomist, who by referring the fossil remains to their\nproper type restores the whole skeleton of some unknown animal from a\nfew bones belonging to different extremities of the body, and without\nthe intermediate and connecting parts. In the one case, as in the other,\nthe result is the justification of the postulate.\n\n[Sidenote: (2) Its place in a historical sequence.]\n\n2. And again; the historical conditions of the problem are carefully\nobserved. It has been shown already, that Judaism in the preceding age\nhad in one of its developments assumed a form which was the natural\nprecursor of the Colossian heresy. In order to complete the argument it\nwill be necessary to show that Christianity in the generation next\nsucceeding exhibited a perverted type, which was its natural outgrowth.\nIf this can be done, the Colossian heresy will take its proper place in\na regular historical sequence.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: Continuance of this type of Jud\u00e6o-Gnosticism in the\n           district.]\n\nI have already pointed out, that the language of St John in the\nApocalypse, which was probably written within a few years of this\nepistle, seems to imply the continuance in this district of the same\ntype of heresy which is here denounced by St Paul[317]. But the notices\nin this book are not more definite than those of the Epistle to the\nColossians itself; and we are led to look outside the Canonical writings\nfor some more explicit evidence. Has early Christian history then\npreserved any record of a distinctly Gnostic school existing on the\nconfines of the Apostolic age, which may be considered a legitimate\ndevelopment of the phase of religious speculation that confronts us\nhere?\n\nFootnote 317:\n\n  See above p. 41 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: Heresy of Cerinthus.]\n\n[Sidenote: His date and place.]\n\nWe find exactly the phenomenon which we are seeking in the heresy of\nCerinthus[318]. The time, the place, the circumstances, all agree. This\nheresiarch is said to have been originally a native of Alexandria[319];\nbut proconsular Asia is allowed on all hands to have been the scene of\nhis activity as a teacher[320]. He lived and taught at the close of the\nApostolic age, that is, in the latest decade of the first century. Some\nwriters indeed make him an antagonist of St Peter and St Paul[321], but\ntheir authority is not trustworthy, nor is this very early date at all\nprobable. But there can be no reasonable doubt that he was a\ncontemporary of St John, who was related by Polycarp to have denounced\nhim face to face on one memorable occasion[322], and is moreover said by\nIren\u00e6us to have written his Gospel with the direct object of confuting\nhis errors[323].\n\nFootnote 318:\n\n  The relation of Cerinthus to the Colossian heresy is briefly indicated\n  by Neander _Planting of Christianity_ I. p. 325 sq. (Eng. Trans.). It\n  has been remarked by other writers also, both earlier and later. The\n  subject appeared to me to deserve a fuller investigation than it has\n  yet received.\n\nFootnote 319:\n\n  Hippol. _H\u00e6r._ vii. 33 \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f00\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2, x. 21 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u1ff3\n  \u1f00\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2, Theodoret. _H\u00e6r. Fab._ ii. 3 \u1f10\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u00ee\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2\n  \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 320:\n\n  Iren. i. 26. 1 \u2018et Cerinthus autem quidam ... in Asia docuit,\u2019\n  Epiphan. _H\u00e6r._ xxviii. 1 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u039a\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f08\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u1f00\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, Theodoret. 1.\n  c. \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f08\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf. The scene of his encounter with St\n  John in the bath is placed at Ephesus: see below, note 322.\n\nFootnote 321:\n\n  Epiphanius (xxviii. 2 sq.) represents him as the ringleader of the\n  Judaizing opponents of the Apostles in the Acts and Epistles to the\n  Corinthians and Galatians. Philastrius (_H\u00e6r._ 36) takes the same\n  line.]\n\nFootnote 322:\n\n  The well-known story of the encounter between St John and Cerinthus in\n  the bath is related by Iren\u00e6us (iii. 3. 4) on the authority of\n  Polycarp, who appears from the sequence of Iren\u00e6us\u2019 narrative to have\n  told it at Rome, when he paid his visit to Anicetus; \u1f43\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n  \u1f08\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc4 \u1fec\u03ce\u03bc\u1fc3 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03ba\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u00fb \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nFootnote 323:\n\n  Iren. iii. II. 1.\n\n[Sidenote: Cerinthus a link between Judaism and Gnosticism.]\n\n\u2018Cerinthus,\u2019 writes Neander, \u2018is best entitled to be considered as the\nintermediate link between the Judaizing and the Gnostic sects.\u2019 \u2018Even\namong the ancients,\u2019 he adds, \u2018opposite reports respecting his doctrines\nhave been given from opposite points of view, according as the Gnostic\nor the Judaizing element was exclusively insisted upon: and the dispute\non this point has been kept up even to modern times. In point of\nchronology too Cerinthus may be regarded as representing the principle\nin its transition from Judaism to Gnosticism[324].\u2019\n\nFootnote 324:\n\n  _Church History_ II. p. 42 (Bohn\u2019s Trans.).\n\n[Sidenote: Judaism still prominent in his system]\n\nOf his Judaism no doubt has been or can be entertained. The gross\nChiliastic doctrine ascribed to him[325], even though it may have been\nexaggerated in the representations of adverse writers, can only be\nexplained by a Jewish origin. His conception of the Person of Christ was\nEbionite, that is Judaic, in its main features[326]. He is said moreover\nto have enforced the rite of circumcision and to have inculcated the\nobservance of sabbaths[327]. It is related also that the Cerinthians,\nlike the Ebionites, accepted the Gospel of St Matthew alone[328].\u2019\n\nFootnote 325:\n\n  See the _Dialogue of Caius and Proclus_ in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 28,\n  Dionysius of Alexandria, ib. vii. 25, Theodoret. l.c., Augustin.\n  _H\u00e6r._ 8.\n\nFootnote 326:\n\n  See below p. 111.\n\nFootnote 327:\n\n  Epiphan. _H\u00e6r._ xxviii. 4, 5, Philastr. _H\u00e6r._ 36, Augustin. l.c. The\n  statements of these writers would not carry much weight in themselves;\n  but in this instance they are rendered highly probable by the known\n  Judaism of Cerinthus.\n\nFootnote 328:\n\n  Epiphan. _H\u00e6r._ xxviii. 5, xxx. 14, Philastr. _H\u00e6r._ 36.\n\n[Sidenote: though Gnosticism is already aggressive.]\n\nAt the same time, it is said by an ancient writer that his adherence to\nJudaism was only partial[329]. This limitation is doubtless correct. As\nGnostic principles asserted themselves more distinctly, pure Judaism\nnecessarily suffered. All or nearly all the early Gnostic heresies were\nJudaic; and for a time a compromise was effected which involved more or\nless concession on either side. But the ultimate incompatibility of the\ntwo at length became evident, and a precarious alliance was exchanged\nfor an open antagonism. This final result however was not reached till\nthe middle of the second century: and meanwhile it was a question to\nwhat extent Judaism was prepared to make concessions for the sake of\nthis new ally. Even the Jewish Essenes, as we have seen, departed from\nthe orthodox position in the matter of sacrifices; and if we possessed\nfuller information, we should probably find that they made still larger\nconcessions than this. Of the Colossian heretics we can only form a\nconjecture, but the angelology and angelolatry attributed to them point\nto a further step in the same direction. As we pass from them to\nCerinthus we are [Sidenote: Gnostic element in his teaching.] no longer\nleft in doubt; for the Gnostic element has clearly gained the ascendant,\nthough it has not yet driven its rival out of the field. Two\ncharacteristic features in his teaching especially deserve\nconsideration, both as evincing the tendency of his speculations and as\nthrowing back light on the notices in the Colossian Epistle.\n\nFootnote 329:\n\n  Epiphan. _H\u00e6r._ xxviii. 1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03ca\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.\n\n[Sidenote: 1. His Gnostic Cosmogony]\n\n1. His cosmogony is essentially Gnostic. The great problem of creation\npresented itself to him in the same aspect; and the solution which he\noffered was generically the same. The world, he asserted, was not made\nby the highest God, but by an angel or power far removed from, and\nignorant of, this supreme Being[330]. Other authorities describing his\nsystem speak not of a single power, but of powers, as creating the\nuniverse[331]; but all alike represent this demiurge, or these\ndemiurges, as ignorant of the absolute God. It is moreover stated that\nhe held the Mosaic law to have been given not by the supreme God\nHimself, but by this angel, or one of these angels, who created the\nworld[332].\n\nFootnote 330:\n\n  Iren. i. 26. 1 \u2018Non a primo Deo factum esse mundum docuit, sed a\n  virtute quadam valde separata et distante ab ea principalitate qu\u00e6 est\n  super universa, et ignorante eum qui est super omnia Deum\u2019; Hippol.\n  _H\u00e6r._ vii. 33 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd,\n  \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f45\u03bb\u03b1 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd, x. 21 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03ce\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2,\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a \u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ce\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f45\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 331:\n\n  Pseudo-Tertull. _H\u00e6r._ 3 \u2018Carpocrates pr\u00e6terea hanc tulit sectam: Unam\n  esse dicit virtutem in superioribus principalem, ex hac prolatos\n  angelos atque virtutes, quos distantes longe a superioribus virtutibus\n  mundum istum in inferioribus partibus condidisse.... Post hunc\n  Cerinthus h\u00e6reticus erupit, similia docens. Nam et ipse mundum\n  institutum esse ab illis dicit\u2019; Epiphan. _H\u00e6r._ xxviii. 1 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd; Theodoret. H. F. ii. 3 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n  \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd,\n  \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2;\n  Augustin. _H\u00e6r._ 8. The one statement is quite reconcilable with the\n  other. Among those angels by whose instrumentality the world was\n  created, Cerinthus appears to have assigned a position of preeminence\n  to one, whom he regarded as the demiurge in a special sense and under\n  whom the others worked; see Neander _Church History_ II. p. 43.\n\nFootnote 332:\n\n  Pseudo-Tertull. l.c.; Epiphan. _H\u00e6r._ xxviii. 4 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1\n  \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[Sidenote: and consequent angelology.]\n\nFrom these notices it is plain that angelology had an important place in\nhis speculations; and that he employed it to explain the existence of\nevil supposed to be inherent in the physical world, as well as to\naccount for the imperfections of the old dispensation. The \u2018remote\ndistance\u2019 of his angelic demiurge from the supreme God can hardly be\nexplained except on the hypothesis of _successive_ generations of these\nintermediate agencies. Thus his solution is thoroughly Gnostic. At the\nsame time, as contrasted with later and more sharply defined Gnostic\nsystems, the Judaic origin and complexion of his cosmogony is obvious.\nHis intermediate agencies still retain the name and the personality of\nangels, and have not yet given way to those vague idealities which, as\nemanations [Sidenote: Angels of earlier and \u00e6ons of later Gnostics.] or\n\u00e6ons, took their place in later speculations. Thus his theory is linked\non to the angelology of later Judaism founded on the angelic appearances\nrecorded in the Old Testament narrative. And again: while later Gnostics\nrepresent the demiurge and giver of the law as antagonistic to the\nsupreme and good God, Cerinthus does not go beyond postulating his\nignorance. He went as far as he could without breaking entirely with the\nOld Testament and abandoning his Judaic standing-ground.\n\n[Sidenote: Cerinthus a link between the Colossian heresy and later\n           Gnosticism.]\n\nIn these respects Cerinthus is the proper link between the incipient\ngnosis of the Colossian heretics and the mature gnosis of the second\ncentury. In the Colossian epistle we still breathe the atmosphere of\nJewish angelology, nor is there any trace of the _\u00e6on_ of later\nGnosticism[333]; while yet speculation is so far advanced that the\nangels have an important function in explaining the mysteries of the\ncreation and government of the world. On the other hand it has not\nreached the point at which we find it in Cerinthus. Gnostic conceptions\nrespecting the relation of the demiurgic agency to the supreme God would\nappear to have passed through three stages. This relation was\nrepresented first, as imperfect appreciation; next, as entire ignorance;\nlastly, as direct antagonism. The second and third are the standing\npoints of Cerinthus and of the later Gnostic teachers respectively. The\nfirst was probably the position of the Colossian false teachers. The\nimperfections of the natural world, they would urge, were due to the\nlimited capacities of these angels to whom the demiurgic work was\ncommitted, and to their imperfect sympathy with the supreme God; but at\nthe same time they might fitly receive worship as mediators between God\nand man; and indeed humanity seemed in its weakness to need the\nintervention of some such beings less remote from itself than the\nhighest heaven.\n\nFootnote 333:\n\n  I am quite unable to see any reference to the Gnostic conception of an\n  _\u00e6on_ in the passages of the New Testament, which are sometimes quoted\n  in support of this view, e.g., by Baur Paulus p. 428, Burton\n  _Lectures_ p. 111 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: 2. His Christology.]\n\n2. Again the Christology of Cerinthus deserves attention from this point\nof view. Here all our authorities are agreed. As a Judaizer Cerinthus\nheld with the Ebionites that Jesus was only the son of Joseph and Mary,\nborn in the natural way. As a Gnostic he maintained that the Christ\nfirst descended in the form of a dove on the carpenter\u2019s son at his\nbaptism; that He revealed to him the unknown Father, and worked miracles\nthrough him: and that at length He took His flight and left him, so that\nJesus alone suffered and rose, while the Christ remained\nimpassible[334]. It would appear also, though this is not certain, that\nhe described this re-ascension of the Christ, as a return \u2018to His own\n_pleroma_[335].\u2019\n\nFootnote 334:\n\n  Iren. i. 26. 1, Hippol. _H\u00e6r._ vii. 33, x. 21, Epiphan. _H\u00e6r._ xxviii.\n  1, Theodoret. _H. F._ ii. 3. The arguments by which Lipsius\n  (_Gnosticismus_ pp. 245, 258, in Ersch u. Gruber; _Quellenkritik des\n  Epiphanios_ p. 118 sq.) attempts to show that Cerinthus did not\n  separate the Christ from Jesus, and that Iren\u00e6us (and subsequent\n  authors copying him) have wrongly attributed to this heretic the\n  theories of later Gnostics, seem insufficient to outweigh these direct\n  statements. It is more probable that the system of Cerinthus should\n  have admitted some foreign elements not very consistent with his\n  Judaic standing point, than that these writers should have been\n  misinformed. Inconsistency was a necessary condition of Judaic\n  Gnosticism. The point however is comparatively unimportant as\n  affecting my main purpose.\n\nFootnote 335:\n\n  Iren\u00e6us (iii. 11. 1), after speaking of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans,\n  proceeds \u2018non, quemadmodum illi dicunt, alterum quidem fabricatorem\n  (i.e. demiurgum), alium autem Patrem Domini: et alium quidem\n  fabricatoris filium, alterum vero de superioribus Christum, quem et\n  impassibilem perseverasse, descendentem in Jesum filium fabricatoris,\n  et iterum _revolasse in suum pleroma_.\u2019 The doctrine is precisely that\n  which he has before ascribed to Cerinthus (i. 26. 1), but the mode of\n  statement may have been borrowed from the Nicolaitans or from some\n  later Gnostics. There is however no improbability in the supposition\n  that Cerinthus used the word pleroma in this way; see the detached\n  note on \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 below.\n\n[Sidenote: Approach towards Cerinthian Christology in the Colossian\n           heresy.]\n\nNow it is not clear from St Paul\u2019s language what opinions the Colossian\nheretics held respecting the person of our Lord; but we may safely\nassume that he regarded them as inadequate and derogatory. The emphasis,\nwith which he asserts the eternal being and absolute sovereignty of\nChrist, can hardly be explained in any other way. But individual\nexpressions tempt us to conjecture that the same ideas were already\nfloating in the air, which ultimately took form and consistency in the\ntenets of Cerinthus. Thus, when he reiterates the statement that the\n_whole_ pleroma abides _permanently_ in Christ[336], he would appear to\nbe tacitly refuting some opinion which maintained only mutable and\nimperfect relations between the two. When again he speaks of the true\ngospel first taught to the Colossians as the doctrine of \u2018the Christ,\n_even_ Jesus the Lord[337],\u2019 his language might seem to be directed\nagainst the tendency to separate the heavenly Christ from the earthly\nJesus, as though the connexion were only transient. When lastly he\ndwells on the work of reconciliation, as wrought \u2018through the blood of\nChrist\u2019s cross,\u2019 \u2018in the body of His flesh through death[338],\u2019 we may\nperhaps infer that he already discerned a disposition to put aside\nChrist\u2019s passion as a stumbling-block in the way of philosophical\nreligion. Thus regarded, the Apostle\u2019s language gains force and point;\nthough no stress can be laid on explanations which are so largely\nconjectural.\n\nFootnote 336:\n\n  i. 19, ii. 9. See above p. 102, note 295. On the force of \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n  see the note on the earlier of the two passages.\n\nFootnote 337:\n\n  ii. 6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 338:\n\n  i. 20, 22.\n\n[Sidenote: The Gnosticism of the Colossians being vague and\n           undeveloped.]\n\nBut if so, the very generality of his language shows that these\nspeculations were still vague and fluctuating. The difference which\nseparates these heretics from Cerinthus may be measured by the greater\nprecision and directness in the Apostolic counter-statement, as we turn\nfrom the Epistle to the Colossians to the Gospel of St John. In this\ninterval, extending over nearly a quarter of a century, speculation had\ntaken a definite shape. The elements of Gnostic theory, which were\nbefore held in solution, had meanwhile crystallized around the facts of\nthe Gospel. Yet still we seem justified, even at the earlier date, in\nspeaking of these general ideas as Gnostic, guarding ourselves at the\nsame time against misunderstanding with the twofold caution, that we\nhere employ the term to express the simplest and most elementary\nconceptions of this tendency of thought, and that we do not postulate\nits use as a distinct designation of any sect or sects at this early\ndate. Thus limited, the view that the writer of this epistle is\ncombating a Gnostic heresy seems free from all objections, while it\nappears necessary to explain his language; and certainly it does not, as\nis sometimes imagined, place any weapon in the hands of those who would\nassail the early date and Apostolic authorship of the epistle.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n              _On some points connected with the Essenes._\n\n\n                                   I.\n                            THE NAME ESSENE.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Various forms of the name in Greek.]\n\nThe name is variously written in Greek;\n\n1. \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2: Joseph. _Ant._ xiii. 5. 9, xiii. 10. 6, xv. 10. 5, xviii. 1.\n  2, 5, _B.J._ ii. 8. 2, 13, _Vit._ 2; Plin. _N.H._ v. 15. 17 (Essenus);\n  Dion Chrys. in Synes. _Dion_ 3; Hippol. _H\u00e6r._ ix. 18, 28 (MS \u1f10\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2);\n  Epiphan. _H\u00e6r._ p. 28 sq, 127 (ed. Pet.).\n\n2. \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2: Philo II. pp. 457, 471, 632 (ed. Mang.); Hegesippus in\n  Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 22; Porphyr. _de Abstin._ iv. 11. So too Joseph.\n  _B.J._ ii. 7. 3, ii. 20. 4, iii. 2. 1; _Ant._ xv. 10. 4; though in the\n  immediate context of this last passage he writes \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, if the\n  common texts may be trusted.\n\n3. \u1f48\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2: Epiphan. _H\u00e6r._ pp. 40 sq., 125, 462. The common texts very\n  frequently make him write \u1f48\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, but see Dindorf\u2019s notes, Epiphan.\n  _Op._ 1. pp. 380, 425. With Epiphanius the Essenes are a Samaritan,\n  the Oss\u00e6ans a Judaic sect. He has evidently got his information from\n  two distinct sources, and does not see that the same persons are\n  intended.\n\n4. \u0399\u1f10\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, Epiphan. _H\u00e6r._ p. 117. From the connexion the same sect\n  again seems to be meant: but owing to the form Epiphanius conjectures\n  (\u03bf\u1f36\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9) that the name is derived from Jesse, the father of David.\n\n[Sidenote: All etymologies to be rejected which derive the name.]\n\nIf any certain example could be produced where the name occurs in any\nearly Hebrew or Aramaic writing, the question of its derivation would\nprobably be settled; but in the absence of a single decisive instance a\nwide field is opened for conjecture, and critics have not been backward\nin availing themselves of the license. In discussing the claims of the\ndifferent etymologies proposed we may reject:\n\n[Sidenote: (i) From the Greek;]\n\n_First_: derivations from the Greek. Thus Philo connects the word with\n\u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u2018holy\u2019: _Quod omn. prob._ 12, p. 457 \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 ... \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n\u1f11\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f41\u03c3\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u00a7 13, p. 459 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f22 \u1f41\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd,\n_Fragm._ p. 632 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f41\u03c3\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, \u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u1ff6\n[\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6;], \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. It is not quite clear whether\nPhilo is here playing with words after the manner of his master Plato,\nor whether he holds a pre-established harmony to exist among different\nlanguages by which similar sounds represent similar things, or whether\nlastly he seriously means that the name was directly derived from the\nGreek word \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. The last supposition is the least probable; but he\ncertainly does not reject this derivation \u2018as incorrect\u2019 (Ginsburg\n_Essenes_ p. 27), nor can \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f41\u03c3\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 be rendered \u2018from an\nincorrect derivation from the Greek homonym _hosiotes_\u2019 (ib. p. 32),\nsince the word \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 never involves the notion of _false_ etymology.\nThe amount of truth which probably underlies Philo\u2019s statement will be\nconsidered hereafter. Another Greek derivation is \u1f34\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, \u2018companion,\nassociate,\u2019 suggested by Rapoport, _Erech Millin_ p. 41. Several others\nagain are suggested by L\u00f6wy, s.v. Ess\u00e4er, e.g. \u1f14\u03c3\u03c9 from their esoteric\ndoctrine, or \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1 from their fatalism. All such may be rejected as\ninstances of ingenious trifling, if indeed they deserve to be called\ningenious.\n\n[Sidenote: (ii) From names of persons or places;]\n\n_Secondly_: derivations from proper names whether of persons or of\nplaces. Thus the word has been derived from _Jesse_ the father of David\n(Epiphan. l.c.), or from one \u05d9\u05e9\u05d9 Isai, the disciple of R. Joshua ben\nPerachia who migrated to Egypt in the time of Alexander Jann\u00e6us (L\u00f6w in\n_Ben Chananja_ i. p. 352). Again it has been referred to the town _Essa_\n(a doubtful reading in Joseph. _Ant._ xiii. 15. 3) beyond the Jordan.\nAnd other similar derivations have been suggested.\n\n[Sidenote: From Hebrew roots not supplying the right consonants,]\n\n_Thirdly_: etymologies from the Hebrew or Aramaic, which do not supply\nthe right consonants, or do not supply them in the right order. Under\nthis head several must be rejected;\n\n\u05d0\u05e1\u05e8 _\u0101sar_ \u2018to bind,\u2019 Adler _Volkslehrer_ VI. p. 50, referred to by\n  Ginsburg _Essenes_ p. 29.\n\n\u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3 _ch\u0101s\u012bd_ \u2018pious,\u2019 which is represented by \u1f08\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 (1 Macc. ii. 42\n  (v. l.), vii. 13, 2 Macc. xiv. 6), and could not possibly assume the\n  form \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 or \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2. Yet this derivation appears in Josippon ben\n  Gorion (iv. 6, 7, v. 24, pp. 274, 278, 451), who substitutes\n  _Chasidim_ in narratives where the Essenes are mentioned in the\n  original of Josephus; and it has been adopted by many more recent\n  writers.\n\n\u05e1\u05d7\u05d0 _s\u2019\u0101ch_ \u2018to bathe,\u2019 from which with an _Aleph_ prefixed we might get\n  \u05d0\u05e1\u05d4\u05d0\u05d9 _as\u2019chai_ \u2018bathers\u2019 (a word however which does not occur): Gr\u00e4tz\n  _Gesch. der Juden_ iii. pp. 82, 468.\n\n\u05e6\u05e0\u05d5\u05e2 _tsan\u016ba\u0639_ \u2018retired, modest,\u2019 adopted by Frankel (_Zeitschrift_\n  1846, p. 449, _Monatschrift_ II[. p. 32) after a suggestion by L\u00f6w.\n\n[Sidenote: such as those which make _n_ part of the root.]\n\nTo this category must be assigned those etymologies which contain a \u05d5 as\nthe third consonant of the root; since the comparison of the parallel\nforms \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 shows that in the latter word the \u03bd is only\nformative. On this ground we must reject:\n\n\u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05df _ch\u0101s\u012bn_; see below under \u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05df.\n\n\u05d7\u05e6\u05df _ch\u014dtsen_ \u2018a fold\u2019 of a garment, and so supposed to signify the\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 or \u2018apron\u2019, which was given to every neophyte among the Essenes\n(Joseph. _B.J._ ii. 8. 5, 7): suggested by Jellinek _Ben Chananja_ IV.\np. 374.\n\n\u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05df _\u0639\u0101sh\u012bn_ \u2018strong\u2019: see Cohn in Frankel\u2019s _Monatschrift_ VII. p.\n271. This etymology is suggested to explain Epiphanius _H\u00e6r._ p. 40\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f48\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (\u2018a sturdy race\u2019). The name \u2018Essene\u2019 is so interpreted\nalso in Makrisi (de Sacy, _Chrestom. Arab._ I. p. 114, 306); but, as he\nhimself writes it with _Elif_ and not _Ain_, it is plain that he got\nthis interpretation from some one else, probably from Epiphanius. The\ncorrect reading however in Epiphanius is \u1f48\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, not \u1f48\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd; and it\nwould therefore appear that this father or his informant derived the\nword from the Hebrew root \u05e2\u05df\u05d5 rather than from the Aramaic \u05e2\u05e9\u05df. The\n\u1f48\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 would then be the \u05e2\u05d5\u05d9\u05e1, and this is so far a possible\nderivation, that the _n_ does not enter into the root. Another word\nsuggested to explain the etymology of Epiphanius is the Aramaic \u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05df\n_ch\u0101s\u012bn_ \u2018powerful, strong\u2019 (from \u05d4\u05e1\u05df); but this is open to the same\nobjections as \u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05df.\n\n[Sidenote: Other derivations considered:]\n\nWhen all such derivations are eliminated as untenable or improbable,\nconsiderable uncertainty still remains. The 1st and 3rd radicals might\nbe any of the gutturals \u05d0,\u05d4,\u05d7,\u05e2; and the Greek \u03c2, as the 2nd radical,\nmight represent any one of several Shemitic sibilants.\n\nThus we have the choice of the following etymologies, which have found\nmore or less favour.\n\n[Sidenote: (1) \u05d0\u05e1\u05d9\u05d0 \u2018a physician\u2019;]\n\n(1) \u05d0\u05e1\u05d0 _\u0103s\u0101_ \u2018to heal,\u2019 whence \u05d0\u05e1\u05d9\u05d0 _asy\u0101_, \u2018a physician.\u2019 The Essenes\nare supposed to be so called because Josephus states (_B.J._ ii. 8. 6)\nthat they paid great attention to the qualities of herbs and minerals\nwith a view to the healing of diseases (\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd). This\netymology is supported likewise by an appeal to the name \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03af,\nwhich Philo gives to an allied sect in Egypt (_de Vit. Cont._ \u00a7 1, II.\np. 471). It seems highly improbable however, that the ordinary name of\nthe Essenes should have been derived from a pursuit which was merely\nsecondary and incidental; while the supposed analogy of the Therapeut\u00e6\nrests on a wrong interpretation of the word. Philo indeed (l.c.), bent\nupon extracting from it as much moral significance as possible, says,\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\n\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.) \u1f22 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f43\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.: but the latter meaning alone\naccords with the usage of the word; for \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, used absolutely,\nsignifies \u2018a worshipper, devotee,\u2019 not \u2018a physician, healer.\u2019 This\netymology of \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 is ascribed, though wrongly, to Philo by Asaria di\nRossi (_Meor Enayim_ 3, fol. 33 _a_) and has been very widely received.\nAmong more recent writers, who have adopted or favoured it, are\nBellermann (_Ueber Ess\u00e4er u. Therapeuten_ p. 7), Gfr\u00f6rer (_Philo_ II. p.\n341), D\u00e4hne (_Ersch u. Gruber_, s.v.), Baur (_Christl. Kirche der drei\nerst. Jahrh._ p. 20), Herzfeld (_Gesch. des Judenthums_ II. p. 371, 395,\n397 sq.), Geiger (_Urschrift_ p. 126), Derenbourg (_L\u2019Histoire et la\nG\u00e9ographie de la Palestine_ pp. 170, 175, notes), Keim (_Jesus von\nNazara_ I. p. 284 sq.), and Hamburger (_Real-Encyclop\u00e4die f\u00fcr Bibel u.\nTalmud_, s.v.). Several of these writers identify the Essenes with the\nBaithusians (\u05d1\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e1\u05d9\u05df) of the Talmud, though in the Talmud the\nBaithusians are connected with the Sadducees. This identification was\nsuggested by di Rossi (l.c. fol. 33 _b_), who interprets \u2018Baithusians\u2019\nas \u2018the school of the Essenes\u2019 (\u05d1\u05d9\u05d7 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e1\u05d9\u05d0): while subsequent writers,\ngoing a step further, have explained it \u2018the school of the physicians\u2019\n(\u05d1\u05d9\u05d7 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e1\u05d9\u05d0).\n\n[Sidenote: (2) \u05d7\u05d6\u05d9\u05d0 \u2018a seer\u2019;]\n\n(2) \u05d7\u05d6\u05d0 _ch\u0103z\u0101_ \u2018to see\u2019, whence \u05d7\u05d6\u05d9\u05d0 _chazy\u0101_ \u2018a seer\u2019, in reference to\nthe prophetic powers which the Essenes claimed, as the result of ascetic\ncontemplation: Joseph. _B.J._ ii. 8. 12 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f43\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. For instances of such Essene\nprophets see _Ant._ xiii. II. 2, xv. 10. 5, _B.J._ I. 3. 5, ii. 7. 3.\nSuidas, s.v. \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, says: \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af.\nFor this derivation, which was suggested by Baumgarten (see Bellermann\np. 10) and is adopted by Hilgenfeld (_J\u00fcd. Apocal._ p. 278), there is\nsomething to be said: but \u05d7\u05d6\u05d0 is rather \u1f41\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bd than \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd; and thus it\nmust denote the result rather than the process, the _vision_ which was\nthe privilege of the few rather than the _contemplation_ which was the\nduty of all. Indeed in a later paper (_Zeitschr_. XI. p. 346, 1868)\nHilgenfeld expresses himself doubtfully about this derivation, feeling\nthe difficulty of explaining the \u03c3\u03c2 from the \u05d6. This is a real\nobjection. In the transliteration of the LXX the \u05d6 is persistently\nrepresented by \u03b6, and the \u05e6 by \u03c2. The exceptions to this rule, where the\nmanuscript authority is beyond question, are very few, and in every case\nthey seem capable of explanation by peculiar circumstances.\n\n[Sidenote: (3) \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u2018to do\u2019;]\n\n(3) _\u0639\u0101s\u0101h_ \u2018to do,\u2019 so that \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 would signify \u2018the doers, the\nobservers of the law,\u2019 thus referring to the strictness of Essene\npractices: see Oppenheim in Frankel\u2019s _Monatschrift_ VII. p. 272 sq. It\nhas been suggested also that, as the Pharisees were especially\ndesignated the teachers, the Essenes were called the \u2018doers\u2019 by a sort\nof antithesis: see an article in Jost\u2019s _Annalen_ 1839, p. 145. Thus the\ntalmudic phrase \u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9 \u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4, interpreted \u2018men of practice, of good deeds,\u2019\nis supposed to refer to the Essenes (see Frankel\u2019s _Zeitschrift_ III. p.\n458, _Monatschrift_ II. p. 70). In some passages indeed (see Surenhuis\n_Mishna_ III. p. 313) it may possibly mean \u2018workers of miracles\u2019 (as\n\u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd Joh. v. 20, vii. 21, x. 25, etc.); but in this sense also it might\nbe explained of the thaumaturgic powers claimed by the Essenes. (See\nbelow, p. 126.) On the use which has been made of a passage in the\n_Aboth_ of R. Nathan c. 37, as supporting this derivation, I shall have\nto speak hereafter. Altogether this etymology has little or nothing to\nrecommend it.\n\nI have reserved to the last the two derivations which seem to deserve\nmost consideration.\n\n[Sidenote: (4) _chasyo_ \u2018pious\u2019;]\n\n(4) \u071a\u0724\u071d _chasi_ (\u071a\u0723\u0710 _ch\u2019s\u0113_) or \u071a\u0723\u071d\u0710 _chasyo_, \u2018pious,\u2019 in Syriac. This\nderivation, which is also given by de Sacy (_Chrestom. Arab._ I. p.\n347), is adopted by Ewald (_Gesch. des V. Isr._ IV. p. 484, ed. 3, 1864,\nVII. pp. 154, 477, ed. 2, 1859), who abandons in its favour another\netymology (\u05d4\u05d6\u05df _chazzan_ \u2018watcher, worshipper\u2019 = \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2) which he\nhad suggested in an earlier edition of his fourth volume (p. 420). It is\nrecommended by the fact that it resembles not only in sound, but in\nmeaning, the Greek \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, of which it is a common rendering in the\nPeshito (Acts ii. 27, xiii. 35, Tit. i. 8). Thus it explains the\nderivation given by Philo (see above, p. 115), and it also accounts for\nthe tendency to write \u1f48\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 for \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 in Greek. Ewald moreover\npoints out how an Essenizing Sibylline poem (_Orac. Sib._ iv; see above,\np. 96) dwells on the Greek equivalents, \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03ae\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03af\u03b7, etc. (vv. 26,\n35, 42 sq., 148 sq., 162, 165 sq., 178 sq., ed. Alexandre), as if they\nhad a special value for the writer: see _Gesch._ VII. p. 154, _Sibyll.\nB\u00fccher_ p. 46. Lipsius (Schenkel\u2019s _Bibel-Lexikon_, _s.v._) also\nconsiders this the most probable etymology.\n\n[Sidenote: (5) \u05d7\u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd \u2018silent ones.\u2019]\n\n(5) \u05d7\u05e9\u05d0 _ch\u0101sh\u0101_ (also \u05d7\u05e9\u05d4) Heb., \u2018to be silent\u2019; whence \u05d7\u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd\n_chashsh\u0101\u012bm_ \u2018the silent ones,\u2019 who meditate on mysteries. Jost (_Gesch.\nd. Judenth._ I. p. 207) believes that this was the derivation accepted\nby Josephus, since he elsewhere (_Ant._ iii. 7. 5, iii. 8. 9) writes out\n\u05d7\u05e9\u05df, _ch\u014dshen_ \u2018the high-priest\u2019s breast-plate\u2019 (Exod. xxviii. 15 sq),\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c3\u03ae\u03bd or \u1f10\u03c3\u03c3\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 in Greek, and explains it \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd (i.e. the \u2018place of oracles\u2019 or \u2018of reason\u2019:\ncomp. Philo _de Mon._ ii. \u00a7 5, II. p. 226 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c4\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2,\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.),\nas it is translated in the LXX. Even though modern critics should be\nright in connecting \u05d7\u05e9\u05df with the Arab. \ufea3\u0633\u0646 \u2018pulcher fuit, ornavit\u2019 (see\nGesen. _Thes._ p. 535, s.v.), the other derivation may have prevailed in\nJosephus\u2019 time. We may illustrate this derivation by Josephus\u2019\ndescription of the Essenes, _B.J._ ii. 8. 5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03be\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\n\u03c6\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c0\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9; and perhaps this will also\nexplain the Greek equivalent \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af, which Suidas gives for \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9.\nThe use of the Hebrew word \u05d7\u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd in Mishna _Shekalim_ v. 6, though we\nneed not suppose that the Essenes are there meant, will serve to show\nhow it might be adopted as the name of the sect. On this word see Levy\n_Chald\u00e4isches W\u00f6rterbuch_ p. 287. On the whole this seems the most\nprobable etymology of any, though it has not found so much favour as the\nlast. At all events the rules of transliteration are entirely satisfied,\nand this can hardly be said of the other derivations which come into\ncompetition with it.\n\n\n                                   2.\n                 ORIGIN AND AFFINITIES OF THE ESSENES.\n\n[Sidenote: The principle of the restoration.]\n\nThe ruling principle of the Restoration under Ezra was the isolation of\nthe Jewish people from all influences of the surrounding nations. Only\nby the rigorous application of this principle was it possible to guard\nthe nationality of the Hebrews, and thus to preserve the sacred deposit\nof religious truth of which this nationality was the husk. Hence the\nstrictest attention was paid to the Levitical ordinances, and more\nespecially to those which aimed at ceremonial purity. The principle,\nwhich was thus distinctly asserted at the period of the national\nrevival, gained force and concentration at a later date from the active\nantagonism to which the patriotic Jews were driven by the religious and\npolitical aggressions of the Syrian kings. During the Maccab\u00e6an wars we\nread of a party or sect [Sidenote: Rise of the Asid\u00e6ans.] called the\n_Chasidim_ or _Asid\u00e6ans_ (\u1f08\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9), the \u2018pious\u2019 or \u2018devout,\u2019 who\nzealous in their observance of the ceremonial law stoutly resisted any\nconcession to the practices of Hellenism, and took their place in the\nvan of the struggle with their national enemies, the Antiochene monarchs\n(1 Macc. ii. 42, vii. 13, 2 Macc. xiv. 6). But, though their names\nappear now for the first time, they are not mentioned as a newly formed\nparty; and it is probable that they had their origin at a much earlier\ndate.\n\nThe subsequent history of this tendency to exclusiveness and isolation\nis wrapt in the same obscurity. At a somewhat later date [Sidenote:\nPharisaism and Essenism traced to the same principle.] it is exhibited\nin the _Pharisees_ and the _Essenes_; but whether these were\nhistorically connected with the Chasidim as divergent offshoots of the\noriginal sect, or whether they represent independent developments of the\nsame principle, we are without the proper data for deciding. The\nprinciple itself appears in the name of the Pharisees, which, as\ndenoting \u2018separation,\u2019 points to the avoidance of all foreign and\ncontaminating influences. On the other hand the meaning of the name\n_Essene_ is uncertain, for the attempt to derive it directly from\n_Chasidim_ must be abandoned; but the tendency of the sect is\nunmistakeable. If with the Pharisees ceremonial purity was a principal\naim, with the Essenes it was an absorbing passion. It was enforced and\nguarded moreover by a special organization. While the Pharisees were a\nsect, the Essenes were an order. Like the Pythagoreans in Magna Gr\u00e6cia\nand the Buddhists in India before them, like the Christian monks of the\nEgyptian and Syrian deserts after them, they were formed into a\nreligious brotherhood, fenced about by minute and rigid rules, and\ncarefully guarded from any contamination with the outer world.\n\n[Sidenote: Foreign elements in Essenism.]\n\nThus the sect may have arisen in the heart of Judaism. The idea of\nceremonial purity was essentially Judaic. But still, when we turn to the\nrepresentations of Philo and Josephus, it is impossible to overlook\nother traits which betoken foreign affinities. Whatever the Essenes may\nhave been in their origin, at the Christian era at least and in the\nApostolic age they no longer represented the current type of religious\nthought and practice among the Jews. This foreign element has been\nderived by some from the Pythagoreans, by others from the Syrians or\nPersians or even from the farther East; but, whether Greek or Oriental,\nits existence has until lately been almost universally allowed.\n\n[Sidenote: Frankel\u2019s theory well received,]\n\nThe investigations of Frankel, published first in 1846 in his\n_Zeitschrift_, and continued in 1853 in his _Monatschrift_, have given a\ndifferent direction to current opinion. Frankel maintains that Essenism\nwas a purely indigenous growth, that it is only Pharisaism in an\nexaggerated form, and that it has nothing distinctive and owes nothing,\nor next to nothing, to foreign influences. To establish this point, he\ndisparages the representations of Philo and Josephus as coloured to suit\nthe tastes of their heathen readers, while in their place he brings\nforward as authorities a number of passages from talmudical and\nrabbinical writings, in which he discovers references to this sect. In\nthis view he is followed implicitly by some later writers, and has\nlargely influenced the opinions of others; while nearly all speak of his\ninvestigations as throwing great light on the subject.\n\n[Sidenote: but groundless and misleading.]\n\nIt is perhaps dangerous to dissent from a view which has found so much\nfavour; but nevertheless I am obliged to confess my belief that,\nwhatever value Frankel\u2019s investigations may have as contributions to our\nknowledge of Jewish religious thought and practice, they throw little or\nno light on the Essenes specially; and that the blind acceptance of his\nresults by later writers has greatly obscured the distinctive features\nof this sect. I cannot but think that any one, who will investigate\nFrankel\u2019s references and test his results step by step, will arrive at\nthe conclusion to which I myself have been led, that his talmudical\nresearches have left our knowledge of this sect where it was before, and\nthat we must still refer to Josephus and Philo for any precise\ninformation respecting them.\n\n[Sidenote: His double derivation of the name.]\n\nFrankel starts from the etymology of the name. He supposes that \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2,\n\u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, represent two different Hebrew words, the former \u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3 _ch\u0101s\u012bd_,\nthe latter \u05e6\u05e0\u05d5\u05e2 _tsan\u016ba\u0639_, both clothed in suitable Greek dresses[339].\nWherever therefore either of these words occurs, there is, or there may\nbe, a direct reference to the Essenes.\n\nFootnote 339:\n\n  _Zeitschrift_ p. 449 \u2018F\u00fcr _Ess\u00e4er_ liegt, wie schon von anderen Seiten\n  bemerkt wurde, das Hebr. \u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3, f\u00fcr _Essener_, nach einer Bemerkung des\n  Herrn L. L\u00f6w im _Orient_, das Hebr. \u05e6\u05e0\u05d5\u05e2 nahe\u2019; see also pp. 454, 455;\n  _Monatschrift_ p. 32.\n\n[Sidenote: Fatal objections to it.]\n\nIt is not too much to say that these etymologies are impossible; and\nthis for several reasons. (1) The two words \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, are\nplainly duplicate forms of the same Hebrew or Aramaic original, like\n\u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 (Epiphan. _H\u00e6r._ pp. 40, 47, 127; and even\n\u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 p. 46), \u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 and \u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, \u0393\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 and \u0393\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 (Steph.\nByz. s.v., Hippol. _H\u00e6r._ vi. 7), with which we may compare \u0392\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2\nand \u0392\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, \u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 and \u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, and numberless other examples.\n(2) Again; when we consider either word singly, the derivation offered\nis attended with the most serious difficulties. There is no reason why\nin \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 the _d_ should have disappeared from _chasid_, while it is\nhardly possible to conceive that tsanua\u0639 should have taken such an\nincongruous form as \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2. (3) And lastly; the more important of the\ntwo words, _chasid_, had already a recognised Greek equivalent in\n\u1f08\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2; and it seems highly improbable that a form so divergent as\n\u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 should have taken its place.\n\n[Sidenote: Dependence of the theory on the derivation.]\n\nIndeed Frankel\u2019s derivations are generally, if not universally,\nabandoned by later writers; and yet these same writers repeat his\nquotations and accept his results, as if the references were equally\nvalid, though the name of the sect has disappeared. They seem to be\nsatisfied with the stability of the edifice, even when the foundation is\nundermined. Thus for instance Gr\u00e4tz not only maintains after Frankel\nthat the Essenes \u2018were properly nothing more than stationary or, more\nstrictly speaking, consistently logical (consequente) _Chasidim_,\u2019 and\n\u2018that therefore they were not so far removed from the Pharisees that\nthey can be regarded as a separate sect,\u2019 and \u2018accepts entirely these\nresults\u2019 which, as he says, \u2018rest on critical investigation\u2019 (III. p.\n463), but even boldly translates _chasiduth_ \u2018the Essene mode of life\u2019\n(ib. 84), though he himself gives a wholly different derivation of the\nword \u2018Essene,\u2019 making it signify \u2018washers\u2019 or \u2018baptists\u2019 (see above, p.\n116). And even those who do not go to this length of inconsistency, yet\navail themselves freely of the passages where _chasid_ occurs, and\ninterpret it of the Essenes, while distinctly repudiating the\netymology[340].\n\nFootnote 340:\n\n  e.g. Keim (p. 286) and Derenbourg (p. 166, 461 sq.), who both derive\n  Essene from \u05d0\u05e1\u05d9\u05d0 \u2018a physician.\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: The term _chasid_ not applied specially to the Essenes.]\n\nBut, although \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 or \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 is not a Greek form of _chasid_, it\nmight still happen that this word was applied to them as an epithet,\nthough not as a proper name. Only in this case the reference ought to be\nunmistakeable, before any conclusions are based upon it. But in fact,\nafter going through all the passages which Frankel gives, it is\nimpossible to feel satisfied that in a single instance there is a direct\nallusion to the Essenes. Sometimes the word seems to refer to the old\nsect of the _Chasidim_ or _Asid\u00e6ans_, as for instance when Jose ben\nJoezer, who lived during the Maccab\u00e6an war, is called a _chasid_[341].\nAt all events this R. Jose is known to have been a married man, for he\nis stated to have disinherited his children (_Baba Bathra_ 133 _b_); and\ntherefore he cannot have belonged to the stricter order of Essenes.\nSometimes it is employed quite generally to denote pious observers of\nthe ceremonial law, as for instance when it is said that with the death\nof certain famous teachers the Chasidim ceased[342]. In this latter\nsense the expression \u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, \u2018the ancient or primitive\nChasidim\u2019 (_Monatschr._ pp. 31, 62), is perhaps used; for these\nprimitive Chasidim again are mentioned as having wives and\nchildren[343], and it appears also that they were scrupulously exact in\nbringing their sacrificial offerings[344]. Thus it is impossible to\nidentify them with the Essenes, as described by Josephus and Philo. Even\nin those passages of which most has been made, the reference is more\nthan doubtful. Thus great stress is laid on the saying of R. Joshua ben\nChananiah in Mishna _Sotah_ iii. 4, \u2018The foolish _chasid_ and the clever\nvillain (\u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3 \u05e9\u05d5\u05d8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e8\u05e9\u05e2 \u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05dd), etc., are the ruin of the world.\u2019 But the\nconnexion points to a much more general meaning of _chasid_, and the\nrendering in Surenhuis, \u2018Homo pius qui insipiens, improbus qui astutus,\u2019\ngives the correct antithesis. So we might say that there is no one more\nmischievous than the wrong-headed conscientious man. It is true that the\nGemaras illustrate the expression by examples of those who allow an\nover-punctilious regard for external forms to stand in the way of deeds\nof mercy. And perhaps rightly. But there is no reference to any\ndistinctive Essene practices in the illustrations given. Again; the\nsaying in Mishna _Pirke Aboth_ v. 10, \u2018He who says Mine is thine and\nthine is thine is [a] _chasid_ (\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05da \u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05da \u05e9\u05dc\u05da \u05d4\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3),\u2019 is quoted by\nseveral writers as though it referred to the Essene community of\ngoods[345]. But in the first place the idea of community of goods would\nrequire \u2018Mine is thine and thine is mine\u2019: and in the second place, the\nwhole context, and especially the clause which immediately follows (and\nwhich these writers do not give), \u2018He who says Thine is mine and mine is\nmine is wicked (\u05e8\u05e9\u05e2),\u2019 show plainly that \u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3 must be taken in its\ngeneral sense \u2018pious,\u2019 and the whole expression implies not reciprocal\ninterchange but individual self-denial.\n\nFootnote 341:\n\n  Mishna _Chagigah_ ii. 7; _Zeitschr._ p. 454, _Monatschr._ pp. 33, 62.\n  See Frankel\u2019s own account of this R. Jose in an earlier volume,\n  _Monatschr._ I. p. 405 sq.\n\nFootnote 342:\n\n  _Zeitschr._ p. 457, _Monatschr._ p. 69 sq.; see below, p. 126.\n\nFootnote 343:\n\n  _Niddah_ 38 _a_; see L\u00f6wy s.v. Ess\u00e4er.\n\nFootnote 344:\n\n  Mishna _Kerithuth_ vi. 3, _Nedarim_ 10 a; see _Monatschr._ p. 65.\n\nFootnote 345:\n\n  Thus Gr\u00e4tz (III. p. 81) speaking of the community of goods among the\n  Essenes writes, \u2018From this view springs the proverb; Every Chassid\n  says; _Mine and thine belong to thee_ (not _me_)\u2019 thus giving a turn\n  to the expression which in its original connexion it does not at all\n  justify. Of the existence of such a proverb I have found no traces. It\n  certainly is not suggested in the passage of _Pirke Aboth_. Later in\n  the volume (p. 467) Gr\u00e4tz tacitly alters the words to make them\n  express reciprocation or community of goods, substituting \u2018Thine is\n  mine\u2019 for \u2018Thine is thine\u2019 in the second clause; \u2018The Chassid must\n  have no property of his own, but must treat it as belonging to the\n  Society (\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc\u05da \u05e9\u05dc\u05da \u05e9\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3).\u2019 At least, as he gives no reference, I\n  suppose that he refers to the same passage. In this loose way he\n  treats the whole subject. Keim (p. 294) quotes the passage correctly,\n  but refers it nevertheless to Essene communism.\n\n[Sidenote: Possible connexion of\n           _chasid_ and _chasyo_\n           discussed.]\n\nIt might indeed be urged, though this is not Frankel\u2019s plea, that\nsupposing the true etymology of the word \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, to be the\nSyriac \u071a\u0723\u0710, \u071a\u0723\u071d\u0710, _ch\u2019s\u0113_, _chasyo_ (a possible derivation), _chasid_\nmight have been its Hebrew equivalent as being similar in sound and\nmeaning, and perhaps ultimately connected in derivation, the exactly\ncorresponding triliteral root \u05d7\u05e1\u05d0 (comp. \u05d7\u05d5\u05dd) not being in use in\nHebrew[346]. But before we accept this explanation we have a right to\ndemand some evidence which, if not demonstrative, is at least\ncircumstantial, that _chasid_ is used of the Essenes: and this we have\nseen is not forthcoming. Moreover, if the Essenes had thus inherited the\nname of the _Chasidim_, we should have expected that its old Greek\nequivalent \u1f08\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, which is still used later than the Maccab\u00e6an era,\nwould also have gone with it; rather than that a new Greek word \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2\n(or \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2) should have been invented to take its place. But indeed the\nSyriac Version of the Old Testament furnishes an argument against this\nconvertibility of the Hebrew _chasid_ and the Syriac _chasyo_, which\nmust be regarded as [Sidenote: Usage is unfavourable to this view.]\nalmost decisive. The numerous passages in the Psalms, where the\nexpressions \u2018My _chasidim_,\u2019 \u2018His _chasidim_,\u2019 occur (xxx. 5, xxxi. 24,\nxxxvii. 28, lii. 11, lxxix. 2, lxxxv. 9, xcvii. 10, cxvi. 15, cxxxii. 9,\ncxlix. 9: comp. xxxii. 6, cxlix. 1, 5) seem to have suggested the\nassumption of the name to the original Asid\u00e6ans. But in such passages\n\u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3 is commonly, if not universally, rendered in the Peshito not by\n\u071a\u0723\u0710, \u071a\u0723\u071d\u0710, but by a wholly different word \u0719\u0715\u071d\u0729 _zad\u012bk_. And again, in\nthe Books of Maccabees the Syriac rendering for the name \u1f08\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9,\n_Chasidim_, is a word derived from another quite distinct root. These\nfacts show that the Hebrew _chasid_ and the Syriac _chasyo_ were not\npractically equivalents, so that the one would suggest the other; and\nthus all presumption in favour of a connexion between \u1f08\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 and\n\u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 is removed.\n\nFootnote 346:\n\n  This is Hitzig\u2019s view (_Geschichte des Volkes Israel_ p. 427). He\n  maintains that \"they were called \u2018_Hasidim_\u2019 by the later Jews because\n  the Syrian _Essenes_ means exactly the same as \u2018_Hasidim_.\u2019\"\n\n[Sidenote: Frankel\u2019s second derivation]\n\nFrankel\u2019s other derivation \u05e6\u05e0\u05d5\u05e2, _tsan\u016ba\u0639_, suggested as an equivalent\nto \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, has found no favour with later writers, and indeed is too\nfar removed from the Greek form to be tenable. [Sidenote: _tsanua\u0639_\nconsidered.]\n\nNor do the passages quoted by him[347] require or suggest any allusion\nto this sect. Thus in Mishna _Demai_, vi. 6, we are told that the school\nof Hillel permits a certain license in a particular matter, but it is\nadded, \u2018The \u05e6\u05e0\u05d5\u05e2\u05d9 of the school of Hillel followed the precept of the\nschool of Shammai.\u2019 Here, as Frankel himself confesses, the Jerusalem\nTalmud knows nothing about Essenes, but explains the word by \u05d1\u05e9\u05d3\u05d9, i.e.\n\u2018upright, worthy[348]\u2019; while elsewhere, as he allows[349], it must have\nthis general sense. Indeed the mention of the \u2018school of Hillel\u2019 here\nseems to exclude the Essenes. In its comprehensive meaning it will most\nnaturally be taken also in the other passage quoted by Frankel,\n_Kiddushin_ 71 _a_, where it is stated that the pronunciation of the\nsacred name, which formerly was known to all, is now only to be divulged\nto the \u05e6\u05e0\u05d5\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd, i.e. the discreet, among the priests; and in fact it\noccurs in reference to the communication of the same mystery in the\nimmediate context also, where it could not possibly be treated as a\nproper name; \u05e9\u05e6\u05e0\u05d5\u05e2 \u05d5\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05e2\u05d5\u05de\u05d3 \u05d1\u05d7\u05e6\u05d9 \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05d5, \u2018who is _discreet_ and meek\nand has reached middle age,\u2019 etc.\n\nFootnote 347:\n\n  _Zeitschr_. pp. 455, 457; _Monatschr._ p. 32.\n\nFootnote 348:\n\n  _Monatschr._ p. 32.\n\nFootnote 349:\n\n  _Zeitschr._ p. 455.\n\n[Sidenote: Other supposed etymologies in the Talmud. (1) _Asya_ \u2018a\n           physician,\u2019]\n\nOf other etymologies, which have been suggested, and through which it\nmight be supposed the Essenes are mentioned by name in the Talmud, \u05d0\u05d9\u05e1\u05d0,\n_asya_, \u2018a physician,\u2019 is the one which has found most favour. For the\nreasons given above (p. 117) this derivation seems highly improbable,\nand the passages quoted are quite insufficient to overcome the\nobjections. Of these the strongest is in the Talm. Jerus. _Yoma_ iii. 7,\nwhere we are told that a certain physician\n\n[Sidenote: not supported by the passages quoted in its behalf.]\n\n(\u05d0\u05e1\u05d9) offered to communicate the sacred name to R. Pinchas the son of\nChama, and the latter refused on the ground that he ate of the\ntithes\u2014this being regarded as a disqualification, apparently because it\nwas inconsistent with the highest degree of ceremonial purity[350]. The\nsame story is told with some modifications in Midrash _Qoheleth_ iii.\n11[351]. Here Frankel, though himself (as we have seen) adopting a\ndifferent derivation of the word \u2018Essene,\u2019 yet supposes that this\nparticular physician belonged to the sect, on the sole ground that\nceremonial purity is represented as a qualification for the initiation\ninto the mystery of the Sacred Name. L\u00f6wy (l.c.) denies that the\nallusion to the tithes is rightly interpreted: but even supposing it to\nbe correct, the passage is quite an inadequate basis either for\nFrankel\u2019s conclusion that this particular physician was an Essene, or\nfor the derivation of the word Essene which others maintain. Again, in\nthe statement of Talm. Jerus. _Kethuboth_ ii. 3, that correct\nmanuscripts were called books of \u05d0\u05e1\u05d9[352], the word _Asi_ is generally\ntaken as a proper name. But even if this interpretation be false, there\nis absolutely nothing in the context which suggests any allusion to the\nEssenes[353]. In like manner the passage from _Sanhedrin_ 99 _b_, where\na physician is mentioned[354], supports no such inference. Indeed, as\nthis last passage relates to the family of the _Asi_, he obviously can\nhave had no connexion with the celibate Essenes.\n\nFootnote 350:\n\n  Frankel _Monatschr._ p. 71: comp. Derenbourg p. 170 sq.\n\nFootnote 351:\n\n  See L\u00f6wy _Krit.-Talm. Lex._ s.v. Ess\u00e4er.\n\nFootnote 352:\n\n  Urged in favour of this derivation by Herzfeld II. p. 398.\n\nFootnote 353:\n\n  The oath taken by the Essenes (Joseph. _B.J._ ii. 8. 7) \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n  ... \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 can have nothing to do with accuracy\n  in transcribing copies, as Herzfeld (II. pp. 398, 407) seems to think.\n  The natural meaning of \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u2018to keep safe or close\u2019 and so \u2018not\n  to divulge\u2019 (e.g. Polyb. xxxi. 6. 5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\n  \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc7), is also the meaning suggested here by the\n  context.\n\nFootnote 354:\n\n  The passage is adduced in support of this derivation by Derenbourg p.\n  175.\n\n[Sidenote: (2) _\u0639asah_ \u2018to do.\u2019]\n\nHitherto our search for the name in the Talmud has been unsuccessful.\nOne possibility however still remains. The talmudical writers speak of\ncertain \u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9 \u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u2018men of deeds\u2019; and if (as some suppose) the name\nEssene is derived from \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4, have we not here the mention which we are\nseeking? Frankel rejects the etymology, but presses the\nidentification[355]. The expression, he urges, is often used in\nconnexion with _chasidim_. It signifies \u2018miracle workers,\u2019 and therefore\naptly describes the supernatural powers supposed to be exercised by the\nEssenes[356]. Thus we are informed in Mishna _Sotah_ ix. 15, that \u2018When\nR. Chaninah ben Dosa died, the men of deeds ceased; when R. Jose Ketinta\ndied, the chasidim ceased.\u2019 In the Jerusalem Talmud however this mishna\nis read, \u2018With the death of R. Chaninah ben Dosa and R. Jose Ketinta the\nchasidim ceased\u2019; while the Gemara there explains R. Chaninah to have\nbeen one of the \u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9. Thus, Frankel concludes, \u2018the identity of\nthese with \u05d4\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd becomes still more plain.\u2019 Now it seems clear that\nthis expression \u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9 \u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 in some places cannot refer to miraculous\npowers, but must mean \u2018men of practical goodness,\u2019 as for instance in\n_Succah_ 51_a_, 53_a_; and being a general term expressive of moral\nexcellence, it is naturally connected with _chasidim_, which is likewise\na general term expressive of piety and goodness. Nor is there any reason\nwhy it should not always be taken in this sense. It is true that stories\nare told elsewhere of this R. Chaninah, which ascribe miraculous powers\nto him[357], and hence there is a temptation to translate it\n\u2018wonder-worker,\u2019 as applied to him. But the reason is quite\ninsufficient. Moreover it must be observed that R. Chaninah\u2019s wife is a\nprominent person in the legends of his miracles reported in _Taanith_ 24\n_b_; and thus we need hardly stop to discuss the possible meanings of\n\u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05d9 \u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4, since his claims to being considered an Essene are barred at\nthe outset by this fact[358].\n\nFootnote 355:\n\n  See _Zeitschr._ p 438, _Monatschr._ pp. 68\u201370.\n\nFootnote 356:\n\n  See above, p. 118.\n\nFootnote 357:\n\n  _Taanith_ 24_b_, _Yoma_ 53_b_; see Surenhuis _Mishna_ III. p. 313.\n\nFootnote 358:\n\n  In this and similar cases it is unnecessary to consider whether the\n  persons mentioned might have belonged to those looser disciples of\n  Essenism, who married (see above, p. 85): because the identification\n  is meaningless unless they belonged to the strict order itself.\n\nIt has been asserted indeed by a recent author, that one very ancient\nJewish writer distinctly adopts this derivation, and as distinctly\nstates that the Essenes were a class of Pharisees[359]. If this were the\ncase, Frankel\u2019s theory, though not his etymology, would receive a\nstriking confirmation: and it is therefore important to enquire on what\nfoundation the assertion rests.\n\nFootnote 359:\n\n  Ginsburg in Kitto\u2019s _Cyclop\u00e6dia_ s.v., I. p. 829: comp. _Essenes_ pp.\n  22, 28.\n\n[Sidenote: The authority for this derivation traced to an error.]\n\nDr Ginsburg\u2019s authority for this statement is a passage from the _Aboth_\nof Rabbi Nathan, c. 37, which, as he gives it, appears conclusive;\n\u2018There are eight kinds of Pharisees ... and those Pharisees who live in\ncelibacy are Essenes.\u2019 But what are the facts of the case? _First_; This\nbook was certainly not written by its reputed author, the R. Nathan who\nwas vice-president under the younger Gamaliel about A. D. 140. It may\npossibly have been founded on an earlier treatise by that famous\nteacher, though even this is very doubtful: but in its present form it\nis a comparatively modern work. On this point all or almost all recent\nwriters on Hebrew literature are agreed[360]. _Secondly_; Dr Ginsburg\nhas taken the reading \u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05e4\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9, without even mentioning any\nalternative. Whether the words so read are capable of the meaning which\nhe has assigned to them, may be highly questionable; but at all events\nthis cannot have been the original reading, as the parallel passages,\nBabl. Sotah fol. 22_b_, Jerus. _Sotah_ v. 5, Jerus. _Berakhoth_ ix. 5,\n(quoted by Buxtorf and Levy, s.v. \u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05e9), distinctly prove. In Babl.\n_Sotah_ l.c., the corresponding expression is \u05de\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d0\u05e2\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u2018What is\nmy duty, and I will do it,\u2019 and the passage in Jerus. _Berakhoth_ l.c.\nis to the same effect. These parallels show that the reading \u05de\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d1\u05ea\u05d9\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05e2\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 must be taken also in _Aboth_ c. 37, so that the passage will be\nrendered, \u2018The Pharisee _who says_, What is my duty, and I will do it.\u2019\nThus the Essenes and celibacy disappear together. _Lastly_; Inasmuch as\nDr Ginsburg himself takes a wholly different view of the name Essene,\nconnecting it either with \u05d7\u05e6\u05df \u2018an apron,\u2019 or with \u05d4\u05e1\u05d9\u05dd \u2018pious[361],\u2019 it\nis difficult to see how he could translate \u05e2\u05e9\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9 \u2018Essene\u2019 (from \u05e2\u05e9\u05d0 \u2018to\ndo\u2019) in this passage, except on the supposition that R. Nathan was\nentirely ignorant of the orthography and derivation of the word Essene.\nYet, if such ignorance were conceivable in so ancient a writer, his\nauthority on this question would be absolutely worthless. But indeed Dr\nGinsburg would appear to have adopted this reference to R. Nathan, with\nthe reading of the passage and the interpretation of the name, from some\nother writer[362]. At all events it is quite inconsistent with his own\nopinion as expressed previously.\n\nFootnote 360:\n\n  e.g. Geiger _Zeitschrift f. J\u00fcdische Theologie_ VI. p. 20 sq.; Zunz\n  _Gottesdienstliche Vortr\u00e4ge_ p. 108 sq.: comp. Steinschneider _Catal.\n  Heb. Bibl. Bodl._ col. 2032 sq. These two last references are given by\n  Dr Ginsburg himself.\n\nFootnote 361:\n\n  _Essenes_ p. 30; comp. _Kitto\u2019s Cyclop\u00e6dia_, s.v. Essenes.\n\nFootnote 362:\n\n  It is given by Landsberg in the _Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums_\n  1862, no. 33, p. 459, a reference pointed out to me by a friend.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: Are the Essenes alluded to, though not named, in the Talmud?]\n\nBut, though we have not succeeded in finding any direct mention of this\nsect by name in the Talmud, and all the identifications of the word\nEssene with diverse expressions occurring there have failed us on\nexamination, it might still happen that allusions to them were so\nfrequent as to leave no doubt about the persons meant. Their\norganisation or their practices or their tenets might be precisely\ndescribed, though their name was suppressed. Such allusions Frankel\nfinds scattered up and down the Talmud in great profusion.\n\n[Sidenote: (1) The _chaber_ or Associate.]\n\n(1) He sees a reference to the Essenes in the \u05d7\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0 _ch\u0103b\u016bra_ or\n\u2018Society,\u2019 which is mentioned several times in talmudical writers[363].\nThe _ch\u0101ber_ (\u05d4\u05d1\u05e8) or \u2018Associate\u2019 is, he supposes, a member of this\nbrotherhood. He is obliged to confess that the word cannot always have\nthis sense, but still he considers this to be a common designation of\nthe Essenes. The chaber was bound to observe certain rules of ceremonial\npurity, and a period of probation was imposed upon him before he was\nadmitted. With this fact Frankel connects the passage in Mishna\n_Chagigah_ ii. 5, 6, where several degrees of ceremonial purity are\nspecified. Having done this, he considers that he has the explanation of\nthe statement in Josephus (_B.J._ ii. 8. 7, 10), that the Essenes were\ndivided into four different grades or orders according to the time of\ntheir continuance in the ascetic practices demanded by the sect.\n\nFootnote 363:\n\n  _Zeitschr_. p. 450 sq., _Monatschr._ pp. 31, 70.\n\n[Sidenote: A passage in _Chagigah_ considered.]\n\nBut in the first place there is no reference direct or indirect to the\nchaber, or indeed to any organisation of any kind, in the passage of\n_Chagigah_. It simply contemplates different degrees of purification as\nqualifying for the performance of certain Levitical rites in an\nascending scale. There is no indication that these lustrations are more\nthan temporary and immediate in their application; and not the faintest\nhint is given of distinct orders of men, each separated from the other\nby formal barriers and each demanding a period of probation before\nadmission from the order below, as was the case with the grades of the\nEssene brotherhood described by Josephus. Moreover the orders in\nJosephus are four in number[364], while the degrees of ceremonial purity\nin _Chagigah_ are five. Frankel indeed is inclined to maintain that only\nfour degrees are intended in _Chagigah_, though this interpretation is\nopposed to the plain sense of the passage. But, even if he should be\nobliged to grant that the number of degrees is five[365], he will not\nsurrender the allusion to the Essenes, but meets the difficulty by\nsupposing (it is a pure hypothesis) that there was a fifth and highest\ndegree of purity among the Essenes, to which very few attained, and\nwhich, as I understand him, is not mentioned by Josephus on this\naccount. But enough has already been said to show, that this passage in\n_Chagigah_ can have no connexion with the Essenes and gives no\ncountenance to Frankel\u2019s views.\n\nFootnote 364:\n\n  As the notices in Josephus (_B.J._ ii. 8) relating to this point have\n  been frequently misunderstood, it may be well once for all to explain\n  his meaning. The grades of the Essene order are mentioned in two\n  separate notices, apparently, though not really, discordant. (1) In \u00a7\n  10 he says that they are \u2018divided into four sections according to the\n  duration of their discipline\u2019 (\u03b4\u03b9\u1fc4\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03ba\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n  \u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2), adding that the older members are considered to be\n  defiled by contact with the younger, i.e. each superior grade by\n  contact with the inferior. So far his meaning is clear. (2) In \u00a7 8 he\n  states that one who is anxious to become a member of the sect\n  undergoes a year\u2019s probation, submitting to discipline but \u2018remaining\n  outside.\u2019 Then, \u2018after he has given evidence of his perseverance (\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\n  \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03b9\u03bd), his character is tested for two years\n  more; and, if found worthy, he is accordingly admitted into the\n  society.\u2019 A comparison with the other passage shows that these two\n  years comprise the period spent in the second and third grades, each\n  extending over a year. After passing through these three stages in\n  three successive years, he enters upon the fourth and highest grade,\n  thus becoming a perfect member.\n\n  It is stated by Dr Ginsburg (_Essenes_ p. 12 sq., comp. Kitto\u2019s\n  _Cyclop\u00e6dia_ s.v. p. 828) that the Essenes passed through eight stages\n  \u2018from the beginning of the noviciate to the achievement of the highest\n  spiritual state,\u2019 this last stage qualifying them, like Elias, to be\n  forerunners of the Messiah. But it is a pure hypothesis that the\n  Talmudical notices thus combined have anything to do with the Essenes;\n  and, as I shall have occasion to point out afterwards, there is no\n  ground for ascribing to this sect any Messianic expectations whatever.\n\nFootnote 365:\n\n  _Zeitschr._ p. 452, note.\n\n[Sidenote: Difference between]\n\nAs this artificial combination has failed, we are compelled to fall back\non the notices relating to the chaber, and to ask whether [Sidenote: the\nchaber and the Essene.] these suggest any connexion with the account of\nthe Essenes in Josephus. And the facts oblige us to answer this question\nin the negative. Not only do they not suggest such a connexion, but they\nare wholly irreconcilable with the account in the Jewish historian. This\nassociation or confraternity (if indeed the term is applicable to an\norganisation so loose and so comprehensive) was maintained for the sake\nof securing a more accurate study and a better observance of the\nceremonial law. Two grades of purity are mentioned in connexion with it,\ndesignated by different names and presenting some difficulties[366],\ninto which it is not necessary to enter here. A chaber, it would appear,\nwas one who had entered upon the second or higher stage. For this a\nperiod of a year\u2019s probation was necessary. The chaber enrolled himself\nin the presence of three others who were already members of the\nassociation. This apparently was all the formality necessary: and in the\ncase of a teacher even this was dispensed with, for being presumably\nacquainted with the law of things clean and unclean he was regarded as\n_ex officio_ a chaber. The chaber was bound to keep himself from\nceremonial defilements, and was thus distinguished from the _[\u0639am\nhaarets_ or common people[367]; but he was under no external\nsurveillance and decided for himself as to his own purity. Moreover he\nwas, or might be a married man: for the doctors disputed whether the\nwives and children of an associate were not themselves to be regarded as\nassociates[368]. In one passage, _Sanhedrin_ 41_a_, it is even assumed,\nas a matter of course, that a woman may be an associate (\u05d7\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4). In\nanother (_Niddah_ 33_b_)[369] there is mention of a Sadducee and even of\na Samaritan as a chaber. An organisation so flexible as this has\nobviously only the most superficial resemblances with the rigid rules of\nthe Essene order; and in many points it presents a direct contrast to\nthe characteristic tenets of that sect.\n\nFootnote 366:\n\n  The entrance into lower grade was described as \u2018taking \u05d1\u05e0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd\u2019 or\n  \u2018wings.\u2019 The meaning of this expression has been the subject of much\n  discussion; see e.g. Herzfeld II. p. 390 sq., Frankel _Monatschr._ p.\n  33 sq.\n\nFootnote 367:\n\n  The contempt with which a chaber would look down upon the vulgar herd,\n  the _\u0639am haarets_, finds expression in the language of the Pharisees,\n  Joh. vii. 49 \u1f41 \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03af \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n  Again in Acts iv. 13, where the Apostles are described as \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, the\n  expression is equivalent to _\u0639am haarets._ See the passages quoted in\n  Buxtorf, _Lex._ p. 1626.\n\nFootnote 368:\n\n  All these particulars and others may be gathered from _Bekhoroth_ 30\n  _b_, Mishna _Demai_ ii. 2, 3, Jerus. _Demai_ ii. 3, v. 1, Tosifta\n  _Demai_ 2, _Aboth R. Nathan_ c. 41.\n\nFootnote 369:\n\n  See Herzfeld II. p. 386.\n\n[Sidenote: (2) The _Bene hakkeneseth_.]\n\n(2) Having discussed Frankel\u2019s hypothesis respecting the chaber, I need\nhardly follow his speculations on the _B\u0115n\u0113-hakk\u0115neseth_, \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05db\u05e0\u05e1\u05d7,\n\u2018sons of the congregation\u2019 (_Zabim_ iii. 2), in which expression\nprobably few would discover the reference, which he finds, to the lowest\nof the Essene orders[370].\n\nFootnote 370:\n\n  _Monatschr._ p. 35.\n\n[Sidenote: (3) The \u2018holy congregation at Jerusalem\u2019]\n\n(3) But mention is also made of a \u2018holy congregation\u2019 or \u2018assembly\u2019 (\u05e2\u05d3\u05d4\n\u05e7\u05d3\u05d9\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d4\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e7\u05d3\u05d9\u05e9\u05d0) \u2018in Jerusalem\u2019; and, following Rapoport, Frankel sees\nin this expression also an allusion to the Essenes[371]. The grounds for\nthis identification are, that in one passage (_Berakhoth_ 9_b_) they are\nmentioned in connexion with prayer at day break, and in another (Midrash\n_Qoheleth_ ix. 9) two persons are stated to belong to this \u2018holy\ncongregation,\u2019 because they divided their day into three parts, devoting\none-third to learning, another to prayer, and another to work. The first\nnotice would suit the Essenes very well, though the practice mentioned\nwas not so distinctively Essene as to afford any safe ground for this\nhypothesis. Of the second it should be observed, that no such division\nof the day is recorded of the Essenes, and indeed both Josephus (_B.J._\nii. 8. 5) and Philo (_Fragm._ p. 633) describe them as working from\nmorning till night with the single interruption of their mid-day\nmeal[372]. But in fact the identification is beset with other and more\nserious difficulties. For this \u2018holy congregation\u2019 at Jerusalem is\nmentioned long [Sidenote: not an Essene community.] after the second\ndestruction of the city under Hadrian[373], when on Frankel\u2019s own\nshowing[374] the Essene society had in all probability ceased to exist.\nAnd again certain members of it, e.g. Jose ben Meshullam (Mishna\n_Bekhoroth_ iii. 3, vi. 1), are represented as uttering precepts\nrespecting animals fit for sacrifice, though we have it on the authority\nof Josephus and Philo that the Essenes avoided the temple sacrifices\naltogether. The probability therefore seems to be that this \u2018holy\ncongregation\u2019 was an assemblage of devout Jews who were drawn to the\nneighbourhood of the sanctuary after the destruction of the nation, and\nwhose practices were regarded with peculiar reverence by the later\nJews[375].\n\nFootnote 371:\n\n  _Zeitschr._ pp. 458, 461, _Monatschr._ pp. 32, 36.\n\nFootnote 372:\n\n  It is added however in Midrash _Qoheleth_ ix. 9 \u2018Some say that they\n  (the holy congregation) devoted the whole of the winter to studying\n  the Scriptures and the summer to work.\u2019\n\nFootnote 373:\n\n  _Monatschr._ p. 32.\n\nFootnote 374:\n\n  _Ib._ p. 70.\n\nFootnote 375:\n\n  See Derenbourg p. 175.\n\n[Sidenote: (4) The _Vethikin_.]\n\n(4) Neither can we with Frankel[376] discern any reference to the\nEssenes in those \u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05e7\u05d9\u05d5 _Vethikin_, \u2018pious\u2019 or \u2018learned\u2019 men (whatever\nmay be the exact sense of the word), who are mentioned in _Berakhoth_\n9_b_ as praying before sunrise; because the word itself seems quite\ngeneral, and the practice, though enforced among the Essenes, as we know\nfrom Josephus (_B.J._ ii. 8. 5), would be common to all devout and\nearnest Jews. If we are not justified in saying that these \u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05e7\u05d9\u05d5 were\nnot Essenes, we have no sufficient grounds for maintaining that they\nwere.\n\nFootnote 376:\n\n  _Monatschr._ p. 32.\n\n[Sidenote: (5) The \u2018primitive elders.\u2019]\n\n(5) Nor again can we find any such reference in the \u05d6\u05e7\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd or \u2018primitive\nelders[377].\u2019 It may readily be granted that this term is used\nsynonymously, or nearly so, with \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd \u2018the primitive\nchasidim\u2019; but, as we failed to see anything more than a general\nexpression in the one, so we are naturally led to take the other in the\nsame sense. The passages where the expression occurs (e.g. _Shabbath_\n64_b_) simply refer to the stricter observances of early times, and do\nnot indicate any reference to a particular society or body of men.\n\nFootnote 377:\n\n  _Monatschr._ pp. 32, 68.\n\n[Sidenote: (6) The \u2018morning bathers.\u2019]\n\n(6) Again Frankel finds another reference to this sect in the \u05d8\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\n_T\u014dbl\u0113-shach\u0103r\u012bth_, or \u2018morning-bathers,\u2019 mentioned in Tosifta _Yadayim_\nc. 2[378]. The identity of these with the \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 of Greek\nwriters seems highly probable. The latter however, though they may have\nhad some affinities with Essene practices and tenets, are nevertheless\ndistinguished from this sect wherever they are mentioned[379]. But the\npoint to be observed is that, even though we should identify these\nToble-shacharith with the Essenes, the passage in Tosifta _Yadayim_, so\nfar from favouring, runs directly counter to Frankel\u2019s view which\nregards the Essenes as only a branch of Pharisees: for the two are here\nrepresented as in direct antagonism. The Toble-shacharith say, \u2018We\ngrieve over you, Pharisees, because you pronounce the (sacred) Name in\nthe morning without having bathed.\u2019 The Pharisees retort, \u2018We grieve\nover you, Toble-shacharith, because you pronounce the Name from this\nbody in which is impurity.\u2019\n\nFootnote 378:\n\n  _Ib._ p. 67.\n\nFootnote 379:\n\n  See below, p. 166.\n\n[Sidenote: (7) The _Banaim_.]\n\n(7) In connexion with the Toble-shacharith we may consider another name,\n_Ban\u0101\u012bm_ (\u05d1\u05e0\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd), in which also Frankel discovers an allusion to the\nEssenes[380]. In Mishna _Mikvaoth_ ix. 6 the word is opposed to \u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\n_b\u014dr_, \u2018an ignorant or stupid person\u2019; and this points to its proper\nmeaning \u2018the builders,\u2019 i.e. the edifiers or teachers, according to the\ncommon metaphor in Biblical language. The word is discussed in\n_Shabbath_ 114 and explained to mean \u2018learned.\u2019 But, because in\n_Mikvaoth_ it is mentioned in connexion with ceremonial purity, and\nbecause in Josephus the Essenes are stated to have carried an \u2018axe and\nshovel\u2019 (_B.J._ ii. 8. 7, 9), and because moreover the Jewish historian\nin another place (_Vit._ 2) mentions having spent some time with one\nBanus a dweller in the wilderness, who lived on vegetables and fruits\nand bathed often day and night for the sake of purity, and who is\ngenerally considered to have been an Essene; therefore Frankel holds\nthese Banaim to have been Essenes. This is a specimen of the misplaced\ningenuity which distinguishes Frankel\u2019s learned speculations on the\nEssenes. Josephus does [Sidenote: Josephus misinterpreted.] not mention\nan \u2018axe _and_ shovel,\u2019 but an axe only (\u00a7 7 \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd), which he\nafterwards defines more accurately as a spade (\u00a7 9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b9, \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2) and which,\nas he distinctly states, was given them for the purpose of burying\nimpurities out of sight (comp. Deut. xxiii. 12\u201314). Thus it has no\nconnexion whatever with any \u2018building\u2019 implement. And again, it is true\nthat Banus has frequently been regarded as an Essene, but there is\nabsolutely no ground for this supposition. On the contrary the narrative\nof Josephus in his _Life_ seems to [Sidenote: Another derivation of\nBanaim.] exclude it, as I shall have occasion to show hereafter[381]. I\nshould add that Sachs interprets Banaim \u2018the bathers,\u2019 regarding the\nexplanation in _Shabbath_ l.c. as a \u2018later accommodation[382].\u2019 This\nseems to me very improbable; but, if it were conceded, the Banaim would\nthen apparently be connected not with the Essenes, but with the\nHemerobaptists.\n\nFootnote 380:\n\n  _Zeitschr._ p. 455.\n\nFootnote 381:\n\n  See below, p. 161.\n\nFootnote 382:\n\n  _Beitr\u00e4ge_ II. p. 199. In this derivation he is followed by Graetz\n  (III. p. 82, 468) and Derenbourg (p. 166).\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: Results of this investigation.]\n\nFrom the preceding investigation it will have appeared how little\nFrankel has succeeded in establishing his thesis that \u2018the talmudical\nsources are acquainted with the Essenes and make mention of them\nconstantly[383].\u2019 We have seen not only that no instance of the name\nEssene has been produced, but that all those passages which are supposed\nto refer to them under other designations, or to describe their\npractices or tenets, fail us on closer examination. In no case can we\nfeel sure that there is any direct reference to this sect, while in most\ncases such reference seems to be excluded by the language or the\nattendant circumstances[384]. Thus we are [Sidenote: Philo and Josephus\nour main authorities.] obliged to fall back upon the representations of\nPhilo and Josephus. Their accounts are penned by eye-witnesses. They are\ndirect and explicit, if not so precise or so full as we could have\nwished. The writers obviously consider that they are describing a\ndistinct and exceptional phenomenon. And it would be a reversal of all\nestablished rules of historical criticism to desert the solid\nstanding-ground of contemporary history for the artificial combinations\nand shadowy hypotheses, which Frankel would substitute in its place.\n\nFootnote 383:\n\n  _Monatschr._ p. 31.\n\nFootnote 384:\n\n  \u2018The attempt to point out the Essenes in our patristic (i.e.\n  rabbinical) literature,\u2019 says Herzfeld truly (II. p. 397), \u2018has led to\n  a splendid hypothesis-hunt (_einer stattlichen Hypothesenjagd_).\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: Frankel\u2019s depreciation of them is unreasonable, and explains\n           nothing.]\n\nBut here we are confronted with Frankel\u2019s depreciation of these ancient\nwriters, which has been echoed by several later critics. They were\ninterested, it is argued, in making their accounts attractive to their\nheathen contemporaries, and they coloured them highly for this\npurpose[385]. We may readily allow that they would not be uninfluenced\nby such a motive, but the concession does not touch the main points at\nissue. This aim might have led Josephus, for example, to throw into bold\nrelief the coincidences between the Essenes and Pythagoreans; it might\neven have induced him to give a semi-pagan tinge to the Essene doctrine\nof the future state of the blessed (_B.J._ ii. 8. 11). But it entirely\nfails to explain those peculiarities of the sect, which marked them off\nby a sharp line from orthodox Judaism, and which fully justify the term\n\u2018separatists\u2019 as applied to them by a recent writer. In three main\nfeatures especially the portrait of the Essenes retains its distinctive\ncharacter unaffected by this consideration.\n\nFootnote 385:\n\n  _Monatschr._ p. 31.\n\n[Sidenote: (i) The avoidance of sacrifices is not accounted for.]\n\n(i) How, for instance, could this principle of accommodation have led\nboth Philo and Josephus to lay so much stress on their divergence from\nJudaic orthodoxy in the matter of sacrifices? Yet this is perhaps the\nmost crucial note of heresy which is recorded of the Essenes. What was\nthe law to the orthodox Pharisee without the sacrifices, the\ntemple-worship, the hierarchy? Yet the Essene declined to take any part\nin the sacrifices; he had priests of his own independently of the\nLevitical priesthood. On Frankel\u2019s hypothesis that Essenism is merely an\nexaggeration of pure Pharisaism, no explanation of this abnormal\nphenomenon can be given. Frankel does indeed attempt to meet the case by\nsome speculations respecting the red-heifer[386], which are so obviously\ninadequate that they have not been repeated by later writers and may\nsafely be passed over in silence here. On this point indeed the language\nof Josephus is not [Sidenote: The notices of Josephus and Philo\nconsidered.] quite explicit. He says (Ant. xviii. 1. 5) that, though\nthey send offerings (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1) to the temple, they perform no\nsacrifices, and he assigns as the reason their greater strictness as\nregards ceremonial purity (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f03\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd), adding\nthat \u2018for this reason being excluded from the common sanctuary\n(\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) they perform their sacrifices by themselves (\u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9).\u2019 Frankel therefore supposes that their only\nreason for abstaining from the temple sacrifices was that according to\ntheir severe notions the temple itself was profaned and therefore unfit\nfor sacrificial worship. But if so, why should it not vitiate the\nofferings, as well as the sacrifices, and make them also unlawful? And\nindeed, where Josephus is vague, Philo is explicit. Philo (II. p. 457)\ndistinctly states that the Essenes being more scrupulous than any in the\nworship of God (\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6) do not sacrifice\nanimals (\u03bf\u1f50 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2), but hold it right to dedicate their own\nhearts as a worthy offering (\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2). Thus the greater strictness, which Josephus\nascribes to them, consists in the abstention from shedding blood, as a\npollution in itself. And, when he speaks of their substituting private\nsacrifices, his own qualifications show that he does not mean the word\nto be taken literally. Their simple meals are their sacrifices; their\nrefectory is their sanctuary; their president is their priest[387]. It\nshould be added also that, though we once hear of an Essene apparently\nwithin the temple precincts (_B.J._ i. 3. 5, _Ant._ xiii. II. 2)[388],\nno mention is ever made of one offering sacrifices. Thus it is clear\nthat with the Essene it was the sacrifices which polluted the temple,\nand not the [Sidenote: Their statements confirmed by the doctrine of\nChristian Essenes.] temple which polluted the sacrifices. And this view\nis further recommended by the fact that it alone will explain the\nposition of their descendants, the Christianized Essenes, who condemned\nthe slaughter of victims on grounds very different from those alleged in\nthe Epistle to the Hebrews, not because they have been superseded by the\nAtonement, but because they are in their very nature repulsive to God;\nnot because they have ceased to be right, but because they never were\nright from the beginning.\n\nFootnote 386:\n\n  _Monatschr._ p. 64.\n\nFootnote 387:\n\n  _B.J._ ii. 8. 5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\n  \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd: see also the passages quoted above p. 89, note 255.\n\nFootnote 388:\n\n  See below, p. 142.\n\nIt may be said indeed, that such a view could not be maintained without\nimpugning the authority, or at least disputing the integrity, of the Old\nTestament writings. The sacrificial system is so bound up with the\nMosaic law, that it can only be rejected by the most arbitrary excision.\nThis violent process however, uncritical as it is, was very likely to\nhave been adopted by the Essenes[389]. As a matter of fact, it did\nrecommend itself to those Judaizing Christians who reproduced many of\nthe Essene tenets, and who both theologically and historically may be\nregarded as the lineal [Sidenote: The Clementine Homilies justify this\ndoctrine by arbitrary excision of the Scriptures.] descendants of this\nJudaic sect[390]. Thus in the _Clementine Homilies_, an Ebionite work\nwhich exhibits many Essene features, the chief spokesman St Peter is\nrepresented as laying great stress on the duty of distinguishing the\ntrue and the false elements in the current Scriptures (ii. 38, 51, iii.\n4, 5, 10, 42, 47, 49, 50, comp. xviii. 19). The saying traditionally\nascribed to our Lord, \u2018Show yourselves approved money-changers\u2019 (\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b6\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9), is more than once quoted by the Apostle as\nenforcing this duty (ii. 51, iii. 50, xviii. 20). Among these false\nelements he places all those passages which represent God as enjoining\nsacrifices (iii. 45, xviii. 19). It is plain, so he argues, that God did\nnot desire sacrifices, for did He not kill those who lusted after the\ntaste of flesh in the wilderness? and, if the slaughter of animals was\nthus displeasing to Him, how could He possibly have commanded victims to\nbe offered to Himself (iii. 45)? It is equally clear from other\nconsiderations that this was no part of God\u2019s genuine law. For instance,\nChrist declared that He came to fulfil every tittle of the Law; yet\nChrist abolished sacrifices (iii. 51). And again, the saying \u2018I will\nhave mercy and not sacrifice\u2019 is a condemnation of this practice (iii.\n56). The true prophet \u2018hates sacrifices, bloodshed, libations\u2019; he\n\u2018extinguishes the fire of altars\u2019 (iii. 26). The frenzy of the lying\nsoothsayer is a mere intoxication produced by the reeking fumes of\nsacrifice (iii. 13). When in the immediate context of these\ndenunciations we find it reckoned among the highest achievements of man\n\u2018to know the _names of angels_, to drive away demons, to endeavour to\nheal diseases by charms (\u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2), [Sidenote: Essene features in this\nwork.] and to find incantations (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c2) against venomous serpents\n(iii. 36)\u2019; when again St Peter is made to condemn as false those\nscriptures which speak of God swearing, and to set against them Christ\u2019s\ncommand \u2018Let your yea be yea\u2019 (iii. 55); we feel how thoroughly this\nstrange production of Ebionite Christianity is saturated with Essene\nideas[391].\n\nFootnote 389:\n\n  Herzfeld (II. p. 403) is unable to reconcile any rejection of the Old\n  Testament Scriptures with the reverence paid to Moses by the Essenes\n  (_B.J._ ii. 8. 9, 10). The Christian Essenes however did combine both\n  these incongruous tenets by the expedient which is explained in the\n  text. Herzfeld himself suggests that allegorical interpretation may\n  have been employed to justify this abstention from the temple\n  sacrifices.\n\nFootnote 390:\n\n  See _Galatians_, p. 310 sq.\n\nFootnote 391:\n\n  Epiphanius (_H\u00e6r._ xviii. I, p. 38) again describes, as the account\n  was handed down to him (\u1f61\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2), the\n  tenets of a Jewish sect which he calls the Nasareans, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1f61\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9, \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039c\u03c9\u03cb\u03c3\u03ad\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\n  \u1f10\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd. \u1f45\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\n  \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9v \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03b8\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd\n  \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f22 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2. \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70\n  \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. Here we have in\n  combination all the features which we are seeking. The cradle of this\n  sect is placed by him in Gilead and Bashan and \u2018the regions beyond the\n  Jordan.\u2019 He uses similar language also (xxx. 18, p. 142) in describing\n  the Ebionites, whom he places in much the same localities (naming Moab\n  also), and whose Essene features are unmistakeable: \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u039c\u03c9\u03cb\u03c3\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f45\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n  \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u1fc3\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. These parallels will speak\n  for themselves.\n\n[Sidenote: (ii) The Essene worship of the Sun cannot be explained away.]\n\n(ii) Nor again is Frankel successful in explaining the Essene prayers to\nthe sun by rabbinical practices[392]. Following Rapoport, he supposes\nthat Josephus and Philo refer to the beautiful hymn of praise for the\ncreation of light and the return of day, which forms part of the\nmorning-prayer of the Jews to the present time[393], and which seems to\nbe enjoined in the Mishna itself[394]; and this view has been adopted by\nmany subsequent writers. But the language of Josephus is not satisfied\nby this explanation. For he says plainly (_B.J._ ii. 8. 5) that they\naddressed prayers to the sun[395], and it is difficult to suppose that\nhe has wantonly introduced a dash of paganism into his picture; nor\nindeed was there any adequate motive for his doing so. Similarly Philo\nrelates of the Therapeutes (_Vit. Cont._ II, II. p. 485), that they\n\u2018stand with their faces and their whole body towards the East, and when\nthey see that the sun is risen, holding out their hands to heaven they\npray for a happy day (\u03b5\u1f50\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd) and for truth and for keen vision of\nreason (\u1f40\u03be\u03c5\u03c9\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6).\u2019 And here again it is impossible to overlook\nthe confirmation which these accounts receive from the history of\ncertain Christian heretics deriving their descent from this Judaic sect.\n[Sidenote: The Samps\u00e6ans are an Essene sect,] Epiphanius (_H\u00e6r._ xix. 2,\nxx. 3, pp. 40 sq., 47) speaks of a sect called the Samps\u00e6ans or\n\u2018Sun-worshippers[396],\u2019 as existing in his own time in Per\u00e6a on the\nborders of Moab and on the shores of the Dead Sea. He describes them as\na remnant of the Ossenes (i.e. Essenes), who have accepted a spurious\nform of Christianity and are neither Jews nor Christians. This debased\nChristianity which they adopted is embodied, he tells us, in the\npretended revelation of the Book of Elchasai, and dates from the time of\nTrajan[397]. Elsewhere (xxx. 3, p. 127) he seems to use the terms\nSamps\u00e6an, Ossene, and Elchasaite as synonymous (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f48\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f18\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2). Now we happen to know something\nof this book of Elchasai, not only from Epiphanius himself (xix. 1 sq.,\np. 40 sq., xxx. 17, p. 141), but also from Hippolytus [Sidenote: as\nappears from their sacred book of Elchesai.] (_H\u00e6r._ ix. 13 sq.) who\ndescribes it at considerable length. From these accounts it appears that\nthe principal feature in the book was the injunction of frequent\nbathings for the remission of sins (Hipp. _H\u00e6r._ ix. 13, 15 sq.). We are\nlikewise told that it \u2018anathematizes immolations and sacrifices (\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 (\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) as being alien to God and certainly not offered to God\nby tradition from (\u1f10\u03ba) the fathers and the law,\u2019 while at the same time\nit \u2018says that men ought to pray there at Jerusalem, where the altar was\nand the sacrifices (were offered), prohibiting the eating of flesh which\nexists among the Jews, and the rest (of their customs), and the altar\nand the fire, as being alien to God\u2019 (Epiphan. xix. 3, p. 42).\nNotwithstanding, [Sidenote: Its Essene peculiarities.] we are informed\nthat the sect retained the rite of circumcision, the observance of the\nsabbath, and other practices of the Mosaic law (Hipp. _H\u00e6r._ ix. 14;\nEpiph. _H\u00e6r._ xix. 5, p. 43, comp. xxx. 17, p. 141). This inconsistency\nis explained by a further notice in Epiphanius (l.c.) that they treated\nthe Scriptures in the same way as the Nasar\u00e6ans[398]; that is, they\nsubmitted them to a process of arbitrary excision, as recommended in the\nClementine Homilies, and thus rejected as falsifications all statements\nwhich did not square with their own theory. Hippolytus also speaks of\nthe Elchasaites as studying astrology and magic, and as practising\ncharms and incantations on the sick and the demoniacs (\u00a7 14). Moreover\nin two formularies, one of expiation, another of purification, which\nthis father has extracted from the book, invocation is made to \u2018the holy\nspirits and the angels of prayer\u2019 (\u00a7 15, comp. Epiph. xix. 1). It should\nbe added that the word Elchasai probably signifies the \u2018hidden\npower\u2019[399]; while the book itself directed that its mysteries should be\nguarded as precious pearls, and should not be communicated to the world\nat large, but only to the faithful few (Hipp. ix. 15, 17). It is hardly\nnecessary to call attention to the number of Essene features which are\nhere combined[400]. I would only remark that the value of the notice is\nnot at all diminished, but rather enhanced, by the uncritical character\nof Epiphanius\u2019 work; for this very fact prevents us from ascribing the\ncoincidences, which here reveal themselves, to this father\u2019s own\ninvention.\n\nFootnote 392:\n\n  _Zeitschr._ p. 458.\n\nFootnote 393:\n\n  See Ginsburg _Essenes_ p. 69 sq.\n\nFootnote 394:\n\n  _Berakhoth_ i. 4; see Derenbourg, p. 169 sq.\n\nFootnote 395:\n\n  See above, p. 87, note 249.\n\nFootnote 396:\n\n  See above, p. 83.\n\nFootnote 397:\n\n  _Galatians_ p. 311 sq. See also below, p. 167.\n\nFootnote 398:\n\n  See p. 136, note 391.\n\nFootnote 399:\n\n  _Galatians_ p. 312, note 1. For another derivation see below, p. 167.\n\nFootnote 400:\n\n  Celibacy however is not one of these: comp. Epiphan. _H\u00e6r._ xix. 1 (p.\n  40) \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c7\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3, \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72\n  \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd. In this respect they departed from the original principles of\n  Essenism, alleging, as it would appear, a special revelation (\u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u1fc6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\n  \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2) in justification. In like manner marriage is commended in\n  the Clementine Homilies.\n\n[Sidenote: Doubtful bearing of this Sun-worship.]\n\nIn this heresy we have plainly the dregs of Essenism, which has only\nbeen corrupted from its earlier and nobler type by the admixture of a\nspurious Christianity. But how came the Essenes to be called Samps\u00e6ans?\nWhat was the original meaning of this outward reverence which they paid\nto the sun? Did they regard it merely as the symbol of Divine\nillumination, just as Philo frequently treats it as a type of God, the\ncentre of all light (e.g. _de Somn._ i. 13 sq., I. p. 631 sq.), and even\ncalls the heavenly bodies \u2018visible and sensible gods\u2019 (_de Mund. Op._ 7,\nI. p. 6)[401]? Or did they honour the light, as the pure ethereal\nelement in contrast to gross terrestrial matter, according to a\nsuggestion of a recent writer[402]? [Sidenote: The practice repugnant to\nJewish orthodoxy.]Whatever may have been the motive of this reverence,\nit is strangely repugnant to the spirit of orthodox Judaism. In Ezek.\nviii. 16 it is denounced as an abomination, that men shall turn towards\nthe east and worship the sun; and accordingly in _Berakhoth_ 7_a_, a\nsaying of R. Meir is reported to the effect that God is angry when the\nsun appears and the kings of the East and the West prostrate themselves\nbefore this luminary[403]. We cannot fail therefore to recognise the\naction of some foreign influence in this Essene practice\u2014whether Greek\nor Syrian or Persian, it will be time to consider hereafter.\n\nFootnote 401:\n\n  The important place which the heavenly bodies held in the system of\n  Philo, who regarded them as animated beings, may be seen from\n  Gfr\u00f6rer\u2019s _Philo_ I. p. 349 sq.\n\nFootnote 402:\n\n  _Keim_ I. p. 289.\n\nFootnote 403:\n\n  See Wiesner Schol. zum _Babyl. Talm._ I. pp. 18, 20.\n\n[Sidenote: (iii) The depreciation of marriage not accounted for.]\n\n(iii) On the subject of marriage again, talmudical and rabbinical\nnotices contribute nothing towards elucidating the practices of this\nsect. Least of all do they point to any affinity between the Essenes and\nthe Pharisees. The nearest resemblance, which Frankel can produce, to\nany approximation in this respect is an injunction in Mishna _Kethuboth_\nv. 8 respecting the duties of the husband in providing for the wife in\ncase of his separating from her, and this he ascribes to Essene\ninfluences[404]; but this mishna does not express any approval of such a\nseparation. The direction seems to be framed entirely in the interests\nof the wife: nor can I see that it is at all inconsistent, as Frankel\nurges, with Mishna _Kethuboth_ vii. 1 which allows her to claim a\ndivorce under such circumstances. But however this may be, Essene and\nPharisaic opinion stand generally in the sharpest contrast to each other\nwith respect to marriage. The talmudic writings teem with passages\nimplying not only the superior sanctity, but even the imperative duty,\nof marriage. The words \u2018Be fruitful and multiply\u2019 (Gen. i. 28) were\nregarded not merely as a promise, but as a command, which was binding on\nall. It is a maxim of the Talmud that \u2018Any Jew who has not a wife is no\nman\u2019 (\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd,) _Yebamoth_ 63_a_. The fact indeed is so patent, that\nany accumulation of examples would be superfluous, and I shall content\nmyself with referring to _Pesachim_ 113_a_, _b_, as fairly illustrating\nthe doctrine of orthodox Judaism on this point[405]. As this question\naffects the whole framework not only of religious, but also of social\nlife, the antagonism between the Essene and the Pharisee in a matter so\nvital could not be overlooked.\n\nFootnote 404:\n\n  _Monatschr._ p. 37.\n\nFootnote 405:\n\n  Justin Martyr more than once taunts the Jewish rabbis with their\n  reckless encouragement of polygamy. See _Dial._ 134, p. 363 D, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n  \u1f00\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c6\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f41\u03af\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd\n  \u03b5\u1f54\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., _ib._ 141, p. 371 A, B,\n  \u1f41\u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1\n  \u1f02\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f22 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c6\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2\n  \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., with Otto\u2019s note on the first passage.\n\n[Sidenote: (iv) The Essene practice of magic still a difficulty.]\n\n(iv) Nor again is it probable that the magical rites and incantations\nwhich are so prominent in the practice of the Essenes would, as a rule,\nhave been received with any favour by the Pharisaic Jew. In Mishna\n_Pesachim_ iv. 9 (comp. _Berakhoth_ 10_b_) it is mentioned with approval\nthat Hezekiah put away a \u2018book of healings\u2019; where doubtless the author\nof the tradition had in view some volume of charms ascribed to Solomon,\nlike those which apparently formed part of the esoteric literature of\nthe Essenes[406]. In the same spirit in Mishna _Sanhedrin_ xi. 1 R.\nAkiba shuts out from the hope of eternal life any \u2018who read profane or\nforeign (i.e. perhaps, apocryphal) books, and who mutter over a wound\u2019\nthe words of Exod. xv. 26. On this point of difference however no great\nstress can be laid. Though the nobler teachers among the orthodox Jews\nset themselves steadfastly against the introduction of magic, they were\nunable to resist the inpouring tide of superstition. In the middle of\nthe second century Justin Martyr alludes to exorcists and magicians\namong the Jews, as though they were neither few nor obscure[407].\nWhether these were a remnant of Essene Judaism, or whether such\npractices had by this time spread throughout the whole body, it is\nimpossible to say; but the fact of their existence prevents us from\nfounding an argument on the use of magic, as an absolutely distinctive\nfeature of Essenism.\n\nFootnote 406:\n\n  See above, p. 91, note 261.\n\nFootnote 407:\n\n  _Dial._ 85, p. 311 C, \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03be \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u1fc3, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7, \u03c7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c1\u03ba\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n  \u03c7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[Sidenote: General result.]\n\nOther divergences also have been enumerated[408]; but, as these do not\nfor the most part involve any great principles, and refer only to\npractical details in which much fluctuation was possible, they cannot\nunder any circumstances be taken as crucial tests, and I have not\nthought it worth while to discuss them. But the antagonisms on which I\nhave dwelt will tell their own tale. In three respects more especially,\nin the avoidance of marriage, in the abstention from the temple\nsacrifices, and (if the view which I have adopted be correct) in the\noutward reverence paid to the sun, we have seen that there is an\nimpassable gulf between the Essenes and the Pharisees. No known\ninfluences within the sphere of Judaism proper will serve to account for\nthe position of the Essenes in these respects; and we are obliged to\nlook elsewhere for an explanation.\n\nFootnote 408:\n\n  Herzfeld, II. p. 392 sq.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: Frankel has failed in establishing his point.]\n\nIt was shown above that the investigations of Frankel and others failed\nto discover in the talmudical writings a single reference to the\nEssenes, which is at once direct and indisputable. It has now appeared\nthat they have also failed (and this is the really important point) in\nshowing that the ideas and practices generally considered characteristic\nof the Essenes are recognised and incorporated in these representative\nbooks of Jewish orthodoxy; and thus the hypothesis that Essenism was\nmerely a type, though an exaggerated type, of pure Judaism falls to the\nground.\n\n[Sidenote: Affinities between Essenes and Pharisees confined to the\n           Judaic side.]\n\nSome affinities indeed have been made out by Frankel and by those who\nhave anticipated or followed him. But these are exactly such as we might\nhave expected. Two distinct features combine to make up the portrait of\nthe Essene. The Judaic element is quite as prominent in this sect as the\nnon-Judaic. It could not be more strongly emphasized than in the\ndescription given by Josephus himself. In everything therefore which\nrelates to the strictly Judaic side of their tenets and practices, we\nshould expect to discover not only affinities, but even close\naffinities, in talmudic and rabbinic authorities. And this is exactly\nwhat, as a matter of fact, we do find. The Essene rules respecting the\nobservance of the sabbath, the rites of lustration, and the like, have\noften very exact parallels in the writings of more orthodox Judaism. But\nI have not thought it necessary to dwell on these coincidences, because\nthey may well be taken for granted and my immediate purpose did not\nrequire me to emphasize them.\n\n[Sidenote: The divergence of the Essenes from the Pharisees gradual.]\n\nAnd again; it must be remembered that the separation between Pharisee\nand Essene cannot always have been so great as it appears in the\nApostolic age. Both sects apparently arose out of one great movement, of\nwhich the motive was the avoidance of pollution[409]. The divergence\ntherefore must have been gradual. At the same time, it does not seem a\nvery profitable task to write a hypothetical history of the growth of\nEssenism, where the data are wanting; and I shall therefore abstain from\nthe attempt. Frankel indeed has not been deterred by this difficulty;\nbut he has been obliged to assume his data by postulating that such and\nsuch a person, of whom notices are preserved, was an Essene, and thence\ninferring the character of Essenism at the period in question from his\nrecorded sayings or doings. But without attempting any such\nreconstruction of history, we may fairly allow that there must have been\na gradual development; and consequently in the earlier stages of its\ngrowth we should not expect to find that sharp antagonism between the\ntwo sects, which the principles of the Essenes when fully matured would\ninvolve. [Sidenote: Hence the possibility of their appearing in the\nrecords of orthodox Judaism.] If therefore it should be shown that the\ntalmudical and rabbinical writings here and there preserve with approval\nthe sayings of certain Essenes, this fact would present no difficulty.\nAt present however no decisive example has been produced; and the\ndiscoveries of Jellinek for instance[410], who traces the influence of\nthis sect in almost every page of _Pirke Aboth_, can only be regarded as\nanother illustration of the extravagance with which the whole subject\nhas been treated by a large section of modern Jewish writers. More to\nthe point is a notice of an earlier Essene preserved in Josephus\nhimself. We learn from this historian that one Judas, a member of the\nsect, who had prophesied the death of Antigonus, saw this prince\n\u2018passing by through the temple[411],\u2019 when his prophecy was on the point\nof fulfilment (about B.C. 110). At this moment Judas is represented as\nsitting in the midst of his disciples, instructing them in the science\nof prediction. The expression quoted would seem to imply that he was\nactually teaching within the temple area. Thus he would appear not only\nas mixing in the ordinary life of the Jews, but also as frequenting the\nnational sanctuary. But even supposing this to be the right explanation\nof the passage, it will not present any serious difficulty. Even at a\nlater date, when (as we may suppose) the principles of the sect had\nstiffened, the scruples of the Essene were directed, if I have rightly\ninterpreted the account of Josephus, rather against the sacrifices than\nagainst the locality[412]. The temple itself, independently of its\naccompaniments, would not suggest any offence to his conscience.\n\nFootnote 409:\n\n  See above, p. 120.\n\nFootnote 410:\n\n  _Orient_ 1849, pp. 489, 537, 553.\n\nFootnote 411:\n\n  _B.J._ i. 3. 5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6. In the parallel narrative,\n  _Ant._ xiii. II. 2, the expression is \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd, which does\n  not imply so much; but the less precise notice must be interpreted by\n  the more precise. Even then however it is not directly stated that\n  Judas himself was within the temple area.\n\nFootnote 412:\n\n  See above, pp. 89, 134 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: The approbation of Philo and Josephus is no evidence of\n           orthodoxy.]\n\nNor again, is it any obstacle to the view which is here maintained, that\nthe Essenes are regarded with so much sympathy by Philo and Josephus\nthemselves. Even though the purity of Judaism might have been somewhat\nsullied in this sect by the admixture of foreign elements, this fact\nwould attract rather than repel an eclectic like Philo, and a\nlatitudinarian like Josephus. The former, as an Alexandrian, absorbed\ninto his system many and diverse elements of heathen philosophy,\nPlatonic, Stoic, and Pythagorean. The latter, though professedly a\nPharisee, lost no opportunity of ingratiating himself with his heathen\nconquerors, and would not be unwilling to gratify their curiosity\nrespecting a society with whose fame, as we infer from the notice of\nPliny, they were already acquainted.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: What was the foreign element in Essenism?]\n\nBut if Essenism owed the features which distinguished it from Pharisaic\nJudaism to an alien admixture, whence were these foreign influences\nderived? From the philosophers of Greece or from the religious mystics\nof the East? On this point recent writers are divided.\n\n[Sidenote: Theory of Neopythagorean influence.]\n\nThose who trace the distinctive characteristics of the sect to Greece,\nregard it as an offshoot of the Neopythagorean School grafted on the\nstem of Judaism. This solution is suggested by the statement of\nJosephus, that \u2018they practise the mode of life which among the Greeks\nwas introduced (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3) by Pythagoras[413].\u2019 It is thought to be\nconfirmed by the strong resemblances which as a matter of fact are found\nto exist between the institutions and practices of the two.\n\n[Sidenote: Statement of the theory by Zeller.]\n\nThis theory, which is maintained also by other writers, as for instance\nby Baur and Herzfeld, has found its ablest and most persistent advocate\nin Zeller, who draws out the parallels with great force and precision.\n\u2018The Essenes,\u2019 he writes, \u2018like the Pythagoreans, desire to attain a\nhigher sanctity by an ascetic life; and the abstentions, which they\nimpose on themselves for this end, are the same with both. They reject\nanimal food and bloody sacrifices; they avoid wine, warm baths, and oil\nfor anointing; they set a high value on celibate life: or, so far as\nthey allow marriage, they require that it be restricted to the one\nobject of procreating children. Both wear only white garments and\nconsider linen purer than wool. Washings and purifications are\nprescribed by both, though for the Essenes they have a yet higher\nsignificance as religious acts. Both prohibit oaths and (what is more)\non the same grounds. Both find their social ideal in those institutions,\nwhich indeed the Essenes alone set themselves to realise\u2014in a corporate\nlife with entire community of goods, in sharply defined orders of rank,\nin the unconditional submission of all the members to their superiors,\nin a society carefully barred from without, into which new members are\nreceived only after a severe probation of several years, and from which\nthe unworthy are inexorably excluded. Both require a strict initiation,\nboth desire [Sidenote: Zeller\u2019s theory.] to maintain a traditional\ndoctrine inviolable; both pay the highest respect to the men from whom\nit was derived, as instruments of the deity: yet both also love\nfigurative clothing for their doctrines, and treat the old traditions as\nsymbols of deeper truths, which they must extract from them by means of\nallegorical explanation. In order to prove the later form of teaching\noriginal, newly-composed writings were unhesitatingly forged by the one\nas by the other, and fathered upon illustrious names of the past. Both\nparties pay honour to divine powers in the elements, both invoke the\nrising sun, both seek to withdraw everything unclean from his sight, and\nwith this view give special directions, in which they agree as well with\neach other as with older Greek superstition, in a remarkable way. For\nboth the belief in intermediate beings between God and the world has an\nimportance which is higher in proportion as their own conception of God\nis purer; both appear not to have disdained magic; yet both regard the\ngift of prophecy as the highest fruit of wisdom and piety, which they\npique themselves on possessing in their most distinguished members.\nFinally, both agree (along with the dualistic character of their whole\nconception of the world ...) in their tenets respecting the origin of\nthe soul, its relation to the body, and the life after death[414]....\u2019\n\nFootnote 413:\n\n  _Ant._ xv. 10. 4.\n\nFootnote 414:\n\n  Zeller _Philosophie der Griechen_, Th. III. Abth. 2, p. 281.\n\n[Sidenote: Absence of distinctive Pythagorean features in the Essenes.]\n\nThis array of coincidences is formidable, and thus skilfully marshalled\nmight appear at first sight invincible. But a closer examination\ndetracts from its value. In the first place the two distinctive\ncharacteristics of the Pythagorean philosophy are wanting to the\nEssenes. The Jewish sect did not believe in the transmigration of souls;\nand the doctrine of numbers, at least so far as our information goes,\nhad no place in their system. Yet these constitute the very essence of\nthe Pythagorean teaching. In the next place several of the coincidences\nare more apparent than real. Thus [Sidenote: The coincidences are in\nsome cases only apparent,] for instance the demons who in the\nPythagorean system held an intermediate place between the Supreme God\nand man, and were the result of a compromise between polytheism and\nphilosophy, have no near relation to the angelology of the Essenes,\nwhich arose out of a wholly different motive. Nor again can we find\ndistinct traces among the Pythagoreans of any such reverence for the sun\nas is ascribed to the Essenes, the only notice which is adduced having\nno prominence whatever in its own context, and referring to a rule which\nwould be dictated by natural decency and certainly was not peculiar to\nthe Pythagoreans[415]. When these imperfect and (for the purpose)\nvalueless resemblances have been subtracted, the only basis on which the\ntheory of a direct affiliation can rest is withdrawn. All the remaining\ncoincidences are unimportant. Thus the respect paid to founders is not\nconfined to any one sect or any one age. The reverence of the Essenes\nfor Moses, and the reverence of the Pythagoreans for Pythagoras, are\nindications of a common humanity, but not of a common philosophy. And\nagain the forgery of supposititious documents is unhappily not the badge\nof any one school. The Solomonian books of the Essenes, so far as we can\njudge from the extant notices, were about as unlike the tracts ascribed\nto Pythagoras and his disciples by the Neopythagoreans as two such\nforgeries could well be. All or nearly all that remains in common to the\nGreek school and the Jewish sect after these deductions is [Sidenote:\nand in others do not suggest any historical connexion.] a certain\nsimilarity in the type of life. But granted that two bodies of men each\nheld an esoteric teaching of their own, they would secure it\nindependently in a similar way, by a recognised process of initiation,\nby a solemn form of oath, by a rigid distinction of orders. Granted\nalso, that they both maintained the excellence of an ascetic life, their\nasceticism would naturally take the same form; they would avoid wine and\nflesh; they would abstain from anointing themselves with oil; they would\ndepreciate, and perhaps altogether prohibit, marriage. Unless therefore\nthe historical conditions are themselves favourable to a direct and\nimmediate connexion between the Pythagoreans and the Essenes, this\ntheory of affiliation has little to recommend it.\n\nFootnote 415:\n\n  Diog. Laert. viii. 17; see Zeller l.c. p. 282, note 5. The precept in\n  question occurs among a number of insignificant details, and has no\n  special prominence given to it. In the _Life of Apollonius_ by\n  Philostratus (e.g. vi. 10) considerable stress is laid on the worship\n  of the sun (Zeller l.c. p. 137, note 6); but the syncretism of this\n  late work detracts from its value as representing Pythagorean\n  doctrine.\n\n[Sidenote: Twofold objection to this theory.]\n\nAnd a closer examination must pronounce them to be most unfavourable.\nChronology and geography alike present serious obstacles to any solution\nwhich derives the peculiarities of the Essenes from the Pythagoreans.\n\n[Sidenote: (i) Chronological facts are adverse.]\n\n(i) The priority of time, if it can be pleaded on either side, must be\nurged in favour of the Essenes. The Pythagoreans as a philosophical\nschool entirely disappear from history before the middle of the fourth\ncentury before Christ. The last Pythagoreans were scholars of Philolaus\nand Eurytus, the contemporaries of Socrates and Plato[416]. For nearly\ntwo centuries after their extinction we hear [Sidenote: Disappearance of\nthe Pythagoreans.] nothing of them. Here and there persons like Diodorus\nof Aspendus are satirised by the Attic poets of the middle comedy as\n\u2018pythagorizers,\u2019 in other words, as total abstainers and\nvegetarians[417]; but the philosophy had wholly died or was fast dying\nout. This is the universal testimony of ancient writers. It is not till\nthe first century before Christ, that we meet with any distinct traces\nof a revival. In Alexander Polyhistor[418], a younger contemporary of\nSulla, for the first time we find references to certain writings, which\nwould seem to have emanated from this incipient Neopythagoreanism,\nrather than from the elder school of Pythagoreans. And a little later\nCicero commends his friend Nigidius Figulus as one specially raised up\nto revive the extinct philosophy[419]. But so slow or so chequered was\nits progress, that a whole century after Seneca can still speak of the\n[Sidenote: Priority of Essenism to Neopythagoreanism.] school as\npractically defunct[420]. Yet long before this the Essenes formed a\ncompact, well-organized, numerous society with a peculiar system of\ndoctrine and a definite rule of life. We have seen that Pliny the elder\nspeaks of this celibate society as having existed \u2018through thousands of\nages[421].\u2019 This is a gross exaggeration, but it must at least be taken\nto imply that in Pliny\u2019s time the origin of the Essenes was lost in the\nobscurity of the past, or at least seemed so to those who had not access\nto special sources of information. If, as I have given reasons for\nsupposing[422], Pliny\u2019s authority in this passage is the same Alexander\nPolyhistor to whom I have just referred, and if this particular\nstatement, however exaggerated in expression, is derived from him, the\nfact becomes still more significant. But on any showing the priority in\ntime is distinctly in favour of the Essenes as against the\nNeopythagoreans.\n\nFootnote 416:\n\n  Zeller l.c. p. 68 (comp. I. p. 242). While disputing Zeller\u2019s\n  position, I have freely made use of his references. It is impossible\n  not to admire the mastery of detail and clearness of exposition in\n  this work, even when the conclusions seem questionable.\n\nFootnote 417:\n\n  Athen. iv. p. 161, Diog. Laert. viii. 37. See the index to Meineke\n  _Fragm. Com._ s. vv. \u03c0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, etc. The words commonly used by\n  these satirists are \u03c0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, \u03c0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2. The\n  persons so satirized were probably in many cases not more Pythagoreans\n  than modern teetotallers are Rechabites.\n\nFootnote 418:\n\n  Diog. Laert. viii. 24 sq.; see Zeller l.c. p. 74\u201378.\n\nFootnote 419:\n\n  Cic. _Tim._ I \u2018sic judico, post illos nobiles Pythagoreos quorum\n  disciplina _extincta est_ quodammodo, cum aliquot s\u00e6cula in Italia\n  Siciliaque viguisset, hunc exstitisse qui illam _renovaret_.\u2019\n\nFootnote 420:\n\n  Sen. _N.Q._ vii. 32 \u2018Pythagorica illa invidiosa turb\u00e6 schola\n  pr\u00e6ceptorem non invenit.\u2019\n\nFootnote 421:\n\n  _N.H._ v. 15. The passage is at which Josephus thinks it necessary to\n  insert an account of the Essenes as already flourishing (_Ant._ xiii.\n  5. 9), is prior to the revival of the Neopythagorean school. How much\n  earlier the Jewish sect arose, we are without data for determining.\n\nFootnote 422:\n\n  See p. 83, note 240.\n\n[Sidenote: The Essene tenets more developed than the Neopythagorean.]\n\nAnd accordingly we find that what is only a tendency in the\nNeopythagoreans is with the Essenes an avowed principle and a definite\nrule of life. Such for instance is the case with celibacy, of which\nPliny says that it has existed as an institution among the Essenes _per\ns\u00e6culorum millia_, and which is a chief corner-stone of their practical\nsystem. The Pythagorean notices (whether truly or not, it is unimportant\nfor my purpose to enquire) speak of Pythagoras as having a wife and a\ndaughter[423]. Only at a late date do we find the attempt to represent\ntheir founder in another light; and if virginity is ascribed to\nApollonius of Tyana, the great Pythagorean of the first Christian\ncentury, in the fictitious biography of Philostratus[424], this\nrepresentation is plainly due to the general plan of the novelist, whose\nhero is intended to rival the Founder of Christianity, and whose work is\nsaturated with Christian ideas. In fact virginity can never be said to\nhave been a Pythagorean principle, though it may have been an exalted\nideal of some not very early adherents of the school. And the same\nremark applies to other resemblances between the Essene and\nNeopythagorean teaching. The clearness of conception and the\ndefiniteness of practice are in almost every instance on the side of the\nEssenes; so that, looking to the comparative chronology of the two, it\nwill appear almost inconceivable that they can have derived their\nprinciples from the Neopythagoreans.\n\nFootnote 423:\n\n  Diog. Laert. viii. 42.\n\nFootnote 424:\n\n  _Vit. Apoll._ i. 15 sq. At the same time Philostratus informs us that\n  the conduct of his hero in this respect had been differently\n  represented by others.\n\n[Sidenote: (ii) Geographical difficulties in the theory.]\n\n(ii) But the geographical difficulty also, which this theory of\naffiliation involves, must be added to the chronological. The home of\nthe Essene sect is allowed on all hands to have been on the eastern\nborders of Palestine, the shores of the Dead Sea, a region least of all\nexposed to the influences of Greek philosophy. It is true that we find\nnear Alexandria a closely allied school of Jewish recluses, the\nTherapeutes; and, as Alexandria may have been the home of\nNeopythagoreanism, a possible link of connexion is here disclosed. But,\nas Zeller himself has pointed out, it is not among the Therapeutes, but\namong the Essenes, that the principles in question appear fully\ndeveloped and consistently carried out[425]; and therefore, if there be\na relation of paternity between Essene and Therapeute, the latter must\nbe derived from the former and not conversely. How then can we suppose\nthis influence of Neopythagoreanism brought to bear on a Jewish\ncommunity in the south-eastern border of Palestine? Zeller\u2019s answer is\nas follows[426]. Jud\u00e6a was for more than a hundred and fifty years\nbefore the Maccabean period under the sovereignty first of the Egyptian\nand then of the Syrian Greeks. We know that at this time Hellenizing\ninfluences did infuse themselves largely into Judaism: and what more\nnatural than that among these the Pythagorean philosophy and discipline\nshould have recommended itself to a section of the Jewish people? It may\nbe said in reply, that at all events the special locality of the Essenes\nis the least favourable to such a solution: but, without pressing this\nfact, Zeller\u2019s hypothesis is open to two serious objections which\ncombined seem fatal to it, unsupported as it is by any historical\nnotice. First, this influence of Pythagoreanism is assumed to have taken\nplace at the very time when the Pythagorean school was practically\nextinct: and secondly, it is supposed to have acted upon that very\nsection of the Jewish community, which was the most vigorous advocate of\nnational exclusiveness and the most averse to Hellenizing influences.\n\nFootnote 425:\n\n  l.c. p. 288 sq.\n\nFootnote 426:\n\n  l.c. p. 290 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: The foreign element of Essenism to be sought in the East,]\n\nIt is not therefore to Greek but to Oriental influences that\nconsiderations of time and place, as well as of internal character, lead\nus to look for an explanation of the alien elements in Essene Judaism.\nAnd have we not here also the account of any real coincidences which may\nexist between Essenism and Neopythagoreanism? We should perhaps be\nhardly more justified in tracing Neopythagoreanism directly to Essenism\nthan conversely (though, if we had no other alternative, this would\nappear to be the more probable solution of the two): but were not both\nalike due to substantially the same influences acting in different\ndegrees? [Sidenote: to which also Pythagoreanism may have been\nindebted.]I think it will hardly be denied that the characteristic\nfeatures of Pythagoreanism, and especially of Neopythagoreanism, which\ndistinguish it from other schools of Greek philosophy, are much more\nOriental in type, than Hellenic. The asceticism, the magic, the\nmysticism, of the sect all point in the same direction. And history\nmoreover contains indications that such was the case. There seems to be\nsufficient ground for the statement that Pythagoras himself was indebted\nto intercourse with the Egyptians, if not with more strictly Oriental\nnations, for some leading ideas of his system. But, however this may be,\nthe fact that in the legendary accounts, which the Neopythagoreans\ninvented to do honour to the founder of the school, he is represented as\ntaking lessons from the Chaldeans, Persians, Brahmins, and others, may\nbe taken as an evidence that their own philosophy at all events was\npartially derived from eastern sources[427].\n\nFootnote 427:\n\n  See the references in Zeller I. p. 218 sq.; comp. III. 2, p. 67.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut, if the alien elements of Essenism were borrowed not so much from\nGreek philosophy as from Oriental mysticism, to what nation or what\nreligion was it chiefly indebted? To this question it is difficult, with\nour very imperfect knowledge of the East at the Christian era, to reply\nwith any confidence. [Sidenote: Resemblances to Parsism.]Yet there is\none system to which we naturally look, as furnishing the most probable\nanswer. The Medo-Persian religion supplies just those elements which\ndistinguish the tenets and practices of the Essenes from the normal type\nof Judaism. [Sidenote: (i) Dualism.](1) First; we have here a very\ndefinite form of dualism, which exercised the greatest influence on\nsubsequent Gnostic sects, and of which Manicheism, the most mature\ndevelopment of dualistic doctrine in connexion with Christianity, was\nthe ultimate fruit. For though dualism may not represent the oldest\ntheology of the Zend-Avesta in its unadulterated form, yet long before\nthe era of which we are speaking it had become the fundamental principle\nof the Persian religion. [Sidenote: (ii) Sun-worship.](2) Again; the\nZoroastrian symbolism of light, and consequent worship of the sun as the\nfountain of light, will explain those anomalous notices of the Essenes\nin which they are represented as paying reverence to this luminary[428].\n[Sidenote: (iii) Angelolatry.](3) Moreover; the \u2018worship of angels\u2019 in\nthe Essene system has a striking parallel in the invocations of spirits,\nwhich form a very prominent feature in the ritual of the Zend-Avesta.\nAnd altogether their angelology is illustrated, and not improbably was\nsuggested, by the doctrine of intermediate beings concerned in the\ngovernment of nature and of man, such as the Amshaspands, which is an\nintegral part of the Zoroastrian system[429]. [Sidenote: (iv) Magic.](4)\nAnd once more; the magic, which was so attractive to the Essene, may\nhave received its impulse from the priestly caste of Persia, to whose\nworld-wide fame this form of superstition is indebted for its name.\n[Sidenote: (v) Striving after purity.](5) If to these parallels I\nventure also to add the intense striving after purity, which is the\nnoblest feature in the Persian religion, I do so, not because the\nEssenes might not have derived this impulse from a higher source, but\nbecause this feature was very likely to recommend the Zoroastrian system\nto their favourable notice, and because also the particular form which\nthe zeal for purity took among them was at all events congenial to the\nteaching of the Zend-Avesta, and may not have been altogether free from\nits influences.\n\nFootnote 428:\n\n  Keim (_Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_ I.</sc> p. 303) refers to Tac.\n  Hist. iii. 24 \u2018Undique clamor; et _orientem solem_ (ita in Syria mos\n  est) tertiani salutavere,\u2019 as illustrating this Essene practice. The\n  commentators on Tacitus quote a similar notice of the Parthians in\n  Herodian iv. 15 _\u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3 \u1f00\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3\n  \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u00b7 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f24\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\n  \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb._\n\nFootnote 429:\n\n  See e.g. _Vendidad_ Farg. xix; and the liturgical portions of the book\n  are largely taken up with invocations of these intermediate beings.\n  Some extracts are given in Davies\u2019 _Colossians_ p. 146 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: Other coincidences accidental.]\n\nI have preferred dwelling on these broader resemblances, because they\nare much more significant than any mere coincidence of details, which\nmay or may not have been accidental. Thus for instance the magi, like\nthe Essenes, wore white garments, and eschewed gold and ornaments; they\npractised frequent lustrations; they avoided flesh, living on bread and\ncheese or on herbs and fruits; they had different orders in their\nsociety; and the like[430]. All these, as I have already remarked, may\nbe the independent out-growth of the same temper and direction of\nconduct, and need not imply any direct historical connexion. Nor is\nthere any temptation to press such resemblances; for even without their\naid the general connexion seems to be sufficiently established[431].\n\nFootnote 430:\n\n  Hilgenfeld (_Zeitschrift_ x. p. 99 sq.) finds coincidences even more\n  special than these. He is answered by Zeller (III. 2. p. 276), but\n  defends his position again (_Zeitschrift_ xi. p. 347 sq.), though with\n  no great success. Among other points of coincidence Hilgenfeld remarks\n  on the axe (Jos. _B.J._ ii. 8. 7) which was given to the novices among\n  the Essenes, and connects it with the \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 (Plin. _N.H._\n  xxxvi. 19) of the magi. Zeller contents himself with replying that the\n  use of the axe among the Essenes for purposes of divination is a pure\n  conjecture, not resting on any known fact. He might have answered with\n  much more effect that Josephus elsewhere (\u00a7 9) defines it as a spade\n  or shovel, and assigns to it a very different use. Hilgenfeld has\n  damaged his cause by laying stress on these accidental resemblances.\n  So far as regards minor coincidences, Zeller makes out as good a case\n  for his Pythagoreans, as Hilgenfeld for his magians.\n\nFootnote 431:\n\n  Those who allow any foreign Oriental element in Essenism most commonly\n  ascribe it to Persia: e.g. among the more recent writers, Hilgenfeld\n  (l.c.) and Lipsius _Schenkel\u2019s Bibel-Lexikon_ s.v. Ess\u00e4er p. 189.\n\n[Sidenote: The destruction of the Persian empire not adverse]\n\nBut it is said, that the history of Persia does not favour the\nhypothesis of such an influence as is here assumed. The destruction of\nthe Persian empire by Alexander, argues Zeller[432], and the subsequent\nerection of the Parthian domination on its ruins, must have been fatal\nto the spread of Zoroastrianism. From the middle of the third century\nbefore Christ, when the Parthian empire was established, till towards\nthe middle of the third century of our era, when the Persian monarchy\nand religion were once more restored[433], its influence must have been\nreduced within the narrowest limits. [Sidenote: but favourable to the\nspread of Parsism.] But does analogy really suggest such an inference?\nDoes not the history of the Jews themselves show that the religious\ninfluence of a people on the world at large may begin just where its\nnational life ends? The very dispersion of Zoroastrianism, consequent on\nthe fall of the empire, would impregnate the atmosphere far and wide;\nand the germs of new religious developments would thus be implanted in\nalien soils. For in tracing Essenism to Persian influences I have not\nwished to imply that this Jewish sect consciously incorporated the\nZoroastrian philosophy and religion as such, but only that Zoroastrian\nideas were infused into its system by more or less direct contact. And,\nas a matter of fact, it seems quite certain that Persian ideas were\nwidely spread during this very interval, when the Persian nationality\nwas eclipsed. [Sidenote: Indications of its influence during this\nperiod.]It was then that Hermippus gave to the Greeks the most detailed\naccount of this religion which had ever been laid before them[434]. It\nwas then that its tenets suggested or moulded the speculations of the\nvarious Gnostic sects. It was then that the worship of the Persian\nMithras spread throughout the Roman Empire. It was then, if not earlier,\nthat the magian system took root in Asia Minor, making for itself (as it\nwere) a second home in Cappadocia[435]. It was then, if not earlier,\nthat the Zoroastrian demonology stamped itself so deeply on the\napocryphal literature of the Jews themselves, which borrowed even the\nnames of evil spirits[436] from the Persians. There are indeed abundant\nindications that Palestine was surrounded by Persian influences during\nthis period, when the Persian empire was in abeyance.\n\nFootnote 432:\n\n  l.c. p. 275.\n\nFootnote 433:\n\n  See Gibbon _Decline and Fall_ c. viii, Milman _History of\n  Christianity_ II. p. 247 sq. The latter speaks of this restoration of\n  Zoroastrianism, as \u2018perhaps the only instance of the vigorous revival\n  of a Pagan religion.\u2019 It was far purer and less Pagan than the system\n  which it superseded; and this may account for its renewed life.\n\nFootnote 434:\n\n  See M\u00fcller _Fragm. Hist. Gr\u00e6c._ III. p. 53 sq. for this work of\n  Hermippus \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u039c\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd. He flourished about B.C. 200. See Max M\u00fcller\n  _Lectures on the Science of Language_ 1st ser. p. 86.\n\nFootnote 435:\n\n  Strabo xv. 3. 15 (p. 733) \u1f18\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039a\u03b1\u03c0\u03c0\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u1fb3 (\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u039c\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f33 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac) \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nFootnote 436:\n\n  At least in one instance, Asmodeus (Tob. iii. 17); see M. M\u00fcller\n  _Chips from a German Workshop_ I. p. 148 sq. For the different dates\n  assigned to the book of Tobit see Dr Westcott\u2019s article _Tobit_ in\n  Smith\u2019s _Dictionary of the Bible_ p. 1525.\n\nThus we seem to have ample ground for the view that certain alien\nfeatures in Essene Judaism were derived from the Zoroastrian religion.\n[Sidenote: Are Buddhist influences also perceptible?]But are we\njustified in going a step further, and attributing other elements in\nthis eclectic system to the more distant East? The monasticism of the\nBuddhist will naturally occur to our minds, as a precursor of the\ncenobitic life among the Essenes; and Hilgenfeld accordingly has not\nhesitated to ascribe this characteristic of Essenism directly to\nBuddhist influences[437]. But at the outset we are obliged to ask\nwhether history gives any such indication of the presence of Buddhism in\nthe West as this hypothesis requires. Hilgenfeld answers this question\nin the affirmative. [Sidenote: Supposed Buddhist establishment at\nAlexandria.]He points triumphantly to the fact that as early as the\nmiddle of the second century before Christ the Buddhist records speak of\ntheir faith as flourishing in Alasanda the chief city of the land of\nYavana. The place intended, he conceives, can be none other than the\ngreat Alexandria, the most famous of the many places bearing the\nname[438]. [Sidenote: The authority misinterpreted] In this opinion\nhowever he stands quite alone. Neither K\u00f6ppen[439], who is his authority\nfor this statement, nor any other Indian scholar[440], so far as I am\naware, for a moment contemplates this identification. Yavana, or Yona,\nwas the common Indian name for the Gr\u00e6co-Bactrian kingdom and its\ndependencies[441]; and to this region we naturally turn. The Alasanda or\nAlasadda therefore, which is here mentioned, will be one of several\nEastern cities bearing the name of the great conqueror, most probably\n_Alexandria ad Caucasum_. But indeed I hardly think that, if Hilgenfeld\nhad referred to the original authority for the statement, the great\nBuddhist history _Mahawanso_, he would have ventured to lay any stress\nat all on this notice, as supporting his theory. [Sidenote: and wholly\nuntrustworthy in itself.]The historian, or rather fabulist (for such he\nis in this earlier part of his chronicle), is relating the foundation of\nthe Mah\u00e1 th\u00fapo, or great tope, at Ruanwelli by the king Dutthag\u00e1mini in\nthe year B.C. 157. Beyond the fact that this tope was erected by this\nking the rest is plainly legendary. All the materials for the\nconstruction of the building, we are told, appeared spontaneously as by\nmiracle\u2014the bricks, the metals, the precious stones. The dewos, or\ndemons, lent their aid in the erection. In fact\n\n                                  the fabric huge\n                      Rose like an exhalation.\n\nPriests gathered in enormous numbers from all the great Buddhist\nmonasteries to do honour to the festival of the foundation. One place\nalone sent not less than 96,000. Among the rest it is mentioned that\n\u2018Maha Dhammarakkito, th\u00e9ro (_i.e._ senior priest) of Y\u00f3na, accompanied\nby 30,000 priests from the vicinity of Alasadd\u00e1, the capital of the Y\u00f3na\ncountry, attended[442].\u2019 It is obvious that no weight can be attached to\na statement occurring as part of a story of which the other details are\nso manifestly false. An establishment of 30,000 Buddhist priests at\nAlexandria would indeed be a phenomenon of which historians have shown a\nstrange neglect.\n\nFootnote 437:\n\n  _Zeitschrift_ X. p. 103 sq.; comp. XI. p. 351. M. Renan also (_Langues\n  S\u00e9mitiques_ III. iv. 1, _Vie de J\u00e9sus_ p. 98) suggests that Buddhist\n  influences operated in Palestine.\n\nFootnote 438:\n\n  X. p. 105 \u2018was schon an sich, zumal in dieser Zeit, schwerlich\n  Alexandria ad Caucasum, sondern nur Alexandrien in Aegypten bedeuten\n  kann.\u2019 Comp. XI. p. 351, where he repeats the same argument in reply\n  to Zeller. This is a very natural inference from a western point of\n  view; but, when we place ourselves in the position of a Buddhist\n  writer to whom Bactria was Greece, the relative proportions of things\n  are wholly changed.\n\nFootnote 439:\n\n  _Die Religion des Buddha_ I. p. 193.\n\nFootnote 440:\n\n  Comp. e.g. Weber _Die Verbindungen Indiens mit den L\u00e4ndern im Westen_\n  p.675 in the _Allgem. Monatschr. f. Wissensch. u. Literatur_,\n  Braunschweig 1853; Lassen _Indische Alterthumskunde_ II. p. 236; Hardy\n  _Manual of Budhism_ p. 516.\n\nFootnote 441:\n\n  For its geographical meaning in older Indian writers see K\u00f6ppen _l.c._\n  Since then it has entirely departed from its original signification,\n  and Yavana is now a common term used by the Hindoos to designate the\n  Mohammedans. Thus the Greek name has come to be applied to a people\n  which of all others is most unlike the Greeks. This change of meaning\n  admirably illustrates the use of \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd among the Jews, which in like\n  manner, from being the name of an alien nation, became the name of an\n  alien religion, irrespective of nationality: see the note on Gal. ii.\n  3.\n\nFootnote 442:\n\n  _Mahawanso_ p. 171, Turnour\u2019s translation.\n\n[Sidenote: General ignorance of Buddhism in the West.]\n\nNor is the presence of any Buddhist establishment even on a much smaller\nscale in this important centre of western civilization at all\nreconcilable with the ignorance of this religion, which the Greeks and\nRomans betray at a much later date[443]. For some centuries after the\nChristian era we find that the information possessed by western writers\nwas most shadowy and confused; and in almost every instance we are able\nto trace it to some other cause than the actual presence of Buddhists in\nthe Roman Empire[444]. [Sidenote: Strabo.]Thus Strabo, who wrote under\nAugustus and Tiberius, apparently mentions the Buddhist priests, the\nsramanas, under the designation _sarman\u00e6_, (\u03a3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2)[445]; but he\navowedly obtains his information from Megasthenes, who travelled in\nIndia somewhere about the year 300 B.C. and wrote a book on Indian\naffairs. [Sidenote: Bardesanes.]Thus too Bardesanes at a much later date\ngives an account of these Buddhist ascetics, without however naming the\nfounder of the religion; but he was indebted for his knowledge of them\nto conversations with certain Indian ambassadors who visited Syria on\ntheir way westward in the reign of one of the Antonines[446]. [Sidenote:\nClement of Alexandria.] Clement of Alexandria, writing in the latest\nyears of the second century or the earliest of the third, for the first\ntime[447] mentions Buddha by name; and even he betrays a strange\nignorance of this Eastern religion[448].\n\nFootnote 443:\n\n  How for instance, if any such establishment had ever existed at\n  Alexandria, could Strabo have used the language which is quoted in the\n  next note?\n\nFootnote 444:\n\n  Consistently with this view, we may allow that single Indians would\n  visit Alexandria from time to time for purposes of trade or for other\n  reasons, and not more than this is required by the rhetorical passage\n  in Dion Chrysost. Or. xxxii (p. 373) \u1f41\u03c1\u1ff6 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f14\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd ... \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0392\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a3\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03bd\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03c2. The qualifying \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 shows how very slight was the\n  communication between India and Alexandria. The mission of Pant\u00e6nus\n  may have been suggested by the presence of such stray visitors. Jerome\n  (_Vir. Ill._ 36) says that he went \u2018rogatus ab illius gentis legatis.\u2019\n  It must remain doubtful however, whether some other region than\n  Hindostan, such as \u00c6thiopia for instance, is not meant, when Pant\u00e6nus\n  is said to have gone to India: see Cave\u2019s _Lives of the Primitive\n  Fathers_ p. 188 sq.\n\n  How very slight the communication was between India and the West in\n  the early years of the Christian era, appears from this passage of\n  Strabo XV. 1. 4 (p. 686); \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03be \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76\n  \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039d\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03af\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0393\u03ac\u03b3\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n  \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, after which he goes on to say that the\n  only instance of Indian travellers in the West was the embassy sent to\n  Augustus (see below p. 155), which came \u1f00\u03c6\u2019 \u1f11\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f11\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2\n  \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2.\n\n  The communications between India and the West are investigated by two\n  recent writers, Reinaud _Relations Politiques et Commerciales de\n  l\u2019Empire Romain avec l\u2019Asie Centrale_, Paris 1863, and Priaulx _The\n  Indian Travels of Apollonius of Tyana and the Indian Embassies to\n  Rome_, 1873. The latter work, which is very thorough and satisfactory,\n  would have saved me much labour of independent investigation, if I had\n  seen it in time.\n\nFootnote 445:\n\n  Strabo XV. 1. 59, p. 712. In the MSS it is written \u0393\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, but this\n  must be an error either introduced by Strabo\u2019s transcribers or found\n  in the copy of Megasthenes which this author used. This is plain not\n  only from the Indian word itself, but also from the parallel passage\n  in Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._ i. 15). From the coincidences of\n  language it is clear that Clement also derived his information from\n  Megasthenes, whose name he mentions just below. The fragments of\n  Megasthenes relating to the Indian philosophers will be found in\n  M\u00fcller _Fragm. Hist. Gr\u00e6c._ II. p. 437. They were previously edited by\n  Schwanbeck, _Megasthenis Indica_ (Bonn\u00e6 1846).\n\n  For \u03a3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 we also find the form \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 in other writers; e.g.\n  Clem. Alex. l.c., Bardesanes in Porphyr. _de Abstin._ iv. 17, Orig.\n  _c. Cels._ i. 19 (I. p. 342). This divergence is explained by the fact\n  that the Pali word _sammana_ corresponds to the Sanskrit _sramana_.\n  See Schwanbeck, l.c. p. 17, quoted by M\u00fcller p. 437.\n\n  It should be borne in mind however, that several eminent Indian\n  scholars believe Megasthenes to have meant not Buddhists but Brahmins\n  by his \u03a3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2. So for instance Lassen _Rhein. Mus._ 1833, p. 180\n  sq., _Ind. Alterth._ II. p. 700: and Prof. Max M\u00fcller (Pref. to\n  Rogers\u2019s _Translation of Buddhaghosha\u2019s Parables_, London 1870, p.\n  lii) says; \u2018That Lassen is right in taking the \u03a3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, mentioned by\n  Megasthenes, for Brahmanic, not for Buddhist ascetics, might be proved\n  also by their dress. Dresses made of the bark of trees are not\n  Buddhistic.\u2019 If this opinion be correct, the earlier notices of\n  Buddhism in Greek writers entirely disappear, and my position is\n  strengthened. But for the following reasons the other view appears to\n  me more probable: (1) The term _sramana_ is the common term for the\n  Buddhist ascetic, whereas it is very seldom used of the Brahmin.\n\n  (2) The \u0396\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (another form of _sramana_), mentioned below p. 156,\n  note 450, appears to have been a Buddhist. This view is taken even by\n  Lassen, _Ind. Alterth._ III. p. 60.\n\n  (3) The distinction of \u0392\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 and \u03a3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 in Megasthenes or the\n  writers following him corresponds to the distinction of \u0392\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 and\n  \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 in Bardesanes, Origen, and others; and, as Schwanbeck has\n  shown (l.c.), the account of the \u03a3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 in Megasthenes for the most\n  part is a close parallel to the account of the \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 in Bardesanes\n  (or at least in Porphyry\u2019s report of Bardesanes). It seems more\n  probable therefore that Megasthenes has been guilty of confusion in\n  describing the dress of the \u03a3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, than that Brahmins are intended\n  by the term.\n\n  The Pali form, \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, as a designation of the Buddhists, first\n  occurs in Clement of Alexandria or Bardesanes, whichever may be the\n  earlier writer. It is generally ascribed to Alexander Polyhistor, who\n  flourished B.C. 80\u201360, because his authority is quoted by Cyril of\n  Alexandria (c. _Julian_. iv. p. 133) in the same context in which the\n  \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 are mentioned. This inference is drawn by Schwanbeck, Max\n  M\u00fcller, Lassen, and others. An examination of Cyril\u2019s language however\n  shows that the statement for which he quotes the authority of\n  Alexander Polyhistor does not extend to the mention of the Saman\u00e6i.\n  Indeed all the facts given in this passage of Cyril (including the\n  reference to Polyhistor) are taken from Clement of Alexandria\n  (_Strom._ i. 15; see the next note), whose account Cyril has abridged.\n  It is possible indeed that Clement himself derived the statement from\n  Polyhistor, but nothing in Clement\u2019s own language points to this.\n\nFootnote 446:\n\n  The narrative of Bardesanes is given by Porphyry _de Abst._ iv. 17.\n  The Buddhist ascetics are there called \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 (see the last note).\n  The work of Bardesanes, recounting his conversations with these Indian\n  ambassadors, is quoted again by Porphyry in a fragment preserved by\n  Stob\u00e6us _Ecl._ iii. 56 (p. 141). In this last passage the embassy is\n  said to have arrived \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03be \u1f18\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd, by\n  which, if the words be correct, must be meant Elagabalus (A.D.\n  218\u2013222), the spurious Antonine (see Hilgenfeld _Bardesanes_ p. 12\n  sq.). Other ancient authorities however place Bardesanes in the reign\n  of one of the older Antonines; and, as the context is somewhat\n  corrupt, we cannot feel quite certain about the date. Bardesanes gives\n  by far the most accurate account of the Buddhists to be found in any\n  ancient Greek writer; but even here the monstrous stories, which the\n  Indian ambassadors related to him, show how little trustworthy such\n  sources of information were.\n\nFootnote 447:\n\n  Except possibly Arrian, _Ind._ viii. 1, who mentions an ancient Indian\n  king, Budyas (\u0392\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03cd\u03b1\u03c2) by name; but what he relates of him is quite\n  inconsistent with the history of Buddha, and probably some one else is\n  intended.\n\nFootnote 448:\n\n  In this passage (_Strom._ i. 15, p. 359) Clement apparently mentions\n  these same persons three times, supposing that he is describing three\n  different schools of Oriental philosophers. (1) He speaks of \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9\n  \u0392\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd (comp. Cyrill. Alex. l.c.); (2) He distinguishes two classes\n  of Indian gymnosophists, whom he calls \u03a3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 and \u0392\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. These\n  are Buddhists and Brahmins respectively (see p. 153, note 445); (3) He\n  says afterwards \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03bd\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u0392\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f43\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 [\u1f61\u03c2?] \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9.\n  Schwanbeck indeed maintains that Clement here intends to describe the\n  same persons whom he has just mentioned as \u03a3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9; but this is not\n  the natural interpretation of his language, which must mean \u2018There are\n  also among the Indians those who obey the precepts of Buddha.\u2019\n  Probably Schwanbeck is right in identifying the \u03a3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 with the\n  Buddhist ascetics, but Clement appears not to have known this. In fact\n  he has obtained his information from different sources, and so\n  repeated himself without being aware of it. Where he got the first\n  fact it is impossible to say. The second, as we saw, was derived from\n  Megasthenes. The third, relating to Buddha, came, as we may\n  conjecture, either from Pant\u00e6nus (if indeed Hindostan is really meant\n  by the India of his missionary labours) or from some chance Indian\n  visitor at Alexandria.\n\n  In another passage (_Strom._ iii. 7, p. 539) Clement speaks of certain\n  Indian celibates and ascetics, who are called \u03a3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03af. As he\n  distinguishes them from the gymnosophists, and mentions the pyramid as\n  a sacred building with them, the identification with the Buddhists can\n  hardly be doubted. Here therefore \u03a3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03af is a Grecized form of\n  \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9; and this modification of the word would occur naturally to\n  Clement, because \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03af, \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, were already used of the ascetic\n  life: e.g. Philo _de Vit. Cont._ 3 (p. 475 M) \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f43 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\n  \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[Sidenote: Hippolytus.]\n\nStill later than this, Hippolytus, while he gives a fairly intelligent,\nthough brief, account of the Brahmins[449], says not a word about the\nBuddhists, though, if he had been acquainted with their teaching, he\nwould assuredly have seen in them a fresh support to his theory of the\naffinity between Christian heresies and pre-existing heathen\nphilosophies. [Sidenote: A Buddhist at Athens.]With one doubtful\nexception\u2014an Indian fanatic attached to an embassy sent by king Porus to\nAugustus, who astonished the Greeks and Romans by burning himself alive\nat Athens[450]\u2013there is apparently no notice in either heathen or\nChristian writers, which points to the presence of a Buddhist within the\nlimits of the Roman Empire, till long after the Essenes had ceased to\nexist[451].\n\nFootnote 449:\n\n  _H\u00e6r._ i. 24.\n\nFootnote 450:\n\n  The chief authority is Nicolaus of Damascus in Strabo xv. i. 73 (p.\n  270). The incident is mentioned also in Dion Cass. liv. 9. Nicolaus\n  had met these ambassadors at Antioch, and gives an interesting account\n  of the motley company and their strange presents. This fanatic, who\n  was one of the number, immolated himself in the presence of an\n  astonished crowd, and perhaps of the emperor himself, at Athens. He\n  anointed himself and then leapt smiling on the pyre. The inscription\n  on his tomb was \u0396\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03b7\u03b3\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bd\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u0392\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f38\u03bd\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u1f14\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. The tomb was visible at least as late\n  as the age of Plutarch, who recording the self-immolation of Calanus\n  before Alexander (_Vit. Alex._ 69) says, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n  \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bd\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u039a\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03af \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd\n  \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f38\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. Strabo also places the two\n  incidents in conjunction in another passage in which he refers to this\n  person, xv. 1. 4 (p. 686) \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bd\u03b4\u03cc\u03c2,\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u039a\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n  The reasons for supposing this person to have been a Buddhist, rather\n  than a Brahmin, are: (1) The name \u0396\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03b7\u03b3\u1f70\u03c2 (which appears with\n  some variations in the MSS of Strabo), being apparently the Indian\n  _sramanakarja_, i.e. \u2018teacher of the ascetics,\u2019 in other words, a\n  Buddhist priest; (2) The place Bargosa, i.e. Barygaza, where Buddhism\n  flourished in that age. See Priaulx p. 78 sq. In Dion Cassius it is\n  written \u0396\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n  And have we not here an explanation of 1 Cor. xiii. 3, if \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 be the right reading? The passage, being written before the\n  fires of the Neronian persecution, requires explanation. Now it is\n  clear from Plutarch that the \u2018Tomb of the Indian\u2019 was one of the\n  sights shown to strangers at Athens: and the Apostle, who observed the\n  altar ==\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03f2\u03c4\u03c9\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03b9==, was not likely to overlook the sepulchre\n  with the strange inscription ==\u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03f2\u03b1\u03f2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9==. Indeed\n  the incident would probably be pressed on his notice in his\n  discussions with Stoics and Epicureans, and he would be forced to\n  declare himself as to the value of these Indian self-immolations, when\n  he preached the doctrine of self-sacrifice. We may well imagine\n  therefore that the fate of this poor Buddhist fanatic was present to\n  his mind when he penned the words \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u1ff6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 ...\n  \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f60\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9. Indeed it would furnish an almost\n  equally good illustration of the text, whether we read \u1f35\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\n  or \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9. Dion Cassius (l.c.) suggests that the deed was done\n  \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 or \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b6\u03b9\u03bd. How much attention these religious\n  suicides of the Indians attracted in the Apostolic age (doubtless\n  because the act of this Buddhist priest had brought the subject\n  vividly before men\u2019s minds in the West), we may infer from the speech\n  which Josephus puts in the mouth of Eleazar (_B.J._ vii. 8. 7),\n  \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c8\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03ba\u03ad\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 ... \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 ...\n  _\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2_, \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd_\n  \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd, \u1f51\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9 ... \u1f06\u03c1\u2019 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n  \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f38\u03bd\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2;\n\nFootnote 451:\n\n  In the reign of Claudius an embassy arrived from Taprobane (Ceylon);\n  and from these ambassadors Pliny derived his information regarding the\n  island, _N.H._ vi. 24. Respecting their religion however he says only\n  two words \u2018coli Herculem,\u2019 by whom probably Rama is meant (Priaulx p.\n  116). From this and other statements it appears that they were Tamils\n  and not Singalese, and thus belonged to the non-Buddhist part of the\n  island; see Priaulx p. 91 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: The alleged coincidences prove nothing.]\n\nAnd, if so, the coincidences must be very precise, before we are\njustified in attributing any peculiarities of Essenism to Buddhist\ninfluences. This however is far from being the case. They both exhibit a\nwell-organized monastic society: but the monasticism of the Buddhist\npriests, with its systematized mendicancy, has little [Sidenote:\nMonasticism.] in common with the monasticism of the Essene recluse,\nwhose life was largely spent in manual labour. [Sidenote:\nAsceticism.]They both enjoin celibacy, both prohibit the use of flesh\nand of wine, both abstain from the slaughter of animals. But, as we have\nalready seen, such resemblances prove nothing, for they may be explained\nby the independent development of the same religious principles. One\ncoincidence, and one only, is noticed by Hilgenfeld, which at first\nsight seems more striking and might suggest a historical connexion.\n[Sidenote: Four orders and four steps.]He observes that the four orders\nof the Essene community are derived from the four steps of Buddhism.\nAgainst this it might fairly be argued that such coincidences of numbers\nare often purely accidental, and that in the present instance there is\nno more reason for connecting the four steps of Buddhism with the four\norders of Essenism than there would be for connecting the ten precepts\nof Buddha with the Ten Commandments of Moses. But indeed a nearer\nexamination will show that the two have nothing whatever in common\nexcept the number. The four steps or paths of Buddhism are not four\ngrades of an external order, but four degrees of spiritual progress on\nthe way to nirvana or annihilation, the ultimate goal of the Buddhist\u2019s\nreligious aspirations. They are wholly unconnected with the Buddhist\nmonastic system, as an organization. A reference to the Buddhist notices\ncollected in Hardy\u2019s _Eastern Monachism_ (p. 280 sq.) will at once\ndispel any suspicion of a resemblance. A man may attain to the highest\nof these four stages of Buddhist illumination instantaneously. He does\nnot need to have passed through the lower grades, but may even be a\nlayman at the time. Some merit obtained in a previous state of existence\nmay raise him _per saltum_ to the elevation of a rahat, when all earthly\ndesires are crushed and no future birth stands between him and nirvana.\n[Sidenote: Buddhist influences seen first in Manicheism.]There remains\ntherefore no coincidence which would suggest any historical connexion\nbetween Essenism and Buddhism. Indeed it is not till some centuries\nlater, when Manicheism starts into being, that we find for the first\ntime any traces of the influence of Buddhism on the religions of the\nWest[452].\n\nFootnote 452:\n\n  Even its influence on Manicheism however is disputed in a learned\n  article in the _Home and Foreign Review_ III. p. 143 sq. (1863), by Mr\n  P. Le Page Renouf (see _Academy_ 1873, p. 399).\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                                   3.\n                       ESSENISM AND CHRISTIANITY.\n\n\n[Sidenote: The theory which explains Christianity as an outgrowth of\n           Essenism,]\n\nIt has become a common practice with a certain class of writers to\ncall Essenism to their aid in accounting for any distinctive features\nof Christianity, which they are unable to explain in any other way.\nWherever some external power is needed to solve a perplexity, here is\nthe _deus ex machina_ whose aid they most readily invoke. Constant\nrepetition is sure to produce its effect, and probably not a few\npersons, who want either the leisure or the opportunity to investigate\nthe subject for themselves, have a lurking suspicion that the Founder\nof Christianity may have been an Essene, or at all events that\nChristianity was largely indebted to Essenism for its doctrinal and\nethical teaching[453]. Indeed, when very confident and sweeping\nassertions are made, it is natural to presume that they rest on a\nsubstantial basis of fact. Thus for instance we are told by one writer\nthat Christianity is \u2018Essenism alloyed with foreign elements\u2019[454]:\nwhile another, who however approaches the subject in a different\nspirit, says; \u2018It will hardly be doubted that our Saviour Himself\nbelonged to this holy brotherhood. This will especially be apparent,\nwhen we remember that _the whole Jewish community_ at the advent of\nChrist was divided into three parties, the Pharisees, the Sadducees,\nand the Essenes, and that _every Jew had to belong to one of these\nsects_. Jesus who in all things conformed to the Jewish law, and who\nwas holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, would\ntherefore naturally associate Himself with that order of Judaism which\nwas most congenial to his nature\u2019.[455][Sidenote: tested by facts.]I\npurpose testing these strong assertions by an appeal to facts.\n\nFootnote 453:\n\n  De Quincey\u2019s attempt to prove that the Essenes were actually\n  Christians (_Works_ VI p. 270 sq., IX p. 253 sq.), who used the\n  machinery of an esoteric society to inculcate their doctrines \u2018for\n  fear of the Jews,\u2019 is conceived in a wholly different spirit from the\n  theories of the writers mentioned in the text; but it is even more\n  untenable and does not deserve serious refutation.\n\nFootnote 454:\n\n  Gr\u00e4tz III p. 217.\n\nFootnote 455:\n\n  Ginsburg _Essenes_ p. 24.\n\n[Sidenote: Our Lord need not have belonged to any sect.]\n\nFor the statements involved in those words of the last extract which I\nhave underlined, no authority is given by the writer himself; nor have I\nbeen able to find confirmation of them in any quarter. On the contrary\nthe frequent allusions which we find to the vulgar herd, the \u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\nthe _\u0639am haarets_, who are distinguished from the disciples of the\nschools[456], suggest that a large proportion of the people was\nunattached to any sect. If it had been otherwise, we might reasonably\npresume that our Lord, as one who \u2018in all things conformed to the Jewish\nlaw,\u2019 would have preferred attaching Himself to the Pharisees who \u2018sat\nin Moses\u2019 seat\u2019 and whose precepts He recommended His disciples to\nobey[457], rather than to the Essenes who in one important respect at\nleast\u2014the repudiation of the temple sacrifices\u2014acted in flagrant\nviolation of the Mosaic ordinances.\n\nFootnote 456:\n\n  See above, p. 130.\n\nFootnote 457:\n\n  Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.\n\n[Sidenote: The argument from the silence of the New Testament answered.]\n\nThis preliminary barrier being removed, we are free to investigate the\nevidence for their presumed connexion. And here we are met first with a\nnegative argument, which obviously has great weight with many persons.\nWhy, it is asked, does Jesus, who so unsparingly denounces the vices and\nthe falsehoods of Pharisees and Sadducees, never once mention the\nEssenes by way of condemnation, or indeed mention them by name at all?\nWhy, except that He himself belonged to this sect and looked favourably\non their teaching? This question is best answered by another. How can we\nexplain the fact, that throughout the enormous mass of talmudical and\nearly rabbinical literature this sect is not once mentioned by name, and\nthat even the supposed allusions to them, which have been discovered for\nthe first time in the present century, turn out on investigation to be\nhypothetical and illusory? The difficulty is much greater in this latter\ninstance; but the answer is the same in both cases. The silence is\nexplained by the comparative insignificance of the sect, their small\nnumbers and their retired habits. Their settlements were far removed\nfrom the great centres of political and religious life. Their recluse\nhabits, as a rule, prevented them from interfering in the common\nbusiness of the world. Philo and Josephus have given prominence to them,\nbecause their ascetic practices invested them with the character of\nphilosophers and interested the Greeks and Romans in their history; but\nin the national life of the Jews they bore a very insignificant\npart[458]. If the Sadducees, who held the highest offices in the\nhierarchy, are only mentioned directly on three occasions in the\nGospels[459], it can be no surprise that the Essenes are not named at\nall.\n\nFootnote 458:\n\n  This fact is fully recognised by several recent writers, who will not\n  be suspected of any undue bias towards traditional views of Christian\n  history. Thus Lipsius writes (p. 190), \u2018In the general development of\n  Jewish life Essenism occupies a far more subordinate place than is\n  commonly ascribed to it.\u2019 And Keim expresses himself to the same\n  effect (I. p. 305). Derenbourg also, after using similar language,\n  adds this wise caution, \u2018In any case, in the present state of our\n  acquaintance with the Essenes, which is so imperfect and has no chance\n  of being extended, the greatest prudence is required of science, if\n  she prefers to be true rather than adventurous, if she has at heart\n  rather to enlighten than to surprise\u2019 (p. 461). Even Gr\u00e4tz in one\n  passage can write soberly on this subject: \u2018The Essenes had throughout\n  no influence on political movements, from which they held aloof as far\n  as possible\u2019 (III. p. 86).\n\nFootnote 459:\n\n  These are (1) Matt. iii. 7; (2) Matt. xvi. 1 sq.; (3) Matt. xxii. 23\n  sq., Mark xii. 18, Luke xx. 27.\n\n[Sidenote: The positive arguments for a connexion may be twofold.]\n\nAs no stress therefore can be laid on the argument for silence, any\nhypothesis of connexion between Essenism and Christianity must make good\nits claims by establishing one or both of these two points: _first_,\nthat there is direct historical evidence of close intercourse between\nthe two; and _secondly_, that the resemblances of doctrine and practice\nare so striking as to oblige, or at least to warrant, the belief in such\na connexion. If both these lines of argument fail, the case must be\nconsidered to have broken down.\n\n[Sidenote: 1. Absence of direct historical evidence of a connexion.]\n\n1. On the former point it must be premised that the Gospel narrative\ndoes not suggest any hint of a connexion. Indeed its general tenor is\ndirectly adverse to such a supposition. From first to last Jesus and his\ndisciples move about freely, taking part in the common business, even in\nthe common recreations, of Jewish life. The recluse ascetic brotherhood,\nwhich was gathered about the shores of the Dead Sea, does not once\nappear above the Evangelists\u2019 horizon. Of this close society, as such,\nthere is not the faintest indication. [Sidenote: Two individual cases\nalleged.] But two individuals have been singled out, as holding an\nimportant place either in the Evangelical narrative or in the Apostolic\nChurch, who, it is contended, form direct and personal links of\ncommunication with this sect. These are John the Baptist and James the\nLord\u2019s brother. The one is the forerunner of the Gospel, the first\nherald of the Kingdom; the other is the most prominent figure in the\nearly Church of Jerusalem.\n\n[Sidenote: (i) John the Baptist]\n\n(i) John the Baptist was an ascetic. His abode was the desert; his\nclothing was rough; his food was spare; he baptized his penitents.\nTherefore, it is argued, he was an Essene. Between the premisses and the\nconclusion however there is a broad gulf, which cannot very easily be\nbridged over. [Sidenote: not an Essene.]The solitary independent life,\nwhich John led, presents a type wholly different from the cenobitic\nestablishments of the Essenes, who had common property, common meals,\ncommon hours of labour and of prayer. It may even be questioned whether\nhis food of locusts would have been permitted by the Essenes, if they\nreally ate nothing which had life (\u1f14\u03bc\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd[460]). And again; his baptism\nas narrated by the Evangelists, and their lustrations as described in\nJosephus, have nothing in common except the use of water for a religious\npurpose. When therefore we are told confidently that \u2018his manner of life\nwas altogether after the Essene pattern[461],\u2019 and that \u2018he without\ndoubt baptized his converts into the Essene order,\u2019 we know what value\nto attach to this bold assertion. If positive statements are allowable,\nit would be more true to fact to say that he could not possibly have\nbeen an Essene. The rule of his life was _isolation_; the principle of\ntheirs, _community_[462].\n\nFootnote 460:\n\n  See above p. 86.\n\nFootnote 461:\n\n  Gr\u00e4tz III. p. 220.\n\nFootnote 462:\n\n  \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, Joseph. _B.J._ ii. 8. 3. See also Philo _Fragm._ 632\n  \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, and the context.\n\n[Sidenote: External resemblances to John in Banus,]\n\nIn this mode of life John was not singular. It would appear that not a\nfew devout Jews at this time retired from the world and buried\nthemselves in the wilderness, that they might devote themselves\nunmolested to ascetic discipline and religious meditation. One such\ninstance at all events we have in Banus the master of Josephus, with\nwhom the Jewish historian, when a youth, spent three years in the\ndesert. This anchorite was clothed in garments made of bark or of\nleaves; his food was the natural produce of the earth; he bathed day and\nnight in cold water for purposes of purification. To the careless\nobserver doubtless John and Banus would appear to be men of the same\nstamp. In their outward mode of life there was perhaps not very much\ndifference[463]. The consciousness of a divine mission, the gift of a\nprophetic insight, in John was the real and all-important distinction\nbetween the two. [Sidenote: who was not an Essene.]But here also the\nsame mistake is made; and we not uncommonly find Banus described as an\nEssene. It is not too much to say however, that the whole tenor of\nJosephus\u2019 narrative is opposed to this supposition[464]. He says that\nwhen sixteen years old he desired to acquire a knowledge of the three\nsects of the Jews before making his choice of one; that accordingly he\nwent through (\u03b4\u03b9\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd) all the three at the cost of much rough\ndiscipline and toil; that he was not satisfied with the experience thus\ngained, and hearing of this Banus he attached himself to him as his\nzealous disciple (\u03b6\u03b7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6); that having remained three\nyears with him he returned to Jerusalem; and that then, being nineteen\nyears old, he gave in his adhesion to the sect of the Pharisees. Thus\nthere is no more reason for connecting this Banus with the Essenes than\nwith the Pharisees. The only natural interpretation of the narrative is\nthat he did not belong to any of the three sects, but represented a\ndistinct type of religious life, of which Josephus was anxious to gain\nexperience. And his hermit life seems to demand this solution, which the\nsequence of the narrative suggests.\n\nFootnote 463:\n\n  Ewald (VI. p. 649) regards this Banus as representing an extravagant\n  development of the school of John, and thus supplying a link between\n  the real teaching of the Baptist and the doctrine of the\n  Hemerobaptists professing to be derived from him.\n\nFootnote 464:\n\n  The passage is so important that I give it in full; Joseph. _Vit._ 2\n  \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03ba\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03b1\u1f57\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03a3\u03b1\u03b4\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f21 \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd.\n  \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1fa0\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9.\n  \u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f31\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c0\u03c5\u03b8\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2\n  \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u0392\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u03c7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u1ff7 \u03b4\u1f72\n  \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bd\u03cd\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd,\n  \u03b6\u03b7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd. \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b7\n  \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u1f20\u03c1\u03be\u03ac\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n[Sidenote: General result.]\n\nOf John himself therefore no traits are handed down which suggest that\nhe was a member of the Essene community. He was an ascetic, and the\nEssenes were ascetics; but this is plainly an inadequate basis for any\nsuch inference. Nor indeed is the relation of his asceticism to theirs a\nquestion of much moment for the matter in hand; since this was the very\npoint in which Christ\u2019s mode of life was so essentially different from\nJohn\u2019s as to provoke criticism and to point a contrast[465]. But the\nlater history of his real or supposed disciples has, or may seem to\nhave, some bearing on this investigation. [Sidenote: The\nHemerobaptists.]Towards the close of the first and the beginning of the\nsecond century we meet with a body of sectarians called in Greek\n_Hemerobaptists_[466], in Hebrew _Toble-shacharith_[467], \u2018day\u2019 or\n\u2018morning bathers.\u2019 What were their relations to John the Baptist on the\none hand, and to the Essenes on the other? Owing to the scantiness of\nour information the whole subject is wrapped in obscurity, and any\nrestoration of their history must be more or less hypothetical; but it\nwill be possible at all events to suggest an account which is not\nimprobable in itself, and which does no violence to the extant notices\nof the sect.\n\nFootnote 465:\n\n  Matt. ix. 14 sq., xi. 17 sq., Mark ii. 18 sq., Luke v. 33, vii. 31 sq.\n\nFootnote 466:\n\n  The word \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 is generally taken to mean \u2018daily-bathers,\u2019\n  and this meaning is suggested by Apost. Const. vi. 6 \u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019\n  (\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, _ib._ 23 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f13\u03bd \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, Epiphan. _H\u00e6r._ xvii. 1 (p. 37) \u03b5\u1f30\n  \u03bc\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9 \u1f04\u03c0\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03cc \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9. But, if the\n  word is intended as a translation of _Toble-shacharith_ \u2018morning\n  bathers,\u2019 as it seems to be, it must signify rather \u2018day-bathers\u2019; and\n  this is more in accordance with the analogy of other compounds from\n  \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, as \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, etc.\n\n  Josephus (_B.J._ ii. 8. 5) represents the Essenes as bathing, not at\n  dawn, but at the fifth hour, just before their meal. This is hardly\n  consistent either with the name of the _Toble-shacharith_, or with the\n  Talmudical anecdote of them quoted above p. 132. Of Banus he reports\n  (_Vit._ 2) that he \u2018bathed often day and night in cold water.\u2019\n\nFootnote 467:\n\n  See above p. 132.\n\n[Sidenote: (_a_) Their relation to John the Baptist.]\n\n(_a_) We must not hastily conclude, when we meet with certain persons at\nEphesus about the years A.D. 53, 54, who are described as \u2018knowing only\nthe baptism of John,\u2019 or as having been \u2018baptized unto John\u2019s\nbaptism[468],\u2019 that we have here some early representatives of the\nHemerobaptist sect. [Sidenote: John\u2019s disciples at Ephesus.]These were\nChristians, though imperfectly informed Christians. Of Apollos, who was\nmore fully instructed by Aquila and Priscilla, this is stated in the\nmost explicit terms[469]. Of the rest, who owed their fuller knowledge\nof the Gospel to St Paul, the same appears to be implied, though the\nlanguage is not free from ambiguity[470]. But these notices have an\nimportant bearing on our subject; for they show how profoundly the\neffect of John\u2019s preaching was felt in districts as remote as\nproconsular Asia, even after a lapse of a quarter of a century. With\nthese disciples it was the initial impulse towards Christianity; but to\nothers it represented a widely different form of belief and practice.\n[Sidenote: Professed followers at a later date.]The Gospel of St John\nwas written, according to all tradition, at Ephesus in the later years\nof the first century. Again and again the Evangelist impresses on his\nreaders, either directly by his own comments or indirectly by the course\nof the narrative, the transient and subordinate character of John\u2019s\nministry. He was not the light, says the Evangelist, but came to bear\nwitness of the light[471]. He was not the sun in the heavens: he was\nonly the waning lamp, which shines when kindled from without and burns\nitself away in shining. His light might well gladden the Jews while it\nlasted, but this was only \u2018for a season[472].\u2019 John himself lost no\nopportunity of bearing his testimony to the loftier claims of\nJesus[473]. From such notices it is plain that in the interval between\nthe preaching of St Paul and the Gospel of St John the memory of the\nBaptist at Ephesus had assumed a new attitude towards Christianity. His\nname is no longer the sign of imperfect appreciation, but the watchword\nof direct antagonism. John had been set up as a rival Messiah to Jesus.\nIn other words, this Gospel indicates the spread of Hemerobaptist\nprinciples, if not the presence of a Hemerobaptist community, in\nproconsular Asia, when it was written. In two respects these\nHemerobaptists distorted the facts of history. [Sidenote: The facts of\nhistory distorted by them.]They perverted John\u2019s teaching, and they\nmisrepresented his office. His baptism was no more a single rite, once\nperformed and initiating an amendment of life; it was a daily recurrence\natoning for sin and sanctifying the person[474]. He himself was no\nlonger the forerunner of the Messiah; he was the very Messiah[475].\n[Sidenote: Spread of Hemerobaptist principles.]In the latter half of the\nfirst century, it would seem, there was a great movement among large\nnumbers of the Jews in favour of frequent baptism, as the one\npurificatory rite essential to salvation. Of this superstition we have\nhad an instance already in the anchorite Banus to whom Josephus attached\nhimself as a disciple. Its presence in the western districts of Asia\nMinor is shown by a Sibylline poem, dating about A.D. 80, which I have\nalready had occasion to quote[476]. Some years earlier these sectarians\nare mentioned by name as opposing James the Lord\u2019s brother and the\nTwelve at Jerusalem[477]. Nor is there any reason for questioning their\nexistence as a sect in Palestine during the later years of the Apostolic\nage, though the source from which our information comes is legendary,\nand the story itself a fabrication. But when or how they first connected\nthemselves with the name of John the Baptist, and whether this\nassumption was made by all alike or only by one section of them, we do\nnot know. Such a connexion, however false to history, was obvious and\nnatural; nor would it be difficult to accumulate parallels to this false\nappropriation of an honoured name. Baptism was the fundamental article\nof their creed; and John was the Baptist of world-wide fame. [Sidenote:\nA wrong use made of John\u2019s name.]Nothing more than this was needed for\nthe choice of an eponym. From St John\u2019s Gospel it seems clear that this\nappropriation was already contemplated, if not completed, at Ephesus\nbefore the first century had drawn to a close. In the second century the\nassumption is recognised as a characteristic of these Hemerobaptists, or\nBaptists, as they are once called[478], alike by those who allow and\nthose who deny its justice[479]. Even in our age the name of \u2018John\u2019s\ndisciples\u2019 has been given, though wrongly given, to an obscure sect in\nBabylonia, the Mandeans, whose doctrine and practice have some\naffinities to the older sect, and of whom perhaps they are the\ncollateral, if not the direct, descendants[480].\n\nFootnote 468:\n\n  The former expression is used of Apollos, Acts xviii. 24; the latter\n  of \u2018certain disciples,\u2019 Acts xix. 1.\n\nFootnote 469:\n\n  This appears from the whole narrative, but is distinctly stated in\n  ver. 25, as correctly read, \u1f10\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6, not\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 as in the received text.\n\nFootnote 470:\n\n  The \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 in xix. 1 is slightly ambiguous, and some expressions\n  in the passage might suggest the opposite: but \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 seems decisive,\n  for the word would not be used absolutely except of Christian\n  disciples; comp. vi. 1, 2, 7, ix. 10, 19, 26, 38, and frequently.\n\nFootnote 471:\n\n  John i. 8.\n\nFootnote 472:\n\n  John v. 35 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f27\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The word\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is not only \u2018to burn,\u2019 but not unfrequently also \u2018to kindle, to\n  set on fire,\u2019 as e.g. Xen. _Anab._ iv. 4. 12 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1\n  \u1f14\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, so that \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 may mean either \u2018which burns away\u2019 or\n  \u2018which is lighted.\u2019 With the former meaning it would denote the\n  _transitoriness_, with the latter the _derivative character_, of\n  John\u2019s ministry. There seems no reason for excluding either idea here.\n  Thus the whole expression would mean \u2018the lamp which is kindled and\n  burns away, and (only so) gives light.\u2019 For an example of two verbs or\n  participles joined together, where the second describes a result\n  conditional upon the first, see 1 Pet. ii. 20 \u03b5\u1f30 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 ... \u03b5\u1f30 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n  \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5, 1 Thess. iv. 1 \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7.\n\nFootnote 473:\n\n  See John i. 15\u201334, iii. 23\u201330, v. 33 sq.: comp. x. 41, 42. This aspect\n  of St John\u2019s Gospel has been brought out by Ewald _Jahrb. der Bibl.\n  Wissensch._ III. p. 156 sq.; see also _Geschichte_ VII. p. 152 sq.,\n  _die Johanneischen Schriften_ p. 13. There is perhaps an allusion to\n  these \u2018disciples of John\u2019 in 1 Joh. v. 6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019\n  \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f05\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; comp. Acts i. 5,\n  xi. 16, xix. 4.\n\nFootnote 474:\n\n  _Apost. Const._ vi. 6; comp. \u00a7 23. See p. 162, note 2.\n\nFootnote 475:\n\n  _Clem. Recogn._ i. 54 \u2018ex discipulis Johannis, qui ... magistrum suum\n  veluti Christum praedicarunt,\u2019 _ib._ \u00a7 60 \u2018Ecce unus ex discipulis\n  Johannis adfirmabat Christum Johannem fuisse, et non Jesum; in tantum,\n  inquit, ut et ipse Jesus omnibus hominibus et prophetis majorem esse\n  pronuntiaverit Johannem etc.\u2019; see also \u00a7 63.\n\nFootnote 476:\n\n  See above p. 96.\n\nFootnote 477:\n\n  _Clem. Recogn._ l.c. This portion of the Clementine Recognitions is\n  apparently taken from an older Judaizing romance, the _Ascents of\n  James_ (see _Galatians_ pp. 316, 349). Hegesippus also (in Euseb.\n  _H.E._ iv. 22) mentions the Hemerobaptists in his list of Jewish\n  sects; and it is not improbable that this list was given as an\n  introduction to his account of the labours and martyrdom of St James\n  (see Euseb. _H.E._ ii. 23). If so, it was probably derived from the\n  same source as the notice in the Recognitions.\n\nFootnote 478:\n\n  They are called Baptists by Justin Mart. _Dial._ 10, p. 307 A. He\n  mentions them among other Jewish sects, without however alluding to\n  John.\n\nFootnote 479:\n\n  By the author of the _Recognitions_ (l.c.) who denies the claim; and\n  by the author of the _Homilies_ (see below p. 166, note 482), who\n  allows it.\n\nFootnote 480:\n\n  These Mandeans are a rapidly diminishing sect living in the region\n  about the Tigris and the Euphrates, south of Bagdad. Our most exact\n  knowledge of them is derived from Petermann (_Herzog\u2019s\n  Real-Encyklop\u00e4die_ s. vv. Mend\u00e4er, Zabier, and _Deutsche Zeitschrift_\n  1854 p. 181 sq. 1856 p. 331 sq., 342 sq., 363 sq., 386 sq.) who has\n  had personal intercourse with them; and from Chwolson (_die Ssabier u.\n  der Ssabismus_ I. p. 100 sq.) who has investigated the Arabic\n  authorities for their earlier history. The names by which they are\n  known are (1) _Mendeans_, or more properly _Mandeans_, \u05de\u05e0\u05d3\u05d9\u05d9\u05d0\n  _Mand\u0101y\u0113_, contracted from \u05de\u05e0\u05d3\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05d0 _Mand\u0101 d\u0115ch\u0101y\u0113_ \u2018the word of\n  life.\u2019 This is their own name among themselves, and points to their\n  Gnostic pretentions. (2) _Sabeans, Tsabiyun_, possibly from the root\n  \u05e6\u05d1\u05e2 \u2018to dip\u2019 on account of their frequent lustrations (Chwolson I. p.\n  110; but see _Galatians_ p. 312), though this is not the derivation of\n  the word which they themselves adopt, and other etymologies have found\n  favour with some recent writers (see Petermann _Herzog\u2019s Real-Encykl_.\n  Suppl. XVIII. p. 342 s.v. Zabier). This is the name by which they are\n  known in the Koran and in Arabic writers, and by which they call\n  themselves when speaking to others. (3) _Nasoreans_, \u05e0\u05e6\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05d9\u05d0\n  _N\u0101ts\u014dr\u0101y\u0113_. This term is at present confined to those among them who\n  are distinguished in knowledge or in business. (4) \u2018Christians of St\n  John, or Disciples of St John\u2019 (i.e. the Baptist). This name is not\n  known among themselves, and was incorrectly given to them by European\n  travellers and missionaries. At the same time John the Baptist has a\n  very prominent place in their theological system, as the one true\n  prophet. On the other hand they are not Christians in any sense.\n\n  These Mandeans, the true Sabeans, must not be confused with the false\n  Sabeans, polytheists and star-worshippers, whose locality is Northern\n  Mesopotamia. Chwolson (I. p. 139 sq.) has shown that these last\n  adopted the name in the 9th century to escape persecution from the\n  Mohammedans, because in the Koran the Sabeans, as monotheists, are\n  ranged with the Jews and Christians, and viewed in a more favourable\n  light than polytheists. The name however has generally been applied in\n  modern times to the false rather than to the true Sabeans.\n\n[Sidenote: (_b_) Their relation to the Essenes.]\n\n(_b_) Of the connexion between this sect and John the Baptist we have\nbeen able to give a probable, though necessarily hypothetical account.\nBut when we attempt to determine its relation to the Essenes, we find\nourselves entangled in a hopeless mesh of perplexities. The notices are\nso confused, the affinities so subtle, the ramifications so numerous,\nthat it becomes a desperate task to distinguish and classify these\nabnormal Jewish and Judaizing heresies. [Sidenote: They were at first\ndistinct, if not antagonistic.] One fact however seems clear that,\nwhatever affinities they may have had originally, and whatever relations\nthey may have contracted afterwards with one another, the\nHemerobaptists, properly speaking, were not Essenes. The Sibylline poem\nwhich may be regarded as in some respects a Hemerobaptist manifesto\ncontains, as we saw, many traits inconsistent with pure Essenism[481].\nIn two several accounts, the memoirs of Hegesippus and the Apostolic\nConstitutions, the Hemerobaptists are expressly distinguished from the\nEssenes[482]. In an early production of Judaic Christianity, whose\nJudaism has a strong Essene tinge, the Clementine Homilies, they and\ntheir eponym are condemned in the strongest language. The system of\nsyzygies, or pairs of opposites, is a favourite doctrine of this work,\nand in these John stands contrasted to Jesus, as Simon Magus to Simon\nPeter, as the false to the true; for according to this author\u2019s\nphilosophy of history the manifestation of the false always precedes the\nmanifestation of the true[483]. And again, Epiphanius speaks of them as\nagreeing substantially in their doctrines, not with the Essenes, but\nwith the Scribes and Pharisees[484]. His authority on such a point may\nbe worth very little; but connected with other notices, it should not be\npassed over in silence. Yet, whatever may have been their differences,\nthe Hemerobaptists and the Essenes had one point of direct contact,\ntheir belief in the moral efficacy of lustrations. When the temple and\npolity were destroyed, the shock vibrated through the whole fabric of\nJudaism, loosening and breaking up existing societies, and preparing the\nway for new combinations. [Sidenote: But after the destruction of the\nTemple]More especially the cessation of the sacrificial rites must have\nproduced a profound effect equally on those who, like the Essenes, had\ncondemned them already, and on those who, as possibly was the case with\nthe Hemerobaptists, had hitherto remained true to the orthodox ritual.\n[Sidenote: there may have been a fusion.]One grave obstacle to friendly\novertures was thus removed; and a fusion, more or less complete, may\nhave been the consequence. At all events the relations of the Jewish\nsects must have been materially affected by this great national crisis,\nas indeed we know to have been the case. In the confusion which follows,\nit is impossible to attain any clear view of their history. At the\nbeginning of the second century however this pseudo-baptist movement\nreceived a fresh impulse from the pretended revelation of Elchesai,\nwhich came from the farther East[485]. Henceforth Elchesai is the\nprominent name in the history of those Jewish and Judaizing sects whose\nproper home is east of the Jordan[486], and who appear to have\nreproduced, with various modifications derived from Christian and\nHeathen sources, the Gnostic theology and the pseudo-baptist ritual of\ntheir Essene predecessors. It is still preserved in the records of the\nonly extant people who have any claim to be regarded as the religious\nheirs of the Essenes. Elchesai is regarded as the founder of the sect of\nMandeans[487].\n\nFootnote 481:\n\n  See p. 96 sq.\n\nFootnote 482:\n\n  Hegesipp. in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 22, _Apost. Const._ vi. 6. So also the\n  Pseudo-Hieronymus in the _Indiculus de H\u00e6resibus_ (_Corp. H\u00e6res._ I.\n  p. 283, ed. Oehler).\n\nFootnote 483:\n\n  Clem. Hom. ii. 23 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, \u1f43\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b6\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2. It is\n  then stated that, as Christ had twelve leading disciples, so John had\n  thirty. This, it is argued, was a providential dispensation\u2014the one\n  number represents the solar, the other the lunar period; and so they\n  illustrate another point in this writer\u2019s theory, that in the syzygies\n  the true and the false are the male and female principle respectively.\n  Among these 30 disciples he places Simon Magus. With this the doctrine\n  of the Mandeans stands in direct opposition. They too have their\n  syzygies, but John with them represents the true principle.\n\nFootnote 484:\n\n  _H\u00e6r._ xvii. 1 (p. 37) \u1f34\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1. But\n  he adds that they resemble the Sadducees \u2018not only in the matter of\n  the resurrection of the dead, but also in their unbelief and in the\n  other points.\u2019\n\nFootnote 485:\n\n  See _Galatians_ p. 311 sq. on this Book of Elchesai.\n\nFootnote 486:\n\n  See above p. 137.\n\nFootnote 487:\n\n  See Chwolson I. p. 112 sq., II. p. 543 sq. The Arabic writer En-Nedim,\n  who lived towards the close of the tenth century, says that the\n  founder of the Sabeans (i.e. Mandeans) was _El-chasaich_ (\u0627\u0644\u062d\u0633\u064a\u062d) the\n  doctrine of two coordinate principles, the male and female. This\n  notice, as far as it goes, agrees with the account of Elchesai or\n  Elxai in Hippolytus (_H\u00e6r._ ix. 13 sq.) and Epiphanius (_H\u00e6r._ xix. 1\n  sq.). But the derivation of the name Elchesai given by Epiphanius\n  (_H\u00e6r._ xix. 2) \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 (\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc \u05db\u05e1\u05d9) is different and\n  probably correct (see _Galatians_ p. 312).\n\n[Sidenote: (ii) James the Lord\u2019s Brother]\n\n(ii) But, if great weight has been attached to the supposed connexion of\nJohn the Baptist with the Essenes, the case of James the Lord\u2019s brother\nhas been alleged with still more confidence. Here, it is said, we have\nan indisputable Essene connected by the closest family ties with the\nFounder of Christianity. [Sidenote: invested with Essene\ncharacteristics.]James is reported to have been holy from his birth; to\nhave drunk no wine nor strong drink; to have eaten no flesh; to have\nallowed no razor to touch his head, no oil to anoint his body; to have\nabstained from using the bath; and lastly to have worn no wool, but only\nfine linen[488]. Here we have a description of Nazarite practices at\nleast and (must it not be granted) of Essene tendencies also.\n\nBut what is our authority for this description? The writer, from whom\nthe account is immediately taken, is the Jewish-Christian historian\nHegesippus, who flourished about A.D. 170. He cannot therefore have been\nan eye-witness of the facts which he relates. [Sidenote: But the account\ncomes from untrustworthy sources.]And his whole narrative betrays its\nlegendary character. Thus his account of James\u2019s death, which follows\nimmediately on this description, is highly improbable and melodramatic\nin itself, and directly contradicts the contemporary notice of Josephus\nin its main facts[489]. From whatever source therefore Hegesippus may\nhave derived his information, it is wholly untrustworthy. Nor can we\ndoubt that he was indebted to one of those romances with which the\nJudaizing Christians of Essene tendencies loved to gratify the natural\ncuriosity of their disciples respecting the first founders of the\nChurch[490]. In like manner Essene portraits are elsewhere preserved of\nthe Apostles Peter[491] and Matthew[492], which represent them as living\non a spare diet of herbs and berries. I believe also that I have\nelsewhere pointed out the true source of this description in Hegesippus,\nand that it is taken from the \u2018Ascents of James[493],\u2019 a Jud\u00e6o-Christian\nwork stamped, as we happen to know, with the most distinctive Essene\nfeatures[494]. But if we turn from these religious novels of Judaic\nChristianity to earlier and more trustworthy sources of information\u2014to\nthe Gospels or the Acts or the Epistles of St Paul\u2014we fail to discover\nthe faintest traces of Essenism in James. [Sidenote: No Essene features\nin the true portraits of James or of the earliest disciples.]\u2018The\nhistorical James,\u2019 says a recent writer, \u2018shows Pharisaic but not Essene\nsympathies[495].\u2019 This is true of James, as it is true of the early\ndisciples in the mother Church of Jerusalem generally. The\ntemple-ritual, the daily-sacrifices, suggested no scruples to them. The\nonly distinction of meats, which they recognised, was the distinction of\nanimals clean and unclean as laid down by the Mosaic law. The only\nsacrificial victims, which they abhorred, were victims offered to idols.\nThey took their part in the religious offices, and mixed freely in the\ncommon life, of their fellow-Israelites, distinguished from them only in\nthis, that to their Hebrew inheritance they superadded the knowledge of\na higher truth and the joy of a better hope. It was altogether within\nthe sphere of orthodox Judaism that the Jewish element in the Christian\nbrotherhood found its scope. Essene peculiarities are the objects\nneither of sympathy nor of antipathy. In the history of the infant\nChurch for the first quarter of a century Essenism is as though it were\nnot.\n\nFootnote 488:\n\n  Hegesippus in Euseb. _H.E._ ii. 23.\n\nFootnote 489:\n\n  See _Galatians_ p. 348 sq.\n\nFootnote 490:\n\n  See _Galatians_ p. 311.\n\nFootnote 491:\n\n  _Clem. Hom._ xii. 6, where St Peter is made to say \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2; comp. xv. 7 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5.\n\nFootnote 492:\n\n  Clem. Alex. _P\u00e6dag._ ii. 1 (p. 174) \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03c1\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1.\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 493:\n\n  See _Galatians_ p. 349, note.\n\nFootnote 494:\n\n  Epiphanius (_H\u00e6r._ xxx. 16) mentions two points especially, in which\n  the character of this work is shown: (1) It represented James as\n  condemning the sacrifices and the fire on the altar (see above pp.\n  134\u2013136): (2) It published the most unfounded calumnies against St\n  Paul.\n\nFootnote 495:\n\n  Lipsius, _Schenkel\u2019s Bibel-Lexicon_, p. 191.\n\n[Sidenote: Essene influences visible before the close of the Apostolic\n           age.]\n\nBut a time came, when all this was changed. Even as early as the year\n58, when St Paul wrote to the Romans, we detect practices in the\nChristian community of the metropolis, which may possibly have been due\nto Essene influences[496]. Five or six years later, the heretical\nteaching which threatened the integrity of the Gospel at Coloss\u00e6 shows\nthat this type of Judaism was already strong enough within the Church to\nexert a dangerous influence on its doctrinal purity. Then came the great\nconvulsion\u2014the overthrow of the Jewish polity and nation. This was the\nturning-point in the relations between Essenism and Christianity, at\nleast in Palestine. [Sidenote: Consequences of the Jewish war.]The\nEssenes were extreme sufferers in the Roman war of extermination. It\nseems probable that their organization was entirely broken up. Thus cast\nadrift, they were free to enter into other combinations, while the shock\nof the recent catastrophe would naturally turn their thoughts into new\nchannels. At the same time the nearer proximity of the Christians, who\nhad migrated to Per\u00e6a during the war, would bring them into close\ncontact with the new faith and subject them to its influences, as they\nhad never been subjected before[497]. But, whatever may be the\nexplanation, the fact seems certain, that after the destruction of\nJerusalem the Christian body was largely reinforced from their ranks.\nThe Judaizing tendencies among the Hebrew Christians, which hitherto had\nbeen wholly Pharisaic, are henceforth largely Essene.\n\nFootnote 496:\n\n  Rom. xiv. 2, 21.\n\nFootnote 497:\n\n  See _Galatians_ p. 310 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: 2. Do the resemblances favour the theory of a connexion?]\n\n2. If then history fails to reveal any such external connexion with\nEssenism in Christ and His Apostles as to justify the opinion that\nEssene influences contributed largely to the characteristic features of\nthe Gospel, such a view, if tenable at all, must find its support in\nsome striking coincidence between the doctrines and practices of the\nEssenes and those which its Founder stamped upon Christianity. This\nindeed is the really important point; for without it the external\nconnexion, even if proved, would be valueless. The question is not\nwhether Christianity arose amid such and such circumstances, but how far\nit was created and moulded by those circumstances.\n\n[Sidenote: (i) Observance of the sabbath.]\n\n(i) Now one point which especially strikes us in the Jewish historian\u2019s\naccount of the Essenes, is their strict observance of certain points in\nthe Mosaic ceremonial law, more especially the ultra-Pharisaic rigour\nwith which they kept the sabbath. How far their conduct in this respect\nwas consistent with the teaching and practice of Christ may be seen from\nthe passages quoted in the parallel columns which follow:\n\n\u2018Jesus went on the sabbath-day through the corn fields; and his\ndisciples began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat[498].... But when\nthe Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, \u2018Behold, thy disciples do that\nwhich it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath-day. But he said unto\nthem, Have ye not read what David did.... The sabbath was made for man,\nand not man for the sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is Lord even of\nthe sabbath-day....\u2019\n\n\u2018It is lawful to do well on the sabbath-days\u2019 (Matt. xii. 1\u201312; Mark ii.\n23.-iii. 6; Luke vi. 1\u201311, xiv. 1\u20136. See also a similar incident in Luke\nxiii. 10\u201317). \u2018The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured; It is\nthe sabbath-day; it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. But he\nanswered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy\nbed and walk.... Therefore the Jews did persecute Jesus and sought to\nslay him, because he did these things on the sabbath-day. But Jesus\nanswered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work, etc. (John v.\n10\u201318; comp. vii. 22, 23).\u2019 \u2018And it was the sabbath-day when Jesus made\nthe clay, and opened his eyes.... Therefore said some of the Pharisees,\nThis man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath-day (John ix.\n14, 16).\u2019\n\n\u2018And they avoid ... touching any work (\u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd) on the\nsabbath-day more scrupulously than any of the Jews (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n\u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd); for they do not venture so much as to move a vessel[499], nor\nto perform the most necessary offices of life (_B.J._ ii. 8. 9).\u2019\n\nFootnote 498:\n\n  Gr\u00e4tz (III. p. 233) considers this narrative an interpolation\n  made from a Pauline point of view (\u2018eine paulinistische\n  Tendenz-interpolation\u2019). This theory of interpolation,\n  interposing wherever the evidence is unfavourable, cuts up all\n  argument by the roots. In this instance however Gr\u00e4tz is\n  consistently carrying out a principle, which he broadly lays\n  down elsewhere. He regards it as the great merit of Baur and his\n  school, that they explained the origin of the Gospels by the\n  conflict of two opposing camps, the Ebionite and the Pauline.\n  \u2018By this master-key,\u2019 he adds, \u2018criticism was first put in a\n  position to test what is historical in the Gospels, and what\n  bears the stamp of a polemical tendency (was einen tendenti\u00f6sen\n  polemischen Charakter hat). Indeed by this means the element of\n  trustworthy history in the Gospels melts down to a minimum\u2019\n  (III. p. 224). In other words the judgment is not to be\n  pronounced upon the evidence, but the evidence must be mutilated\n  to suit the judgment. The method is not new. The sectarians of\n  the second century, whether Judaic or anti-Judaic, had severally\n  their \u2018master-key.\u2019 The master-key of Marcion was a conflict\n  also\u2014the antagonism of the Old and New Testaments. Under his\n  hands the historical element in the New Testament dissolved\n  rapidly. The master-key of the anti-Marcionite writer of the\n  Clementine Homilies was likewise a conflict, though of another\n  kind\u2014the conflict of fire and water, of the sacrificial and the\n  baptismal systems. Wherever sacrifice was mentioned with\n  approval, there was a \u2018Tendenz-interpolation\u2019 (see above p.\n  136). In this manner again the genuine element in the Old\n  Testament melted down to a minimum.\n\nFootnote 499:\n\n  Gr\u00e4tz however (III. p. 228) sees a coincidence between Christ\u2019s\n  teaching and Essenism in this notice. Not to do him injustice, I will\n  translate his own words (correcting however several misprints in the\n  Greek): \u2018For the connexion of Jesus with the Essenes compare moreover\n  Mark xi. 16 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f24\u03c6\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b3\u03ba\u1fc3 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 with Josephus _B.J._ ii. 8. 9 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u1fe6\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f35 \u1f18\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u1f30.\u2019 He does not explain what this notice, which\n  refers solely to the scrupulous observance of the sabbath, has to do\n  with the profanation of the temple, with which the passage in the\n  Gospel is alone concerned. I have seen Gr\u00e4tz\u2019s history described as a\n  \u2018masterly\u2019 work. The first requisites in a historian are accuracy in\n  stating facts and sobriety in drawing inferences. Without these, it is\n  difficult to see what claims a history can have to this honourable\n  epithet: and in those portions of his work, which I have consulted, I\n  have not found either.\n\n[Sidenote: (ii) Lustrations and other ceremonial observances.]\n\n(ii) But there were other points of ceremonial observance, in which the\nEssenes superadded to the law. Of these the most remarkable was their\npractice of constant lustrations. In this respect the Pharisee was\nsufficiently minute and scrupulous in his observances; but with the\nEssene these ablutions were the predominant feature of his religious\nritual. Here again it will be instructive to compare the practice of\nChrist and His disciples with the practice of the Essenes.\n\n\u2018And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled (that is\nto say, unwashen) hands; for the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they\nwash their hands oft (\u03c0\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u1fc7), eat not...The Pharisees and scribes asked\nhim, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the\nelders.... But he answered ... Ye hypocrites, laying aside the\ncommandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men....\u2019\n\n\u2018Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man; but that which\ncometh out of the mouth, this defileth the man.... Let them alone, they\nbe blind leaders of the blind....\u2019\n\n\u2018To eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man (Matt. xv. 1\u201320, Mark\nvii. 1\u201323).\u2019\n\n\u2018So they wash their whole body (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1) in cold water; and\nafter this purification (\u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd) ... being clean (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76) they come to\nthe refectory (to dine).... And when they have returned (from their\nday\u2019s work) they sup in like manner (_B.J._ ii. 8. 5).\u2019\n\n\u2018After a year\u2019s probation (the novice) is admitted to closer intercourse\n(\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03b3\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u1fc3), and the lustral waters in which he\nparticipates have a higher degree of purity (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f51\u03b4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9, \u00a7 7).\u2019\n\n\u2018It is a custom to wash after it, as if polluted by it (\u00a7 9).\u2019\n\n\u2018And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed\nbefore dinner (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5). And the Lord said unto him: Now do ye\nPharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter.... Ye fools\n... behold all things are clean unto you (Luke xi. 38\u201341).\u2019\n\n\u2018Racked and dislocated, burnt and crushed, and subjected to every\ninstrument of torture ... to make them eat strange food (\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd) ... they were not induced to submit (\u00a7 10).\u2019\n\n\u2018Exercising themselves in ... divers lustrations (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 ...\n\u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u00a7 12).\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: Avoidance of strangers.]\n\nConnected with this idea of external purity is the avoidance of contact\nwith strangers, as persons who would communicate ceremonial defilement.\nAnd here too the Essene went much beyond the Pharisee. The Pharisee\navoided Gentiles or aliens, or those whose profession or character\nplaced them in the category of \u2018sinners\u2019; but the Essene shrunk even\nfrom the probationers and inferior grades of his own exclusive\ncommunity. Here again we may profitably compare the sayings and doings\nof Christ with the principles of this sect.\n\n\u2018And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with the publicans and\nsinners they said unto the disciples, Why eateth your Master with the\npublicans and the sinners....\u2019 (Mark ii. 15 sq.; Matth. ix. 10 sq., Luke\nv. 30 sq.)\n\n\u2018They say ... a friend of publicans and sinners (Matth. xi. 19).\u2019\n\n\u2018The Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth\nsinners and eateth with them (Luke xv. 2).\u2019\n\n\u2018They all murmured saying that he was gone to be a guest with a man that\nis a sinner (Luke xix. 7).\u2019\n\n\u2018Behold, a woman in the city that was a sinner ... began to wash his\nfeet with her tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head and\nkissed his feet.... Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it,\nhe spake within himself saying, This man, if he had been a prophet,\nwould have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him;\nfor she is a sinner (Luke vii. 37 sq.).\u2019\n\n\u2018And after this purification they assemble in a private room, where no\nperson of a different belief (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f11\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03c9\u03bd, i.e. not an Essene) is\npermitted to enter; and (so) being by themselves and clean (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76) they present themselves at the refectory (\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd), as if\nit were a sacred precinct (\u00a7 5).\u2019\n\n\u2018And they are divided into four grades according to the time passed\nunder the discipline: and the juniors are regarded as so far inferior to\nthe seniors, that, if they touch them, the latter wash their bodies\nclean (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9), as if they had come in contact with a foreigner\n(\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u00a7 10).\u2019\n\nIn all these minute scruples relating to ceremonial observances, the\ndenunciations which are hurled against the Pharisees in the Gospels\nwould apply with tenfold force to the Essenes.\n\n[Sidenote: (iii) Asceticism.]\n\n(iii) If the lustrations of the Essenes far outstripped the enactments\nof the Mosaic law, so also did their asceticism. I have given reasons\nabove for believing that this asceticism was founded on a false\nprinciple, which postulates the malignity of matter and is wholly\ninconsistent with the teaching of the Gospel[500]. But without pressing\nthis point, of which no absolutely demonstrative proof can be given, it\nwill be sufficient to call attention to the trenchant contrast in\npractice which Essene habits present to the life of Christ. He who \u2018came\neating and drinking\u2019 and was denounced in consequence as \u2018a glutton and\na wine-bibber\u2019[501], [Sidenote: Eating and drinking.]He whose first\nexercise of power is recorded to have been the multiplication of wine at\na festive entertainment, and whose last meal was attended with the\ndrinking of wine and the eating of flesh, could only have excited the\npity, if not the indignation, of these rigid abstainers. And again,\nattention should be directed to another kind of abstinence, where the\ncontrast is all the more speaking, because the matter is so trivial and\nthe scruple so minute.\n\nFootnote 500:\n\n  See above p. 87.\n\nFootnote 501:\n\n  Matt. xi. 19, Luke vii. 34.\n\n\u2018My head with oil thou didst not anoint (Luke vii. 46).\u2019\n\n\u2018Thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy head (Matt. vi. 17).\u2019\n\n\u2018And they consider oil a pollution (\u03ba\u03b7\u03bb\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1), and though one is smeared\ninvoluntarily, he rubs his body clean (\u03c3\u03bc\u03ae\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1, \u00a7 3).\u2019\n\nAnd yet it has been stated that \u2018the Saviour of the world ... showed\nwhat is required for a holy life in the Sermon on the Mount by a\ndescription of the Essenes[502].\u2019\n\nFootnote 502:\n\n  Ginsburg _Essenes_ p. 14.\n\n[Sidenote: Celibacy.]\n\nBut much stress has been laid on the celibacy of the Essenes; and our\nLord\u2019s saying in Matt. xix. 12 is quoted to establish an identity of\ndoctrine. Yet there is nothing special in the language there used. Nor\nis there any close affinity between the stern invectives against\nmarriage which Josephus and Philo attribute to the Essene, and the\ngentle concession \u2018He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.\u2019\nThe best comment on our Lord\u2019s meaning here is the advice of St\nPaul[503], who was educated not in the Essene, but in the Pharisaic\nschool. Moreover this saying must be balanced by the general tenour of\nthe Gospel narrative. When we find Christ discussing the relations of\nman and wife, gracing the marriage festival by His presence, again and\nagain employing wedding banquets and wedded life as apt symbols of the\nhighest theological truths, without a word of disparagement or rebuke,\nwe see plainly that we are confronted with a spirit very different from\nthe narrow rigour of the Essenes.\n\nFootnote 503:\n\n  1 Cor. vii. 26\u201331.\n\n[Sidenote: (iv) Avoidance of the Temple sacrifices.]\n\n(iv) But not only where the Essenes superadded to the ceremonial law,\ndoes their teaching present a direct contrast to the phenomena of the\nGospel narrative. The same is true also of those points in which they\nfell short of the Mosaic enactments. I have already discussed at some\nlength the Essene abstention from the temple sacrifices[504]. There can,\nI think, be little doubt that they objected to the slaughter of\nsacrificial victims altogether. But for my present purpose it matters\nnothing whether they avoided the temple on account of the sacrifices, or\nthe sacrifices on account of the temple. Christ did neither. Certainly\nHe could not have regarded the temple as unholy; for his whole time\nduring his sojourns at Jerusalem was spent within its precincts. It was\nthe scene of His miracles, of His ministrations, of His daily\nteaching[505]. And in like manner it is the common rendezvous of His\ndisciples after Him[506]. Nor again does He evince any abhorrence of the\nsacrifices. On the contrary He says that the altar consecrates the\ngifts[507]; He charges the cleansed lepers to go and fulfil the Mosaic\nordinance and offer the sacrificial offerings to the priests[508].\n[Sidenote: Practice of Christ and His disciples.]And His practice also\nis conformable to His teaching. He comes to Jerusalem regularly to\nattend the great festivals, where sacrifices formed the most striking\npart of the ceremonial, and He himself enjoins preparation to be made\nfor the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb. If He repeats the inspired\nwarning of the older prophets, that mercy is better than sacrifice[509],\nthis very qualification shows approval of the practice in itself. Nor is\nHis silence less eloquent than His utterances or His actions. Throughout\nthe Gospels there is not one word which can be construed as condemning\nthe sacrificial system or as implying a desire for its cessation until\neverything is fulfilled.\n\nFootnote 504:\n\n  See p. 134 sq.\n\nFootnote 505:\n\n  Matt. xxi. 12 sq., 23 sq., xxiv. 1 sq., xxvi. 55, Mark xi. 11, 15 sq.,\n  27, xii. 35, xiii. 1 sq., xiv. 49, Luke ii. 46, xix. 45, xx. 1 sq.,\n  xxi. 37 sq., xxii. 53, John ii. 14 sq., v. 14, vii. 14, viii. 2, 20,\n  59, x. 23, xi. 56, xviii. 20.\n\nFootnote 506:\n\n  Luke xxiv. 53, Acts ii. 46, iii. 1 sq., v. 20 sq., 42.\n\nFootnote 507:\n\n  Matt. xxiii. 18 sq.: comp. v. 23, 24.\n\nFootnote 508:\n\n  Matt. viii. 4, Mark i. 44, Luke v. 14.\n\nFootnote 509:\n\n  Matt. ix. 13, xii. 7.\n\n[Sidenote: (v) Denial of the resurrection of the body.]\n\n(v) This last contrast refers to the ceremonial law. But not wide is the\ndivergence on an important point of doctrine. The resurrection of the\nbody is a fundamental article in the belief of the early disciples. This\nwas distinctly denied by the Essenes[510]. However gross and sensuous\nmay have been the conceptions of the Pharisees on this point, still they\nso far agreed with the teaching of Christianity, as against the Essenes,\nin that the risen man could not, as they held, be pure soul or spirit,\nbut must necessarily be body and soul conjoint.\n\nFootnote 510:\n\n  See above p. 88.\n\n[Sidenote: Some supposed coincidences considered.]\n\nThus at whatever point we test the teaching and practice of our Lord by\nthe characteristic tenets of Essenism, the theory of affinity fails.\nThere are indeed several coincidences on which much stress has been\nlaid, but they cannot be placed in the category of distinctive features.\nThey are either exemplifications of a higher morality, which may indeed\nhave been honourably illustrated in the Essenes, but is in no sense\nconfined to them, being the natural outgrowth of the moral sense of\nmankind whenever circumstances are favourable. Or they are more special,\nbut still independent developments, which owe their similarity to the\nsame influences of climate and soil, though they do not spring from the\nsame root. To this latter class belong such manifestations as are due to\nthe social conditions of the age or nation, whether they result from\nsympathy with, or from repulsion to, those conditions.\n\n[Sidenote: Simplicity and brotherly love.]\n\nThus, for instance, much stress has been laid on the aversion to war and\nwarlike pursuits, on the simplicity of living, and on the feeling of\nbrotherhood which distinguished Christians and Essenes alike. But what\nis gained by all this? It is quite plain that Christ would have approved\nwhatever was pure and lovely in the morality of the Essenes, just as He\napproved whatever was true in the doctrine of the Pharisees, if any\noccasion had presented itself when His approval was called for. But it\nis the merest assumption to postulate direct obligation on such grounds.\nIt is said however, that the moral resemblances are more particular than\nthis. [Sidenote: Prohibition of oaths.]There is for instance Christ\u2019s\nprecept \u2018Swear not at all ... but let your communication be Yea, yea,\nNay, nay.\u2019 Have we not here, it is urged, the very counterpart to the\nEssene prohibition of oaths[511]? Yet it would surely be quite as\nreasonable to say that both alike enforce that simplicity and\ntruthfulness in conversation which is its own credential and does not\nrequire the support of adjuration, both having the same reason for\nlaying stress on this duty, because the leaders of religious opinion\nmade artificial distinctions between oath and oath, as regards their\nbinding force, and thus sapped the foundations of public and private\nhonesty[512]. And indeed this avoidance of oaths is anything but a\nspecial badge of the Essenes. It was inculcated by Pythagoreans, by\nStoics, by philosophers and moralists of all schools[513]. When Josephus\nand Philo called the attention of Greeks and Romans to this feature in\nthe Essenes, they were simply asking them to admire in these practical\nphilosophers among the \u2018barbarians\u2019 the realisation of an ideal which\ntheir own great men had laid down. Even within the circles of Pharisaism\nlanguage is occasionally heard, which meets the Essene principle\nhalf-way[514].\n\nFootnote 511:\n\n  Jos. _B.J._ ii. 8. 6 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1fe5\u03b7\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72\n  \u1f40\u03bc\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u0390\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\u00b7\n  \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03af \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03c7\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, Philo _Omn. prob.\n  lib._ 12 (II. p. 458) \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 ... \u03c4\u1f78\n  \u1f00\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Accordingly Josephus relates (_Ant._ xv. 10. 4) that\n  Herod the Great excused the Essenes from taking the oath of allegiance\n  to him. Yet they were not altogether true to their principles; for\n  Josephus says (_B.J._ ii. 8. 7), that on initiation into the sect the\n  members were bound by fearful oaths (\u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2) to fulfil\n  certain conditions; and he twice again in the same passage mentions\n  oaths (\u1f40\u03bc\u03bd\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2) in this connexion.\n\nFootnote 512:\n\n  On the distinctions which the Jewish doctors made between the validity\n  of different kinds of oaths, see the passages quoted in Lightfoot and\n  Sch\u00f6ttgen on Matt. v. 33 sq. The Talmudical tract _Shebhuoth_ tells\n  its own tale, and is the best comment on the precepts in the Sermon on\n  the Mount.\n\nFootnote 513:\n\n  See e.g. the passages in Wetstein on Matt. v. 37.\n\nFootnote 514:\n\n  _Baba Metsia_ 49 _a_. See also Lightfoot on Matt. v. 34.\n\n[Sidenote: Community of goods.]\n\nAnd again; attention has been called to the community of goods in the\ninfant Church of Christ, as though this were a legacy of Essenism. But\nhere too the reasonable explanation is, that we have an independent\nattempt to realise the idea of brotherhood\u2014an attempt which naturally\nsuggested itself without any direct imitation, but which was soon\nabandoned under the pressure of circumstances. Indeed the communism of\nthe Christians was from the first wholly unlike the communism of the\nEssenes. The surrender of property with the Christians was not a\nnecessary condition of entrance into an order; it was a purely voluntary\nact, which might be withheld without foregoing the privileges of the\nbrotherhood[515]. And the common life too was obviously different in\nkind, at once more free and more sociable, unfettered by rigid\nordinances, respecting individual liberty, and altogether unlike a\nmonastic rule.\n\nFootnote 515:\n\n  514: Acts v. 4.\n\nNot less irrelevant is the stress, which has been laid on another point\nof supposed coincidence in the social doctrines of the two communities.\n[Sidenote: Prohibition of slavery.]The prohibition of slavery was indeed\na highly honourable feature in the Essene order[516], but it affords no\nindication of a direct connexion with Christianity. It is true that this\nsocial institution of antiquity was not less antagonistic to the spirit\nof the Gospel, than it was abhorrent to the feelings of the Essene; and\nultimately the influence of Christianity has triumphed over it. But the\nimmediate treatment of the question was altogether different in the two\ncases. The Essene brothers proscribed slavery wholly; they produced no\nappreciable results by the proscription. The Christian Apostles, without\nattempting an immediate and violent revolution in society, proclaimed\nthe great principle that all men are equal in Christ, and left it to\nwork. It did work, like leaven, silently but surely, till the whole lump\nwas leavened. In the matter of slavery the resemblance to the Stoic is\nmuch closer than to the Essene[517]. The Stoic however began and ended\nin barren declamation, and no practical fruits were reaped from his\ndoctrine.\n\nFootnote 516:\n\n  Philo _Omn. prob. lib._ \u00a7 12 (II. p. 458) \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03b4\u1f72\n  \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., _Fragm._ II. p. 632 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n  \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd, Jos. _Ant._ xviii. I. 5 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 517:\n\n  See for instance the passages from Seneca quoted in _Philippians_ p.\n  305.\n\n[Sidenote: Respect paid to poverty.]\n\nMoreover prominence has been given to the fact, that riches are decried,\nand a preference is given to the poor, in the teaching of our Lord and\nHis Apostles. Here again, it is urged, we have a distinctly Essene\nfeature. We need not stop to enquire with what limitations this\nprerogative of poverty, which appears in the Gospels, must be\ninterpreted; but, quite independently of this question, we may fairly\ndecline to lay any stress on such a coincidence, where all other\nindications of a direct connexion have failed. The Essenes, pursuing a\nsimple and ascetic life, made it their chief aim to reduce their\nmaterial wants as far as possible, and in doing so they necessarily\nexalted poverty. Ascetic philosophers in Greece and Rome had done the\nsame. Christianity was entrusted with the mission of proclaiming the\nequal rights of all men before God, of setting a truer standard of human\nworth than the outward conventions of the world, of protesting against\nthe tyranny of the strong and the luxury of the rich, of redressing\nsocial inequalities, if not always by a present compensation, at least\nby a future hope. The needy and oppressed were the special charge of its\npreachers. It was the characteristic feature of the \u2018Kingdom of Heaven,\u2019\nas described by the prophet whose words gave the keynote to the\nMessianic hopes of the nation, that the glad-tidings should be preached\nto the poor[518]. The exaltation of poverty therefore was an absolute\ncondition of the Gospel.\n\nFootnote 518:\n\n  Is. lxi. I. \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, quoted in Luke iv. 18. There are\n  references to this particular part of the prophecy again in Matt. xi.\n  5, Luke vii. 22, and probably also in the beatitude \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u03bf\u03af\n  \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., Matt. v. 3, Luke vi. 20.\n\n[Sidenote: The preaching of the Kingdom wrongly ascribed to the\n           Essenes.]\n\nThe mention of the kingdom of heaven leads to the last point on which it\nwill be necessary to touch before leaving this subject. \u2018The whole\nascetic life of the Essenes,\u2019 it has been said, \u2018aimed only at\nfurthering the _Kingdom of Heaven_ and the _Coming Age_.\u2019 Thus John the\nBaptist was the proper representative of this sect. \u2018From the Essenes\nwent forth the first call that the Messiah must shortly appear, _The\nkingdom of heaven is at_ _hand_\u2019[519]. \u2018The announcement of the kingdom\nof heaven unquestionably went forth from the Essenes\u2019[520]. For this\nconfident assertion there is absolutely no foundation in fact; and, as a\nconjectural hypothesis, the assumption is highly improbable.\n\nFootnote 519:\n\n  Gr\u00e4tz _Gesch._ III. p. 219.\n\nFootnote 520:\n\n  _ib._ p. 470.\n\n[Sidenote: The Essenes not prophets, but fortune-tellers.]\n\nAs fortune-tellers or soothsayers, the Essenes might be called prophets;\nbut as preachers of righteousness, as heralds of the kingdom, they had\nno claim to the title. Throughout the notices in Josephus and Philo we\ncannot trace the faintest indication of Messianic hopes. Nor indeed was\ntheir position at all likely to foster such hopes[521]. The Messianic\nidea was built on a belief in the resurrection of the body. The Essenes\nentirely denied this doctrine. The Messianic idea was intimately bound\nup with the national hopes and sufferings, with the national life, of\nthe Jews. The Essenes had no interest in the Jewish polity; they\nseparated themselves almost entirely from public affairs. [Sidenote:\nThey had no vivid Messianic expectations.]The deliverance of the\nindividual is the shipwreck of the whole, it has been well said, was the\nplain watchword of Essenism[522]. How entirely the conception of a\nMessiah might be obliterated, where Judaism was regarded only from the\nside of a mystic philosophy, we see from the case of Philo. Throughout\nthe works of this voluminous writer only one or two faint and doubtful\nallusions to a personal Messiah are found[523]. The philosophical tenets\nof the Essenes no doubt differed widely from those of Philo; but in the\nsubstitution of the individual and contemplative aspect of religion for\nthe national and practical they were united; and the effect in obscuring\nthe Messianic idea would be the same. When therefore it is said that the\nprominence given to the proclamation of the Messiah\u2019s kingdom is a main\nlink which connects Essenism and Christianity, we may dismiss the\nstatement as a mere hypothesis, unsupported by evidence and improbable\nin itself.\n\nFootnote 521:\n\n  Lipsius Schenkel\u2019s _Bibel-Lexikon_ s.v. Ess\u00e4er p. 190, Keim _Jesus von\n  Nazara_ I. p. 305. Both these writers express themselves very\n  decidedly against the view maintained by Gr\u00e4tz. \u2018The Essene art of\n  soothsaying,\u2019 writes Lipsius, \u2018has absolutely nothing to do with the\n  Messianic prophecy. \u2018Of all this,\u2019 says Keim,\u2018there is no trace.\u2019\n\nFootnote 522:\n\n  Keim _l.c._\n\nFootnote 523:\n\n  How little can be made out of Philo\u2019s Messianic utterances by one who\n  is anxious to make the most possible out of them, may be seen from\n  Gfr\u00f6rer\u2019s treatment of the subject, Philo I. p. 486 sq. The treatises\n  which bear on this topic are the _de Pr\u00e6miis et P\u0153nis_ (I. p. 408,\n  ed. Mangey) and the _de Execrationibus_ (I. p. 429). They deserve to\n  be read, if only for the negative results which they yield.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                  III.\n                 CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.\n\n\n[Sidenote: The understanding of the heresy necessary.]\n\nWithout the preceding investigation the teaching of this epistle would\nbe very imperfectly understood; for its direction was necessarily\ndetermined by the occasion which gave rise to it. Only when we have once\ngrasped the nature of the doctrine which St Paul is combating, do we\nperceive that every sentence is instinct with life and meaning.\n\n[Sidenote: The errors though twofold sprang from one root.]\n\nWe have seen that the error of the heretical teachers was twofold. They\nhad a false conception in theology, and they had a false basis of\nmorals. It has been pointed out also, that these two were closely\nconnected together, and had their root in the same fundamental error,\nthe idea of matter as the abode of evil and thus antagonistic to God.\n\n[Sidenote: So the answer to both is in the same truth.]\n\nAs the two elements of the heretical doctrine were derived from the same\nsource, so the reply to both was sought by the Apostle in the same idea,\nthe conception of the Person of Christ as the one absolute mediator\nbetween God and man, the true and only reconciler of heaven and earth.\n\nBut though they are thus ultimately connected, yet it will be necessary\nfor the fuller understanding of St Paul\u2019s position to take them apart,\nand to consider first the theological and then the ethical teaching of\nthe epistle.\n\n[Sidenote: 1. The _theological_ teaching of the heretics.]\n\n1. This Colossian heresy was no coarse and vulgar development of\nfalsehood. It soared far above the Pharisaic Judaism which St Paul\nrefutes in the Epistle to the Galatians. The questions in which it was\ninterested lie at the very root of our religious consciousness.\n[Sidenote: Its lofty motive,]The impulse was given to its speculations\nby an overwhelming sense of the unapproachable majesty of God, by an\ninstinctive recognition of the chasm which separates God from man, from\nthe world, from matter. Its energy was sustained by the intense yearning\nafter some mediation which might bridge over this chasm, might establish\ninter-communion between the finite and the Infinite. Up to this point it\nwas deeply religious in the best sense of the term.\n\n[Sidenote: but complete failure.]\n\nThe answer which it gave to these questions we have already seen. In two\nrespects this answer failed signally. On the one hand it was drawn from\nthe atmosphere of mystical speculation. It had no foundation in history,\nand made no appeal to experience. On the other hand, notwithstanding its\ncomplexity, it was unsatisfactory in its results; for in this plurality\nof mediators none was competent to meet the requirements of the case.\nGod here and man there\u2014no angel or spirit, whether one or more, being\nneither God nor man, could truly reconcile the two. Thus as regards\ncredentials it was without a guarantee; while as regards efficiency it\nwas wholly inadequate.\n\n[Sidenote: The Apostle\u2019s answer is in the Person of Christ.]\n\nThe Apostle pointed out to the Colossians a more excellent way. It was\nthe one purpose of Christianity to satisfy those very yearnings which\nwere working in their hearts, to solve that very problem which had\nexercised their minds. In Christ they would find the answer which they\nsought. His life\u2014His cross and resurrection\u2014was the guarantee;\n[Sidenote: The mediator in the world and in the Church.]His Person\u2014the\nWord Incarnate\u2014was the solution. He alone filled up, He alone could fill\nup, the void which lay between God and man, could span the gulf which\nseparated the Creator and creation. This solution offered by the Gospel\nis as simple as it is adequate. To their cosmical speculations, and to\ntheir religious yearnings alike, Jesus Christ is the true answer. In the\nWorld, as in the Church, He is the one only mediator, the one only\nreconciler. This two-fold idea runs like a double thread through the\nfabric of the Apostle\u2019s teaching in those passages of the epistle where\nhe is describing the Person of Christ.\n\nIt will be convenient for the better understanding of St Paul\u2019s teaching\nto consider these two aspects of Christ\u2019s mediation apart\u2014its function\nin the natural and in the spiritual order respectively.\n\n[Sidenote: (i) In the _Universe_.]\n\n(i) The heresy of the Colossian teachers took its rise, as we saw, in\ntheir cosmical speculations. It was therefore natural that the Apostle\nin replying should lay stress on the function of the Word in the\ncreation and government of the world. This is the aspect of His work\nmost prominent in the first of the two distinctly Christological\npassages. The Apostle there predicates of the Word, not only prior, but\nabsolute existence. All things were created through Him, are sustained\nin Him, are tending towards Him. Thus He is the beginning, middle, and\nend, of creation. This He is, because He is the very _image_ of the\nInvisible God, because in Him dwells the _plenitude_ of Deity.\n\n[Sidenote: Importance of this aspect of the Person of Christ,]\n\nThis creative and administrative work of Christ the Word in the natural\norder of things is always emphasized in the writings of the Apostles,\nwhen they touch upon the doctrine of His Person. It stands in the\nforefront of the prologue to St John\u2019s Gospel: it is hardly less\nprominent in the opening of the Epistle to the Hebrews. His mediatorial\nfunction in the Church is represented as flowing from His mediatorial\nfunction in the world. With ourselves this idea has retired very much\ninto the background. Though in the creed common to all the Churches we\nprofess our belief in Him, as the Being \u2018through whom all things were\ncreated,\u2019 yet in reality this confession seems to exercise very little\ninfluence on our thoughts. And the loss is serious. How much our\ntheological conceptions suffer in breadth and fulness by the neglect, a\nmoment\u2019s reflexion will show. How much more hearty would be the sympathy\nof theologians with the revelations of science and the developments of\nhistory, if they habitually connected them with the operation of the\nsame Divine Word who is the centre of all their religious aspirations,\nit is needless to say. Through the recognition of this idea with all the\nconsequences which flow from it, as a living influence, more than in any\nother way, may we hope to strike the chords of that \u2018vaster music,\u2019\nwhich results only from the harmony of knowledge and faith, of reverence\nand research.\n\n[Sidenote: notwithstanding difficulties yet unsolved.]\n\nIt will be said indeed, that this conception leaves untouched the\nphilosophical difficulties which beset the subject; that creation still\nremains as much a mystery as before. This may be allowed. But is there\nany reason to think that with our present limited capacities the veil\nwhich shrouds it ever will be or can be removed? The metaphysical\nspeculations of twenty-five centuries have done nothing to raise it. The\nphysical investigations of our own age from their very nature can do\nnothing; for, busied with the evolution of phenomena, they lie wholly\noutside this question, and do not even touch the fringe of the\ndifficulty. But meanwhile revelation has interposed and thrown out the\nidea, which, if it leaves many questions unsolved, gives a breadth and\nunity to our conceptions, at once satisfying our religious needs and\nlinking our scientific instincts with our theological beliefs.\n\n[Sidenote: (ii) In the _Church_.]\n\n(ii) But, if Christ\u2019s mediatorial office in the physical creation was\nthe starting point of the Apostle\u2019s teaching, His mediatorial office in\nthe spiritual creation is its principal theme. The cosmogonies of the\nfalse teachers were framed not so much in the interests of philosophy as\nin the interests of religion; and the Apostle replies to them in the\nsame spirit and with the same motive. If the function of Christ is\nunique in the Universe, so is it also in the Church. [Sidenote: Its\nabsolute character.]He is the sole and absolute link between God and\nhumanity. Nothing short of His personality would suffice as a medium of\nreconciliation between the two. Nothing short of His life and work in\nthe flesh, as consummated in His passion, would serve as an assurance of\nGod\u2019s love and pardon. His cross is the atonement of mankind with God.\nHe is the Head with whom all the living members of the body are in\ndirect and immediate communication, who suggests their manifold\nactivities to each, who directs their several functions in subordination\nto the healthy working of the whole, from whom they individually receive\ntheir inspiration and their strength.\n\n[Sidenote: Hence angelic mediations are fundamentally wrong.]\n\nAnd being all this He cannot consent to share His prerogative with\nothers. He absorbs in Himself the whole function of mediation. Through\nHim alone, without any interposing link of communication, the human soul\nhas access to the Father. Here was the true answer to those deep\nyearnings after spiritual communion with God, which sought, and could\nnot find, satisfaction in the manifold and fantastic creations of a\ndreamy mysticism. The worship of angels might have the semblance of\nhumility; but it was in fact a contemptuous defiance of the fundamental\nidea of the Gospel, a flat denial of the absolute character of Christ\u2019s\nPerson and office. It was a severance of the proper connexion with the\nHead, an amputation of the disordered limb, which was thus disjoined\nfrom the source of life and left to perish for want of spiritual\nnourishment.\n\n[Sidenote: Christ\u2019s mediation in the Church justified by His mediation\n           in the World.]\n\nThe language of the New Testament writers is beset with difficulties, so\nlong as we conceive of our Lord only in connexion with the Gospel\nrevelation: but, when with the Apostles we realise in Him the same\nDivine Lord who is and ever has been the light of the whole world, who\nbefore Christianity wrought first in mankind at large through the\navenues of the conscience, and afterwards more particularly in the Jews\nthrough a special though still imperfect revelation, then all these\ndifficulties fall away. Then we understand the significance, and we\nrecognise the truth, of such passages as these: \u2018No man cometh unto the\nFather, but by me\u2019: \u2018There is no salvation in any other\u2019; \u2018He that\ndisbelieveth the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth\nupon him[524].\u2019 The exclusive claims advanced in Christ\u2019s name have\ntheir full and perfect justification in the doctrine of the Eternal\nWord.\n\nFootnote 524:\n\n  Joh. xiv. 6, Acts iv. 12, Joh. iii. 36.\n\n[Sidenote: Relation of the doctrine of the Word]\n\nThe old dispensation is primarily the revelation of the absolute\nsovereignty of God. It vindicates this truth against two opposing forms\nof error, which in their extreme types are represented by Pantheism and\nManicheism respectively. [Sidenote: to the monotheism of the Old\nTestament.]The Pantheist identifies God with the world: the Manichee\nattributes to the world an absolute existence, independent of God. With\nthe Pantheist sin ceases to have any existence: for it is only one form\nof God\u2019s working. With the Manichee sin is inherent in matter, which is\nantagonistic to God. The teaching of the Old Testament, of which the\nkey-note is struck in the opening chapters of Genesis, is a refutation\nof both these errors. God is distinct from the world, and He is the\nCreator of the world. Evil is not inherent in God, but neither is it\ninherent in the material world. Sin is the disobedience of intelligent\nbeings whom He has created, and whom He has endowed with a free-will,\nwhich they can use or misuse.\n\n[Sidenote: The New Testament is complementary to the Old.]\n\nThe revelation of the New Testament is the proper complement to the\nrevelation of the Old. It holds this position in two main respects. If\nthe Old Testament sets forth the absolute unity of God\u2014His distinctness\nfrom and sovereignty over His creatures\u2014the New Testament points out how\nHe holds communion with the world and with humanity, how man becomes one\nwith Him. And again, if the Old Testament shows the true character of\nsin, the New Testament teaches the appointed means of redemption. On the\none hand the monotheism of the Old Testament is supplemented by the\ntheanthropism[525] of the New. Thus the _theology_ of revelation is\ncompleted. On the other hand, the hamartiology of the Old Testament has\nits counterpart in the soteriology of the New. Thus the _economy_ of\nrevelation is perfected.\n\nFootnote 525:\n\n  I am indebted for the term _theanthropism_, as describing the\n  substance of the new dispensation, to an article by Prof. Westcott in\n  the _Contemporary Review_ IV. p. 417 (December, 1867); but it has been\n  used independently, though in very rare instances, by other writers.\n  The value of terms such as I have employed here in fixing ideas is\n  enhanced by their strangeness, and will excuse any appearance of\n  affectation.\n\n  In applying the terms _theanthropism_ and _soteriology_ to the New\n  Testament, as distinguished from the Old, it is not meant to suggest\n  that the ideas involved in them were wholly wanting in the Old, but\n  only to indicate that the conceptions, which were inchoate and\n  tentative and subsidiary in the one, attain the most prominent\n  position and are distinctly realised in the other.\n\n[Sidenote: 2. The _ethical_ error of the heretics.]\n\n2. When we turn from the theology of these Colossian heretics to their\nethical teaching, we find it characterised by the same earnestness. Of\nthem it might indeed be said that they did \u2018hunger and thirst after\nrighteousness.\u2019 [Sidenote: Their practical earnestness,]Escape from\nimpurity, immunity from evil, was a passion with them. But it was no\nless true that notwithstanding all their sincerity they \u2018went astray in\nthe wilderness\u2019; \u2018hungry and thirsty, their soul fainted within them.\u2019\nBy their fatal transference of the abode of sin from the human heart\nwithin to the material world without, they had incapacitated themselves\nfrom finding the true antidote. [Sidenote: but fundamental misconception\nand consequent failure.] Where they placed the evil, there they\nnecessarily sought the remedy. Hence they attempted to fence themselves\nabout, and to purify their lives by a code of rigorous prohibitions.\nTheir energy was expended on battling with the physical conditions of\nhuman life. Their whole mind was absorbed in the struggle with imaginary\nforms of evil. Necessarily their character was moulded by the thoughts\nwhich habitually engaged them. Where the \u2018elements of the world,\u2019 the\n\u2018things which perish in the using[526],\u2019 engrossed all their attention,\nit could not fail but that they should be dragged down from the serene\nheights of the spiritual life into the cloudy atmosphere which shrouds\nthis lower earth.\n\nFootnote 526:\n\n  ii. 20, 22.\n\n[Sidenote: St Paul substitutes a principle for ordinances.]\n\nSt Paul sets himself to combat this false tendency. For negative\nprohibitions he substitutes a positive principle; for special\nenactments, a comprehensive motive. He tells them that all their\nscrupulous restrictions are vain, because they fail to touch the springs\nof action. If they would overcome the evil, they must strike at the root\nof the evil. Their point of view must be entirely changed. They must\ntransfer themselves into a wholly new sphere of energy. This\ntransference is nothing less than a migration from earth to heaven\u2014from\nthe region of the external and transitory to the region of the spiritual\nand eternal[527]. For a code of rules they must substitute a principle\nof life, which is one in its essence but infinite in its application,\nwhich will meet every emergency, will control every action, will resist\nevery form of evil.\n\nFootnote 527:\n\n  iii. 1 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: This principle is the heavenly life in Christ.]\n\nThis principle they have in Christ. With Him they have died to the\nworld; with Him they have risen to God. Christ, the revelation of God\u2019s\nholiness, of God\u2019s righteousness, of God\u2019s love, is light, is life, is\nheaven. With Him they have been translated into a higher sphere, have\nbeen brought face to face with the Eternal Presence. Let them only\nrealise this translation. It involves new insight, new motives, new\nenergies. They will no more waste themselves upon vexatious special\nrestrictions: for they will be furnished with a higher inspiration which\nwill cover all the minute details of action. They will not exhaust their\nenergies in crushing this or that rising desire but they will kill the\nwhole body[528] of their earthly passions through the strong arm of this\npersonal communion with God in Christ.\n\nFootnote 528:\n\n  ii. 11 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, iii. 5 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\n  \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7 with ver. 8 \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, and ver. 9\n  \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd. See the notes on the several\n  passages.\n\n[Sidenote: St Paul\u2019s doctrine of faith and works considered in the light\n           of this principle.]\n\nWhen we once grasp this idea, which lies at the root of St Paul\u2019s\nethical teaching, the moral difficulty which is supposed to attach to\nhis doctrine of faith and works has vanished. It is simply an\nimpossibility that faith should exist without works. Though in form he\nstates his doctrine as a relation of contrast between the two, in\nsubstance it resolves itself into a question of precedence. Faith and\nworks are related as principle and practice. Faith\u2014the repose in the\nunseen, the recognition of eternal principles of truth and right, the\nsense of personal obligations to an Eternal Being who vindicates these\nprinciples\u2014must come first. Faith is not an intellectual assent, nor a\nsympathetic sentiment merely. It is the absolute surrender of self to\nthe will of a Being who has a right to command this surrender. It is\nthis which places men in personal relation to God, which (in St Paul\u2019s\nlanguage) justifies them before God. For it touches the springs of their\nactions; it fastens not on this or that detail of conduct, but extends\nthroughout the whole sphere of moral activity; and thus it determines\ntheir character as responsible beings in the sight of God.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: The Christology of this epistle]\n\nFrom the above account it will have appeared that the distinctive\nfeature of this epistle is its Christology. The doctrine of the Person\nof Christ is here stated with greater precision and fulness than in any\nother of St Paul\u2019s epistles. It is therefore pertinent to ask (even\nthough the answer must necessarily be brief) what relation this\nstatement bears to certain other enunciations of the same doctrine;\n[Sidenote: considered in relation to]to those for instance which occur\nelsewhere in St Paul\u2019s own letters, to those which are found in other\nApostolic writings, and to those which appear in the fathers of the\nsucceeding generations.\n\n[Sidenote: 1. The Christology of St Paul\u2019s earlier epistles]\n\n1. The Christology of the Colossian Epistle is in no way different from\nthat of the Apostle\u2019s earlier letters. It may indeed be called a\ndevelopment of his former teaching, but only as exhibiting the doctrine\nin fresh relations, as drawing new deductions from it, as defining what\nhad hitherto been left undefined, not as superadding any foreign element\nto it. The doctrine is practically involved in the opening and closing\nwords of his earliest extant epistle: \u2018The Church which is in God the\nFather and the Lord Jesus Christ\u2019; \u2018The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ\nbe with you[529].\u2019 The main conception of the Person of Christ, as\nenforced in the Colossian Epistle, alone justifies and explains this\nlanguage, which otherwise would be emptied of all significance. And\nagain; it had been enunciated by the Apostle explicitly, though briefly,\nin the earliest directly doctrinal passage which bears on the subject;\n\u2018One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through\nHim[530].\u2019 [Sidenote: the same in substance but]The absolute universal\nmediation of the Son is declared as unreservedly in this passage from\nthe First Epistle to the Corinthians, as in any later statement of the\nApostle: and, [Sidenote: less fully developed]if all the doctrinal and\npractical inferences which it implicitly involves were not directly\nemphasized at this early date, it was because the circumstances did not\nyet require explicitness on these points. New forms of error bring into\nprominence new aspects of the truth. The heresies of Laodicea and\nColoss\u00e6 have been invaluable to the later Church in this respect. The\nApostle himself, it is not too much to say, realised with ever\nincreasing force the manifoldness, the adaptability, the completeness of\nthe Christian idea, notwithstanding its simplicity, as he opposed it to\neach successive development of error. The Person of Christ proved the\ncomplete answer to false speculations at Coloss\u00e6, as it had been found\nthe sovereign antidote to false practices at Corinth. All these\nunforeseen harmonies must have appeared to him, as they will appear to\nus, fresh evidences of its truth.\n\nFootnote 529:\n\n  1 Thess. i. 1, v. 28.\n\nFootnote 530:\n\n  1 Cor. viii. 6 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. The expression \u03b4\u03b9\u2019\n  \u03bf\u1f57 implies the conception of the Logos, even where the term itself is\n  not used. See the dissertation on the doctrine of the Logos in the\n  Apostolic writers.\n\n[Sidenote: 2. The Christology of other Apostolic writings.]\n\n[Sidenote: Their fundamental identity.]\n\n2. And when we turn from St Paul to the other Apostolic writings which\ndwell on the Person of Christ from a doctrinal point of view, we find\nthem enunciating it in language which implies the same fundamental\nconception, though they may not always present it in exactly the same\naspect. More especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews first, and in the\nGospel of St John afterwards, the form of expression is identical with\nthe statement of St Paul. In both these writings the universe is said to\nhave been created or to exist _by_ or _through_ Him. This is the crucial\nexpression, which involves in itself all the higher conceptions of the\nPerson of Christ[531]. The Epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been\nwritten by a disciple of St Paul immediately after the Apostle\u2019s death,\nand therefore within some five or six years from the date which has been\nassigned to the Colossian letter. The Gospel of St John, if the\ntraditional report may be accepted, dates about a quarter of a century\nlater; but it is linked with our epistle by the fact that the readers\nfor whom it was primarily intended belonged to the neighbouring\ndistricts of Proconsular Asia. Thus it illustrates, and is illustrated\nby, the teaching of St Paul in this letter. More especially by the\nemphatic use of the term _Logos_, which St Paul for some reason has\nsuppressed, it supplies the centre round which the ideas gather, and\nthus gives unity and directness to the conception.\n\nFootnote 531:\n\n  Joh. i. 3 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., Heb. i. 2 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n[Sidenote: Firmness of the apostolic idea.]\n\nIn the Christology of these Apostolic writings there is a firmness and\nprecision which leaves no doubt about the main conception present to the\nmind of the writers. The idea of Christ as an intermediate being,\nneither God nor man, is absolutely and expressly excluded. On the one\nhand His humanity is distinctly emphasized. On the other He is\nrepresented as existing from eternity, as the perfect manifestation of\nthe Father, as the absolute mediator in the creation and government of\nthe world.\n\n[Sidenote: 3. The Christology of the succeeding ages.]\n\n3. But, when we turn from these Apostolic statements to the writings of\nsucceeding generations, we are struck with the contrast[532]. A\nvagueness, a flaccidity, of conception betrays itself in their language.\n\nFootnote 532:\n\n  The remarks on the theology of the Apostolic Fathers, as compared with\n  the Apostles, in Dorner\u2019s _Lehre von der Person Christi_ I. p. 130 sq.\n  seem to me perfectly just and highly significant. See also de\n  Pressens\u00e9 _Trois Premiers Si\u00e8cles_ II. p. 406 sq. on the unsystematic\n  spirit of the Apostolic Fathers.\n\n[Sidenote: Its looseness of conception.]\n\nIn the Apostolic Fathers and in the earlier Apologists we find indeed\nfor the most part a _practical_ appreciation of the Person of Christ,\nwhich leaves nothing to be desired; but as soon as they venture upon any\ndirectly dogmatic statement, we miss at once the firmness of grasp and\nclearness of conception which mark the writings of the Apostles. If they\ndesire to emphasize the majesty of His Person, they not unfrequently\nfall into language which savours of patripassianism[533]. If on the\nother hand they wish to present Him in His mediatorial capacity, they\nuse words which seem to imply some divine being, who is God and yet not\nquite God, neither Creator nor creature[534].\n\nFootnote 533:\n\n  See for instance the passages quoted in the note on Clem. Rom. 2 \u03c4\u1f70\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\nFootnote 534:\n\n  The unguarded language of Justin for instance illustrates the\n  statement in the text. On the one hand Petavius, _Theol. Dogm._ de\n  Trin. ii. 3. 2, distinctly accuses him of Arianism: on the other Bull,\n  _Def. Fid. Nic._ ii. 4. 1 sq., indignantly repudiates the charge and\n  claims him as strictly orthodox. Petavius indeed approaches the\n  subject from the point of view of later Western theology and, unable\n  to appreciate Justin\u2019s doctrine of the Logos, does less than justice\n  to this father; but nevertheless Justin\u2019s language is occasionally\n  such as no Athanasian could have used. The treatment of this father by\n  Dorner (_Lehre_ I. p. 414 sq.) is just and avoids both extremes.\n\n[Sidenote: The Apostolic idea applied in later ages.]\n\nThe Church needed a long education, before she was fitted to be the\nexpositor of the true Apostolic doctrine. A conflict of more than two\ncenturies with Gnostics, Ebionites, Sabellians, Arians, supplied the\nnecessary discipline. The true successors of the Apostles in this\nrespect are not the fathers of the second century, but the fathers of\nthe third and fourth centuries. In the expositors of the Nicene age we\nfind indeed technical terms and systematic definitions, which we do not\nfind in the Apostles themselves; but, unless I have wholly misconceived\nthe nature of the heretical teaching at Coloss\u00e6 and the purport of St\nPaul\u2019s reply, the main idea of Christ\u2019s Person, with which he here\nconfronts this Gnostic Judaism, is essentially the same as that which\nthe fathers of these later centuries opposed to the Sabellianism and the\nArianism of their own age. If I mistake not, the more distinctly we\nrealise the nature of the heresy, the more evident will it become that\nany conception short of the perfect deity and perfect humanity of Christ\nwould not have furnished a satisfactory answer; and this is the reason\nwhy I have dwelt at such length on the character of the Colossian false\nteaching, and why I venture to call especial attention to this part of\nmy subject.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: Style of this epistle.]\n\nOf the style of the letter to the Colossians I shall have occasion to\nspeak hereafter, when I come to discuss its genuineness. It is\nsufficient to say here, that while the hand of St Paul is unmistakable\nthroughout this epistle, we miss the flow and the versatility of the\nApostle\u2019s earlier letters.\n\n[Sidenote: Its ruggedness and compression,]\n\nA comparison with the Epistles to the Corinthians and to the Philippians\nwill show the difference. It is distinguished from them by a certain\nruggedness of expression, a \u2018want of finish\u2019 often bordering on\nobscurity. What account should be given of this characteristic, it is\nimpossible to say. The divergence of style is not greater than will\nappear in the letters of any active-minded man, written at different\ntimes and under different circumstances. The epistles which I have\nselected for contrast suggest that the absence of all personal connexion\nwith the Colossian Church will partially, if not wholly, explain the\ndiminished fluency of this letter. [Sidenote: but essential vigour.]At\nthe same time no epistle of St Paul is more vigorous in conception or\nmore instinct with meaning. It is the very compression of the thoughts\nwhich creates the difficulty. If there is a want of fluency, there is no\nwant of force. Feebleness is the last charge which can be brought\nagainst this epistle.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: Analysis.]\n\nThe following is an analysis of the epistle:\n\nI. INTRODUCTORY (i. 1\u201313).\n\n  (1) i. 1, 2. Opening salutation.\n\n  (2) i. 3\u20138. Thanksgiving for the progress of the Colossians hitherto.\n\n  (3) i. 9\u201313. Prayer for their future advance in knowledge and\n          well-doing through Christ.\n\n        [This leads the Apostle to speak of Christ as the only path of\n          progress.]\n\nII. DOCTRINAL (i. 13-ii. 3).\n\n    The Person and Office of Christ.\n\n  (1) i. 13, 14. Through the Son we have our deliverance, our\n      redemption.\n\n  (2) i. 15\u201319. The _Preeminence_ of the Son;\n\n      (i) As the Head of the natural Creation, the Universe (i. 15\u201317);\n\n      (ii) As the Head of the new moral Creation, the Church (i. 18).\n\n      Thus He is first in all things; and this, because the pleroma has\n        its abode in Him (i. 19).\n\n  (3) i. 20-ii. 3. The _Work_ of the Son\u2014a work of reconciliation;\n\n      (i) Described generally (i. 20).\n\n      (ii) Applied specially to the Colossians (i. 21\u201323).\n\n      (iii) St Paul\u2019s own part in carrying out this work. His sufferings\n        and preaching. The \u2018mystery\u2019 with which he is charged (i.\n        24\u201327).\n\n        His anxiety on behalf of all (i. 28, 29): and more especially of\n          the Colossian and neighbouring Churches (ii. 1\u20133).\n\n        [This expression of anxiety leads him by a direct path to the\n          next division of the epistle.]\n\nIII. POLEMICAL (ii. 4-iii. 4).\n\n  Warning against errors.\n\n  (1) ii. 4\u20138. The Colossians charged to abide in the truth of the\n      Gospel as they received it at first, and not to be led astray by a\n      strange philosophy which the new teachers offer.\n\n  (2) ii. 9\u201315. The truth stated first positively and then negatively.\n\n    [In the passage which follows (ii. 9\u201323) it will be observed how St\n      Paul vibrates between the theological and practical bearings of\n      the truth, marked \u03b1, \u03b2, respectively.]\n\n    (i) _Positively._\n\n      (\u03b1) The _pleroma_ dwells wholly in Christ and is communicated\n        through Him (ii. 9, 10).\n\n      (\u03b2) The true circumcision is a spiritual circumcision (ii. 11,\n        12).\n\n    (ii) _Negatively_. Christ has\n\n      (\u03b2) annulled the law of ordinances (ii. 14);\n\n      (\u03b1) triumphed over all spiritual agencies, however powerful (ii.\n        15).\n\n  (3) ii. 16-iii. 4. Obligations following thereupon.\n\n    (i) Consequently the Colossians must not\n\n      (\u03b2) either submit to ritual prohibitions (ii. 16, 17),\n\n      (\u03b1) or substitute the worship of inferior beings for allegiance to\n        the Head (ii. 18, 19).\n\n    (ii) On the contrary this must henceforth be their rule:\n\n      1. They have _died_ with Christ; and with Him they have died to\n        their old life, to earthly _ordinances_ (ii. 20\u201323).\n\n      2. They have _risen_ with Christ; and with Him they have risen to\n        a new life, to heavenly _principles_ (iii. 1\u20134).\n\nIV. HORTATORY (iii. 5-iv. 6).\n\n  Practical application of this death and this resurrection.\n\n  (1) iii. 5\u201312. _Comprehensive_ rules.\n\n      (i) What vices are to be put off, being mortified in this death\n        (iii. 5\u201311).\n\n      (ii) What graces are to be put on, being quickened through this\n        resurrection (iii. 12\u201317).\n\n  (2) iii. 13-iv. 6. _Special_ precepts.\n\n      (_a_) The obligations\n\n          Of wives and husbands (iii. 18, 19);\n\n          Of children and parents (iii. 20, 21);\n\n          Of slaves and masters (iii. 22-iv. 1).\n\n      (_b_) The duty of prayer and thanksgiving; with special\n          intercession on the Apostle\u2019s behalf (iv. 2\u20134).\n\n      (_c_) The duty of propriety in behaviour towards the unconverted\n          (iv. 5, 6).\n\nV. PERSONAL (iv. 7\u201318).\n\n  (1) iv. 7\u20139. Explanations relating to the letter itself.\n\n  (2) iv. 10\u201314. Salutations from divers persons.\n\n  (3) iv. 15\u201317. Salutations to divers persons. A message relating to\n      Laodicea.\n\n  (4) iv. 18. Farewell.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                            \u03a0\u03a1\u039f\u03a3 \u039a\u039f\u039b\u0391\u03a3\u03a3\u0391\u0395\u0399\u03a3.\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n              WE SPEAK WISDOM AMONG THEM THAT ARE PERFECT.\n\n                   YET NOT THE WISDOM OF THIS WORLD.\n\n              BUT WE SPEAK THE WISDOM OF GOD IN A MYSTERY.\n\n\n                             --------------\n\n                      _Iste vas electionis\n                      Vires omnes rationis\n                        Human\u00e6 transgreditur:\n                      Super choros angelorum\n                      Raptus, c\u0153li secretorum\n                        Doctrinis imbuitur._\n\n                      _De hoc vase tam fecundo,\n                      Tam electo et tam mundo,\n                        Tu nos, Christe, complue;\n                      Nos de luto, nos de f\u00e6ce,\n                      Tua sancta purga prece,\n                        Regno tuo statue._\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                            \u03a0\u03a1\u039f\u03a3 \u039a\u039f\u039b\u0391\u03a3\u03a3\u0391\u0395\u0399\u03a3.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 1, 2]\n\n\u03a0\u0391\u03a5\u039b\u039f\u03a3 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a4\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41\n\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03cc\u03c2, ^2\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 >\n\n\n1, 2. \u2018PAUL, an apostle of Christ Jesus by no personal merit but by\nGod\u2019s gracious will alone, and TIMOTHY, our brother in the faith, to the\nconsecrated people of God in Coloss\u00e6, the brethren who are stedfast in\ntheir allegiance and faithful in Christ. May grace the well-spring of\nall mercies, and peace the crown of all blessings, be bestowed upon you\nfrom God our Father.\u2019\n\n1. \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2] On the exceptional omission of this title in some of St\nPaul\u2019s epistles see Phil. i. 1. Though there is no reason for supposing\nthat his authority was directly impugned in the Colossian Church, yet he\ninterposes by virtue of his Apostolic commission and therefore uses his\nauthoritative title.\n\n\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6] As in 1 Cor. i. 1, 2 Cor. i. 1, Ephes. i. 1, 2 Tim.\ni. 1. These passages show that the words cannot have a polemical\nbearing. If they had been directed against those who questioned his\nApostleship, they would probably have taken a stronger form. The\nexpression must therefore be regarded as a renunciation of all personal\nworth, and a declaration of God\u2019s unmerited grace; comp. Rom. ix. 16 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1\n\u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. The same\nwords \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 are used in other connexions in Rom. xv. 32, 2\nCor. viii. 5, where no polemical reference is possible.\n\n\u03a4\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2] The name of this disciple is attached to the Apostle\u2019s own in\nthe heading of the Philippian letter, which was probably written at an\nearlier stage in his Roman captivity. It appears also in the same\nconnexion in the Epistle to Philemon, but not in the Epistle to the\nEphesians, though these two letters were contemporaneous with one\nanother and with the Colossian letter. For an explanation of the\nomission, see the introduction to that epistle.\n\nIn the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon the presence of\nTimothy is forgotten at once (see Phil. i. 1). In this epistle the\nplural is maintained throughout the thanksgiving (vv. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9),\nbut afterwards dropped, when the Apostle begins to speak in his own\nperson (i. 23, 24), and so he continues to the end. The exceptions (i.\n28, iv. 3) are rather apparent than real.\n\n\u1f41 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03cc\u03c2] Timothy is again designated simply \u2018the brother\u2019 in 2 Cor. i.\n1, Philem. 1, but not in Heb. xiii. 23, where the right reading is \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. The same designation is used of Quartus (Rom. xvi. 23), of\nSosthenes (1 Cor. i. 1), of Apollos (1 Cor. xvi. 12); comp. 2 Cor. viii.\n18, ix. 3, 5, xii. 18. As some designation seemed to be required, and as\nTimothy could not be called an Apostle (see _Galatians_, p. 96, note 2),\nthis, as the simplest title, would naturally suggest itself.\n\n2. \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2] For the reasons why this form is preferred here, while\n\u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 is adopted in the heading of the epistle, see above, p. 16\nsq.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 3]\n\n\u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7\u00b7 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\n^3\u0395\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7 [\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76] \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n\n\n\u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2] \u2018_saints_,\u2019 i.e. the people consecrated to God, the Israel of\nthe new covenant; see the note on Phil. i. 1. This mode of address marks\nthe later epistles of St Paul. In his earlier letters (1, 2 Thess., 1, 2\nCor., Gal.) he writes \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3, \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2. The change begins\nwith the Epistle to the Romans, and from that time forward the Apostle\nalways uses \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 in various combinations in addressing Churches (Rom.,\nPhil., Col., Ephes.). For a similar phenomenon, serving as a\nchronological mark, see the note on \u1f21 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, iv. 18. The word \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\nmust here be treated as a substantive in accordance with its usage in\nparallel passages, and not as an adjective connected with \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2. See\nthe next note.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2] This unusual addition is full of meaning. Some\nmembers of the Colossian Church were shaken in their allegiance, even if\nthey had not fallen from it. The Apostle therefore wishes it to be\nunderstood that, when he speaks of the saints, he means the true and\nstedfast members of the brotherhood. In this way he obliquely hints at\nthe defection. Thus the words \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 are a supplementary\nexplanation of \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. He does not directly exclude any, but he\nindirectly warns all. The epithet \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 cannot mean simply \u2018believing\u2019;\nfor then it would add nothing which is not already contained in \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\nand \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2. Its passive sense, \u2018trustworthy, stedfast, unswerving,\u2019\nmust be prominent here, as in Acts xvi. 15 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad \u03bc\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. See _Galatians_ p. 155.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7] most naturally connected with both words \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2,\nthough referring chiefly to \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2; comp. Ephes. vi. 21 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3, 1 Tim. i. 2 \u03b3\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u1ff3 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9. For the expression \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7, \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3, see also 1 Cor. iv. 17, Ephes. i. 1. The Apostle\nassumes that the Colossian brethren are \u2018stedfast in Christ.\u2019 Their\nstate thus contrasts with the description of the heretical teacher, who\n(ii. 19) \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd.\n\n\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] On this form of salutation see the note to 1 Thess. i. 1.\n\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd] The only instance in St Paul\u2019s epistles, where the name of\nthe Father stands alone in the opening benediction without the addition\nof Jesus Christ. The omission was noticed by Origen (_Rom._ 1. \u00a7 8, IV.\np. 467), and by Chrysostom (_ad loc._ XI. p. 324, _Hom. in 2 Cor._ XXX,\nx. p. 651). But transcribers naturally aimed at uniformity, and so in\nmany copies we find the addition \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. The only\nother exception to the Apostle\u2019s usual form is in 1 Thessalonians, where\nthe benediction is shorter still, \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7, and where\nlikewise the copyists have supplied words to lengthen it out in\naccordance with St Paul\u2019s common practice.\n\n3\u20138. \u2018We never cease to pour forth our thanksgiving to God the Father of\nour Lord Jesus Christ on your account, whensoever we pray to Him. We are\nfull of thankfulness for the tidings of the _faith_ which ye have in\nChrist Jesus, and the _love_ which ye show towards all the people of\nGod, while ye look forward to the _hope_ which is stored up for you in\nheaven as a treasure for the life to come. This hope was communicated to\nyou in those earlier lessons, when the Gospel was preached to you in its\npurity and integrity\u2014the one universal unchangeable Gospel, which was\nmade known to you, even as it was carried throughout the world,\napproving itself by its fruits wheresoever it is planted. For, as\nelsewhere, so also in you, these fruits were manifested from the first\nday when ye received your lessons in, and apprehended the power of, the\ngenuine Gospel, which is not a law of ordinances but a dispensation of\ngrace, not a device of men but a truth of God. Such was the word\npreached to you by Epaphras, our beloved fellow-servant in our Master\u2019s\nhousehold, who in our absence and on our behalf has ministered to you\nthe Gospel of Christ, and who now brings back to us the welcome tidings\nof the love which ye show in the Spirit.\u2019\n\n3. \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd] See the notes on 1 Thess. i. 2.\n\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76] If the \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 be omitted, as the balance of authorities appears to\nsuggest, the form of words here is quite exceptional. Elsewhere it runs\n\u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, Rom. XV. 6, 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31, Ephes. i.\n3 (v.l.), 1 Pet. i. 3; comp. Rev. i. 6: and in analogous cases, such as\n\u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, the rule is the same. See the note on Clem. Rom.\n\u00a7 7. In iii. 17 however we have \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af, where the evidence is more\ndecisive and the expression quite as unusual. On the authorities for the\nvarious readings here see the detached note.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 4, 5]\n\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u00b7 ^4 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd [\u1f23\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5] \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, ^5 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\n\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] We here meet the same difficulty about the connexion of\nthe clauses, which confronts us in several of St Paul\u2019s opening\nthanksgivings. The words \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 and \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd must clearly be taken\ntogether, because the emphasis of \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd would be inexplicable, if it\nstood at the beginning of a clause. But are they to be attached to the\npreceding or to the following sentence? The connexion with the previous\nwords is favoured by St Paul\u2019s usual conjunction of \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\n(see the note on Phil. i. 3), and by the parallel passage \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd in Ephes. i. 16. Thus the words will mean \u2018_We give\nthanks for you always in our prayers_.\u2019 For this absolute use of\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 see Matt. vi. 7, Acts xvi. 25.\n\n4. \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2] \u2018_having heard_\u2019 from Epaphras (ver. 8); for the Apostle\nhad no direct personal knowledge of the Colossian Church: see the\nintroduction, p. 27 sq.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6] to be connected with \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. The strict\nclassical language would require \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7. \u1f38., but the omission of the\narticle is common to the New Testament (e.g. ver. 8); see the note on 1\nThess. i. 1, and Winer \u00a7 xx. p. 169 (ed. Moulton). The preposition \u1f10\u03bd\nhere and in the parallel passage, Ephes. i. 15, denotes the sphere in\nwhich their faith moves, rather than the object to which it is directed\n(comp. 1 Cor. iii. 5); for, if the object had been meant, the natural\npreposition would have been \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 or \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 (e.g. ii. 5). This is probably\nthe case also in the passages where at first sight it might seem\notherwise, e.g. 1 Tim. iii. 13, 2 Tim. iii. 15; for compare 2 Tim. i. 13\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6, where the meaning is\nunambiguous. There is however authority in the LXX for the use of \u1f10\u03bd\nwith \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, to denote the object, in Jer. xii. 6, Ps.\nlxxviii. 22, and perhaps in Mark i. 15, Rom. iii. 25, and (more\ndoubtfully still) in Joh. iii. 15.\n\n\u1f23\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5] See the detached note on the various readings.\n\n5. \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b1] \u2018_for the hope_,\u2019 i.e. looking to the hope. The\nfollowing reasons seem decisive in favour of connecting \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b1,\nnot with \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, but with \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., whether \u1f23\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 be\nretained or not. (1) The great distance of \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd is against the\nformer connexion; (2) The following clause, \u1f23\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.,\nsuggests that the words \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 describe the motives of the\nColossians for well-doing, rather than the reasons of the Apostle for\nthanksgiving: (3) The triad of Christian graces, which St Paul delights\nto associate together, would otherwise be broken up. This last argument\nseems conclusive; see especially the corresponding thanksgiving in 1\nThess. i. 3, \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 _\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2_ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 _\u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03c2_ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 _\u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2_ \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., with\nthe note there. The order is the same here, as there; and it is the\nnatural sequence. Faith rests on the past; love works in the present;\nhope looks to the future. They may be regarded as the efficient,\nmaterial, and final causes respectively of the spiritual life. Compare\nPolycarp _Phil._ 3 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f25\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03c2.\n\nThe hope here is identified with the object of the hope: see the\npassages quoted on Gal. v. 5. The sense of \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03c2, as of the\ncorresponding words in any language, oscillates between the subjective\nfeeling and the objective realisation; comp. Rom. viii. 24 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b2\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f43 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.,\nwhere it passes abruptly from the one to the other.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 6]\n\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f23\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, ^6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\n\n\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd] \u2018_which is stored up_.\u2019 It is the \u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7 of\nthe Gospels (Matt. vi. 20, 21, Luke xii. 34, xviii. 22).\n\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5] \u2018_of which ye were told in time past_.\u2019 The preposition\nseems intended to contrast their earlier with their later lessons\u2014the\ntrue Gospel of Epaphras with the false gospel of their recent teachers\n(see the next note). The expression would gain force, if we might\nsuppose that the heretical teachers obscured or perverted the doctrine\nof the resurrection (comp. 2 Tim. ii. 18); and their speculative tenets\nwere not unlikely to lead to such a result. But this is not necessary;\nfor under any circumstances the false doctrine, as leading them astray,\ntended to cheat them of their hope; see ver. 23. The common\ninterpretations, which explain \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf- as meaning either \u2018before its\nfulfilment\u2019 or \u2018before my writing to you,\u2019 seem neither so natural in\nthemselves nor so appropriate to the context.\n\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5] \u2018_the truth of the Gospel_,\u2019 i.e. the true\nand genuine Gospel as taught by Epaphras, and not the spurious\nsubstitute of these later pretenders: comp. ver. 6 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3. See also\nGal. ii. 5, 14, where a similar contrast is implied in the use of \u1f21\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n6. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u2018_which reached you_.\u2019 The expression \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 is not uncommon in classical writers; comp. \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 in Acts\nxii. 20, Gal. iv. 18, 20. So also \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 (Acts viii. 40),\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 (e.g. Acts xxv. 15), and even \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 (Luke xi. 7). See\nWiner \u00a7 l. p. 516 sq.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3] For a similar hyperbole see Rom. i. 8 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3; comp. 1 Thess. i. 8, 2 Cor. ii. 14, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u1ff3. More lurks\nunder these words than appears on the surface. The true Gospel, the\nApostle seems to say, proclaims its truth by its universality. The false\ngospels are the outgrowths of local circumstances, of special\nidiosyncrasies; the true Gospel is the same everywhere. The false\ngospels address themselves to limited circles; the true Gospel proclaims\nitself boldly throughout the world. Heresies are at best ethnic: truth\nis essentially catholic. See ver. 23 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f41\u1fe6 \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5, _\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6_ \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 _\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9_\n\u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 6]\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c6\u2019 \u1f27\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\n\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd] \u2018_is constantly bearing fruit_.\u2019 The fruit, which\nthe Gospel bears without fail in all soils and under every climate, is\nits credential, its verification, as against the pretensions of spurious\ncounterfeits. The substantive verb should here be taken with the\nparticiple, so as to express _continuity_ of present action; as in 2\nCor. ix. 12 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., Phil. ii. 26 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f26\u03bd. It is less common in St Paul than in some of the Canonical writers,\ne.g. St Mark and St Luke; but probably only because he deals less in\nnarrative.\n\nOf the middle \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 no other instance has been found. The voice\nis partially illustrated by \u03ba\u03c9\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9,\n\u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, though, as involving a different sense of -\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n\u2018to wear,\u2019 these words are not exact parallels. Here the use of the\nmiddle is the more marked, inasmuch as the active occurs just below\n(ver. 10) in the same connexion, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. This\nfact however points to the force of the word here. The middle is\n_intensive_, the active _extensive_. The middle denotes the inherent\nenergy, the active the external diffusion. The Gospel is essentially a\nreproductive organism, a plant whose \u2018seed is in itself.\u2019 For this\n\u2018dynamic\u2019 middle see Moulton\u2019s note on Winer \u00a7 xxxviii. p. 319.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd] The Gospel is not like those plants which exhaust\nthemselves in bearing fruit and wither away. The external growth keeps\npace with the reproductive energy. While \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd describes the\ninner working, \u03b1\u1f50\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd gives the outward extension of the Gospel.\nThe words \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd are not found in the received text, but the\nauthority in their favour is overwhelming.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd The comparison is thus doubled back, as it were, on\nitself. This irregularity disappears in the received text, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, where the insertion of \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 before\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd straightens the construction. For a similar irregularity\nsee 1 Thess. iv. 1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, where again the received text\nsimplifies the construction, though in a different way, by omitting the\nfirst \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 and the words \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5. In both cases the\nexplanation of the irregularity is much the same; the clause\nreciprocating the comparison (here \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, there \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5) is an afterthought springing out of the Apostle\u2019s anxiety\nnot to withhold praise where praise can be given.\n\nFor the appearance of \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 in both members of the comparison, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3 ... \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76, comp. Rom. i. 13 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f15\u03b8\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd; and in the reversed order below, iii. 13 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 (with the note): see also Winer\nliii. p. 549 (ed. Moulton). The correlation of the clauses is thus\nrendered closer, and the comparison emphasized.\n\n\u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5] The accusative is governed by both verbs equally,\n\u2018Ye were instructed in and fully apprehended the grace of God.\u2019 For this\nsense of \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd see below, ver. 23. For \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd as denoting\n\u2018advanced knowledge, thorough appreciation,\u2019 see the note on \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2,\nver. 9.\n\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6] St Paul\u2019s synonyme for the Gospel. In Acts xx. 24 he\ndescribes it as his mission to preach \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6.\nThe true Gospel as taught by Epaphras was an offer of free grace, a\nmessage from God; the false gospel, as superposed by the heretical\nteachers, was a code of rigorous prohibitions, a system of human\ndevising. It was not \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 but \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 (ii. 14); not \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 but \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03c5 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd (ii. 8, 20, 22). For God\u2019s power and goodness it\nsubstituted self-mortification and self-exaltation. The Gospel is called\n\u1f21 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 again in 2 Cor. vi. 1, viii. 9, with reference to the\nsame leading characteristic which the Apostle delights to dwell upon\n(e.g. Rom. iii. 24, v. 15, Eph. ii. 5, 8), and which he here tacitly\ncontrasts with the doctrine of the later intruders. The false teachers\nof Coloss\u00e6, like those of Galatia, would lead their hearers \u1f00\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 (Gal. ii. 21); to accept their doctrine was \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (Gal. v. 4).\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 7, 8]\n\n\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3, ^7\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f18\u03c0\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u1fb6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, ^8 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9.\n\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 i.e. \u2018in its genuine simplicity, without adulteration\u2019: see\nthe note on \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, ver. 5.\n\n7. \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5] \u2018_even as ye were instructed_ in it,\u2019 the clause being\nan explanation of the preceding \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3; comp. ii. 7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5. On the insertion of \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 before \u1f10\u03bc\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 in the received text,\nand the consequent obscuration of the sense, see above, p. 29 sq. The\ninsertion however was very natural, inasmuch as \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 is an ordinary\ncollocation of particles and has occurred twice in the preceding verse.\n\n\u1f18\u03c0\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u1fb6] On the notices of Epaphras, and on his work as the evangelist of\nthe Colossians, see above, p. 29 sq., p. 34 sq., and the note on iv. 12.\n\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5] See iv. 7. The word does not occur elsewhere in St Paul.\n\n\u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd] As the evangelist of Coloss\u00e6, Epaphras had _represented_ St\nPaul there and preached in his stead; see above, p. 30. The other\nreading \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd might be interpreted in two ways: either (1) It might\ndescribe the personal ministrations of Epaphras to St Paul as the\nrepresentative of the Colossians (see a similar case in Phil. ii. 25,\niv. 18), and so it might be compared with Philem. 13 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u1fc7; but this interpretation is hardly consistent with \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\nOr (2) It might refer to the preaching of Epaphras for the good of the\nColossians; but the natural construction in this case would hardly be\n\u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd (of which there is no direct example), but either \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd (Rom.\nxv. 8) or \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd (1 Pet. i. 12). The balance of external authority however\nis against it. Partly by the accidental interchange of similar sounds,\npartly by the recurrence of \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd in the context (vv. 3, 9), and\npartly also from ignorance of the historical circumstances, \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd would\nreadily be substituted for \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. See the detached note on various\nreadings.\n\n8. \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2] \u2018As he preached to you from us, so _also_ he brought\nback to us from you the tidings, etc.\u2019\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9] to be connected with \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd. \u2018The fruit of the\nSpirit is love,\u2019 Gal. v. 22. For the omission of the article, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, see the note on ver. 4.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 9]\n\n^9\u0394\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c6\u2019 \u1f27\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd\n\n\n9\u201314. \u2018Hearing then that ye thus abound in works of faith and love, we\non our part have not ceased, from the day when we received the happy\ntidings, to pray on your behalf. And this is the purport of our\npetitions; that ye may grow more and more in knowledge, till ye attain\nto the perfect understanding of God\u2019s will, being endowed with all\nwisdom to apprehend His verities and all intelligence to follow His\nprocesses, living in the mind of the Spirit\u2014to the end that knowledge\nmay manifest itself in practice, that your conduct in life may be worthy\nof your profession in the Lord, so as in all ways to win for you the\ngracious favour of God your King. Thus, while ye bear fruit in every\ngood work, ye will also grow as the tree grows, being watered and\nrefreshed by this knowledge, as by the dew of heaven: thus will ye be\nstrengthened in all strength, according to that power which centres in\nand spreads from His glorious manifestation of Himself, and nerved to\nall endurance under affliction and all long-suffering under provocation,\nnot only without complaining, but even with joy: thus finally (for this\nis the crown of all), so rejoicing ye will pour forth your thanksgiving\nto the Universal Father, who prepared and fitted us all\u2014you and us\nalike\u2014to take possession of the portion which His goodness has allotted\nto us among the saints in the kingdom of light. Yea, by a strong arm He\nrescued us from the lawless tyranny of Darkness, removed us from the\nland of our bondage, and settled us as free citizens in our new and\nglorious home, where His Son, the offspring and the representative of\nHis love, is King; even the same, who paid our ransom and thus procured\nour redemption from captivity\u2014our redemption, which (be assured) is\nnothing else than the remission of our sins.\u2019\n\n9. \u0394\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf] \u2018_for this cause_,\u2019 i.e. \u2018by reason of your progressive\nfaith and love,\u2019 referring not solely to \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. but to the\nwhole of the preceding description. For \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 in an\nexactly similar connexion, see 1 Thess. ii. 13; comp. Ephes. i. 15 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u1f00\u03b3\u1f7c \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. In all these cases the \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 denotes the _response_ of\nthe Apostle\u2019s personal feeling to the favourable character of the news;\n\u2018we on our part.\u2019 This idea of correspondence is still further\nemphasized by the repetition of the same words: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u2019 \u1f27\u03c2\n\u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 (ver. 6), \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u2019 \u1f27\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd (ver. 9).\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9] The words have an exact parallel in Mark xi. 24 (as\ncorrectly read) \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5.\n\n\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1] With words like \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, etc., the earlier and\nstronger force of \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1, implying _design_, glides imperceptibly into its\nlater and weaker use, signifying merely _purport_ or _result_, so that\nthe two are hardly separable, unless one or other is directly indicated\nby something in the context. See the notes on Phil. i. 9, and comp.\nWiner \u00a7 xliv. p. 420 sq.\n\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd] A favourite word in the later epistles of St Paul; see\nthe note on Phil. i. 9. In all the four epistles of the first Roman\ncaptivity it is an element in the Apostle\u2019s opening prayer for his\ncorrespondents\u2019 well-being (Phil. i. 9, Ephes. i. 17, Philem. 6, and\nhere). The greater stress which is thus laid on the contemplative\naspects of the Gospel may be explained partly by St Paul\u2019s personal\ncircumstances, partly by the requirements of the Church. His enforced\nretirement and comparative leisure would lead his own thoughts in this\ndirection, while at the same time the fresh dangers threatening the\ntruth from the side of mystic speculation required to be confronted by\nan exposition of the Gospel from a corresponding point of view.\n\nThe compound \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is an advance upon \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, denoting a larger and\nmore thorough knowledge. So Chrysostom here, \u1f14\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. Comp. Justin Mart. _Dial._ 3. p. 221 A, \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd _\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd_, \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 _\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd_. So too St Paul himself contrasts\n\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, with \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, as the partial with the\ncomplete, in two passages, Rom. i. 21, 38, 1 Cor. xiii. 12. With this\nlast passage (\u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9) compare Clem.\nAlex. _Strom._ i. 17, p. 369, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03ca\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd _\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7_ \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 _\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd_ \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, where \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd is\ncommonly but wrongly translated \u2018without proper recognition\u2019 (comp.\nTatian _ad Gr\u00e6c._ 40). Hence also \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is used especially of the\nknowledge of God and of Christ, as being the perfection of knowledge:\ne.g. Prov. ii. 5, Hos. iv. 1, vi. 6, Ephes. i. 17, iv. 13, 2 Pet. i. 2,\n8, ii. 20, Clem. Alex. _P\u00e6d._ ii. 1, p. 173.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 10]\n\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc7, ^{10}\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03be\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u1ff3\n\n\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9] \u2018_wisdom and intelligence_.\u2019 The two words are\nfrequently found together: e.g. Exod. xxxi. 3, Deut. iv. 6, 1 Chron.\nxxii. 12, 2 Chron. i. 10 sq., Is. xi. 2, xxix. 14, Dan. ii. 20, Baruch\niii. 23, 1 Cor. i. 19, Clem. Rom. 32. So too \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03af, Prov.\nxvi. 21, Matt. xi. 25, and elsewhere. In the parallel passage, Eph. i.\n8, the words are \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, and the substitution of\n\u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 for \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 there is instructive. The three words are mentioned\ntogether, Arist. _Eth. Nic._ i. 13, as constituting the intellectual\n(\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76) virtues. \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 is mental excellence in its highest and\nfullest sense; Arist. _Eth. Nic._ vi. 7 \u1f21 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd ...\n\u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (see Waitz on Arist.\n_Organ._ II. p. 295 sq.), Cicero _de Off._ i. 43 \u2018princeps omnium\nvirtutum,\u2019 Clem. Alex. _P\u00e6d._ ii. 2, p. 181, \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 ... \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70\n\u1f45\u03bb\u03b1. The Stoic definition of \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1, as \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, is repeated by various writers: e.g. Cic. _de Off._\nii. 5, Philo. _Congr. erud. grat._ 14, p. 530, [Joseph.] _Macc._ 2,\nClem. Alex. _P\u00e6d._ ii. 2, p. 181, _Strom._ i. 5, p. 333, Aristob. in\nEus. _Pr\u00e6p. Ev._ xiii. 12 p. 667). And the glorification of \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 by\nheathen writers was even surpassed by its apotheosis in the Proverbs and\nin the Wisdom of Solomon. While \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 \u2018wisdom\u2019 is thus primary and\nabsolute (_Eth. Nic._ vi. 7 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd), both \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u2018intelligence\u2019 and \u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\n\u2018prudence\u2019 are derivative and special (_Eth. Nic._ vi. 12 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd). They are both applications of \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 to details,\nbut they work on different lines; for, while \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is critical,\n\u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is practical; while \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 apprehends the bearings of things,\n\u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 suggests lines of action: see Arist. _Eth. Nic._ vi. 11 \u1f21 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n\u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd ... \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae. For \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 see\n2 Tim. ii. 7 _\u03bd\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9_ \u1f43 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9, \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 _\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd_\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. This relation of \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 to \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 explains why in almost every\ncase \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 (\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c2) precedes \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2), where they are found\ntogether, and also why in Baruch iii. 23 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f41\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, we find \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 implying a tentative, partial,\napproach to \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1. The relation of \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 to \u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 will be considered\nmore at length in the note on the parallel passage, Ephes. i. 8.\n\n\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc7] The word is emphatic from its position. The false teachers\nalso offered a \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1, but it had only a show of wisdom (ii. 23); it was\nan empty counterfeit calling itself philosophy (ii. 8); it was the\noffspring of vanity nurtured by the mind of the _flesh_ (ii. 18). See 2\nCor. i. 12 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc7, where a similar contrast is implied,\nand 1 Cor. i. 20, ii. 5, 6, 13, iii. 19, where it is directly expressed\nby \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1, etc.\n\n10. \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03be\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] So 1 Thess. ii. 12, Ephes. iv. i; comp.\nPhil. i. 27. The infinitive here denotes the consequence (not\nnecessarily the purpose) of the spiritual enlightenment described in \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; see Winer \u00a7 xliv. p. 399 sq. With the received text\n_\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6_ \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03be\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. the connexion might be\ndoubtful; but this reading is condemned by external evidence. The\nemphasis of the sentence would be marred by the insertion of \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2. The\nend of all knowledge, the Apostle would say, is conduct.\n\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5] i.e. \u2018of Christ.\u2019 In 1 Thess. ii. 12 indeed we have\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f00\u03be\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6; but St Paul\u2019s common, and apparently\nuniversal, usage requires us to understand \u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 of Christ.\n\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd] i.e. \u2018to please _God_ in all ways\u2019; comp. 1 Thess. iv. 1 \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7. As this word was commonly used to\ndescribe the proper attitude of men towards God, the addition of \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 would not be necessary: Philo _Quis rer. div. her._ 24 (I. p. 490)\n\u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1f56 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, _de Abrah._ 25\n(II. p. 20) \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u1f41\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c2, _de Vict. Off._ 8 (II. p. 257) \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f30\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u1f41\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd, with other passages quoted by\nLoesner. Otherwise it is used especially of ingratiating oneself with a\nsovereign or potentate, e.g. Polyb. vi. 2. 12; and perhaps in the higher\nconnexion, in which it occurs in the text, the idea of a king is still\nprominent, as e.g. Philo _de Mund. Op._ 50 (I. p. 34) \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2. Towards\nmen this complaisance is always dangerous and most commonly vicious;\nhence \u1f00\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 is a bad quality in Aristotle [?] (_Eth. Eud._ ii. 3 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae\u03bd) as also in Theophrastus (_Char._ 5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3\n\u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae), but towards the King of kings no obsequiousness\ncan be excessive. The \u1f00\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 of Aristotle and Theophrastus presents\nthe same moral contrast to the \u1f00\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 here, as \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd to\n\u0398\u03b5\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd in such passages as 1 Thess. ii. 4, Gal. i. 10. Opposed to\nthe \u1f00\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 commended here is \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 condemned below, iii. 22.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] i.e. \u2018not only showing the fruits of your faith before\nmen (Matt. vii. 16), but yourselves growing meanwhile in moral stature\n(Eph. iv. 13).\u2019\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 11]\n\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\u00b7 ^{11}\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3\n\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\n\n\n\u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9] \u2018_by the knowledge_.\u2019 The other readings, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9,\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, are unsuccessful attempts to define the construction.\nThe simple instrumental dative represents the knowledge of God as the\ndew or the rain which nurtures the growth of the plant; Deut. xxxii. 2,\nHos. xiv. 5.\n\n11. \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9] A word found more than once in the Greek versions of\nthe Old Testament, Ps. lxvii (lxviii). 29 (LXX), Eccles. x. 10 (LXX),\nDan. ix. 27 (Theod.), Ps. lxiv (lxv). 4 (Aq.), Job xxxvi. 9 (Aq.), but\nnot occurring elsewhere in the New Testament, except in Heb. xi. 34 and\nas a various reading in Ephes. vi. 10. The compound \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd however\nappears several times in St Paul and elsewhere.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2] The power communicated to the faithful corresponds to,\nand is a function of, the Divine might whence it comes. Unlike \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2\nor \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u1f7a\u03c2, the word \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in the New Testament is applied solely to God.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 12]\n\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2\u00b7\n^{12} \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f31\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\n\n                     12 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f31\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 _\u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2_.\n\n\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6] The \u2018glory\u2019 here, as frequently, stands for the majesty\nor the power or the goodness of God, as _manifested_ to men; e.g. Eph.\ni. 6, 12, 17, iii. 16; comp. ver. 27, below. The \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1, the bright light\nover the mercy-seat (Rom. ix. 4), was a symbol of such manifestations.\nGod\u2019s revelation of Himself to us, however this revelation may be made,\nis the one source of all our highest strength (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.).\n\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd] \u2018_endurance and long-suffering_.\u2019 The two\nwords occur in the same context in 2 Cor. vi. 4, 6, 2 Tim. iii. 10,\nJames v. 10, 11, Clem. Rom. 58, Ign. _Ephes._ 3. They are distinguished\nin Trench _Synon._ \u00a7 liii. p. 184 sq. The difference of meaning is best\nseen in their opposites. While \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74 is the temper which does not\neasily succumb under suffering, \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 is the self-restraint which\ndoes not hastily retaliate a wrong. The one is opposed to _cowardice_ or\n_despondency_, the other to _wrath_ or _revenge_ (Prov. xv. 18, xvi. 32;\nsee also the note on iii. 12). While \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74 is closely allied to _hope_\n(1 Thess. i. 3), \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 is commonly connected with _mercy_ (e.g.\nExod. xxxiv. 6). This distinction however, though it applies generally,\nis not true without exception. Thus in Is. lvii. 15 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 is\nopposed to \u1f40\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03bf\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1, where we should rather have expected \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae; and\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd is used similarly in James v. 7.\n\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2] So James i. 2, 3, \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd _\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd_ \u1f21\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 ... \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.: comp. 1 Pet. iv. 13, and see below\ni. 24. This parallel points to the proper connexion of \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2, which\nshould be attached to the preceding words. On the other hand some would\nconnect it with \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 for the sake of preserving the balance of\nthe three clauses, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u1ff3 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\n\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2; and this seems to be favoured\nby Phil. i. 4 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2: but when it is so\nconnected, the emphatic position of \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 cannot be explained; nor\nindeed would these words be needed at all, for \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 is in itself\nan act of rejoicing.\n\n12. \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2] most naturally coordinated with the preceding\nparticiples and referred to the Colossians. The duty of thanksgiving is\nmore than once enforced upon them below, ii. 7, iii. 17, iv. 2; comp. 1\nThess. v. 18. On the other hand the first person \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, which follows,\nhas led others to connect \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 with the primary verb of the\nsentence, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 ver. 9. But the sudden transition from the second\nto the first person is quite after St Paul\u2019s manner (see the note on ii.\n13, 14, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 ... \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd), and cannot create any\ndifficulty.\n\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f31\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9] \u2018_who made us competent_\u2019; comp. 2 Cor. iii. 6. On the\nvarious readings see the detached note.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 13]\n\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u00b7 ^{13}\u1f43\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\n\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5] \u2018_the parcel of the lot_,\u2019 \u2018the portion which\nconsists in the lot,\u2019 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 being the genitive of apposition: see\nWiner \u00a7 lix. p. 666 sq., and comp. Ps. xv (xvi). 5 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5. In Acts viii. 21 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 are coordinated; in\nGen. xxxi. 14, Num. xviii. 20, Is. lvii. 6, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1. The\ninheritance of Canaan, the allotment of the promised land, here presents\nan analogy to, and supplies a metaphor for, the higher hopes of the new\ndispensation, as in Heb. iii. 7-iv. 11. See also below, iii. 24 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, and Ephes. i. 18. St Chrysostom writes, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n\u03c4\u03af _\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd_ \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u00b7 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bd\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9, referring to Luke xvii. 10. It is not won by us, but\nallotted to us.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03af] best taken with the expression \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. For the\nomission of the definite article, [\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd] \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u1f76, see above, vv. 2, 4,\n8. The portion of the saints is situated in the kingdom of light. For\nthe whole context compare St Paul\u2019s narrative in Acts xxvi. 18 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9 _\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2_ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2_ \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6\n\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 _\u1f04\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd_ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2_, where all the ideas and many of the expressions\nrecur. See also Acts xx. 32, in another of St Paul\u2019s later speeches. As\na classical parallel, Plato _Resp._ vii. p. 518 A, \u1f14\u03ba \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2, is quoted.\n\n13. \u2018We were slaves in the land of darkness. God rescued us from this\nthraldom. He transplanted us thence, and settled us as free colonists\nand citizens in the kingdom of His Son, in the realms of light.\u2019\n\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf] \u2018_rescued, delivered us_\u2019 by His strong arm, as a mighty\nconqueror: comp. ii. 15 \u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2. On the form \u1f10\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf see A.\nButtmann, p. 29: comp. Clem. Rom. 55, and see the note on \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd,\n_ib._ 6.\n\n\u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2] here \u2018arbitrary power, tyranny.\u2019 The word \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 properly\nsignifies \u2018liberty of action\u2019 (\u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9), and thence, like the\ncorresponding English word \u2018license,\u2019 invokes two secondary ideas, of\nwhich either may be so prominent as to eclipse the other; (1)\n\u2018authority,\u2019 \u2018_delegated_ power\u2019 (e.g. Luke xx. 2); or (2) \u2018tyranny,\u2019\n\u2018lawlessness,\u2019 \u2018_unrestrained_ or _arbitrary_ power.\u2019 For this second\nsense comp. e.g. Demosth. _F.L._ p. 428 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd,\nXenoph. _Hiero_ 5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 (speaking of tyrants),\nPlut. _Vit. Eum._ 13 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2,\n_Vit. Alex._ 33 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f44\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2,\nHerodian ii. 4 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. This latter idea of a\ncapricious unruly rule is prominent here. The expression \u1f21 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 occurs also in Luke xxii. 53, where again the idea of disorder\nis involved. The transference from darkness to light is here represented\nas a transference from an arbitrary tyranny, an \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, to a\nwell-ordered sovereignty, a \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1. This seems also to be St\nChrysostom\u2019s idea; for he explains \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 by \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2,\nadding \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u1ff3\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019\n\u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd] \u2018_removed_,\u2019 when they were baptized, when they accepted\nChrist. The image of \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd is supplied by the wholesale\ntransportation of peoples (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 or \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd), of which\nthe history of oriental monarchies supplied so many examples. See\nJoseph. _Ant._ ix. 11. 1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, speaking of Tiglath-Pileser and the Transjordanic\ntribes.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 13]\n\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\n\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6] Not of inferior angels, as the false teachers would have it\n(ii. 18), but of His own Son. The same contrast between a dispensation\nof angels and a dispensation of the Son underlies the words here, which\nis explicitly brought out in Heb. i. 1-ii. 8; see especially i. 2\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1ff7, compared with ii. 5 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. Severianus has rightly caught the idea\nunderlying \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 here; \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6] \u2018_of His love_.\u2019 As love is the essence of the Father\n(1 Joh. iv. 8, 16), so is it also of the Son. The mission of the Son is\nthe revelation of the Father\u2019s love; for as He is the \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2, the\nFather\u2019s love is perfectly represented in Him (see 1 Joh. iv. 9). St\nAugustine has rightly interpreted St Paul\u2019s words here, _de Trin._ XV.\n19 (VIII. p. 993) \u2018Caritas quippe Patris ... nihil est quam ejus ipsa\nnatura atque substantia ... ac per hoc filius caritatis ejus nullus est\nalius quam qui de ejus substantia est genitus.\u2019 Thus these words are\nintimately connected with the expressions which follow, \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 (ver. 15), and \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n(ver. 19). The loose interpretation, which makes \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03c2\nequivalent to \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f20\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, destroys the whole force of the\nexpression.\n\nIn the preceding verses we have a striking illustration of St Paul\u2019s\nteaching in two important respects. _First._ The reign of Christ has\nalready begun. His kingdom is a present kingdom. Whatever therefore is\n_essential_ in the kingdom of Christ must be capable of realisation now.\nThere may be some exceptional manifestation in the world to come, but\nthis cannot alter its inherent character. In other words the sovereignty\nof Christ is essentially a moral and spiritual sovereignty, which has\nbegun now and will only be perfected hereafter. _Secondly._\nCorresponding to this, and equally significant, is his language in\nspeaking of individual Christians. He regards them as already rescued\nfrom the power of darkness, as already put in possession of their\ninheritance as saints. They are _potentially_ saved, because the\nknowledge of God is itself salvation, and this knowledge is within their\nreach. Such is St Paul\u2019s constant mode of speaking. He uses the language\nnot of exclusion, but of comprehension. He prefers to dwell on their\npotential advantages, rather than on their actual attainments. He hopes\nto make them saints by dwelling on their calling as saints. See\nespecially Ephes. ii. 6 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 14]\n\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, ^14\u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f04\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\u00b7\n\n                        14 \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 _\u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd_.\n\n\n14. \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd] For the reading \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, which is possibly correct here, and\nwhich carries out the idea enforced in the last note, see the detached\nnote on the various readings. In the parallel passage, Ephes. i. 7,\nthere is the same variation of reading.\n\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd] \u2018_ransom, redemption_.\u2019 The image of a captive and\nenslaved people is still continued: Philo _Omn. prob. lib._ 17 (II. p.\n463) \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7 ... \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, Plut. _Vit. Pomp._ 24\n\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03ce\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2. The metaphor however has changed from\nthe victor who rescues the captive by force of arms (ver. 13 \u1f10\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf) to\nthe philanthropist who releases him by the payment of a ransom. The\nclause which follows in the received text, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f01\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, is\ninterpolated from the parallel passage, Ephes. i. 7.\n\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f04\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd] So in the parallel passage Ephes. i. 7 the\nApostle defines \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd as \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f04\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. May not\nthis studied precision point to some false conception of \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 put\nforward by the heretical teachers? Later Gnostics certainly perverted\nthe meaning of the term, applying it to their own formularies of\ninitiation. This is related of the Marcosians by Iren\u00e6us i. 13. 6 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., i. 21.\n1 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03bf\u03af, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2,\n_ib._ \u00a7 4 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 (with the whole context), and Hippolytus _H\u00e6r._ vi. 41 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\n\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u1ff3, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n(comp. ix. 13). In support of their nomenclature they perverted such\npassages as the text, Iren. i. 21. 2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd _\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2_ \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. It seems not\nimprobable that the communication of similar mystical secrets, perhaps\nconnected with their angelology (ii. 18), was put forward by these\nColossian false teachers as an \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. Compare the words in the\nbaptismal formula of the Marcosians as given in Iren. i. 21. 3 (comp.\nTheodt. _H\u00e6r. Fab._ i. 9) \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd, where the last words (which have been differently interpreted)\nmust surely mean \u2018communion with the (spiritual) powers.\u2019 Thus it is a\nparallel to \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd, which appears in an alternative\nformula of these heretics given likewise by Iren\u00e6us in the context; for\nthis latter is explained in Clem. Alex. _Exc. Theod._ p. 974, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f23\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. Any direct\nhistorical connexion between the Colossian heretics and these later\nGnostics of the Valentinian school is very improbable; but the passages\nquoted will serve to show how a false idea of \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 would\nnaturally be associated with an esoteric doctrine of angelic powers. See\nthe note on i. 28 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 15]\n\n^{15}\u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2\n\n\n15 sq. In the passage which follows St Paul defines the Person of\nChrist, claiming for Him the absolute supremacy,\n\n  (1) In relation to the _Universe_, the _Natural_ Creation (vv. 15\u201317);\n\n  (2) In relation to the _Church_, the new _Moral_ Creation (ver. 18);\n\nand he then combines the two, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 _\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd_ \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd, explaining this twofold sovereignty by the absolute indwelling\nof the _pleroma_ in Christ, and showing how, as a consequence, the\nreconciliation and harmony of all things must be effected in Him (vv.\n19, 20).\n\nAs the idea of the _Logos_ underlies the whole of this passage, though\nthe term itself does not appear, a few words explanatory of this term\nwill be necessary by way of preface. The word \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 then, denoting both\n\u2018reason\u2019 and \u2018speech,\u2019 was a philosophical term adopted by Alexandrian\nJudaism before St Paul wrote, to express the _manifestation_ of the\nUnseen God, the Absolute Being, in the creation and government of the\nWorld. It included all modes by which God makes himself known to man. As\nHis _reason_, it denoted His purpose or design; as His _speech_, it\nimplied His revelation. Whether this \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 was conceived merely as the\ndivine energy personified, or whether the conception took a more\nconcrete form, I need not stop now to enquire. A fuller account of the\nmatter will be found in the dissertation at the end of this volume. It\nis sufficient for the understanding of what follows to say that\nChristian teachers, when they adopted this term, exalted and fixed its\nmeaning by attaching to it two precise and definite ideas: (1) \u2018The Word\nis a Divine Person,\u2019 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2; and\n(2) \u2018The Word became incarnate in Jesus Christ,\u2019 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u1f70\u03c1\u03be \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf.\nIt is obvious that these two propositions must have altered materially\nthe significance of all the subordinate terms connected with the idea of\nthe \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2; and that therefore their use in Alexandrian writers, such as\nPhilo, cannot be taken to _define_, though it may be brought to\n_illustrate_, their meaning in St Paul and St John. With these cautions\nthe Alexandrian phraseology, as a providential preparation for the\nteaching of the Gospel, will afford important aid in the understanding\nof the Apostolic writings.\n\n15\u201317. \u2018He is the perfect image, the visible representation, of the\nunseen God. He is the Firstborn, the absolute Heir of the Father,\nbegotten before the ages; the Lord of the Universe by virtue of\nprimogeniture, and by virtue also of creative agency. For in and through\nHim the whole world was created, things in heaven and things on earth,\nthings visible to the outward eye and things cognisable by the inward\nperception. His supremacy is absolute and universal. All powers in\nheaven and earth are subject to Him. This subjection extends even to the\nmost exalted and most potent of angelic beings, whether they be called\nThrones or Dominations or Princedoms or Powers, or whatever title of\ndignity men may confer upon them. Yes: He is first and He is last.\nThrough Him, as the mediatorial Word, the universe has been created; and\nunto Him, as the final goal, it is tending. In Him is no before or\nafter. He is pre-existent and self-existent before all the worlds. And\nin Him, as the binding and sustaining power, universal nature coheres\nand consists.\u2019\n\n15. \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The Person of Christ is described _first_ in\nrelation more especially to Deity, as \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, and\n_secondly_ in relation more especially to created things, as \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. The fundamental conception of the Logos involves the idea\nof _mediation_ between God and creation. A perverted view respecting the\nnature of the mediation between the two lay, as we have seen, at the\nroot of the heretical teaching at Coloss\u00e6 (p. 34, p. 101 sq., p. 181\nsq.), and required to be met by the true doctrine of Christ as the\nEternal Logos.\n\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd] \u2018_the image_.\u2019 This expression is used repeatedly by Philo, as a\ndescription of the Logos; _de Mund. Op._ 8 (I. p. 6) \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, _de Confus. ling._ 20 (I. p. 419)\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, _ib._ \u00a7 28 (I. p. 427) \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ca\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., _de Profug._ 19 (I. p. 561) \u1f41\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, _de Monarch._\nii. 5 (II. p. 225) \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f41\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf, _de Somn._ i. 41 (I. p. 656), etc. For the use which\nPhilo made of the text Gen. i. 26, 27, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\n\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, see the note on iii. 10. Still earlier than Philo, before the idea\nof the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 had assumed such a definite form, the term was used of the\nDivine \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 personified in Wisd. vii. 26 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03ca\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. St Paul himself applies the\nterm to our Lord in an earlier epistle, 2 Cor. iv. 4 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 (comp. iii. 18 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1). Closely allied to \u03b5\u1f76\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd also is \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, which appears\nin the same connexion in Heb. i. 3 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, a passage illustrated by Philo _de Plant._ 5 (I.\np. 332) \u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b9 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f27\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u0390\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. See also Phil.\nii. 6 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1fc7 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nBeyond the very obvious notion of _likeness_, the word \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd involves\ntwo other ideas;\n\n(1) _Representation._ In this respect it is allied to \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, and\ndiffers from (\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1. In \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 the resemblance may be accidental, as\none egg is like another; but \u03b5\u1f31\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd implies an archetype of which it is a\n_copy_, as Greg. Naz. _Orat._ 30 (I. p. 554) says \u1f05\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\n_\u03bc\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1_ \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 _\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5_. So too Io. Damasc. _de Imag._\ni. 9 (I. p. 311) \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 _\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd_ \u03c4\u1f78\n_\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd_; comp. Philo _de Mund. Op. 23_ (I. p. 16). On this\ndifference see Trench _N. T. Synon._ \u00a7 xv. p. 47. The \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd might be the\nresult of direct imitation (\u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae) like the head of a sovereign on a\ncoin, or it might be due to natural causes (\u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae) like the parental\nfeatures in the child, but in any case it was _derived_ from its\nprototype: see Basil. _de Spir. Sanct._ 18 \u00a7 45 (III. p. 38). The word\nitself however does not necessarily imply _perfect_ representation. Thus\nman is said to be the image of God; 1 Cor. xi. 7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd, Clem. Rom. 33 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd ... \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1. Thus\nagain an early Jud\u00e6o-Christian writer so designates the duly appointed\nbishop, as the representative of the divine authority; _Clem. Hom._ iii.\n62 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2. The idea of _perfection_ does not lie in\nthe word itself, but must be sought from the context (e.g. \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 ver. 19). The use which was made of this expression, and\nespecially of this passage, in the Christological controversies of the\nfourth and fifth centuries may be seen from the patristic quotations in\nPetav. _Theol. Dogm._ de Trin. ii. 11. 9 sq., vi. 5. 6.\n\n(2) _Manifestation._ This idea comes from the implied contrast to \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n_\u1f00\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5_ \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. St Chrysostom indeed maintains the direct opposite,\narguing that, as the archetype is invisible, so the image must be\ninvisible also, \u1f21 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74 \u1f00\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\nSo too Hilary _c. Const. Imp._ 21 (II. p. 378) \u2018ut imago invisibilis\nDei, etiam per id quod ipse invisibilis est, invisibilis Dei imago\nesset.\u2019 And this was the view of the Nicene and post-Nicene fathers\ngenerally. But the underlying idea of the \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd, and indeed of the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2\ngenerally, is the manifestation of the hidden: comp. Philo _de Vit.\nMoys._ ii. 12 (II. p. 144) \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2. And adopted\ninto Christian theology, the doctrine of the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 expresses this\nconception still more prominently by reason of the Incarnation; comp.\nTertull. _adv. Marc._ v. 19 \u2018Scientes filium semper retro visum, si\nquibus visus est in Dei nomine, ut imaginem ipsius,\u2019 Hippol. _c. Noet._\n7 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 _\u03b5\u1f54\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2_ \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1\n\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, _ib._ \u00a7 12, 13, Orig. _in Ioann._ vi. \u00a7 2 (IV. p. 104). Among\nthe post-Nicene fathers too St Basil has caught the right idea, _Epist._\nxxxviii. 8 (III. p. 121) \u1f41 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 ... \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd ... \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2. The Word, whether pre-incarnate or incarnate,\nis the revelation of the unseen Father: comp. John i. 18 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd _\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2\n\u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd_ \u03c0\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u00b7 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f41 \u1f62\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2,\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 _\u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf_, xiv. 9, 10 _\u1f41 \u1f11\u03c9\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u1f72 \u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1_\u00b7 \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c3\u1f7a \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, _\u0394\u03b5\u1fd6\u03be\u03bf\u03bd_ \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1; (compared with\nvi. 46 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.). The epithet \u1f00\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\nhowever must not be confined to the apprehension of the bodily senses,\nbut will include the cognisance of the inward eye also.\n\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2] \u2018_the First-born of all creation_.\u2019 The word\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 has a twofold parentage:\n\n(1) Like \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd it is closely connected with and taken from the\nAlexandrian vocabulary of the Logos. The word however which Philo\napplies to the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 is not \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 but \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2: _de Agric._ 12\n(I. p. 308) \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, _de\nSomn._ i. 37 (I. p. 653) \u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, _de Confus.\nling._ i. 28 (I. p. 427) \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b6\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd: comp. _ib._ i. 14 (I. p. 414) \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, \u1f43\u03bd \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f60\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5: and this designation\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 is several times applied to the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. Again in _Quis\nrer. div. her._ \u00a7 24 (I. p. 489) the language of Exod. xiii. 2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. is so interpreted as to apply to\nthe Divine Word. These appellations, \u2018the first-begotten, the eldest\nson,\u2019 are given to the Logos by Philo, because in his philosophy it\nincludes the original conception, the archetypal idea, of creation,\nwhich was afterwards realised in the material world. Among the early\nChristian fathers Justin Martyr again and again recognises the\napplication of the term \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 to the Word; _Apol._ i. 23 (p. 68)\n\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2, _ib._ \u00a7 46 (p. 83) \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 ... \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f57 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5, _ib._ \u00a7 33 (p. 75 C) \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f43\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9.\nSo too Theophilus _ad Antol._ ii. 22 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.\n\n(2) The word \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 had also another not less important link of\nconnexion with the past. The Messianic reference of Ps. lxxxix. 28, \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., seems to have been generally allowed.\nSo at least it is interpreted by R. Nathan in _Shemoth Rabba_ 19, fol.\n118. 4, \u2018God said, As I made Jacob a first-born (Exod. iv. 22), so also\nwill I make king Messiah a first-born (Ps. lxxxix. 28).\u2019 Hence \u2018the\nfirst-born\u2019 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 (\u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05e8), used absolutely, became a recognised\ntitle of Messiah. The way had been paved for this Messianic reference of\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 by its prior application to the Israelites, as the\nprerogative race, Exod. iv. 22 \u2018Israel is my son, my first-born\u2019: comp.\nPsalm. Salom. xviii. 4 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6, 4 Esdr. vi. 58 \u2018nos populus tuus, quem vocasti primogenitum,\nunigenitum,\u2019 where the combination of the two titles applied in the New\nTestament to the Son is striking. Here, as elsewhere (see the note on\nGal. iii. 16 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.), the terms are transferred from\nthe race to the Messiah, as the representative, the embodiment, of the\nrace.\n\nAs the Person of Christ was the Divine response alike to the\nphilosophical questionings of the Alexandrian Jew and to the patriotic\nhopes of the Palestinian, these two currents of thought meet in the term\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 as applied to our Lord, who is both the true Logos and the\ntrue Messiah. For this reason, we may suppose, as well as for others,\nthe Christian Apostles preferred \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 to \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, which (as we\nmay infer from Philo) was the favourite term with the Alexandrians,\nbecause the former alone would include the Messianic reference as well.\n\nThe main ideas then which the word involves are twofold; the one more\ndirectly connected with the Alexandrian conception of the Logos, the\nother more nearly allied to the Palestinian conception of the Messiah.\n\n(1) _Priority_ to all creation. In other words it declares the absolute\npre-existence of the Son. At first sight it might seem that Christ is\nhere regarded as one, though the earliest, of created things. This\ninterpretation however is not required by the expression itself. The\nfathers of the fourth century rightly called attention to the fact that\nthe Apostle writes not \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, but \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2; e.g. Basil, _c.\nEunom._ iv (p. I. p. 292). Much earlier, in Clem. Alex. _Exc. Theod._ 10\n(p. 970), though without any direct reference to this passage, the\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 is contrasted with the \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, the\nhighest order of angelic beings; and the word \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 occurs more\nthan once elsewhere in his writings (e.g. _Strom._ v. 14, p. 699). Nor\nagain does the genitive case necessarily imply that the \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2\nHimself belonged to the \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, as will be shown presently. And if this\nsense is not required by the words themselves, it is directly excluded\nby the context. It is inconsistent alike with the universal agency in\ncreation which is ascribed to Him in the words following, \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, and with the absolute pre-existence and self-existence\nwhich is claimed for Him just below, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. We may add\nalso that it is irreconcileable with other passages in the Apostolic\nwritings, while it contradicts the fundamental idea of the Christian\nconsciousness. More especially the description \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\nmust be interpreted in such a way that it is not inconsistent with His\nother title of \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2, _unicus_, alone of His kind and therefore\ndistinct from created things. The two words express the same eternal\nfact; but while \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2 states it in itself, \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 places it in\nrelation to the Universe. The correct interpretation is supplied by\nJustin Martyr, _Dial._ \u00a7 100 (p. 326 D) \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. He does not indeed mention this passage, but it\nwas doubtless in his mind, for he elsewhere uses the very expression\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, _Dial._ \u00a7 85 (p. 311 B), \u00a7 138 (p. 367 D);\ncomp. also \u00a7 84 (p. 310 B), where the words \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd occur.\n\n(2) _Sovereignty_ over all creation. God\u2019s \u2018first-born\u2019 is the natural\nruler, the acknowledged head, of God\u2019s household. The right of\nprimogeniture appertains to Messiah over all created things. Thus in Ps.\nlxxxix. 28 after \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd the explanation is added,\n\u1f51\u03c8\u03b7\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2, i.e. (as the original implies)\n\u2018above all the kings of the earth.\u2019 In its Messianic reference this\nsecondary idea of sovereignty predominated in the word \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, so\nthat from this point of view \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 would mean\n\u2018Sovereign Lord over all creation by virtue of primogeniture.\u2019 The\n\u1f14\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd of the Apostolic writer (Heb. i. 2) exactly\ncorresponds to the \u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd of the Psalmist (lxxxix. 28), and\ndoubtless was tacitly intended as a paraphrase and application of this\nMessianic passage. So again in Heb. xii. 23, \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd, the\nmost probable explanation of the word is that which makes it equivalent\nto \u2018heirs of the kingdom,\u2019 all faithful Christians being _ipso facto_\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9, because all are kings. Nay, so completely might this idea of\ndominion by virtue of priority eclipse the primary sense of the term\n\u2018first-born\u2019 in some of its uses, that it is given as a title to God\nHimself by R. Bechai on the Pentateuch, fol. 124. 4, \u2018Who is\n_primogenitus mundi_,\u2019 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd, i.e. \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, as it would be rendered in Greek. In this same work again, fol.\n74. 4, Exod. xiii. 2 is falsely interpreted so that God is represented\nas calling Himself \u2018primogenitus\u2019: see Sch\u00f6ttgen p. 922. For other\ninstances of secondary uses of \u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05e8 in the Old Testament, where the idea\nof \u2018priority of birth\u2019 is over-shadowed by and lost in the idea of\n\u2018pre-eminence,\u2019 see Job xviii. 13 \u2018the first-born of death,\u2019 Is. xiv. 30\n\u2018the first-born of the poor\u2019.\n\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u2018_of all creation_,\u2019 rather than \u2018_of every created\nthing_.\u2019 The three senses of \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in the New Testament; are (1)\ncreation, as the act of creating, e.g. Rom. i. 20 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5:\n(2) creation, as the aggregate of created things, Mark xiii. 19 \u1f00\u03c0\u2019\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f23\u03bd \u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 (where the parallel passage, Matt. xxiv.\n21, has \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5), Rom. viii. 22 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9: (3) a\ncreation, a single created thing, a creature, e.g. Rom. viii. 39 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5\n\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, Heb. iv. 13 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2. As \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 without\nthe definite article is sometimes used of the created world generally\n(e.g. Mark xiii. 19), and indeed belongs to the category of anarthrous\nnouns like \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b3\u1fc6, \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, etc. (see Winer \u00a7 xix. p. 149 sq.), it\nis best taken so here. Indeed \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, in the sense of \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, would be awkward in this connexion; for \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 seems to\nrequire either a collective noun, or a plural \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd. In ver.\n23 the case is different (see the note there). The anarthrous \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\n\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is found in Judith ix. 12 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03ce\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, while \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f21\n\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 occurs in Judith xvi. 14, Mark xvi. 15, Rom. viii. 22, Clem. Rom.\n19, _Mart. Polyc._ 14. For \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2, signifying \u2018_all_,\u2019 and not \u2018_every_,\u2019\nwhen attached to this class of nouns, see Winer \u00a7 xviii. p. 137.\n\nThe genitive case must be interpreted so as to include the full meaning\nof \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, as already explained. It will therefore signify: \u2018He\nstands in the relation of \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 to all creation,\u2019 i.e. \u2018He is the\nFirstborn, and, as the Firstborn, the absolute Heir and sovereign Lord,\nof all creation.\u2019 The connexion is the same as in the passage of R.\nBechai already quoted, where God is called _primogenitus mundi_. Another\nexplanation which would connect the genitive with the first part of the\ncompound alone (\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc-), comparing Joh. i. 15, 30, \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f26\u03bd, unduly\nstrains the grammar, while it excludes the idea of \u2018heirship,\nsovereignty.\u2019\n\nThe history of the patristic exegesis of this expression is not without\na painful interest. All the fathers of the second and third centuries\nwithout exception, so far as I have noticed, correctly refer it to the\nEternal Word and not to the Incarnate Christ, to the Deity and not to\nthe humanity of our Lord. So Justin _l.c._, Theophilus _l.c._, Clement\nof Alexandria _Exc. Theod._ 7, 8, 19 (pp. 967, 973), Tertullian _adv.\nPrax._ 7, _adv. Marc._ v. 19, Hippolytus _H\u00e6r._ x. 33, Origen _c. Cels._\nvi. 47, 63, 64, _in Ioann._ i. \u00a7 22 (IV. p. 21), xix. \u00a7 5 (p. 305),\nxxviii. \u00a7 14 (p. 392), Cyprian _Test._ ii. 1, Novatian _de Trin._ 16,\nand the Synod of Antioch (Routh\u2019s _Rel. Sacr._ III. pp. 290, 293). The\nArian controversy however gave a different turn to the exegesis of the\npassage. The Arians fastened upon the expression \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, and drew from it the inference that the Son was a created\nbeing. The great use which they made of the text appears from the\ndocument in Hilary, _Fragm. Hist._ Op. II. p. 644. The right answer to\nthis false interpretation we have already seen. Many orthodox fathers\nhowever, not satisfied with this, transferred the expression into a new\nsphere, and maintained that \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 describes the\nIncarnate Christ. By so doing they thought to cut up the Arian argument\nby the roots. As a consequence of this interpretation, they were obliged\nto understand the \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 and the \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 in the context of the new\nspiritual creation, the \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 of 2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. vi. 15. Thus\ninterpreted, \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 here becomes nearly equivalent to\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 in Rom. viii. 29. The arguments alleged\nin favour of this interpretation are mainly twofold: (1) That, if\napplied to the Divine nature, \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 would contradict \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2\nwhich elsewhere describes the nature of the Eternal Son. But those who\nmaintained, and rightly maintained, that \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 (Luke ii. 7) did not\nnecessarily imply that the Lord\u2019s mother had other sons, ought not to\nhave been led away by this fallacy. (2) That \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 in other\npassages (e.g. Rom. viii. 29, Rev. i. 5, and just below, ver. 18) is\napplied to the humanity of Christ. But elsewhere, in Heb. i. 6 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., the term must almost necessarily\nrefer to the pre-existence of the Son; and moreover the very point of\nthe Apostle\u2019s language in the text (as will be seen presently) is the\nparallelism in the two relations of our Lord\u2014His relation to the natural\ncreation, as the Eternal Word, and His relation to the spiritual\ncreation, as the Head of the Church\u2014so that the same word (\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 ver. 15, \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd ver. 18) is studiously\nused of both. A false exegesis is sure to bring a nemesis on itself.\nLogical consistency required that this interpretation should be carried\nfarther; and Marcellus, who was never deterred by any considerations of\nprudence, took this bold step. He extended the principle to the whole\ncontext, including even \u03b5\u1f76\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, which likewise he\ninterpreted of our Lord\u2019s humanity. In this way a most important\nChristological passage was transferred into an alien sphere; and the\nstrongest argument against Arianism melted away in the attempt to combat\nArianism on false grounds. The criticisms of Eusebius on Marcellus are\nperfectly just: _Eccl. Theol._ i. 20 (p. 96) \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba\u1f02\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u1fc7, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f02\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f02\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; comp. _ib._ ii. 9 (p. 67),\niii. 6 sq. (p. 175), _c. Marcell._ i. 1 (p. 6), i. 2 (p. 12), ii. 3 (pp.\n43, 46 sq., 48). The objections to this interpretation are threefold:\n(1) It disregards the history of the terms in their connexion with the\npre-Christian speculations of Alexandrian Judaism. These however, though\ndirectly or indirectly they were present to the minds of the earlier\nfathers and kept them in the right exegetical path, might very easily\nhave escaped a writer in the fourth century. (2) It shatters the\ncontext. To suppose that such expressions as \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n[\u03c4\u1f70] \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 [[\u03c4\u1f70] \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2, or \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 ...\n\u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, or \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, refer to the work of the\nIncarnation, is to strain language in a way which would reduce all\ntheological exegesis to chaos; and yet this, as Marcellus truly saw, is\na strictly logical consequence of the interpretation which refers\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 to Christ\u2019s humanity. (3) It takes no account\nof the cosmogony and angelology of the false teachers against which the\nApostle\u2019s exposition here is directed (see above, pp. 101 sq., 110 sq.,\n181 sq.). This interpretation is given by St Athanasius _c. Arian._ ii.\n62 sq. (I. p. 419 sq.) and appears again in Greg. Nyss. _c. Eunom._ ii\n(II. pp. 451\u2013453, 492), _ib._ iii (II. p. 540\u2013545), _de Perf._ (III. p.\n290 sq.), Cyril Alex. _Thes._ 25, p. 236 sq., _de Trin. Dial._ iv. p.\n517 sq., vi. p. 625 sq., Anon. _Chrysost. Op._ VIII. p. 223, appx.\n(quoted as Chrysostom by Photius _Bibl._ 277). So too Cyril expresses\nhimself at the Council of Ephesus, Labb. _Conc._ III. p. 652 (ed.\nColet.). St Athanasius indeed does not confine the expression to the\ncondescension (\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) of the Word in the Incarnation, but\nincludes also a prior condescension in the Creation of the world (see\nBull _Def. Fid. Nic._ iii. 9. \u00a7 1, with the remarks of Newman _Select\nTreatises of S. Athanasius_ I. pp. 278, 368 sq.). This double reference\nhowever only confuses the exegesis of the passage still further, while\ntheologically it might lead to very serious difficulties. In another\nwork, _Expos. Fid._ 3 (I. p. 80), he seems to take a truer view of its\nmeaning. St Basil, who to an equally clear appreciation of doctrine\ngenerally unites a sounder exegesis than St Athanasius, while mentioning\nthe interpretation which refers the expression to Christ\u2019s human nature,\nhimself prefers explaining it of the Eternal Word; _c. Eunom._ iv (I. p.\n292). Of the Greek commentators on this passage, Chrysostom\u2019s view is\nnot clear; Severianus (Cram. _Cat._ p. 303) and Theodoret understand it\nrightly of the Eternal Word; while Theodore of Mopsuestia (Cram. _Cat._\npp. 306, 308, 309, Rab. Maur. _Op._ VI. p. 511 sq. ed. Migne) expresses\nhimself very strongly on the opposite side. Like Marcellus, he carries\nthe interpretation consistently into the whole context, explaining \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 to refer not to the original creation (\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) but to the moral\nre-creation (\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), and referring \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd to the Incarnation in the\nsame way. At a later date, when the pressure of an immediate controversy\nhas passed away, the Greek writers generally concur in the earlier and\ntruer interpretation of the expression. Thus John Damascene (_de Orthod.\nFid._ iv. 8, I. p. 258 sq.), Theophylact (_ad loc._), and [OE]cumenius\n(_ad loc._), all explain it of Christ\u2019s Divine Nature. Among Latin\nwriters, there is more diversity of interpretation. While Marius\nVictorinus (_adv. Arium_ i. 24, p. 1058, ed. Migne), Hilary of Poictiers\n(_Tract. in ii Ps._ \u00a7 28 sq. I. p. 47 sq. _de Trin._ viii. 50, II. p.\n248 sq.), and Hilary the commentator (_ad loc._), take it of the Divine\nNature, Augustine (_Expos. ad Rom._ 56, III. p. 914) and Pelagius (_ad\nloc._) understand it of the Incarnate Christ. This sketch of the history\nof the interpretation of the expression would not be complete without a\nreference to another very different explanation. Isidore of Pelusium,\n_Epist._ iii. 31 (p. 268), would strike out a new path of interpretation\naltogether (\u03b5\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd),\nand for the passive \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 suggests reading the active \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2,\nalluding to the use of this latter word in Homer (_Il._ xvii. 5 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf: comp. Plat. _The\u00e6t._ 151 C \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n\u03b1\u1f31 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9). Thus St Paul is made to say that Christ \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 16]\n\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\u00b7 ^{16} \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, [\u03c4\u1f70]\n\n\n16. \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] We have in this sentence the justification of the title\ngiven to the Son in the preceding clause, \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. It\nmust therefore be taken to explain the sense in which this title is\nused. Thus connected, it shows that the \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 Himself is not\nincluded in \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2; for the expression used is not \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 or \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03ac, but \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u2013words which are absolute and comprehensive,\nand will admit no exception.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7] \u2018_in Him_,\u2019 as below ver. 17 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd. For the\npreposition comp. Acts xvii, 28 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd. All the laws and purposes which guide the creation and government\nof the Universe reside in Him, the Eternal Word, as their meeting-point.\nThe Apostolic doctrine of the Logos teaches us to regard the Eternal\nWord as holding the same relation to the Universe which the Incarnate\nChrist holds to the Church. He is the source of its life, the centre of\nall its developments, the mainspring of all its motions. The use of \u1f10\u03bd\nto describe His relations to the Church abounds in St Paul (e.g. Rom.\nviii. 1, 2, xii. 5, xvi. 3, 7, 9, etc., 1 Cor. i. 30, iv. 15, 17, vii.\n39, xv. 18, 22, etc.), and more especially in the Epistles to the\nColossians and Ephesians (e.g. below ii. 7, 10). In the present passage,\nas in ver. 17, the same preposition is applied also to His relations to\nthe Universe; comp. Joh. i. 4 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74 \u1f26\u03bd (more especially if we\nconnect the preceding \u1f43 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd with it).\n\nThus it is part of the parallelism which runs through the whole passage,\nand to which the occurrence of \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 in both relations gives the\nkey. The Jud\u00e6o-Alexandrian teachers represented the Logos, which in\ntheir view was nothing more than the Divine mind energizing, as the\n\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 where the eternal ideas, the \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, had their abode; Philo\n_de Mund. Op._ 4 (I. p. 4) \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, _ib._ \u00a7 5 (p. 4) \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f41 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f02\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f23 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, _ib._ \u00a7 10 (p. 8) \u1f41 \u1f00\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u1f31\u03b4\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1ff3 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3; and see especially _de Migr. Abr._ I. p. 437) \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 ... \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b7, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2. The\nApostolic teaching is an enlargement of this conception, inasmuch as the\nLogos is no longer a philosophical abstraction but a Divine Person: see\nHippol. _H\u00e6r._ x. 33 \u1f04\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f45\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f12\u03bd \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7: comp. Orig. _in Ioann._ i. \u00a7 22, IV. p. 21.\n\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7] The aorist is used here; the perfect below. \u1f18\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 describes\nthe definite historical act of creation; \u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 the continuous and\npresent relations of creation to the Creator: comp. Joh. i. 3 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 _\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf_ \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03bd with _ib._ _\u1f43 \u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd_, 1 Cor. ix. 22\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2 with ib. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, 2 Cor.\nxii. 17 \u03bc\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f67\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b1 with ver. 18 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd,\n1 Joh. iv. 9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6 _\u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd_ \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03b6\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 with ver. 10 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f20\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n_\u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd_ \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f51\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1] \u2018_the universe of things_,\u2019 not \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u2018all things severally,\u2019\nbut \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u2018all things collectively.\u2019 With very few exceptions,\nwherever this phrase occurs elsewhere, it stands in a similar connexion;\nsee below, vv. 17, 20, iii. 11, Rom. xi. 36, 1 Cor. viii. 6, xi. 12,\nxii. 6, xv. 27, 28, 2 Cor. v. 18, Eph. i. 10, 11, 23, iv. 10, Heb. i. 3,\nii. 8, Rev. iv. 11. Compare Rom. viii. 32 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, 2\nCor. iv. 15 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, with 1 Cor. iii. 22 \u1f14\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd;\nand Phil. iii. 8 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u03b6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd with Matt. xvi. 26 \u1f10\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b4\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3. Thus it will appear that \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 is nearly equivalent to\n\u2018the universe.\u2019 It stands midway between \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 and \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd. The last\nhowever is not a scriptural phrase; for, while with \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 it involves\nthe idea of connexion, it suggests also the unscriptural idea of\n_self-contained_ unity, the great world-soul of the Stoic pantheist.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 16]\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 [\u03c4\u1f70] \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f41\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\n\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] This division of the universe is not the same\nwith the following, as if [\u03c4\u1f70] \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 were equivalent to \u03c4\u1f70\n\u1f00\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 and [\u03c4\u1f70] \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 to \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f41\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac. It should rather be compared\nwith Gen. i. 1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd, ii. 1\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b3\u1fc6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, xiv. 19 \u1f43\u03c2\n\u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd, Rev. x. 6 \u1f43\u03c2 \u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc3. It is a classification by\n_locality_, as the other is a classification by _essences_. Heaven and\nearth together comprehend all space; and all things whether material or\nimmaterial are conceived for the purposes of the classification as\nhaving their abode in space. Thus the sun and the moon would belong to\n\u1f41\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac, but they would be \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2; while the human soul would be\nclassed among \u1f00\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 but would be regarded as \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2; see below\nver. 20.\n\nIt is difficult to say whether \u03c4\u1f70 ... \u03c4\u03b1 should be expunged or retained.\nThe elements in the decision are; (1) The facility either of omission or\nof addition in the first clause, owing to the termination of \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1: (2)\nThe much greater authority for the omission in the first clause than in\nthe second. These two combined suggest that \u03c4\u1f70 was omitted accidentally\nin the first clause, and then expunged purposely in the second for the\nsake of uniformity. On the other hand there is (3) The possibility of\ninsertion in both cases either for the sake of grammatical completeness\nor owing to the parallel passages, ver. 20, Ephes. i. 10. On the whole\nthe reasons for their omission preponderate. At all events we can hardly\nretain the one without the other.\n\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018Things material and immaterial,\u2019 or, according to the\nlanguage of philosophy, \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 and \u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1: comp. Plato _Ph\u00e6d._ 79 A\n\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9, \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7, \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f41\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f00\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03c2, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\u1f00\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5\n\n\n\u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_whether they be thrones or lordships, etc._\u2019 The\nsubdivision is no longer exhaustive. The Apostle singles out those\ncreated beings that from their superior rank had been or might be set in\nrivalry with the Son.\n\nA comparison with the parallel passage Ephes. i. 21, \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., brings out\nthe following points:\n\n(1) No stress can be laid on the sequence of the names, as though St\nPaul were enunciating with authority some precise doctrine respecting\nthe grades of the celestial hierarchy. The names themselves are not the\nsame in the two passages. While \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae, \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, are common to\nboth, \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 is peculiar to the one and \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 to the other. Nor again\nis there any correspondence in the sequence. Neither does \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 take\nthe place of \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, nor do the three words common to both appear in the\nsame order, the sequence being \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7. \u1f10\u03be. [\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd.] \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1. in Eph. i. 21, and\n[\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd.] \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1. \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7. \u1f10\u03be. here.\n\n(2) An expression in Eph. i. 21 shows the Apostle\u2019s _motive_ in\nintroducing these lists of names: for he there adds \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9, i.e.\n\u2018of every dignity or title (whether real or imaginary) which is\nreverenced,\u2019 etc.; for this is the force of \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n(see the notes on Phil. ii. 9, and Eph. _l.c._). Hence it appears that\nin this catalogue St Paul does not profess to describe objective\nrealities, but contents himself with repeating subjective opinions. He\nbrushes away all these speculations without enquiring how much or how\nlittle truth there may be in them, because they are altogether beside\nthe question. His language here shows the same spirit of impatience with\nthis elaborate angelology, as in ii. 18.\n\n(3) Some commentators have referred the terms used here solely to\nearthly potentates and dignities. There can be little doubt however that\ntheir chief and primary reference is to the orders of the celestial\nhierarchy, as conceived by these Gnostic Judaizers. This appears from\nthe context; for the words \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 immediately precede this list of\nterms, while in the mention of \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 and in other expressions\nthe Apostle clearly contemplates the rivalry of _spiritual_ powers with\nChrist. It is also demanded by the whole design and purport of the\nletter, which is written to combat the worship paid to angels. The names\ntoo, more especially \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, are especially connected with the\nspeculations of Jewish angelology. But when this is granted, two\nquestions still remain. First; are evil as well as good spirits\nincluded, demons as well as angels? And next; though the primary\nreference is to spiritual powers, is it not possible that the expression\nwas intended to be comprehensive and to include earthly dignities as\nwell? The clause added in the parallel passage, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., encourages us thus to extend the Apostle\u2019s meaning; and we\nare led in the same direction by the comprehensive words which have\npreceded here, [\u03c4\u1f70] \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Nor is there anything in the\nterms themselves which bars such an extension; for, as will be seen, the\ncombination \u1f00\u03c0\u03c7\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 is applied not only to good angels but to\nbad, not only to spiritual powers but to earthly. Compare Ignat.\n_Smyrn._ 6 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b5\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nThus guided, we may paraphrase the Apostle\u2019s meaning as follows: \u2018You\ndispute much about the successive grades of angels; you distinguish each\ngrade by its special title; you can tell how each order was generated\nfrom the preceding; you assign to each its proper degree of worship.\nMeanwhile you have ignored or you have degraded Christ. I tell you, it\nis not so. He is first and foremost, Lord of heaven and earth, far above\nall thrones or dominations, all princedoms or powers, far above every\ndignity and every potentate\u2014whether earthly or heavenly\u2014whether angel or\ndemon or man\u2014that evokes your reverence or excites your fear.\u2019 See\nabove, pp. 103 sq.\n\nJewish and Jud\u00e6o-Christian speculations respecting the grades of the\ncelestial hierarchy took various forms. In the _Testaments of the Twelve\nPatriarchs_ (Levi 3), which as coming near to the Apostolic age supplies\na valuable illustration (see _Galatians_ p. 307 sq.), these orders are\narranged as follows: (1) \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, these two in the highest or\nseventh heaven; (2) \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 in the sixth heaven; (3) \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 in the\nfifth heaven; (4) \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 in the fourth heaven; (5) \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd in the third heaven; (6) \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd (i.e. of\nvisitations, retributions) in the second heaven: or perhaps the denizens\nof the sixth and fifth heavens, (2) and (3), should be transposed. The\nlowest heaven is not peopled by any spirits. In Origen _de Princ._ i. 5.\n3, _ib._ i. 6. 2, I. pp. 66, 70 (comp. i. 8. 1, _ib._ p. 74), we have\nfive classes, which are given in an ascending scale in this order; (1)\nangels (_sancti angeli_, \u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae); (2) princedoms (_principatus_,\n\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af); (3) powers (_potestates_, \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9); (4) thrones\n(_throni vel sedes_, \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9); (5) dominations (_dominationes_,\n\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2); though elsewhere, _in Ioann._ i. \u00a7 34, IV. p. 34, he seems\nto have a somewhat different classification in view. In Ephrem Syrus\n_Op. Syr._ I. p. 270 (where the translation of Benedetti is altogether\nfaulty and misleading) the ranks are these: (1) \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03af, \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9,\n\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2; (2) \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ac\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af, \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9; (3) \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2,\n\u03c7\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03b2\u03af\u03bc, \u03c3\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03bc; these three great divisions being represented by the\n\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9, the \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9, and the \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9 respectively in\nDeut. i. 15, on which passage he is commenting. The general agreement\nbetween these will be seen at once. This grouping also seems to underlie\nthe conception of Basil of Seleucia _Orat._ 39 (p. 207), who mentions\nthem in this order; \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af, \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2,\n\u03c7\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03b2\u03af\u03bc, \u03c3\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03bc. On the other hand the arrangement of the\npseudo-Dionysius, who so largely influenced subsequent speculations, is\nquite different and probably later (Dion. Areop. _Op._ I. p. 75, ed.\nCord.); (1) \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c7\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03b2\u03af\u03bc, \u03c3\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03bc; (2) \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2,\n\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2; (3) \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ac\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9. But the earlier lists for the\nmost part seem to suggest as their common foundation a classification in\nwhich \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, belonged to the highest order, and \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af,\n\u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 to the next below. Thus it would appear that the Apostle takes\nas an illustration the titles assigned to the two highest grades in a\nsystem of the celestial hierarchy which he found current, and which\nprobably was adopted by these Gnostic Judaizers. See also the note on\nii. 18.\n\n\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9] In all systems alike these \u2018thrones\u2019 belong to the highest grade\nof angelic beings, whose place is in the immediate presence of God. The\nmeaning of the name however is doubtful: (1) It may signify the\n_occupants of thrones_ which surround the throne of God; as in the\nimagery of Rev. iv. 4 \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 (comp.\nxi. 16, xx. 4). The imagery is there taken from the court of an earthly\nking: see Jer. lii. 32. This is the interpretation given by Origen _de\nPrinc._ i. 5. 3 (p. 66), i. 6. 2 (p. 70) \u2018judicandi vel regendi ...\nhabentes officium.\u2019 Or (2) They were so called, as _supporting or\nforming the throne of God_; just as the chariot-seat of the Almighty is\nrepresented as resting on the cherubim in Ezek. i. 26, ix. 3, x. 1 sq.,\nxi. 22, Ps. xviii. 10, 1 Chron. xxviii. 18. So apparently Clem. Alex.\n_Proph. Ecl._ 57 (p. 1003) \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f02\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03b5\u03bd ... \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd. From this same imagery of the prophet the later\nmysticism of the Kabbala derived its name \u2018wheels,\u2019 which it gave to one\nof its ten orders of Sephiroth. Adopting this interpretation, several\nfathers identify the \u2018thrones\u2019 with the cherubim: e.g. Greg. Nyss. _ad\nEunom._ i (II. p. 349 sq.), Chrysost. _de Incompr. Nat._ iii. 5 (I. p.\n467), Theodoret (_ad loc._), August. _in Psalm._ xcviii. \u00a7 3 (iv. p.\n1061). This explanation was adopted also by the pseudo-Dionysius _de\nC\u0153l. Hier._ 7 (I. p. 80), without however identifying them with the\ncherubim; and through his writings it came to be generally adopted. The\nformer interpretation however is more probable; for (1) This highly\nsymbolical nomenclature accords better with a later stage of mystic\nspeculation, like the Kabbala; and (2) It seems natural to treat \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\nas belonging to the same category with \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af, \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9,\nwhich are concrete words borrowed from different grades of human rank\nand power. As implying _regal_ dignity, \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 naturally stands at the\nhead of the list.\n\n\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2] \u2018_dominations_,\u2019 as Ephes. i. 21. These appear to have been\nregarded as belonging to the first grade, and standing next in dignity\nto the \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. This indeed would be suggested by their name.\n\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af, \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 as Ephes. i. 21. These two words occur very frequently\ntogether. In some places they refer to human dignities, as Luke xii. 11,\nTit. iii. 1 (comp. Luke xx. 20); in others to a spiritual hierarchy. And\nhere again there are two different uses: sometimes they designate good\nangels, e.g. below ii. 10, Ephes. iii. 10; sometimes evil spirits, e.g.\nii. 15, Ephes. vi. 12: while in one passage at least (1 Cor. xv. 24)\nboth may be included. In Rom. viii. 38 we have \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u1f76 without \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\n(except as a v. l.), and in 1 Pet. iii. 22 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 without \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af, in\nconnexion with the angelic orders.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 16]\n\n\u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7\n\n\n\u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018As all creation passed out from Him, so does it all\nconverge again towards Him.\u2019 For the combination of prepositions see\nRom. xi. 36 \u1f10\u03be \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1. He is not\nonly the ==\u03b1== but also the ==\u03c9==, not only the \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae but also the\n\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 of creation, not only the first but also the last in the history\nof the Universe: Rev. xxii. 13. For this double relation of Christ to\nthe Universe, as both the initial and the final cause, see Heb. ii. 10\n\u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f43\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, where \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f43\u03bd is nearly equivalent\nto \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd of the text.\n\nIn the Judaic philosophy of Alexandria the preposition \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 with the\ngenitive was commonly used to describe the function of the Logos in the\ncreation and government of the world; e.g. _de Cherub._ 35 (I. p. 162)\nwhere Philo, enumerating the causes which combine in the work of\nCreation, describes God as \u1f51\u03c6\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57, matter as \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f57, and the Word as \u03b4\u03b9\u2019\n\u03bf\u1f57; comp. _de Mon._ ii. 5 (II. p. 225) \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf. The Christian Apostles accepted this use of \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 to\ndescribe the mediatorial function of the Word in creation; e.g. John i.\n3 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., _ib._ ver. 10 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, Heb. i. 2 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2. This mediatorial\nfunction however has entirely changed its character. To the Alexandrian\nJew it was the work of a passive tool or instrument (_de Cherub._ l.c.\n\u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57, _\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd_, \u1f44\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd ... \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57); but to the Christian\nApostle it represented a cooperating agent. Hence the Alexandrian Jew\nfrequently and consistently used the simple instrumental dative \u1fa7 to\ndescribe the relation of the Word to the Creator, e.g. _Quod Deus\nimmut._ 12 (I. p. 281) \u1fa7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, _Leg. All._ i. 9 (I.\np. 47) \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6, comp. _ib._ iii. 31 (I. p. 106) \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u1fa7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n\u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. This mode of speaking is not found in the New\nTestament.\n\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd] \u2018_unto Him_.\u2019 As of the Father it is said elsewhere, 1 Cor.\nviii. 6 \u1f10\u03be \u1f41\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, so here of the Son we read\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. All things must find their\nmeeting-point, their reconciliation, at length in Him from whom they\ntook their rise\u2014in the Word as the mediatorial agent, and through the\nWord in the Father as the primary source. The Word is the final cause as\nwell as the creative agent of the Universe. This ultimate goal of the\npresent dispensation in time is similarly stated in several passages.\nSometimes it is represented as the birth-throe and deliverance of all\ncreation through Christ; as Rom. viii. 19 sq. \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 ... \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c9\u03b4\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9. Sometimes it is the\nabsolute and final subjection of universal nature to Him; as 1 Cor. xv.\n28 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u1fc7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1. Sometimes it is the reconciliation of all\nthings through Him; as below, ver. 20 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\nSometimes it is the recapitulation, the gathering up in one head, of the\nUniverse in Him; as Ephes. i. 10 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7. The image involved in this last passage best illustrates the\nparticular expression in the text \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd ... \u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9; but all alike\nenunciate the same truth in different terms. The Eternal Word is the\ngoal of the Universe, as He was the starting-point. It must end in\nunity, as it proceeded from unity: and the centre of this unity is\nChrist. This expression has no parallel, and could have none, in the\nAlexandrian phraseology and doctrine.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 17]\n\n^{17}\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7\n\n\n17. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_and HE IS before all things_\u2019: comp. Joh. viii.\n58 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u1f08\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u1f70\u03bc \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, _\u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u1f76_ (and perhaps also viii. 24, 28,\nxiii. 19). The imperfect \u1f26\u03bd might have sufficed (comp. Joh. i. 1), but\nthe present \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd declares that this pre-existence is absolute\nexistence. The ==\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03f2 \u03b5\u03f2\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd== here corresponds exactly to the ==\u03b5\u03b3\u03c9\n\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9== in St John, and this again is illustrated by Exod. iii. 14. The\nverb therefore is not an enclitic, but should be accentuated \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd. See\nBasil _adv. Eunom._ iv (I. p. 294) \u1f41 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03ce\u03bd, \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f64\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u039a\u1f70\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 _\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf_ \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72, \u039a\u03b1\u03af \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 _\u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9_ \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f14\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76\n\u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd. The \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 is as necessary for the\ncompleteness of the meaning, as the \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd. The one emphasizes the\n_personality_, as the other declares the _pre-existence_. For this\nemphatic \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 see again ver. 18; comp. Ephes. ii. 14, iv. 10, 11, 1\nJoh. ii. 2, and esp. Rev. xix. 15 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6 ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6. The other interpretation which explains \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd of superiority\nin rank, and not of priority in time, is untenable for several reasons.\n(1) This would most naturally be expressed otherwise in Biblical\nlanguage, as \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (e.g. Rom. ix. 5, Eph. iv. 6), or \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n(Eph. i. 22), or \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (Eph. i. 21, iv. 10). (2) The key to the\ninterpretation is given by the analogous words in the context, esp.\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, vv. 15, 18. (3) Nothing short of this declaration of\nabsolute pre-existence would be adequate to introduce the statement\nwhich follows, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd] \u2018_before all things_.\u2019 In the Latin it was translated \u2018ante\nomnes,\u2019 i.e. thronos, dominationes, etc.; and so Tertullian _adv. Marc._\nv. 19 \u2018Quomodo enim ante omnes, si non ante omnia? Quomodo ante omnia,\nsi non primogenitus conditionis?\u2019 But the neuter \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, standing in\nthe context before and after, requires the neuter here also.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 18]\n\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd. ^{18} \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\n\n\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd] \u2018_hold together, cohere_.\u2019 He is the principle of cohesion\nin the universe. He impresses upon creation that unity and solidarity\nwhich makes it a cosmos instead of a chaos. Thus (to take one instance)\nthe action of gravitation, which keeps in their places things fixed and\nregulates the motions of things moving, is an expression of His mind.\nSimilarly in Heb. i. 3 Christ the Logos is described as \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n(_sustaining_ the universe) \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. Here again the\nChristian Apostles accept the language of Alexandrian Judaism, which\ndescribes the Logos as the \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 of the Universe; e.g. Philo _de\nProfug._ 20 (I. p. 562) \u1f45 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 _\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd_ ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9_ \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c6\u03af\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c9\u03bb\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, _de Plant._ 2 (I. p. 331) _\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd_\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c6\u03af\u03b3\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 _\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd_ \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, _Quis rer. div. her._ 38 (I. p. 507) \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3\n\u03c3\u03c6\u03af\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1ff3\u00b7 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2_ \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c2: and for the word itself see _Quis rer. div. her._\n12 (I. p. 481) _\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5_ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b6\u03c9\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u1fb3 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, Clem. Rom.\n27 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1. In the same\nconnexion \u03c3\u03cd\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 is used, Ecclus. xliii. 26. The indices to Plato and\nAristotle amply illustrate this use of \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd. This mode of\nexpression was common also with the Stoics.\n\n18. \u2018And not only does He hold this position of absolute priority and\nsovereignty over the Universe\u2014the natural creation. He stands also in\nthe same relation to the Church\u2014the new spiritual creation. He is its\nhead, and it is His body. This is His prerogative, because He is the\nsource and the beginning of its life, being the First-born from the\ndead. Thus in all things\u2014in the spiritual order as in the natural\u2014in the\nChurch as in the World\u2014He is found to have the pre-eminence.\u2019\n\nThe elevating influence of this teaching on the choicest spirits of the\nsubapostolic age will be seen from a noble passage in the noblest of\nearly Christian writings, _Epist. ad Diogn._ \u00a7 7 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd ...\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 ... \u03bf\u1f50, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f04\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f22 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f24 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f24 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03ba\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bd\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd ... \u1fa7 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u03b3\u1fc6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u1fc7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\nSee the whole context.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2] \u2018_and He_,\u2019 repeated from the preceding verse, to emphasize\nthe identity of the Person who unites in Himself these prerogatives: see\non ver. 17, and comp. ver. 18 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, ver. 19 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. The Creator of\nthe World is also the Head of the Church. There is no blind ignorance,\nno imperfect sympathy, no latent conflict, in the relation of the\ndemiurgic power to the Gospel dispensation, as the heretical teachers\nwere disposed consciously or unconsciously to assume (see above, p. 101\nsq., p. 110 sq.), but an absolute unity of origin.\n\n\u1f21 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae] \u2018_the head_,\u2019 the inspiring, ruling, guiding, combining,\nsustaining power, the mainspring of its activity, the centre of its\nunity, and the seat of its life. In his earlier epistles the relations\nof the Church to Christ are described under the same image (1 Cor. xii.\n12\u201327; comp. vi. 15, x. 17, Rom. xii. 4 sq.); but the Apostle there\ntakes as his starting-point the various functions of the members, and\nnot, as in these later epistles, the originating and controlling power\nof the Head. Comp. i. 24, ii. 19, Eph. i. 22 sq., ii. 16, iv. 4, 12, 15\nsq., v. 23, 30.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 18]\n\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae, \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2\n\n\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2] in apposition with \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2: comp. i. 24 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, Eph. i. 23.\n\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae] \u2018_the origin_, _the beginning_.\u2019 The term is here applied to the\nIncarnate Christ in relation to the Church, because it is applicable to\nthe Eternal Word in relation to the Universe, Rev. iii. 14 \u1f21 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. The parallelism of the two relations is kept in view\nthroughout. The word \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae here involves two ideas: (1) Priority in time;\nChrist was the first-fruits of the dead, \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae (1 Cor. xv. 20, 23): (2)\nOriginating power; Christ was also the source of life, Acts iii. 14 \u1f41\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2; comp. Acts v. 31, Heb. ii. 10. He is not merely the\n_principium principiatum_ but the _principium principians_ (see Trench\n_Epistles to the Seven Churches_ p. 183 sq.). He rose first from the\ndead, that others might rise through Him.\n\nThe word \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae, like \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (see the note on Phil. i. 5), being absolute\nin itself, does not require the definite article. Indeed the article is\nmost commonly omitted where \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae occurs as a predicate, as will appear\nfrom several examples to be gathered from the extracts in Plut. _Mor._\np. 875 sq., Stob. _Ecl. Phys._ i. 10. 12 sq. Comp. also Aristot. _Met._\nx. 7, p. 1064, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd ... \u1f02\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae, Onatas in\nStob. _Ecl. Phys._ i. 2. 39 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 [\u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2] \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, Tatian.\n_ad Gr\u00e6c._ 4 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 ... \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae,\nClem. Alex. _Strom._ iv. 25, p. 638, \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, Method. _de Creat._ 3 (p. 100, ed. Jahn)\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u1f74\u03bd ... \u1f21\u03b3\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd, pseudo-Dionys. _de Div.\nNom._ v. \u00a7 6 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u00a7 10 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1f74\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ce\u03bd.\n\nThe text is read with the definite article, \u1f21 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae, in one or two\nexcellent authorities at least; but the obvious motive which would lead\na scribe to aim at greater distinctness renders the reading suspicious.\n\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2] Comp. Rev. i. 5 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2. His resurrection from the dead is His title to the\nheadship of the Church; for \u2018the power of His resurrection\u2019 (Phil. iii.\n10) is the life of the Church. Such passages as Gen. xlix. 3, Deut. xxi.\n17, where the \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 is called \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd and superior privileges\nare claimed for him as such, must necessarily be only very faint and\npartial illustrations of the connexion between \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 and \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 here,\nwhere the subject-matter and the whole context point to a fuller meaning\nof the words. The words \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd here correspond to\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 ver. 15, so that the parallelism between\nChrist\u2019s relations to the Universe and to the Church is thus emphasized.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 19]\n\n\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 ^{19} \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9,\n\n\n\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] As He _is_ first with respect to the Universe, so it\nwas ordained that He should _become_ first with respect to the Church as\nwell. The _\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9_ here answers in a manner to the _\u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd_ of\nver. 17. Thus \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd and \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 are contrasted as the absolute being and\nthe historical manifestation. The relation between Christ\u2019s headship of\nthe Universe by virtue of His Eternal Godhead and His headship of the\nChurch by virtue of His Incarnation and Passion and Resurrection is\nsomewhat similarly represented in Phil. ii. 6 sq. \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1fc7 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f55\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd\n... \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03ce\u03bd ... \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 ...\n_\u03b4\u03b9\u1f78_ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03cd\u03c8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd] \u2018_in all things_\u2019 not in the Universe only but in the Church\nalso. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, writes Theodoret, \u1f61\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae. Thus \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd is neuter and not masculine, as it is sometimes\ntaken. Either construction is grammatically correct, but the context\npoints to the former interpretation here; and this is the common use of\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, e.g. iii. 11, Eph. i. 23, Phil. iv. 12. For the neuter compare\nPlut. _Mor._ p. 9 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9. On\nthe other hand in [Demosth.] _Amat._ p. 1416 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 the context shows that \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 is masculine.\n\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2] \u2018_He Himself_\u2019; see the note on \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 above.\n\n19, 20. \u2018And this absolute supremacy is His, because it was the Father\u2019s\ngood pleasure that in Him all the plenitude of Deity should have its\nhome; because He willed through Him to reconcile the Universe once more\nto Himself. It was God\u2019s purpose to effect peace and harmony through the\nblood of Christ\u2019s cross, and so to restore all things, whatsoever and\nwheresoever they be, whether on the earth or in the heavens.\u2019\n\n19. \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The eternal indwelling of the Godhead explains\nthe headship of the Church, not less than the headship of the Universe.\nThe resurrection of Christ, whereby He became the \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 of the Church,\nwas the result of and the testimony to His deity; Rom. i. 4 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f41\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 ... \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd] sc. \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, the nominative being understood; see Winer \u00a7\nlviii. p. 655 sq., \u00a7 lxiv. p. 735 sq.; comp. James i. 12 (the right\nreading), iv. 6. Here the omission is the more easy, because \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1,\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd etc. (like \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1) are used absolutely of God\u2019s good purpose,\ne.g. Luke ii. 14 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (or \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1), Phil. ii. 13 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, Clem. Rom. \u00a7 40 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9; see the\nnote in Clem. Rom. \u00a7 2. For the expression generally comp. 2 Macc. xiv.\n35 \u03c3\u03cd, \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5, \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. The\nalternative is to consider \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 personified as the nominative;\nbut it is difficult to conceive St Paul so speaking, more especially as\nwith \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd personification would suggest personality. The \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\nindeed is personified in Clem. Alex. _Exc. Theod._ 43 (p. 979)\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, and in Iren. i. 2. 6 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., i. 12. 4 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\n\u03b7\u1f50\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd [\u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1]; but the phraseology of the\nValentinians, to which these passages refer, cannot be taken as an\nindication of St Paul\u2019s usage, since their view of the \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 was\nwholly different. A third interpretation is found in Tertullian _adv.\nMarc._ v. 19, who translates \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 _in semetipso_, taking \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 as\nthe nominative to \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd: and this construction is followed by some\nmodern critics. But, though grammatically possible, it confuses the\ntheology of the passage hopelessly.\n\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1] \u2018_the plenitude_,\u2019 a recognised technical term in theology,\ndenoting the totality of the Divine powers and attributes; comp. ii. 9.\nSee the detached note on \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1. On the relation of this statement to\nthe speculations of the false teachers at Coloss\u00e6 see the introduction,\npp. 102, 112. Another interpretation, which explains \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 as\nreferring to the Church (comp. Ephes. i. 22), though adopted by several\nfathers, is unsuited to the context and has nothing to recommend it.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9] \u2018_should have its permanent abode_.\u2019 The word occurs again\nin the same connexion, ii. 9. The false teachers probably, like their\nlater counterparts, maintained only a partial and transient connexion of\nthe \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 with the Lord. Hence St Paul declares in these two passages\nthat it is not a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 but a \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1. The two words \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd,\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, occur in the LXX as the common renderings of \u05d9\u05e9\u05d1 and \u05e0\u05d5\u05e8\nrespectively, and are distinguished as the _permanent_ and the\n_transitory_; e.g. Gen. xxxvi. 44 (xxxvii. 1) \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff7\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u1f7c\u03b2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u1fc7\n\u03bf\u1f57 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1ff4\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc7 \u03a7\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03ac\u03bd (comp. Hos. x. 5), Philo _Sacr.\nAb. et Ca._ 10 (I. p. 170 M) \u1f41 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6, Greg. Naz. _Orat._ xiv. (I. p. 271 ed. Caillau) \u03c4\u03af\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd; \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03bd; comp.\n_Orat._ vii. (I. p. 200). See also the notes on Ephes. ii. 19, and on\nClem. Rom. \u00a7 1.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 20]\n\n^{20}\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\n\n20. The false teachers aimed at effecting a partial reconciliation\nbetween God and man through the interposition of angelic mediators. The\nApostle speaks of an absolute and complete reconciliation of universal\nnature to God, effected through the mediation of the Incarnate Word.\nTheir mediators were ineffective, because they were neither human nor\ndivine. The true mediator must be both human and divine. It was\nnecessary that in Him all the plenitude of the Godhead should dwell. It\nwas necessary also that He should be born into the world and should\nsuffer as a man.\n\n\u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6] i.e. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, as appears from the preceding \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7, and\nthe following \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, [\u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6]. This\nexpression \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 has been already applied to the Preincarnate Word\nin relation to the Universe (ver. 16); it is now used of the Incarnate\nWord in relation to the Church.\n\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03b9] sc. \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. The personal pronoun \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, instead\nof the reflexive \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, is no real obstacle to this way of connecting\nthe words (see the next note). The alternative would be to take \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 as governing \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03b9, but this mode of expression is harsh\nand improbable.\n\nThe same double compound \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is used below, ver. 21 and\nEphes. ii. 16, in place of the usual \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. It may be compared\nwith \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, Acts iii. 21. Tertullian, arguing against the\ndualism of Marcion who maintained an antagonism between the demiurge and\nthe Christ, lays stress on the compound, _adv. Marc._ v. 19\n\u2018_conciliari_ extraneo possent, _reconciliari_ vero non alii quam suo.\u2019\nThe word \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd corresponds to \u1f00\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 here and in\nEphes. ii. 16, implying a _restitution_ to a state from which they had\nfallen, or which was potentially theirs, or for which they were\ndestined. Similarly St Augustine on Gal. iv. 5 remarks that the word\nused of the \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 is not _accipere_ (\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) but _recipere_\n(\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd). See the note there.\n\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1] The whole universe of things, material as well as spiritual,\nshall be restored to harmony with God. How far this restoration of\nuniversal nature maybe subjective, as involved in the changed\nperceptions of man thus brought into harmony with God, and how far it\nmay have an objective and independent existence, it were vain to\nspeculate.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 21]\n\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f05\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f14\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, ^{21}\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1f72 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 >\n\n\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd] \u2018_to Him_,\u2019 i.e. \u2018to Himself.\u2019 The reconciliation is always\nrepresented as made to the Father. The reconciler is sometimes the\nFather Himself (2 Cor. v. 18, 19 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2\n\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 ... \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7),\nsometimes the Son (Ephes. ii. 16: comp. Rom. v. 10, 11). Excellent\nreasons are given (Bleek _Hebr._ II. p. 69, A. Buttmann _Gramm._ p. 97)\nfor supposing that the reflexive pronoun \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 etc. is never contracted\ninto \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 etc. in the Greek Testament. But at the same time it is quite\nclear that the oblique cases of the personal pronoun \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 are there\nused very widely, and in cases where we should commonly find the\nreflexive pronoun in classical authors: e.g. Ephes. i. 4, 5 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 ... \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bc\u03ce\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd _\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6_ ...\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f51\u03b9\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 _\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd_. See\nalso the instances given in A. Buttmann p. 98. It would seem indeed that\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 etc. may be used for \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 etc. in almost every connexion, except\nwhere it is the direct object of the verb.\n\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2] The word occurs in the LXX, Prov. x. 10, and in Hermes in\nStob. _Ecl. Phys._ xli. 45. The substantive \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 (see Matt. v. 9)\nis found several times in classical writers.\n\n\u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6] The external authority for and against these words is nearly\nevenly balanced: but there would obviously be a tendency to reject them\nas superfluous. They are a resumption of the previous \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. For\nother examples see ii. 13 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, Rom. viii. 23 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76, Gal. ii. 15, 16\n\u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, Ephes. i. 13 \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af, iii. 1, 14 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd, where words are\nsimilarly repeated for the sake of emphasis or distinctness. In 2 Cor.\nxii. 7 there is a repetition of \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, where again it is\nomitted in several excellent authorities.\n\n21\u201323. \u2018And ye too\u2014ye Gentiles\u2014are included in the terms of this peace.\nIn times past ye had estranged yourselves from God. Your hearts were\nhostile to Him, while ye lived on in your evil deeds. But now, in\nChrist\u2019s body, in Christ\u2019s flesh which died on the Cross for your\natonement, ye are reconciled to Him again. He will present you a living\nsacrifice, an acceptable offering unto Himself, free from blemish and\nfree even from censure, that ye may stand the piercing glance of Him\nwhose scrutiny no defect can escape. But this can only be, if ye remain\ntrue to your old allegiance, if ye hold fast (as I trust ye are holding\nfast) by the teaching of Epaphras, if the edifice of your faith is built\non solid foundations and not reared carelessly on the sands, if ye\nsuffer not yourselves to be shifted or shaken but rest firmly on the\nhope which ye have found in the Gospel\u2014the one universal unchangeable\nGospel, which was proclaimed to every creature under heaven, of which I\nPaul, unworthy as I am, was called to be a minister.\u2019\n\n21. \u1f00\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2] \u2018_estranged_,\u2019 not \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u2018_strangers_\u2019;\ncomp. Ephes. ii. 12, iv. 18. See the note on \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 ver. 20.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 22]\n\n\u1f10\u03c7\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\n^{22}\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n\n                    21 \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 _\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03b5\u03bd._\n\n\n\u1f10\u03c7\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2] \u2018_hostile_ to God,\u2019 as the consequence of \u1f00\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, not\n\u2018_hateful_ to God,\u2019 as it is taken by some. The active rather than the\npassive sense of \u1f10\u03c7\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 is required by the context, which (as commonly\nin the New Testament) speaks of the sinner as reconciled to God, not of\nGod as reconciled to the sinner: comp. Rom. v. 10 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c7\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. It is the mind of man, not the mind of God,\nwhich must undergo a change, that a reunion may be effected.\n\n\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9|\u1fb3] \u2018_in your mind, intent_.\u2019 For the dative of the part\naffected compare Ephes. iv. 18 \u1f10\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u1fb3, Luke i. 51\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b7\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. So \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, Matt. v. 8, xi.\n29, Acts vii. 51, 2 Cor. ix. 7, 1 Thess. ii. 17; \u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, 1 Cor. xiv. 20.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_in_ the midst of, _in_ the performance of _your\nwicked works_\u2019; the same use of the preposition as e.g. ii. 23, iv. 2.\n\n\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u03af] Here, as frequently, \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd (\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u03af) admits an aorist, because it\ndenotes not \u2018at the present _moment_,\u2019 but \u2018in the present\n_dispensation_, the present _order of things_\u2019: comp. e.g. ver. 26, Rom.\nv. 11, vii. 6, xi. 30, 31, xvi. 26, Ephes. ii. 13, iii. 5, 2 Tim. i. 10,\n1 Pet. i. 12, ii. 10, 25. In all these passages there is a direct\ncontrast between the old dispensation and the new, more especially as\naffecting the relation of the Gentiles to God. The aorist is found also\nin Classical writers, where a similar contrast is involved; e.g. Plato\n_Symp._ 193 A \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9, \u1f13\u03bd \u1f26\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03b9\u1ff3\u03ba\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, Is\u00e6us _de Cleon. her._ 20 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd ... \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72\n... \u1f10\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7.\n\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5] The reasons for preferring this reading, though the\ndirect authority for it is so slight, are given in the detached note on\nthe various readings. But, whether \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 or \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03b5\u03bd be\npreferred, the construction requires explanation. If \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03b5\u03bd be\nadopted, it is perhaps best to treat \u03b4\u1f72 as introducing the apodosis, the\nforegoing participial clause serving as the protasis: \u2018_And you, though\nye were once estranged ... yet now hath he reconciled_,\u2019 in which case\nthe first \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 will be governed directly by \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03b5\u03bd; see Winer\n_Gramm._ \u00a7 liii. p. 553. If this construction be adopted, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 will describe the result of \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03b5\u03bd, \u2018so as _to present\nyou_\u2019; but \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 will still be the nominative to \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03b5\u03bd as in 2\nCor. v. 19. If on the other hand \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 be taken, it is best to\nregard \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 as a direct indicative clause substituted\nfor the more regular participial form \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 for the\nsake of greater emphasis: see the note on ver. 26 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd ...\n\u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7. In this case \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 will be governed directly by\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, and will itself govern \u1f51\u03bc\u03b1^\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., the second\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 being a repetition of the first; \u2018_And you who once were estranged\n... but now ye have been reconciled ... to present you_, I say, _holy\nand without blemish_.\u2019 For the repetition of \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, which was needed to\ndisentangle the construction, see the note on \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 ver. 20.\n\n22. \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6] It has been supposed that St Paul added these\nwords, which are evidently emphatic, with a polemical aim either; (1) To\ncombat docetism. Of this form of error however there is no direct\nevidence till a somewhat later date: or (2) To combat a false\nspiritualism which took offence at the doctrine of an atoning sacrifice.\nBut for this purpose they would not have been adequate, because not\nexplicit enough. It seems simpler therefore to suppose that they were\nadded for the sake of greater clearness, to distinguish the natural body\nof Christ intended here from the mystical body mentioned just above ver.\n18. Similarly in Ephes. ii. 14 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 is used rather than \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, because \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 occurs in the context (ver. 16) of\nChrist\u2019s mystical body. The same expression, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, which\nwe have here, occurs also below, ii. 11, but with a different emphasis\nand meaning. There the emphasis is on \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1, the contrast lying\nbetween the whole _body_ and a single _member_ (see the note); whereas\nhere \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 is the emphatic part of the expression, the antithesis\nbeing between the _material_ and the _spiritual_. Compare also Ecclus.\nxxiii. 16 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\nMarcion omitted \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 as inconsistent with his views, and explained\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 to mean the Church. Hence the comment of Tertullian _adv.\nMarc._ v. 19, \u2018utique in eo corpore, in quo mori potuit per carnem,\nmortuus est, non per ecclesiam sed propter ecclesiam, corpus commutando\npro corpore, carnale pro spiritali.\u2019\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 23]\n\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 [\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6], \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bc\u03ce\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, ^{23} \u03b5\u1f34 \u03b3\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f11\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n\n\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9] If the construction which I have adopted be correct, this is\nsaid of God Himself, as in 2 Cor. iv. 14 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9_ \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd. This construction\nseems in all respects preferable to connecting \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 directly with\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 and interpreting the words, _\u2018Ye have been reconciled so\nthat ye should present yourselves_ (\u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2) ... _before Him_.\u2019 This latter\ninterpretation leaves the \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1f72 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. without a\ngovernment, and it gives to the second \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 a reflexive sense (as if\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 or \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2), which is at least harsh.\n\n\u1f00\u03bc\u03ce\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2] _\u2018without blemish_\u2019 rather than \u2018_without blame_,\u2019 in the\nlanguage of the New Testament; see the noteon Ephes. i. 4. It is a\nsacrificial word, like \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f40\u03bb\u03cc\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, etc. The verb \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 also\nis used of presenting a sacrifice in Rom. xii. 1 _\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9_ \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b6\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., Lev. xvi. 7 (v. l.): comp. Luke\nii. 22.\n\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2] an advance upon \u1f00\u03bc\u03ce\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u2018in whom not only no blemish is\nfound, but against whom no charge is brought\u2019: comp. 1 Tim. vi. 14\n\u1f04\u03c3\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. The word \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 occurs again in 1 Cor. i. 8,\n1 Tim. iii. 10, Tit. i. 6, 7.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6] \u2018_before Him_,\u2019 i.e. \u2018Himself,\u2019 as in the parallel\npassage, Ephes. i. 4; if the construction here adopted be correct. For\nthis use of the personal pronoun instead of the reflexive see the note\non \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, ver. 20. But does \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 refer to God\u2019s future\njudgment or His present approbation? The latter seems more probable,\nboth because the expression certainly has this meaning in the parallel\npassage, Ephes. i. 4, and because \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9, etc.,\nare commonly so used; e.g. Rom. xiv. 22, 1 Cor. i. 29, 2 Cor. ii. 17,\niv. 2, vii. 12, xii. 19, etc. On the other hand, where the future\njudgment is intended, a different expression is found, 2 Cor. v. 10\n\u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. Thus God is here regarded, not as the\njudge who tries the accused, but as the \u03bc\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 who examines the\nvictims (Polyc. _Phil._ 4, see the note on Ephes. i. 4). Compare Heb.\niv. 12, 13 for a closely allied metaphor. The passage in Jude 24, \u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bc\u03ce\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, though perhaps\nreferring to final approval, is too different in expression to influence\nthe interpretation of Paul\u2019s language here.\n\n23. \u03b5\u1f34 \u03b3\u03b5] On the force of these particles see Gal. iii. 4. They express\na pure hypothesis in themselves, but the indicative mood following\nconverts the hypothesis into a hope.\n\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5] \u2018_ye abide by, ye adhere to_,\u2019 with a dative; the common\nconstruction of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd in St Paul: see the note on Phil. i. 24. In\nthis connexion \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 is perhaps \u2018_your_ faith,\u2019 rather than \u2018_the_\nfaith.\u2019\n\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_built on a foundation and so firm_\u2019; not like\nthe house of the foolish man in the parable who built \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5,\nLuke vi. 49. For \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 comp. Ephes. iii. 17. The consequence of\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 is \u1f11\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9: Clem. Rom. 33 _\u1f25\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd_ \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 _\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd_. The words \u1f11\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f11\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9, etc.,\nare not uncommonly applied to buildings, e.g. \u1f11\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 1 Tim. iii. 15.\nComp. Ign. _Ephes._ 10 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n\u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9] \u2018_not constantly shifting_,\u2019 a present tense; the\nsame idea as \u1f11\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 expressed from the negative side, as in 1 Cor. xv.\n58 \u1f11\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5, \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, Polyc. _Phil._ 10 \u2018firmi in fide et\nimmutabiles.\u2019\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 23]\n\n\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u1f57 \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3\n\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f57 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_the hope held out by the Gospel_,\u2019 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\nbeing a subjective genitive, as in Ephes. i. 18 \u1f21 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n(comp. iv. 4).\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9] \u2018_among every creature_,\u2019 in fulfilment of the Lord\u2019s\nlast command, Mark xvi. 15 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9. Here\nhowever the definitive article, though found in the received text, \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, must be omitted in accordance with the best authorities.\nFor the meanings of \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, see the note on ver. 15.\nThe expression \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 must not be limited to man. The statement is\ngiven in the broadest form, all creation animate and inanimate being\nincluded, as in Rev. v. 13 _\u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1_ ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n_\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1_ \u1f25\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. For the hyperbole \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\ncompare 1 Thess. i. 8 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u1ff3. To demand statistical exactness in\nsuch a context would be to require what is never required in similar\ncases. The motive of the Apostle here is at once to emphasize the\nuniversality of the genuine Gospel, which has been offered without\nreserve to all alike, and to appeal to its publicity, as the credential\nand guarantee of its truth: see the notes on ver. 6 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3\nand on ver. 28 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n\u03bf\u1f56 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] Why does St Paul introduce this mention of himself\nso abruptly? His motive can hardly be the assertion of his Apostolic\nauthority, for it does not appear that this was questioned; otherwise he\nwould have declared his commission in stronger terms. We can only answer\nthat impressed with the dignity of his office, as involving the offer of\ngrace to the Gentiles, he cannot refrain from magnifying it. At the same\ntime this mention enables him to link himself in bonds of closer\nsympathy with the Colossians, and he passes on at once to his relations\nwith them: comp. Ephes. iii. 2\u20139, 1 Tim. i. 11 sq., in which latter\npassage the introduction of his own name is equally abrupt.\n\n\u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2] i.e. \u2018weak and unworthy as I am\u2019: comp. Ephes. iii. 8 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03c9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 24]\n\n^{24}\u039d\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\n\n24\u201327. \u2018_Now_ when I see the full extent of God\u2019s mercy, _now_ when I\nponder over His mighty work of reconciliation, I cannot choose but\nrejoice in my sufferings. Yes, I Paul the persecutor, I Paul the feeble\nand sinful, am permitted to supplement\u2014I do not shrink from the word\u2014to\nsupplement the afflictions of Christ. Despite all that He underwent, He\nthe Master has left something still for me the servant to undergo. And\nso my flesh is privileged to suffer for His body\u2014His spiritual body, the\nChurch. I was appointed a minister of the Church, a steward in God\u2019s\nhousehold, for this very purpose, that I might administer my office on\nyour behalf, might dispense to you Gentiles the stores which His\nbountiful grace has provided. Thus I was charged to preach without\nreserve the whole Gospel of God, to proclaim the great mystery which had\nremained a secret through all the ages and all the generations from the\nbeginning, but which now in these last times was revealed to His holy\npeople. For such was His good pleasure. God willed to make known to\nthem, in all its inexhaustible wealth thus displayed through the call of\nthe Gentiles, the glorious revelation of this mystery\u2014Christ not the\nSaviour of the Jews only, but Christ dwelling in _you_, Christ become to\n_you_ the hope of glory.\u2019\n\n24. \u039d\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9] A sudden outburst of thanksgiving, that he, who was less\nthan the least, who was not worthy to be called an Apostle, should be\nallowed to share and even to supplement the sufferings of Christ. The\nrelative \u1f45\u03c2, which is found in some authorities, is doubtless the\nrepetition of the final syllable of \u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; but its insertion would be\nassisted by the anxiety of scribes to supply a connecting link between\nthe sentences. The genuine reading is more characteristic of St Paul.\nThe abruptness, which dispenses with a connecting particle, has a\nparallel in Tim. i. 12 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.,\nwhere also the common text inserts a link of connexion, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\n\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Compare also 2 Cor. vii. 9 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9, \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., where again\nthere is no connecting particle.\n\nThe thought underlying \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd seems to be this: \u2018If ever I have been\ndisposed to repine at my lot, if ever I have felt my cross almost too\nheavy to bear, yet _now_\u2013now, when I contemplate the lavish wealth of\nGod\u2019s mercy\u2014now when I see all the glory of bearing a part in this\nmagnificent work\u2014my sorrow is turned to joy.\u2019\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 24]\n\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03bb\u03af\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\n\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6] \u2018_I fill up on my part_\u2019, \u2018_I supplement_.\u2019 The single\ncompound \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd occurs several times (e.g. 1 Cor. xiv. 16, xvi. 17,\nGal. vi. 2); another double compound \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd twice (2 Cor. ix.\n12, xi. 9; comp. Wisd. xix. 4, v.l.); but \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd only here in the\nLXX or New Testament. For this verb compare Demosth. _de Symm._ p. 182\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 _\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd_ \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 (where \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 should be taken as the subject to\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2), Dion Cass. xliv. 48 \u1f35\u03bd\u2019 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd ... \u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n_\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd_ \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7, Clem. Alex. _Strom._\nvii. 12 p. 878 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd _\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd_ \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6,\nApollon. _Constr. Or._ i. 3 (p. 13 sq.) \u1f21 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, Ptol. _Math. Comp._\nvi. 9 (I. p. 435 ed. Halma) \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f21 _\u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd_ \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 _\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd_ \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f23\u03bd \u1f34\u03c3\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\n\u1f3d\u03c0\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The substantive\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 occurs in Diog. Laert. x. 48. So too \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd Xen.\n_Hell._ ii. 4. 11, 12 \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 _\u1f11\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f41\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd_ ... \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd ... \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f41\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd. Compare also \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\nThemist. _Paraphr. Arist._ 43 B \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03c9\u03bb\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd _\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b8\u03af \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd_ \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f44\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, and\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 Joseph. _Ant._ xviii. 9. 7. The meaning of \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 in this\ncompound will be plain from the passages quoted. It signifies that the\nsupply comes _from an opposite quarter_ to the deficiency. This idea is\nmore or less definitely expressed in the context of all the passages, in\nthe words which are spaced. The force of \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd in St Paul is\noften explained as denoting simply that the supply _corresponds in\nextent_ to the deficiency. This interpretation practically deprives \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\nof any meaning, for \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd alone would denote as much. If indeed the\nsupply had been the subject of the verb, and the sentence had run \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., this idea might perhaps\nbe reached without sacrificing the sense of \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af; but in such a passage\nas this, where one personal agent is mentioned in connexion with the\nsupply and another in connexion with the deficiency, the one forming the\nsubject and the other being involved in the object of the verb, the \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76\ncan only describe the correspondence of these personal agents. So\ninterpreted, it is eminently expressive here. The point of the Apostle\u2019s\nboast is that Christ the sinless Master should have _left_ something for\nPaul the unworthy servant to suffer. The right idea has been seized and\nis well expressed by Photius _Amphil._ 121 (I. p. 709 Migne) \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n\u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f41 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Similar in meaning, though\nnot identical, is the expression in 2 Cor. i. 5, where the sufferings of\nChrist are said to \u2018overflow\u2019 (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) upon the Apostle. The\ntheological difficulty which this plain and natural interpretation of\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd is supposed to involve will be considered in the note on\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03bb\u03af\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1] \u2018_the things lacking_.\u2019 This same word \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\n\u2018deficiency\u2019 occurs with \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd 1 Cor. xvi. 17, Phil. ii. 30, and\nwith \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd 2 Cor. ix. 12, xi. 9. Its direct opposite is\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 \u2018abundance, superfluity,\u2019 2 Cor. viii. 13, 14; comp. Luke\nxxi. 4. Another interpretation, which makes \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 an antithesis to\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, explaining it as \u2018the later\u2019 as opposed to the earlier\n\u2018sufferings of Christ,\u2019 is neither supported by the usage of the word\nnor consistent with \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6.\n\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03bb\u03af\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6] \u2018_of the afflictions of Christ_,\u2019 i.e. which\nChrist endured. This seems to be the only natural interpretation of the\nwords. Others have explained them as meaning \u2018the afflictions imposed by\nChrist,\u2019 or \u2018the afflictions endured for Christ\u2019s sake,\u2019 or \u2018the\nafflictions which resemble those of Christ.\u2019 All such interpretations\nput a more or less forced meaning on the genitive. All alike ignore the\nmeaning of \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 in \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6 which points to a _distinction_ of\npersons suffering. Others again suppose the words to describe St Paul\u2019s\nown afflictions regarded as Christ\u2019s, because Christ suffers in His\nsuffering Church; e.g. Augustine _in Psalm._ cxlii. \u00a7 3 (IV. p. 1590)\n\u2018Patitur, inquit, adhuc Christus pressuram, non in carne sua in qua\nascendit in c\u00e6lum, sed in carne mea qu\u00e6 adhuc laborat in terra,\u2019 quoting\nGal. ii. 20. This last is a very favourite explanation, and has much to\nrecommend it. It cannot be charged with wresting the meaning of \u03b1\u1f31\n\u03b8\u03bb\u03af\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. Moreover it harmonizes with St Paul\u2019s mode of\nspeaking elsewhere. But, like the others, it is open to the fatal\nobjection that it empties the first preposition in \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6 of any\nforce. The central idea in this interpretation is the _identification_\nof the suffering Apostle with the suffering Christ, whereas \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6\nemphasizes the _distinction_ between the two. It is therefore\ninconsistent with this context, however important may be the truth which\nit expresses.\n\nThe theological difficulty, which these and similar explanations are\nintended to remove, is imaginary and not real. There is a sense in which\nit is quite legitimate to speak of Christ\u2019s afflictions as _incomplete_,\na sense in which they may be, and indeed must be, _supplemented_. For\nthe sufferings of Christ may be considered from two different points of\nview. They are either _satisfactori\u00e6_ or _\u00e6dificatori\u00e6_. They have their\nsacrificial efficacy, and they have their ministerial utility. (1) From\nthe former point of view the Passion of Christ was the one full perfect\nand sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the\nwhole world. In this sense there could be no \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 of Christ\u2019s\nsufferings; for, Christ\u2019s sufferings being different _in kind_ from\nthose of His servants, the two are incommensurable. But in this sense\nthe Apostle would surely have used some other expression such as \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 (i. 20, Eph. ii. 16 etc.), or \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 (i. 22, Rom. v. 10,\nHeb. ii. 14, etc.), but hardly \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03bb\u03af\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd. Indeed \u03b8\u03bb\u03af\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2, \u2018affliction,\u2019\nis not elsewhere applied in the New Testament in any sense to Christ\u2019s\nsufferings, and certainly would not suggest a sacrificial act. (2) From\nthe latter point of view it is a simple matter of fact that the\nafflictions of every saint and martyr do supplement the afflictions of\nChrist. The Church is built up by repeated acts of self-denial in\nsuccessive individuals and successive generations. They continue the\nwork which Christ began. They bear their part in the sufferings of\nChrist (2 Cor. i. 7 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, Phil. iii. 10 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd); but St Paul would have been the last to say that they bear\ntheir part in the atoning sacrifice of Christ. This being so, St Paul\ndoes not mean to say that his own sufferings filled up all the\n\u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, but only that they _went towards_ filling them up. The\npresent tense \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6 denotes an inchoate, and not a complete act.\nThese \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 will never be fully supplemented, until the struggle of\nthe Church with sin and unbelief is brought to a close.\n\nThus the idea of expiation or satisfaction is wholly absent from this\npassage; and with it is removed the twofold temptation which has beset\ntheologians of opposite schools. (1) On the one hand Protestant\ncommentators, rightly feeling that any interpretation which infringed\nthe completeness of the work wrought by Christ\u2019s death must be wrong,\nbecause it would make St Paul contradict himself on a cardinal point of\nhis teaching, have been tempted to wrest the sense of the words. They\nhave emptied \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6 of its proper force; or they have assigned a\nfalse meaning to \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1; or they have attached a non-natural sense\nto the genitive \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. (2) On the other hand Romanist\ncommentators, while protesting (as they had a right to do) against these\nmethods of interpretation, have fallen into the opposite error. They\nhave found in this passage an assertion of the merits of the saints, and\n(as a necessary consequence) of the doctrine of indulgences. They have\nnot observed that, if the idea of vicarious satisfaction comes into the\npassage at all, the satisfaction of St Paul is represented here as the\nsame in kind with the satisfaction of Christ, however different it may\nbe in degree; and thus they have truly exposed themselves to the\nreproach which Estius indignantly repudiates on their behalf, \u2018quasi\nChristus non satis passus sit ad redemptionem nostram, ideoque\nsupplemento martyrum opus habeat; quod impium est sentire, quodque\nCatholicos dicere non minus impie calumniantur h\u00e6retici.\u2019 It is no part\nof a commentator here to enquire generally whether the Roman doctrine of\nthe satisfaction of the saints can in any way be reconciled with St\nPaul\u2019s doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ. It is sufficient to say\nthat, so far as regards this particular passage, the Roman doctrine can\nonly be imported into it at the cost of a contradiction to the Pauline\ndoctrine. It is only fair to add however that Estius himself says, \u2018qu\u00e6\nquidem doctrina, etsi Catholica et Apostolica sit, atque aliunde satis\nprobetur, ex hoc tamen Apostoli loco nobis non videtur admodum solide\nstatui posse.\u2019 But Roman Catholic commentators generally find this\nmeaning in the text, as may be seen from the notes of \u00e0 Lapide.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 25]\n\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u00b7 ^{25}\u1f27\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\n\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 An antithesis of the Apostle\u2019s own flesh and Christ\u2019s\nbody. This antithetical form of expression obliges St Paul to explain\nwhat he means by the body of Christ, \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1; comp. ver. 18.\nContrast the explanation in ver. 22 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, and\nsee the note there.\n\n25. \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_stewardship in the house of God_.\u2019 The word\n\u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 seems to have two senses: (1) \u2018The actual administration of a\nhousehold\u2019; (2) \u2018The office of the administrator.\u2019 For the former\nmeaning see the note on Ephes. i. 10; for the latter sense, which it has\nhere, compare 1 Cor. ix. 17 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, Luke xvi. 2\u20134,\nIsaiah xxii. 19, 21. So the Apostles and ministers of the Church are\ncalled \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2, Tit. i. 7: comp. 1 Pet. iv. 10.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI.26]\n\n\u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, ^{26} \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n\n\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2] \u2018_to youward_,\u2019 i.e. \u2018for the benefit of you, the Gentiles\u2019;\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 being connected with \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, as in Ephes. iii. 2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2; comp. Rom.\nxv. 16 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03bc\u03b5\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u1f78\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 _\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7_.\n\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9] \u2018_to fulfil_,\u2019 i.e. \u2018to preach fully,\u2019 \u2018to give its complete\ndevelopment to\u2019; as Rom. xv. 19 \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f38\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bc \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. Thus \u2018the word of\nGod\u2019 here is \u2018the Gospel,\u2019 as in most places (1 Cor. xiv. 36, 2 Cor. ii.\n17, iv. 2, etc.), though not always (e.g. Rom. ix. 6), in St Paul, as\nalso in the Acts. The other interpretation, \u2018to accomplish the promise\nof God,\u2019 though suggested by such passages as 1 Kings ii. 27 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, etc., is\nalien to the context here.\n\n26. \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd] This is not the only term borrowed from the ancient\nmysteries, which St Paul employs to describe the teaching of the Gospel.\nThe word \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd just below, ver. 28, seems to be an extension of the\nsame metaphor. In Phil. iv. 12 again we have the verb \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03cd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9: and in\nEphes. i. 14 \u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 is perhaps an image derived from the same\nsource. So too the Ephesians are addressed as \u03a0\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 in Ign.\n_Ephes._ 12. The Christian teacher is thus regarded as a \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 (see\nEpict. iii. 21. 13 sq.) who initiates his disciples into the rites.\nThere is this difference however; that, whereas the heathen mysteries\nwere strictly confined to a narrow circle, the Christian mysteries are\nfreely communicated to all. There is therefore an intentional paradox in\nthe employment of the image by St Paul. See the notes on \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd below.\n\nThus the idea of _secresy_ or _reserve_ disappears when \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is\nadopted into the Christian vocabulary by St Paul: and the word signifies\nsimply \u2018a truth which was once hidden but now is revealed,\u2019 \u2018a truth\nwhich without special revelation would have been unknown.\u2019 Of the nature\nof the truth itself the word says nothing. It may be transcendental,\nincomprehensible, mystical, mysterious, in the modern sense of the term\n(1 Cor. xv. 51, Eph. v. 32): but this idea is quite accidental, and must\nbe gathered from the special circumstances of the case, for it cannot be\ninferred from the word itself. Hence \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is almost universally\nfound in connexion with words denoting revelation or publication; e.g.\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2, Rom. xvi. 25, Ephes. iii. 3, 5, 2 Thess. ii.\n7; \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd Rom. xvi. 26, Ephes. i. 9, iii. 3, 10, vi. 19; \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\nCol. iv. 3, Rom. xvi. 26, 1 Tim. iii. 16; \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd iv. 3, 1 Cor. ii. 7,\nxiv. 2; \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, 1 Cor. xv. 51.\n\nBut the one special \u2018mystery\u2019 which absorbs St Paul\u2019s thoughts in the\nEpistles to the Colossians and Ephesians is the free admission of the\nGentiles on equal terms to the privileges of the covenant. For this he\nis a prisoner; this he is bound to proclaim fearlessly (iv. 3, Ephes.\nvi. 19); this, though hidden from all time, was communicated to him by a\nspecial revelation (Ephes. iii. 3 sq.); in this had God most signally\ndisplayed the lavish wealth of His goodness (ver. 27, ii. 2 sq., Ephes.\ni. 6 sq., iii. 8 sq.). In one passage only throughout these two epistles\nis \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd applied to anything else, Ephes. v. 32. The same idea of\nthe \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd appears very prominently also in the thanksgiving (added\napparently later than the rest of the letter) at the end of the Epistle\nto the Romans, xvi. 25 sq. \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 ... \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 27]\n\n\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f34\u03c9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6,\n^{27}\u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f20\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03af \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\n\n\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f34\u03c9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The preposition is doubtless temporal here, being\nopposed to \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd, as in the parallel passage, Ephes. iii. 9: comp. Rom.\nxvi. 25 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03c5 _\u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2_ \u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, 1\nCor. ii. 7 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f23\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41\n\u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 _\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd_. So too \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, Acts iii. 21, xv. 18, Ps.\nxcii. 3, etc.; \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, Matt. xiii. 35, xxv. 34, etc.\n\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd] An \u03b1\u1f32\u03c9\u03bd is made up of many \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03af; comp. Ephes. iii. 21 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, Is. li. 9 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (where\nthe Hebrew has the plural \u2018generations\u2019). Hence the order here. Not only\nwas this mystery unknown in remote periods of antiquity, but even in\nrecent generations. It came upon the world as a sudden surprise. The\nmoment of its revelation was the moment of its fulfilment.\n\n27. \u1f20\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd] \u2018_willed_,\u2019 \u2018_was pleased_.\u2019 It was God\u2019s grace: it was no\nmerit of their own. See the note on i. 1 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n\u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] An indicative clause is substituted for a participial,\nwhich would otherwise have been more natural, for the sake of\nemphasizing the statement; comp. ver. 22 \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5, and see\nWiner \u00a7 lxiii. p. 717.\n\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2] The \u2018_wealth_ of God,\u2019 as manifested in His dispensation of\ngrace, is a prominent idea in these epistles; comp. ii. 2, Ephes. i. 7,\n18, iii. 8, 16; comp. Rom. xi. 33. See above p. 43 sq. St Paul uses the\nneuter and the masculine forms indifferently in these epistles (e.g. \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 Ephes. i. 7, \u1f41 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 Ephes. i. 18), as in his other letters\n(e.g. \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 2 Cor. viii. 2, \u1f41 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 Rom. ix. 23). In most\npassages however there are various readings. On the neuter forms \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b6\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, etc., see Winer \u00a7 ix. p. 76.\n\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2] i.e. \u2018of the glorious manifestation.\u2019 This word in\nHellenistic Greek is frequently used of a bright light; e.g. Luke ii. 9\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd, Acts xxii. 11 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, 1 Cor. xv. 41 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, etc.\n2 Cor. iii. 7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 [\u039c\u03c9\u03c5\u03c3\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2]. Hence it is applied generally to a\ndivine _manifestation_, even where there is no physical accompaniment of\nlight; and more especially to the revelation of God in Christ (e.g. Joh.\ni. 14, 2 Cor. iv. 4, etc.). The expression \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2 occurs\nagain, Rom. ix. 23, Ephes. i. 18, iii. 16. See above ver. 11 with the\nnote.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 28]\n\n\u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f21 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2\u00b7 ^{28} \u1f43\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n\n                             ^{27} \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd] i.e. \u2018as exhibited among the Gentiles.\u2019 It was just\nhere that this \u2018mystery,\u2019 this dispensation of grace, achieved its\ngreatest triumphs and displayed its transcendant glory; \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, writes Chrysostom, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1. Here too was its _wealth_; for it overflowed all\nbarriers of caste or race. Judaism was \u2018beggarly\u2019 (Gal. iv. 9) in\ncomparison, since its treasures sufficed only for a few.\n\n\u1f45 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd] The antecedent is probably \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5; comp. ii. 2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd] \u2018_Christ in you_,\u2019 i.e. \u2018you Gentiles.\u2019 Not Christ, but\nChrist given freely to the Gentiles, is the \u2018mystery\u2019 of which St Paul\nspeaks; see the note on \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd above. Thus the various reading, \u1f43\u03c2\nfor \u1f45, though highly supported, interferes with the sense. With \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd compare \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 Matt. i. 23. It may be a question\nhowever, whether \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd means \u2018_within you_\u2019 or \u2018_among you_.\u2019 The\nformer is perhaps the more probable interpretation, as suggested by Rom.\nviii. 10, 2 Cor. xiii. 5, Gal. iv. 19; comp. Ephes. iii. 17 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\n\u1f21 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03c2] comp. 1 Tim. i. 2; so \u1f21 [\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74] \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd Ign. _Eph._ 21,\n_Magn. Philad._ 5, etc., applied to our Lord.\n\n28, 29. \u2018This Christ we, the Apostles and Evangelists, proclaim without\ndistinction and without reserve. We know no restriction either of\npersons or of topics. We admonish every man and instruct every man. We\ninitiate every man in all the mysteries of wisdom. It is our single aim\nto present every man fully and perfectly taught in Christ. For this end\nI train myself in the discipline of self-denial; for this end I commit\nmyself to the arena of suffering and toil, putting forth in the conflict\nall that energy which He inspires, and which works in me so powerfully.\u2019\n\n28. \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2] \u2018_we_,\u2019 the preachers; the same opposition as in 1 Cor. iv.\n8, 10, ix. 11, 2 Cor. xiii. 5 sq., 1 Thess. ii. 13 sq., etc. The Apostle\nhastens, as usual, to speak of the part which he was privileged to bear\nin this glorious dispensation. He is constrained to magnify his office.\nSee the next note, and comp. ver. 23.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 28]\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7\u00b7\n\n\n\u1f43\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] as in St Paul\u2019s own language at Thessalonica, Acts\nxvii. 3 \u1f43\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, and at Athens, Acts xvii. 23 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, in both which passages, as here, emphasis is laid on\nthe person of the preacher.\n\n\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2] \u2018_admonishing_.\u2019 The two words \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd and \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\npresent complementary aspects of the preacher\u2019s duty, and are related\nthe one to the other, as \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1 to \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, \u2018_warning_ to repent,\n_instructing_ in the faith.\u2019 For the relation of \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd to \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\nSee Plut. _Mor._ p. 68 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, p.\n452 \u1f21 \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03c8\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd. The two verbs\n\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd and \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd are connected in Plato _Protag._ 323 D, _Legg._\n845 B, Plut. _Mor._ p. 46 (comp. p. 39), Dion Chrys. _Or._ xxxiii. p.\n369; the substantives \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c7\u1f74 and \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Plato _Resp._ 399 B.\nSimilarly \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd and \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd occur together in Arist. _Rhet._ ii. 18.\nFor the two functions of the preacher\u2019s office, corresponding\nrespectively to the two words, see St Paul\u2019s own language in Acts xx. 21\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd.\n\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd] three times repeated for the sake of emphasizing the\n_universality_ of the Gospel. This great truth, for which St Paul gave\nhis life, was now again endangered by the doctrine of an intellectual\nexclusiveness taught by the Gnosticizers at Coloss\u00e6, as before it had\nbeen endangered by the doctrine of a ceremonial exclusiveness taught by\nthe Judaizers in Galatia. See above pp. 77, 92, 98 sq. For the\nrepetition of \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 compare especially 1 Cor. x. 1 sq., where \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 is\nfive times, and _ib._ xii. 29, 30, where it is seven times repeated; see\nalso Rom. ix. 6, 7, xi. 32, 1 Cor. xii. 13, xiii. 7, xiv. 31, etc.\nTranscribers have been offended at this characteristic repetition here,\nand consequently have omitted \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd in one place or other.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3] The Gnostic spoke of a blind faith for the many, of a\nhigher \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 for the few. St Paul declares that the fullest wisdom is\noffered to all alike. The character of the teaching is as free from\nrestriction, as are the qualifications of the recipients. Comp. ii. 2, 3\n\u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 ... \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.\n\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd] See the note on \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, ver. 22.\n\n\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd] So 1 Cor. ii. 6, 7 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 ... \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd. In both these passages the\nepithet \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 is probably a metaphor borrowed from the ancient\nmysteries, where it seems to have been applied to the fully instructed,\nas opposed to the novices: comp. Plato _Ph\u00e6dr._ 249 C \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9... 250 B, C \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f10\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f23\u03bd \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd ... \u03bc\u03c5\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f52\u03b3\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1fb7, _Symp._ 209 E \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 ... \u03ba\u1f02\u03bd \u03c3\u1f7a \u03bc\u03c5\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac ... \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03bf\u1f37 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bf\u1f37\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f02\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7\u03c2, Plut. _Fragm. de\nAn._ vi. 2 (v. p. 726 Wyttenb.) \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03c5\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (with the\ncontext), Dion Chrys. _Or._ xii. p. 203 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f41\u03bb\u03cc\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd; see Valcknaer on Eurip. _Hippol._ 25, and\nLobeck _Aglaoph._ p. 33 sq., p. 126 sq. Somewhat similarly in the LXX 1\nChron. xxv. 8 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd stands for \u2018the teachers (or the\nwise) and the scholars.\u2019 So also in 2 Pet. i. 16 _\u1f10\u03c0\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9_\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 we seem to have the same metaphor.\nAs an illustration it may be mentioned that Plato and Aristotle called\nthe higher philosophy \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, because those who have transcended the\nbounds of the material, \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u1fc6 [l. \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc7] \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd [\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2] \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, Plut. _Mor._ 382 D, E. For other\nmetaphorical expressions in St Paul, derived from the mysteries, see\nabove on \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd ver. 26. Influenced probably by this heathen use of\n\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, the early Christians applied it to the baptized, as opposed to\nthe catechumens: e.g. Justin _Dial._ 8 (p. 225 C) \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u1ff3 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, _Clem. Hom._ iii.\n29 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c0\u03c9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1,\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., xi. 36 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 ... \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; and for later writers see Suicer _Thes._ s. vv. \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c9,\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. At all events we may ascribe to its connexion with the\nmysteries the fact that it was adopted by Gnostics at a later date, and\nmost probably by the Gnosticizers at this time, to distinguish the\npossessors of the higher \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 from the vulgar herd of believers: see\nthe passages quoted in the note on Phil. iii. 15. While employing the\nfavourite Gnostic term, the Apostle strikes at the root of the Gnostic\ndoctrine. The language descriptive of the heathen mysteries is\ntransferred by him to the Christian dispensation, that he may thus more\neffectively contrast the things signified. The true Gospel also has its\nmysteries, its hierophants, its initiation: but these are open to all\nalike. In Christ every believer is \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, for he has been admitted as\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 of its most profound, most awful, secrets. See again the note on\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9, ii. 3.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI. 29]\n\n^{29}\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f43 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u1ff6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n\n29. \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f43] i.e. \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u2018that I may\ninitiate all mankind in the fulness of this mystery,\u2019 \u2018that I may preach\nthe Gospel to all without reserve.\u2019 If St Paul had been content to\npreach an exclusive Gospel, he might have saved himself from more than\nhalf the troubles of his life.\n\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u1ff6] This word is used especially of the labour undergone by the\nathlete in his training, and therefore fitly introduces the metaphor of\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2: comp. 1 Tim. iv. 10 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1\n(the correct reading), and see the passages quoted on Phil. ii. 16.\n\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2] \u2018_contending in the lists_,\u2019 the metaphor being continued\nin the next verse (ii. 1), \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1; comp. iv. 12. These words \u1f00\u03b3\u03ce\u03bd,\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, are only found in St Paul and the Pauline writings\n(Luke, Hebrews) in the New Testament. They occur in every group of St\nPaul\u2019s Epistles. The use here most resembles 1 Thess. ii. 2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd] Comp. Eph. iii. 20. For the difference between \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\nand \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 see the note on Gal. v. 6.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 1, 2]\n\nII. ^1 \u0398\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n\u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af, ^2 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\n\n\nII. 1\u20133. \u2018I spoke of an _arena_ and a _conflict_ in describing my\napostolic labours. The image was not lightly chosen. I would have you\nknow that my care is not confined to my own direct and personal\ndisciples. I wish you to understand the magnitude of the struggle, which\nmy anxiety for you costs me\u2014for you and for your neighbours of Laodicea\nand for all who, like yourselves, have never met me face to face in the\nflesh. I am constantly wrestling in spirit, that the hearts of all such\nmay be confirmed and strengthened in the faith; that they may be united\nin love; that they may attain to all the unspeakable wealth which comes\nfrom the firm conviction of an understanding mind, may be brought to the\nperfect knowledge of God\u2019s mystery, which is nothing else than\nChrist\u2014Christ containing in Himself all the treasures of wisdom and\nknowledge hidden away.\u2019\n\n1. \u0398\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] as in 1 Cor. xi. 3. The corresponding negative form, \u03bf\u1f50\n\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9 [\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd] \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, is the more common expression in St Paul;\nRom. i. 13, xi. 25, 1 Cor. x. 1, xii. 1, 2 Cor. i. 8, 1 Thess. iv. 13.\n\n\u1f00\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1] The arena of the contest to which \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 in the preceding\nverse refers may be either outward or inward. It will include the\n\u2018fightings without,\u2019 as well as the \u2018fears within.\u2019 Here however the\ninward struggle, the wrestling in prayer, is the predominant idea, as in\niv. 12 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5\n\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u1fb3] The Laodiceans were exposed to the same doctrinal\nperils as the Colossians: see above pp. 2, 41 sq. The Hierapolitans are\ndoubtless included in \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (comp. iv. 13), but are not\nmentioned here by name, probably because they were less closely\nconnected with Coloss\u00e6 (see iv. 15 sq.), and perhaps also because the\ndanger was less threatening there.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_and all who_, like yourselves, _have not seen_,\netc.\u2019; where the \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 introduces the whole class to which the\npersons previously enumerated belong; so Acts iv. 6 \u1f0c\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u1f72\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03b1\u0390\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f3c\u03c9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 _\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9_ \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6, Rev. xviii. 17 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c5\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 _\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9_ \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. Even a simple\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 will sometimes introduce the general after the particular, e.g. Acts\nv. 29 \u1f41 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, Ar. _Nub._ 413 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9, etc.; see K\u00fchner _Gramm._ \u00a7 521, II. p. 791. On the other hand\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9, occurring in an enumeration, sometimes introduces a different\nclass from those previously mentioned, as e.g. in Herod, vii. 185. As a\npure grammatical question therefore it is uncertain whether St Paul\u2019s\nlanguage here implies his personal acquaintance with his correspondents\nor the contrary. But in all such cases the sense of the context must be\nour guide. In the present instance \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 is quite out of place,\nunless the Colossians and Laodiceans also were personally unknown to the\nApostle. There would be no meaning in singling out _individuals_ who\nwere known to him, and then mentioning comprehensively _all_ who were\nunknown to him: see above p. 28, note 84. Hence we may infer from the\nexpression here, that St Paul had never visited Coloss\u00e6\u2013an inference\nwhich has been already shown (p. 23 sq.) to accord both with the\nincidental language of this epistle elsewhere and with the direct\nhistorical narrative of the Acts.\n\n\u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd] For this ending of the 3rd pers. plur. perfect in -\u03b1\u03bd see Winer\n\u00a7 xiii. p. 90. The received text reads \u1f11\u03c9\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9. In this passage the \u03c9\nform has the higher support; but below in ver. 18 the preponderance of\nauthority favours \u1f11\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd rather than \u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd. On the use of the form in\n\u03bf see Buttmann _Ausf. Griech. Sprachl._ \u00a7 84, I. p. 325.\n\n2. \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd] \u2018_encouraged_, _confirmed_,\u2019 i.e. \u2018comforted\u2019 in the\nolder and wider meaning of the word, (\u2018confortati\u2019), but not with its\nmodern and restricted sense: see \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 Phil. ii. 1. For \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 comp. iv. 8, Ephes. vi. 22, 2 Thess. ii. 17.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 3]\n\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 ^3\u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76\n\n\n\u03b1\u1f31 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9] They met the Apostle heart to heart, though not face to\nface. We have here the same opposition of \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1 and \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd as in 1\nThess. ii. 17, though less directly expressed; see ver. 5.\n\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd] where we should expect \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, but the substitution of the third\nperson for the second is suggested by the immediately preceding \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9. This substitution confirms the interpretation of \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 already\ngiven. Unless the Colossians are included in \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9, they must be excluded\nby \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. Yet this exclusion is hardly conceivable in such a context.\n\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2] \u2018_they being united_, _compacted_,\u2019 for \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd must\nhere have its common meaning, as it has elsewhere in this and the\ncompanion epistle: ver. 19 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd ...\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, Ephes. iv. 16 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. Otherwise we might be disposed to assign to this verb\nhere the sense which it always bears in the LXX (e.g. in Is. xl. 13, 14,\nquoted in 1 Cor. ii. 16), \u2018instructed, taught,\u2019 as it is rendered in the\nVulgate. Its usage in the Acts is connected with this latter sense; e.g.\nix. 22 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u2018proving,\u2019 xvi. 10 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u2018concluding\u2019; and so\nin xix. 33 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f08\u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd (the best supported reading) can only\nmean \u2018instructed Alexander.\u2019 For the different sense of the nominative\nabsolute see the note on iii. 16. The received text substitutes\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd here. ` \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u1fc3] for love is the \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 (iii. 14) of\nperfection.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2] \u2018_and brought unto_,\u2019 the thought being supplied from the\npreceding \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, which involves an idea of motion, comp. Joh.\nxx. 7 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c5\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n\u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2] This reading is better supported than either \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\nor \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, while, as the intermediate reading, it also explains\nthe other two.\n\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2] \u2018_the full assurance_,\u2019 for such seems to be the\nmeaning of the substantive wherever it occurs in the New Testament; 1\nThess. i. 5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1fc7, Heb. vi. 11 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, x. 22 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, comp. Clem. Rom. 42 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. With the exception of 1 Thess. i. 5\nhowever, all the Biblical passages might bear the other sense \u2018fulness\u2019:\nsee Bleek on Heb. vi. 11. For the verb see the note on \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\nbelow, iv. 12.\n\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd] See the note on i. 9.\n\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_the mystery of God_, even _Christ in whom_,\netc.,\u2019 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 being in apposition with \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5; comp. i. 27 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 ... \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, 1 Tim. iii. 16 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f4d\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The reasons for adopting the\nreading \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 are given in the detached note on various\nreadings. Other interpretations of this reading are; (1) \u2018the God\nChrist,\u2019 taking \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 in apposition with \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6; or (2) \u2018the God of\nChrist,\u2019 making it the genitive after \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6: but both expressions are\nwithout a parallel in St Paul. The mystery here is not \u2018Christ,\u2019 but\n\u2018Christ as containing in Himself all the treasures of wisdom\u2019; see the\nnote on i. 27 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd. For the form of the sentence comp. Ephes.\niv. 15, 16 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae, \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f57 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n3. \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2] So \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 ver. 2, \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3 ii. 28. These repetitions\nserve to emphasize the character of the Gospel, which is as complete in\nitself, as it is universal in its application.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 4]\n\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9. ^4\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\n\n\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2] The two words occur together again Rom. xi. 33 \u1f66\n\u03b2\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, 1 Cor. xii. 8. They are found\nin conjunction also several times in the LXX of Eccles. i. 7, 16, 18,\nii. 21, 26, ix. 10, where \u05d7\u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05d4 is represented by \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 and \u05d3\u05e2\u05ea by\n\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. While \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is simply _intuitive_, \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 is _ratiocinative_\nalso. While \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 applies chiefly to the apprehension of truths, \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\nsuperadds the power of reasoning about them and tracing their relations.\nWhen Bengel on 1 Cor. xii. 8 sq. says, \u2018Cognitio [\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2] est quasi\nvisus; sapientia [\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1] visus cum sapore,\u2019 he is so far right; but when\nhe adds, \u2018cognitio, rerum agendarum; sapientia, rerum aeternarum,\u2019 he is\nquite wide of the mark. Substantially the same, and equally wrong, is St\nAugustine\u2019s distinction _de Trin._ xii. 20, 25 (VIII. pp. 923, 926)\n\u2018intelligendum est ad contemplationem sapientiam [\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd], ad actionem\nscientiam [\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd] pertinere ... quod alia [\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1] sit intellectualis\ncognitio aeternarum rerum, alia [\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2] rationalis temporalium\u2019 (comp.\nxiv. 3, p. 948), and again _de Div. Qu\u00e6st. ad Simpl._> ii. 2 \u00a7 3 (VI. p.\n114) \u2018ita discerni probabiliter solent, ut sapientia pertineat ad\nintellectum \u00e6ternorum, scientia vero ad ea qu\u00e6 sensibus corporis\nexperimur.\u2019 This is directly opposed to usage. In Aristotle _Eth. Nic._\ni. 1 \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is opposed to \u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03be\u03b9\u03c2. In St Paul it is connected with the\napprehension of eternal mysteries, 1 Cor. xiii. 2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u1ff6 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. On the relation of \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 to \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 see above, i.\n9.\n\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9] So 1 Cor. ii. 7 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd. As before in \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (i. 28), so here again in \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\nthe Apostle adopts a favourite term of the Gnostic teachers, only that\nhe may refute a favourite doctrine. The word _apocrypha_ was especially\napplied to those esoteric writings, for which such sectarians claimed an\n_auctoritas secreta_ (Aug. _c. Faust._ xi. 2, VIII. p. 219) and which\nthey carefully guarded from publication after the manner of their Jewish\nprototypes the Essenes (see above p. 89 sq.): comp. Iren. i. 20. 1\n\u1f00\u03bc\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd, Clem. Alex. _Strom._ i. 15\n(p. 357) \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03b4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u1f05\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd _\u03b1\u1f50\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9_ \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, _ib._ iii. 4 (p. 524) \u1f10\u03c1\u03c1\u03cd\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f14\u03ba \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5. See also the application of the text Prov.\nix. 17 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f21\u03b4\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f05\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 to these heretics in _Strom._ i. 19\n(p. 375). Thus the word _apocrypha_ in the first instance was an\nhonourable appellation applied by the heretics themselves to their\nesoteric doctrine and their secret books; but owing to the general\ncharacter of these works the term, as adopted by orthodox writers, got\nto signify \u2018false,\u2019 \u2018spurious.\u2019 The early fathers never apply it, as it\nis now applied, to _deutero-canonical_ writings, but confine it to\n_supposititious_ and _heretical_ works: see Smith\u2019s _Dictionary of the\nBible_ s.v. In the text St Paul uses it \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2, as he uses\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. \u2018All the richest treasures of that secret wisdom,\u2019 he would\nsay, \u2018on which you lay so much stress, are buried in Christ, and being\nburied there are accessible to all alike who seek Him.\u2019 But, while the\nterm \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 is adopted because it was used to designate the secret\ndoctrine and writings of the heretics, it is also entirely in keeping\nwith the metaphor of the \u2018treasure\u2019; e.g. Is. xlv. 3 \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, 1 Macc. i. 23 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, Dan. xi. 43 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5:\ncomp. Matt. xiii. 44.\n\nThe stress thus laid on \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9 will explain its position. It is not\nconnected with \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, but must be taken apart as a secondary predicate:\ncomp. ver. 10 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, iii. 1 \u03bf\u1f57 \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, James i. 17 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03b4\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n4\u20137. \u2018I do not say this without a purpose. I wish to warn you against\nany who would lead you astray by specious argument and persuasive\nrhetoric. For I am not an indifferent spectator of your doings. Although\nI am absent from you in my flesh, yet I am present with you in my\nspirit. I rejoice to behold the orderly array and the solid phalanx\nwhich your faith towards Christ presents against the assaults of the\nfoe. I entreat you therefore not to abandon the Christ, as you learnt\nfrom Epaphras to know Him, even Jesus the Lord, but to walk still in Him\nas heretofore. I would have you firmly rooted once for all in Him. I\ndesire to see you built up higher in Him day by day, to see you growing\never stronger and stronger through your faith, while you remain true to\nthe lessons taught you of old, so that you may abound in it, and thus\nabounding may pour forth your hearts in gratitude to God the giver of\nall.\u2019\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 5]\n\n#\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u1fb3\u00b7 ^5\u03b5\u1f30 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd\n\n\n4. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018I say all this to you, lest you should be led\nastray by those false teachers who speak of another knowledge, of other\nmysteries.\u2019 In other connexions \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9 will frequently refer to the\nwords following (e.g. Gal. iii. 17, 1 Cor. i. 12); but with \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 it\npoints to what has gone before, as in Joh. v. 34 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5.\n\nThe reference in \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9 extends over vv. 1\u20133, and involves two\nstatements; (1) The declaration that all knowledge is comprehended in\nChrist, vv. 2, 3; (2) The expression of his own personal anxiety that\nthey should remain stedfast in this conviction, vv. 1, 2. This last\npoint explains the language which follows, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9] \u2018_lead you astray by false reasoning_\u2019, as in Daniel xiv.\n7 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03b6\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9 (LXX): comp. James i. 22, Ign. _Magn._ 3. It\nis not an uncommon word either in the LXX or in classical writers. The\nsystem against which St Paul here contends professed to be a \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\n(ver. 8) and had a \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (ver. 23).\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u1fb3] The words \u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd (Arist. _Eth. Nic._ i. 1),\n\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 (Plat. _The\u00e6t._ 162 E), \u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 (Epictet. i. 8. 7),\noccur occasionally in classical writers, but do not bear a bad sense,\nbeing most frequently opposed to \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03b9\u03c2, as probable argument to\nstrict mathematical demonstration. This contrast probably suggested St\nPaul\u2019s language in 1 Cor. ii. 4 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd _\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2_ \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n_\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2_ \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd _\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03be\u03b5\u03b9_ \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., and may\npossibly have been present to his mind here.\n\n5. \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70] frequently introduces the apodosis after \u03b5\u1f30 or \u03b5\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 in St\nPaul; e.g. Rom. vi. 5, 1 Cor. ix. 2, 2 Cor. iv. 16, v. 16, xi. 6, xiii.\n4 (v. l.).\n\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9] \u2018_in my spirit_\u2019, not \u2018_by the Spirit_\u2019. We have here the\ncommon antithesis of flesh and spirit, or body and spirit: comp. 1 Cor.\nv. 3 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9. St Paul elsewhere uses\nanother antithesis, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ce\u03c0\u1ff3 and \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3, to express this same thing; 1\nThess. ii. 17.\n\n\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd] \u2018_rejoicing and beholding_\u2019. This must not be\nregarded as a logical inversion. The contemplation of their orderly\narray, though it might have been first the cause, was afterwards the\nconsequence, of the Apostle\u2019s rejoicing. He looked, because it gave him\nsatisfaction to look.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 6]\n\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03af, \u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. ^6\u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5,\n\n\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b9\u03bd] \u2018_your orderly array_\u2019, a military metaphor: comp. e.g. Xen.\n_Anab._ i. 2. 18 \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03b8\u03b1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5, Plut. _Vit. Pyrrh._ 16 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c7\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b8\u03b1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5. The enforced\ncompanionship of St Paul with the soldiers of the pr\u00e6torian guard at\nthis time (Phil. i. 13) might have suggested this image. At all events\nin the contemporary epistle (Ephes. vi. 14 sq.) we have an elaborate\nmetaphor from the armour of a soldier.\n\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1] \u2018_solid front_, _close phalanx_\u2019, a continuation of the\nmetaphor: comp. 1 Macc. ix. 14 \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u0392\u03b1\u03ba\u03c7\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2. Somewhat similar are the expressions\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd 1 Macc. x. 50, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2 Ecclus.\nxxviii. 10. For the connexion here compare 1 Pet. v. 9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9, Acts xvi. 5 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n6. \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] i.e. \u2018Let your conviction and conduct be in\nperfect accordance with the doctrines and precepts of the Gospel as it\nwas taught to you\u2019. For this use of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u2018ye received from your\nteachers, were instructed in\u2019, comp. 1 Cor. xv. 1, 3, Gal. i. 9, Phil.\niv. 9, 1 Thess. ii. 13, iv. 1, 2 Thess. iii. 6. The word \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\nimplies either \u2018to receive as transmitted\u2019, or \u2018to receive for\ntransmission\u2019: see the note on Gal. i. 12. The \u1f61\u03c2 of the protasis\nsuggests a \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 in the apodosis, which in this case is unexpressed but\nmust be understood. The meaning of \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 here is explained by\nthe \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f18\u03c0\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u1fb6 in i. 7; see the note there, and comp.\nbelow ver. 7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5.\n\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd] \u2018_the Christ_\u2019, rather than \u2018the Gospel\u2019, because the\ncentral point in the Colossian heresy was the subversion of the true\nidea of the Christ.\n\n\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd] \u2018even _Jesus the Lord_\u2019, in whom the true conception\nof the Christ is realised: comp. Ephes. iv. 20, 21, \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bc\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 _\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd_, \u03b5\u1f34\u03b3\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5,\n_\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ce\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6_, where the same idea is more\ndirectly expressed. The genuine doctrine of the Christ consists in (1)\nthe recognition of the historical person _Jesus_, and (2) the acceptance\nof Him as _the Lord_. This doctrine was seriously endangered by the\nmystic theosophy of the false teachers. The same order which we have\nhere occurs also in Ephes. iii. 11 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd (the\ncorrect reading).\n\n7. \u1f10\u03c1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9] Two points may be noticed here; (1) The expressive\nchange of tenses; \u1f10\u03c1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u2018firmly rooted\u2019 _once for all_,\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u2018built up and strengthened\u2019 _from hour\nto hour_. (2) The rapid transition of metaphor, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5,\n\u1f10\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, the path, the tree, the building: comp.\nEphes. iii. 17 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. The metaphors of the\nplant and the building occur together in 1 Cor. iii. 9 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03ce\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\n\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae. The transition in this passage is made easier by the fact\nthat \u1fe5\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd (Plut. _Mor._ 321 D), \u1f10\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd (Jer. i. 10, 1 Macc. v. 51),\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03c2 (Jos. _B.J._ vii. 8. 7), etc., are not uncommonly used of\ncities and buildings.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 7]\n\n^7\u1f10\u03c1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u1fb3.\n\n\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9] \u2018_being built up_,\u2019 as in 1 Cor. iii. 10\u201314. After\nthis verb we might have expected \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 or \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd (1 Cor. iii. 12)\nrather than \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7; but in this and the companion epistle Christ is\nrepresented rather as the binding element than as the foundation of the\nbuilding: e.g. Ephes. ii. 20 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 _\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5_ \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6,\n_\u1f10\u03bd_ \u1fa7 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 [\u1f21] \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74 \u03b1\u1f54\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd _\u1f10\u03bd_ \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3,\n_\u1f10\u03bd_ \u1fa7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5. The \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 in \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd does not\nnecessarily refer to the original foundation, but may point to the\ncontinued progress of the building by successive layers, as e.g.\n[Aristot.] _Rhet. ad Alex._ 4 (p. 1426) \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f54\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. Hence \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd is frequently used absolutely, \u2018_to\nbuild up_\u2019 (e.g. Jude 20, Polyb. iii. 27, 4), as here. The repetition of\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 emphasizes the main idea of the passage, and indeed of the whole\nepistle.\n\n\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9] \u2018_by your faith_\u2019, the dative of the instrument; comp. Heb.\nxiii. 9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd. Faith is, as it were,\nthe cement of the building: comp. Clem. Rom. 22 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fd6 \u1f21 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5] i.e. \u2018remaining true to the lessons which you received\nfrom Epaphras, and not led astray by any later pretenders\u2019: comp. i. 6,\n7 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f18\u03c0\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u1fb6.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The same ending occurs in iv. 2. Thanksgiving is the end\nof all human conduct, whether exhibited in words or in works. For the\nstress laid on thanksgiving in St Paul\u2019s epistles generally, see the\nnote on Phil. iv. 6. The words \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1,\noccur in St Paul\u2019s writings alone of the Apostolic epistles. In this\nepistle especially the duty of thanksgiving assumes a peculiar\nprominence by being made a refrain, as here and in iii. 15, 17, iv. 2:\nsee also i. 12.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 8]\n\n^8 \u0392\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n\n                      8. \u03bc\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 _\u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2_.\n\n\n8\u201315. \u2018Be on your guard; do not suffer yourselves to fall a prey to\ncertain persons who would lead you captive by a hollow and deceitful\nsystem, which they call philosophy. They substitute the traditions of\nmen for the truth of God. They enforce an elementary discipline of\nmundane ordinances fit only for children. Theirs is not the Gospel of\nChrist. In Christ the entire fulness of the Godhead abides for ever,\nhaving united itself with man by taking a human body. And so in Him\u2014not\nin any inferior mediators\u2014ye have your life, your being, for ye are\nfilled from His fulness. He, I say, is the Head over all spiritual\nbeings\u2014call them principalities or powers or what you will. In Him too\nye have the true circumcision\u2014the circumcision which is not made with\nhands but wrought by the Spirit\u2014the circumcision which divests not of a\npart only but of the whole carnal body\u2014the circumcision which is not of\nMoses but of Christ. This circumcision ye have, because ye were buried\nwith Christ to your old selves beneath the baptismal waters, and were\nraised with Him from those same waters to a new and regenerate life,\nthrough your faith in the powerful working of God who raised Him from\nthe dead. Yes, you\u2014you Gentiles who before were dead, when ye walked in\nyour transgressions and in the uncircumcision of your unchastened carnal\nheathen heart\u2014even you did\n\nGod quicken into life together with Christ; then and there freely\nforgiving all of us\u2014Jews and Gentiles alike\u2014all our transgressions; then\nand there cancelling the bond which stood valid against us (for it bore\nour own signature), the bond which engaged us to fulfil all the law of\nordinances, which was our stern pitiless tyrant. Ay, this very bond hath\nChrist put out of sight for ever, nailing it to His cross and rending it\nwith His body and killing it in His death. Taking upon Him our human\nnature, He stripped off and cast aside all the powers of evil which\nclung to it like a poisonous garment. As a mighty conqueror He displayed\nthese His fallen enemies to an astonished world, leading them in triumph\non His cross.\u2019\n\n8. \u0392\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The form of the sentence is a measure of the\nimminence of the peril. The usual construction with \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 is a\nconjunctive; e.g. in Luke xxi. 8 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5. Here the\nsubstitution of an indicative shows that the danger is real; comp. Heb.\niii. 12 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f15\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. For\nother instances of \u03bc\u1f74 with a future indicative comp. Mark xiv. 2 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\n\u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03cc\u03c1\u03c5\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2, Rom. xi. 21 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9; and see Winer \u00a7 lvi.\np. 631 sq.\n\n\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2] This indefinite \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 is frequently used by St Paul, when speaking of\nopponents whom he knows well enough but does not care to name: see the\nnote on Gal. i. 7. Comp. Ign. _Smyrn._ 5 \u1f45\u03bd _\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2_ \u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 ... \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f04\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd] \u2018_makes you his prey_, carries you off body and soul\u2019. The\nword appears not to occur before St Paul, nor after him, independently\nof this passage, till a late date: e.g. Heliod. _Aeth._ x. 35 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2. In Tatian _ad Gr\u00e6c._ 22 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 it seems to be a reminiscence of St Paul. Its\nfull and proper meaning, as appears from the passages quoted, is not \u2018to\ndespoil,\u2019 but \u2018to carry off as spoil\u2019, in accordance with the analogous\ncompounds, \u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. So too the closely allied word\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd in Plut. _Mor._ p. 5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd,\n_Vit. Galb._ 5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. The Colossians had been rescued from the bondage of\ndarkness; they had been transferred to the kingdom of light; they had\nbeen settled there as free citizens (i. 12, 13); and now there was\ndanger that they should fall into a state worse than their former\nslavery, that they should be carried off as so much booty. Comp. 2 Tim.\niii. 6 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1.\n\nFor the construction \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd see the notes on Gal. i. 7, iii.\n21. The former passage is a close parallel to the words here, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u03ae\n\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The expression \u1f41 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd gives\na directness and individuality to the reference, which would have been\nwanting to the more natural construction \u1f43\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_through his philosophy which is an empty\ndeceit_\u2019. The absence of both preposition and article in the second\nclause shows that \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 describes and qualifies \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\nClement therefore (_Strom._ vi. 8, p. 771) had a right to contend that\nSt Paul does not here condemn \u2018philosophy\u2019 absolutely. The \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 of this passage corresponds to the \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 of 1\nTim. vi. 20.\n\nBut though \u2018philosophy\u2019 is not condemned, it is disparaged by the\nconnexion in which it is placed. St Chrysostom\u2019s comment is not\naltogether wrong, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2. The term was doubtless used by the false teachers\nthemselves to describe their system. Though essentially Greek as a name\nand as an idea, it had found its way into Jewish circles. Philo speaks\nof the Hebrew religion and Mosaic law as \u1f21 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 (_Leg. ad\nCai._ 23, II. p. 568, _de Somn._ ii. 18, I. p. 675) or \u1f21 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03ca\u03ba\u1f74\n\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 (_Leg. ad Cai._ 33, II. p. 582) or \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03c9\"\u03c5\u03c3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\n(_de Mut. Nom._ 39, I. p. 612). The system of the Essenes, the probable\nprogenitors of the false teachers at Coloss\u00e6, he describes as \u1f21 \u03b4\u03af\u03c7\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 (_Omn. prob. lib._ 13, II. p.\n459). So too Josephus speaks of the three Jewish sects as \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 (_Ant._ xviii. 1. 2, comp. _B.J._ ii. 8. 2). It should be\nremembered also, that in this later age, owing to Roman influence, the\nterm was used to describe practical not less than speculative systems,\nso that it would cover the ascetic life as well as the mystic theosophy\nof these Colossian heretics. Hence the Apostle is here flinging back at\nthese false teachers a favourite term of their own, \u2018their vaunted\n_philosophy_, which is hollow and misleading\u2019.\n\nThe word indeed could claim a truly noble origin; for it is said to have\narisen out of the humility of Pythagoras, who called himself \u2018a lover of\nwisdom\u2019, \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f22 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd (Diog. Laert.\nPro\u0153m. \u00a7 12; comp. Cic. _Tusc._ v. 3). In such a sense the term would\nentirely accord with the spirit and teaching of St Paul; for it bore\ntestimony to the insufficiency of the human intellect and the need of a\nrevelation. But in his age it had come to be associated generally with\nthe idea of subtle dialectics and profitless speculation; while in this\nparticular instance it was combined with a mystic cosmogony and\nangelology which contributed a fresh element of danger. As contrasted\nwith the power and fulness and certainty of revelation, all such\nphilosophy was \u2018foolishness\u2019 (1 Cor. i. 20). It is worth observing that\nthis word, which to the Greeks denoted the highest effort of the\nintellect, occurs here alone in St Paul, just as he uses \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae, which\nwas their term to express the highest moral excellence, in a single\npassage only (Phil. iv. 8; see the note there). The reason is much the\nsame in both cases. The Gospel had deposed the terms as inadequate to\nthe higher standard, whether of knowledge or of practice, which it had\nintroduced.\n\nOn the attitude of the fathers towards philosophy, while philosophy was\na living thing, see Smith\u2019s _Dictionary of the Bible_ s.v. Clement, who\nwas followed in the main by the earlier Alexandrian fathers, regards\nGreek philosophy not only as a preliminary training (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1) for the\nGospel, but even as in some sense a covenant (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7) given by God to\nthe Greeks (_Strom._ i. 5, p. 331, vi. 5, p. 761, _ib._ \u00a7 8, p. 771\nsq.). Others, who were the great majority and of whom Tertullian may be\ntaken as an extreme type, set their faces directly against it, seeing in\nit only the parent of all heretical teaching: e.g. _de Anim._ 2, 3,\n_Apol._ 46, 47. In the first passage, referring to this text, he says,\n\u2018Ab apostolo jam tunc philosophia concussio veritatis providebatur\u2019; in\nthe second he asks, \u2018Quid simile philosophus et Christianus?\u2019 St Paul\u2019s\nspeech at Athens, on the only occasion when he is known to have been\nbrought into direct personal contact with Greek philosophers (Acts xvii.\n18), shows that his sympathies would have been at least as strong with\nClement\u2019s representations as with Tertullian\u2019s.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 8]\n\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The false teaching is described (1) As regards its\nsource\u2013\u2018the traditions of _men_\u2019; (2) As regards its subject matter\u2013\u2018the\nrudiments of _the world_\u2019.\n\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] Other systems, as for instance the ceremonial\nmishna of the Pharisees, might fitly be described in this way (Matt.\nxv. 2 sq., Mark vii. 3 sq.): but such a description was peculiarly\nappropriate to a mystic theosophy like this of the Colossian false\nteachers. The teaching might be oral or written, but it was\nessentially esoteric, essentially traditional. It could not appeal to\nsacred books which had been before all the world for centuries. The\nEssenes, the immediate spiritual progenitors of these Colossian\nheretics, distinctly claimed to possess such a source of knowledge,\nwhich they carefully guarded from divulgence; _B.J._ ii. 8. 7\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\n\u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 (see above pp. 89, 90 sq., 95). The various Gnostic sects,\ntheir direct or collateral spiritual descendants, almost without\nexception traced their doctrines to a similar source: e.g. Hippol.\n_H\u00e6r._ v. 7 \u1f03 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76 _\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9_ \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd, vii. 20 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u1f24\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17\n(p. 898) \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f41 \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2, \u03ba\u1f02\u03bd \u0393\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03af, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03ad\u03b1\u00b7 \u1f61\u03c3\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039f\u1f50\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03b4\u1fb6\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03a0\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5. So too a\nlater mystic theology of the Jews, which had many affinities with the\nteaching of the Christianized Essenes at Coloss\u00e6, was self-designated\n_Kabbala_ or \u2018tradition\u2019, professing to have been handed down orally\nfrom the patriarchs. See the note on \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9, ii. 3.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 8]\n\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5,\n\n\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1] \u2018_the rudiments_, _the elementary teaching_\u2019; comp. ver.\n20. The same phrase occurs again Gal. iv. 3 (comp. ver. 9). As \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\nsignifies primarily \u2018the letters of the alphabet\u2019, so as a secondary\nmeaning it denotes \u2018rudimentary instruction\u2019. Accordingly it is\ncorrectly interpreted by Clement _Strom._ vi. 8 (p. 771) \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n\u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u1fd6 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c4\u03ac\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd (i.e. elementary) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (comp. _ib._ vi. 15, p. 799), and by Tertullian\n_adv. Marc._ v. 19 \u2018_secundum elementa mundi_, non secundum c\u00e6lum et\nterram dicens, sed secundum literas seculares\u2019. A large number of the\nfathers however explained the expression to refer to the heavenly bodies\n(called \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1), as marking the seasons, so that the observance of\n\u2018festivals and new-moons and sabbaths\u2019 was a sort of bondage to them. It\nwould appear from Tertullian\u2019s language that Marcion also had so\ninterpreted the words. On this false interpretation see the note on Gal.\niv. 3. It is quite out of place here: for (1) The context suggests some\n_mode of instruction_, e.g. \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd here, and\n\u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 in ver. 20; (2) The keeping of days and seasons is quite\nsubordinate to other external observances. The rite of circumcision\n(ver. 11), and the distinction of meats (ver. 21) respectively, are\nplaced in close and immediate connexion with \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 in\nthe two places where it occurs, whereas the observance of days and\nseasons (ver. 16) stands apart from either.\n\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5] \u2018_of the world_\u2019, that is, \u2018belonging to the sphere of\nmaterial and external things\u2019. See the notes on Gal. iv. 3, vi. 14.\n\n\u2018In Christ\u2019, so the Apostle seems to say, \u2018you have attained the liberty\nand the intelligence of manhood; do not submit yourselves again to a\nrudimentary discipline fit only for children (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1). In Christ\nyou have been exalted into the sphere of the Spirit: do not plunge\nyourselves again into the atmosphere of material and sensuous things\n(\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5).\u2019\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 9, 10]\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u00b7 ^9\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2, ^{10}\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7\n\n\n\u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd] \u2018_not after Christ_\u2019. This expression is wide in\nitself, and should be interpreted so as to supply the negative to both\nthe preceding clauses; \u2018Christ is neither the author nor the substance\nof their teaching: not the author, for they listen to human traditions\n(\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd); not the substance, for they replace\nHim by formal ordinances (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5) and by angelic\nmediators\u2018.\n\n9 sq. In explaining the true doctrine which is \u2018after Christ\u2019, St Paul\ncondemns the two false principles, which lay at the root of this\nheretical teaching; (1) The _theological_ error of substituting inferior\nand created beings angelic mediators for the divine Head Himself (vv. 9,\n10); and (2) The _practical_ error of insisting upon ritual and ascetic\nobservances, as the foundation of their moral teaching (vv. 11\u201314).\nTheir theological speculations and their ethical code alike were at\nfault. On the intimate connexion between these two errors, as springing\nout of a common root, the Gnostic dualism of these false teachers, see\nthe introduction, pp. 33 sq., 79, 87, 180 sq.\n\n\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The Apostle justifies the foregoing charge that this\ndoctrine was not \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd; \u2018In Christ dwells the whole pleroma, the\nentire fulness of the Godhead, whereas they represent it to you as\ndispersed among several spiritual agencies. Christ is the one\nfountain-head of all spiritual life, whereas they teach you to seek it\nin communion with inferior creatures.\u2019 The same truths have been stated\nbefore (i. 14 sq.) more generally and they are now restated with direct\nand immediate reference to the heretical teaching.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6] \u2018_has its fixed abode_\u2019. On the force of this compound in\nrelation to the false teaching, see the note on i. 19.\n\n\u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1] \u2018_all the plenitude_\u2019, \u2018the totality of the divine\npowers and attributes\u2019. On this theological term see i. 19, and the\ndetached note at the end of the epistle.\n\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2] \u2018_of the Godhead_\u2019. \u2018Non modo divin\u00e6 virtutes, sed ipsa\ndivina natura\u2019, writes Bengel. For the difference between \u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n\u2018_deitas_\u2019, the essence, and \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u2018_divinitas_\u2019, the quality, see\nTrench _N. T. Syn._ \u00a7 ii. p. 6. The different force of the two words may\nbe seen by a comparison of two passages in Plutarch, _Mor._ p. 857 A\n\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 (where it\nmeans a divine inspiration or faculty, and where no one would have used\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1), and _Mor._ 415 C \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f21\u03c1\u03ce\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd (where \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 would be\nquite out of place, because all \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 without exception were \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9,\nthough they only became \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03af in rare instances and after long probation\nand discipline). In the New Testament the one word occurs here alone,\nthe other in Rom. i. 20 alone. So also \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, a very favourite\nexpression in Greek philosophy, is found once only, in Acts xvii. 29,\nwhere it is used with singular propriety; for the Apostle is there\nmeeting the heathen philosophers on their own ground and arguing with\nthem in their own language. Elsewhere he instinctively avoids a term\nwhich tends to obscure the idea of a personal God. In the Latin\nversions, owing to the poverty of the language, both \u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 and \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\nare translated by the same term _divinitas_; but this was felt to be\ninadequate, and the word _deitas_ was coined at a later date to\nrepresent \u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2: August. _de Civ. Dei_ vii. \u00a7 1, VII. p. 162 (quoted in\nTrench) \u2018Hanc divinitatem vel, ut sic dixerim, _deitatem_: nam et hoc\nverbo uti jam nostros non piget, ut de Gr\u00e6co expressius transferant id\nquod illi \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 appellant etc.\u2019\n\n\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2] \u2018_bodily-wise_\u2019, \u2018_corporeally_\u2019, i.e. \u2018assuming a bodily\nform, becoming incarnate\u2019. This is an addition to the previous statement\nin i. 19 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9. The indwelling of\nthe pleroma refers to the Eternal Word, and not to the Incarnate Christ;\nbut \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 is added to show that the Word, in whom the pleroma thus\nhad its abode from all eternity, crowned His work by the Incarnation.\nThus while the main statement \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 of St\nPaul corresponds to the opening sentence \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u1f72\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 of St John, the subsidiary adverb \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 of St Paul\nhas its counterpart in the additional statement \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u1f70\u03c1\u03be \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\nof St John. All other meanings which have been assigned to \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2\nhere, as \u2018wholly\u2019 (Hieron. _in Is._ xi. 1 sq., IV. p. 156, \u2018nequaquam\nper partes, ut in ceteris sanctis\u2019), or \u2018really\u2019 (Aug. _Epist._ cxlix,\nII. p. 513 \u2018Ideo corporaliter dixit, quia illi umbratiliter\nseducebant\u2019), or \u2018essentially\u2019 (Hilar. _de Trin._ viii. 54, II. p. 252\n\u2018Dei ex Deo significat veritatem etc.\u2019, Cyril. Alex. in Theodoret. _Op._\nV. p. 34 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2, Isid. Pelus. _Ep._ iv. 166 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03c2), are unsupported by usage. Nor again can the body be\nunderstood of anything else but Christ\u2019s human body; as for instance of\nthe created World (Theod. Mops. in Rab. _Op._ VI. p. 522) or of the\nChurch (Anon. in Chrysost. _ad loc._). According to these two last\ninterpretations \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is taken to mean the Universe\n(\u2018universam naturam repletam ab eo\u2019) and the Church (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, see Ephes. i. 23) respectively,\nbecause either of these may be said to reside in Him, as the source of\nits life, and to stand to Him in the relation of the body to the head\n(\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2). But these forced interpretations have nothing to recommend\nthem.\n\nSt Paul\u2019s language is carefully guarded. He does not say \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, for\nthe Godhead cannot be confined to any limits of space; nor \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03c2,\nfor this might suggest the unreality of Christ\u2019s human body; but\n\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2, \u2018in bodily wise\u2019, \u2018with a bodily manifestation\u2019. The relation\nof \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 to the clause which it qualifies will depend on the\ncircumstances of the case: comp. e.g. Plut. _Mor._ p. 424 E \u03bb\u03ad\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, i.e. \u2018ratione\ncorporis habita\u2019, Athan. _Exp. Fid._ 4 (I. p. 81) \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, i.e. \u2018secundum\ncorpus\u2019, Ptolem. in Epiphan. _H\u00e6r._ xxxiii. 5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u1fc3\u03c1\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7.\n\n10. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7] \u2018_and ye are in Him_\u2019, where \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f72 should be\nseparated from the following \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9; comp. John xvii. 21, Acts\nxvii. 28. True life consists in union with Him, and not in dependence on\nany inferior being; comp. ver. 19 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd, \u1f10\u03be \u1f41\u1fe6 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 10]\n\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\n\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9] \u2018_being fulfilled_\u2019, with a direct reference to the\npreceding \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1; \u2018Your fulness comes from His fulness; His \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 is\ntransfused into you by virtue of your incorporation in Him\u2019. So too John\ni. 16 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, Ephes. iii. 19 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, iv. 13 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, comp. Ign. _Ephes._ init. \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9. Hence also the Church, as ideally\nregarded, is called the \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 of Christ, because all His graces and\nenergies are communicated to her; Ephes. i. 23 \u1f25\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6,\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n\u1f45\u03c2] For the various reading \u1f45 see the detached note. It was perhaps a\ncorrection made on the false supposition that \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 referred to the\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1. At all events it must be regarded as an impossible reading; for\nthe image would be altogether confused and lost, if the \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 were\nrepresented as the head. And again \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74 is persistently said\nelsewhere of Christ; i. 18, ii. 19, Ephes. i. 22, iv. 15, v. 23. Hilary\n_de Trin._ ix. 8 (II. p. 264) explains the \u1f45 as referring to the whole\nsentence \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, but this also is an\ninconceivable sense. Again it has been suggested that \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd (like\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd) may be taken as equivalent to _scilicet_ (comp. Clem. _Hom._\nviii. 22); but this would require \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc7, even if it were otherwise\nadmissible here.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 11]\n\n\u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 ^{11}\u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c4\u03bc\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c4\u1ff3,\n\n\n\u1f21 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74] The image expresses much more than the idea of sovereignty:\nthe head is also the centre of vital force, the source of all energy and\nlife: see the note on ver. 19.\n\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_of every principality and power_\u2019, and therefore\nof those angelic beings whom the false teachers adopted as mediators,\nthus transferring to the inferior members the allegiance due to the\nHead: comp. ver. 18 sq. For \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, see the note on i. 16.\n\n11. The previous verses have dealt with the theological tenets of the\nfalse teachers. The Apostle now turns to their practical errors; \u2018You do\nnot need the circumcision of the flesh; for you have received the\ncircumcision of the heart. The distinguishing features of this higher\ncircumcision are threefold. (1) It is not external but inward, not made\nwith hands but wrought by the Spirit. (2) It divests not of a part only\nof the flesh, but of the whole body of carnal affections. (3) It is the\ncircumcision not of Moses or of the patriarchs, but of Christ\u2019. Thus it\nis distinguished, as regards _first_ its character, _secondly_ its\nextent, and _thirdly_ its author.\n\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c4\u03bc\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5] The moment at which this is conceived as taking place is\ndefined by the other aorists, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5, etc., as the\ntime of their baptism, when they \u2018put on Christ\u2019.\n\n\u1f00\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c4\u1ff3] i.e. \u2018immaterial\u2019, \u2018spiritual\u2019, as Mark xiv. 58, 2 Cor. v.\n1. So \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, which is used in the N. T. of material temples and\ntheir furniture (Acts vii. 48, xvii. 24, Heb. ix. 11, 24, comp. Mark\n_l.c._), and of the material circumcision (Ephes. ii. 11 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5). In the LXX \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 occurs\nexclusively as a rendering of idols (\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05dd, e.g. Lev. xxvi. 1, Is. ii.\n18, etc.), false gods (\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd Is. xxi. 9, where perhaps they read\n\u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd), or images (\u05d7\u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd Lev. xxvi. 30), except in one passage, Is.\nxvi. 12, where it is applied to an idol\u2019s sanctuary. Owing to this\nassociation of the word the application which we find in the New\nTestament would sound much more depreciatory to Jewish ears than it does\nto our own; e.g. \u1f10\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 in St Stephen\u2019s speech, where\nthe force of the passage is broken in the received text by the\ninterpolation of \u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\nFor illustrations of the typical significance of circumcision, as a\nsymbol of purity, see the note on Phil. iii. 3.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The words are chosen to express the _completeness_ of the\nspiritual change. (1) It is not an \u1f14\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 nor an \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, but an\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. The word \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is extremely rare, and no earlier\ninstances of it are produced; see the note on ver. 15 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. (2)\nIt is not a single member but the whole body, which is thus cast aside;\nsee the next note. Thus the idea of completeness is brought out both in\nthe energy of the action and in the extent of its operation, as in iii.\n9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd _\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd_.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 12]\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6,\n^{12}\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03bd\n\n\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_the whole body_ which consists _of the flesh_\u2019,\ni.e. \u2018the body with all its corrupt and carnal affections\u2019; as iii. 5\n\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd _\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7_. For illustrations of the expression see\nRom. vi. 6 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, vii. 24 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, Phil. iii. 21 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. Thus \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 here means \u2018the fleshly body\u2019 and not \u2018the entire mass of the\nflesh\u2019; but the contrast between the whole and the part still remains.\nIn i. 22 the same expression \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 occurs, but with a\ndifferent emphasis and meaning: see the note there.\n\nThe words \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, inserted between \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 in\nthe received text, are clearly a gloss, and must be omitted with the\nvast majority of ancient authorities.\n\n12. Baptism is the grave of the old man, and the birth of the new. As he\nsinks beneath the baptismal waters, the believer buries there all his\ncorrupt affections and past sins; as he emerges thence, he rises\nregenerate, quickened to new hopes and a new life. This it is, because\nit is not only the crowning act of his own faith but also the seal of\nGod\u2019s adoption and the earnest of God\u2019s Spirit. Thus baptism is an image\nof his participation both in the death and in the resurrection of\nChrist. See _Apost. Const._ iii. 17 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f21\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. For this twofold image, as it presents itself\nto St Paul, see especially Rom. vi. 3 sq.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff7] \u2018_in the act of baptism_\u2019. A distinction seems to be\nobserved elsewhere in the New Testament between \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u2018baptism\u2019\nproperly so called, and \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u2018lustration\u2019 or \u2018washing\u2019 of divers\nkinds, e.g. of vessels (Mark vii. 4, [8,] Heb. ix. 10). Even Heb. vi. 2\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2, which at first sight might seem to be an exception to\nthis rule, is perhaps not really so (Bleek _ad loc._). Here however,\nwhere the various readings \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff7 and \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 appear in\ncompetition, the preference ought probably to be given to \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff7 as\nbeing highly supported in itself (see the detached note on various\nreadings) and as the less usual word in this sense. There is no _a\npriori_ reason why St Paul should not have used \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 with this\nmeaning, for it is so found in Josephus _Ant._ xviii. 5. 2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff7\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b9\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 (of John the Baptist). Doubtless the form \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 was more\nappropriate to describe the one final and complete act of Christian\nbaptism, and it very soon obtained exclusive possession of the ground in\nGreek; but in St Paul\u2019s age the other form \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 may not yet have\nbeen banished. In the Latin Version _baptisma_ and _baptismus_ are used\nindiscriminately: and this is the case also with the Latin fathers. The\nsubstantive \u2018baptism\u2019 occurs so rarely in any sense in St Paul (only\nRom. vi. 4, Eph. iv. 5, besides this passage), or indeed elsewhere in\nthe N. T. of Christian baptism (only in 1 Pet. iii. 21), that we have\nnot sufficient data for a sound induction. So far as the two words have\nany inherent difference of meaning, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 denotes rather the act in\nprocess and \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 the result.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 12]\n\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff7, \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba [\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd]\n\n                           12. \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9.\n\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7] i.e. \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff7. Others would understand \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 for the sake of\nthe parallelism with ver. 11 \u1f10\u03bd h\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 ... \u03b5\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af. But this\nparallelism is not suggested by the sense: while on the other hand\nthere is obviously a very close connexion between \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 and\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 as the two complementary aspects of baptism; comp. Rom.\nvi. 4 sq. _\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd_ \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n_\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7_ \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 ... \u1f45\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 ... \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 _\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5_ \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2_ \u1f10\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, 2 Tim. ii. 11 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 _\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd_, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n_\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b6\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd_. In fact the idea of \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 must be reserved for\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 where it is wanted, \u2018_ye were raised together with Him_\u2019.\n\n\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_through your faith in the operation_,\u2019\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 being the objective genitive. So St Chrysostom, \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f20\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5. Only\nby a belief in the resurrection are the benefits of the resurrection\nobtained, because only so are its moral effects produced. Hence St Paul\nprays that he may \u2018know the _power_ of Christ\u2019s resurrection\u2019 (Phil.\niii. 10). Hence too he makes this the cardinal article in the\nChristian\u2019s creed, \u2018If thou ... believest in thy heart that God raised\nHim from the dead, thou shalt be saved\u2019 (Rom. x. 9). For the influence\nof Christ\u2019s resurrection on the moral and spiritual being, see the note\non Phil. _l.c._ Others take \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 as the subjective genitive,\n\u2018faith which comes from the operation etc.\u2019, arguing from a mistaken\ninterpretation of the parallel passage Ephes. i. 19 (where \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd should be connected, not with \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, but with \u03c4\u03af \u03c4\u1f78\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.). The former explanation however yields a\nbetter sense, and the genitive after \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 far more commonly describes\nthe object than the source of the faith, e.g. Rom. iii. 22, 26, Gal.\niii. 22, Ephes. iii. 12, Phil. i. 27, iii. 9, 2 Thess. ii. 13.\n\n13. In the sentence which follows it seems necessary to assume a change\nof subject. There can be little doubt that \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 is the nominative to\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd: for (1) The parallel passage Ephes. ii. 4, 5 directly\nsuggests this. (2) This is uniformly St Paul\u2019s mode of speaking\nelsewhere. It is always God who \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9, \u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6,\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6, etc., with or in or through Christ. (3) Though it might be\npossible to assign \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 to the subject of \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd (see the\nnote on i. 20), yet a reference to some other person is more natural.\nThese reasons seem to decide the subject of \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd. But at the\nsame time it appears quite impossible to continue the same subject, \u1f41\n\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, to the end of the sentence. No grammatical meaning can be assigned\nto \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, by which it could be understood of God the Father. We\nmust suppose therefore that a new subject, \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, is introduced\nmeanwhile, either with \u1f26\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd or with \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 itself; and of the\ntwo the former seems the easier point of transition. For a similar\ninstance of abrupt transition, which is the more natural owing to the\nintimate connexion of the work of the Son with the work of the Father,\nsee e.g. i. 17 sq.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2] i.e. \u2018you Gentiles\u2019. This will appear from a study of the\nparallel passages iii. 7, 8, Ephes. i. 13, ii. 1 sq., 11, 13, 17, 22,\niii. 2, iv. 17; see the notes on Ephes. i. 13, and on \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u1fb3 just\nbelow.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 13]\n\n\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u00b7 ^{13}\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u1fb3\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\n\n\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_by reason of your transgressions etc._\u2019 The\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 are the actual definite transgressions, while the \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 is the impure carnal disposition which prompts to them. For\nthe dative comp. Ephes. ii. 1, 5, where the same expression occurs; see\nWiner _Gramm._ \u00a7 xxxi. p. 270. On the other hand in Rom. vi. 11 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u1fb3, \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7, the dative has a wholly different\nmeaning, as the context shows. The \u1f10\u03bd of the received text, though\nhighly supported, is doubtless an interpolation for the sake of\ngrammatical clearness.\n\n\u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The external fact is here mentioned, not for its\nown sake but for its symbolical meaning. The outward uncircumcision of\nthe Gentiles is a type of their unchastened carnal mind. In other words,\nthough the literal meaning is not excluded, the spiritual reference is\nmost prominent, as appears from ver. 11 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\nHence Theodore\u2019s comment, \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd (\u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd) \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1. At the same time the choice of the expression shows that the\nColossian converts addressed by St Paul were mainly Gentiles.\n\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd] It has been questioned whether the life here spoken of\nshould be understood in a spiritual sense of the regeneration of the\nmoral being, or in a literal sense of the future life of immortality\nregarded as conferred on the Christian potentially now, though only to\nbe realised hereafter. But is not such an issue altogether superfluous?\nIs there any reason to think that St Paul would have separated these two\nideas of life? To him the future glorified life is only the continuation\nof the present moral and spiritual life. The two are the same in\nessence, however the accidents may differ. Moral and spiritual\nregeneration is salvation, is life.\n\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2] The pronoun is repeated for the sake of emphasis. The omission in\nsome good copies is doubly explained; (1) By the desire to simplify the\ngrammar; (2) By the wish to relieve the awkwardness of the close\nproximity between \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 and \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd. This latter consideration has led a few\ngood authorities to substitute \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 for \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, and others to substitute\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd for \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd. For instances of those emphatic repetitions in St Paul\nsee the note on i. 20 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n\u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff3] \u2018with Christ\u2019, as in Ephes. ii. 5 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7. On\nthe inadmissibility of the reading \u1f01\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 see the note on \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd i. 20.\n\n\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2] \u2018_having forgiven_\u2019, as in Luke vii. 42 sq., 2 Cor. ii. 7,\n10, xii. 13, Ephes. iv. 32; see also the note on iii. 13 below. The idea\nof sin as a debt incurred to God (Matt. vi. 12 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, comp.\nLuke xi. 4) underlies this expression, as it does also the commoner term\nfor pardon, \u1f04\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u2018remission\u2019. The image is carried out in the\ncancelled bond, ver. 14.\n\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd] The person is changed; \u2018not to you Gentiles only, but to us all\nalike\u2019. St Paul is eager to claim his share in the transgression, that\nhe may claim it also in the forgiveness. For other examples of the\nchange from the second to the first person, see i. 10\u201313, iii. 3, 4,\nEphes. ii. 2, 3, 13, 14, iv. 31, 32, v. 2 (the correct reading), 1\nThess. v. 5, where the motive of the change is similar. See also Gal.\niii. 25, 26, iv. 5, 6, where there is the converse transition.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 14]\n\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7, \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, ^{14}\u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\n\n14. \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03b9\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2] \u2018_having cancelled_\u2019. The word \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03b9\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, like\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, signifying \u2018to blot out, to erase\u2019, is commonly opposed to\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u2018to enter a name, etc.\u2019; e.g. Arist. _Pax_ 1181, Lysias _c.\nNicom._ p. 183, Plato _Resp._ vi. p. 501 B. More especially is it so\nused in reference to an _item_ in an account, e.g. Demosth. _c.\nAristog._ i. p. 791 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f40\u03c6\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 ... \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03c6\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1.\n\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_the bond standing against us_\u2019. The word\n\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd, which means properly an autograph of any kind, is used\nalmost exclusively for a note of hand, a bond or obligation, as having\nthe \u2018sign-manual\u2019 of the debtor or contractor: e.g. Tobit v. 3 (comp.\nix. 5) \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd, Plut. _Mor._ p. 829 A \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd. It is more common in Latin than in Greek, e.g. Cic.\n_Fam._ vii. 18 \u2018Misi cautionem chirographi mei\u2019, Juv. _Sat._ xvi. 41\n\u2018Debitor aut sumptos pergit non reddere nummos, vana supervacui dicens\nchirographa ligni\u2019 (comp. xiii. 137). Hence chirographum,\nchirographarius, are frequent terms in the Roman law-books; see Hesse\n_Handlexicon zu den Quellen des r\u00f6mischen Rechts_ s.v. p. 74.\n\nIn the case before us the Jewish people might be said to have signed the\ncontract when they bound themselves by a curse to observe all the\nenactments of the law (Deut. xxvii. 14\u201326; comp. Exod. xxiv. 3); and the\nprimary reference would be to them. But \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, seem to include\nGentiles as well as Jews, so that a wider reference must be given to the\nexpression. The \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 therefore, though referring primarily to the\nMosaic ordinances, will include all forms of positive decrees in which\nmoral or social principles are embodied or religious duties defined; and\nthe \u2018bond\u2019 is the moral assent of the conscience, which (as it were)\nsigns and seals the obligation. The Gentiles, though \u2018not having a law,\nare a law to themselves\u2019, \u1f45\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\n_\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd_ \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, _\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2_ \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, Rom. ii. 14, 15. See the notes on Gal. ii. 19, iv. 11.\nComp. Orig. _Hom. in Gen._ xiii. 4 (II. p. 96).\n\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd] \u2018_consisting in ordinances_\u2019: comp. Ephes. ii. 15 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. The word \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 is here used in its proper\nsense of a \u2018decree\u2019, \u2018ordinance\u2019, corresponding to \u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 below,\nver. 20. This is its only sense in the N. T.; e.g. Luke ii. 1, Acts\nxvii. 7, of the Emperor\u2019s decrees; Acts xvi. 4 of the Apostolic\nordinances. Here it refers especially to the Mosaic law, as in Joseph.\n_Ant._ xv. 5. 3 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f41\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, Philo _Leg. All._ i. 16 (I. p. 54) \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, 3 Macc. i. 3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. Comp. Iren. _Fragm._ 38 (p.\n855 Stieren) where, immediately after a reference to our text, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 is opposed to \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. In\nthe parallel passage, Ephes. ii. 15, this is the exclusive reference;\nbut here (for reasons explained in the last note) it seems best to give\nthe term a secondary and more extensive application.\n\nThe dative is perhaps best explained as governed by the idea of\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd involved in \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd (comp. Plat. _Ep._ vii. p. 243 A \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2); as in 1 Tim. ii. 6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2,\nwhere \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 depends on an implied \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. Otherwise it is\ntaken as closely connected with \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, \u2018the bond which was in force\nagainst us by reason of the ordinances\u2019: see Winer \u00a7 xxxi. p. 273, A.\nButtmann p. 80. Possibly an \u1f10\u03bd has dropped out of the text before \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, owing to the similar ending ==\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd== (comp. Ephes.\nii. 15); but, if so, the omission must date from the earliest age, since\nno existing authorities exhibit any traces of such a reading; see the\nnote on ver. 18 \u1f03 \u1f11\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, and comp. Phil. ii. 1 \u03b5\u1f34 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1.\n\nA wholly different interpretation however prevails universally among\nGreek commentators both here and in Ephes. ii. 15. They take \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, to mean the \u2018doctrines or precepts of the\nGospel\u2019, and so to describe the instrument by which the abrogation of\nthe law was effected. So Chrysostom, Severianus, Theodore of Mopsuestia,\nand Theodoret, followed by the later commentators [OE]cumenius and\nTheophylact. Strangely enough they do not allude to the correct\ninterpretation; nor (with the exception of the passage ascribed to\nIren\u00e6us which is quoted above) have I found any distinct traces of it in\nany Greek father. The grammatical difficulty would be taken to favour\nthis interpretation, which moreover was characteristic of the age when\nthe battle of creeds was fought. But it has been universally abandoned\nby modern interpreters, as plainly inappropriate to the context and also\nas severing the substantive \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 here from the verb \u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd in ver.\n20. The Latin fathers, who had either _decretis_ or _sententiis_ in\ntheir version, were saved from this false interpretation; e.g. Hilar.\n_de Trin._ i. 12 (II. p. 10), ix. 10 (II. p. 265 sq.), Ambros. _Apol.\nDav._ 13 (I. p. 698), _de Fid._ iii. 2 (II. p. 499), August. _de Pecc.\nMer._ i. 47 (X. p. 26): though they very commonly took \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, to refer to the decree of condemnation. Jerome however on\nEphes. ii. 15 (VII. p. 581) follows the Greeks. The later Christian\nsense of \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, meaning \u2018doctrine\u2019, came from its secondary classical\nuse, where it was applied to the authoritative and categorical\n\u2018sentences\u2019 of the philosophers: comp. Just. Mart. _Apol._ i. 7 (p. 56\nD) \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f11\u03bd\u1f76 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\n\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, Cic.\n_Acad._ ii. 9 \u2018de suis decretis qu\u00e6 philosophi vocant \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u2019, Senec.\n_Epist._ xcv. 10 \u2018Nulla ars contemplativa sine decretis suis est, qu\u00e6\nGr\u00e6ci vocant _dogmata_, nobis vel _decreta_ licet adpellare vel _scita_\nvel _placita_\u2019. See the indices to Plutarch, Epictetus, etc., for\nillustrations of the use of the term. There is an approach towards the\necclesiastical meaning in Ignat. _Magn._ 13 \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, Barnab. \u00a7 1 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n(comp. \u00a7 9, 10).\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 14]\n\n\u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f43 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f26\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\n\n\n\u1f43 \u1f26\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_which was directly opposed to us_\u2019. The former\nexpression, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, referred to the _validity_ of the bond; the\npresent, \u1f43 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, describes its _active hostility_. It is\nquite a mistake to suppose that the first preposition in \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c2\nmitigates its force, as in \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9,\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, etc. Neither in classical writers nor in the LXX has the\nword any shade of this meaning. It is very commonly used for instance,\nof things which are directly antagonistic and mutually exclusive: e.g.\nAristot. _de Gen. et Corr._ i. 7 (p. 323) \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76 ... \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03cc \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd ... \u1f10\u03bf\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 (i.e. self-contradictory) \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., [Plato] _Alcib. Sec._ 138 C\n\u03a3\u03a9. \u03a4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f06\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd; \u0391\u039b. \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c5 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f56\u03bd.... 139 B \u03a3\u03a9. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03b3\u03b5 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 \u1f11\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7;\n(i.e. how can one thing have two direct opposites?), where the whole\nargument depends on this sense of \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c2. In compounds with \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 the\nforce of the preposition will generally be determined by the meaning of\nthe other element in the compound; and, as \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c2 (\u1f14\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9) implies\nlocality, a local sense is communicated to \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc. Thus \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c2 may be\ncompared with \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1fb6\u03bd, \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (Xen.\n_Cyrop._ i. 2. 12 \u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u2018to hunt down\u2019), \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (Xen.\n_Anab._ i. 8. 15 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u2018riding up\u2019), \u1f51\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 (Polyb.\ni. 50. 6 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u2018he brought\nup\u2019 his own ship). With this meaning, \u2018over against,\u2019 \u2018close in upon,\u2019\nthe preposition does not weaken but enhance the force of \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c2, so\nthat the compound will denote \u2018direct,\u2019 \u2018close,\u2019 or \u2018persistent\nopposition.\u2019\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f26\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_and He_, i.e. Christ, _hath taken it away_\u2019.\nThere is a double change in this clause: (1) The participles\n(\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03b9\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2) are replaced by a finite verb. (2) The aorists\n(\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03b9\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2) are replaced by a perfect. The\nsubstitution of \u1f96\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd for \u1f26\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd in some copies betrays a consciousness on\nthe part of the scribes of the dislocation produced by the new tense. As\na new subject, \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, must be introduced somewhere (see the note on\nver. 13), the severance thus created suggests this as the best point of\ntransition. The perfect \u1f26\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, \u2018He hath removed it\u2019, is suggested by the\nfeeling of relief and thanksgiving, which rises up in the Apostle\u2019s mind\nat this point. For the strong expression \u1f04\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba [\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6] \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, \u2018to\nremove and put out of sight\u2019, comp. LXX Is. lvii. 2, Epictet. iii. 3.\n15, Plut. _Mor._ p. 519 D; so 2 Thess. ii. 7 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 15]\n\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff7\u00b7 ^{15}\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\n\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018The abrogation was even more emphatic. Not only was\nthe writing erased, but the document itself was torn up and cast aside.\u2019\nBy \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 is meant that the law of ordinances was nailed to the\ncross, rent with Christ\u2019s body, and destroyed with His death: see the\nnotes on Gal. vi. 14 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57 [\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6] \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f11\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 (the world, the\nsphere of material ordinances) \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u1f00\u03b3\u1f7c \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3, where the idea is\nthe same. It has been supposed that in some cities the abrogation of a\ndecree was signified by running a nail through it and hanging it up in\npublic. The image would thus gain force, but there is no distinct\nevidence of such a custom.\n\n15. \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] This word appears not to occur at all before\nSt Paul, and rarely if ever after his time, except in writers who may be\nsupposed to have his language before them; e.g. Hippol. _H\u00e6r._ i. 24\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f43 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. In Joseph. _Ant._ vi. 14. 2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u1f7a\u03c2\nis only a variation for \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u1f7a\u03c2 which seems to be the correct reading.\nThe word also appears in some texts of Babrius _Fab._ xviii. 3, but it\nis merely a conjectural emendation. Thus the occurrence of \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\nhere and in iii. 9, and of \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 above in ver. 11, is remarkable;\nand the choice of an unusual, if not a wholly new, word must have been\nprompted by the desire to emphasize the _completeness_ of the action.\nThe force of the double compound may be inferred from a passage of\nLysias, where the two words \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 and \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 occur together; _c.\nTheomn._ i. 10 (p. 117) \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f22 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c7\u03b9\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. Here however the sense of \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 is difficult. The\nmeaning generally assigned to it, \u2018having spoiled, stripped of their\narms\u2019, disregards the middle voice. St Jerome is chiefly responsible for\nthis common error of interpretation: for in place of the Old Latin\n\u2018exuens se\u2019, which was grammatically correct, he substituted\n\u2018exspolians\u2019 in his revised version. In his interpretation however he\nwas anticipated by the commentator Hilary, who read \u2018exuens\u2019 for \u2018exuens\nse\u2019 in his text. Discarding this sense, as inconsistent with the voice,\nwe have the choice of two interpretations.\n\n(1) The common interpretation of the Latin fathers, \u2018_putting off_ the\nbody\u2019, thus separating \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 from \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. and\nunderstanding \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1 or \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 with it; comp. 2 Cor. v. 3\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. So Novat. _de Trin._ 16 \u2018exutus carnem\u2019; Ambros. _Expos.\nLuc._ v. \u00a7 107 (I. p. 1381) \u2018exuens se carnem\u2019, comp. _de Fid._ iii. 2\n(II. p. 499); Hilar. _de Trin._ i. 13 (II. p. 10) \u2018exutus carnem\u2019 (comp.\nix. 10, p. 265), x. 48 (p. 355) \u2018spolians se carne\u2019 (comp. ix. 11, p.\n266); Augustin. _Epist._ 149 (II. p. 513) \u2018exuens se carne\u2019, etc. This\nappears to have been the sense adopted much earlier in a Docetic work\nquoted by Hippol. _H\u00e6r._ viii. 10 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1,\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03be\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\n\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. It is so paraphrased likewise in the Peshito Syriac and the\nGothic. The reading \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (omitting\n\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76), found in some ancient authorities, must be a corruption\nfrom an earlier text, which had inserted the gloss \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1 after\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, while retaining \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76, and which seems to have\nbeen in the hands of some of the Latin fathers already quoted. This\ninterpretation has been connected with a common metaphorical use of\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, signifying \u2018to strip\u2019 and so \u2018to prepare for a contest\u2019;\ne.g. Plut. _Mor._ 811 E \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03be\u03b9\u03bd,\nDiod. Sic. ii. 29 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. The serious objection to\nthis rendering is, that it introduces an isolated metaphor which is not\nexplained or suggested by anything in the context.\n\n(2) The common interpretation of the Greek fathers; \u2018_having stripped\noff and put away the powers_ of evil\u2019, making \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 govern \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. So Chrysostom, Severianus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and\nTheodoret. This also appears to have been the interpretation of Origen,\n_in Matt._ xii. \u00a7 25 (III. p. 544), _ib._ \u00a7 40 (p. 560), _in Ioann._ vi.\n\u00a7 37 (IV. p. 155), _ib._ xx. \u00a7 29 (p. 356), though his language is not\nexplicit, and though his translators, e.g. _in Libr. Ies. Hom._ vii. \u00a7 3\n(II. p. 413), make him say otherwise. The meaning then will be as\nfollows. Christ took upon Himself our human nature with all its\ntemptations (Heb. iv. 15). The powers of evil gathered about Him. Again\nand again they assailed Him; but each fresh assault ended in a new\ndefeat. In the wilderness He was tempted by Satan; but Satan retired for\nthe time baffled and defeated (Luke iv. 13 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6). Through the voice of His chief disciple the temptation was\nrenewed, and He was entreated to decline His appointed sufferings and\ndeath. Satan was again driven off (Matt. xvi. 23 \u1f55\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u1f40\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5,\n\u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6, \u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6: comp. Matt. viii. 31). Then the last hour\ncame. This was the great crisis of all, when \u2018the power of darkness\u2019\nmade itself felt (Luke xxii. 53 _\u1f21 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1_ \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2; see above\ni. 13), when the prince of the world asserted his tyranny (Joh. xii. 30\n_\u1f41 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd_ \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5). The final act in the conflict began with the\nagony of Gethsemane; it ended with the cross of Calvary. The victory was\ncomplete. The enemy of man was defeated. The powers of evil, which had\nclung like a Nessus robe about His humanity, were torn off and cast\naside for ever. And the victory of mankind is involved in the victory of\nChrist. In His cross we too are divested of the poisonous clinging\ngarments of temptation and sin and death; \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1,\nsays Theodore, \u1f23\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u1f00\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n(i.e. \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd) \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f97\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. For the image of the garments comp. Is. lxiv. 6, but especially\nZech. iii. 1 sq., \u2018And he showed me Joshua the high-priest standing\nbefore the angel of the Lord and _Satan standing at his right hand to\nresist him_. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O\nSatan.... Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments.... And He\nanswered and spake unto those that stood before Him saying _Take away\nthe filthy garments_ from him. And unto him He said Behold, _I have\ncaused thine iniquity to pass from thee_\u2019. In this prophetic passage the\nimage is used of His type and namesake, the Jesus of the Restoration,\nnot in his own person, but as the high-priest and representative of a\nguilty but cleansed and forgiven people, with whom he is identified. For\nthe metaphor of \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 more especially, see Philo _Quod det. pot.\nins._ 13 (I. p. 199) \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c2 _\u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1_, where the image in the\ncontext is that of a wrestling bout.\n\nThis interpretation is grammatical; it accords with St Paul\u2019s teaching;\nand it is commended by the parallel uses of the substantive in ver. 11\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, and of the verb in iii. 9\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 accomplished in\nus when we are baptized into His death is a counterpart to the \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\nwhich He accomplished by His death. With Him indeed it was only the\ntemptation, with us it is the sin as well as temptation; but otherwise\nthe parallel is complete. In both cases it is a divestiture of the\npowers of evil, a liberation from the dominion of the flesh. On the\nother hand the common explanation \u2018spoiling\u2019 is not less a violation of\nSt Paul\u2019s usage (iii. 9) than of grammatical rule.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 15]\n\n\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\n\n\n\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] What powers are especially meant here will appear from\nEphes. vi. 12 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ac\u03c2, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. See the note\non i. 16.\n\n\u1f10\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd] \u2018_displayed_\u2019, as a victor displays his captives or\ntrophies in a triumphal procession: Hor. _Epist._ i. 17. 33 \u2018captos\nostendere civibus hostes\u2019. The word is extremely rare; Matt. i. 19 \u03bc\u1f74\n\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 (where it ought probably to be read for the more\ncommon word \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9), _Act. Paul. et Petr._ 33 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c6\u03cd\u03b3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. Nowhere does the word convey the idea of \u2018making\nan example\u2019 (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9) but signifies simply \u2018to display, publish,\nproclaim\u2019. In the context of the last passage we have as the\nconsequence, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03a3\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd _\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd_, i.e. to _proclaim_ his\nimpieties. The substantive occurs on the Rosetta stone l. 30 (Boeckh,\n_C. I._ 4697) \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 15]\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3, \u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7.\n\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3] \u2018_boldly_\u2019, not \u2018_publicly_\u2019. As \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 is\n\u2018unreservedness, plainness of speech\u2019 (\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd-\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, its opposite being\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u2018silence\u2019), so while applied still to language, it may be\nopposed either (1) to \u2018fear\u2019, as John vii. 13, Acts iv. 29, or (2) to\n\u2018ambiguity, reserve\u2019, Joh. xi. 14, xvi. 25, 29; but \u2018misgiving,\napprehension\u2019 in some form or other seems to be always the correlative\nidea. Hence, when it is transferred from words to actions, it appears\nalways to retain the idea of \u2018confidence, boldness\u2019; e.g. 1 Macc. iv. 18\n\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ba^\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, _Test. xii. Patr._ Rub. 4 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2, Jos. _Ant._ ix. 1O. 4 \u1f51\u03c0\u2019\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\nThe idea of publicity may sometimes be connected with the word as a\nsecondary notion, e.g. in Joh. vii. 4, where \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u2018to\nassume a bold attitude\u2019 is opposed to \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd (comp. xviii.\n20); but it does not displace the primary sense.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 16]\n\n^{16}\u039c\u1f74 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f22 >\n\n                            16. \u1f22 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n\n\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2] \u2018_leading them in triumph_\u2019, the same metaphor as in 2 Cor.\nii. 14 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., where it is\nwrongly translated in the A. V. \u2018causeth us to triumph\u2019. Here however it\nis the defeated powers of evil, there the subjugated persons of men, who\nare led in public, chained to the triumphal car of Christ. This is the\nproper meaning and construction of \u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, as found elsewhere. This\nverb takes an accusative (1) of the person over whom the triumph is\ncelebrated, e.g. Plut. _Vit. Arat._ 54 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03bc\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5,\n_Thes. et Rom. Comp._ 4 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5: (2) of the spoils\nexhibited in the triumph, e.g. Tatian _c. Gr\u00e6c._ 26 \u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2: (3) more rarely of the substance of the triumph, e.g. _Vit.\nCamill._ 30 \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039a\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 ... \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c9\u03bb\u03c5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, i.e. \u2018in the character of his country\u2019s saviour\u2019. The passive\n\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 is \u2018to be led in triumph\u2019, \u2018to be triumphed over\u2019, e.g.\n_Vit. C. Marc._ 35. So the Latins say \u2018triumphare aliquem\u2019 and\n\u2018triumphari\u2019.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7] i.e. \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff7: comp. Ephes. ii. 16 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u1fc3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 ... \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6. The violence of the metaphor is its\njustification. The paradox of the crucifixion is thus placed in the\nstrongest light\u2014triumph in helplessness and glory in shame. The\nconvict\u2019s gibbet is the victor\u2019s car.\n\n16\u201319. \u2018Seeing then that the bond is cancelled, that the law of\nordinances is repealed, beware of subjecting yourselves to its tyranny\nagain. Suffer no man to call you to account in the matter of eating or\ndrinking, or again of the observance of a festival or a new moon or a\nsabbath. These are only shadows thrown in advance, only types of things\nto come. The substance, the reality, in every case belongs to the Gospel\nof Christ. The prize is now fairly within your reach. Do not suffer\nyourselves to be robbed of it by any stratagem of the false teachers.\nTheir religion is an officious humility which displays itself in the\nworship of angels. They make a parade of their visions, but they are\nfollowing an empty phantom. They profess humility, but they are puffed\nup with their vaunted wisdom, which is after all only the mind of the\nflesh. Meanwhile they have substituted inferior spiritual agencies for\nthe One true Mediator, the Eternal Word. Clinging to these lower\nintelligences, they have lost their hold of the Head; they have severed\ntheir connexion with Him, on whom the whole body depends; from whom it\nderives its vitality, and to whom it owes its unity, being supplied with\nnourishment and knit together in one by means of the several joints and\nattachments, so that it grows with a growth which comes from God\nHimself.\u2019\n\n16 sq. The two main tendencies of the Colossian heresy are discernible\nin this warning (vv. 16\u201319), as they were in the previous statement (vv.\n9\u201315). Here however the order is reversed. The practical error, an\nexcessive ritualism and ascetic rigour, is first dealt with (vv. 16,\n17); the theological error, the interposition of angelic mediators,\nfollows after (vv. 18, 19). The first is the substitution of a shadow\nfor the substance; the second is the preference of an inferior member to\nthe head. The reversal of order is owing to the connexion of the\nparagraphs; the opening subject in the second paragraph being a\ncontinuation of the concluding subject in the first, by the figure\ncalled chiasm: comp. Gal. iv. 5.\n\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9] not \u2018_condemn you_\u2019, but \u2018_take you to task_\u2019; as e.g. Rom.\nxiv. 3 sq. The judgment may or may not end in an acquittal; but in any\ncase it is wrong, since these matters ought not to be taken as the basis\nof a judgment.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_in eating and in drinking_\u2019; Rom. xiv. 17 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., Heb.\nix. 10 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, comp. 1 Cor. viii. 8 \u03b2\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\nThe first indication that the Mosaic distinctions of things clean and\nunclean should be abolished is given by our Lord Himself: Mark vii. 14\nsq. (the correct reading in ver. 19 being \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1).\nThey were afterwards formally annulled by the vision which appeared to\nSt Peter: Acts x. 11 sq. The ordinances of the Mosaic law applied almost\nexclusively to meats. It contained no prohibitions respecting drinks\nexcept in a very few cases; e.g. of the priests ministering in the\ntabernacle (Lev. x. 9), of liquids contained in unclean vessels etc.\n(Lev. xi. 34, 36), and of Nazarite vows (Num. vi. 3). These directions,\ntaken in connexion with the rigid observances which the later Jews had\ngrafted on them (Matt. xxiii. 24), would be sufficient to explain the\nexpression, when applied to the Mosaic law by itself, as in Heb. _l.c._\nThe rigour of the Colossian false teachers however, like that of their\nJewish prototypes the Essenes, doubtless went far beyond the injunctions\nof the law. It is probable that they forbad wine and animal food\naltogether: see the introduction pp. 86, 104 sq. For allusions in St\nPaul to similar observances not required by the law, see Rom. xiv. 2 \u1f41\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03ac\u03c7\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03af\u03b5\u03b9, ver. 21 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., 1 Tim. iv. 2, 3 \u03ba\u03c9\u03bb\u03c5\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd ... \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b2\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f03 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., Tit. i. 14 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 ... \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd ...\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2. The correct reading seems to be _\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76_\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, thus connecting together the words between which there is a\nnatural affinity. Comp. Philo _Vit. Moys._ i. \u00a7 33 (II. p. 110)\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b6\u03b5\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, Ign. _Trall._ 2 \u03bf\u1f50\n\u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b2\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 17]\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, ^{17}\u1f05 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u1f76\u03b1\n\n                            17 \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u1f70.\n\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9] \u2018_in the matter of_,\u2019 etc.; comp. 2 Cor. iii. 10, ix. 3 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3. The expression seems originally to mean \u2018in the division or\ncategory\u2019, and in classical writers most commonly occurs in connexion\nwith such words as \u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, etc.: comp. Demosth.\n_c. Aristocr._ \u00a7 148 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 ... \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03c6\u03b5\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 ... \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, i.e. \u2018in the capacity of.\u2019 Hence it gets to\nsignify more widely, as here, \u2018with respect to\u2019, \u2018by reason of\u2019: comp.\nPhilo _Quod det. pot. ins._ \u00a7 2 (I. p. 192) \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, _in Flacc._ 20 (II. p. 542) \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd. But \u00c6lian _V. H._ viii. 3 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, quoted by the commentators, is a false\nparallel: for \u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 is there governed by \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 and \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 means\n\u2018in his turn\u2019.\n\n\u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The same three words occur together, as an exhaustive\nenumeration of the sacred times among the Jews, in 1 Chron. xxiii. 31, 2\nChron. ii. 4, xxxi. 3, Ezek. xlv. 17, Hos. ii. 11, Justin _Dial._ 8, p.\n226; comp. Is. i. 13, 14. See also Gal. iv. 10 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bc\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, where the first three words correspond\nto the three words used here, though the order is reversed. The \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae\nhere, like the \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03af there, refers chiefly to the _annual_ festivals,\nthe passover, pentecost, etc. The \u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 here describes more precisely\nthe _monthly_ festival, which is there designated more vaguely as \u03bc\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2.\nThe \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 here gives by name the _weekly_ holy-day, which is there\nindicated more generally by \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2] See Num. xxviii. 11 sq. The forms \u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 and \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 seem\nto be used indifferently in the common dialect, though the latter is\nmore common. In the Attic \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 alone was held to be correct; see\nLobeck _Phryn._ p. 148. On the whole the preference should perhaps be\ngiven to \u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 here, as supported by some authorities which are\ngenerally trustworthy in matters of orthography, and as being the less\nusual form in itself.\n\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd] \u2018_a sabbath-day_\u2019, not, as the A.V., \u2018_sabbath days_\u2019; for the\ncoordinated words \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, are in the singular. The word\n\u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 is derived from the Aramaic (as distinguished from the Hebrew)\nform \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d0, and accordingly preserves the Aramaic termination in \u03b1. Hence\nit was naturally declined as a plural noun, \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. The\ngeneral use of \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, when a single sabbath-day was meant, will appear\nfrom such passages as Jos. _Ant._ i. 1. 1 \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd,\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, _ib._ iii. 10. 1 \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f25\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, Plut. _Mor._ 169 C \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, _ib._ 671 F \u03bf\u1f36\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, Hor. _Sat._ i. 9. 69 \u2018hodie tricesima\nsabbata\u2019. In the New Testament \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 is only once used distinctly of\nmore than a single day, and there the plurality of meaning is brought\nout by the attached numeral; Acts xvii. 2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1.\n\nOn the observance of days and seasons see again Gal. iv. 10, Rom. xiv.\n5, 6. A strong anti-Judaic view on the subject is expressed in the\n_Epist. ad Diogn._ \u00a7 4. Origen _c. Cels._ viii. 21, 22, after referring\nto Thucyd. i. 70 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u03c4\u03b9 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f22 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03be\u03b1\u03b9,\nsays \u1f41 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f00\u03b5\u03af \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, and he then goes on to explain\nwhat is the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ae, the \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1, the \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae, of such a man. The\nobservance of sacred times was an integral part of the old dispensation.\nUnder the new they have ceased to have any value, except as a means to\nan end. The great principle that \u2018the sabbath was made for man and not\nman for the sabbath\u2019, though underlying the Mosaic ordinances, was first\ndistinctly pronounced by our Lord. The setting apart of special days for\nthe service of God is a confession of our imperfect state, an avowal\nthat we cannot or do not devote our whole time to Him. Sabbaths will\nthen ultimately be superseded, when our life becomes one eternal\nsabbath. Meanwhile the Apostle\u2019s rebuke warns us against attributing to\nany holy days whatever a meaning and an importance which is alien to the\nspirit of the New Covenant. Bengel on the text writes, \u2018Sabbatum non\nlaudatur, non imperatur; dominica memoratur, non pr\u00e6cipitur. Qui\nprofundius in mundi negotiis h\u00e6rent, his utilis et necessarius est dies\ndefinitus: qui semper sabbatizant, majori libertate gaudent\u2019. Yes: but\nthese last are just they who will most scrupulously restrict their\nliberty, so as \u1f00\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n17. Two ideas are prominent in this image. (1) The contrast between the\nordinances of the Law and the teaching of the Gospel, as the shadow and\nthe substance respectively; Philo _de Conf. ling._ 37 (I. p. 434)\n\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1fe4\u03b7\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1f76 _\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd_\n\u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, Joseph. _B.J._ ii. 2. 5 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u1f70\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f27\u03c2 \u1f25\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\n\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1; comp. Philo _in Flacc._ 19 (II. p. 541) \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n\u1f04\u03c1\u2019 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1. (2) The conception of the shadow as thrown before\nthe substance (\u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, says a Greek\ncommentator), so that the Law was a type and presage of the Gospel; Heb.\nx. 1 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u1f70\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd (comp. viii. 5). Thus it\nimplies both the _unsubstantiality_ and the _supersession_ of the Mosaic\nritual.\n\n\u1f05] \u2018_which things_\u2019, whether distinctions of meats or observances of\ntimes. If the other reading \u1f45 be taken, it will refer to the preceding\nsentence generally, as if the antecedent were \u2018the whole system of\nordinances\u2019.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 18]\n\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. ^{18}\u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2\n\n\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] As the shadow belonged to Moses, so \u2018_the substance\nbelongs to Christ_\u2019; i.e. the reality, the antitype, in each case is\nfound in the Christian dispensation. Thus the passover typifies the\natoning sacrifice; the unleavened bread, the purity and sincerity of the\ntrue believer; the pentecostal feast, the ingathering of the first\nfruits; the sabbath, the rest of God\u2019s people; etc.\n\n18. The Christian\u2019s career is the contest of the stadium (\u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, Acts\nxx. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 7); Christ is the umpire, the dispenser of the\nrewards (2 Tim. iv. 8); life eternal is the bay wreath, the victor\u2019s\nprize (\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, 1 Cor. ix. 24, Phil. iii. 14). The Colossians were in a\nfair way to win this prize; they had entered the lists duly; they were\nrunning bravely: but the false teachers, thrusting themselves in the\nway, attempted to trip them up or otherwise impede them in the race, and\nthus to rob them of their just reward. For the idea of \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03c9\ncompare especially Gal. v. 7 \u1f10\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03ba\u03bf\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 18]\n\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9] \u2018_rob of the prize, the_ \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd\u2019; comp. Demosth. _Mid._\np. 544 (one of the documents) \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03a3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u039c\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n_\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1_ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, which\npresents a close parallel to the use of \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd here. See also\nEustath. _in Il._ i. 403 sq. (p. 43) \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f65\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, ib. _Opusc._ 277, etc. The false teachers at Coloss\u00e6 are not\nregarded as umpires nor as successful rivals, but simply as persons\nfrustrating those who otherwise would have won the prize. The word\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is wide enough to include such. The two compounds\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd and \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (Plut. _Mor._ p. 535 C \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9) only differ in this respect, that\n_deprivation_ is the prominent idea in the former word and _trickery_ in\nthe latter. Jerome, _Epist._ cxxi. _ad Algas._ (I. p. 879), sets down\nthis word, which he wrongly interprets \u2018bravium accipiat adversum vos\u2019,\nas one of St Paul\u2019s Cilicisms. The passages quoted (whether the document\nin the Midias be authentic or not) are sufficient to show that this\nstatement is groundless.\n\n\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd] \u2018_taking delight in_\u2019, \u2018_devoting himself to_\u2019. The expression\nis common in the LXX, most frequently as a translation of \u05d7\u05e4\u05e5 \u05d1\u05f4, 1\nSam.\u05d7\u05e4\u05e5 xviii. 22, 2 Sam. xv. 26, 1 Kings x. 9, 2 Chron. ix. 8, Ps. cxi.\n1, cxlvi. 10, but in one passage of \u05e8\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d1\u05f4, 1 Chron. xxviii. 4. So too\n_Test. xii. Patr._ Asher 1 \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u1fc3 \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff7. Comp. also 1\nMacc. iv. 42 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, and see \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 below. Against this\nconstruction no valid objection has been urged. Otherwise \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd is taken\nabsolutely, and various senses have been assigned to it, such as\n\u2018imperiously\u2019 or \u2018designedly\u2019 or \u2018wilfully\u2019 or \u2018gladly, readily\u2019; but\nthese are either unsupported by usage or inappropriate to the context.\nLeclerc (_ad loc._) and Bentley (_Crit. Sacr._ p. 59) conjectured\n\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd; Toup (_Emend. in Suid._ II. p. 63) more plausibly \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03ce\u03bd; but the\npassages quoted show that no correction is needed.\n\n\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u1fc3] Humility is a vice with heathen moralists, but a virtue\nwith Christian Apostles; see the note on Phil. ii. 3. In this passage,\nwhich (with ver. 23) forms the sole exception to the general language of\nthe Apostles, the divergence is rather apparent than real. The\ndisparagement is in the accompaniments and not in the word itself.\nHumility, when it becomes self-conscious, ceases to have any value; and\nself-consciousness at least, if not affectation, is implied by \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd.\nMoreover the character of the \u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7 in this case is further\ndefined as \u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, which was altogether a perversion of\nthe truth.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 18]\n\n\u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f03 \u1f11\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc7 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\n\n\u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3] This word is closely connected with the preceding by the\nvinculum of the same preposition. There was an officious parade of\nhumility in selecting these lower beings as intercessors, rather than\nappealing directly to the throne of grace. The word refers properly to\nthe external rites of religion, and so gets to signify an\nover-scrupulous devotion to external forms; as in Philo _Quod det. pot.\nins._ 7 (i. p. 195) \u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u1f41\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, Plut. _Vit.\nAlex._ 2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 _\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2_ \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2_ \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2: comp. Acts xxvi. 5, and see the\nwell-known remarks of Coleridge on James i. 26, 27, in _Aids to\nReflection_ p. 14. In the LXX \u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, together occur four\ntimes (Wisd. xi. 16, xiv. 16, 18, 27), and in all these examples the\nreference is to idolatrous or false worship. Indeed generally the usage\nof the word exhibits a tendency to a bad sense.\n\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd] For the angelology and angelolatry of these Colossian false\nteachers, more especially in its connexion with Essene teaching, see the\nintroduction, pp. 89 sq., 101 sq., 110, 181 sq. For the prominence which\nwas given to angelology in the speculations of the Jews generally, see\nthe _Preaching of Peter_ quoted in Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vi. 5 (p. 760)\n\u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 ... \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, Celsus in Orig. _c. Cels._ v. 6\n(i. p. 580) \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\u03b4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., comp. _ib._ i. 26 (p. 344).\nFrom Jews it naturally spread to Judaizing Christians; e.g. _Clem. Hom._\niii. 36 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, viii. 12 sq., _Test. xii. Patr._ Levi\n3 (quoted above on i. 16). The interest however extended to more\northodox circles, as appears from the strange passage in Ignat. _Trall._\n5 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9; ... \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Of\nangelology among Gnostic sects see Iren. ii. 30. 6, ii. 32. 5, Orig. _c.\nCels._ vi. 30 sq. (I. p. 653), Clem. Alex. _Exc. Theod._ p. 970 sq.,\n_Pistis Sophia_ pp. 2, 19, 23, etc.\n\n\u1f03 \u1f11\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] literally \u2018_invading what he has seen,_\u2019 which is\ngenerally explained to mean \u2018parading\u2019 or \u2018poring over his visions\u2019. For\nthis sense of \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, which takes either a genitive or a dative or\nan accusative, comp. Philo _de Plant. Noe_ ii. 19 (i. p. 341) \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, 2\nMacc. ii. 30 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. At a later date this sense becomes\ncommon, e.g. Nemesius _de Nat. Hom._ p. 64 (ed. Matth\u00e6i) \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3. In Xen. _Symp._ iv. 27 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\n\u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9, the reading may be doubtful. But though \u1f03 \u1f11\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd singly\nmight mean \u2018his visions\u2019, and \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u2018busying himself with\u2019, the\ncombination \u2018invading what he has seen\u2019, thus interpreted, is so harsh\nand incongruous as to be hardly possible; and there was perhaps some\ncorruption in the text prior to all existing authorities (see the note\non Phil. ii. 1 for a parallel case). Did the Apostle write )\u03ad\u03c9\u03c1\u1fb3 (or\n\u03b1\u1f34\u03c9\u03c1\u1fb3) \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd? In this case the existing text ==\u03b1\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c9\u03bd== might be explained partly by an attempt to correct the form\n)\u03b5\u03ce\u03c1\u1fb3 into \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03c1\u1fb3 or conversely, and partly by the perplexity of\ntranscribers when confronted with such unusual words. This reading had\nsuggested itself to me independently without the knowledge that, so far\nas regards the latter word, it had been anticipated by others in the\nconjecture \u1f03 \u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1 (or \u1f03 \u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd) \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd. The word \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u2018to\nwalk on emptiness\u2019, \u2018to tread the air\u2019, and so metaphorically (like\n\u03b1\u1f10\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, etc.) \u2018to indulge in vain\nspeculations\u2019, is not an uncommon word. For its metaphorical sense\nespecially see Plut. _Mor._ p. 336 F \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03ad\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2, Basil. _Op._ I. p. 135 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd ... \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., _ib._ I. p.\n596 \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03b9\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f41 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, Synes. _de Insomn._ p. 156 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03ae\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd. Though the precise form\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd does not occur, yet it is unobjectionable in itself. For\nthe other word which I have ventured to suggest, \u1f10\u03ce\u03c1\u1fb3 or \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03c1\u1fb3, see\nPhilo _de Somn._ ii. 6 (I. p. 665) _\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2_ \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6_ \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _ib._ \u00a7 9 (p. 667) \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019\n_\u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2_ \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd _\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd_ \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bd, _Quod Deus immut._ \u00a7 36 (I.\np. 298) \u1f61\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n_\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1_. The first and last passages more especially\npresent striking parallels, and show how germane to St Paul\u2019s subject\nthese ideas of \u2018suspension or balancing in the air\u2019 (\u1f10\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1 or \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1) and\n\u2018treading the void\u2019 (\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) would be, as expressing at once the\nspiritual pride and the emptiness of these speculative mystics; see also\n_de Somn._ ii. 2 (p. 661) \u1f10\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 _\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2_ \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c6\u2019\n\u1f23\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u1f05\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd _\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2_ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n_\u1f90\u03c9\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u1f7c\u03c2_ \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. The substantive, \u1f10\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1 or \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1, is used sometimes\nof the instrument for suspending, sometimes of the position of\nsuspension. In this last sense it describes the poising of a bird, the\nfloating of a boat on the waters, the balancing on a rope, and the like.\nHence its expressiveness when used as a metaphor.\n\nIn the received text a negative is inserted, \u1f03 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd.\nThis gives a very adequate sense \u2018_intruding into those things which he\nhas not seen_\u2019; \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, says Chrysostom, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd: comp. Ezek. xiii. 3 \u03bf\u1f50\u1f70\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. But, though the difficulty is\nthus overcome, this cannot be regarded as the original reading of the\ntext, the authorities showing that the negative was an after insertion.\nSee the detached note on various readings.\n\nFor the form \u1f11\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, which is better supported here than \u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, see\nthe note on ii. 1.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 19]\n\n\u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03bf\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, ^{19}\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\n\n\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc7 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2] \u2018_vainly puffed up_.\u2019 Their profession of humility was\na cloke for excessive pride: for, as St Paul says elsewhere (1 Cor.\nviii. 1), \u1f21 \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u1fd6. It may be questioned whether \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc7 should be\nconnected with the preceding or the following words. Its usual position\nin St Paul, before the words which it qualifies (Rom. xiii. 4, 1 Cor.\nxv. 2, Gal. iv. 11; there is an exceptional reason for the exceptional\nposition in Gal. iii. 4), points to the latter construction.\n\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03bf\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_the mind of his flesh_\u2019, i.e. unenlightened by the\nSpirit; comp. Rom. viii. 7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2. It would seem that the\nApostle is here taking up some watchword of the false teachers. They\ndoubtless boasted that they were directed \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2. Yes, he answers,\nbut it is \u1f41 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. Compare Rev. ii. 24, where the\nfavourite Gnostic boast \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03b1 is characterized by the\naddition of \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6 (see _Galatians_ p. 298 note 3). Comp. August.\n_Conf._ x. 67 \u2018Quem invenirem qui me reconciliaret tibi? Ambiendum mihi\nfuit ad angelos? Qua prece? quibus sacramentis? Multi conantes ad te\nredire, neque per se ipsos valentes, sicut audio, tentaverunt h\u00e6c et\ninciderunt in desiderium curiosarum visionum et digni habiti sunt\nillusionibus. Elati enim te qu\u00e6rebant doctrin\u00e6 fastu, etc.\u2019\n\n19. \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd] \u2018_not holding fast_.\u2019 This is the most common\nconstruction and meaning of \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd in the New Testament; e.g. Mark vii.\n8 _\u1f00\u03c6\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2_ \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 _\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5_ \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd; comp. Cant. iii. 4 \u1f11\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f43\u03bd \u1f20\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f10\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03c6\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 19]\n\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd, \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f57 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd\n\n\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd] \u2018_the Head_\u2019 regarded as a title, so that a person is at\nonce suggested, and the relative which follows is masculine, \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f57;\ncomp. the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 16 \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae, \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\n\u03bf\u1f57 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The supplication and worship of angels is a\nsubstitution of inferior members for the Head, which is the only source\nof spiritual life and energy. See the introduction pp. 34, 78, 101 sq.,\n181 sq.\n\n\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_through the junctures and ligaments_.\u2019 Galen,\nwhen describing the structure of the human frame, more than once\nspecifies the elements of union as twofold: the body owes its\ncompactness partly to the _articulation_, partly to the _attachment_;\ne.g. _Op._ II. p. 734 (ed. K\u00fchn) \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 _\u1f04\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd_, \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n_\u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd_. Similarly, though with a more general reference,\nAristotle speaks of two kinds of union, which he describes as \u1f01\u03c6\u03ae\n\u2018contact\u2019 and \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u2018cohesion\u2019 respectively; _Metaph._ iv. 4 (p.\n1014) \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 _\u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f01\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2_\u00b7 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f01\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03cd\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af \u03c4\u03b9 \u1f13\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f43 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c5\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f13\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.,\n_Phys. Ausc._ iv. 6 (p. 213) \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f01\u03c6\u03ae \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f04\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f13\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (comp. _ib._ v. 3, p. 227), _Metaph._ x. 3 (p.\n1071) \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f01\u03c6\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9. The relation of contiguous surfaces\nand the connexion of different parts together effect structural unity.\nThis same distinction appears in the Apostle\u2019s language here. Contact\nand attachment are the primary ideas in \u1f01\u03c6\u03b1\u03af and \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 respectively.\n\nOf the function of \u1f01\u03c6\u03ae, \u2018contact\u2019, in physiology (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f01\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2) Aristotle speaks at some length in one passage, _de Gen. et\nCorr._ i. 6 (p. 322 sq.). It may be mentioned, as illustrating St Paul\u2019s\nimage, that Aristotle in this passage lays great stress on the mutual\nsympathy and influence of the parts in contact, describing them as\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac and as \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd. Elsewhere,\nlike St Paul here, he uses the plural \u03b1\u1f31 \u1f01\u03c6\u03b1\u03af; _de C\u00e6lo_ i. 11 (p. 280)\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5 \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f41\u03c4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f42\u03bd \u1f41\u03c4\u1f72 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f44\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f01\u03c6\u03ac\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, _de Gen. et Corr._ i. 8 (p.\n326) \u1f44\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 _\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f01\u03c6\u1f70\u03c2_ \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b9\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f44\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd _\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd_, _ib._ \u00a7 9 (p. 327) \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 19]\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 _\u1f01\u03c6\u03ac\u03c2_, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, \u03ba\u1f02\u03bd \u03bc\u03ae\u03c0\u03c9 \u1f96 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9: comp. [Plat.] _Axioch._ p. 365 A\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f01\u03c6\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u1fe5\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd. It is quite clear from\nthese passages of Aristotle, more especially from the distinction of\n\u1f01\u03c6\u03b1\u03af and \u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, that \u03b1\u1f31 \u1f01\u03c6\u03b1\u03af are the joinings, the junctures. When\napplied to the human body they would be \u2018joints,\u2019 provided that we use\nthe word accurately of the relations between contiguous limbs, and not\nloosely (as it is often used) of the parts of the limbs themselves in\nthe neighbourhood of the contact. Hippocrates indeed used \u1f01\u03c6\u03b1\u03af as a\nphysiological term in a different sense, employing it as a synonyme for\n\u1f05\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 i.e. the fasciculi of muscles (see Galen _Op._ XIX. p. 87), but\nthis use was quite exceptional and can have no place here. Thus \u03b1\u1f31 \u1f01\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\nwill be almost a synonyme for \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1, differing however (1) as being\nmore wide and comprehensive, and (2) as not emphasizing so strongly the\n_adaptation_ of the contiguous parts.\n\nThe considerations just urged seem decisive as to the meaning of the\nword. Some eminent modern critics however explain \u03b1\u1f31 \u1f01\u03c6\u03b1\u03af to be \u2018the\nsenses\u2019, following Theodoret on Ephes. iv. 16 \u1f01\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f04\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u1f60\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5. St Chrysostom had led the way to this\ninterpretation, though his language is less explicit than Theodoret\u2019s.\nTo such a meaning however there are fatal objections. (1) This sense of\n\u1f01\u03c6\u03ae is wholly unsupported. It is true that touch lies at the root of all\nsensations, and that this fact was recognised by ancient physiologists:\ne.g. Aristot. _de Anim._ i. 13 (p. 435) \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f01\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u1f04\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. But here the connexion ends; and unless\nmore cogent examples not hitherto adduced are forthcoming, we are\njustified in saying that \u03b1\u1f31 \u1f01\u03c6\u03b1\u03af could no more be used for \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2,\nthan in English \u2018the touches\u2019 could be taken as a synonyme for \u2018the\nsenses.\u2019 (2) The image would be seriously marred by such a meaning. The\n\u1f01\u03c6\u03b1\u03af and \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 would no longer be an exhaustive description of the\nelements of union in the anatomical structure; the conjunction of things\nso incongruous under the vinculum of the same article and preposition,\n_\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd_ \u1f01\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, would be unnatural; and the intrusion\nof the \u2018senses\u2019 would be out of place, where the result specified is the\nsupply of nourishment (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd) and the compacting of the parts\n(\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd). (3) All the oldest versions, the Latin, the Syriac,\nand the Memphitic, explain it otherwise, so as to refer in some way to\nthe connexion of the parts of the body; e.g. in the Old Latin it is\nrendered _nexus_ here and _junctura_ in Ephes. iv. 16.\n\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd] \u2018_bands_,\u2019 \u2018_ligaments_.\u2019 The Greek \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, like the\nEnglish \u2018ligament,\u2019 has a general and a special sense. In its general\nand comprehensive meaning it denotes any of the connecting bands which\nstrap the body together, such as muscles or tendons or ligaments\nproperly so called; in its special and restricted use it is a \u2018ligament\u2019\nin the technical sense; comp. Galen _Op._ IV. p. 369 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f41 \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f40\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n\u1f41\u03c1\u03bc\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c5\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f22 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f22 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u1fe6\u03bd. Of the \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\nor ligaments properly so called Galen describes at length the several\nfunctions and uses, more especially as binding and holding together the\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2; _Op._ I. 236, II. 268, 739, III. 149, IV. 2, etc., comp.\nTim. Locr. _de An. Mund._ p. 557 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u1f70\u03bd \u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c8\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1 (_Opusc. Mythol._ etc. ed. Gale). In our text indeed\n\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 must be taken in its comprehensive sense; but the relation of\nthe \u1f01\u03c6\u03b1\u03af to the \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 in St Paul still remains the same as that of\nthe \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 to the \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 in Galen.\n\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The two functions performed by the \u1f01\u03c6\u03b1\u03af and\n\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 are _first_ the supply of nutriment etc. (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd),\nand _secondly_ the compacting of the frame (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd). In other\nwords they are the communication of life and energy, and the\npreservation of unity and order. The _source_ of all (\u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f57) is Christ\nHimself the Head; but the _channels_ of communication (\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.)\nare the different members of His body, in their relation one to another.\nFor \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u2018bountifully furnished\u2019 see the note on Gal. iii. 5.\nSomewhat similarly Aristotle speaks of \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c5\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, _Pol._ iv. 1 (p. 1288). For examples of \u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 applied\nto functions of the bodily organs, see Galen _Op._ III. p. 617 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, Alex. _Probl._ i. 81 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. For\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u2018joined together, compacted\u2019, see the note on ii. 2. In\nthe parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 16, this part of the image is more\ndistinctly emphasized, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. The\ndifference corresponds to the different aims of the two epistles. In the\nColossian letter the vital connexion with the Head is the main theme; in\nthe Ephesian, the unity in diversity among the members.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 20]\n\n\u03b1\u1f54\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f54\u03c5\u03be\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. ^{20}\u03b5\u1f30 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7\n\n\n\u03b1\u1f54\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f55\u03be\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] By the two-fold means of contact and\nattachment nutriment has been diffused and structural unity has been\nattained, but these are not the ultimate result; they are only\nintermediate processes; the end is _growth_. Comp. Arist. _Metaph._ iv.\n4 (p. 1014) _\u03b1\u1f54\u03be\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u2019_ \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1ff7 _\u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9_ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n_\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c5\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9_ ... \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f01\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2, where growth is\nattributed to the same two physiological conditions as here.\n\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6] i.e. \u2018which partakes of God, which belongs to God, which has\nits abode in God.\u2019 Thus the finite is truly united with the Infinite;\nthe end which the false teachers strove in vain to compass is attained;\nthe Gospel vindicates itself as the true theanthropism, after which the\nhuman heart is yearning and the human intellect is feeling. See above p.\n183 sq. With this conclusion of the sentence contrast the parallel\npassage Ephes. iv. 16 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f54\u03be\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 _\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u1fc3_, where again the different endings are determined by\nthe different motives of the two epistles.\n\nThe discoveries of modern physiology have invested the Apostle\u2019s\nlanguage with far greater distinctness and force than it can have worn\nto his own contemporaries. Any exposition of the nervous system more\nespecially reads like a commentary on his image of the relations between\nthe body and the head. At every turn we meet with some fresh\nillustration which kindles it with a flood of light. The volition\ncommunicated from the brain to the limbs, the sensations of the\nextremities telegraphed back to the brain, the absolute mutual sympathy\nbetween the head and the members, the instantaneous paralysis ensuing on\nthe interruption of continuity, all these add to the completeness and\nlife of the image. But the following passages will show how even ancient\nscientific speculation was feeling after those physiological truths\nwhich the image involves; Hippocr. _de Morb. Sacr._ p. 309 (ed Foese)\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u1ff3 ...\n\u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bf\u1f54\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b3\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f37\u03b1\n\u1f02\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u1fc3, \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 ... \u1f10\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41\n_\u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2_ \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd ... \u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 _\u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2_ \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u03c4\u03cd\u03c7\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd ... \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 _\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fc3_ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 ... \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n... \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd ... \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (where\nthe theory is mixed up with some curious physiological speculations),\nGalen _Op._ I. 235 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03ce\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd ... \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9, \u1f22 \u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd, \u1f14\u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, _ib._ IV. p. 11 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd (i.e. \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd)\n\u1f41 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f14\u03ba\u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1, \u1f41 \u03bd\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u1fd6\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03c5\u03b5\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 ... \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03b4\u2019\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, XIV. p. 313 h\u03ac\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 (i.e. \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae) \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. Plato had made the head the central organ of the\nreason (_Tim._ 69 sq.: see Grote\u2019s _Plato_ III. pp. 272, 287,\n_Aristotle_ II. p. 179 sq.), if indeed the speculations of the Tim\u00e6us\nmay be regarded as giving his serious physiological views; but he had\npostulated other centres of the emotions and appetites, the heart and\nthe abdomen. Aristotle, while rightly refusing to localize the mind as\nmind, had taken a retrograde step physiologically, when he transferred\nthe centre of sensation from the brain to the heart; e.g. _de Part.\nAnim._ ii. 10 (p. 656). Galen, criticizing his predecessors, says of\nAristotle \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03ba\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (i.e. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (_Op._ III. p. 625). The\nStoics however (\u0396\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a7\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c6\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af) were even\nworse offenders; and in reply to them more especially Galen elsewhere\ndiscusses the question \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, _Op._\nV. p. 213 sq. Bearing in mind all this diversity of opinion among\nancient physiologists, we cannot fail to be struck in the text not only\nwith the correctness of the image but also with the propriety of the\nterms; and we are forcibly reminded that among the Apostle\u2019s most\nintimate companions at this time was one whom he calls \u2018the beloved\nphysician\u2019 (iv. 14).\n\n20\u201323. \u2018You died with Christ to your old life. All mundane relations\nhave ceased for you. Why then do you\u2014you who have attained your\nspiritual manhood\u2014submit still to the rudimentary discipline of\nchildren? Why do you\u2014you who are citizens of heaven\u2014bow your necks\nafresh to the tyranny of material ordinances, as though you were still\nliving in the world? It is the same old story again; the same round of\nhard, meaningless, vexatious prohibitions, \u2018Handle not,\u2019 \u2018Taste not,\u2019\n\u2018Touch not.\u2019 What folly! When all these things\u2014these meats and drinks\nand the like\u2014are earthly, perishable, wholly trivial and unimportant!\nThey are used, and there is an end of them. What is this, but to draw\ndown upon yourselves the denunciations uttered by the prophet of old?\nWhat is this but to abandon God\u2019s word for precepts which are issued by\nhuman authority and inculcated by human teachers? All such things have a\nshow of wisdom, I grant. There is an officious parade of religious\ndevotion, an eager affectation of humility; there is a stern ascetic\nrigour, which ill-treats the body; but there is nothing of any real\nvalue to check indulgence of the flesh.\u2019\n\n20. From the theological tenets of the false teachers the Apostle turns\nto the ethical\u2014from the objects of their worship to the principles of\ntheir conduct. The baptism into Christ, he argues, is death to the\nworld. The Christian has passed away to another sphere of existence.\nMundane ordinances have ceased to have any value for him, because his\nmundane life has ended. They belong to the category of the perishable;\nhe has been translated to the region of the eternal. It is therefore a\ndenial of his Christianity to subject himself again to their tyranny, to\nreturn once more to the dominion of the world. See again the note on\niii. 1.\n\n\u03b5\u1f30 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5] \u2018_if ye died_, when ye were baptized into Christ.\u2019 For\nthis connexion between baptism and death see the notes on ii. 11, iii.\n3. This death has many aspects in St Paul\u2019s teaching. It is not only a\ndying _with_ Christ, 2 Tim. ii. 11 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd; but it is also\na dying to or from something. This is sometimes represented as _sin_,\nRom. vi. 2 \u1f41\u03af\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 _\u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u1fb3_ (comp. vv. 7, 8);\nsometimes as _self_, 2 Cor. v. 14, 15 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd ... \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9 _\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2_ \u03b6\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd; sometimes as the _law_, Rom. vii. 6\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, Gal. ii. 19 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd; sometimes still more widely as the _world_, regarded as the\nsphere of all material rules and all mundane interests, so here and iii.\n3 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1. In all cases St Paul uses the aorist \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, never\nthe perfect \u03c4\u03ad\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1; for he wishes to emphasize the one absolute\n_crisis_, which was marked by the change of changes. When the aorist is\nwanted, the compound verb \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is used; when the perfect, the\nsimple verb \u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd; see Buttmann _Ausf. Gramm._ \u00a7 114. This rule holds\nuniversally in the Greek Testament.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 20]\n\n\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03ad\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c4\u03af \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3\n\n\n\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] i.e. \u2018from the rudimentary, disciplinary,\nordinances, whose sphere is the mundane and sensuous\u2019: see the note on\nver. 8. For the pregnant expression \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 comp. Gal. v. 4\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (so too Rom. vii. 2, 6), 2 Cor. xi. 3 \u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1fc7 ...\n\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, and see A. Buttmann p. 277 note.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 21, 22]\n\n\u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5; ^{21}\u039c\u1f74 \u1f05\u03c8\u1fc3 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03af\u03b3\u1fc3\u03c2 ^{22}\u1f05\n\n\n\u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5] \u2018_are ye overridden with precepts, ordinances_.\u2019 In the\nLXX the verb \u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is used several times, meaning \u2018to issue a\ndecree,\u2019 Esth. iii. 9, 1 Esdr. vi. 33, 2 Macc. x. 8, xv. 36, 3 Macc. iv.\n11. Elsewhere it is applied most commonly to the precepts of\nphilosophers; e.g. Justin _Apol._ i. 7 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\n_\u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2_ \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f11\u03bd\u1f76 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 _\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2_\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (comp. \u00a7 4), Epict. iii. 7. 17 sq. \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u03ac. Here it would include alike the\n\u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 of the Mosaic law (ver. 14) and the \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 of the \u2018philosophy\u2019\ndenounced above (ver. 8). Both are condemned; the one as superseded\nthough once authoritative, the other as wholly vexatious and\nunwarrantable. Examples are given in the following verse, \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f05\u03c8\u1fc3 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\nFor the construction here, where the more remote object, which would\nstand in the dative with the active voice (2 Macc. x. 8 \u1f10\u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd ...\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9), becomes the nominative of the passive, compare\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 Matt. ii. 12, 22, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 Mark x. 45, and see Winer \u00a7\nxxxix. p. 326, A. Buttmann p. 163, K\u00fchner \u00a7 378, II. p. 109.\n\n21. \u039c\u1f74 \u1f05\u03c8\u1fc3 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The Apostle disparagingly repeats the prohibitions of\nthe false teachers in their own words, \u2018Handle not, neither taste,\nneither touch.\u2019 The rabbinical passages quoted in Sch\u00f6ttgen show how\nexactly St Paul\u2019s language reproduces, not only the spirit, but even the\nform, of these injunctions. The Latin commentators, Hilary and Pelagius,\nsuppose these prohibitions to be the Apostle\u2019s own, thus making a\ncomplete shipwreck of the sense. So too St Ambrose _de Noe et Arca_ 25\n(I. p. 267), _de Abr._ i. 6 (I. p. 300). We may infer from the language\nof St Augustine who argues against it, that this was the popular\ninterpretation in his day: _Epist._ cxix. (II. p. 512) \u2018tanquam\npr\u00e6ceptum putatur apostoli, nescio quid tangere, gustare, attaminare,\nprohibentis.\u2019 The ascetic tendency of the age thus fastened upon a\nslight obscurity in the Greek and made the Apostle recommend the very\npractices which he disparaged. For a somewhat similar instance of a\nmisinterpretation commonly received see the note on \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd ver.\n14. Jerome however (I. p. 878) had rightly interpreted the passage,\nillustrating it by the precepts of the Talmud. At a still earlier date\nTertullian, _Adv. Marc._ v. 19, gives the correct interpretation.\n\nThese prohibitions relate to defilement contracted in divers ways by\ncontact with impure objects. Some were doubtless reenactments of the\nMosaic law; while others would be exaggerations or additions of a\nrigorous asceticism, such as we find among the Essene prototypes of\nthese Colossian heretics, e.g. the avoidance of oil, of wine, or of\nflesh-meat, the shunning of contact with a stranger or a religious\ninferior, and the like; see pp. 85 sq. For the religious bearing of this\nasceticism, as springing from the _dualism_ of these heretical teachers,\nsee above pp. 79, 104 sq.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 22]\n\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u1f30, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\n\n\n\u1f05\u03c8\u1fc3] The difference between \u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 and \u03b8\u03b9\u03b3\u03b3\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is not great, and in\nsome passages where they occur together, it is hard to distinguish them:\ne.g. Exod. xix. 12 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n_\u03b8\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd_ \u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u00b7 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f41 _\u1f01\u03c8\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2_ \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f44\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, Eur. _Bacch._ 617 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u2019 _\u1f14\u03b8\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd_ \u03bf\u1f54\u03b8\u2019 _\u1f23\u03c8\u03b1\u03b8\u2019_ \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd,\nArist. _de Gen. et Corr._ i. 8 (p. 326) \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03af \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n_\u1f01\u03c8\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1_ \u1f15\u03bd, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd _\u03b8\u03af\u03b3\u03b7_|; Dion Chrys.\n_Or._ xxxiv. (II. p. 50) \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f01\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b9\u03b3\u03b3\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, Themist. _Paraphr. Arist._ 95\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f01\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd _\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd_\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1f54\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 _\u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9_ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u03b8\u03b9\u03b3\u03b3\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd_. But \u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\nis the stronger word of the two. This arises from the fact that it\nfrequently suggests, though it does not necessarily involve, the idea of\na voluntary or conscious effort, \u2018to take hold of\u2019\u2013a suggestion which is\nentirely wanting to the colourless word \u03b8\u03b9\u03b3\u03b3\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd; comp. Themist.\n_Paraphr. Arist._ 94 \u1f21 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b6\u03ce\u03c9\u03bd _\u1f01\u03c6\u1f74_ \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n_\u03b8\u03b9\u03b3\u03b3\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2_. Hence in Xen. _Cyrop._ i. 3. 5 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b5, \u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f41\u03c1\u1ff6,\n\u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f05\u03c8\u1fc3, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c8\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 _\u03b8\u03af\u03b3\u1fc3\u03c2_, \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\n\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Thus the words chosen in the Latin Versions, _tangere_ for\n\u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 and _attaminare_ or _contrectare_ for \u03b8\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, are unfortunate,\nand ought to be transposed. Our English Version, probably influenced by\nthe Latin, has erred in the same direction, translating \u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 by\n\u2018touch\u2019 and \u03b8\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd by \u2018handle\u2019. Here again they must be transposed.\n\u2018Handle\u2019 is too strong a word for either; though in default of a better\nit may stand for \u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, which it more nearly represents. Thus the two\nwords \u1f05\u03c8\u1fc3 and \u03b8\u03af\u03b3\u1fc3\u03c2 being separate in meaning, \u03b3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u1fc3 may well interpose;\nand the three together will form a descending series, so that, as Beza\n(quoted in Trench _N. T. Syn._ \u00a7 xvii. p. 57) well expresses it,\n\u2018decrescente semper oratione, intelligatur crescere superstitio\u2019.\n\nOn the other hand \u1f05\u03c8\u1fc3 has been interpreted here as referring to the\nrelation of husband and wife, as e.g. in 1 Cor. vii. 1 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74\n\u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9; and the prohibition would then be illustrated by the teaching\nof the heretics in 1 Tim. iv. 3 \u03ba\u03c9\u03bb\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. But, whatever\nlikelihood there may be that the Colossian false teachers also held this\ndoctrine (see above p. 85 sq.), it nowhere appears in the context, and\nwe should not expect so important a topic to be dismissed thus\ncursorily. Moreover \u03b8\u03b9\u03b3\u03b3\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is used as commonly in this meaning as\n\u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 (see Gataker _Op. Crit._ p. 79, and examples might be\nmultiplied); so that all ground for assigning it to \u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 especially\nis removed. Both \u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 and \u03b8\u03b9\u03b3\u03b3\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd refer to defilement incurred\nthrough the sense of touch, though in different degrees; \u2018Handle not,\nnor yet taste, nor even touch.\u2019\n\n22. \u2018Only consider what is the real import of this scrupulous avoidance.\nWhy, you are attributing an inherent value to things which are fleeting;\nyou yourselves are citizens of eternity, and yet your thoughts are\nabsorbed in the perishable\u2019.\n\n\u1f05] \u2018_which things_\u2019, i.e. the meats and drinks and other material\nobjects, regarded as impure to the touch. The antecedent to \u1f05 is\nimplicitly involved in the prohibitions \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f05\u03c8\u1fc3 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd] \u2018_are destined for corruption_\u2019. For similar\nexpressions see Acts viii. 20 \u1f14\u03b9\u03b7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03c9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd (comp. ver. 23 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 ... \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u1f00, 2 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c4. \u03b9\u03b9. 12 [\u0393\u03c1\u03b5\u03b5\u03ba:\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 ... \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f05\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd. For the word \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac, involving the\nidea of \u2018decomposition\u2019, see the note on Gal. vi. 8. The expression here\ncorresponds to \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (\u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u1f30, Matt. xv. 17, Mark\nvii. 19.\n\n\u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9] \u2018_in the consuming_\u2019. While the verb \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 is common,\nthe substantive \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is extremely rare: Plut. _Mor._ p. 267 F\n\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ac\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd (i.e. \u2018by\nsuch modes of consuming and abridging superfluities\u2019), Dion. Hal. _A.\nR._ i. 58 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2. The unusual word was chosen for its\nexpressiveness: the \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 here was an \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2; the things could not\nbe used without rendering them unfit for further use. The subtlety of\nthe expression in the original cannot be reproduced in any translation.\n\nOn the other hand the clause is sometimes interpreted as a continuation\nof the language of the ascetic teachers; \u2018Touch not things which all\nlead to ruin by their abuse\u2019. This interpretation however has nothing to\nrecommend it. It loses the point of the Apostle\u2019s argument; while it\nputs upon \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd a meaning which is at least not natural.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] connected directly with vv. 20, 21, so that the words \u1f05\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd ... \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 are a parenthetical comment.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 22]\n\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7\n\n\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The absence of both preposition and article before\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 shows that the two words are closely connected. They are\nplaced here in their proper order; for \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 describes the source of\nauthority and \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 the medium of communication. The expression is\ntaken ultimately from Isaiah xxix. 13, where the words run in the LXX,\n\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03bc\u03b5, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\nThe Evangelists (Matt. xv. 9, Mark vii. 7), quoting the passage,\nsubstitute in the latter clause \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nThe coincidences in St Paul\u2019s language here with our Lord\u2019s words as\nrelated in the Gospels (Matt. xv. 1\u201320, Mark vii. 1\u201323) are striking,\nand suggest that the Apostle had this discourse in his mind. (1) Both\nalike argue against these vexatious ordinances from the _perishableness_\nof meats. (2) Both insist upon the indifference of such things in\nthemselves. In Mark vii. 19 the Evangelist emphasizes the importance of\nour Lord\u2019s words on this occasion, as practically abolishing the Mosaic\ndistinction of meats by declaring all alike to be clean (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd; see\nthe note on ver. 16). (3) Both alike connect such ordinances with the\npractices condemned in the prophetic denunciation of Isaiah.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. 23]\n\n^{23}\u1f05\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3\n\n\n23. \u2018All such teaching is worthless. It may bear the semblance of\nwisdom; but it wants the reality. It may make an officious parade of\nreligious service; it may vaunt its humility; it may treat the body with\nmerciless rigour; but it entirely fails in its chief aim. It is\npowerless to check indulgence of the flesh.\u2019\n\n\u1f05\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1] \u2018_which sort of things_\u2019. Not only these particular precepts, \u03bc\u1f74\n\u1f05\u03c8\u1fc3 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., but all precepts falling under the same category are\ncondemned. For this force of \u1f05\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 as distinguished from \u1f05, see the\nnotes on Gal. iv. 24, v. 19, Phil. iv. 3. The antecedent here is not\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., but the prohibitions given in ver. 21.\n\n\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_having a reputation for wisdom_\u2019, but not the\nreality. The corresponding member, which should be introduced by \u03b4\u03ad, is\nsuppressed; the oppositive clause being postponed and appearing later in\na new form, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Such suppressions are common in\nclassical writers, more especially in Plato; see K\u00fchner \u00a7 531, II. p.\n813 sq., Jelf \u00a7 766, and comp. Winer \u00a7 lxiii. p. 719 sq. St Jerome\ntherefore is not warranted in attributing St Paul\u2019s language here to\n\u2018imperitia artis grammatic\u00e6\u2019 (_Epist._ cxxi, _Op._ II. p. 884). On the\ncontrary it is just the license which an adept in a language would be\nmore likely to take than a novice.\n\nIn this sentence \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 is best taken as a single\npredicate, so that \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd is disconnected from \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1. Otherwise the\nconstruction \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 (for \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9) would be supported by many\nparallels in the Greek Testament; see Winer \u00a7 xlv. p. 437.\n\nThe phrase \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, so far as I have observed, has four\nmeanings. (A) Two as applied to the _thinking subject_. (i) \u2018To take\naccount of, to hold in account, to pay respect to\u2019: e.g. \u00c6sch. _Prom._\n231 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03c0\u03ce\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1, Demosth. _de\nCoron._ \u00a7 199 )\u03ad\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f22 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f22 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03b5\n\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, Plut. _Vit. Philop._ 18 \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (ii) \u2018To possess the reason or account or definition of\u2019, \u2018to\nhave a scientific knowledge of\u2019; Plato _Gorg._ p. 465 A \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f54 \u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 h\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9,\n\u1f41\u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1 \u1f04\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd, and so frequently. These two senses are\nrecognised by Aristotle, _Eth. Nic._ i. 13 (p. 1102), where he\ndistinguishes the meaning of the expressions \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f22\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd and \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd. (B) Two as applied to the\n_object of thought_. (iii) \u2018To have the credit or reputation of\u2019, as\nhere. This sense of \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u2018to be reputed\u2019, is more commonly found\nwith an infinitive: e.g. Plato _Epin._ 987 B \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c3\u03c7\u03ad\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd. (iv) \u2018To fulfil the definition of, to possess the\ncharacteristics, to have the nature of\u2019; e.g. Philo _Vit. Cont._ 4 (II.\np. 477) \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd, Plut. _Mor._ p. 637 D \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f62\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f51\u03c6\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u1f72\u03c2\n\u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, ib. 640 F \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. The senses of \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd with other constructions, or as\nused absolutely, are very various, e.g. \u2018to be reasonable\u2019, \u2018to hold\ndiscourse\u2019, \u2018to bear a ratio\u2019, etc., but do not come under consideration\nhere. Nor again does such an expression as Plut. _Mor._ p. 550 C \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u2018not being in possession of, not knowing,\nthe intention of the legislator\u2019; for the definite article removes it\nfrom the category of the cases considered.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u1fc3 [\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76] \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3] \u2018_in volunteered_, self-imposed, officious,\nsupererogatory _service_\u2019. One or both of these two ideas, (i)\n\u2018excessive readiness, officious zeal,\u2019 (ii) \u2018affectation, unreality,\u2019\nare involved in this and similar compounds; e.g. \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1,\n\u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u03ac\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u03c9\u03c6\u03ad\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2:\nthese compounds being used most frequently, though not always (as this\nlast word shows), in a bad sense. This mode of expression was\nnaturalised in Latin, as appears from Augustine _Epist._ cxlix. 27 (II.\np. 514) \u2018Sic enim et vulgo dicitur qui divitem affectat thelodives, et\nqui sapientem thelosapiens, et cetera hujusmodi\u2019. Epiphanius, when\nwriting of the Pharisees, not content with the word here supplied by St\nPaul, coins a double compound \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, _H\u00e6r._ i. 16 (p.\n34).\n\n\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u1fc3] The word is here disparaged by its connexion, as in ver.\n18 (see the note there). The force of \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf- may be regarded as carried\non to it. Real genuine \u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7 is commended below; iii. 12.\n\n\u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2] \u2018_hard treatment of the body_\u2019. The expression\n\u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is not uncommon, being used most frequently, not as\nhere of ascetic discipline, but rather of courageous exposure to\nhardship and danger in war, e.g. Lysias _Or. Fun._ 25, Joseph. _B.J._\niii. 7. 18, Lucian _Anach._ 24, Plut. _Vit. Pericl._ 10; in Plut. _Mor._\np. 137 C however of a student\u2019s toil, and _ib._ p. 135 E, more generally\nof the rigorous demands made by the soul on the body. The substantive\n\u1f00\u03c6\u03ad\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 or \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03b1 does not often occur. On the forms in -\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 and -\u03af\u03b1\nderived from adjectives in -\u03b7\u03c2 see Buttmann _Ausf. Gramm._ \u00a7 119, II. p.\n416 sq. The great preponderance of manuscript authority favours the form\n\u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 here: but in such questions of orthography the fact carries\nless weight than in other matters. The \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 before \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 should\nprobably be omitted; in which case \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 becomes an instrumental\ndative, explaining \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. While the insertion would\nnaturally occur to scribes, the omission gives more point to the\nsentence. The \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7 as the religious elements\nare thus separated from the \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 as the practical rule.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fc7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018yet _not_ really _of any value to remedy indulgence\nof the flesh_.\u2019 So interpreted the words supply the oppositive clause to\n\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, as the presence of the negative \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba naturally\nsuggests. If the sentence had been undisturbed, this oppositive clause\nwould naturally have been introduced by \u03b4\u03ad, but the interposition of \u1f10\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. has changed its form by a sort of attraction. For\nthis sense of \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fc7 comp. Lucian _Merc. cond._ 17 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd: similarly Hom. _Il._ ix.\n319 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f30\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fc7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The preposition \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, like our English \u2018_for_\u2019,\nwhen used after words denoting utility, value, sufficiency, etc., not\nuncommonly introduces the object to _check_ or _prevent_ or _cure_ which\nthe thing is to be employed. And even though utility may not be directly\nexpressed in words, yet if the idea of a something to be _remedied_ is\npresent, this preposition is freely used notwithstanding. See Isocr.\n_Phil._ 16 (p. 85) \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, Arist. _H. A._ iii. 21\n(p. 522) \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u1fe5\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ac\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1, _de Respir._ 8\n(p. 474) \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c8\u03c5\u03be\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b2\u03bf\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd, Lucian _Pisc._ 27 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, Galen _Op._ XII. p. 399 \u03c7\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ad\u03b9\u1ff3 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, \u03c0. 420 [\u0393\u03c1\u03b5\u03b5\u03ba: \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03c9\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., p. 430 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd ... \u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03b5\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c7\u03b1\u03c2, p.\n476 \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03ad\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, p. 482\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd,\np. 514 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bf\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f15\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, p. 601 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03c7\u03ad\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. These examples from Galen are only a few out\nof probably some hundreds, which might be collected from the treatise in\nwhich they occur, the _de Compositione Medicamentorum_.\n\nThe language, which the Colossian false teachers would use, may be\ninferred from the account given by Philo of a Judaic sect of mystic\nascetics, who may be regarded, not indeed as their direct, but as their\ncollateral ancestors (see p. 86, note 246, p. 94), the Therapeutes of\nEgypt; _de Vit. Cont._ \u00a7 4 (II. p. 476 sq.) \u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 _\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2_\n\u1f11\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 _\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1_ \u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 ...\n_\u03bc\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2_ \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f13\u03be \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd _\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9_ \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 ...\n\u03c3\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 ... \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u1fc6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f44\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd \u1f05\u03bb\u03b5\u03c2 ... \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd ... _\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd_ \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c7\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. St Paul apparently has before him some\nsimilar exposition of the views of the Colossian heretics, either in\nwriting or (more probably) by report from Epaphras. In reply he\naltogether denies the claims of this system to the title of \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1; he\ndisputes the value of these \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1; he allows that this \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae is the\ngreat evil to be checked, the fatal disease to be cured; but he will not\nadmit that the remedies prescribed have any substantial and lasting\nefficacy.\n\nThe interpretation here offered is not new, but it has been strangely\noverlooked or despised. The passages adduced will I trust show the\ngroundlessness of objections which have been brought against it owing to\nthe use of the preposition; and in all other respects it seems to be far\npreferable to any rival explanation which has been suggested. The\nfavourite interpretations in ancient or modern times divide themselves\ninto two classes, according to the meaning assigned to \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2. (1) It is explained in a good sense: \u2018to satisfy the\nreasonable wants of the body\u2019. In this case \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03af is\ngenerally interpreted, \u2018_not_ holding it (the body) _in any honour_\u2019. So\nthe majority of the fathers, Greek and Latin. This has the advantage of\npreserving the continuity of the words \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.: but it assigns an impossible sense to \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2. For\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae always denotes \u2018repletion\u2019, \u2018surfeiting\u2019, \u2018excessive\nindulgence\u2019, and cannot be used of a reasonable attention to the\nphysical cravings of nature; as Galen says, _Op._ XV. p. 113 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c9\u03b8\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd \u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd _\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2_: and certainly neither the Apostle nor the Colossian\nascetics were likely to depart from this universal rule. To the long\nlist of passages quoted in Wetstein may be added such references as\nPhilo _Leg. ad. Cai._ \u00a7 1 (II. p. 546), _Clem. Hom._ viii. 15, Justin\n_Dial._ 126, Dion. Alex. in Euseb. _H.E._ vii. 25; but they might be\nincreased to any extent. (2) A bad sense is attached to \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae, as\nusage demands. And here two divergent interpretations have been put\nforward. (i) The proper continuity of the sentence is preserved, and the\nwords \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 are regarded as an\nexposition of the doctrine of the false teachers from _their own point\nof view_. So Theodore of Mopsuestia, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. This able expositor however is evidently\ndissatisfied, for he introduces his explanation with the words \u1f00\u03c3\u03b1\u03c6\u1f72\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; and his explanation has not been\nadopted by others. Either the sentence, so interpreted, becomes flat and\nunmeaning, though it is obviously intended to clinch the whole matter;\nor the Apostle is made to confirm the value of the very doctrines which\nhe is combating. (ii) The sentence is regarded as discontinuous; and it\nis interpreted, \u2018_not of any real value_\u2019 (or \u2018_not_ consisting _in\nanything commendable_\u2019, or \u2018_not_ holding the body _in any honour_\u2019) but\n\u2018_tending to gratify the carnal_ desires\u2019 (or \u2018mind\u2019). This in some form\nor other is almost universally adopted by modern interpreters, and among\nthe ancients is found in the commentator Hilary. The objections to it\nare serious. (\u03b1) The dislocation of the sentence is inexplicable. There\nis no indication either in the grammar or in the vocabulary that a\nseparate and oppositive clause begins with \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., but on\nthe contrary everything points to an unbroken continuity. (\u03b2) The sense\nwhich it attaches to \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 is either forced and unnatural,\nor it makes the Apostle say what he could not have said. If \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 could have the sense which Hilary assigns to it, \u2018sagina carnalis\nsensus traditio humana est\u2019, or indeed if it could mean \u2018the _mind_ of\nthe flesh\u2019 in any sense (as it is generally taken by modern\ncommentators), this is what St Paul might well have said. But obviously\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 conveys a very different idea from such expressions\nas \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03bf\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 (ver. 18) or \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 (Rom. viii. 6, 7), which include pride, self-sufficiency, strife,\nhatred, bigotry, and generally everything that is earth-bound and\nselfish. On the other hand, if \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 be taken in its\nnatural meaning, as applying to coarse sensual indulgences, then St Paul\ncould not have said without qualification, that this rigorous asceticism\nconduced \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2. Such language would defeat its own\nobject by its extravagance.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 1]\n\nIII. ^1\u0395\u1f30 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7, \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5, \u03bf\u1f57 \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7\n\n\nIII. 1\u20134. \u2018If this be so; if ye were raised with Christ, if ye were\ntranslated into heaven, what follows? Why you must realise the change.\nAll your aims must centre in heaven, where reigns the Christ who has\nthus exalted you, enthroned on God\u2019s right hand. All your thoughts must\nabide in heaven, not on the earth. For, I say it once again, you have\nnothing to do with mundane things: you _died_, died once for all to the\nworld: you are living another life. This life indeed is hidden now: it\nhas no outward splendour as men count splendour; for it is a life with\nChrist, a life in God. But the veil will not always shroud it. Christ,\nour life, shall be manifested hereafter; then ye also shall be\nmanifested with Him and the world shall see your glory\u2019.\n\n1. \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_If then ye were raised_\u2019, not \u2018_have\nbeen raised_\u2019. The aorist \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5, like \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 (ii. 20), refers\nto their baptism; and the \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd here is a resumption of the \u03b5\u1f30 in ii.\n20. The sacrament of baptism, as administered in the Apostolic age,\ninvolved a twofold symbolism, a death or burial and a resurrection: see\nthe note on ii. 12. In the rite itself these were represented by two\ndistinct acts, the disappearance beneath the water and the emergence\nfrom the water: but in the change typified by the rite they are two\naspects of the same thing, \u2018like the concave and convex in a circle\u2019, to\nuse an old simile. The negative side\u2014the death and burial\u2014implies the\npositive side\u2014the resurrection. Hence the form of the Apostle\u2019s\nresumption, \u03b5\u1f30 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, \u03b5\u1f30 _\u03bf\u1f56\u03bd_ \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5.\n\nThe change involved in baptism, if truly realised, must pervade a man\u2019s\nwhole nature. It affects not only his practical conduct, but his\nintellectual conceptions also. It is nothing less than a removal into a\nnew sphere of being. He is translated from earth to heaven; and with\nthis translation his point of view is altered, his standard of judgment\nis wholly changed. Matter is to him no longer the great enemy; his\nposition towards it is one of absolute neutrality. Ascetic rules, ritual\nordinances, have ceased to have any absolute value, irrespective of\ntheir effects. All these things are of the earth, earthy. The material,\nthe transitory, the mundane, has given place to the moral, the eternal,\nthe heavenly.\n\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018Cease to concentrate your energies, your\nthoughts, on mundane ordinances, and realise your new and heavenly life,\nof which Christ is the pole-star\u2019.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_being seated on the right hand of God_\u2019, where\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 must not be connected with \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd; see the note on \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9,\nii. 3. This participial clause is pertinent and emphatic, for the\nsession of Christ implies the session of the believer also; Ephes. ii.\n4\u20136 \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 ... \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 ... \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n_\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd_ \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; comp.\nRev. iii. 21 \u1f41 \u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f61\u03c2\n\u03ba\u1f00\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f10\u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, in the\nmessage addressed to the principal church of this district: see above p.\n42. \u0392\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af, says Chrysostom, \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd; \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2\n\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5; \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f24\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03a4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72, \u039f\u1f57 \u1f41\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u03af; \u1f18\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u1f41\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03cd\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 2, 3]\n\n^2\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5, \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2. ^3\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03ad\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7\u00b7\n\n\n2. \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9] The same expression repeated for emphasis; \u2018You must not only\n_seek_ heaven; you must also _think_ heaven.\u2019 For the opposition of \u03c4\u1f70\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 and \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 in connexion with \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, comp. Phil. iii. 19,\n20 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u1f70 _\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2_, \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 _\u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9_; see also Theoph. _ad Autol._ ii. 17. Extremes meet. Here\nthe Apostle points the antithesis to controvert a Gnostic asceticism: in\nthe Philippian letter he uses the same contrast to denounce an Epicurean\nsensualism. Both alike are guilty of the same fundamental error; both\nalike concentrate their thoughts on material, mundane things.\n\n3. \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5] \u2018_ye died_\u2019 in baptism. The aorist \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 denotes the\npast act; the perfect \u03ba\u03ad\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 the permanent effects. For \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 see\nthe notes on ii. 12, 20.\n\n\u03ba\u03ad\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9] \u2018_is hidden_, is buried out of sight, to the world\u2019. The\nApostle\u2019s argument is this: \u2018When you sank under the baptismal water,\nyou disappeared for ever to the world. You rose again, it is true, but\nyou rose only to God. The world henceforth knows nothing of your new\nlife, and (as a consequence) your new life must know nothing of the\nworld.\u2019 \u2018Neque Christum\u2019, says Bengel, \u2018neque Christianos novit mundus;\nac ne Christiani quidem plane seipsos\u2019; comp. Joh. xiv. 17\u201319 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f43 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 _\u03bf\u1f50 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\n\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9_ \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78, \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 [\u03b4\u1f72] \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc ... \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03ad \u03bc\u03b5\u00b7 _\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b6\u1ff6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b6\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5_.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 4]\n\n^4\u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7, \u1f21 \u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03c9\u1f74 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u1fc3.\n\n                          4 \u1f21 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74 _\u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd_.\n\n\n4. \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2] A fourth occurrence of the name of Christ in this context;\ncomp. ver. 2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7, \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, ver. 3 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7. A pronoun would\nhave been more natural, but less emphatic.\n\n\u1f21 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd] This is an advance on the previous statement, \u1f21 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03ad\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7, in two respects: (1) It is not enough to have\nsaid that the life is shared _with_ Christ. The Apostle declares that\nthe life _is_ Christ. Comp. 1 Joh. v. 12 \u1f41 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f51\u1f76\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b6\u03ce\u03b7\u03bd,\nIgn. _Ephes._ 7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae (of Christ), _Smyrn._ 4 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b6\u1fc6\u03bd, _Ephes._ 3 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b6\u1fc6\u03bd, _Magn._ 1 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b6\u1fc6\u03bd. (2) For \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\nis substituted \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. The Apostle hastens to include himself among the\nrecipients of the bounty. For this characteristic transition from the\nsecond person to the first see the note on ii. 13. The reading \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd here\nhas very high support, and on this account I have given it as an\nalternative; but it is most probably a transcriber\u2019s correction, for the\nsake of uniformity with the preceding.\n\n\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018The veil which now shrouds your higher life from\nothers, and even partly from yourselves, will then be withdrawn. The\nworld which persecutes, despises, ignores now, will then be blinded,\nwith the dazzling glory of the revelation\u2019. Comp. 1 Joh. iii. 1, 2 \u1f41\n\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03af, \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u03af \u1f10\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f35\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7, \u1f45\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., Clem. Rom. 50 \u03bf\u1f33 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (or \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76\n\u1f14\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u1fc3] Joh. xvii. 22 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u1f23\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03ac\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, Rom.\nviii. 17 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 5]\n\n^5\u039d\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2,\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03b1\u03bd,\n\n\n5\u201311. \u2018So then realise this death to the world; kill all your earthly\nmembers. Is it fornication, impurity of whatever kind, passion, evil\ndesire? Or again, is it that covetousness which makes a religion, an\nidolatry, of greed? Do not deceive yourselves. For all these things\nGod\u2019s wrath will surely come. In these sins ye, like other Gentiles,\nindulged in times past, when your life was spent amidst them. But now\neverything is changed. Now you also must put away not this or that\ndesire, but all sins whatsoever. Anger, wrath, malice, slander, filthy\nabuse; banish it from your lips. Be not false one to another in word or\ndeed; but cast off for ever the old man with his actions, and put on the\nnew, who is renewed from day to day, growing unto perfect knowledge and\nrefashioned after the image of his Creator. In this new life, in this\nregenerate man, there is not, there cannot be, any distinction of Greek\nor Jew, of circumcision or uncircumcision; there is no room for\nbarbarian, for Scythian, for bond or free. Christ has displaced, has\nannihilated, all these; Christ is Himself all things and in all things\u2019.\n\n5. The false doctrine of the Gnostics had failed to check sensual\nindulgence (ii. 23). The true doctrine of the Apostle has power to kill\nthe whole carnal man. The substitution of a comprehensive principle for\nspecial precepts\u2014of the heavenly life in Christ for a code of minute\nordinances\u2014at length attains the end after which the Gnostic teachers\nhave striven, and striven in vain.\n\n\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd] i.e. \u2018Carry out this principle of _death_ to the world\n(ii. 20 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, iii. 3 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5), and kill everything that is\nmundane and carnal in your being\u2019.\n\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] Each person has a twofold moral personality. There is in\nhim the \u2018old man\u2019, and there is in him also \u2018the new\u2019 (vv. 9, 10). The\nold man with all his members must be pitilessly slain. It is plain that\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7 here is used, like \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 in ver. 9, not physically, but\nmorally. Our actual limbs may be either \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 or \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, according as they are made instruments for the world or for\nChrist: just as we\u2014our whole being\u2014may identify ourselves with the\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 or with the \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 of our twofold potentiality.\nFor this use of the physical, as a symbol of the moral of which it is\nthe potential instrument, compare Matt. v. 29 sq. \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f41\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b5, \u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nI have ventured to punctuate after \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2. Thus \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\nare prospective accusatives, which should be governed directly by some\nsuch word as \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5. But several dependent clauses interpose; the last\nof these incidentally suggests a contrast between the past and the\npresent; and this contrast, predominating in the Apostle\u2019s mind, leads\nto an abrupt recasting of the sentence, _\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72_ \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 _\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1_ in disregard of the original construction. This\nopposition of \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad and \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd has a tendency to dislocate the construction\nin St Paul, as in i. 22 \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 (or \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03b5\u03bd), i. 26\n\u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b7: see the note on this latter passage. For the whole run\nof the sentence (the parenthetic relative clauses, the contrast of past\nand present, and the broken construction) compare Ephes. ii. 1\u20135 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 ... \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f37\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad ... \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 ... \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 ... \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nWith the common punctuation the interpretation is equally awkward,\nwhether we treat \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7 and \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. as in direct apposition, or\nas double accusatives, or in any other way. The case is best put by\nSeverianus, \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f27\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6 ... \u1f41\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f31\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd; but this is an evasion of the difficulty, which\nconsists in the direct apposition of the instruments and the activities,\nfrom whatever point they are viewed.\n\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The general order is from the less comprehensive to the\nmore comprehensive. Thus \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 is a special kind of uncleanness, while\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 is uncleanness in any form, Ephes. v. 3 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1; comp. Gal. v. 19 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, \u1f00\u03c3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, with the\nnote there. Thus again \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, though frequently referring to this class\nof sins (Rom. i. 26, 1 Thess. iv. 5), would include other base passions\nwhich do not fall under the category of \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, as for instance\ngluttony and intemperance.\n\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd] The two words occur together in 1 Thess. iv. 5 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. So in a passage closely resembling the text, Gal. v. 24\n\u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2. The same vice may be viewed as a \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 from its passive and\nan \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 from its active side. The word \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 is not used here in\nthe restricted sense which it has e.g. in Arist. _Eth. Nic._ ii. 4,\nwhere it ranges with anger, fear, etc., being related to \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 as the\nspecies to the genus (see Gal. l.c. note). In the Greek Testament\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 has a much more comprehensive sense; e.g. Joh. viii. 44 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. Here, if anything, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 is\nwider than \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2. While \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 includes all ungovernable affections,\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae reaches to all evil longings. \u1f38\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd, says Chrysostom,\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u00b7 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae, \u03bb\u03cd\u03c0\u03b7. The\nepithet is added because \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 is capable of a good sense: comp. 1\nCor. x. 6 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03b1\u03bd] \u2018_and_ especially _covetousness_\u2019. Impurity and\ncovetousness may be said to divide between them nearly the whole domain\nof human selfishness and vice; \u2018Si avaritia prostrata est, exsurgit\nlibido\u2019 (Cypr. _de Mort._ 3). The one has been already dealt with; the\nother needs now to be specially denounced; comp. Ephes. v. 3 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f22 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03b1. \u2018Homo extra Deum\u2019, says Bengel (on Rom.\ni. 29), \u2018qu\u00e6rit pabulum in creatura materiali vel per voluptatem vel per\navaritiam.\u2019 Comp. _Test. xii Patr._ Jud. 18 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd, \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5,\n\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 ... \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fb7 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6.\nSimilarly Lysis Pythag. 4 (_Epistol. Gr\u00e6c._ p. 602, ed. Hercher)\n\u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f02\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd [i.e. the vices] \u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2,\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f04\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03cd\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9. It must be\nremembered that \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03b1 is much wider than \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 (see Trench _N.\nT. Syn._ \u00a7 xxiv, p. 77 sq.), which itself is called \u1fe5\u03af\u03b6\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd (1 Tim. vi. 10).\n\nThe attempt to give \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03b1 here and in other passages the sense of\n\u2018impurity\u2019 (see e.g. Hammond on Rom. i. 29) is founded on a\nmisconception. The words \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03b1, will sometimes be used\nin relation to sins of uncleanness, because such may be acts of\ninjustice also. Thus adultery is not only impurity, but it is robbery\nalso: hence 1 Thess. iv. 6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (see the note there). In other passages again\nthere will be an accidental connexion; e.g. Ephes. iv. 19 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u1fb3, i.e. \u2018with greediness\u2019, \u2018with entire\ndisregard for the rights of others\u2019. But no where do the words in\nthemselves suggest this meaning. Here the particles \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd show that a\nnew type of sin is introduced with \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03b1\u03bd: and in the parallel\npassage Ephes. v. 3 (quoted above) the same distinction is indicated by\nthe change from the conjunctive particle \u03ba\u03b1\u03af to the disjunctive \u1f24. It is\nan error to suppose that this sense of \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03b1 is supported by Clem.\nAlex. _Strom._ iii. 12 (p. 551 sq.) \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7. On the converse error of explaining \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\nto mean \u2018greediness\u2019, \u2018covetousness\u2019, see the note on 1 Thess. ii. 3.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 6]\n\n\u1f25\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, ^6\u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f03 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u1f74\n\n\n\u1f25\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_for it is idolatry_\u2019: comp. Ephes. v. 5 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f45 (or\n\u1f45\u03c2) \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2, Polyc. _Phil._ 11 \u2018Si quis non abstinuerit se ab\navaritia, ab idololatria coinquinabitur\u2019 (see _Philippians_ p. 63 on the\nmisunderstanding of this passage). The covetous man sets up another\nobject of worship besides God. There is a sort of religious purpose, a\ndevotion of the soul, to greed, which makes the sin of the miser so\nhateful. The idea of avarice as a _religion_ may have been suggested to\nSt Paul by our Lord\u2019s words, Matt. vi. 24 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u1fb7, though it is a mistake to suppose that Mammon was the name of a\nSyrian deity. It appears however elsewhere in Jewish writers of this and\nlater ages: e.g. Philo _de Mon._ i. 2 (II. p. 214 sq.) \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03b4\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (with the whole context), and _Shemoth Rabba_\nfol. 121. 3 \u2018Qui opes suas multiplicat per f\u0153nus, ille est\nidololatra\u2019 (with other passages quoted by Wetstein and Sch\u00f6ttgen on\nEphes. v. 5). St Chrysostom, _Hom. in Johann. lxv_ (VIII. p. 392 sq.),\nenlarges on the cult of wealth\u2014the consecration of it, the worship paid\nto it, the sacrifices demanded by it: \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9, \u0398\u1fe6\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f41\u03c1\u1fb7\u03c2 \u1f45\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f37\u03b1 \u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n(p. 393). The passage in _Test. xii Patr._ Jud. 18 \u1f21 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f14\u03b9\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03b1 \u1f41\u03b4\u03b7\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6 is no real parallel to St Paul\u2019s language, though at first\nsight it seems to resemble it. For \u1f25\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, \u2018seeing that it\u2019, see the note\non Phil. iv. 3.\n\n6, 7. \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f05 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The received text requires correction in two points.\n(1) It inserts the words \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f51\u03b9\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 after \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6.\nThough this insertion has preponderating support, yet the words are\nevidently interpolated from the parallel passage, Ephes. v. 6 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f51\u03b9\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. We are\ntherefore justified in rejecting them with other authorities, few in\nnumber but excellent in character. See the detached note on various\nreadings. When the sentence is thus corrected, the parallelism of \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f05\n... \u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af ... may be compared with Ephes. i. 11 \u1f10\u03bd h\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd ... \u1f10\u03bd h\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 ... \u1f10\u03bd h\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5,\nand ii. 21, 22 \u1f10\u03bd h\u1ff7 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 [\u1f21] \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74 ... \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5. (2) The vast preponderance of authority obliges us to\nsubstitute \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 for \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\n6. \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9] This may refer either to the present and continuous\ndispensation, or to the future and final judgment. The present \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\nis frequently used to denote the _certainty_ of a future event, e.g.\nMatt. xvii. 11, Joh. iv. 21, xiv. 3, whence \u1f41 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 is a designation\nof the Messiah: see Winer \u00a7 xl. p. 332.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 7, 8]\n\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\u00b7 ^7\u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03b6\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\u00b7\n^8\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1,\n\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The clause \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f51\u03b9\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 having been\nstruck out, \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 must necessarily be neuter and refer to the same as\n\u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f05. Independently of the rejection of the clause, this neuter seems\nmore probable in itself than the masculine: for (1) The expression\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd is most commonly used of things, not of persons,\nespecially in this and the companion epistle; iv. 5, Ephes. ii. 2, 10,\niv. 17, v. 2; (2) The Apostle would hardly denounce it as a sin in his\nColossian converts that they \u2018walked _among_ the sons of disobedience\u2019;\nfor the Christian, though not of the world, is necessarily in the world:\ncomp. 1 Cor. v. 10. The apparent parallel, Ephes. ii. 3 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd (where \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2\nseems to be masculine), does not hold, because the addition \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. makes all the difference. Thus the rejection of the\nclause, which was decided by textual considerations, is confirmed by\nexegetical reasons.\n\n7. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2] \u2018_ye_, like the other heathen\u2019 (i. 6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd), but in\nthe next verse \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 is rather \u2018ye yourselves\u2019, \u2018ye notwithstanding\nyour former lives\u2019.\n\n\u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03b6\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018When _ye_ lived in this atmosphere of sin, when ye\nhad not yet died to the world\u2019.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2] \u2018_in these things_.\u2019 We should have expected \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, but\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 is substituted as more emphatic and condemnatory: comp. Ephes.\nv. 6 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The two expressions \u03b6\u1fc6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd and\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd involve two distinct ideas, denoting the condition of\ntheir life and the character of their practice respectively. Their\nconduct was conformable to their circumstances. Comp. Gal. v. 25 \u03b5\u1f30\n\u03b6\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n8. The errors of the past suggest the obligations of the present. Thus\nthe Apostle returns to the topic with which the sentence commenced. But\nthe violence of the contrast has broken up the grammar of the sentence:\nsee the note on ver. 5.\n\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1] \u2018not only those vices which have been specially named before\n(ver. 5), but _all_ of whatever kind.\u2019 The Apostle accordingly goes on\nto specify sins of a wholly different type from those already mentioned,\nsins of uncharitableness, such as anger, detraction, malice, and the\nlike.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 9]\n\n\u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae\u03bd, \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\u00b7\n^9\u03bc\u1f74 \u03c8\u03b5\u03cd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n\n\n\u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae\u03bd, \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd] \u2018_anger_, _wrath_\u2019. The one denotes a more or less settled\nfeeling of hatred, the other a tumultuous outburst of passion. This\ndistinction of the two words was fixed chiefly by the definitions of the\nStoics: Diog. Laert. vii. 114 \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u1f74 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7. So\nAmmianus \u03b8\u1f7a\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u1f74 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b1,\nGreg. Naz. _Carm._ 34 (II. p. 612) \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b6\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2,\n\u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u1f74 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd. They may be represented in Latin by _ira_ and\n_furor_; Senec. _de Ira_ ii. 36 \u2018Ajacem in mortem egit furor, in furorem\nira\u2019, and Jerome in Ephes. iv. 31 \u2018Furor incipiens ira est\u2019: see Trench\n_N. T. Syn._ \u00a7 xxxvii, p. 123 sq. On other synonymes connected with\n\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 and \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae see the note on Ephes. iv. 31.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03bd] \u2018_malice_\u2019, or \u2018_malignity_\u2019, as it may be translated in default\nof a better word. It is not (at least in the New Testament) vice\ngenerally, but the vicious nature which is bent on _doing harm to\nothers_, and is well defined by Calvin (on Ephes. iv. 31) \u2018animi\npravitas, qu\u00e6 _humanitati et \u00e6quitati_ est opposita\u2019. This will be\nevident from the connexion in which it appears, e.g. Rom. i. 29, Eph.\niv. 31, Tit. iii. 3. Thus \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 and \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 (which frequently occur\ntogether, e.g. 1 Cor. v. 8) only differ in so far as the one denotes\nrather the vicious disposition, the other the active exercise of it. The\nword is carefully investigated in Trench _N. T. Syn._ \u00a7 xi. p. 35 sq.\n\n\u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd] \u2018_evil speaking_, _railing_, _slandering_\u2019, as frequently,\ne.g. Rom. iii. 8, xiv. 16, 1 Cor. iv. 13 (v.l.), x. 30, Ephes. iv. 31,\nTit. iii. 2. The word has the same twofold sense, \u2018evil speaking\u2019 and\n\u2018blasphemy\u2019, in classical writers, which it has in the New Testament.\n\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd] \u2018_foul-mouthed abuse_\u2019. The word, as used elsewhere, has\ntwo meanings: (1) \u2018_Filthy-talking_\u2019, as defined in Clem. Alex. _P\u00e6d._\nii. 6 (p. 189 sq.), where it is denounced at length: comp. Arist. _Pol._\nvii. 17, Epict. _Man._ 33, Plut. _Mor._ 9, and so commonly; (2)\n\u2018_Abusive language_\u2019, as e.g. Polyb. viii. 13. 8, xii. 13. 3, xxxi. 10.\n4. If the two senses of the word had been quite distinct, we might have\nhad some difficulty in choosing between them here. The former sense is\nsuggested by the parallel passage Ephes. v. 4 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 \u1f24\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b1; the second by the connexion with \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 here. But the\nsecond sense is derived from the first. The word can only mean \u2018abuse\u2019,\nwhen the abuse is \u2018foul-mouthed\u2019. And thus we may suppose that both\nideas, \u2018filthiness\u2019 and \u2018evil-speaking\u2019, are included here.\n\n9. \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_putting off_\u2019. Do these aorist participles\ndescribe an action coincident with or prior to the \u03c8\u03b5\u03cd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5? In other\nwords are they part of the command, or do they assign the reason for the\ncommand? Must they be rendered \u2018putting off\u2019, or \u2018seeing that ye did (at\nyour baptism) put off\u2019? The former seems the more probable\ninterpretation: for (1) Though both ideas are found in St Paul, the\nimperative is the more usual; e.g. Rom. xiii. 12 sq. \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f45\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 ... \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, Ephes. vi. 11 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd with ver.\n14 \u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd ... \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., 1 Thess. V. 8 \u03bd\u03ae\u03c6\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The one exception is Gal. iii. 27 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5, \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5. (2) The \u2018putting on\u2019 in the parallel\npassage, Ephes. iv. 24, is imperative, not affirmative, whether we read\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 or \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5. (3) The participles here are followed\nimmediately by an imperative in the context, ver. 12 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd,\nwhere the idea seems to be the same. For the synchronous aorist\nparticiple see Winer \u00a7 xlv. p. 430. St Paul uses \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9,\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 (not \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9), for the same reason for\nwhich he uses \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 (not \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5), because it is a thing to be done\n_once for all_. For the double compound \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 see the notes on ii.\n11, 15.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 10, 11]\n\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, ^{10}\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u00b7\n^{11}\u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\n\n\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd] as Rom. vi. 6, Ephes. iv. 22. With this expression\ncompare \u1f41 \u1f14\u03be\u03c9, \u1f41 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c9 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, Rom. vii. 22, 2 Cor. iv. 16, Ephes. iii.\n16; \u1f41 \u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, 1 Pet. iii. 4; \u1f41 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u2018my insignificance\u2019, Polycr. in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.\n\n10. \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] In Ephes. iv. 24 it is \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 _\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd_\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd. Of the two words \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, the former refers solely to\ntime, the other denotes quality also; the one is new as being _young_,\nthe other new as being _fresh_: the one is opposed to long duration, the\nother to effeteness; see Trench _N. T. Syn._ \u00a7 lx. p. 206. Here the idea\nwhich is wanting to \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2, and which \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 gives in the parallel\npassage, is more than supplied by the addition \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nThe \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 or \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 in these passages is not Christ Himself, as\nthe parallel expression \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 might suggest, and as it is\nactually used in Ign. _Ephes._ 20 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, but the regenerate man formed after Christ. The idea here is\nthe same as in \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. vi. 15: comp. Rom. vi. 4\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2, Barnab. 16 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03af, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd] \u2018_which is_ ever _being renewed_\u2019. The force of\nthe present tense is explained by 2 Cor. iv. 16 \u1f41 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd [\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2]\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 _\u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3_. Compare also the use of the\ntenses in the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 22 sq. \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9,\n_\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9_, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. For the opposite see Ephes. iv. 22 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd _\u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd_ \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd] \u2018_unto perfect knowledge_\u2019, the true knowledge in Christ,\nas opposed to the false knowledge of the heretical teachers. For the\nimplied contrast see above pp. 44, 99 sq. (see the notes on i. 9, ii.\n3), and for the word \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 the note on i. 9. The words here are to\nbe connected closely with \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd: comp. Heb. vi. 6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\n_\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd_ \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The reference is to Gen. i. 26 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\n\u03a0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; comp. ver. 28 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. See also Ephes. iv. 24 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u0398\u1f72\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1. This reference however does not imply an\nidentity of the creation here mentioned with the creation of Genesis,\nbut only an analogy between\n\nthe two. The spiritual man in each believer\u2019s heart, like the primal man\nin the beginning of the world, was created after God\u2019s image. The \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74\n\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in this respect resembles the \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. The pronoun \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\ncannot be referred to anything else but the \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, the\nregenerate man; and the aorist \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (compare \u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 in the\nparallel passage Ephes. iv. 24) refers to the time of this \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\nin Christ. See Barnab. 6 _\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2_ \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd ... \u1f61\u03c3\u1f70\u03bd \u03b4\u1f74 _\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2_\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, after which Gen. i. 26 is quoted. The new birth was a\nrecreation in God\u2019s image; the subsequent life must be a deepening of\nthis image thus stamped upon the man.\n\nThe allusion to Genesis therefore requires us to understand \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 of God, and not of Christ, as it is taken by St Chrysostom and\nothers; and this seems to be demanded also by the common use of \u1f41\n\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2. But if Christ is not \u1f41 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, may He not be intended by the\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2? In favour of this interpretation it may be urged\n(1) That Christ elsewhere is called the \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd of God, i. 15, 2 Cor. iv.\n4; (2) That the Alexandrian school interpreted the term in Gen. i. 26 as\ndenoting the Logos; thus Philo _de Mund._ Op. 6 (I. p. 5 M) \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ad\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 (comp. ib. \u00a7\u00a7 7, 23, 24, 48),\n_Fragm._ II. p. 625 M \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u0398\u1f72\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. _Leg. Alleg._ i. 31, 32 (I. p. 106 sq.). Hence\nPhilo speaks of the first man as \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (_de Mund. Op._ 6), and\nas \u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03ad\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 (ib. \u00a7 48). A pregnant meaning\nis thus given to \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70, and \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1 is rendered \u2018after the fashion\n(or pattern) of the Image\u2019. But this interpretation seems very\nimprobable in St Paul; for (1) In the parallel passage Ephes. iv. 24 the\nexpression is simply \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd, which may be regarded as equivalent to\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 here; (2) The Alexandrian explanation of Gen.\ni. 26 just quoted is very closely allied to the Platonic doctrine of\nideas (for the \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd, so interpreted, is the archetype or ideal pattern\nof the sensible world), and thus it lies outside the range of those\nconceptions which specially recommended the Alexandrian terminology of\nthe Logos to the Apostles, as a fit vehicle for communicating the truths\nof Christianity.\n\n11. \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5] i.e. \u2018in this regenerate life, in this spiritual region into\nwhich the believer is transferred in Christ.\u2019\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 11]\n\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f15\u03bd\u03b9 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1,\n\n\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f15\u03bd\u03b9] \u2018Not only does the distinction not exist, but it _cannot_\nexist.\u2019 It is a mundane distinction, and therefore it has disappeared.\nFor the sense of \u1f15\u03bd\u03b9, negativing not merely the fact but the\npossibility, see the note on Gal. iii. 28.\n\n\u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] Comparing the enumeration here with the parallel passage\nGal. iii. 28, we mark this difference. In Galatians the abolition of all\ndistinctions is stated in the broadest way by the selection of three\ntypical instances; religious prerogative (\u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd), social caste\n(\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2), natural sex (\u1f04\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u03b8\u1fc6\u03bb\u03c5). Here on the other hand\nthe examples are chosen with special reference to the immediate\ncircumstances of the Colossian Church. (1) The Judaism of the Colossian\nheretics is met by \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, and as it manifested itself\nespecially in enforcing circumcision, this is further emphasized by\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 (see above, p. 73). (2) Their Gnosticism again\nis met by \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u03a3\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2. They laid special stress on intelligence,\npenetration, gnosis. The Apostle offers the full privileges of the\nGospel to barbarians and even barbarians of the lowest type (see p. 99\nsq.). In Rom. i. 14, the division \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 is almost\nsynonymous with \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. (3) Special circumstances,\nconnected with an eminent member of the Church of Coloss\u00e6, had directed\nhis attention at this moment to the relation of masters and slaves.\nHence he cannot leave the subject without adding \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2,\nthough this has no special bearing on the Colossian heresy. See above p.\n33, and the note on iii. 22, together with the introduction to the\nEpistle to Philemon.\n\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] Enforcing and extending the lesson of the previous\nclause. This abolition of distinctions applies to religious privilege,\nnot only as inherited by birth (\u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2), but also as assumed\nby adoption (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1). If it is no advantage to be born\na Jew, it is none to become as a Jew; comp. 1 Cor. vii. 19, Gal. v. 6,\nvi. 15.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 11]\n\n\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u03a3\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2, \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n\n\n\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2] To the Jew the whole world was divided into \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 and\n\u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, the privileged and unprivileged portions of mankind, religious\nprerogative being taken as the line of demarcation (see notes Gal. ii.\n3). To the Greek and Roman it was similarly divided into \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 and\n\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, again the privileged and unprivileged portion of the human\nrace, civilization and culture being now the criterion of distinction.\nThus from the one point of view the \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd is contrasted\ndisadvantageously with the \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, while from the other he is\ncontrasted advantageously with the \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. Both distinctions are\nequally antagonistic to the Spirit of the Gospel. The Apostle declares\nboth alike null and void in Christ. The twofold character of the\nColossian heresy enables him to strike at these two opposite forms of\nerror with one blow.\n\nThe word \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 properly denoted one who spoke an inarticulate,\nstammering, unintelligible language; see Max M\u00fcller _Lectures on the\nScience of Language_ 1st ser. p. 81 sq., 114 sq., Farrar _Families of\nSpeech_ p. 21: comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 11. Hence it was adopted by Greek\nexclusiveness and pride to stigmatize the rest of mankind, a feeling\nembodied in the proverb \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (Servius on Verg. _\u00c6n._\nii. 504); comp. Plato _Polit._ 262 E \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 h\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c2, \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd ... \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7\n\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., Dionys. Hal. _Rhet._ xi. 5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u1f22 \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. So Philo _Vit. Moys._ ii. 5 (II. p.\n138) speaks of \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f25\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bc\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, as\nopposed to \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd. It is not necessary to suppose that they\nadopted it from the Egyptians, who seem to have called non-Egyptian\npeoples _berber_ (see Sir G. Wilkinson in Rawlinson\u2019s Herod. ii. 158);\nfor the onomatop\u0153ia will explain its origin independently, Strabo\nxiv. 2. 28 (p. 662) \u03bf\u1f36\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03ba\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd,\n\u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The Latins, adopting the Greek culture, adopted\nthe Greek distinction also, e.g. Cic. _de Fin._ ii. 15 \u2018Non solum Gr\u00e6cia\net Italia, sed etiam omnis barbaria\u2019: and accordingly Dionysius, _Ant.\nRom._ i. 69, classes the Romans with the Greeks as distinguished from\nthe \u2018barbarians\u2019\u2014this twofold division of the human race being taken for\ngranted as absolute and final. So too in v. 8, having mentioned the\nRomans, he goes on to speak of \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2. The older Roman poets\nhowever, writing from a Greek point of view, (more than half in irony)\nspeak of themselves as _barbari_ and of their country as _barbaria_;\ne.g. Plaut. _Mil. Glor._ ii. 2. 58 \u2018poeta barbaro\u2019 (of N\u00e6vius), _Asin._\nProl. II. \u2018Maccus vortit barbare\u2019, _P\u0153n._ iii. 2. 21 \u2018in barbaria\nboves\u2019.\n\nIn this classification the Jews necessarily ranked as \u2018barbarians\u2019. At\ntimes Philo seems tacitly to accept this designation (_Vit. Moys._\nl.c.); but elsewhere he resents it, _Leg. ad Cai._ 31 (II. p. 578) \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78\n\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd \u1f02\u03bd, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019\n\u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2. On the other hand the Christian\nApologists with a true instinct glory in the \u2018barbarous\u2019 origin of their\nreligion: Justin _Apol._ i. 5 (p. 56 A) \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, ib. \u00a7 46 (p. 83 D) \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f08\u03b2\u03c1\u03ac\u03b1\u03bc \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., Tatian. _ad Gr\u00e6c._ 29 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, ib. 31 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 (\u039c\u03c9\u03c5\u03c3\u1fc6\u03bd) \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd, ib.\n35 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. By glorying in the name they gave\na practical comment on the Apostle\u2019s declaration, that the distinction\nof Greek and barbarian was abolished in Christ. In a similar spirit\nClem. Alex. _Strom._ i. 16 (p. 361) endeavours to prove that \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\u03b9 \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n\u2018Not till that word _barbarian_\u2019, writes Prof. Max M\u00fcller (l.c. p. 118),\n\u2018was struck out of the dictionary of mankind and replaced by _brother_,\nnot till the right of all nations of the world to be classed as members\nof one genus or kind was recognised, can we look even for the first\nbeginnings of our science. This change was effected by Christianity....\n_Humanity_ is a word which you look for in vain in Plato or Aristotle;\nthe idea of mankind as one family, as the children of one God, is an\nidea of Christian growth: and the science of mankind, and of the\nlanguages of mankind, is a science which, without Christianity, would\nnever have sprung into life. When people had been taught to look upon\nall men as brethren, then and then only, did the variety of human speech\npresent itself as a problem that called for a solution in the eyes of\nthoughtful observers: and I therefore date the real beginning of the\nscience of language from the first day of Pentecost.... The common\norigin of mankind, the differences of race and language, the\nsusceptibility of all nations of the highest mental culture, these\nbecome, in the new world in which we live, problems of scientific,\nbecause of more than scientific interest\u2019. St Paul was the great\nexponent of the fundamental principle in the Christian Church which was\nsymbolized on the day of Pentecost, when he declared, as here, that in\nChrist there is neither \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd nor \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, or as in Rom. i. 14 that he\nhimself was a debtor equally \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nThe only other passage in the New Testament (besides those quoted) in\nwhich \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 occurs is Acts xxviii. 2, 4, where it is used of the\npeople of Melita. If this Melita be Malta, they would be of Ph\u0153nician\ndescent.\n\n\u03a3\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2] the lowest type of barbarian. There is the same collocation of\nwords in Dionys. Halic. _Rhet._ xi. 5, 6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u03a3\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2, \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2,\n\u00c6sch. _c. Ctes._ 172 \u03a3\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2, \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f11\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc7 (of\nDemosthenes). The savageness of the Scythians was proverbial. The\nearlier Greek writers indeed, to whom _omne ignotum_ was _pro\nmagnifico_, had frequently spoken of them otherwise (see Strabo vii. 3.\n7 sq., p. 300 sq.). \u00c6schylus for instance called them \u1f14\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03a3\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9,\n_Fragm._ 189 (comp. _Eum._ 703). Like the other Hyperboreans, they were\na simple, righteous people, living beyond the vices and the miseries of\ncivilisation. But the common estimate was far different, and probably\nfar more true: e.g. 3 Macc. vii. 5 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a3\u03ba\u03c5\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd ... \u1f60\u03bc\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\n(comp. 2 Macc. iv. 47), Joseph. _c. Ap._ ii. 37 \u03a3\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 ... \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u1f7a \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, Philo _Leg. ad Cai._ 2 (II p. 547) \u03a3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03a3\u03ba\u03c5\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f05\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f27\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0393\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd, Tertull. _adv. Marc._\ni. 1 \u2018Scytha tetrior\u2019. In _Vit. Moys._ ii. 4 (I. p. 137) Philo seems to\nplace the Egyptians and the Scythians at the two extremes in the scale\nof barbarian nations. The passages given in Wetstein from classical\nwriters are hardly less strong in the same direction. Anacharsis the\nScythian is said to have retorted \u1f11\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\nClem. _Strom._ i. 16 (p. 364).\n\nThe Jews had a special reason for their unfavourable estimate of the\nScythians. In the reign of Josiah hordes of these northern barbarians\nhad deluged Palestine and a great part of Western Asia (Herod. i.\n103\u2013106). The incident indeed is passed over in silence in the\nhistorical books; but the terror inspired by these invaders has found\nexpression in the prophets (Ezek. xxxviii, xxxix, Jer. i. 13 sq., vi. 1\nsq.), and they left behind them a memorial in the Greek name of\nBeth-shean, \u03a3\u03ba\u03c5\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 (Judith iii. 10, 2 Macc. xii. 29: comp. Judges\ni. 27 LXX) or \u03a3\u03ba\u03c5\u03b8\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2, which seems to have been derived from a\nsettlement on this occasion (Plin. _N.H._ v. 16; see Ewald. _Gesch._\nIII. p. 689 sq., Grove s.v. _Scythopolis_ in Smith\u2019s _Bibl. Dict._).\n\nHence Justin, _Dial._ \u00a7 28 (p. 246 A), describing the largeness of the\nnew dispensation, says \u03ba\u1f02\u03bd \u03a3\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f96 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1 ... \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7, where he singles out two different but equally low types of\nbarbarians, the Scythians being notorious for their ferocity, the\nPersians for their licentiousness (Clem. Alex. _P\u00e6d._ i. 7, p. 131,\n_Strom._ iii. 2, p. 515, and the Apologists generally). So too the\nPseudo-Lucian, _Philopatris_ 17, satirising Christianity, \u039a\u03a1. \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5,\n\u03b5\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03ba\u03c5\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03b3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9. \u03a4\u03a1. \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9. From a misconception of this passage in the\nColossians, heresiologers distinguished four main forms of heresy in the\npre-Christian world, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, \u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f11\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f30\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03ca\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2; so\nEpiphan. _Epist. ad. Acac._ 2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7, \u1f18\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\n\u03a3\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2: comp. _H\u00e6r._ i. 4, 7\nsq., I. p. 5, 8 sq., _Anaceph._ II. pp. 127, 129 sq.\n\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_Christ is all things and in all things._\u2019 Christ has\ndispossessed and obliterated all distinctions of religious prerogative\nand intellectual preeminence and social caste; Christ has substituted\nHimself for all these; Christ occupies the whole sphere of human life\nand permeates all its developments; comp. Ephes. i. 23 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5. For \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, which is stronger than \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, see\nGal. iii. 22 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd with the note. In\nthis passage \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd is probably neuter, as in 2 Cor. xi. 6, Phil. iv.\n12, 1 Tim. iii. II, 2 Tim. ii. 7, iv. 5, Ephes. iv. 6, vi. 16.\n\nIn the parallel passage Gal. iii. 28 the corresponding clause is \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f11\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6. The inversion here accords with a chief\nmotive of the epistle, which is to assert the absolute and universal\nsupremacy of Christ; comp. i. 17 sq., ii. 10 sq., 19. The two parts of\nthe antithesis are combined in our Lord\u2019s saying, Joh. xiv. 20 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u03af, \u03ba\u1f00\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 12]\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2. ^{12}\u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76\n\n\n12\u201315. \u2018Therefore, as the elect of God, as a people consecrated to His\nservice and specially endowed with His love, array yourselves in hearts\nof compassion, in kindliness and humility, in a gentle and yielding\nspirit. Bear with one another: forgive freely among yourselves. As your\nMaster forgave you His servants, so ought ye to forgive your\nfellow-servants. And over all these robe yourselves in love; for this is\nthe garment which binds together all the graces of perfection. And let\nthe one supreme umpire in your hearts, the one referee amidst all your\ndifficulties, be the peace of Christ, which is the destined goal of your\nChristian calling, in which is realised the unity belonging to members\nof one body. Lastly of all; show your gratitude by your thanksgiving.\u2019\n\n12. \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd] \u2018_Put on therefore_\u2019, as men to whom Christ has\nbecome all in all. The incidental mention of Christ as superseding all\nother relations gives occasion to this argumentative \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd: comp. iii. 1,\n5.\n\n\u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6] \u2018_as elect ones of God._\u2019 Comp. Rom. viii. 33,\nTit. i. 1. In the Gospels \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03af and \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03af are distinguished as an\nouter and an inner circle (Matt. xxii. 14 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03af,\n\u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03af), \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03af being those summoned to the privileges of\nthe Gospel and \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03af those appointed to final salvation (Matt. xxiv.\n22, 24, 31, Mark xiii. 20, 22, 27, Luke xviii. 7). But in St Paul no\nsuch distinction can be traced. With him the two terms seem to be\ncoextensive, as two aspects of the same process, \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03af having special\nreference to the goal and \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03af to the starting-point. The same\npersons are \u2018called\u2019 to Christ, and \u2018chosen out\u2019 from the world. Thus in\n1 Thess. i. 4 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1f74\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. the word clearly denotes\nelection to Church-membership. Thus also in 2 Tim. ii. 10, where St Paul\nsays that he endures all things \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, adding \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03b9\n\u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c7\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., the uncertainty implied in these last words\nclearly shows that election to final salvation is not meant. In the same\nsense he speaks of an individual Christian as \u2018elect\u2019, Rom. xvi. 13. And\nagain in 1 Cor. i. 26, 27 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd ... \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1ff6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, the words appear as synonymes. The same is also the usage of\nSt Peter. Thus in an opening salutation he addresses whole Christian\ncommunities as \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03af (1 Pet. i. 1; comp. v. 13 \u1f21 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f74 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u0392\u03b1\u03b2\u03c5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9, i.e. probably \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1), as St Paul under similar\ncircumstances (Rom. i. 6, 7, 1 Cor. i. 2) designates them \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03af; and in\nanother passage (2 Pet. i. 10) he appeals to his readers to make their\n\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 and \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03ae sure. The use of \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 in 2 Joh. 1. 13 is\napparently the same; and in Apoc. xvii. 14 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03af this is also the case, as we may infer from the\naddition of \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03af, which points to those who have been _true_ to their\n\u2018calling and election\u2019. Thus the Gospels stand alone in this respect. In\nfact \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03ae denotes election by God not only to final salvation, but to\n_any_ special privilege or work, whether it be (1) Church-membership, as\nin the passages cited from the epistles; or (2) The work of preaching,\nas when St Paul (Acts ix. 15) is called \u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2, the object of\nthe \u2018election\u2019 being defined in the words following, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd [\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd] \u1f10\u03b8\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; or (3) The\nMessiahship, 1 Pet. ii. 4, 6; or (4) The fatherhood of the chosen\npeople, as in the case of Isaac and Jacob, Rom. ix. 11; or (5) The\nfaithful remnant under the theocracy, Rom. xi. 5, 7, 28. This last\napplication presents the closest analogy to the idea of final salvation:\nbut even here St Paul treats \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 and \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03ae as coextensive, Rom. xi.\n28, 29 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 12]\n\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 [\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76] \u1f20\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6,\n\n\n\u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] These are not to be taken as vocatives, but as predicates\nfurther defining the meaning of \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03af. All the three terms \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03af,\n\u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f20\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, are transferred from the Old Covenant to the New,\nfrom the Israel after the flesh to the Israel after the Spirit. For the\ntwo former comp. 1 Pet. ii. 9 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd ... \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; and for\nthe sense of \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u2018the consecrated people of God\u2019, see the note on\nPhil. i. 1. For the third word, \u1f20\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, see Is. v. 1 \u1f0c\u03c3\u03c9 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u1f20\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., Hos. ii. 25 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f20\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f20\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd (as quoted\nin Rom. ix. 25). In the New Testament it seems to be used always of the\nobjects of _God\u2019s_ love: e.g. 1 Thess. i. 4 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c2, \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f20\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n\u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1f74\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, 2 Thess. ii. 13 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f20\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78\n\u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 (comp. Jude 1); and so probably Rev. xx. 9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f20\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd. For the connexion of God\u2019s election and God\u2019s love see Rom.\nxi. 28 (quoted above), 1 Thess. _l.c._ The \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 is omitted in one or two\nexcellent copies (though it has the great preponderance of authorities\nin its favour), and it is impossible not to feel how much the sentence\ngains in force by the omission, \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, )\u03b7\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9; comp.\n1 Pet. ii. 6.\n\n\u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6] \u2018_a heart of pity_\u2019. For the meaning of \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1 see\nthe note on Phil. i. 8, and for the whole expression comp. \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 Luke i. 78, _Test. xii Patr._ Zab. 7, 8.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 12]\n\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\"\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\u00b7\n\n\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The two words \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 and \u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7,\n\u2018kindliness\u2019 and \u2018humility\u2019, describe the Christian _temper of mind_\ngenerally, and this in two aspects, as it affects either (1) our\nrelation to others (\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2), or (2) our estimate of self\n(\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7). For \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 see the note on Gal. v. 22; for\n\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7, the note on Phil. ii. 3.\n\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\"\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] These next two words, \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\"\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 and \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, denote\nthe _exercise_ of the Christian temper in its outward bearing towards\nothers. They are best distinguished by their opposites. \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\"\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 is\nopposed to \u2018rudeness, harshness\u2019, \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 (Plato _Symp._ 197 D),\n\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 (Arist. _H. A._ ix. i); \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 to \u2018resentment, revenge,\nwrath,\u2019 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae (Prov. xvi. 32), \u1f40\u03be\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 (Herm. _Mand._ v. 1, 2). For the\nmeaning of \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 see above, on i. 11; for the form of \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\"\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n(\u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2), on Gal. v. 23. The words are discussed in Trench _N. T. Syn._\n\u00a7 xlii. p. 140 sq., \u00a7 xliii. p. 145 sq., \u00a7 liii. p. 184 sq. They appear\nin connexion Ephes. iv. 2, Ign. _Polyc._ 6 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\"\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 13]\n\n^{13}\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2,\n\n\n13. \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2] The pronoun is varied, as in Ephes. iv. 32 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 _\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2_ \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03af ... \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 _\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2_ \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., 1\nPet. iv. 8\u201310 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 _\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2_ \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 ... \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 _\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2_ ... \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 [\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1] \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. The\nreciprocal \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd differs from the reciprocal \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd in emphasizing the\nidea of _corporate unity_: hence it is more appropriate here (comp.\nEphes. iv. 2, 32) with \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 than with \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9; comp. Xen.\n_Mem._ iii. 5. 16 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd _\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2_ \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1,\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd _\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2_, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd _\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2_ \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u2019\n_\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd_ \u1f22 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c9\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 _\u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2_, where the propriety of the\ntwo words in their respective places will be evident; and ib. ii. 7. 12\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b4\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 _\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2_ h\u03ad\u03c9\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, where the variation\nis more subtle but not less appropriate. For instances of this use of\n\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd see Bleek _Hebr\u00e4erbrief_ iii. 13 (p. 453 sq.), K\u00fchner _>Griech.\nGramm._ \u00a7 455 (II. p. 497 sq.).\n\n\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9] i.e. \u2018forgiving\u2019; see the note on ii. 13. An _a fortiori_\nargument lurks under the use of \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 (rather than \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2): if\nChrist forgave them, much more should they forgive _themselves_.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 14]\n\n\u1f10\u03ac\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c7\u1fc3 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bc\u03c6\u03ae\u03bd\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\u00b7 ^{14}\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\n\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03bc\u03c6\u03ae\u03bd] \u2018_a complaint_\u2019. As \u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 is \u2018to find _fault_ with\u2019,\nreferring most commonly to errors of omission, so \u03bc\u03bf\u03bc\u03c6\u03ae here is regarded\nas a _debt_, which needs to be remitted. The rendering of the A. V. \u2018a\nquarrel\u2019 (= querela) is only wrong as being an archaism. The phrase\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03bc\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd occurs several times in classical Greek, but generally in\npoetry: e.g. Eur. _Orest._ 1069, Arist. _Pax_ 664.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] This must not be connected with the preceding words,\nbut treated as an independent sentence, the \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af being answered by\nthe \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af. For the presence of \u03ba\u03b1\u03af in both clauses of the comparison\nsee the note on i. 6. The phenomenon is common in the best classical\nwriters, e.g. Xen. _Mem._ i. 6. 3 \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 ... \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03cd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; see the references in Heindorf on\nPlato _Ph\u00e6do_ 64 C, _Sophist._ 217 B, and K\u00fchner _Griech. Gramm._ \u00a7 524\n(II. p. 799).\n\n\u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2] This reading, which is better supported than \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, is\nalso more expressive. It recalls more directly the lesson of the parable\nwhich enforces the duty of fellow-servant to fellow-servant; Matt.\nxviii. 27 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1f72\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.: comp. below iv. 1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7. The reading \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 perhaps comes from the\nparallel passage Ephes. iv. 32 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd (or \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd).\n\n\u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2] sc. \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\n14. \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd] \u2018_over and above all these_\u2019, comp. Luke iii. 20\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. In Luke xvi. 26, Ephes. vi. 16, the\ncorrect reading is probably \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. Love is the outer garment which\nholds the others in their places.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 15]\n\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd, \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. ^{15}\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f23\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03bd\u1f76\n\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\n\n\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd] sc. \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5, from ver. 12.\n\n\u1f45] \u2018_which thing_\u2019, i.e. \u2018love\u2019; comp. Ephes. v. 5 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2, Ign. _Rom._ 7 \u1f05\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9, \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u1f70\u03c1\u03be \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6,\n_Magn._ 10 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bd\u03ad\u03b1\u03bd \u03b6\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, _Trall._ 7\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f45 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u1f70\u03c1\u03be \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. Though there are\nvarious readings in the passages of the Ignatian Epistles, the \u1f45 seems\nto be right in every case. These instances will show that \u1f45 may be\nreferred to \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd alone. Otherwise we might suppose the antecedent\nto be \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd, but this hardly suits the sense. The\ncommon reading \u1f25\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 is obviously a scribe\u2019s correction.\n\n\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_the bond of perfection_\u2019, i.e. the power, which\nunites and holds together all those graces and virtues, which together\nmake up perfection. \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1, says Chrysostom, h\u03ac\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c6\u03af\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f45\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n\u1f02\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u1fc3\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c4\u03ac\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6: comp. Clem.\nRom. 49 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9; Thus the\nPythagoreans (Simplic. _in Epictet._ p. 208 A) \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd. So too\nThemist. _Orat._ i. (p. 5 C) \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 (\u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1f74) \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f23\u03bd\n\u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03af, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. The word\nwill take a genitive either of the object bound or of the binding force:\ne.g. Plato _Polit._ 310 A \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03be\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, where the \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1f74 \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\nand the \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. We have an instance of the one genitive\n(the objective) here, of the other (the subjective) in Ephes. iv. 3 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 (see the note there).\n\nAnother explanation makes \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 = \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 here, \u2018the bundle, the\ntotality\u2019, as e.g. Herodian. iv. 12 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\n(comp. Ign. _Trall._ 3 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd); but this unusual metaphor\nis highly improbable and inappropriate here, not to mention that we\nshould expect the definite article \u1f41 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 in this case. With either\ninterpretation, the function assigned to \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7 here is the same as when\nit is declared to be \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, Rom. xiii. 10 (comp. Gal. v. 14).\nSee also the all-embracing office which is assigned to it in 1 Cor.\nxiii.\n\n15. \u1f21 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6] \u2018_Christ\u2019s peace_\u2019, which He left as a legacy\nto His disciples: Joh. xiv. 27 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03af\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd _\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd_ \u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bc\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd; comp. Ephes. ii. 14 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\nwith the context. The common reading \u1f21 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 has a parallel in\nPhil. iv. 7.\n\n\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03c9] \u2018_be umpire_\u2019, for the idea of a contest is only less\nprominent here, than in \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd 1 Cor. ix. 24, Phil. iii. 14 (see the\nnote there). \u03a3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, writes\nChrysostom, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03b8\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd. Wherever there is a\nconflict of motives or impulses or reasons, the peace of Christ must\nstep in and decide which is to prevail; \u039c\u1f74 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03c9, says\nChrysostom again, \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1, \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u00b7 \u1f21 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bc\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd.\n\nFor this metaphor of some one paramount consideration acting as umpire,\nwhere there is a conflict of internal motives, see Polyb. ii. 35. 3 \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1ff7 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 _\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff7_ \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9,\nPhilo _de Migr. Abr._ 12 (I[. p. 446) \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41 \u1f04\u03c6\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 )\u03b1\u1f72\u03b9 ... \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f21\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd\n(comp. _de Ebriet._ 19, I. p. 368), Jos. B. J. vi. 2. 6 \u1f10\u03b2\u03c1\u03ac\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f41 ... \u03c6\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2. Somewhat similarly \u03c4\u03cd\u03c7\u03b7 (Polyb. xxvii. 14. 4) or\n\u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (Athen. xv. p. 670 A) are made \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. In other passages, where\n\u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 or \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd is said \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, this implies that, while man\nproposes, God _disposes_. In Philo \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 (_Qui rer. div.\nher._ 19, I. p. 486) is a rough synonyme for \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 (_de\nAbrah._ 14, II. p. 10, etc.): and in Josephus (_Ant._ vi. 3. 1) \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\nand \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd are used together of the same action. In all such cases it\nappears that the idea of a _decision_ and an _award_ is prominent in the\nword, and that it must not be taken to denote simply _rule_ or _power_.\n\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f23\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 15 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03ad\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9] \u2018As ye were called as members of one body, so let there\nbe one spirit animating that body\u2019: Ephes. iv. 4 h\u1f72\u03bd \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 h\u1f72\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1. This passage strikes the keynote of the companion Epistle to the\nEphesians (see esp. ii. 16 sq., iv. 3 sq.).\n\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9] \u2018And to crown all forget yourselves in thanksgiving towards\nGod\u2019: see the notes on i. 12, ii. 7. The adjective \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, though\nnot occurring elsewhere in the Greek Bible, is not uncommon in classical\nwriters, and like the English \u2018grateful\u2019, has two meanings; either (1)\n\u2018pleasurable\u2019 (e.g. Xen. _Cyr._ ii. 2. 1); or (2) \u2018thankful\u2019 (e.g.\nBoeckh _C. I._ no. 1625), as here.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 16]\n\n\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5. ^{16}\u1f49 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03b9\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3\u00b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\n\n16, 17. \u2018Let the inspiring word of Christ dwell in your hearts,\nenriching you with its boundless wealth and endowing you with all\nwisdom. Teach and admonish one another with psalms, with hymns of\npraise, with spiritual songs of all kinds. Only let them be pervaded\nwith grace from heaven. Sing to God in your hearts and not with your\nlips only. And generally; whatever ye do, whether in word or in deed,\nlet everything be done in the name of Jesus Christ. And (again I repeat\nit) pour out your thanksgiving to God the Father through Him\u2019.\n\n16. \u1f49 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6] \u2018_the word of Christ_\u2019, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 being the\nsubjective genitive, so that Christ is the speaker. Though \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 and \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 occur frequently, \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 is\nfound here only. There seems to be no direct reference in this\nexpression to any definite body of truths either written or oral, but \u1f41\n\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 denotes the presence of Christ in the heart, as an\ninward monitor: comp. 1 Joh. ii. 14 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9, with\n_ib._ i. 10 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, and so perhaps Acts xviii.\n5 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 (the correct reading).\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd] \u2018_in your hearts_\u2019, not \u2018_among you_\u2019; comp. Rom. viii. 9, 11\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, 2 Tim. i. 5, 14, and Lev. xxvi. 12, as\nquoted in 2 Cor. vi. 16, \u1f10\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03c2] See above p. 43 sq., and the note on i. 27.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3] \u2018_in every kind of wisdom_\u2019. It seems best to take these\nwords with the preceding clause, though Clem. Alex. _P\u00e6d._ ii. 4 (p.\n194) attaches them to what follows. For this position of \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3,\nat the end of the sentence to which it refers, comp. i. 9, Ephes. i. 8.\nThe connexion here adopted is also favoured by the parallel passage\nEphes. v. 18, 19 (see the note below). Another passage i. 28\n\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3\nhas a double bearing: while the _connexion_ favours our taking \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3 here with the following words, the _order_ suggests their being\nattached to the preceding clause.\n\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The participles are here used for imperatives, as\nfrequently in hortatory passages, e.g. Rom. xii. 9 sq., 16 sq., Ephes.\niv. 2, 3, Hebr. xiii. 5, 1 Pet. ii. 12[?], iii. 1, 7, 9, 15, 16. It is\nnot, as some insist, that the participle itself has any imperatival\nforce; nor, as maintained by others, that the construction should be\nexplained by the hypothesis of a preceding parenthesis or of a verb\nsubstantive understood or by any other expedient to obtain a regular\ngrammatical structure (see Winer, \u00a7 xlv. p. 441 sq., \u00a7 lxii. p. 707, \u00a7\nlxiii. p. 716, \u00a7 lxiv. p. 732). But the absolute participle, being (so\nfar as regards mood) neutral in itself, takes its colour from the\ngeneral complexion of the sentence. Thus it is sometimes indicative\n(e.g. 2 Cor. vii. 5, and frequently), sometimes imperative (as in the\npassages quoted), sometimes optative (as above, ii. 2, 2 Cor. ix. 11,\ncomp. Ephes. iii. 17). On the distinction of \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd and \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd see\nthe note on i. 28; they describe respectively the positive and the\nnegative side of instruction. On the reciprocal \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 see the note on\niii. 13.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 16]\n\n\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1fa0\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7\n\n\n\u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] to be connected with the preceding sentence, as\nsuggested by Ephes. v. 18 sq. \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 [\u1f10\u03bd] \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1fa0\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 [\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2], \u1f84\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c8\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3. The datives describe the instruments\nof the \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c7\u03ae and \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1.\n\nThe three words \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1fa0\u03b4\u03ae, are distinguished, so far as they\nare distinguishable, in Trench _N.T. Syn._ \u00a7 lxxviii. p. 279 sq. They\nare correctly defined by Gregory Nyssen _in Psalm._ c. iii (I. p. 295)\n\u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03c9\u03b4\u03af\u03b1, \u1fa0\u03b4\u1f74 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f21 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u1fe5\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 ... \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f21 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1; see also\nHippol. p. 191 sq. (ed. de Lagarde). In other words, while the leading\nidea of \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 is a musical accompaniment and that of \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 praise to\nGod, \u1fa0\u03b4\u03ae is the general word for a song, whether accompanied or\nunaccompanied, whether of praise or on any other subject. Thus it was\nquite possible for the same song to be at once \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, and \u1fa0\u03b4\u03ae.\nIn the text the reference in \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, we may suppose, is specially,\nthough not exclusively (1 Cor. xiv. 26), to the Psalms of David, which\nwould early form part of the religious worship of the Christian\nbrotherhood. On the other hand \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 would more appropriately designate\nthose hymns of praise which were composed by the Christians themselves\non distinctly Christian themes, being either set forms of words or\nspontaneous effusions of the moment. The third word \u1fa0\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 gathers up the\nother two, and extends the precept to all forms of song, with the\nlimitation however that they must be \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af. St Chrysostom treats\n\u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 here as an advance upon \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u03af, which in one aspect they are; \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u03af, he says, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f41\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ac\u03b8\u1fc3, _\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5_ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f05\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1.\n\nPsalmody and hymnody were highly developed in the religious services of\nthe Jews at this time: see Philo _in Flacc._ 14 (II. p. 535) \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1fa0\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, _de Vit. Cont._ \u00a7 3 (II. p. 476)\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f84\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f03\n\u1fe5\u03c5\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, \u00a7 10 (p. 484) \u1f41 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f84\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f22 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03ba\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f22 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd,\n\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f56 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., \u00a7 11 (p. 485)\n\u1f84\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\n\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., with the whole context. They would thus find their way into the\nChristian Church from the very beginning. For instances of singing hymns\nor psalms in the Apostolic age see Acts iv. 24, xvi. 25, 1 Cor. xiv. 15,\n26. Hence even in St Paul\u2019s epistles, more especially his later\nepistles, fragments of such hymns appear to be quoted; e.g. Ephes. v. 14\n(see the note there). For the use of hymnody in the early Church of the\nsucceeding generations see Plin. _Epist._ x. 97 \u2018Ante lucem convenire,\ncarmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem,\u2019 Anon. [Hippolytus] in\nEuseb. _H.E._ v. 28 \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1fa0\u03b4\u1f70\u03b9 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 _)\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2_\n\u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. The reference in the text is not solely or chiefly to\npublic worship as such. Clem. Alex. _P\u00e6d._ ii. 4 (p. 194) treats it as\napplying to social gatherings; and again Tertullian says of the agape,\n_Apol._ 39 \u2018Ut quisque de scripturis sanctis vel de proprio ingenio\npotest, provocatur in medium Deo canere,\u2019 and of the society of husband\nand wife, _Ad Uxor._ ii. 8 \u2018Sonant inter duos psalmi et hymni, et mutuo\nprovocant quis melius Domino suo cantet.\u2019 On the psalmody etc. of the\nearly Christians see Bingham _Antiq._ xiv. c. 1, and especially Probst\n_Lehre und Gebet_ p. 256 sq.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9] \u2018_in_ God\u2019s _grace_\u2019; comp. 2 Cor. i. 12 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. These words are perhaps best connected with\nthe preceding clause, as by Chrysostom. Thus the parallelism with \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3 is preserved. The correct reading is \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9, not \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9. For \u1f21 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, \u2018divine grace\u2019, see Phil. i. 7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 with the note. The definite article seems to exclude all lower\nsenses of \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 here, such as \u2018acceptableness\u2019, \u2018sweetness\u2019 (see iv. 6).\nThe interpretation \u2018with gratitude\u2019, if otherwise tenable (comp. 1 Cor.\nx. 30), seems inappropriate here, because the idea of thanksgiving is\nintroduced in the following verse.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 17, 18]\n\n\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9, \u1f84\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7\u00b7 ^{17}\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u1f45 \u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 \u1f22 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u1ff3, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n^{18}\u0391\u1f31 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\n\n\n\u1f04\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] This external manifestation must be accompanied by the\ninward emotion. There must be the thanksgiving of the heart, as well as\nof the lips; comp. Ephes. v. 19 \u1f04\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3\n(probably the correct reading), where \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 \u2018_with_ the heart\u2019\nbrings out the sense more distinctly.\n\n17. \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u1f45 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] This is probably a nominative absolute, as Matt. x.\n32 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 ... \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9 \u03ba\u1f00\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 (comp. Luke xii.\n8), Luke xii. 10 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f43\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd ... \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7, John xvii. 2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd\n\u1f43 \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7, \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u1fc3 _\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2_ \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; comp. Matt. vii. 24 (v.l.).\n\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1] sc. \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5, as the following \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 suggests; comp. ver.\n23.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] This is the great practical lesson which flows from\nthe theological teaching of the epistle. Hence the reiteration of \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3,\n\u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3, etc., vv. 18, 20, 22, 23, 24. See above p. 104.\n\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2] On this refrain see the notes on i. 12, ii. 7.\n\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76] This, which is quite the best authenticated reading, gives\na very unusual, if not unique, collocation of words, the usual form\nbeing either \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 or \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1. The \u03ba\u03b1\u03af before \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af in the\nreceived text is an obvious emendation. See the note on i. 3, and the\nappendix on various readings.\n\n18\u201321. \u2018Ye wives, be subject to your husbands, for so it becomes you in\nChrist. Ye husbands, love and cherish your wives, and use no harshness\ntowards them. Ye children, be obedient to your parents in all things;\nfor this is commendable and lovely in Christ. Ye parents, vex not your\nchildren, lest they lose heart and grow sullen\u2019.\n\n18 sq. These precepts, providing for the conduct of Christians in\nprivate households, should be compared with Ephes. v. 22\u2013vi. 9, 1 Pet.\nii. 18\u2013iii. 7, Tit. ii. 1 sq.; see also Clem. Rom. 1, Polyc. _Phil._ 4\nsq.\n\n\u0391\u1f31 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2] \u2018_Ye wives_\u2019, the nominative with the definite article\nbeing used for a vocative, as frequently in the New Testament, e.g.\nMatt. xi. 26, Mark v. 41, Luke viii. 54; see Winer \u00a7 xxix. p. 227 sq.\nThe frequency of this use is doubtless due to the fact that it is a\nreproduction of the Hebrew idiom. In the instances quoted from classical\nwriters (see Bernhardy _Syntax_ p. 67) the address is not so directly\nvocative, the nominative being used rather to _define_ or _select_ than\nto _summon_ the person in question.\n\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd] The \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 of the received text may have been inserted\n(as it is inserted also in Ephes. v. 24) from Ephes. v. 22, Tit. ii. 5,\n1 Pet. iii. 1, 5, in all which passages this same injunction occurs. The\nscribes however show a general fondness for this adjective; e.g. Mark\nxv. 20, Luke ii. 3, Acts i. 19, Ephes. iv. 28, 1 Thess. ii. 15, iv. 11.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 19\u201322]\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3. ^{19}\u039f\u1f31 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2. ^{20}\u03a4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1, \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u00b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3. ^{21}\u039f\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd,\n\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f00\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. ^{22}\u039f\u1f31 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n\n\n\u1f00\u03bd\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd] The imperfect, as Ephes. v. 4 \u1f03 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03bd\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd (the correct\nreading); comp. _Clem. Hom._ Contest. 3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03b4\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, Xen. _de Re Equestr._ xii. 14 \u1f03 \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd; and see D\u2019Orville on Charito viii. 2 (p. 699 sq.). The\ncommon uses of the imperfect \u1f14\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9, \u1f14\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd, etc., in classical writers\ndo not present a very exact parallel; for they imply that the thing\nwhich ought to have been done has been left undone. And so we might\ninterpret Acts xxii. 22 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b6\u1fc6\u03bd (the correct reading).\nHere however there can hardly be any such reference; and the best\nillustration is the English past tense \u2018ought\u2019 (= \u2018owed\u2019), which is used\nin the same way. The past tense perhaps implies an essential _\u00e0 priori_\nobligation. The use of \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bd, \u1f14\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd, occasionally approximates to this;\ne.g. Eur. _Andr._ 423.\n\nThe idea of \u2018propriety\u2019 is the link which connects the primary meaning\nof such words as \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u2018aiming at or pertaining\nto\u2019, with their ultimate meaning of moral obligation. The word \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\noccurs in the New Testament only here and in the contemporary epistles,\nEphes. v. 4, Philem. 8.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3] probably to be connected with \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, rather than with\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5; comp. ver. 20 \u03b5\u1f50\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3.\n\n19. \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_show no bitterness, behave not harshly_\u2019;\ncomp. Lynceus in Athen. vi. p. 242 C \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03b6\u03ce\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd,\nJoseph. _Ant._ v. 7. I \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ca\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, Plut. _Mor._ p. 457 A \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. So\nalso \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 in the LXX, Jerem. xliv (xxxvii). 15, 3 Esdr.\niv. 31. This verb \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 and its compounds occur frequently in\nclassical writers.\n\n20. \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1] as ver. 22. The rule is stated absolutely, because the\nexceptions are so few that they may be disregarded.\n\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd] \u2018_is well pleasing, commendable_\u2019. The received text\nsupplies this adjective with a dative of reference \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 (from Ephes.\nv. 10), but \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 is unquestionably the right reading. With the\nreading thus corrected \u03b5\u1f50\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, like \u1f00\u03bd\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd ver. 18, must be taken\nabsolutely, as perhaps in Rom. xii. 2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u1f11\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd: comp. Phil. iv. 8 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03ac ... \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6. The\nqualification \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 implies \u2018as judged by a Christian standard\u2019, \u2018as\njudged by those who are members of Christ\u2019s body.\u2019\n\n21. \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5] \u2018_provoke, irritate_\u2019. The other reading \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 has\nhigher support, but is doubtless taken from the parallel passage, Ephes.\nvi. 4. \u2018Irritation\u2019 is the first consequence of being too exacting with\nchildren, and irritation leads to moroseness (\u1f00\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1). In 2 Cor. IX. 2\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is used in a good sense and produces the opposite result, not\ndespondency but energy.\n\n\u1f00\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd] \u2018_lose heart, become spiritless_\u2019, i.e. \u2018go about their task\nin a listless, moody, sullen frame of mind\u2019. \u2018_Fractus animus_\u2019, says\nBengel, \u2018pestis juventutis\u2019. In Xen. _Cyr._ i. 6. 13 \u1f00\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 is opposed\nto \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, and in Thuc. ii. 88 and elsewhere \u1f00\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd is opposed to\n\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 23]\n\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. ^{23}\u1f43 \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5, \u1f10\u03ba \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u1f61\u03c2\n\n                        22. \u1f10\u03bd \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n\n22.\u2013iv. 1. \u2018Ye slaves, be obedient in all things to the masters set over\nyou in the flesh, not rendering them service only when their eyes are\nupon you, as aiming merely to please men, but serving in all sincerity\nof heart, as living in the sight of God and standing in awe of Him. And\nin every thing that ye do, work faithfully and with all your soul, as\nlabouring not for men, but for the great Lord and Master Himself;\nknowing that ye have a Master, from whom ye will receive the glorious\ninheritance as your recompense, whether or not ye may be defrauded of\nyour due by men. Yes, Christ is your Master and ye are his slaves. He\nthat does a wrong shall be requited for his wrong-doing. I say not this\nof slaves only, but of masters also. There is no partiality, no respect\nof persons, in God\u2019s distribution of rewards and punishments. Therefore,\nye masters, do ye also on your part deal justly and equitably by your\nslaves, knowing that ye too have a Master in heaven\u2019.\n\n22. \u039f\u1f31 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9] The relations of masters and slaves, both here and in the\ncompanion epistle (Ephes. vi. 5\u20139), are treated at greater length than\nis usual with St Paul. Here especially the expansion of this topic,\ncompared with the brief space assigned to the duties of wives and\nhusbands (vv. 18, 19), or of children and parents (vv. 20, 21), deserves\nto be noticed. The fact is explained by a contemporary incident in the\nApostle\u2019s private life. His intercourse with Onesimus had turned his\nthoughts in this direction. See above, p. 33, and the introduction to\nthe Epistle to Philemon: comp. also the note on ver. 11.\n\n\u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3] \u2018_eye-service_\u2019, as Ephes. vi. 6: comp. _Apost. Const._\niv. 12 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. This happy expression\nwould seem to be the Apostle\u2019s own coinage. At least there are no traces\nof it earlier. Compare \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 ii. 23. The reading \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3\nis better supported than \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, though the plural is rendered\nslightly more probable in itself by its greater difficulty.\n\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9] again in Ephes. vi. 6. It is a LXX word, Ps. lii. 6,\nwhere the Greek entirely departs from the Hebrew: comp. also\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd Ign. _Rom._ 2, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 Justin _Apol._ i. 2 (p. 53\nE). So \u1f40\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 or \u1f40\u03c7\u03bb\u03cc\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, Timo Phlias. in Diog. Laert. iv. 42\n(vv. 11.).\n\n\u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2] as in Ephes. vi. 5, i.e. \u2018with _undivided_ service\u2019; a\nLXX expression, 1 Chron. xxix. 17, Wisd. i. 1.\n\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd] \u2018_the_ one _Lord_ and Master\u2019, as contrasted with \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2: the idea being carried out in the following verses. The\nreceived text, by substituting \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd, blunts the edge of the\ncontrast.\n\n23. \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5] i.e. \u2018do it diligently\u2019, an advance upon \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5.\n\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2] For the use of \u03bf\u1f50 rather than \u03bc\u1f74 in antitheses, see Winer\n\u00a7 lv. p. 601 sq. The negative here is wholly unconnected with the\nimperative, and refers solely to \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIII. 24, 25]\n\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2,] ^{24}\u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03c8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u00b7 ^{25}\u1f41 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f43\n\n\n24. \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u2018However you may be treated by your earthly masters, you\nhave still _a_ Master who will recompense you.\u2019 The absence of the\ndefinite article here (comp. iv. 1) is the more remarkable, because it\nis studiously inserted in the context, vv. 22\u201324, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3,\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3. In the parallel passage Ephes. vi. 8 it is \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5: for\nthe difference between the two see Gal. i. 12.\n\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd] \u2018_the just recompense_\u2019, a common word both in the lxx\nand in classical writers, though not occurring elsewhere in the New\nTestament; comp. \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 Luke xiv. 12, Rom. xi. 9. The double\ncompound involves the idea of \u2018exact requital\u2019.\n\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2] \u2018_which consists in the inheritance_\u2019, the genitive of\napposition: see the note on \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5, i. 12. There is a\nparadox involved in this word: elsewhere the \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 and the \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\nare contrasted (Matt. xxi. 35\u201338, etc., Rom. viii. 15\u201317, Gal. iv. 1,\n7), but here the \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 is the \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. This he is because, though\n\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd, he is \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 (1 Cor. vii. 22) and thus\n\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 (Gal. iv. 7); comp. Hermas _Sim._ v. 2 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f51\u03b9\u1ff7 (with the context).\n\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] i.e. \u2018_you serve_ as your master _the_ great _Master\nChrist_.\u2019 This clause is added to explain who is meant by the preceding\n\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. For this application of \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 compare (besides the parallel\npassage, Ephes. vi. 6\u20139) 1 Cor. vii. 22 \u1f41 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1f72\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. It seems best to take \u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 here as\nan indicative, rather than as an imperative; for (1) The indicative is\nwanted to explain the previous \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5; (2) The imperative would seem\nto require \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3, as in Ephes. vi. 7 (the correct text). On the\nother hand see Rom. xii. 11.\n\n25. \u1f41 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] Who is this unrighteous person ? The slave who\ndefrauds his master of his service, or the master who defrauds his slave\nof his reward? Some interpreters confine it exclusively to the former;\nothers to the latter. It seems best to suppose that both are included.\nThe connexion of the sentence \u1f41 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd (where \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, not \u03b4\u03ad, is\ncertainly the right reading) points to the slave. On the other hand the\nexpression which follows, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f30\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., suggests\nthe master. Thus there seems to be a twofold reference; the warning is\nsuggested by the case of the slave, but it is extended to the case of\nthe master; and this accords with the parallel passage, Ephes. vi. 8\n\u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f43 \u1f02\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u1fc3 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, _\u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2_.\n\nThe recent fault of Onesimus would make the Apostle doubly anxious to\nemphasize the duties of the slave towards the master, lest in his love\nfor the offender he should seem to condone the offence. This same word\n\u1f20\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd is used by St Paul to describe the crime of Onesimus in Philem.\n18. But on the other hand it is the Apostle\u2019s business to show that\njustice has a double edge. There must be a _reciprocity_ between the\nmaster and the slave. The philosophers of Greece taught, and the laws of\nRome assumed, that the slave was a chattel. But a chattel could have no\nrights. It would be absurd to talk of treating a chattel with justice.\nSt Paul places the relations of the master and the slave in a wholly\ndifferent light. Justice and equity are the expression of the Divine\nmind: and with God there is no \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03c8\u03af\u03b1. With Him the claims of the\nslave are as real as the claims of the master.\n\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9] For this sense of the middle, \u2018to recover\u2019, \u2018to get back\u2019,\nand so (with an accusative of the thing to be recompensed), \u2018to be\nrequited for\u2019, see e.g. Lev. xx. 17 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, 2 Cor. v. 10\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2; comp. Barnab.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIV. 1]\n\n\u1f20\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03c8\u03af\u03b1. IV. ^1\u039f\u1f31 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f30\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5, \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7.\n\n\n\u00a7 4 \u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u00b7 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd,\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. In the parallel passage Ephes. vi. 8, the form is certainly\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9: here it is more doubtful, the authorities being more equally\ndivided between \u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 and \u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. See however the note on\n\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd iv. 9.\n\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03c8\u03af\u03b1] On this word see the note Gal. ii. 6. This \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03c8\u03af\u03b1,\nthough generally found on the side of rank and power, may also be\nexercised in favour of the opposite; Levit. xix. 15 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u1fc3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5. There would be a tendency in\nthe mind of the slave to assume that, because the \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03c8\u03af\u03b1 of man\nwas on the side of the master, there must be a corresponding\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03c8\u03af\u03b1 of God on the side of the slave. This assumption is\ncorrected by St Paul.\n\nIV. 1. \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f30\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1] \u2018_equity_\u2019, \u2018_fairness_\u2019; comp. Plut. _Sol. et Popl.\nComp._ 3 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f30\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. Somewhat similarly Lysias _Or. Fun._\n77 (speaking of death) \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb7 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 _\u1f34\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9_ \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. It seems a mistake to\nsuppose that \u1f30\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 here has anything to do with the treatment of slaves\n_as equals_ (comp. Philem. 16). When connected with \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, the word\nnaturally suggests an even-handed, impartial treatment, and is\nequivalent to the Latin _\u00e6quitas_: comp. Arist. _Top._ vi. 5 (p. 143) \u1f41\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd (\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd) \u1f15\u03be\u03b9\u03bd \u1f30\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u1f22 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f34\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5,\nPhilo _de Creat. Princ._ 14 (II. p. 373) \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f30\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 ... \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vi. 6 (p. 764) \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f30\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2. Thus in Arist. _Eth. Nic._ v. 1 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd and \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f34\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd are regarded as synonymes, and in Plut. _Mor._ p.\n719 the relation of \u1f30\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 to \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 is discussed. The word here is\nused in the same sense in which the adjective occurs in the common\nexpressions \u1f34\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, \u1f34\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, etc. Philo, describing the\nEssene condemnation of slavery, says, _Omn. prob. lib._ 12 (II. p. 457)\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f30\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., but he possibly does mean\n\u2018equality\u2019 rather than \u2018equity.\u2019\n\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5] \u2018_exhibit on your part_.\u2019 The middle \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u2018to afford\nfrom oneself,\u2019 will take different shades of meaning according to the\ncontext, as \u2018to furnish one\u2019s _quota_\u2019 (e.g. Herod. viii. 1, 2) or \u2018to\nput forward one\u2019s _representative_\u2019 (esp. of witnesses, e.g. Plato\n_Apol._ 19 D). Here the idea is \u2018reciprocation\u2019, the master\u2019s duty as\ncorresponding to the slave\u2019s.\n\n\u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd] as Ephes. vi. 9; comp. 1 Cor. vii. 22 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1f72\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIV. 2\u20134]\n\n^2\u03a4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5, \u03b3\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u1fb3\u00b7\n^3\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03be\u1fc3 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5, \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f43 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 ^4\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9\n\n\n2\u20136. \u2018Be earnest and unceasing in prayer; keep your hearts and minds\nawake while praying: remember also (as I have so often told you) that\nthanksgiving is the goal and crown of prayer. Meanwhile in your\npetitions forget not us\u2014myself Paul\u2014my fellow-labourer Timothy\u2014your\nevangelist Epaphras\u2014all the teachers of the Gospel; but pray that God\nmay open a door for the preaching of the word, to the end that we may\nproclaim the free offer of grace to the Gentiles\u2014that great mystery of\nChrist for which I am now a prisoner in bonds. So shall I declare it\nfearlessly, as I am bound to proclaim it. Walk wisely and discreetly in\nall your dealings with unbelievers; allow no opportunity to slip through\nyour hands, but buy up every passing moment. Let your language be always\npervaded with grace and seasoned with salt. So will you know how to give\na fit answer to each man, as the occasion demands.\u2019\n\n2. \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5] \u2018_cling closely to_\u2019, \u2018_remain constant to_\u2019 (comp.\nMark iii. 9, Acts viii. 13, x. 7), and so \u2018continue stedfast in\u2019. This\nword occurs again with \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc7, \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, Acts i. 14, ii. 42,\nvi. 4, Rom. xii. 12. The construction is with a simple dative both in\nthe New Testament (ll. cc.) and in classical writers, except where it\nstands absolutely (Acts ii. 46, Rom. xiii. 6). The injunction here\ncorresponds to the \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 of 1 Thess. v. 17.\n\n\u03b3\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2] Long continuance in prayer is apt to produce listlessness.\nHence the additional charge that the heart must be _awake_, if the\nprayer is to have any value. The word is not to be taken literally here,\nbut metaphorically. In Matt. xxvi. 41 etc., \u03b3\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5,\nthe idea is not quite the same.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u1fb3] as the crown of all prayer; see the notes on i. 12, ii.\n7.\n\n3. \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd] \u2018_us_\u2019, \u2018the Apostles and preachers of the Gospel\u2019, with\nreference more especially to Timothy (i. 1) and Epaphras (iv. 12, 13).\nWhere the Apostle speaks of himself alone, he uses the singular (ver. 3,\n4 \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9). Indeed there is no reason to think that St Paul\never uses an \u2018epistolary\u2019 plural, referring to himself solely: see the\nnote on 1 Thess. iii. 1.\n\n\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] On the sense of \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 after \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 etc., see the note on\ni. 9.\n\n\u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5] \u2018_a door_ of admission _for the word_\u2019, i.e. \u2018an\nopportunity of preaching the Gospel\u2019, as 1 Cor. xvi. 9 \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u1ff3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae\u03c2, 2 Cor. ii. 12 \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u1ff3\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3:\ncomp. Plut. _Mor._ p. 674 D \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c0\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b8\u03ad\u03b9\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd ...\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. Similarly )\u03ad\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 is used in 1\nThess. i. 9, ii. 1. The converse application of the metaphor appears in\nActs xiv. 27 \u1f24\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, where the door is\nopened not to the teachers, but to the recipients of the Gospel.\nAccording to another interpretation (suggested by Ephes. vi. 19 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03b4\u03bf\u03b8\u1fc7 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5) it is explained \u2018the door of our\nspeech\u2019, i.e. \u2018our mouth\u2019: comp. Ps. cxli (cxl). 3, Mic. vii. 5, Ecclus.\nxxviii. 25. But the parallel passages do not favour this sense, nor will\nthe words themselves admit it. In that case for \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 we\nshould require \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03c5 [\u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd]. \u2018The word\u2019 here is \u2018the\nGospel\u2019, as frequently.\n\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u2018_so as to speak_\u2019, the infinitive of the consequence, like\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 ver. 6 ; see Winer \u00a7 xliv, p. 400.\n\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. i.e. the doctrine of the free admission of the\nGentiles. For the leading idea which St Paul in these epistles attaches\nto \u2018the mystery\u2019 of the Gospel, see the note on i. 26.\n\n\u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f45 St Paul might have been still at large, if he had been content to\npreach a Judaic Gospel. It was because he contended for Gentile liberty,\nand thus offended Jewish prejudices, that he found himself a prisoner.\nSee Acts xxi. 28, xxii. 21, 22, xxiv. 5, 6, xxv. 6, 8. The other\nreading, \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f45\u03bd, destroys the point of the sentence.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 2 Tim. ii. 9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, Philem. 9 \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n4. \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. This is best taken as dependent on the previous\nclause \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 ... \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. For instances of a double \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1, where\nthe second is not coordinated with, but subordinated to, the first, see\nthe note on Gal. iii. 14. The immediate purport of the Colossians\u2019\nprayers must be that the Apostle should have all opportunities of\npreaching the Gospel: the ulterior object, that he should use these\nopportunities boldly.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIV. 5, 6]\n\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9. ^5\u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f14\u03be\u03c9, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u00b7 ^6\u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2\n\n\n5. \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3] Matt. x. 16 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f44\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f14\u03be\u03c9] \u2018_those without the pale_\u2019 of the Church, the unbelievers; as\nin 1 Cor. v. 12, 13, 1 Thess. iv. 12. So \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f14\u03be\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, 1 Tim. iii. 7. The\nbelievers on the other hand are \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c9, 1 Cor. v. 12. This mode of\nspeaking was derived from the Jews, who called the heathen \u05d4\u05d7\u05d9\u05e6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\n(Sch\u00f6ttgen on 1 Cor. _l.c._), translated \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 Ecclus. Prol. and \u03bf\u1f31\n\u1f14\u03be\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd Joseph. _Ant._ xv. 9. 2.\n\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. \u2018_buying up the opportunity for yourselves_,\nletting no opportunity slip you, of saying and doing what may further\nthe cause of God\u2019: comp. Ephes. v. 16. The expression occurs also in\nDan. ii. 8 \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, i.e. \u2018are eager to gain\ntime\u2019. Somewhat similar are the phrases \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. In much the same sense Ignatius says, _Polyc._ 3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5. For this sense of \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9 \u2018coemo\u2019 (closely allied\nin meaning to \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9), see Polyb. iii. 42. 2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\n\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03be\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., Plut. _Vit. Crass._ 2. More commonly the\nword signifies \u2018to redeem\u2019 (see the note on Gal. iii. 13), and some\nwould assign this sense to it here; but no appropriate meaning is thus\nobtained. In Mart. _Polyc._ 2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f34\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 it means \u2018buying off\u2019, a sense in which \u1f10\u03be\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 occurs\nseveral times. The reason for the injunction is added in Ephes. v. 16,\n\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f31 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03b1\u03af \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd: the prevailing evil of the times makes the\nopportunities for good more precious.\n\n6. \u1f10\u03bd \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9] \u2018_with grace, favour_\u2019, i.e. \u2018acceptableness\u2019,\n\u2018pleasingness\u2019; comp. Eccles. x. 12 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, Ps. xliv\n(xlv). 3 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03c7\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c7\u03ad\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03af \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, Eccles. xxi. 16 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c7\u03ad\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f11\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2. In classical writers \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd is a still\nmore common connexion; e.g. Demosth. _c. Phil._ i. 38, Dionys. Hal. _de\nLys._ \u00a7\u00a7 10, 11, Plut. _Vit. Mar._ 44.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIV. 7]\n\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9, \u1f05\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f20\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f11\u03bd\u1f76\n\u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n^7\u03a4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4 \u1f10\u03bc\u1f72 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03a4\u03cd\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2\n\n\n\u1f05\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9] comp. Mark ix. 50 \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f05\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\n_)\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5_\u00b7 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f05\u03bb\u03b1. The salt has a twofold purpose.\n(1) It gives a flavour to the discourse and recommends it to the palate:\ncomp. Job vi. 6 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b2\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5 \u1f01\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2\u00b7 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u1fe5\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2; in which passage the first clause was rendered by\nSymmachus \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b2\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 _\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd_ \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f05\u03bb\u03b1; This is the\nprimary idea of the metaphor here, as the word \u1f20\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 seems to show.\n(2) It preserves from corruption and renders wholesome; Ign. _Magn._ 10\n\u1f01\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f72\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c3\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5. Hence the Pythagorean saying, Diog. Laert. viii. I. 35 \u03bf\u1f31\n\u1f05\u03bb\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c3\u03ce\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f45 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9. It may be inferred that this\nsecondary application of the metaphor was present to the Apostle\u2019s mind\nhere, because in the parallel epistle, Ephes. iv. 29, he says \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2\n_\u03c3\u03b1\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2_ \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. In the first\napplication the opposite to \u1f05\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f20\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 would be \u03bc\u03c9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u2018_insipid_\u2019\n(Luke xiv. 34); in the second, \u03c3\u03b1\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u2018_corrupt_\u2019.\n\nHeathen writers also insisted that discourse should be \u2018seasoned with\nsalt\u2019; e.g. Cic. _de Orat._ i. 34 \u2018facetiarum quidam lepos quo, tanquam\nsale, perspergatur omnis oratio\u2019. They likewise dwelt on the connexion\nbetween \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 and \u1f05\u03bb\u03b5\u03c2; e.g. Plut. _Mor._ p. 514 F \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f01\u03bb\u03c3\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b7\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03ae\u03bd, p. 697 D (comp. p. 685 A) \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd [\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f05\u03bb\u03b1], \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1, p. 669 A \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 ... \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9, Dion. Chrys. _Or._ xviii. \u00a7 13. Their notion of\n\u2018salt\u2019 however was wit, and generally the kind of wit which degenerated\ninto the \u03b5\u1f50\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 denounced by St Paul in Ephes. v. 4 (see the note\nthere).\n\nThe form \u1f05\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 is common in the LXX and Greek Testament. Otherwise it is\nrare: see Buttmann _Gramm._ I. p. 220, and comp. Plut. _Mor._ 668 F.\n\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9] \u2018_so as to know_\u2019; see the note on \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 ver. 3.\n\n\u1f11\u03bd\u1f76 \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3] \u2018Not only must your conversation be opportune as regards the\ntime; it must also be appropriate as regards the person\u2019. The Apostle\u2019s\nprecept was enforced by his own example, for he made it a rule to become\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ce\u03c3\u1fc3 (1 Cor. ix. 22).\n\n7\u20139. \u2018You will learn everything about me from Tychicus, the beloved\nbrother who has ministered to me and served with me faithfully in the\nLord. This indeed was my purpose in sending him to you: that you might\nbe informed how matters stand with me, and that he might cheer your\nhearts and strengthen your resolves by the tidings. Onesimus will\naccompany him\u2014a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of yourselves,\na Colossian. These two will inform you of all that is going on here.\u2019\n\n7. \u03a4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u1f72 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1] \u2018_all that relates to me_\u2019; see the note on Phil.\ni. 12, and comp. Bion in Diog. Laert. iv. 47. So Acts xxv. 14 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9] On this word see the note Phil. i. 22.\n\n\u03a4\u03cd\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2] Tychicus was charged by St Paul at this same time with a more\nextended mission. He was entrusted with copies of the circular letter,\nwhich he was enjoined to deliver in the principal churches of\nproconsular Asia (see above, p. 37, and the introduction to the Epistle\nto the Ephesians). This mission would bring him to Laodicea, which was\none of these great centres of Christianity (see p. 8); and, as Coloss\u00e6\nwas only a few miles distant, the Apostle would naturally engage him to\npay a visit to the Colossians. At the same time the presence of an\nauthorised delegate of St Paul, as Tychicus was known to be, would serve\nto recommend Onesimus, who owing to his former conduct stood in every\nneed of such a recommendation. The two names \u03a4\u03cd\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f48\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 occur\nin proximity in Phrygian inscriptions found at Altentash (Bennisoa?)\nBoeckh 3857r sqq. appx.\n\nTychicus was a native of proconsular Asia (Acts xx. 4) and perhaps of\nEphesus (2 Tim. iv. 12: see _Philippians_ p. 11). He is found with St\nPaul at three different epochs in his life. (1) He accompanied him when\non his way eastward at the close of the third missionary journey A.D. 58\n(Acts xx. 4), and probably like Trophimus (Acts xxi. 29) went with him\nto Jerusalem (for the words \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 must be struck out in Acts\nxx. 4). It is probable indeed that Tychicus, together with others\nmentioned among the Apostle\u2019s numerous retinue on this occasion, was a\ndelegate appointed by his own church according to the Apostle\u2019s\ninjunctions (1 Cor. xvi. 3, 4) to bear the contributions of his brethren\nto the poor Christians of Jud\u00e6a; and if so, he may possibly be the\nperson commended as the brother \u03bf\u1f57 \u1f41 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd (2 Cor. viii. 18): but this will depend on the\ninterpretation of the best supported reading in Acts xx. 5 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a4\u03c1\u03c9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9. (2) We find Tychicus again in St\nPaul\u2019s company at the time with which we are immediately concerned, when\nthis epistle was written, probably towards the end of the first Roman\ncaptivity A.D. 62, 63 (see _Philippians_ p. 31 sq.). (3) Once more, at\nthe close of St Paul\u2019s life (about A.D. 67), he appears again to have\nassociated himself with the Apostle, when his name is mentioned in\nconnexion with a mission to Crete (Tit. iii. 12) and another to Ephesus\n(2 Tim. iv. 12). For the legends respecting him, which are slight and\ninsignificant, see _Act. Sanct. Boll._ April. 29 (III. p. 619).\n\nTychicus is not so common a name as some others which occur in the New\nTestament, e.g. Onesimus, Trophimus; but it is found occasionally in\ninscriptions belonging to Asia Minor, e.g. Boeckh _C. I._ 2918, 3665,\n[3857 c], 3857 r, (comp. 3865 i, etc.); and persons bearing it are\ncommemorated on the coins of both Magnesia ad M\u00e6andrum (Mionnet III. p.\n153 sq., _Suppl._ VI. p. 236) and Magnesia ad Sipylum (_ib._ IV. p. 70).\nThe name occurs also in Roman inscriptions; e.g. Muratori, pp.\nDCCCCXVII, MCCCXCIV, MMLV. Along with several other proper names\nsimilarly formed, this word is commonly accentuated \u03a4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 (Chandler\n_Greek Accentuation_ \u00a7 255), and so it stands in all the critical\nSeditions, though according to rule (Winer \u00a7 vi. p. 58) it should be\n\u03a4\u03cd\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIV. 8]\n\n\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3\u00b7 ^8\u1f43\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The connexion of the words is not quite obvious. It\nseems best however to take \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 as referring to the whole clause\n\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 rather than to \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 alone: for (1)\nThe two substantives are thus bound together by the preceding \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 and\nthe following \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 in a natural way: (2) The attachment of \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3\nto \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 is suggested by the parallel passage Ephes. vi. 21\n\u03a4\u03cd\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3. The question of\nconnecting \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 with \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c0\u1f45\u03c2 as well need not be entertained, since\nthe idea of \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c0\u1f45\u03c2, \u2018a Christian brother\u2019, is complete in itself: see\nthe note on Phil. i. 14. The adjective \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 will here have its passive\nsense, \u2018trustworthy, stedfast\u2019, as also in ver. 9: see _Galatians_ p.\n154 sq.\n\n\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2] \u2018_minister_\u2019, but to whom? To the churches, or to St Paul\nhimself? The following \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 suggests the latter as the prominent\nidea here. So in Acts xix. 22 Timothy and Erastus are described as \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7. Tychicus himself also was one of several who\nministered to St Paul about that same time (Acts xx. 4). It is not\nprobable however, that \u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 has here its strict official sense, \u2018a\ndeacon\u2019, as in Rom. xvi. 1, Phil. i. 1, 1 Tim. iii. 8, 12.\n\n\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2] The word does not occur elsewhere in St Paul, except in i. 7,\nwhere it is said of Epaphras. It is probably owing to the fact of St\nPaul\u2019s applying the term in both these passages to persons whom he calls\n\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, that \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 seems to have been adopted as a customary form\nof address in the early Church on the part of a bishop, when speaking of\na deacon. In Ignatian letters for instance, the term is never used\nexcept of deacons; _Ephes._ 2, _Magn._ 2, _Philad._ 4, _Smyrn._ 12.\nWhere the martyr has occasion to speak of a bishop or a presbyter some\nother designation is used instead.\n\n8. \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1] \u2018_I send_,\u2019 or \u2018_I have sent_,\u2019 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1 being the epistolary\naorist; see the note on \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1, Gal. vi. 11. Tychicus appears to have\naccompanied the letter itself. For similar instances of the epistolary\n\u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1, \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1, etc., see 2 Cor. viii. 18, 22, ix. 3, Ephes. vi. 22,\nPhil. ii. 25, 28, Philem. 11, Hebr. xiii. 22, Polyc. _Phil._ 13.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIV. 9]\n\n\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, ^9\u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u1f48\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1ff7, \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\n\u1f67\u03b4\u03b5.\n\n\n\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd] This must be preferred to the received reading, \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff7\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, for two independent reasons. (1) The preponderance of\nancient authority is decidedly in its favour. (2) The emphatic \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 seems imperatively to demand it. St Paul in the context twice\nstates the object of Tychicus\u2019 visit to be that the Colossians might be\ninformed about the Apostle\u2019s own doings, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u1f72 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd\n(ver. 7), and \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5. He could hardly therefore\nhave described \u2018the very purpose\u2019 of his mission in the same breath as\nsomething quite different.\n\nIt is urged indeed, that this is a scribe\u2019s alteration to bring the\npassage into accordance with Ephes. vi. 21. But against this it may\nfairly be argued that, on any hypothesis as regards the authorship and\nrelation of the two letters, this strange variation from \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd to \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd in the author himself is improbable. On the\nother hand a transcriber was under a great temptation to substitute \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff7\nfor \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b5 owing to the following \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b7, and this temptation would\nbecome almost irresistible, if by any chance \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd had been written\nfor \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd in the copy before him, as we find to be the case in some\nMSS. See the detached note on various readings.\n\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] i.e. \u2018encourage you to persevere by his tidings and\nexhortations\u2019. The phrase occurs again, Ephes. vi. 22, 2 Thess, ii. 17:\nsee above ii. 2. The prominent idea in all these passages is not comfort\nor consolation but perseverance in the right way.\n\n9. \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u1f48\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bc\u1ff3] See above, p. 33, and the introduction to the Epistle to\nPhilemon.\n\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The man whom the Colossians had only known hitherto, if\nthey knew him at all, as a worthless runaway slave, is thus commended to\nthem as no more a slave but a brother, no more dishonest and faithless\nbut trustworthy, no more an object of contempt but of love; comp.\nPhilem. 11, 16.\n\n\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd] This form has rather better support from the MSS than\n\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd: see also above, iii. 25. On the Attic future from verbs in\n-\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9 in the Greek Testament generally see Winer \u00a7 xiii. p. 88, A.\nButtmann p. 32 sq. Is there any decisive instance of these Attic forms\nin St Paul, except in quotations from the LXX (e.g. Rom. x. 19, xv. 12)?\n\n10\u201314. \u2018I send you greeting from Aristarchus who is a fellow-prisoner\nwith me; from Marcus, Barnabas\u2019 cousin, concerning whom I have already\nsent you directions, that you welcome him heartily, if he pays you a\nvisit; and from Jesus, surnamed Justus; all three Hebrew converts. They\nalone of their fellow-countrymen have worked loyally with me in\nspreading the kingdom of God; and their stedfastness has indeed been a\ncomfort to me in the hour of trial. Greeting also from Epaphras, your\nfellow-townsman, a true servant of Christ, who is ever wrestling in his\nprayers on your behalf, that ye may stand firm in the faith, perfectly\ninstructed and fully convinced in every will and purpose of God. I bear\ntestimony to the earnestness with which he labours for you and the\nbrethren of Laodicea and those of Hierapolis. Greeting also from Luke\nthe physician, my very dear friend, and from Demas.\u2019\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIV. 10]\n\n^{10}\u1f08\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c7\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2\n\n\n10. The salutations to Philemon are sent from the same persons as to the\nColossians, except that in the former case the name of Jesus Justus is\nomitted.\n\n\u1f08\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2] the Thessalonian. He had started with St Paul on his voyage\nfrom Jerusalem to Rome, but probably had parted from the Apostle at Myra\n(see _Philippians_ p. 33 sq.). If so, he must have rejoined him at Rome\nat a later date. On this Aristarchus see _Philippians_ p. 10 and the\nintroduction to the Epistles to the Thessalonians. He would be well\nknown in proconsular Asia, which he had visited from time to time; Acts\nxix. 29, xx. 4, xxvii. 2.\n\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c7\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5] In Philem. 23 this honourable title is withheld from\nAristarchus and given to Epaphras. In Rom. xvi. 7 St Paul\u2019s kinsmen,\nAndronicus and Junias, are so called. On the possibility of its\nreferring to a spiritual captivity or subjection see _Philippians_ p.\n11. In favour of this meaning it may be urged, that, though St Paul as a\nprisoner was truly a \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, he was not strictly an \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u2018a\nprisoner of war\u2019; nor could he have called himself so, except by a\nconfusion of the actual and metaphorical. If on the other hand\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c7\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 refers to a physical captivity, it cannot easily be\nexplained by any known fact. The incident in Acts xix. 29 is hardly\nadequate. The most probable solution would be, that his relations with\nSt Paul in Rome excited suspicion and led to a temporary confinement.\nAnother possible hypothesis is that he voluntarily shared the Apostle\u2019s\ncaptivity by living with him.\n\n\u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2] doubtless John Mark, who had been associated with St Paul in his\nearlier missionary work; Acts xii. 25, xv. 37 sq. This commendatory\nnotice is especially interesting as being the first mention of him since\nthe separation some twelve years before, Acts xv. 39. In the later years\nof the Apostle\u2019s life he entirely effaced the unfavourable impression\nleft by his earlier desertion; 2 Tim. iv. 11 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f54\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd.\n\nThis notice is likewise important in two other respects. (1) Mark\nappears here as commended to a church of proconsular _Asia_, and\nintending to visit those parts. To the churches of this same region he\nsends a salutation in 1 Pet. v. 13; and in this district apparently also\nhe is found some few years later than the present time, 2 Tim. iv. 11.\n(2) Mark is now residing at _Rome_. His connexion with the metropolis\nappears also from 1 Pet. v. 13, if \u0392\u03b1\u03b2\u03c5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd there (as seems most\nprobable) be rightly interpreted of Rome; and early tradition speaks of\nhis Gospel as having been written for the Romans (Iren. iii. 1. 1; comp.\nPapias in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39).\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIV. 10]\n\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c8\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u0392\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f57 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\n\n\n\u1f41 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c8\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2] \u2018_the cousin_\u2019. The term \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c8\u03b9\u03bf\u03af is applied to cousins\ngerman, the children whether of two brothers or of two sisters or of a\nbrother and sister, as it is carefully defined in Pollux iii. 28. This\nwriter adds that \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03c8\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 means neither more nor less than \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c8\u03b9\u03bf\u03af. As\na synonyme we find \u1f10\u03be\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, which however is condemned as a vulgarism;\nPhryn. p. 306 (ed. Lobeck). Many instances of \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c8\u03b9\u03bf\u03af are found in\ndifferent authors of various ages (e.g. Herod, vii. 5, 82, ix. 10,\nThucyd. i. 132, Plato _Charm._ 154 B, _Gorg._ 471 B, Andoc. _de Myst._ \u00a7\n47, Is\u00e6us _Hagn. Her._ \u00a7 8 sq., Demosth. _c. Macart._ \u00a7 24, 27, etc.,\nDion. Hal. _A. R._ i. 79, Plut. _Vit. Thes._ 7, _Vit. C\u00e6s._ 1, _Vit.\nBrut._ 13, Lucian _Dial. Mort._ xxix. 1, Hegesipp. in Euseb. _H.E._ iv.\n22), where the relationship is directly defined or already known, and\nthere is no wavering as to the meaning. This sense also it has in the\nLXX, Num. xxxvi. 11. In very late writers however (e.g. Io. Malalas\n_Chron._ xvii. p. 424, Io. Damasc. _adv. Const. Cab._ 12, II. p. 621;\nbut in Theodt. _H.E._ v. 39, which is also quoted by E. A. Sophocles\n_Gr. Lex._ s.v. for this meaning, the text is doubtful) the word comes\nto be used for a nephew, properly \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2; and to this later use the\nrendering of our English versions must be traced. The German\ntranslations also (Luther and the Z\u00fcrich) have \u2018Neffe\u2019. The earliest of\nthe ancient versions (Latin, Syriac, Egyptian) seem all to translate it\ncorrectly; not so in every case apparently the later. There is no reason\nto suppose that St Paul would or could have used it in any other than\nits proper sense. St Mark\u2019s relationship with Barnabas may have been\nthrough his mother Mary, who is mentioned Acts xii. 12. The incidental\nnotice here explains why Barnabas should have taken a more favourable\nview of Mark\u2019s defection than St Paul, Acts xv. 37\u201339. The notices in\nthis passage and in 2 Tim. iv. 11 show that Mark had recovered the\nApostle\u2019s good opinion. The studious recommendation of St Mark in both\npassages indicates a desire to efface the unfavourable impression of the\npast.\n\nThe name of Mark occurs in five different relations, as (1) The early\ndisciple, John Mark, Acts xii. 12, 25, xv. 39; (2) The later companion\nof St Paul, here and Philem. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 11; (3) The companion and\n\u2018son\u2019 of St Peter, 1 Pet. v. 13; (4) The evangelist; (5) The bishop of\nAlexandria. Out of these notices some writers get three or even four\ndistinct persons (see the note of Cotelier on _Apost. Const._ ii. 57).\nEven Tillemont (_Mem. Eccl._ II. p. 89 sq., 503 sq.) assumes two Marks,\nsupposing (1) (2) to refer to one person, and (3) (4) (5) to another.\nHis main reason is that he cannot reconcile the notices of the first\nwith the tradition (Euseb. _H.E._ ii. 15, 16) that St Mark the\nevangelist accompanied St Peter to Rome in A. D. 43, having first\npreached the Gospel in Alexandria (p. 515). To most persons however this\nearly date of St Peter\u2019s visit to Rome will appear quite irreconcilable\nwith the notices in the Apostolic writings, and therefore with them\nTillemont\u2019s argument will carry no weight. But in fact Eusebius does not\nsay, either that St Mark went _with_ St Peter to Rome, or that he had\npreached in Alexandria _before_ this. The Scriptural notices suggest\nthat the same Mark is intended in all the occurrences of the name, for\nthey are connected together by personal links (Peter, Paul, Barnabas);\nand the earliest forms of tradition likewise identify them.\n\n\u0392\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1] On the affectionate tone of St Paul\u2019s language, whenever he\nmentions Barnabas after the collision at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 sq.) and\nthe separation of missionary spheres (Acts xv. 39), see the note on Gal.\nii. 13. It has been inferred from the reference here, that inasmuch as\nMark has rejoined St Paul, Barnabas must have died before this epistle\nwas written (about A. D. 63); and this has been used as an argument\nagainst the genuineness of the letter bearing his name (Hefele\n_Sendschr. d. Apost. Barnab._ p. 29 sq.); but this argument is somewhat\nprecarious. From 1 Cor. ix. 6 we may infer that he was still living, A.\nD. 57. The notices bearing on the biography of Barnabas are collected\nand discussed by Hefele, p. 1 sq.\n\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03c2] These injunctions must have been communicated\npreviously either by letter or by word of mouth: for it cannot be a\nquestion here of an epistolary aorist. The natural inference is, that\nthey were sent by St Paul himself, and not by any one else, e.g. by St\nPeter or St Barnabas, as some have suggested. Thus the notice points to\nearlier communications between the Apostle and Coloss\u00e6.\n\nBut what was their tenour? It seems best to suppose that this is given\nin the next clause \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03b8\u1fc3 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. By an abrupt change to the _oratio\nrecta_ the injunction is repeated as it was delivered; comp. Ps. cv\n(civ). 15 \u1f24\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f05\u03c8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. After verbs\nsignifying \u2018to command, charge, etc.\u2019, there is a tendency to pass from\nthe oblique to the direct; e.g. Luke v. 14, Acts i. 4, xxiii. 22. The\nreading \u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 gives the right sense, but can hardly be correct. If\nthis construction be not accepted, it is vain to speculate what may have\nbeen the tenour of the injunction.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIV. 11]\n\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03c2, \u1f18\u1f70\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03b8\u1fc3 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, \u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, ^{11}\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f38\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2\n\n\n11. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2] He is not mentioned elsewhere. Even in the Epistle to\nPhilemon his name is omitted. Probably he was not a man of any\nprominence in the Church, but his personal devotion to the Apostle\nprompted this honourable mention. For the story which makes him bishop\nof Eleutheropolis in Palestine, see Le Quien _Oriens Christ._ in III. p.\n633.\n\n\u1f38\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2] A common name or surname of Jews and proselytes, denoting\nobedience and devotion to the law. It is applied to two persons in the\nNew Testament, besides this Jesus; (1) Joseph Barsabbas, Acts i. 23; (2)\nA proselyte at Corinth, Acts xviii. 7. It occurs twice in the list of\nearly Jewish Christian bishops of Jerusalem, in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 35,\niv. 5. It was borne by a Jew of Tiberias who wrote the history of the\nJewish war (Joseph. _Vit._ \u00a7\u00a7 9, 65), and by a son of the historian\nJosephus himself (_ib._ \u00a7 1). It occurs in the rabbinical writings\n(\u05d9\u05d5\u05e1\u05d8\u05d0 or \u05d9\u05d5\u05e1\u05d8\u05d9, Sch\u00f6ttgen on Acts. i. 23, Zunz _Judennamen_ p. 20), and\nin monumental inscriptions from Jewish cemeteries in various places\n(Boeckh _C. I._ no. 9922, 9925; _Revue Arch\u00e9ologique_ 1860, II. p. 348;\nGarrucci _Dissertazioni Archeologiche_ II. p. 182). So also the\ncorresponding female name Justa (Garrucci _l.c._ p. 180). In _Clem.\nHom._ ii. 19, iii. 73, iv. 1, xiii. 7, the Syroph\u0153nician woman of the\nGospels is named \u1f38\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1, doubtless because she is represented in this\nJudaizing romance as a proselytess \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ae\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 xiii. 7) who strictly\nobserves the Mosaic ordinances ( \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd ii.\n20), and is contrasted with the heathen \u2018dogs\u2019 ( \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03bd\nii. 19) who disregard them. In some cases Justus might be the only name\nof the person, as a Latin rendering of the Hebrew Zadok; while in\nothers, as here and in Acts i. 23, it is a surname. Its Greek\nequivalent, \u1f41 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, is the recognised epithet of James the Lord\u2019s\nbrother: see _Galatians_, p. 348.\n\n\u03bf\u1f31 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] i.e. \u2018converts from Judaism\u2019 (see the note Gal. ii.\n12), or perhaps \u2018belonging to the Circumcision\u2019; but in this latter case\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c2, though without the article, must be used in a concrete sense,\nlike \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c2, for \u2018the Jews\u2019. Of Mark and of Jesus the fact is\nplain from their name or their connexions. Of Aristarchus we could not\nhave inferred a Jewish origin, independently of this direct statement.\n\n\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9] i.e. of the Jewish Christians in Rome. On this antagonism of the\nconverts from the Circumcision in the metropolis, see _Philippians_ p.\n16 sq. The words however must not be closely pressed, as if absolutely\nno Jewish Christian besides had remained friendly; they will only imply\nthat among the more prominent members of the body the Apostle can only\nname these three as stedfast in their allegiance: comp. Phil. ii. 20\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9 \u1f30\u03c3\u03cc\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd ... \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (with the note).\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIV. 12]\n\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1. ^{12}\u1f00\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c0\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03be \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\n\n\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] See the note on i. 13.\n\n\u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_men whom I found_ etc.\u2019; comp. Acts xxviii. 15 \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2\n\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03bd \u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, and see _Philippians_\np. 17. For \u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, not specifying the individuals, but referring them\nto their class characteristics, see the notes on Gal. iv. 24, v. 19,\nPhil. iii. 7, iv. 3.\n\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1] \u2018_encouragement_\u2019, \u2018_comfort_\u2019. The range of meaning in this\nword is even wider than in \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1 or \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (see the note Phil.\nii. 1). The verb \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd denotes either (1) \u2018to exhort, encourage\u2019\n(Herod. v. 104, Apoll. Rhod. ii. 64); (2) \u2018to dissuade\u2019 (Herod. ix. 54,\n55); (3) \u2018to appease\u2019, \u2018quiet\u2019 (Plut. _Vit. Pomp._ 13, _Mor._ p. 737 C);\nor (4) \u2018to console, comfort\u2019 (\u00c6sch. _Eum._ 507). The word however, and\nits derivates \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, were\nused especially as medical terms, in the sense of \u2018assuaging\u2019,\n\u2018alleviating\u2019; e.g. Hippocr. pp. 392, 393, 394, Galen XIV. p. 335, 446,\nPlut. _Mor._ pp. 43 D, 142 D; and perhaps owing to this usage, the idea\nof consolation, comfort, is on the whole predominant in the word; e.g.\nPlut. _Mor._ p. 56 A \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, p. 118 A \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cd\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, _Vit.\nCim._ 4 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. In Plut. _Mor._ p. 599 B \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\nand \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 are contrasted, as the right and wrong method of dealing\nwith the sorrows of the exile; and the former is said to be the part of\nmen \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\n\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n12. \u1f18\u03c0\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2] His full name would be Epaphroditus, but he is always\ncalled by the shortened form Epaphras, and must not be confused with the\nPhilippian Epaphroditus (see _Philippians_ p. 60), who also was with St\nPaul at one period of his Roman captivity. Of Epaphras, as the\nevangelist of Coloss\u00e6, and perhaps of the neighbouring towns, see above,\npp. 29 sq., 34 sq.\n\n\u1f41 \u1f10\u03be \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd] \u2018_who belongs to you_\u2019, \u2018_who is one of you_\u2019, i.e. a native,\nor at least an inhabitant, of Coloss\u00e6, as in the case of Onesimus ver.\n9; comp. Acts iv. 6, xxi. 8, Rom. xvi. 10, 11, 1 Cor. xii. 16, Phil. iv.\n22, etc.\n\n\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a7. \u1f38.] This title, which the Apostle uses several times of\nhimself, is not elsewhere conferred on any other individual, except once\non Timothy (Phil. i. 1), and probably points to exceptional services in\nthe cause of the Gospel on the part of Epaphras.\n\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2] \u2018_wrestling_\u2019; comp. Rom. xv. 30 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2. See also the great \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 of prayer in Luke xxii. 44.\nComp. Justin _Apol._ ii. 13 (p. 51 B) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03c9\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. See also i. 29, ii. 1, with the notes.\n\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5] \u2018_stand fast_\u2019, doubtless the correct reading rather than \u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5\nwhich the received text has; comp. Matt. ii. 9, xxvii. 11, where also\nthe received text substitutes the weaker word.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIV. 13]\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. ^{13}\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7\n\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1\n\n\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9] \u2018_fully persuaded_\u2019. The verb \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd has several\nsenses. (1) \u2018To fulfil, accomplish\u2019; 2 Tim. iv. 5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd, _ib._ ver. 17 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc7, _Clem. Hom._ xix. 24\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd. So perhaps Hermas _Sim._ 2\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd ... \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, though\nit is a little difficult to carry the same sense into the latter clause,\nwhere the word seems to signify rather \u2018to satisfy\u2019. (2)\u2018To persuade\nfully, to convince\u2019; Rom. iv. 21 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03b8\u1f72\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f43 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ae\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, xiv. 5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u1ff3 \u03bd\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9, Clem. Rom. 42\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., Ign. _Magn._ 8 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, _ib._ 11 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u1f74\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\n\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., _Philad._ inscr. \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b5\u03b9, _Smyrn._ 1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, _Mart. Ign._ 7\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, _Clem. Hom._ Ep.\nad Iac. 10 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, _ib._ xix. 24\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. So too LXX Eccles. viii. 11 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd. (3) \u2018To fill\u2019; Rom. xv. 13 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 (a doubtful v. l.), Clem. Rom. 54 \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03c2; _Test. xii Patr._ Dan 2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, where it means \u2018I was filled with\u2019, i.e. \u2018I was fully\nbent on\u2019, a sense closely allied to the last. From this account it will\nbe seen that there is in the usage of the word no justification for\ntranslating it \u2018most surely believed\u2019 in Luke i. 1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, and it should therefore be rendered \u2018fulfilled,\naccomplished\u2019. The word is almost exclusively biblical and\necclesiastical; and it seems clear that the passage from Ctesias in\nPhotius (_Bibl._ 72) \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u039c\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03b2\u03c5\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\nis not quoted with verbal exactness. In Isocr. _Trapez._ \u00a7 8 the word is\nnow expunged from the text on the authority of the MSS. For the\nsubstantive \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 see the note on ii. 2 above. The reading of the\nreceived text here, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, must be rejected as of inferior\nauthority.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_in every thing willed by God_\u2019; comp. 1 Kings ix. 11.\nSo the plural \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 in Acts xiii. 22, Ephes. ii. 3, and several\ntimes in the LXX. The words are best connected directly with\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. The passages quoted in the last note amply illustrate\nthis construction. The preposition may denote (1) The abode of the\nconviction, as Rom. xiv. 5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u1ff3 \u03bd\u03bf\u0390; or (2) The object of the\nconviction, as Ign. _Magn._ II \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, _Philad._ inscr. \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9; or (3) The atmosphere, the surroundings, of the conviction,\nas _Philad._ inscr. \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 )\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b5\u03b9. This last seems to be its sense\nhere. The connexion \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5 ... \u1f10\u03bd, though legitimate in itself (Rom. v.\n2, 1 Cor. xv. 1), is not favoured by the order of the words here.\n\n13. \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd] \u2018_much toil_\u2019, both inward and outward, though from the\nconnexion the former notion seems to predominate, as in \u1f00\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 ii. 1;\ncomp. Plat. _Ph\u00e6dr._ p. 247 B \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b3\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\nOf the two variations which transcribers have substituted for the\ncorrect reading, \u03b6\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd emphasizes the former idea and \u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd the latter.\nThe true reading is more expressive than either. The word \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 however\nis very rare in the New Testament (occurring only Rev. xvi. 10, 11, xxi.\n4, besides this passage), and was therefore liable to be changed.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The neighbouring cities are taken in their geographical\norder, commencing from Coloss\u00e6; see above, p. 2. Epaphras, though a\nColossian, may have been the evangelist of the two larger cities also.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIV. 14]\n\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9. ^{14}\u1f00\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u1fb6\u03c2\n\u1f41 \u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2.\n\n\n\u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u1fb3] This form has not the same overwhelming preponderance of\nauthority in its favour here and in vv. 15, 16, as in ii. 1, but is\nprobably correct in all these places. It is quite possible however, that\nthe same person would write \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1 and \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 indifferently. Even\nthe form \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03b1 is found in Mionnet, Suppl. VII. p. 581. Another\nvariation is the contraction of \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4- into \u039b\u03b1\u03b4-; e.g. \u039b\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, which\noccurs frequently in the edict of Diocletian.\n\n14. \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u1fb6\u03c2] St Luke had travelled with St Paul on his last journey to\nJerusalem (Acts xxi. 1 sq.). He had also accompanied him two years later\nfrom Jerusalem to Rome (Acts xxvii. 2 sq.). And now again, probably\nafter another interval of two years (see _Philippians_ p. 31 sq.), we\nfind him in the Apostle\u2019s company. It is not probable that he remained\nwith St Paul in the meanwhile (_Philippians_ p. 35), and this will\naccount for his name not occurring in the Epistle to the Philippians. He\nwas at the Apostle\u2019s side again in his second captivity (2 Tim. iv. 11).\n\nLucas is doubtless a contraction of Lucanus. Several Old Latin MSS write\nout the name _Lucanus_ in the superscription and subscription to the\nGospel, just as elsewhere Apollos is written in full Apollonius. On the\nfrequent occurrence of this name Lucanus in inscriptions see _Ephem.\nEpigr._ II. p. 28 (1874). The shortened form Lucas however seems to be\nrare. He is here distinguished from \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c2 (ver. 11).\nThis alone is fatal to his identification (mentioned as a tradition by\nOrigen _ad loc._) with the Lucius, St Paul\u2019s \u2018kinsman\u2019 (i.e. a Jew; see\n_Philippians_ pp. 17, 171, 173), who sends a salutation from Corinth to\nRome (Rom. xvi. 21). It is equally fatal to the somewhat later tradition\nthat he was one of the seventy (_Dial. c. Marc._ \u00a7 1 in Orig. _Op._ I.\np. 806, ed. De la Rue; Epiphan. _H\u00e6r._ li. 11). The identification with\nLucius of Cyrene (Acts xiii. 13) is possible but not probable. Though\nthe example of Patrobius for Patrobas (Rom. xvi. 14) shows that such a\ncontraction is not out of the question, yet probability and testimony\nalike point to Lucanus, as the longer form of the Evangelist\u2019s name.\n\n\u1f41 \u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2] Indications of medical knowledge have been traced both in the\nthird Gospel and in the Acts; see on this point Smith\u2019s _Voyage and\nShipwreck of St Paul_ p. 6 sq. (ed. 2). It has been observed also, that\nSt Luke\u2019s first appearance in company with St Paul (Acts xvi. 10) nearly\nsynchronizes with an attack of the Apostle\u2019s constitutional malady (Gal.\niv. 13, 14); so that he may have joined him partly in a professional\ncapacity. This conjecture is perhaps borne out by the personal feeling\nwhich breathes in the following \u1f41 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2. But whatever may be thought\nof these points, there is no ground for questioning the ancient belief\n(Iren. iii. 14. 1 sq.) that the physician is also the Evangelist. St\nPaul\u2019s motive in specifying him as the physician may not have been to\ndistinguish him from any other bearing the same name, but to emphasize\nhis own obligations to his medical knowledge. The name in this form does\nnot appear to have been common. The tradition that St Luke was a painter\nis quite late (Niceph. Call. ii. 43). It is worthy of notice that the\ntwo Evangelists are mentioned together in this context, as also in\nPhilem. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 11.\n\n\u1f41 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2] \u2018_the beloved one_\u2019, not to be closely connected with \u1f41\n\u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, for \u1f41 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 is complete in itself; comp. Philem. 1, Rom. xvi.\n12 (comp. vv. 5, 8, 9), 3 Joh. 1. For the form compare the expression in\nthe Gospels, Matt. iii. 17, etc. \u1f41 \u1f51\u03af\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f41 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; where a\ncomparison of Is. xlii. 1, as quoted in Matt. xii. 18, seems to show\nthat \u1f41 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. forms a distinct clause from \u1f41 \u1f51\u03af\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n\u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2] On the probability that this person was a Thessalonian (2 Tim.\niv. 10) and that his name was Demetrius, see the introduction to the\nEpistles to the Thessalonians. He appears in close connexion with St\nLuke in Philem. 24, as here. In 2 Tim. iv. 10 their conduct is placed in\ndirect contrast, \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd ... \u039b\u03bf\u1fe6\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6.\nThere is perhaps a foreshadowing of this contrast in the language here.\nWhile Luke is described with special tenderness as \u1f41 \u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f41 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2,\nDemas alone is dismissed with a bare mention and without any epithet of\ncommendation.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIV. 15, 16]\n\n^{15}\u1f08\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039d\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u1fb6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd. ^{16}\u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\n\n\n15\u201317. \u2018Greet from me the brethren who are in Laodicea, especially\nNymphas, and the church which assembles in their house. And when this\nletter has been read among you, take care that it is read also in the\nChurch of the Laodiceans, and be sure that ye also read the letter which\nI have sent to Laodicea, and which ye will get from them. Moreover give\nthis message from me to Archippus; Take heed to the ministry which thou\nhast received from me in Christ, and discharge it fully and faithfully.\u2019\n\n15. \u039d\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u1fb6\u03bd] as the context shows, an inhabitant of Laodicea. The name in\nfull would probably be Nymphodorus, as Artemas (Tit. iii. 12) for\nArtemidorus, Zenas (Tit. iii. 13) for Zenodorus, Theudas (Acts v. 36)\nfor Theodorus, Olympas (Rom. xvi. 15) for Olympiodorus, and probably\nHermas (Rom. xvi. 14) for Hermodorus (see _Philippians_ p. 174). Other\nnames in \u03b1\u03c2 occurring in the New Testament and representing different\nterminations are Amplias (Ampliatus, a _v. l._), Antipas (Antipater),\nDemas (Demetrius?), Epaphras (Epaphroditus), Lucas (Lucanus), Parmenas\n(Parmenides), Patrobas (Patrobius), Silas (Sylvanus), Stephanas\n(Stephanephorus), and perhaps Junias (Junianus, Rom. xvi. 7). For a\ncollection of names with this contraction, found in different places,\nsee Chandler _Greek Accentuation_ \u00a7 34; comp. Lobeck _Pathol._ p. 505\nsq. Some remarkable instances are found in the inscriptions; e.g.\n\u1f08\u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u1fb6\u03c2, \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u1fb6\u03c2, \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, \u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u1fb6\u03c2, \u039d\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, \u1f48\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u1fb6\u03c2, \u03a4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fb6\u03c2, etc.; see\nesp. Boeckh _C. I._ III. pp. 1072, 1097. The name Nymphodorus is found\nnot unfrequently; e.g. Herod. vii. 137, Thuc. ii. 29, Athen. i. p. 19 F,\nvi. p. 265 C, Mionnet _Suppl._ VI. p. 88, Boeckh _C. I._ no. 158, etc.\nThe contracted form \u039d\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u1fb6\u03c2 however is very rare, though it appears to\noccur in a Spartan inscription, Boeckh _C. I._ no. 1240 )\u0388\u03c5\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u039d\u03c5\u03bd\u03c6\u1fb6.\nIn Murat. MDXXXV. 6, is an inscription to one _Nu. Aquilius Nymphas_, a\nfreedman, where the dative is _Nymphadi_. Other names from which Nymphas\nmight be contracted are Nymphius, Nymphicus, Nymphidius, Nymphodotus,\nthe first and last being the most common.\n\nThose, who read \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 in the following clause, take it as a woman\u2019s name\n(\u039d\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd, not \u039d\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u1fb6\u03bd); and the name Nymphe, Nympha, Nympa, etc., occurs\nfrom time to time in Latin inscriptions; e.g. _Inscr. Hisp._ 1099, 1783,\n3763, _Inscr. As. Prov. etc._ 525, Murator. CMXXIV. 1, MCLIX. 8, MCCXCV.\n9, MDXCI. 3. But a Doric form of the Greek name here seems in the\nhighest degree improbable.\n\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The same expression is used of Prisca and Aquila\nboth at Rome (Rom. xvi. 5) and at Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 19), and also of\nPhilemon, whether at Coloss\u00e6 or at Laodicea is somewhat uncertain\n(Philem. 2); comp. Acts xii. 12 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 ... \u1f41\u1fe6 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f31\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1f76\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, and see _Philippians_ p. 56. Perhaps\nsimilar gatherings may be implied by the expressions in Rom. xvi. 14, 15\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 (Probst\n_Kirchliche Disciplin_ p. 182, 1873). See also _Act. Mart. Justin._ \u00a7 3\n(II. p. 262 ed. Otto), _Clem. Recogn._ x. 71 \u2018Theophilus ... domus su\u00e6\ningentem basilicam ecclesi\u00e6 nomine consecraret\u2019 (where the word\n\u2018basilica\u2019 was probably introduced by the translator Ruffinus). Of the\nsame kind must have been the \u2018collegium quod est in domo Sergi\u00e6 Paulin\u00e6\u2019\n(de Rossi _Roma Sotteranea_ I. p. 209); for the Christians were first\nrecognised by the Roman government as \u2018collegia\u2019 or burial clubs, and\nprotected by this recognition doubtless held their meetings for\nreligious worship. There is no clear example of a separate building set\napart for Christian worship within the limits of the Roman empire before\nthe third century, though apartments in private houses might be\nspecially devoted to this purpose. This, I think, appears as a negative\nresult from the passages collected in Bingham VIII. I. 13 and Probst p.\n181 sq. with a different view. Hence the places of Christian assembly\nwere not commonly called \u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u03af till quite late (Ignat. _Magn._ 7 is not\nreally an exception), but \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f50\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9,\nand the like (Euseb. _H.E._ vii. 30, viii. 13, ix. 9, etc.).\n\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd] The difficulty of this reading has led to the two corrections,\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 and \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2, of which the former appears in the received text and\nthe latter is supported by one or two very ancient authorities. Of these\nalternative readings however, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 is condemned by its simplicity, and\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 has arisen from the form \u039d\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd, which _prima facie_ would look\nlike a woman\u2019s name, and yet hardly can be so. We should require to know\nmore of the circumstances to feel any confidence in explaining \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. A\nsimple explanation is that \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd denotes \u2018Nymphas and his friends\u2019, by a\ntransition which is common in classical writers; e.g. Xen. _Anab._ iii.\n3. 7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u1fc4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd (\u039c\u03b9\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2) ... \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f72\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u1f7a\u03c2\n_\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf_ \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., iv. 5. 33 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f72\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _)\u03b5\u03ba\u03ad\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2_ \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2: see also K\u00fchner _Gramm._ \u00a7\n371 (II. p. 77), Bernhardy _Syntax_ p. 288. Or perhaps \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u1fb3\n\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 may refer not to the whole body of the Laodicean Church, but to\na family of Colossian Christians established in Laodicea. Under any\ncircumstances this \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 is only a section of \u1f21 \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\nmentioned in ver. 16. On the authorities for the various readings see\nthe detached note.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIV. 16]\n\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f21 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae, \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\n\n16. \u1f21 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae] \u2018_the letter_\u2019, which has just been concluded, for these\nsalutations have the character of a postscript; comp. Rom. xvi. 22\n\u03a4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd, 2 Thess. iii. 14 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2,\n_Mart. Polyc._ 20 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5. Such examples however do\nnot countenance the explanation which refers \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc7\nin 1 Cor. v. 9 to the First Epistle itself, occurring (as it does) in\nthe middle of the letter (comp. 2 Cor. vii. 8).\n\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1] \u2018_cause that_\u2019; so John xi. 37, Apoc. xiii. 15. In such\ncases the \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 is passing away from its earlier sense of _design_ to its\nlater sense of _result_. A corresponding classical expression is \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n\u1f61\u03c2 or \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2, e.g. Xen. _Cyr._ vi. 3. 18.\n\nA similar charge is given in 1 Thess. v. 27. The precaution here is\nprobably suggested by the distastefulness of the Apostle\u2019s warnings,\nwhich might lead to the suppression of the letter.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIV. 17]\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b5. ^{17}\u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u1ff3, \u0392\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f23\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\n\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2] i.e. \u2018the letter left at Laodicea, which you will\nprocure thence\u2019. For this abridged expression compare Luke xi. 13 \u1f41\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 _\u1f41 \u1f10\u03be_ \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, xvi. 26 (v. l.) \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 _\u1f41\u03b9\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd_ \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, Susann. 26 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f24\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03b3\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03ad\u03b9\u03c3\u1ff3 _\u1f41\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba_ \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03c0\u03ae\u03b4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. For\ninstances of this proleptic use of the preposition in classical writers,\nwhere it is extremely common, see K\u00fchner _Gr._ \u00a7 448 (II. p. 474), Jelf\n_Gr._ \u00a7 647, Matthi\u00e6 _Gr._ \u00a7 596: e.g. Plat. _Apol._ 32 B \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, Xen. _Cyr._ vii. 2. 5 \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\n\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, Isocr. _Paneg._ \u00a7 187 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd )\u0395\u03c5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd. There are good reasons for the belief\nthat St Paul here alludes to the so-called Epistle to the Ephesians,\nwhich was in fact a circular letter addressed to the principal churches\nof proconsular Asia (see above p. 37, and the introduction to the\nEpistle to the Ephesians). Tychicus was obliged to pass through Laodicea\non his way to Coloss\u00e6, and would leave a copy there, before the\nColossian letter was delivered. For other opinions respecting this\n\u2018letter from Laodicea\u2019 see the detached note.\n\n\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018see _that ye also read_\u2019. At first sight it might\nseem as though this \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 also were governed by \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5, like the former;\nbut, inasmuch as \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 would be somewhat awkward in this connexion,\nit is perhaps better to treat the second clause as independent and\nelliptical, (\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u1f10 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. This is suggested also by the position\nof \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 before \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1; comp. Gal. ii. 10 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd (with the note). Ellipses before \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 are frequent; e.g.\nJohn ix. 3, 2 Cor. viii. 13, 2 Thess. iii. 9, 1 Joh. ii. 19.\n\n17. \u039a\u1f70\u03b9 )\u03ad\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5] Why does not the Apostle address himself directly to\nArchippus? It might be answered that he probably thought the warning\nwould come with greater emphasis, when delivered by the voice of the\nChurch. Or the simpler explanation perhaps is, that Archippus was not\nresident at Coloss\u00e6 but at Laodicea: see the introduction to the Epistle\nto Philemon. On this warning itself see above, p. 42.\n\n\u0392\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5] \u2018_look to_\u2019, as 2 Joh. 8 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. More\ncommonly it has the accusative of the thing to be avoided; see Phil.\niii. 2 (with the note).\n\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd] From the stress which is laid upon it, the \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 here\nwould seem to refer, as in the case of Timothy cited below, to some\nhigher function than the diaconate properly so called. In Acts xii. 25\nthe same phrase, \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, is used of a temporary\nministration, the collection and conveyance of the alms for the poor of\nJerusalem (Acts xi. 29); but the solemnity of the warning here points to\na continuous office, rather than an immediate service.\n\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03c2] i.e. probably \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6. The word suggests, though it does\nnot necessarily imply, a mediate rather than a direct reception: see the\nnote Gal. i. 12. Archippus received the charge immediately from St Paul,\nthough ultimately from Christ. \u2018Non enim sequitur\u2019, writes Bengel, \u2018_a\nDomino_ (1 Cor. xi. 23), sed _in Domino_\u2019.\n\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2] \u2018_fulfil_\u2019, i.e. \u2018_discharge fully_\u2019; comp. 2 Tim. iv. 5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIV. 18]\n\n^{18}\u1f49 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03bc\u1fc7 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5. \u039c\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. \u1f29 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u2019 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\n\n18. \u2018I add this salutation with my own hand, signing it with my name\nPaul. Be mindful of my bonds. God\u2019s grace be with you.\u2019\n\n\u1f49 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The letter was evidently written by an amanuensis\n(comp. Rom. xvi. 22). The final salutation alone, with the accompanying\nsentence \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., was in the Apostle\u2019s own handwriting. This\nseems to have been the Apostle\u2019s general practice, even where he does\nnot call attention to his own signature. In 2 Thess. iii. 17 sq., 1 Cor.\nxvi. 21, as here, he directs his readers\u2019 notice to the fact, but in\nother epistles he is silent. In some cases however he writes much more\nthan the final sentence. Thus the whole letter to Philemon is apparently\nin his own handwriting (see ver. 19), and in the Epistle to the\nGalatians he writes a long paragraph at the close (see the note on vi.\n11).\n\n\u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03bc\u1fc7 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5] The same phrase occurs in 2 Thess. iii. 17, 1 Cor.\nxvi. 21. For the construction comp. e.g. Philo _Leg. ad Cai._ 8 (II. p.\n554) \u1f10\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039c\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u0393\u03ac\u03ca\u03bf\u03c2, and see K\u00fchner \u00a7 406 (II. p.\n242), Jelf \u00a7 467.\n\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd] His bonds establish an additional claim to a hearing. He who\nis suffering for Christ has a right to speak on behalf of Christ. The\nappeal is similar in Ephes. iii. 1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03a7. \u1f38., which is resumed again (after a long digression) in iv. 1\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f41 \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u1f00\u03be\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (comp.\nvi. 20 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f41\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f01\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9). So too Philem. 9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2\n\u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6. These passages seem to show that the\nappeal here is not for himself, but for his teaching\u2014not for sympathy\nwith his sufferings but for obedience to the Gospel. His bonds were not\nhis own; they were \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 (Philem. 13). In Heb. x. 34\nthe right reading is not \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, but \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 (comp. xiii. 3). Somewhat similar is the appeal to his\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 in Gal. vi. 17, \u2018Henceforth let no man trouble me.\u2019 See the\nnotes on Philem. 10, 13.\n\n\u1f29 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] This very short form of the final benediction appears\nonly here and in 1 Tim. vi. 21, 2 Tim. iv. 22. In Tit. iii. 15 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd is\ninserted, and so in Heb. xiii. 25. In Ephes. vi. 24 the form so far\nagrees with the examples quoted, that \u1f21 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 is used absolutely, though\nthe end is lengthened out. In all the earlier epistles \u1f21 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 is\ndefined by the addition of \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 [\u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd] \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 [\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6]; 1 Thess.\nv. 28, 2 Thess. iii. 18, 1 Cor. xvi. 23, 2 Cor. xiii. 13, Gal. vi. 18,\nRom. xvi. 20, [24], Phil. iv. 23. Thus the absolute \u1f21 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 in the final\nbenediction may be taken as a chronological note. A similar phenomenon\nhas been already observed (\u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3, \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2) in the opening\naddresses: see the note on i. 2.\n\n\n\n\n            _On some Various Readings in the Epistle[535]._\n\n\n[Sidenote: Harmonistic readings.]\n\nIn one respect the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians hold a unique\nposition among the Epistles of St Paul, as regards textual criticism.\nThey alone have been exposed, or exposed in any considerable degree, to\nthose harmonizing tendencies in transcribers, which have had so great an\ninfluence on the text of the Synoptic Gospels.\n\n[Sidenote: Preponderant evidence (1) for the correct reading;]\n\nIn such cases there is sometimes no difficulty in ascertaining the\ncorrect reading. The harmonistic change is condemned by the majority of\nthe oldest and best authorities; or there is at least a nearly even\nbalance of external testimony, and the suspicious character of the\nreading is quite sufficient to turn the scale. Thus we cannot hesitate\nfor a moment about such readings as i. 14 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f05\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (from\nEphes. i. 7), or iii. 16 \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 _\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76_ \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 _\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76_ \u1fa0\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, and \u03c4\u1ff7 _\u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3_ (for \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7) in the same verse (both\nfrom Ephes. v. 19).\n\n[Sidenote: (2) against the correct reading.]\n\nIn other instances again there can hardly be any doubt about the text,\neven though the vast preponderance of authority is in favour of the\nharmonistic reading; and these are especially valuable because they\nenable us to test the worth of our authorities. Such examples are:\n\nFootnote 535:\n\n  The references to the patristic quotations in the following pages have\n  all been verified. I have also consulted the Egyptian and Syriac\n  Versions in every case, and the Armenian and Latin in some instances,\n  before giving the readings. As regards the MSS, I have contented\n  myself with the collations as given in Tregelles and Tischendorf, not\n  verifying them unless I had reason to suspect an error.\n\n  The readings of the Memphitic Version are very incorrectly given even\n  by the principal editors, such as Tregelles and Tischendorf; the\n  translation of Wilkins being commonly adopted, though full of errors,\n  and no attention being paid to the various readings of Boetticher\u2019s\n  text. Besides the errors corrected in the following pages, I have also\n  observed these places where the text of this version is incorrectly\n  reported; ii. 7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 not omitted; ii. 13 the second \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 not\n  omitted; ii. 17 the singular (\u1f45), not the plural (\u1f05); iii. 4 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, not\n  \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd; iii. 16 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7, not \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3; iii. 22 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, not \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd;\n  iv. 3 doubtful whether \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f45 or \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f45\u03bd; and probably there are others.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Examples.]\n\n[Sidenote: iii. 6, words inserted.]iii. 6. The omission of the words \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f51\u03b9\u1f78\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (taken from Ephes. v. 6). Apparently the only\nextant MS in favour of the omission is B. In D however they are written\n(though by the first hand) in smaller letters and extend beyond the line\n(in both Greek and Latin), whence we may infer that they were not found\nin a copy which was before the transcriber. They are wanting also in the\nThebaic Version and in one form of the \u00c6thiopic (Polyglott). They were\nalso absent from copies used by Clement of Alexandria (_P\u00e6d._ iii. 11,\np. 295, where however they are inserted in the printed texts; _Strom._\niii. 5, p. 531), by Cyprian (_Epist._ lv. 27, p. 645 ed. Hartel), by an\nunknown writer (_de Sing. Cler._> 39, in Cypr. _Op._ III. p. 215), by\nthe Ambrosian Hilary (_ad loc._), and by Jerome (_Epist._ xiv. 5, I. p.\n32), though now found apparently in all the Latin MSS.\n\n[Sidenote: iii. 21. \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5.]\n\niii. 21. \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 is only found in B K and in later hands of D (with\nits transcript E) among the uncial MSS. All the other uncials read\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, which is taken from Ephes. vi. 4. In this case however the\nreading of B is supported by the greater number of cursives, and it\naccordingly has a place in the received text. The versions (so far as we\ncan safely infer their readings) go almost entirely with the majority of\nuncials. [Sidenote: Syriac version misrepresented.]The true readings of\nthe Syriac Versions are just the reverse of those assigned to them even\nby the chief critical editors, Tregelles and Tischendorf. Thus in the\nPeshito the word used is the Aphel of \u072a\u0713\u0719, the same mood of the same\nverb being employed to translate \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, not only in Rom. x. 19,\nbut even in the parallel passage Ephes. vi. 4. The word in the text of\nthe Harclean is the same, \u072c\u072a\u0713\u071b\u0719\u0718\u0722\u0722, but in the margin the alternative\n\u072c\u0713\u072a\u0713\u0718\u0722 is given. White interprets this as saying that the text is\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 and the margin \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, and he is followed by Tregelles\nand Tischendorf. But in this version, as in the Peshito, the former word\ntranslates \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd in Rom. x. 19, Ephes. vi. 4; while in the Peshito\nthe latter word is adopted to render \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd in 2 Cor. ix. 2 (the only\nother passage in the N. T. where \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd occurs). In the Harclean of 2\nCor. ix. 2 a different word from either, \u071a\u072c\u071a\u072c, is used. It seems\ntolerably clear therefore that \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 was read in the text of both\nPeshito and Harclean here, while \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 was given in the margin of\nthe latter. [Sidenote: Latin versions.]The Latin Versions seem also to\nhave read \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5; for the Old Latin has \u2018_ad iram_ (or _in iram_ or\n_ad iracundiam_) _provocare_, and the Vulgate _ad indignationem\nprovocare_\u2019 here, while both have _ad iracundiam provocare_ in Ephes.\nvi. 4. The Memphitic too has the same rendering \u03ef\u03eb\u03c9\u2c9b\u03c4 in both passages.\nOf the earlier Greek fathers Clement, _Strom._ iv. 8 (p. 593), reads\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5: and it is found in Chrysostom and some later writers.\n\n[Sidenote: Great value of B.]\n\nThese examples show how singularly free B is from this passion for\nharmonizing, and may even embolden us to place reliance on its authority\nin extreme cases.\n\n[Sidenote: Parallel passages.]\n\n[Sidenote: Col. iii. 16, Eph. v. 19.]\n\nFor instance, the parallel passages Ephes. v. 19 and Col. iii. 16 stand\nthus in the received text:\n\n                               EPHESIANS.\n\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1fa0\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f84\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c8\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3.\n\n                              COLOSSIANS.\n\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1fa0\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f84\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3.\n\nAnd A carries the harmonizing tendency still further by inserting \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9 before \u1f84\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 in Ephes. from the parallel passage.\n\nIn B they are read as follows:\n\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1fa0\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f84\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3.\n\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1fa0\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f84\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7.\n\n[Sidenote: Alterations for the sake of harmonizing.] Here are seven\ndivergences from the received text. (1) The insertion of \u1f10\u03bd before\n\u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 in Ephes.; (2) The omission of \u03ba\u03b1\u03af, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af, attaching \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2,\n\u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u1fa0\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 in Col.; (3) The omission of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 in Ephes.; (4)\nThe insertion of \u03c4\u1fc7 before \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9 in Col.; (5) The omission of \u1f10\u03bd before\n\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 in Ephes.; (6) The substitution of \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 for \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3\nin Col.; (7) The substitution of \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7 for \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 in Col.\n\nOf these seven divergences the fourth alone does not affect the\nquestion: of the remaining six, the readings of B in (2), (6), (7) are\nsupported by the great preponderance of the best authorities, and are\nunquestionably right. In (1), (3), (5) however the case stands thus:\n\n[Sidenote: \u1f10\u03bd \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2.]\n\n  (1) \u1f10\u03bd \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 B, P, with the cursives 17, 67^{**}, 73, 116, 118, and\n          in Latin, d, e, vulg., with the Latin commentators Victorinus,\n          Hilary and Jerome. Of these however it is clear that the Latin\n          authorities can have little weight in such a case, as the\n          preposition might have been introduced by the translator. All\n          the other Greek MSS with several Greek fathers omit \u1f10\u03bd.\n\n[Sidenote: \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2.]\n\n  (3) \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 omitted in B, d, e. Of the Ambrosian Hilary\n          Tischendorf says \u2018fluct. lectio\u2019; but his comment \u2018In quo enim\n          est spiritus, semper spiritualia meditatur\u2019 seems certainly to\n          recognise the word. It appears to be found in every other\n          authority.\n\n[Sidenote: \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3.]\n\n  (5) \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 \u05d0^* B with Origen in Cramer\u2019s _Catena_, p. 201.\n\n          \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 K L, and the vast majority of later MSS, the\n            Armenian and \u00c6thiopic Versions, Euthalius (Tischendorf\u2019s\n            MS), Theodoret, and others. The Harclean Syriac (text) is\n            quoted by Tischendorf and Tregelles in favour of \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7\n            \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3, but it is impossible to say whether the translator\n            had or had not the preposition.\n\n          \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u05d0^c A D F G P, 47, 8^{pe}; the Old Latin,\n            Vulgate, Memphitic, Peshito Syriac, and Gothic Versions,\n            together with the margin of the Harclean Syriac; the fathers\n            Basil (II. p. 464), Victorinus (probably), Theodore of\n            Mopsuestia, the Ambrosian Hilary, Jerome, and others.\n            Chrysostom (as read in the existing texts) wavers between \u1f10\u03bd\n            \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 and \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2. This form of the reading is\n            an attempt to bring Ephes. into harmony with Col., just as\n            (6) is an attempt to bring Col. into harmony with Ephes.\n\nIt will be seen how slenderly B is supported; and yet we can hardly\nresist the impression that it has the right reading in all three cases.\nIn the omission of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 more especially, where the support is\nweakest, this impression must, I think, be very strong.\n\n[Sidenote: Excellence of B elsewhere.]\n\nThis highly favourable estimate of B is our starting-point; and on the\nwhole it will be enhanced as we proceed. Thus for instance in i. 22 and\nii. 2 we shall find this MS alone (with one important Latin father)\nretaining the correct text; in the latter case amidst a great\ncomplication of various readings. And when again, as in iv. 8, we find B\nfor once on the side of a reading which might otherwise be suspected as\na harmonistic change, this support alone will weigh heavily in its\nfavour. Other cases in which B (with more or less support) preserves the\ncorrect reading against the mass of authorities are ii. 2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\nii. 7 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9, ii. 13 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (omitting \u1f10\u03bd), v. 12 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5,\ntogether with several instances which will appear in the course of the\nfollowing investigation. On the other hand its value must not be\noverestimated. [Sidenote: False readings in B.]Thus in iv. 3 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f43 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9[536] there can be little doubt\nthat the great majority of ancient authorities correctly read \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f45,\nthough B F G have \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f45\u03bd: but the variation is easily explained. A\nsingle stroke, whether accidental or deliberate, alone would be\nnecessary to turn the neuter into a masculine and make the relative\nagree with the substantive nearest to it in position. Again in ii. 10 \u1f45\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae, the reading of B which substitutes \u1f45 for \u1f45\u03c2 is plainly\nwrong, though supported in this instance by D F G 47^*, by the Latin\ntext d, and by Hilary in one passage (_de Trin._ ix. 8, II. p. 263),\nthough elsewhere (ib. i. 13, I. p. 10) he reads \u1f45. But here again we\nhave only an instance of a very common interchange. Whether for\ngrammatical reasons or from diplomatic confusion or from some other\ncause, five other instances of this interchange occur in this short\nepistle alone; i. 15 \u1f45 for \u1f45\u03c2 F G; i. 18 \u1f45 for \u1f45\u03c2 F G; i. 24 \u1f45\u03c2 for \u1f45 C\nD^* etc.; i. 27 \u1f45\u03c2 for \u1f45 \u05d0 C D K L etc.; iii. 14 \u1f45\u03c2 for \u1f45 \u05d0^* D. Such\nreadings again as the omission of \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 i. 9 by B K, or of \u03b4\u03b9\u2019\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 in i. 20 by B D^* F G etc., or of \u1f21 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae in iv. 16 by B\nalone, need not be considered, since the motive for the omission is\nobvious, and the authority of B will not carry as great weight as it\nwould in other cases. Similarly the insertion of \u1f21 in i. 18, \u1f21 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae, by\nB, 47, 67^{**}, b^{scr}, and of \u03ba\u03b1\u03af in ii. 15, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, by B\nalone, do not appear to deserve consideration, because in both instances\nthese readings would suggest themselves as obvious improvements. In\nother cases, as in the omission of \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 before \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 (i. 20), and of \u1f11\u03bd\u03af in\n\u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03bd\u03af \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 (iii. 15), the scribe of B has erred as any scribe might\nerr.\n\nFootnote 536:\n\n  In this passage B (with some few other authorities) has \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 for\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, thus substituting a commoner expression (ii. 2, 1 Cor.\n  iv. 1, Rev. x. 7; comp. 1 Cor. ii. 1, v.l.) for a less common (Ephes.\n  iii. 4).\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe various readings in this epistle are more perplexing than perhaps in\nany portion of St Paul\u2019s Epistles of the same length. The following\ndeserve special consideration.\n\n                       i. 3  ==\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af.==\n\n[Sidenote: i. 3 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af,]]\n\nOn this very unusual collocation I have already remarked in the notes\n(p. 199). The authorities stand as follows:\n\n            (1) \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af B C^*.\n\n            (2) \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af D^* F G Chrysostom.\n\nOne or other is also the reading of the Old Latin (d, e, g, harl.^{**}),\nof the Memphitic, the two Syriac (Peshito and Harclean), the \u00c6thiopic,\nand the Arabic (Erpenius, Bedwell, Leipzig) Versions; and of Augustine\n(_de Unit. Eccl._ 45, IX. p. 368) and Cassiodorus (II. p. 1351, Migne).\n\n            (3) \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af \u05d0 A C^2 D^c K L P and apparently all\nthe other MSS; the Vulgate and Armenian Versions; Euthalius\n(Tischendorf\u2019s MS), Theodore of Mopsuestia (transl.), Theodoret, the\nAmbrosian Hilary, and others.\n\nA comparison of these authorities seems to show pretty clearly that \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af was the original reading. The other two were expedients for\ngetting rid of a very unusual collocation of words. [Sidenote: compared\nwith iii. 17,]The scribes have felt the same difficulty again in iii. 17\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, and there again we find \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\ninserted before \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af. In this latter instance however the great\npreponderance of ancient authority is in favour of the unusual form \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af.\n\n[Sidenote: and i. 12.]\n\nIt is worth observing also that in i. 12, where \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af has the highest\nsupport, there is sufficient authority for \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af to create a\nsuspicion that there too it may be possibly the correct reading. Thus \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af is read in \u05d0 37, while \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af stands in F G. One or\nother must have been the reading of some Old Latin and Vulgate texts (f,\ng, m, fuld.), of the Peshito Syriac, of the Memphitic (in some texts;\nfor others read \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af simply), of the Arabic (Bedwell), of the\nArmenian (Uscan), and of Origen (II. p. 451, the Latin translator);\nwhile several other authorities, Greek and Latin, read \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af.\n\n[Sidenote: Unique collocation.]\n\nThere is no other instance of this collocation of words, \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1,\nin the Greek Testament, so far as I remember; and it must be regarded as\npeculiar to this epistle.\n\n                   i. 4 ==\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd [\u1f23\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5]==.\n\n[Sidenote: i. 4 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd [\u1f23\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5].]\n\nHere the various readings are;\n\n          (1) \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd B.\n\n          (2) \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd \u1f23\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 A \u05d0 C D^* F G P 17, 37, 47; the Old\n              Latin and Vulgate, Memphitic (apparently), and Harclean\n              Syriac Versions; the Ambrosian Hilary, Theodore of\n              Mopsuestia (transl.), and others.\n\n          (3) \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd. D^c K L; the Peshito Syriac (apparently),\n              and Armenian (apparently) Versions; Chrysostom, Theodoret\n              and others.\n\nIf the question were to be decided by external authority alone, we could\nnot hesitate. It is important however to observe that (2) conforms to\nthe parallel passage Philem. 5 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f23\u03bd\n\u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, while (3) conforms to the other parallel passage Ephes. i. 15 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n[\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd] \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. Thus, though \u1f23\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 is so\nhighly supported and though it helps out the sense, it is open to\nsuspicion. Still the omission in B may be an instance of that impatience\nof apparently superfluous words, which sometimes appears in this MS.\n\n                    i. 7 ==\u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03f2==.\n\n[Sidenote: i. 7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd.]\n\nHere there is a conflict between MSS and Versions.\n\n        (1) \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd A B \u05d0^* D^* F G, 3, 13, 33, 43, 52, 80, 91, 109. This\n            must also have been the reading of the Ambrosian Hilary\n            (though the editors make him write \u2018pro _vobis_\u2019), for he\n            explains it \u2018qui eis ministravit gratiam Christi _vice\n            Apostoli_.\u2019\n\n        (2) \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u05d0^c C D^b K L P, 17, 37, 47, and many others; the\n            Vulgate, the Peshito and Harclean Syriac, the Memphitic,\n            Gothic, and Armenian Versions; Chrysostom, Theodore of\n            Mopsuestia (transl.), and Theodoret (in their respective\n            texts, for with the exception of Chrysostom there is nothing\n            decisive in their comments), with others.\n\nThe Old Latin is doubtful; d, e having _vobis_ and g _nobis_.\n\nThough the common confusion between these two words even in the best MSS\nis a caution against speaking with absolute certainty, yet such a\ncombination of the highest authorities as we have here for \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd does not\nleave much room for doubt: and considerations of internal criticism\npoint in the same direction. See the note on the passage.\n\n                      i. 12 ==\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f31\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03ce\u03f2\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9==.\n\n[Sidenote: i. 12 \u1f31\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9.]\n\nAgainst this, which is the reading of all the other ancient authorities,\nwe have\n\n        (2) \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 D^* F G, 17, 80, with the Latin authorities d,\n            e, f, g, m, and the Gothic, Armenian, and \u00c6thiopic Versions.\n            It is so read also by the Ambrosian Hilary, by Didymus _de\n            Trin._ iii. 4 (p. 346), and by Vigilius Thapsensis _c.\n            Varim._ i. 50 (p. 409).\n\n        (3) \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f31\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9, found in B alone.\n\nHere the confusion between ==\u03c4\u03c9\u03b9\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03c9\u03f2\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9== and ==\u03c4\u03c9\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03f2\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9==\nwould be easy, more especially at a period prior to the earliest\nexisting MSS, when the iota adscript was still written; while at the\nsame time \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 would suggest itself to scribes as the obvious word\nin such a connexion. It is a Western reading.\n\nThe text of B obviously presents a combination of both readings.\n\n                       i. 14 ==\u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd==.\n\n[Sidenote: i. 14 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd or \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd?]\n\nFor \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd B, the Memphitic Version, and the Arabic (Bedwell, Leipzig),\nread \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd. This is possibly the correct reading. In the parallel\npassage, Ephes. i. 7, several authorities (\u05d0^* D^*, the Memphitic and\n\u00c6thiopic Versions, and the translator of Iren\u00e6us v. 14. 3) similarly\nread \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd for \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd. It may be conjectured that \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd in these\nauthorities was a harmonistic change in Ephes. i. 7, to conform to the\ntext which they or their predecessors had in Col. i. 14. Tischendorf on\nEphes. l.c. says \u2018aut utroque loco \u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd aut \u03b5\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd Paulum scripsisse\nputo\u2019; but if any inference can be drawn from the phenomena of the MSS,\nthey point rather to a different tense in the two passages.\n\n                      i. 22 ==\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5==.\n\n[Sidenote: i. 22 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5.]\n\nThis reading is perhaps the highest testimony of all to the great value\nof B.\n\nThe variations are;\n\n        (1) \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 B. This also seems to be the reading of\n            Hilary of Poitiers _In xci Psalm._ 9 (I. p. 270), who\n            transfers the Apostle\u2019s language into the first person, \u2018cum\n            aliquando essemus alienati et inimici sensus ejus in factis\n            malis, nunc autem reconciliati sumus corpore carnis ejus.\u2019\n\n        (2) \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 17.\n\n        (3) \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 D^* F G, and the Latin authorities d, e,\n            g, m, the Gothic Version, the translator of Iren\u00e6us (v. 14.\n            3), and others.\n\n        (4) \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03b5\u03bd, all the other authorities.\n\nOf these (2) is obviously a corruption of (1) from similarity of sound;\nand (3) is an emendation, though a careless emendation, of (1) for the\nsake of the grammar. It should have been \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2. The reading\ntherefore must lie between \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 and \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03b5\u03bd. This latter\nhowever is probably a grammatical correction to straighten the syntax.\nIn the Memphitic a single letter \u2c81\u03eb for \u2c81\u03e5 would make the difference\nbetween \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 and \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03b5\u03bd; but no variation from the\nlatter is recorded.\n\n                    ii. 2 ==\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6==.\n\n[Sidenote: ii. 2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.]\n\nThe various readings here are very numerous and at first sight\nperplexing; but the result of an investigation into their several claims\nis far from unsatisfactory. The reading which explains all the rest may\nsafely be adopted as the original.\n\n[Sidenote: Original reading.]\n\n(1) ==\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5==.\n\nThis is the reading of B and of Hilary of Poitiers, _de Trin._ ix. 62\n(I. p. 306), who quotes the passage _sacramenti Dei Christi in quo_\netc., and wrongly explains it \u2018Deus Christus sacramentum est\u2019.\n\n[Sidenote: Variations;]\n\nAll the other variations are derived from this, either by explanation or\nby omission or by amplification.\n\n[Sidenote: (_a_) by interpretation,]\n\nBy explanation we get;\n\n(2) ==\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf \u03b5\u03f2\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u03bf\u03f2==,\n\nthe reading of D, with the Latin authorities d, e, which have _Dei quod\nest Christus_. So it is quoted by Vigilius Thapsensis _c. Varim._ i. 20\n(p. 380), and in a slightly longer form by Augustine _de Trin._ xiii. 24\n(VIII. p. 944) _mysterium Dei quod est Christus Jesus_.\n\n(3) ==\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u03c9==.\n\nSo it is twice quoted by Clement of Alexandria _Strom._ v. 10 (p. 683),\n_ib._ 12 (p. 694); or\n\n            ==\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u03c9==,\n\nthe reading of 17.\n\nSo the Ambrosian Hilary (both text and commentary) has _Dei in Christo_.\nAnd the Armenian has the same lengthened out, _Dei in Christo Jesu_\n(Zohrab) or _Dei patris in Christo Jesu_ (Uscan).\n\n(4) _Domini quod de Christo_\n\nis the \u00c6thiopic rendering. Whether this represents another various\nreading in the Greek or whether the paraphrase is the translator\u2019s own,\nit is impossible to say.\n\n[Sidenote: (_b_) by omission,]\n\nThe two following variations strive to overcome the difficulty by\nomission;\n\n(5) ==\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5==,\n\nthe reading of D by a second hand, of P, 37, 67^{**}, 71, 80, 116.\n\n(6) ==\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5==,\n\nthe reading of Euthalius in Tischendorf\u2019s MS; but Tischendorf adds the\ncaution \u2018sed non satis apparet\u2019.\n\n[Sidenote: (_c_) by amplification;]\n\nAll the remaining readings are attempts to remedy the test by\namplification. They fall into two classes; those which insert \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 so\nas to make \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 dependent on it, (7), (8), and those which separate\n\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 from \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 by the interposition of a \u03ba\u03b1\u03af, (9), (10), (11).\n\n[Sidenote: (i) by inserting \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 to govern \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6;]\n\n(7) ==\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03f2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5==,\n\nthe reading of \u05d0 (by the first hand). Tischendorf also adds b^{scr*} and\no^{scr}; but I read Scrivener\u2019s collations differently (_Cod. Aug._ p.\n506): or\n\n            ==\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03f2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5==,\n\nthe reading of A C, 4.\n\nOne or other is the reading of the Thebaic Version (given by Griesbach)\nand of the Arabic (Leipz.).\n\nA lengthened form of the same, _Dei patris Christi Jesu_, appears in the\noldest MSS of the Vulgate, am. fuld. f: and the same is also the reading\nof the Memphitic (Boetticher).\n\n(8) ==\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03f2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5==.\n\nSo \u05d0 (the third hand), b^{scr*}, o^{scr}, and a corrector in the Harclean\nSyriac.\n\n[Sidenote: (ii) by separating \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 from \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 by a conjunction.]\n\n(9) ==\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5==,\n\nthe simplest form of the other class of emendations by amplification. It\nis found in Cyril _Thes._ p. 287.\n\n(10) ==\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03f2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5==.\n\nSo 47, 73, the Peshito Syriac (ed. princeps and Schaaf). And so it\nstands in the commentators Chrysostom (but with various readings) and\nTheodore of Mopsuestia (_Spicil. Solesm._ I. p. 131 _Dei patris et\nChristi_, but in Rab. Maur. _Op._ VI. p. 521 _Dei patris Christi Jesu_).\n\nPelagius has _Dei patris et Christi Jesu_>, and so the Memphitic\n(Wilkins).\n\n[Sidenote: The common text the latest development.]\n\n(11) ==\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03f2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5==.\n\nThis, which may be regarded as the latest development, is the reading of\nthe received text. It is found in D (third hand) K L, and in the great\nmajority of cursives; in the text of the Harclean Syriac, and in\nTheodoret and others.\n\nBesides these readings some copies of the Vulgate exhibit other\nvariations; e.g. demid. _Dei patris et Domini nostri Christi Jesu_,\ntolet. _Dei Christi Jesu patris et Domini_.\n\nIt is not necessary to add any remarks. The justification of \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 as the original reading will have appeared in the variations to\nwhich it has given rise. The passage is altogether an instructive lesson\nin textual criticism.\n\n                 ii. 16 ==\u1f10\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03f2\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03f2\u03b5\u03b9.==\n\n[Sidenote: ii. 16 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af or \u1f24?]\n\nIn this reading B stands alone among the MSS; but it is supported by the\nPeshito Syriac and Memphitic Versions, by Tertullian (_adv. Marc._ v.\n19), and by Origen (_in Ioann._ x. \u00a7 11, IV. p. 174). The testimony of\nTertullian however is invalidated by the fact that he uses _et_ as the\nconnecting particle throughout the passage; and the Peshito Syriac also\nhas \u2018and\u2019 for \u1f24 in the two last clauses, though not in the second.\n\nThe rest have \u1f10\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f22 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9. This may be explained as a very\nobvious, though not very intelligent, alteration of scribes to conform\nto the disjunctive particles in the context, \u1f22 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f22\n\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nIn this same context it is probable that B retains the right form\n\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (supported here by F G and others) as against the Attic\n\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. In the same way in iii. 25 \u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 and iv. 9 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd B\n(with some others) has resisted the tendency to Attic forms.\n\n                        ii. 18 ==\u1f03 \u1f15\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd==.\n\n[Sidenote: ii. 18, the omission of the negative.]\n\nThat this is the oldest reading which the existing texts exhibit, will\nappear from the following comparison of authorities.\n\n      (1) \u1f03 \u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd) A B \u05d0^* D^*, 17^*, 28, 67^{**}; the Old\n            Latin authorities d, e, m; the Memphitic, \u00c6thiopic, and\n            Arabic (Leipz.) Versions; Tertull. _c. Marc._ v. 19 (\u2018ex\n            visionibus angelicis\u2019; and apparently Marcion himself also);\n            Origen (_c. Cels._ v. 8, I. p. 583, though the negative is\n            here inserted by De la Rue, and _in Cant._ ii, III. p. 63,\n            _in his qu\u00e6 videt_); Lucifer (_De non conv. c. h\u00e6r._ p. 782\n            Migne); the Ambrosian Hilary (_ad loc._ explaining it\n            \u2018Inflantur motum pervidentes stellarum, quas angelos\n            vocat\u2019). So too the unknown author of _Qu\u00e6st. ex N. T._ ii.\n            62 in August. _Op._ III. Appx. p. 156. Jerome (_Epist. cxxi\n            ad Alg._ \u00a7 10, I. p. 880) mentions both readings (with and\n            without the negative) as found in the Greek text: and\n            Augustine (_Epist._ 149, II. p. 514), while giving the\n            preference to _qu\u00e6 non vidit_>, says that some MSS have _qu\u00e6\n            vidit_>.\n\n      (2) \u1f03 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd (\u1f11\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd) \u05d0^c C D^{bc} K L P, and the great\n            majority of cursives;\n\n      (3) \u1f03 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f11\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd F G.\n\nThe negative is also read in g; in the Vulgate, the Gothic, both the\nSyriac, and the Armenian Versions; in the translator of Origen _In Rom._\nix. \u00a7 42 (IV. p. 665), in Ambrose _In Psalm. cxviii Exp._ xx (I. p.\n1222), and in the commentators Pelagius, Chrysostom, Theodore of\nMopsuestia (_Spic. Solesm._ I. p. 132 \u2018qu\u00e6 nec sciunt\u2019), Theodoret, and\nothers.\n\nFrom a review of these authorities we infer that the insertion of the\nnegative was a later correction, and that \u1f03 \u1f15\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd (or \u1f15\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd)\nrepresents the prior reading. In my note I have expressed my suspicion\nthat \u1f03 \u1f15\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd (or \u1f15\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd) is itself corrupt, and that the original\nreading is lost.\n\n[Sidenote: The form \u1f15\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd.]\n\nThe unusual form \u1f15\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd is found in \u05d0 B^* C D P, and is therefore to\nbe preferred to \u1f15\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n                  ii. 23 ==[\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76] \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 \u03f2\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03f2==.\n\n[Sidenote: ii. 23. Is \u03ba\u03b1\u03af to be omitted?]\n\nHere \u03ba\u03b1\u03af is found in all the Greek copies except B, but is omitted in\nthese Latin authorities, m, the translator of Origen (_In Rom._ ix. \u00a7\n42, IV. p. 665), Hilary of Poitiers (_Tract. in xiv Ps._ \u00a7 7, p. 73),\nthe Ambrosian Hilary, Ambrose (_de Noe_ 25, p. 267), and Paulinus\n(_Epist._ 50, p. 292 sq.). We have more than once found B and Hilary\nalone in supporting the correct reading (i. 22, ii. 2); and this fact\ngives weight to their joint authority here. The omission also seems to\nexplain the impossible reading of d, e, which have _in religione et\nhumilitate sensus et vexationem corporis_, where for _et vexationem_, we\nshould probably read _ad vexationem_, as in the Ambrosian Hilary. There\nwas every temptation for a scribe to insert the \u03ba\u03b1\u03af so as to make\n\u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 range with the other datives: while on the other hand a finer\nappreciation of the bearing of the passage suggests that St Paul would\nhave dissociated it, so as to give it a special prominence.\n\nA similar instance occurs in iii. 12 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f20\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, where B omits the \u03ba\u03b1\u03af with 17 and the Thebaic Version[537].\nIn 219 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 is read for \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af. The great gain in force leads to\nthe suspicion that this omission may be correct, notwithstanding the\nenormous preponderance of authority on the other side.\n\nFootnote 537:\n\n  It is true that in the text (_Spicil. Solesm._ I. p. 123, Rab. Maur.\n  Op. VII. p. 539, Migne) he is credited with the later Latin reading\n  _ut cognoscat qu\u00e6 circa vos sunt_, but his comment implies the other;\n  \u2018Quoniam omnia vobis nota faciet Tychicus illa qu\u00e6 erga me sunt,\n  propterea a me directus est cum Onesimo fratre qui a vobis venerat, ut\n  nota vobis faciant qu\u00e6 erga nos sunt [= \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd] et\n  oblectent vos per suum adventum [= \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd],\n  omnia qu\u00e6 hic aguntur manifesta facientes vobis.\u2019 See _Spicil.\n  Solesm._ l.c.; the comment is mutilated in Rab. Maur. _Op._ l.c.\n\n                   iv. 8. ==\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd==.\n\n[Sidenote: iv. 8 \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd.]\n\nOf the various readings of this passage I have already spoken (p. 29\nsq., note 1, p. 301).\n\nThe authorities are as follows:\n\n      (1) \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd A B D^* F G P, 10, 17, 33, 35, 37, 44, 47,\n            71, 111, 116, 137; d, e, g; the Armenian and \u00c6thiopic\n            Versions; Theodore of Mopsuestia[537], Theodoret[538],\n            Jerome (on Ephes. vi. 21 sq., VII. p. 682), and Euthalius\n            (Tischendorf\u2019s MS). This is also the reading of \u05d0^*, except\n            that it has \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd for \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\n      (2) \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u05d0^c C D^{bc} K L and the majority of\n            cursives; the Memphitic, Gothic, Vulgate, and both Syriac\n            Versions; the Ambrosian Hilary, Jerome (on Philem. I, VII.\n            p. 748), Chrysostom (expressly), and others.\n\nFootnote 538:\n\n  In the text; but in the commentary he is made to write \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff7 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1,\n  \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, an impossible reading.\n\n[Sidenote: The various readings accounted for.]\n\nThe internal evidence is considered in the note on the passage, and\nfound to accord with the vast preponderance of external authority in\nfavour of \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. The reading of \u05d0 by the first hand\nexhibits a transitional stage. It would appear as though the transcriber\nintended it to be read \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. At all events this is the\nreading of III and of Io. Damasc. _Op._ II. p. 214. The variation \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd is thus easily explained. (1) \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd would be accidentally\nsubstituted for \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd; (2) \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b5 would then be read \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03b5; (3) the\nawkward and superfluous \u03c4\u03b5 would be omitted. In illustration of the\ntendency to conform the persons of the two verbs \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff7, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u1fc3, (see\np. 301) it may be mentioned that 17 reads \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b5, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5, both here\nand in Ephes. vi. 22.\n\n                    iv. 15. ==\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd==.\n\n[Sidenote: iv. 15 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd.]\n\nThe readings here are:\n\n      (1) \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u05d0 A C P, 5, 9, 17, 23, 34, 39, 47, 73; together with the\n            Memphitic Version, the Arabic (Leipz.), and Euthalius\n            (Tischendorf\u2019s MS). The Memphitic Version is commonly but\n            wrongly quoted in favour of \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, owing to a mistranslation\n            of Wilkins. But both Wilkins and Boetticher give without any\n            various reading \u03a0\u039f\u03a5\u0397\u0399, i.e. \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. This seems also to\n            be the reading of Theodore of Mopsuestia (_Spic. Solesm._ I.\n            p. 133) _qu\u00e6 in domo eorum est ecclesia_; though in Rab.\n            Maur. _Op._ VI. p. 540 his text runs _qu\u00e6 in domo ejus est\n            ecclesiam_, and he is made to say _Nympham cum omnibus suis\n            qui in domo ejus sunt_.\n\n      (2) \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 B 67^{**}.\n\n      (3) \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 D F G K L and the great majority of cursives; and so the\n            Gothic Version, Chrysostom, and Theodoret (the latter\n            distinctly).\n\n[Sidenote: _Nymphas_ or _Nympha_?]]\n\nThe singular, whether \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 or \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2, is the reading of the old Latin\nand Vulgate, which have _ejus_, and of the Armenian. The pronoun is also\nsingular in the Peshito and Harclean Syriac. In this language the same\nconsonants express masculine and feminine alike, the difference lying in\nthe pointing and vocalisation. And here the copies are inconsistent with\nthemselves. [Sidenote: The Syriac versions.]In the Peshito (both the\neditio princeps and Schaaf) the proper name is vocalised as a feminine\n_Numph\u0113_ (= \u039d\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b7), and yet \u0712\u0712\u071d\u072c\u0717 is treated as having a masculine affix\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. In the text of the Harclean \u0715\u071d\u0720\u0717\u073f is pointed thus, as\na feminine \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2; while the margin gives the alternative reading \u0715\u071d\u0720\u0717\n(without the point) = \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. The name itself is written Nympha, which\naccording to the transliteration of this version might stand either for\na masculine (as _Barnaba_, _Luka_, in the context, for \u0392\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c2, \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u1fb6\u03c2)\nor for a feminine (since _Demas_, _Epaphras_, are written with an\n_s_)[539]. [Sidenote: The Latin authorities.]The Latin _ejus_ leaving\nthe gender undetermined, the Latin commentators were free to take either\nNymphas or Nympha; and, as Nympha was common Latin form of \u039d\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b7, they\nwould naturally adopt the female name. So the commentator Hilary\ndistinctly.\n\nFootnote 539:\n\n  More probably the latter. In Rom. xvi the terminations -\u03b1 and \u1fb6\u03c2 for\n  the feminine and masculine names respectively are carefully reproduced\n  in the Harclean Version. In ver. 15 indeed we have _Julias_, but the\n  translator doubtless considered the name to be a contraction for\n  _Julianus_. The proper Syriac termination _-a_ seems only to be\n  employed for the Greek -\u03b1\u03c2 in very familiar names such as _Barnaba_,\n  _Luka_.\n\nIt should be added that the word is accentuated as a masculine \u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u1fb6\u03bd in\nD^c L P, and as a feminine \u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd in B^c and Euthalius (Tischendorf\u2019s\nMS.).\n\n\n                      _On the meaning of \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1._\n\n[Sidenote: The meaning of the verb \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd.]\n\nThe verb \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd has two senses. It signifies either (1) \u2018To fill\u2019, e.g.\nActs ii. 2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd; or (2) \u2018To fulfil, complete,\nperfect, accomplish\u2019, e.g. Matt. xxvi. 56 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03af, Rom.\nxiii. 8 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, Acts xii. 25 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd. The\nlatter sense indeed is derived from the former, but practically it has\nbecome separate from it. The word occurs altogether about a hundred\ntimes in the New Testament, and for every one instance of the former\nsense there are at least four of the latter.\n\n[Sidenote: False issue raised respecting \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1]\n\n[Sidenote: resulting in theological confusion]\n\nIn the investigations which have hitherto been made into the\nsignification of the derived substantive \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, as it occurs in the\nNew Testament, an almost exclusive prominence has been given to the\nformer meaning of the verb; and much confusion has arisen in\nconsequence. The question has been discussed whether \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 has an\nactive or a passive sense, whether it describes the filling substance or\nthe filled receptacle: and not unfrequently critics have arrived at the\nresult that different grammatical senses must be attached to it in\ndifferent passages, even within the limits of the same epistle. Thus it\nhas been maintained that the word has a passive sense \u2018id quod impletur\u2019\nin Ephes. i. 23 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f25\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, and an active sense \u2018id quod implet\u2019 in\nEphes. iii. 19 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. Indeed so long\nas we see in \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd only the sense \u2018to fill\u2019, and refuse to contemplate\nthe sense \u2018to complete\u2019, it seems impossible to escape from the\ndifficulties which meet us at every turn, otherwise than by assigning to\nits derivative \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 both an active and a passive sense; but the\ngreatest violence is thus done to the connexion of theological ideas.\n\n[Sidenote: and disregard of grammar.]\n\nMoreover the disregard of lexical rules is not less violent[540].\nSubstantives in -\u03bc\u03b1, formed from the perfect passive, appear always to\nhave a passive sense. They may denote an abstract notion or a concrete\nthing; they may signify the action itself regarded as complete, or the\nproduct of[Sidenote: Meaning of substantives in -\u03bc\u03b1.] the action; but in\nany case they give the _result_ of the agency involved in the\ncorresponding verb. Such for example are \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1 \u2018a message\u2019, \u1f05\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1 \u2018a\nknot\u2019, \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u2018a silver-made vessel\u2019, \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 \u2018a plan\u2019, \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u2018a\nrighteous deed\u2019 or \u2018an ordinance\u2019, \u03b6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u2018an investigation\u2019, \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u2018a\nproclamation\u2019, \u03ba\u03ce\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 \u2018a hindrance\u2019, \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u2018a likeness\u2019, \u1f45\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1 \u2018a\nvision\u2019, \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u2018a carpet\u2019, \u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u2018a round thing\u2019, etc. In many cases\nthe same word will have two meanings, both however passive; it will\ndenote both the completed action and the result or object of the action:\ne.g. \u1f05\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 the \u2018robbery\u2019 or the \u2018booty\u2019, \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 the \u2018exchange\u2019 or\nthe \u2018thing given or taken in exchange\u2019, \u03b8\u03ae\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 the \u2018hunt\u2019 or the\n\u2018prey\u2019, \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 the \u2018tread\u2019 or the \u2018carpet\u2019, and the like. But in all\ncases the word is strictly passive; it describes that which might have\nstood after the active verb, either as the direct object or as the\ncognate notion. [Sidenote: Apparent exceptions.]The apparent exceptions\nare only apparent. Sometimes this deceptive appearance is in the word\nitself. Thus \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1 \u2018a veil\u2019 seems to denote \u2018that which _covers_\u2019, but\nit is really derived from another sense and construction of \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\nnot \u2018to hide\u2019, but \u2018to wrap round\u2019 (e.g. Hom. _Il._ v. 315 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ad \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u03c6\u03b1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03b3\u03bc\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd, xxi. 321 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f04\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03cd\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c8\u03c9), and therefore is strictly passive. Sometimes again we may be\nled astray by the apparent connexion with the following genitive. Thus\nin Plut. _Mor._ 78 E \u03b4\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd the word does not mean, as\nmight appear at first sight, \u2018a thing showing\u2019, but \u2018a thing shown\u2019, \u2018a\ndemonstration given\u2019; nor in 2 Thess. i. 5 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\nmust we explain \u1f15\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u2018a thing proving\u2019, but \u2018a thing proved\u2019, \u2018a\nproof\u2019. And the same is probably the case also with such expressions as\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03ad\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 (Critias in Athen. xiii. p. 600 D), \u03c4\u03cc\u03be\u03bf\u03c5 \u1fe5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 (\u00c6sch.\n_Pers._ 147), and the like; where the substantives in -\u03bc\u03b1 are no more\ndeprived of their passive sense by the connexion, than they are in\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd or \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2; though in such instances the license of\npoetical construction may often lead to a false inference. Analogous to\nthis last class of cases is Eur. _Troad._ 824 \u0396\u03b7\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, not \u2018the filling\u2019, but \u2018the fulness of the\ncups, the brimming cups, of Zeus.\u2019\n\nFootnote 540:\n\n  The meaning of this word \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 is the subject of a paper _De vocis\n  \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 vario sensu in N. T._ in Storr\u2019s _Opusc. Acad._ I. p. 144 sq.,\n  and of an elaborate note in Fritzsche\u2019s _Rom._ II. p. 469 sq. Storr\n  attempts to show that it always has an active sense \u2018id quod implet\u2019\n  in the New Testament. Fritzsche rightly objects to assigning a\n  persistently active sense to a word which has a directly passive\n  termination: and he himself attributes to it two main senses, \u2018id quod\n  impletur\u2019 and \u2018id quo res impletur\u2019, the latter being the more common.\n  He apparently considers that he has surmounted the difficulties\n  involved in Storr\u2019s view, for he speaks of this last as a passive\n  sense, though in fact it is nothing more than \u2018id quod implet\u2019\n  expressed in other words. In Rom. xiii. 10 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 he concedes\n  an active sense \u2018legis completio\u2019, h. e. \u2018observatio\u2019.\n\n[Sidenote: \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 connected with the second sense of \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd.]]\n\nNow if we confine ourselves to the second of the two senses above\nascribed to \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, it seems possible to explain \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 in the same\nway, at all events in all the theological passages of St Paul and St\nJohn, without doing any violence to the grammatical form. As \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd is\n\u2018to complete\u2019, so \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 is \u2018that which is completed\u2019, i.e. the\ncomplement[541], the full tale, the entire number or quantity, the\nplenitude, the perfection.\n\nFootnote 541:\n\n  The English word complement has two distinct senses. It is either (i)\n  the complete set, the entire quantity or number, which satisfies a\n  given standard or cadre, as e.g. the complement of a regiment; or (ii)\n  the number or quantity which, when added to a preexisting number or\n  quantity, produces completeness; as e.g. the complement of an angle,\n  i.e. the angle by which it falls short of being a complete right\n  angle. In other words, it is either the whole or the part. As a\n  theological term, \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 corresponds to the first of these two\n  senses; and with this meaning alone the word \u2018complement\u2019 will be used\n  in the following dissertation.\n\n[Sidenote: Its uses in Classical writers.]\n\nThis indeed is the primary sense to which its commonest usages in\nclassical Greek can be most conveniently referred. Thus it signifies (1)\n[Sidenote: (1) \u2018A ship\u2019s crew.\u2019] \u2018A ship\u2019s crew\u2019: e.g. Xen. _Hell._ i.\n6. 16 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 (\u03bd\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c2) \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2. In this sense, which is very frequent, it is generally\nexplained as having an active force, \u2018that which fills the ships\u2019; and\nthis very obvious explanation is recommended by the fact that \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\n\u03bd\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bd is a recognized expression for \u2018manning a ship\u2019, e.g. Xen. _Hell._\ni. 6. 24. But \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 is used not only of the crew which mans a ship,\nbut also of the ship which is manned with a crew; e.g. Polyb. i. 49. 4,\n5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd ... \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1,\nLucian _Ver. Hist._ ii. 37, 38, \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf ... \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\n\u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1; and it is difficult to see how the word could be\ntransferred from the crew to the ship as a whole, if the common\nexplanation were correct. Fritzsche (_Rom._ II. p. 469 sq.), to whom I\nam chiefly indebted for the passages quoted in this paragraph, has\nboldly given the word two directly opposite senses in the two cases,\nexplaining it in the one \u2018ea quibus naves complentur, _h. e._ vel socii\nnavales vel milites classiarii vel utrique\u2019, and in the other \u2018id quod\ncompletur, _v. c._ navigium\u2019; but this severance of meaning can hardly\nbe maintained. On the other hand, if we suppose that the crew is so\ncalled as \u2018the complement,\u2019 (i.e. \u2018not that which fills the ship,\u2019 but\n\u2018that which is itself full or complete in respect of the ship\u2019), we\npreserve the passive sense of the word, while at the same time the\ntransference to the fully equipped and manned vessel itself becomes\nnatural. In this sense \u2018a complement\u2019 we have the word used again of an\narmy, [Sidenote: (2) \u2018Population.\u2019]Aristid. _Or._ I. p. 381 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c3\u1f14\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f11\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03ad\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. (2) It\nsometimes signifies \u2018the population of a city\u2019, Arist. _Pol._ iii. 13\n(p. 1284) \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 (comp. iv. 4, p.\n1291). Clearly the same idea of completeness underlies this meaning of\nthe word, so that here again it signifies \u2018the complement\u2019: comp. Dion.\nHal. _A. R._ vi. 51 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03cc\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., Eur. _Ion_ 663 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u2019 \u1f00\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u2018the\nwhole body of his friends\u2019. [Sidenote: (3) \u2018Total amount.\u2019](3) \u2018The\nentire sum\u2019, Arist. _Vesp._ 660 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\n\u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, \u2018From these sources a total of nearly two thousand\ntalents accrues to us\u2019. [Sidenote: (4) \u2018Entire term.\u2019](4) \u2018The full\nterm\u2019, Herod. iii. 22 \u1f40\u03b3\u03b4\u03ce\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03b1 \u03b6\u03cc\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03ad\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. [Sidenote: (5) \u2018Fulfilment.\u2019](5) \u2018The perfect attainment\u2019,\n\u2018the full accomplishment\u2019, e.g. Philo _de Abr._ 46 (II. p. 39) \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd. In short the fundamental meaning of the word generally,\nthough perhaps not universally, is neither \u2018the filling material\u2019, nor\n\u2018the vessel filled\u2019; but \u2018that which is complete in itself\u2019, or in other\nwords \u2018plenitude, fulness, totality, abundance\u2019.\n\n[Sidenote: Use of \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 in the Gospels.\n           Matt. ix. 16.]\n\nIn the Gospels the uses of the word present some difficulty. (1) In\nMatt. ix. 16 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c3\u03c7\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, it refers to the \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u1fe5\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5 which has gone\nbefore; but \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 need not therefore be equivalent to \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 so as\nto mean the patch itself, as is often assumed. The following pronoun\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 is most naturally referred to \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1; and if so \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\ndescribes \u2018the completeness\u2019, which results from the patch. The\nstatement is thus thrown into the form of a direct paradox, the very\ncompleteness making the garment more imperfect than before. [Sidenote:\nMark ii. 21.]In the parallel passage Mark ii. 21 the variations are\nnumerous, but the right reading seems certainly to be \u03b1\u1f34\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\n\u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The received text omits the\npreposition before \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, but a glance at the authorities is convincing\nin favour of its insertion. In this case the construction will be \u03b1\u1f34\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 (nom.) \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (i.e. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, which has been mentioned\nimmediately before), \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd (\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u1f00 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6 (\u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u1f50; \u2018The\ncompleteness takes away from the garment, the new _completeness_ of the\nold _garment_\u2019, where the paradox is put still more emphatically.\n[Sidenote: Mark vi. 43.] (2) In Mark vi. 43 the right reading is \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f26\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, i.e. \u2018full\u2019 or \u2018complete\nmeasures\u2019, where the apposition to \u03ba\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 obviates the temptation to\nexplain \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 as \u2018ea qu\u00e6 implent\u2019. [Sidenote: Mark viii. 20.]On the\nother hand in Mark viii. 20 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f24\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5;\nthis would be the _prima facie_ explanation; comp. Eccles. iv. 6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03cc\u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5. But it\nis objectionable to give an active sense to \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 under any\ncircumstances; and if in such passages the patch itself is meant, it\nmust still be so called, not because it fills the hole, but because it\nis itself fulness or full measure as regards the defect which needs\nsupplying.\n\n[Sidenote: Usage in St. Paul\u2019s Epistles.]\n\nFrom the Gospels we pass to the Epistles of St Paul, whose usage bears\nmore directly on our subject. And here the evidence seems all to tend in\nthe same direction. [Sidenote: 1 Cor. x. 26.](1) In 1 Cor. x. 26 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f21 \u03b3\u1fc6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 it occurs in a quotation from Ps.\nxxiv (xxiii). 1. The expressions \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, occur several times in the LXX (e.g. Ps. xcvi (xcv). 11, Jer.\nviii. 16), where \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 is a translation of \u05de\u05dc\u05d0, a word denoting\nprimarily \u2018fulness\u2019, but having in its secondary uses a considerable\nlatitude of meaning ranging between \u2018contents\u2019 and \u2018abundance\u2019. This\nlast sense seems to predominate in its Greek rendering \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, and\nindeed the other is excluded altogether in some passages, e.g. Cant. v.\n13 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f51\u03b4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. [Sidenote: Rom. xiii. 10.](2) In Rom. xiii. 10\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f21 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7, the best comment on the meaning of the word is\nthe context, ver. 8 \u1f41 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, so that\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 here means the \u2018completeness\u2019 and so \u2018fulfilment,\naccomplishment\u2019: see the note on Gal. v. 14. [Sidenote: Rom. xv. 29.](3)\nIn Rom. xv. 29 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, it plainly has\nthe sense of \u2018fulness, abundance\u2019. [Sidenote: Gal. iv. 4.](4) In Gal.\niv. 4 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 and [Sidenote: Eph. i.\n10.]Ephes. i. 10 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, its force is\nillustrated by such passages as Mark i. 15 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f24\u03b3\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., Luke xxi. 24 \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f57 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b8\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\n(comp. Acts ii. 1, vii. 23, 30, ix. 23, xxiv. 27), so that the\nexpressions will mean \u2018the full measure of the time, the full tale of\nthe seasons\u2019. [Sidenote: Rom. xi. 25.](5) In Rom. xi. 25 \u03c0\u03ce\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u1f74\u03bb \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f41\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03b8\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b8\u1fc3, it seems\nto mean \u2018the full number\u2019, \u2018the whole body\u2019, (whether the whole\nabsolutely, or the whole relatively to God\u2019s purpose), of whom only a\npart had hitherto been gathered into the Church. [Sidenote: Rom. xi.\n12.](6) In an earlier passage in this chapter the same expression occurs\nof the Jews, xi. 12 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u1f25\u03c4\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b8\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. Here the\nantithesis between \u1f25\u03c4\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 and \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, \u2018failure\u2019 and \u2018fulness\u2019, is not\nsufficiently direct to fix the sense of \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1; and (in the absence of\nanything to guide us in the context) we may fairly assume that it is\nused in the same sense of the Jews here, as of the Gentiles in ver. 25.\n\n[Sidenote: General result.]\n\nThus, whatever hesitation may be felt about the exact force of the word\nas it occurs in the Gospels, yet substantially one meaning runs through\nall the passages hitherto quoted from St Paul. In these \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 has its\nproper passive force, as a derivative from \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u2018to make complete\u2019.\nIt is \u2018the full complement, the entire measure, the plenitude, the\nfulness\u2019. There is therefore a presumption in favour of this meaning in\nother passages where it occurs in this Apostle\u2019s writings.\n\n[Sidenote: Theological passages in]\n\nWe now come to those theological passages in the Epistles to the\nColossians and Ephesians and in the Gospel of St John, for the sake of\nwhich this investigation has been undertaken. They are as follows;\n\n[Sidenote: Colossians and Ephesians.]\n\nCol. i. 19 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nCol. ii. 9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nEphes. i. 23 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3, \u1f25\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5.\n\nEphes. iii. 19 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\nEphes. iv. 13 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n[Sidenote: St. John.]\n\nJohn i. 14, 16 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u1f70\u03c1\u03be \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c3\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2) \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 ... \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[Sidenote: Ignatius.]]\n\nTo these should be added two passages from the Ignatian Epistles[542],\nwhich as belonging to the confines of the Apostolic age afford valuable\nillustration of the Apostolic language.\n\n_Ephes._ inscr. \u1f38\u03b3\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9[543] ... \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u1fc3 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3\n\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n_Trall._ inscr. \u1f38\u03b3\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u1fc3 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03a4\u03c1\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd ... \u1f23\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 )\u03b1\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff7\n\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 542:\n\n  The first of the two passages is contained in the short Syriac\n  recension of the Ignatian Epistles, though loosely translated; the\n  other is wanting there. I need not stop to enquire whether the second\n  was written by St Ignatius himself or by an interpolator. The\n  interpolated epistles, if they be interpolated, can hardly be later\n  than the middle of the second century and are therefore early enough\n  to afford valuable illustrations of the Apostles\u2019 language.\n\nFootnote 543:\n\n  The common texts read \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, but there can be little doubt\n  (from a comparison of the authorities) that \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 should be struck out.\n  The present Syriac text has _et perfect\u00e6_ for \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9; but there is\n  no reason for supposing that the Syriac translator had another reading\n  before him. A slight change in the Syriac, \u0712\u072b\u0718\u0721\u0720\u071d\u0710 for \u0718\u0721\u072b\u0721\u0720\u071d\u0710, would\n  bring this Version into entire accordance with the Greek; and the\n  confusion was the more easy, because the latter word occurs in the\n  immediate context. Or the translator may have indulged in a paraphrase\n  according to his wont; just as in the longer Latin Version \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\n  here is translated _replet\u00e6_.\n\n[Sidenote: The term has a recognised value]\n\nIt will be evident, I think, from the passages in St Paul, that the word\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u2018fulness, plenitude\u2019, must have had a more or less definite\ntheological value when he wrote. This inference, which is suggested by\nthe frequency of the word, seems almost inevitable when we consider the\nform of the expression in the first passage quoted, Col. i. 19. The\nabsolute use of the word, \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u2018all _the_ fulness\u2019, would\notherwise be unintelligible, for it does not explain itself. In my notes\nI have taken \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 to be the nominative to \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, but if the\nsubject of the verb were \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, as some suppose, the inference\nwould be still more necessary. The word however, regarded as a\ntheological term, does not appear to have been adopted, like so many\nother expressions in the Apostolic writers[544], from the nomenclature\nof Alexandrian Judaism. [Sidenote: derived from Palestine and not\nAlexandria.]At least no instance of its occurrence in this sense is\nproduced from Philo. We may therefore conjecture that it had a\nPalestinian origin, and that the Essene Judaizers of Coloss\u00e6, whom St\nPaul is confronting, derived it from this source. In this case it would\nrepresent the Hebrew \u05de\u05dc\u05d0, of which it is a translation in the LXX, and\nthe Aramaic \u0721\u0718\u0720\u0719\u0710 or some other derivative of the same root, such being\nits common rendering in the Peshito.\n\nFootnote 544:\n\n  See the notes on Col. i. 15 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: It denotes the totality of the Divine powers, etc. in the\n           Colossian letter.]\n\nThe sense in which St Paul employs this term was doubtless the sense\nwhich he found already attached to it. He means, as he explicitly states\nin the second Christological passage of the Colossian Epistle (ii. 9),\nthe pleroma, the plenitude of \u2018the Godhead\u2019 or \u2018of Deity\u2019. In the first\npassage (i. 19), though the word stands without the addition \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, the signification required by the context is the same. The\ntrue doctrine of the one Christ, who is the absolute mediator in the\ncreation and government of the world, is opposed to the false doctrine\nof a plurality of mediators, \u2018thrones, dominions, principalities,\npowers\u2019. An absolute and unique position is claimed for Him, because in\nHim resides \u2018all the pleroma\u2019, i.e. the full complement, the aggregate\nof the Divine attributes, virtues, energies. This is another way of\nexpressing the fact that He is the Logos, for the Logos is the synthesis\nof all the various \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, in and by which God manifests Himself\nwhether in the kingdom of nature or in the kingdom of grace.\n\n[Sidenote: Analogy to its usage elsewhere: e.g.]\n\nThis application is in entire harmony with the fundamental meaning of\nthe word. The term has been transferred to the region of theology, but\nin itself it conveys exactly the same idea as before. It implies that\nall the several elements which are required to realise the conception\nspecified are present, and that each appears in its full proportions.\n[Sidenote: in Philo of the family]Thus Philo, describing the ideal state\nof prosperity which will result from absolute obedience to God\u2019s law,\nmentions among other blessings the perfect development of the family:\n\u2018Men shall be fathers and fathers too of goodly sons, and women shall be\nmothers of goodly children, so that each household shall be the\n_pleroma_ of a numerous kindred, where no part or name is wanting of all\nthose which are used to designate relations, whether in the ascending\nline, as parents, uncles, grandfathers, or again in the descending line\nin like manner, as brothers, nephews, sons\u2019 sons, daughters\u2019 sons,\ncousins, cousins\u2019 sons, kinsmen of all degrees[545].\u2019 [Sidenote: and in\nAristotle, of the state.]So again Aristotle, criticizing the _Republic_\nof Plato, writes; \u2018Socrates says that a city (or state) is composed of\nfour classes, as its indispensable elements (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd): by\nthese he means the weaver, the husbandman, the shoemaker, and the\nbuilder; and again, because these are not sufficient by themselves, he\nadds the smith and persons to look after the necessary cattle, and\nbesides them the merchant and the retail dealer: these together make up\nthe _pleroma_ of a city in its simplest form (\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2); thus he assumes that a city is formed to\nsupply the bare necessities of life (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd) etc.\u2019[546]. From\nthese passages it will be seen that the adequacy implied by the word, as\nso used, consists not less in the variety of the elements than in the\nfulness of the entire quantity or number.\n\nFootnote 545:\n\n  _de Pr\u00e6m. et P\u00e6n._ 18 (II. p. 425). The important words are \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n  \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f22\n  \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f22 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The construction of the\n  subsequent part of the sentence is obscure; and for \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 we should\n  probably read \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 546:\n\n  Arist. _Pol._ iv. 4 (p. 1291).\n\n[Sidenote: Transition from Colossians to Ephesians.]\n\nSo far the explanation seems clear. But when we turn from the Colossian\nletter to the Ephesian, it is necessary to bear in mind the different\naims of the two epistles. While in the former the Apostle\u2019s main object\nis to assert the supremacy of the Person of Christ, in the latter his\nprincipal theme is the life and energy of the Church, as dependent on\nChrist[547]. So the pleroma residing in Christ is viewed from a\ndifferent aspect, no longer in relation to God, so much as in relation\nto the Church. [Sidenote: Corresponding application of \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 to the\nChurch.]It is that plenitude of Divine graces and virtues which is\ncommunicated through Christ to the Church as His body. The Church, as\n_ideally_ regarded, the bride \u2018without spot or wrinkle or any such\nthing\u2019, becomes in a manner identified with Him[548]. All the Divine\ngraces which reside in Him are imparted to her; His \u2018fulness\u2019 is\ncommunicated to her: and thus she may be said to be His pleroma (i. 23).\nThis is the ideal Church. The actual militant Church must be ever\nadvancing, ever struggling towards the attainment of this ideal. Hence\nthe Apostle describes the end of all offices and administrations in the\nChurch to be that the collective body may attain its full and mature\ngrowth, or (in other words) may grow up to the complete stature of\nChrist\u2019s fulness[549]. But Christ\u2019s fulness is God\u2019s fulness. Hence in\nanother passage he prays that the brethren may by the indwelling of\nChrist be fulfilled till they attain to the _pleroma_ of God (iii. 19).\nIt is another way of expressing the continuous aspiration and effort\nafter holiness which is enjoined in our Lord\u2019s precept, \u2018Ye shall be\nperfect as your heavenly Father is perfect\u2019[550].\n\nFootnote 547:\n\n  See the notes on Col. ii. 19 (p. 266).\n\nFootnote 548:\n\n  Ephes. v. 27 sq.\n\nFootnote 549:\n\n  The Apostle in this passage (Ephes. iv. 13) is evidently contemplating\n  the collective body, and not the individual believers. He writes \u03bf\u1f31\n  \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, not \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, and \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, not \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. As he has\n  said before _\u1f11\u03bd\u1f76 \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3_ \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03b4\u03cc\u03b8\u03b7 [\u1f21] \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 _\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\n  \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd_ \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, so now he describes the result of\n  these various partial graces bestowed on _individuals_ to be the unity\n  and mature growth of the _whole_, \u2018the building up of the _body_\u2019,\n  \u03bc\u03b5\u03c7\u03c1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd _\u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2_ \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd _\u1f11\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1_ ... \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n  _\u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1_ \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n  This corporate being must grow up into the one colossal Man, the\n  standard of whose spiritual and moral stature is nothing less than the\n  pleroma of Christ Himself.\n\nFootnote 550:\n\n  Matt. v. 48.\n\n[Sidenote: Gospel of St. John.]\n\nThe Gospel of St John, written in the first instance for the same\nChurches to which the Epistle to the Ephesians was sent, has numerous\nand striking points of resemblance with St Paul\u2019s letter. This is the\ncase here. As St Paul tells the Ephesians that the ideal Church is the\npleroma of Christ and that the militant Church must strive to become the\npleroma of Christ, so St John (i. 14 sq.) after describing our Lord as\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2, i.e. the unique and absolute representative of the Father,\nand as such \u2018full (\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2) of grace and of truth\u2019, says that they, the\ndisciples, had \u2018received out of His pleroma\u2019 ever fresh accessions of\ngrace. Each individual believer in his degree receives a fraction of\nthat pleroma which is communicated whole to the ideal Church.\n\n[Sidenote: Ignatian letters.]\n\nThe use of the word is not very different in the Ignatian letters. St\nIgnatius greets this same Ephesian Church, to which St Paul and St John\nsuccessively here addressed the language already quoted, as \u2018blessed in\ngreatness by the pleroma of God the Father,\u2019 i.e. by graces imparted\nfrom the pleroma. To the Trallians again he sends a greeting \u2018in the\npleroma\u2019, where the word denotes the sphere of Divine gifts and\noperations, so that \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 is almost equivalent to \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3\nor \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9.\n\n[Sidenote: Gnostic sects.]\n\nWhen we turn from Catholic Christianity to the Gnostic sects we find\nthis term used, though (with one important exception) not in great\nfrequency. Probably however, if the writings of the earlier Gnostics had\nbeen preserved, we should have found that it occupied a more important\nplace than at present appears. One class of early Gnostics separated the\nspiritual being Christ from the man Jesus; they supposed that the Christ\nentered Jesus at the time of His baptism and left him at the moment of\nHis crucifixion. Thus the Christ was neither born as a man nor suffered\nas a man. In this way they obviated the difficulty, insuperable to the\nGnostic mind, of conceiving the connexion between the highest spiritual\nagency and gross corporeal matter which was involved in the Catholic\ndoctrine of the Incarnation and Passion, and which Gnostics of another\ntype more effectually set aside by the theory of docetism, i.e. by\nassuming that the human body of our Lord was only a phantom body and not\nreal flesh and blood. Iren\u00e6us represents the former class as teaching\nthat \u2018Jesus was the receptacle of the Christ\u2019, and that the Christ\n\u2018descended upon him from heaven in the form of a dove and after He had\ndeclared (to mankind) the nameless Father, entered (again) into the\npleroma imperceptibly and invisibly\u2019[551]. [Sidenote: The\nCerinthians.]Here no names are given. But in another passage he ascribes\nprecisely the same doctrine, without however naming the pleroma, to\nCerinthus[552]. And in a third passage, which links together the other\ntwo, this same father, after mentioning this heresiarch, again alludes\nto the doctrine which maintained that the Christ, having descended on\nJesus at his baptism, \u2018flew back again into His own pleroma\u2019[553]. In\nthis last passage indeed the opinions of Cerinthus are mentioned in\nconnexion with those of other Gnostics, more especially the\nValentinians, so that we cannot with any certainty attribute this\nexpression to Cerinthus himself. But in the first passage the unnamed\nheretics who maintained this return of the Christ \u2018into the pleroma\u2019 are\nexpressly distinguished from the Valentinians; and presumably therefore\nthe allusion is to the Cerinthians, to whom the doctrine, though not the\nexpression, is ascribed in the second passage. [Sidenote: Connexion of\nthis use with St Paul and with the Colossian heretics.]Thus there seems\nto be sufficient reason for attributing the use of the term to\nCerinthus[554]. This indeed is probable on other grounds. The term\n_pleroma_, we may presume, was common to St Paul and the Colossian\nheretics whom he controverts. To both alike it conveyed the same idea,\nthe totality of the divine powers or attributes or agencies or\nmanifestations. But after this the divergence begins. They maintained\nthat a single divine power, a fraction of the pleroma, resided in our\nLord: the Apostle urges on the contrary, that the whole pleroma has its\nabode in Him[555]. The doctrine of Cerinthus was a development of the\nColossian heresy, as I have endeavoured to show above[556]. He would\ntherefore inherit the term _pleroma_ from it. [Sidenote: The _pleroma_\nlocalized.]At the same time he seems to have given a poetical colouring\nto his doctrine, and so doing to have treated the pleroma as a\n_locality_, a higher spiritual region, from which this divine power,\ntypified by the dove-like form, issued forth as on wings, and to which,\ntaking flight again, it reascended before the Passion. If so, his\nlanguage would prepare the way for the still more elaborate poetic\nimagery of the Valentinians, in which the pleroma, conceived as a\nlocality, a region, an _abode_ of the divine powers, is conspicuous.\n\nFootnote 551:\n\n  iii. 16. 1 \u2018Quoniam autem sunt qui dicunt Iesum quidem receptaculum\n  Christi fuisse, in quem desuper quasi columbam descendisse, et quum\n  indicasset innominabilem Patrem, incomprehensibiliter et invisibiliter\n  _intrasse in pleroma_\u2019.\n\nFootnote 552:\n\n  i. 26. 1 \u2018post baptismum descendisse in eum ab ea principalitate, qu\u00e6\n  est super omnia, Christum figura columb\u00e6; et tunc annuntiasse\n  incognitum Patrem et virtutes perfecisse: in fine autem _revolasse\n  iterum_ Christum de Iesu et Iesum passum esse et resurrexisse, etc.\u2019\n\nFootnote 553:\n\n  iii. 11. 1 \u2018iterum revolasse in suum pleroma\u2019. This expression is the\n  connecting link between the other two passages. This third passage is\n  quoted more at length, above, p. 112: but I ought to have stated there\n  that _illi_ is referred by several critics to the Valentinians, and\n  that certainly some characteristic errors of the Valentinian teaching\n  are specified immediately after. The probable explanation seems to be\n  that _illi_ is intended to include the Gnostics generally, and that\n  Iren\u00e6us mentions in illustration the principal errors of Gnostic\n  teaching, irrespective of the schools to which they belong. He goes on\n  to say that St John in his Gospel desired to exclude \u2018omnia talia\u2019.\n\nFootnote 554:\n\n  I have not been able however to verify the statement in Harvey\u2019s\n  _Iren\u00e6us_ I. p. lxxiii that \u2018The Valentinian notion of a spiritual\n  marriage between the souls of the elect and the angels of the Pleroma\n  originated with Cerinthus\u2019.\n\nFootnote 555:\n\n  See p. 101 sq., and the notes on i. 19.\n\nFootnote 556:\n\n  p. 107 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: The term avoided by Basilides,]\n\nThe attitude of later Gnostics towards this term is widely divergent.\nThe word is not, so far as I am aware, once mentioned in connexion with\nthe system of Basilides. Indeed the nomenclature of this heresiarch\nbelongs to a wholly different type; and, as he altogether repudiated the\ndoctrine of emanations[557], it is not probable that he would have any\nfondness for a term which was almost inextricably entangled with this\ndoctrine.\n\nFootnote 557:\n\n  Hippol. _R. H._ vii. 22 \u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd\n  \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f41 \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2. Basilides asked why the absolute\n  First Cause should be likened to a spider spinning threads from\n  itself, or a smith or carpenter working up his materials. The later\n  Basilideans, apparently influenced by Valentinianism, superadded to\n  the teaching of their founder in this respect; but the strong language\n  quoted by Hippolytus leaves no doubt about the mind of Basilides\n  himself.\n\n[Sidenote: but prominent in Valentinianism.]\n\nOn the other hand with Valentinus and the Valentinians the doctrine of\nthe _pleroma_ was the very key-stone of their system; and, since at\nfirst sight it is somewhat difficult to connect their use of the term\nwith St Paul\u2019s, a few words on this subject may not be out of place.\n\n[Sidenote: Poetic teaching of Valentinus.]\n\nValentinus then dressed his system in a poetic imagery not unlike the\nmyths of his master Plato. But a myth or story involves action, and\naction requires a scene of action. Hence the mysteries of theology and\ncosmogony and redemption call for a _topographical_ representation, and\nthe pleroma appears not as an abstract idea, but as a locality.\n\n[Sidenote: _Topographical_ conception of the pleroma.]\n\nThe Valentinian system accordingly maps out the universe of things into\ntwo great regions, called respectively the _pleroma_ and the _kenoma_,\nthe \u2018fulness\u2019 and the \u2018void\u2019. From a Christian point of view these may\nbe described as the kingdoms of light and of darkness respectively.\n[Sidenote: Antithesis of _pleroma_ and _kenoma_.]From the side of\nPlatonism, they are the regions of real and of phenomenal existences\u2014the\nworld of eternal archetypes or ideas, and the world of material and\nsensible things. The identification of these two antitheses was rendered\neasy for the Gnostic; because with him knowledge was one with morality\nand with salvation, and because also matter was absolutely bound up with\nevil. It is difficult to say whether the Platonism or the Christianity\npredominates in the Valentinian theology; but the former at all events\nis especially prominent in their conception of the relations between the\npleroma and the kenoma.\n\n[Sidenote: _Pleroma_ the abode of the \u00c6ons.]\n\nThe pleroma is the abode of the \u00c6ons, who are thirty in number. These\n\u00c6ons are successive emanations, of which the first pair sprang\nimmediately from the preexistent Bythus or Depth. This Bythus is deity\nin itself, the absolute first principle, as the name suggests; the\nprofound, unfathomable, limitless, of whom or of which nothing can be\npredicated and nothing known. Here again we have something like a\n_local_ representation. The \u00c6ons or emanations are plainly the\nattributes and energies of deity; they are, or they comprise, the\neternal ideas or archetypes of the Platonic philosophy. In short they\nare deity relative, deity under self-imposed limitations, deity derived\nand divided up, as it were, so as at length to be conceivable.\n\n[Sidenote: Different forms of Valentinianism.]\n\nThe topographical relation of Bythus to the derived \u00c6ons was differently\ngiven in different developments of the Valentinian teaching. According\nto one representation he was outside the pleroma; others placed his\nabode within it, but even in this case he was separated from the rest by\nHorus (\u1f4d\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2), a personified Boundary or Fence, whom none, not even the\n\u00c6ons themselves, could pass[558]. The former mode of representation\nmight be thought to accord better with the imagery, at the same time\nthat it is more accurate if regarded as the embodiment of a\nphilosophical conception. Nevertheless the latter was the favourite mode\nof delineation; and it had at least this recommendation, that it\ncombined in one all that is real, as opposed to all that is phenomenal.\nIn this pleroma every existence which is suprasensual and therefore true\nhas its abode.\n\nFootnote 558:\n\n  For the various modes in which the relation of the absolute first\n  principle to the pleroma was represented in different Valentinian\n  schools, see Iren. i. 1. 1, i. 2. 4, i. 11. 1, 3, 5, i. 12. 1, etc.\n  The main distinction is that stated in the text: the first principle\n  was represented in two ways; either (i) as a monad, outside the\n  pleroma; or (ii) as a dyad, a syzygy, most commonly under the\n  designation of \u0392\u03c5\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2 and \u03a3\u03b9\u03b3\u03ae, included within the pleroma but fenced\n  off from the other \u00e6ons. The Valentinian doctrine as given by\n  Hippolytus (vi. 29 sq.) represents the former type. There are good,\n  though perhaps not absolutely decisive, reasons for supposing that\n  this father gives the original teaching of Valentinus himself. For (1)\n  this very doctrine of the monad seems to point to an earlier date. It\n  is the link which connects the system of Valentinus not only with\n  Pythagoreanism to which (as Hippolytus points out) he was so largely\n  indebted, but also with the teaching of the earlier heresiarch\n  Basilides, whose first principle likewise was a monad, the absolute\n  nothing, the non-existent God. The conception of the first principle\n  as a dyad seems to have been a later, and not very happy, modification\n  of the doctrine of the founder, being in fact an extension of the\n  principle of syzygies which Valentinus with a truer philosophical\n  conception had restricted to the derived essences. (2) The exposition\n  of Hippolytus throughout exhibits a system at once more consistent and\n  more simple, than the luxuriant developments of the later\n  Valentinians, such as Ptolem\u00e6us and Marcus. (3) The sequence of his\n  statement points to the same conclusion. He gives a consecutive\n  account of some one system, turning aside from time to time to notice\n  the variations of different Valentinian schools from this standard and\n  again resuming the main thread of his exposition. It seems most\n  natural therefore that he should have taken the system of the founder\n  as his basis. On the other hand Iren\u00e6us (i. 11. 1) states that\n  Valentinus represented the first principle as a dyad (\u1f0c\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 or\n  \u0392\u03c5\u03b8\u1f41\u03c2, and \u03a3\u03b9\u03b3\u03ae): but there is no evidence that he had any direct or\n  indirect knowledge of the writings of Valentinus himself, and his\n  information was derived from the later disciples of the school, more\n  especially from the Ptolem\u00e6ans.\n\n[Sidenote: _Kenoma_, the region of phenomena.]\n\nSeparated from this celestial region by Horus, another Horus or\nBoundary, which, or who, like the former is impassable, lies the\n\u2018kenoma\u2019 or \u2018void\u2019\u2014the kingdom of this world, the region of matter and\nmaterial things, the land of shadow and darkness[559]. Here is the\nempire of the Demiurge or Creator, who is not a celestial \u00c6on at all,\nbut was born in this very void over which he reigns. Here reside all\nthose phenomenal, deceptive, transitory things, of which the eternal\ncounterparts are found only in the pleroma.\n\nFootnote 559:\n\n  Iren. i. 4. 1, 2, ii. 3. 1, ii. 4. 1, 3, ii. 5. 1, ii. 8. 1\u20133, ii. 14.\n  3, iii. 25. 6, 7, etc.\n\n[Sidenote: Platonism of this antithesis.]\n\nIt is in this antithesis that the Platonism of the Valentinian theory\nreaches its climax. All things are set off one against another in these\ntwo regions[560]: just as\n\n                    The swan on still St Mary\u2019s lake\n                    Floats double, swan and shadow.\n\nNot only have the thirty \u00c6ons their terrestrial counterparts; but their\nsubdivisions also are represented in this lower region. The kenoma too\nhas its ogdoad, its decad, its dodecad, like the pleroma[561]. There is\none Sophia in the supramundane region, and another in the mundane; there\nis one Christ who redeems the \u00c6ons in the spiritual world, and a second\nChrist who redeems mankind, or rather a portion of mankind, in the\nsensible world. There is an \u00c6on Man and another \u00c6on Ecclesia in the\ncelestial kingdom, the ideal counterparts to the Human Race and the\nChristian Church of the terrestrial. Even individual men and women, as\nwe shall see presently, have their archetypes in this higher sphere of\nintelligible being.\n\nFootnote 560:\n\n  Iren. i. 6. 3, i. 7. 1 sq., ii. 14. 3, ii. 15. 3 sq., ii. 20. 5, ii.\n  30. 3, etc.\n\nFootnote 561:\n\n  Iren. i. 5. 2, ii. 14. 3; comp. Hippol. vi. 34.\n\n[Sidenote: The localization of the _pleroma_ carried out in detail.]\n\nThe topographical conception of the pleroma moreover is carried out in\nthe details of the imagery. The second Sophia, called also Achamoth, is\nthe desire, the offspring, of her elder namesake, separated from her\nmother, cast out of the pleroma, and left \u2018stranded\u2019 in the void\nbeyond[562], being prevented from returning by the inexorable Horus who\nguards the frontier of the supramundane kingdom. The second Christ\u2014a\nbeing compounded of elements contributed by all the \u00c6ons[563]\u2014was sent\ndown from the pleroma, first of all at the eve of creation to infuse\nsomething like order and to provide for a spiritual element in this\nlower world; and secondly, when He united Himself with the man Jesus for\nthe sake of redeeming those who were capable of redemption[564]. At the\nend of all things Sophia Achamoth, and with her the spiritual portion of\nmankind, shall be redeemed and received up into the pleroma, while the\npsychical portion will be left outside to form another kingdom under the\ndominion of their father the Demiurge. This redemption and ascension of\nAchamoth (by a perversion of a scriptural image) was represented as her\nespousals with the Saviour, the second Christ; and the pleroma, the\nscene of this happy union, was called the bridal-chamber[565]. Indeed\nthe localization of the pleroma is as complete as language can make it.\nThe constant repetition of the words \u2018within\u2019 and \u2018without\u2019, \u2018above\u2019 and\n\u2018beneath\u2019, in the development of this philosophical and religious myth\nstill further impresses this local sense on the term[566].\n\nFootnote 562:\n\n  Iren. i. 4. 1 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 [\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2] \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n  _)\u03b5\u03ba\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9_ \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The Greek MS reads \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, but the\n  rendering of the early Latin translation \u2018in umbr\u00e6 [et?] vacuitatis\n  locis\u2019 leaves no doubt about the word in the original text. Tertullian\n  says of this Achamoth (_adv. Valent._ 14) \u2018explosa est in loca luminis\n  aliena ... in vacuum atque inane illud Epicuri\u2019. See note 567.\n\nFootnote 563:\n\n  Iren. i. 2. 6, Hippol. vi. 32.\n\nFootnote 564:\n\n  They quoted, as referring to this descent of the second Christ into\n  the kenoma, the words of St Paul, Phil. ii. 7 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd; Clem.\n  Alex. _Exc. Theod._ 35 (p. 978).\n\nFootnote 565:\n\n  Iren. i. 7. 1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b7\u03bd, _\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1_ \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\n  \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1: comp. Hippol. vi. 34 \u1f41 \u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03af\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 566:\n\n  This language is so frequent that special references are needless. In\n  Iren. ii. 5. 3 we have a still stronger expression, \u2018in ventre\n  pleromatis\u2019.\n\n[Sidenote: The connexion with St. Paul\u2019s use of the term obscured,]\n\nIn this topographical representation the connexion of meaning in the\nword _pleroma_ as employed by St Paul and by Valentinus respectively\nseems at first sight to be entirely lost. When we read of the contrast\nbetween the pleroma and the kenoma, the fulness and the void, we are\nnaturally reminded of the _plenum_ and the _vacuum_ of physical\nspeculations. The sense of pleroma, as expressing completeness and so\ndenoting the aggregate or totality of the Divine powers, seems\naltogether to have disappeared. [Sidenote: owing partly to the false\nantithesis \u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1]But in fact this antithesis of \u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 was, so far as\nwe can make out, a mere after-thought, and appears to have been\nborrowed, as Iren\u00e6us states, from the physical theories of Democritus\nand Epicurus[567]. It would naturally suggest itself both because the\nopposition of \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 was obvious, and because the word \u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\nmaterially assisted the imagery as a description of the kingdom of waste\nand shadow. But in itself it is a false antithesis. [Sidenote: borrowed\nfrom physical philosophers;]The true antithesis appears in another, and\nprobably an earlier, term used to describe the mundane kingdom. In this\nearlier representation, which there is good reason for ascribing to\nValentinus himself, it is called not \u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u2018the void\u2019, but \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\n\u2018the deficiency, incompleteness\u2019[568]. [Sidenote: but reappears in their\ncommon phraseology.]Moreover the common phraseology of the Valentinian\nschools shows that the idea suggested by this opposition to \u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 was\nnot the original idea of the term. They speak of \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f34\u03c9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd,\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f34\u03c9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u2018the whole aggregate of the \u00c6ons\u2019[569]. And\nthis (making allowance for the personification of the \u00c6ons) corresponds\nexactly to its use in St Paul.\n\nFootnote 567:\n\n  Iren. ii. 14. 3 \u2018Umbram autem et vacuum ipsorum a Democrito et Epicuro\n  sumentes sibimetipsis _aptaverunt_, quum illi primum multum sermonem\n  fecerint de vacuo et de atomis\u2019.\n\nFootnote 568:\n\n  Hippol. vi. 31 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f45\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f41\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u00b7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c7\u1f72\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (i.e. as standing between the \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 and \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1)\u00b7\n  \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.\n  Iren\u00e6us represents the Marcosians as designating the Demiurge \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1f78\u03c2\n  \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 i. 17. 2, i. 19. 1, ii. pr\u00e6f. 1, ii. 1. 1 (comp. i. 14.\n  1). This was perhaps intended originally as an antithesis to the name\n  of the Christ, who was \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. The Marcosians however\n  apparently meant Sophia Achamoth by this \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1. This transference\n  from the whole to the part would be in strict accordance with their\n  terminology: for as they called the supramundane \u00e6ons \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 (Iren.\n  i. 14. 2, 5; quoted in Hippol. vi. 43, 46), so also by analogy they\n  might designate the mundane Powers \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 (comp. Iren. i. 16. 3).\n  The term, as it occurs in the document used by Hippolytus, plainly\n  denotes the _whole_ mundane region.\n\n  Hippolytus does not use the word \u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, though so common in Iren\u00e6us.\n  This fact seems to point to the earlier date of the Valentinian\n  document which he uses, and so to bear out the result arrived at in a\n  previous note (p. 332) that we have here a work of Valentinus himself.\n  The word \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 appears also in _Exc. Theod._ 22 (p. 974).\n\nFootnote 569:\n\n  e.g. Hippol. vi. 34, Iren. i. 2. 6. See especially Iren. ii. 7. 3\n  \u2018Quoniam enim pleroma ipsorum triginta Aeones sunt, ipsi testantur\u2019.\n\n[Sidenote: The original meaning shown by other uses.]\n\nAgain the teaching of the Valentinian schools supplies other uses which\nserve to illustrate its meaning. Not only does the supramundane kingdom\nas a whole bear this name, but each separate \u00c6on, of which that kingdom\nis the aggregation, is likewise called a pleroma[570]. This designation\nis given to an \u00c6on, because it is the fulness, the perfection, of which\nits mundane counterpart is only a shadowy and defective copy. Nor does\nthe narrowing of the term stop here. There likewise dwells in this\nhigher region a pleroma, or eternal archetype, not only of every\ncomprehensive mundane power, but of each individual man; and to wed\nhimself with this heavenly partner, this Divine ideal of himself, must\nbe the study of his life. [Sidenote: Interpretation of John iv. 17,\n18.]The profound moral significance, which underlies the exaggerated\nPlatonism and perverse exegesis of this conception, will be at once\napparent. But the manner in which the theory was carried out is\ncuriously illustrated by the commentary of the Valentinian Heracleon on\nour Lord\u2019s discourse with the Samaritan woman[571]. This woman, such is\nhis explanation, belongs to the spiritual portion of mankind. But she\nhad had six[572] husbands, or in other words she had entangled herself\nwith the material world, had defiled herself with sensuous things. The\nhusband however, whom she now has, is not her husband; herein she has\nspoken rightly: the Saviour in fact means \u2018her partner from the\npleroma\u2019. Hence she is bidden to go and call him; that is, she must find\n\u2018her pleroma, that coming to the Saviour with him (or it), she may be\nable to obtain from Him the power and the union and the combination with\nher pleroma\u2019 (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2). \u2018For\u2019, adds Heracleon, \u2018He did not speak of a mundane\n(\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6) husband when He told her to call him, since He was not\nignorant that she had no lawful husband\u2019.\n\nFootnote 570:\n\n  See the passages from Iren\u00e6us quoted above, note 568; comp. _Exc.\n  Theod._ 32, 33 (p. 977). Similarly \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 is a synonym for the \u00c6ons,\n  \u1f41\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3, _Exc. Theod._ 25 (p. 975).\n\nFootnote 571:\n\n  Heracleon in Orig. _in Ioann._ xiii, iv. p. 205 sq. The passages are\n  collected in Stieren\u2019s Iren\u00e6us p. 947 sq. See especially p. 950 \u1f44\u03b9\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n  [\u1f41 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd] \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\n  _\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2_, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\n  \u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 _\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2_ \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc7\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af,\n  \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd ... \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03a6\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n  \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u00b7 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 _\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03cd\u03b6\u03c5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd_.\n  Lower down Heracleon says \u1f26\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0391\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9. By this last\n  expression I suppose he means that the great \u00e6on Man of the Ogdoad,\n  the eternal archetype of mankind, comprises in itself archetypes\n  corresponding to each individual man and woman, not indeed of the\n  whole human race (for the Valentinian would exclude the psychical and\n  carnal portion from any participation in this higher region) but of\n  the spiritual portion thereof.\n\nFootnote 572:\n\n  Origen expressly states that Heracleon read \u1f15\u03be for \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5. The number\n  six was supposed to symbolize the material creature: see Heracleon on\n  \u2018the forty and _six_ years\u2019 of John ii. 20 (Stieren p. 947). There is\n  no reason to think that Heracleon falsified the text here; he appears\n  to have found this various reading already in his copy.\n\n[Sidenote: Valentinians accept St Paul and St John,]\n\nImpossible as it seems to us to reconcile the Valentinian system with\nthe teaching of the Apostles, the Valentinians themselves felt no such\ndifficulty. They intended their philosophy not to supersede or\ncontradict the Apostolic doctrine, but to supplement it and to explain\nit on philosophical principles. Hence the Canon of the Valentinians\ncomprehended the Canon of Catholic Christianity in all its essential\nparts, though some Valentinian schools at all events supplemented it\nwith Apocryphal writings. More particularly the Gospel of St John and\nthe Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians were regarded with especial\nfavour; and those passages which speak of the pleroma are quoted more\nthan once in their writings to illustrate their teaching. [Sidenote: and\nquote them in support of their views.]By isolating a few words from the\ncontext and interpreting them wholly without reference to their setting,\nthey had no difficulty in finding a confirmation of their views, where\nwe see only an incongruity or even a contradiction. For instance, their\nsecond Christ\u2014the redeemer of the spiritual element in the mundane\nworld\u2014was, as we saw, compacted of gifts contributed by all the \u00c6ons of\nthe pleroma. Hence he was called \u2018the common fruit of the pleroma\u2019, \u2018the\nfruit of all the pleroma\u2019[573], \u2018the most perfect beauty and\nconstellation of the pleroma\u2019[574]; hence also he was designated \u2018All\u2019\n(\u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd) and \u2018All things\u2019 (\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1)[575]. Accordingly, to this second Christ,\nnot to the first, they applied these texts; Col. iii. 11 \u2018And He is all\nthings\u2019, Rom. xi. 36 \u2018All things are unto Him and from Him are all\nthings\u2019, Col. ii. 9 \u2018In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead\u2019,\nEphes. i. 10 \u2018To gather together in one all things in Christ through\nGod\u2019[576]. So too they styled him )\u0395\u03c5\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, with a reference to Col.\ni. 19, because \u2018all the pleroma was pleased through Him to glorify the\nFather\u2019[577]. And inasmuch as this second Christ was according to the\nValentinian theory instrumental in the creation of the mundane powers,\nthey quoted, or rather misquoted, as referring to this participation in\nthe work of the Demiurge, the passage Col. i. 16 \u2018In Him were created\nall things, visible and invisible, thrones, deities, dominions\u2019[578].\nIndeed it seems clear that these adaptations were not always\nafterthoughts, but that in several instances at least their nomenclature\nwas originally chosen for the sake of fitting the theory to isolated\nphrases and expressions in the Apostolic writings, however much it might\nconflict with the Apostolic doctrine in its main lines[579].\n\nFootnote 573:\n\n  The expression is \u1f41 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1f78\u03c2 in Hippolytus vi. 32,\n  34, 36 (pp. 190, 191, 192, 193, 196). In Iren\u00e6us i. 8. 5 it is \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1f78\u03c2\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 574:\n\n  Iren. i. 2. 6 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 575:\n\n  Iren. i. 2. 6, i. 3. 4.\n\nFootnote 576:\n\n  Iren. i. 3. 4. The passages are given in the text as they are quoted\n  by Iren\u00e6us from the Valentinians. Three out of the four are incorrect.\n\nFootnote 577:\n\n  Iren. i. 12. 4; comp. _Exc. Theod._ 31 (p. 977) \u03b5\u1f30 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f26\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 578:\n\n  Iren. i. 4. 5 \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc7, \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f41\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1,\n  \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, where the misquotation is remarkable. In\n  _Exc. Theod._ 43 (p. 979) the words run \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f70\n  \u1f41\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2,\n  \u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03b4\u1f76\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03cd\u03c8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (the last words\n  being taken from Phil. ii. 9 sq.).\n\nFootnote 579:\n\n  Thus they interpreted Ephes. iii. 21 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f72\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd as referring to their generated \u00e6ons: Iren. i. 3. 1.\n  Similar is the use which they made of expressions in the opening\n  chapter of St John, where they found their first Ogdoad described:\n  _ib._ i. 8. 5.\n\n[Sidenote: Use of the term by the Docet\u00e6]\n\nThe heretics called Docet\u00e6 by Hippolytus have no connexion with\ndocetism, as it is generally understood, i.e. the tenet that Christ\u2019s\nbody was not real flesh and blood, but merely a phantom body. Their\nviews on this point, as represented by this father, are wholly\ndifferent[580]. Of their system generally nothing need be said here,\nexcept that it is largely saturated with Valentinian ideas and phrases.\nFrom the Valentinians they evidently borrowed their conception of the\npleroma, by which they understood the aggregate, or (as localized) the\nabode, of the \u00c6ons. With them, as with the Valentinians, the Saviour is\nthe common product of all the \u00c6ons[581]; and in speaking of him they\necho a common Valentinian phrase \u2018the pleroma of the entire \u00c6ons\u2019[582].\n\nFootnote 580:\n\n  _R. H._ viii. 10 (p. 267).\n\nFootnote 581:\n\n  _ib._ viii. 9.\n\nFootnote 582:\n\n  _ib._ viii. 10 (p. 266).\n\n[Sidenote: and by two Ophite sects.]\n\nThe Ophite heresy, Proteus-like, assumes so many various forms, that the\nskill of critics has been taxed to the utmost to bind it with cords and\nextract its story from it. It appears however from the notices of\nHippolytus, that the term _pleroma_ was used in a definite theological\nsense by at least two branches of the sect, whom he calls Naassenes and\nPerat\u00e6.\n\n[Sidenote: (i) Naassenes.]\n\nOf the Naassenes Hippolytus tells us that among other images borrowed\nfrom the Christian and Jewish Scriptures, as well as from heathen\npoetry, they described the region of true knowledge\u2014their kingdom of\nheaven, which was entered by initiation into their mysteries\u2014as the land\nflowing with milk and honey, \u2018which when the perfect (the true Gnostics,\nthe fully initiated) have tasted, they are freed from subjection to\nkings (\u1f00\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2) and partake of the pleroma.\u2019 Here is a plain\nallusion to Joh. i. 16. \u2018This\u2019, the anonymous Naassene writer goes on to\nsay, \u2018is the pleroma, through which all created things coming into being\nare produced and fulfilled (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) from the Uncreated\u2019[583]. Here\nagain, as in the Valentinian system, the conception of the pleroma is\nstrongly tinged with Platonism. The pleroma is the region of ideas, of\narchetypes, which intervenes between the author of creation and the\nmaterial world, and communicates their specific forms to the phenomenal\nexistences of the latter.\n\nFootnote 583:\n\n  _R. H._ v. 8.\n\n[Sidenote: (ii) Perat\u00e6.]\n\nThe theology of the second Ophite sect, the Perat\u00e6, as described by\nHippolytus, is a strange phenomenon. [Sidenote: Their theology]They\ndivided the universe into three regions, the uncreate, the self-create,\nand the created. Again the middle region may be said to correspond\nroughly to the Platonic kingdom of ideas. But their conception of deity\nis entirely their own. They postulate three of every being; three Gods,\nthree Words, three Minds (i.e. as we may suppose three Spirits), three\nMen. Thus there is a God for each region, just as there is a Man. In\nfull accordance with this perverse and abnormal theology is their\napplication of St Paul\u2019s language. [Sidenote: and corresponding\napplication of \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1.]Their Christ has three natures, belonging to\nthese three kingdoms respectively; and this completeness of His being is\nimplied by St Paul in Col. i. 19, ii. 9, which passages are combined in\ntheir loose quotation or paraphrase, \u2018All the pleroma was pleased to\ndwell in him bodily, and there is in him all the godhead\u2019, i.e. (as\nHippolytus adds in explanation) \u2018of this their triple division (\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\n\u03b4\u03b9\u1fc3\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2)\u2019[584]. This application is altogether arbitrary,\nhaving no relation whatever to the theological meaning of the term in St\nPaul. It is also an entire departure from the conception of the\nCerinthians, Valentinians, and Naassenes, in which this meaning, however\nobscured, was not altogether lost. These three heresies took a\nhorizontal section of the universe, so to speak, and applied the term as\ncoextensive with the supramundane stratum. The Perat\u00e6 on the other hand\ndivided it vertically, and the pleroma, in their interpretation of the\ntext, denoted the whole extent of this vertical section. There is\nnothing in common between the two applications beyond the fundamental\nmeaning of the word, \u2018completeness, totality\u2019.\n\nFootnote 584:\n\n  _R. H._ v. 12.\n\n[Sidenote: Pistis Sophia.]\n\nThe extant Gnostic work, called Pistis Sophia, was attributed at one\ntime on insufficient grounds to Valentinus. It appears however to\nexhibit a late development of Ophitism[585], far more Christian and less\nheathen in its character than those already considered. In this work the\nword pleroma occurs with tolerable frequency; but its meaning is not\neasily fixed. [Sidenote: Frequent use of the term.]Early in the treatise\nit is said that the disciples supposed a certain \u2018mystery\u2019, of which\nJesus spoke, to be \u2018the end of all the ends\u2019 and \u2018the head (\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd) of\nthe Universe\u2019 and \u2018the whole pleroma\u2019[586]. Here we seem to have an\nallusion to the Platonic kingdom of ideas, i.e. of intelligible being,\nof absolute truth, as reproduced in the Valentinian pleroma. And the\nword is used sometimes in connexion with the completeness of revelation\nor the perfection of knowledge. Thus our Lord is represented as saying\nto His disciples, \u2018I will tell you the whole mystery and the whole\npleroma, and I will conceal nothing from you from this hour; and in\nperfection will I perfect you in every pleroma and in every perfection\nand in every mystery, which things are the perfection of all the\nperfections and the pleroma of all the pleromas\u2019[587]. Elsewhere however\nMary, to whom Jesus is represented as making some of his chief\nrevelations, is thus addressed by Him; \u2018Blessed art thou above (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70)\nall women that are on the earth, for thou shalt be pleroma of all the\npleromas and perfection of all the perfections\u2019[588], where the word\nmust be used in a more general sense.\n\nFootnote 585:\n\n  See K\u00f6stlin in _Theolog. Jahrb._ T\u00fcbingen 1854, p. 185.\n\nFootnote 586:\n\n  _Pistis Sophia_ p. 3 sq.\n\nFootnote 587:\n\n  _ib._ p. 15 sq.: comp. pp. 4, 60, 75, 187, 275.\n\nFootnote 588:\n\n  _ib._ p. 28 sq.: comp. p. 56. On p. 7 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 is opposed to \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae,\n  apparently in the sense of \u2018completion\u2019.\n\n[Sidenote: Monoimus the Arabian.]\n\nOne heresy still remains to be noticed in connexion with this word.\nHippolytus has preserved an account of the teaching of Monoimus the\nArabian, of whom previously to the discovery of this father\u2019s treatise\nwe knew little more than the name. In this strange form of heresy the\nabsolute first principle is the uncreate, imperishable, eternal Man. I\nneed not stop to enquire what this statement means. It is sufficient for\nthe present purpose to add that this eternal Man is symbolized by the\nletter \u0399, the \u2018one iota\u2019, the \u2018one tittle\u2019 of the Gospel[589]; and this\n\u0399, as representing the number ten, includes in itself all the units from\none to nine. \u2018This\u2019, added Monoimus, \u2018is (meant by) the saying (of\nscripture) _All the pleroma was pleased to dwell upon the Son of Man_\n_bodily_\u2019[590]. Here the original idea of the word as denoting\ncompleteness, totality, is still preserved.\n\nFootnote 589:\n\n  Matt. v. 18.\n\nFootnote 590:\n\n  _R. H._ viii. 13.\n\n                  _The Epistle from_ _Laodicea_[591].\n\n[Sidenote: Different theories classified.]\n\nThe different opinions respecting the epistle thus designated by St\nPaul, which have been held in ancient or modern times, will be seen from\nthe following table;\n\n1. An _Epistle written by the Laodiceans_; to\n\n      (\u03b1) St Paul;\n\n      (\u03b2) Epaphras;\n\n      (\u03b3) Coloss\u00e6.\n\n2. An _Epistle written by St Paul from Laodicea_.\n\n      (\u03b1) 1 Timothy;\n\n      (\u03b2) 1 Thessalonians;\n\n      (\u03b3) 2 Thessalonians;\n\n      (\u03b4) Galatians.\n\n3. An _Epistle addressed to the Laodiceans_ by\n\n      (_a_) St John (the First Epistle);\n\n      (_b_) Some companion of St Paul (Epaphras or Luke);\n\n      (_c_) St Paul himself;\n\n          (i) A lost Epistle.\n\n          (ii) One of the Canonical Epistles.\n\n              (\u03b1) Hebrews;\n\n              (\u03b2) Philemon;\n\n              (\u03b3) Ephesians.\n\n          (iii) The Apocryphal Epistle.\n\nFootnote 591:\n\n  The work of Anger, _Ueber den Laodicenerbrief_ (Leipzig 1843), is very\n  complete. He enumerates and discusses very thoroughly the opinions of\n  his predecessors, omitting hardly anything relating to the literature\n  of the subject which was accessible at the time when he wrote. His\n  exposition of his own view, though not less elaborate, is less\n  satisfactory. A later monograph by A. Sartori, _Ueber den\n  Laodicenserbrief_ (L\u00fcbeck 1853), is much slighter and contributes\n  nothing new.\n\nIn this maze of conflicting hypotheses we might perhaps be tempted to\ndespair of finding our way and give up the search as hopeless. Yet I\nventure to think that the true identification of the epistle in question\nis not, or at least ought not to be, doubtful.\n\n[Sidenote: 1. An epistle written by the Laodiceans.]\n\n1. The opinion that the epistle was addressed by the Laodiceans to St\nPaul, and not conversely, found much support in the age of the Greek\ncommentators. It is mentioned by St Chrysostom as held by \u2018some\npersons\u2019, though he himself does not pronounce a definite opinion on the\nsubject[592]. [Sidenote: Advocates of this theory.]It is eagerly\nadvocated by Theodore of Mopsuestia. He supposes that the letter of the\nLaodiceans contained some reflexions on the Colossian Church, and that\nSt Paul thought it good for the Colossians to hear what their neighbours\nsaid of them[593]. Theodoret, though not mentioning Theodore by name,\nfollows in his footsteps[594]. The same opinion is also expressed in a\nnote ascribed to Photius in the [OE]cumenian Catena. This view seems to\nhave been very widely entertained in ancient times. It possibly\nunderlies the Latin Version \u2018ea qu\u00e6 Laodicensium est\u2019[595]: it is\ndistinctly expressed in the rendering of the Peshito, \u2018that which was\nwritten by the Laodiceans\u2019[596]. At a more recent date too it found\ngreat favour. It was adopted on the one hand by Calvin[597] and\nBeza[598] and Davenant and Lightfoot[599], on the other by Baronius[600]\nand \u00e0 Lapide and Estius, besides other very considerable names[601].\nLatterly its popularity has declined, but it has secured the support of\none or two commentators even in the present century.\n\nFootnote 592:\n\n  _ad loc._ \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a0\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd,\n  \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a0\u03ac\u03c5\u03bb\u1ff3\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 _\u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2_ \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n  \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba _\u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2_.\n\nFootnote 593:\n\n  Rab. Maur. _Op._ VI. p. 540 (Migne) \u2018Non quia ad Laodicenses scribit.\n  Unde quidam falsam epistolam ad Laodicenses ex nomine beati Pauli\n  confingendam esse existimaverunt; nec enim erat vera epistola.\n  \u00c6stimaverunt autem quidam illam esse, qu\u00e6 in hoc loco est significata.\n  Apostolus vero non [_ad_] _Laodicenses_ dicit sed _ex Laodicea_; quam\n  illi scripserunt ad apostolum, in quam aliqua reprehensionis digna\n  inferebantur, quam etiam hac de causa jussit apud eos legi, ut ipsi\n  reprehendant seipsos discentes qu\u00e6 de ipsis erant dicta\u2019 (see _Spic.\n  Solesm._ I. p. 133) etc.\n\nFootnote 594:\n\n  After repeating the argument based on the expression \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\n  \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, Theodoret says \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\n  \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f22 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 595:\n\n  This however may be questioned. On the other hand Beza (_ad loc._),\n  Whitaker (_Disputation on Scripture_ pp. 108, 303, 468 sq., 526, 531,\n  Parker Society\u2019s ed.), and others, who explain the passage in this\n  way, urge that it is required by the Greek \u1f10\u03ba \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, and complain\n  that the other interpretation depends on the erroneous Latin\n  rendering.\n\nFootnote 596:\n\n  Or, \u2018that which was written from Laodicea.\u2019 The difference depends on\n  the vocalisation of \u0720\u0715\u071d\u0729\u071d\u0710 which may be either (1) \u2018Laodicea,\u2019 as in\n  vv. 13, 15, or (2) \u2018the Laodiceans,\u2019 as in the previous clause in this\n  same ver. 16.\n\nFootnote 597:\n\n  Calvin is very positive; \u2018Bis hallucinati sunt qui Paulum arbitrati\n  sunt ad Laodicenses scripsisse. Non dubito quin epistola fuerit ad\n  Paulum missa.... Impostura autem nimis crassa fuit, quod nebulo nescio\n  quis hoc pr\u00e6textu epistolam supponere ausus est adeo insulsam, ut\n  nihil a Pauli spiritu magis alienum fingi queat.\u2019 The last sentence\n  reveals the motive which unconsciously led so many to adopt this\n  unnatural interpretation of St Paul\u2019s language.\n\nFootnote 598:\n\n  _ad loc._ \u2018Multo f\u0153dius errarunt qui ex hoc loco suspicati sunt\n  quandam fuisse epistolam Pauli ad Laodicenses ... quum potius\n  significet Paulus epistolam aliquam ad se missam Laodicea, aut potius\n  qua responsuri essent Laodicenses Colossensibus.\u2019\n\nFootnote 599:\n\n  _Works_ II. p. 326.\n\nFootnote 600:\n\n  _Ann. Eccl._ s. a. 60, \u00a7 xiii.\n\nFootnote 601:\n\n  e.g. Tillemont _Mem. Eccl._ p. 576.\n\n[Sidenote: Reasons for it.]\n\nThe underlying motive of this interpretation was to withdraw the support\nwhich the apocryphal epistle seemed to derive from this reference,\nwithout being obliged at the same time to postulate a lost epistle of St\nPaul. The critical argument adduced in its support was the form of\nexpression, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. [Sidenote: Objections to it.]The whole\ncontext however points to a different explanation. The Colossian and\nLaodicean Epistles are obviously regarded as in some sense companion\nepistles, of which the Apostle directs an interchange between the two\nChurches. And again, if the letter in question had been written by the\nLaodiceans to St Paul, why should he enjoin the Colossians to get it\nfrom Laodicea? How could he assume that a copy had been kept by the\nLaodiceans; or, if kept, would be given up when required? Indeed the\ndifficulties in this hypothesis are so great, that nothing but the most\nimperious requirements of the Greek language would justify its\nacceptance. But the expression in the original makes no such demand. It\nis equally competent for us to explain \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 either \u2018the\nletter written from Laodicea\u2019, or \u2018the letter to be procured from\nLaodicea\u2019, as the context may suggest. The latter accords at least as\nwell with Greek usage as the former[602].\n\nFootnote 602:\n\n  See the note on iv. 16.\n\n[Sidenote: Views respecting the person addressed.]\n\nThe vast majority of those who interpret the expression in this way\nassume that the letter was written to (\u03b1) St Paul. The modifications of\nthis view, which suppose it addressed to some one else, need hardly be\nconsidered. The theory for instance, which addresses it to (\u03b2)\nEpaphras[603], removes none of the objections brought against the\nsimpler hypothesis. Another opinion, which takes (\u03b3) the Colossians\nthemselves to have been the recipients[604], does indeed dispose of one\ndifficulty, the necessity of assuming a copy kept by the Laodiceans, but\nit is even more irreconcileable with the language of the context. Why\nthen should St Paul so studiously charge them to see that they read it?\nWhy above all should he say \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, \u2018_ye also_\u2019, when they were the\nonly persons who would read it as a matter of course?\n\nFootnote 603:\n\n  e.g. Storr _Opusc._ II. p. 124 sq.\n\nFootnote 604:\n\n  So for instance Corn. \u00e0 Lapide, as an alternative, \u2018vel certe ad ipsos\n  Colossenses, ut vult Theodor.\u2019; but I do not find anything of the kind\n  in Theodoret. This view also commends itself to Beza.\n\n[Sidenote: 2. A letter written from Laodicea by St Paul.]\n\n2. A second class of identifications rests on the supposition that it\nwas a letter written _from_ Laodicea, though not by the Laodiceans\nthemselves. The considerations which recommend this hypothesis for\nacceptance are the same as in the last case. It withdraws all support\nfrom the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans, and it refrains from\npostulating a lost Apostolic epistle. It is not exposed to all the\nobjections of the other theory, but it introduces new difficulties still\nmore serious. Here a choice of several epistles is offered to us.\n[Sidenote: 1 Timothy.](\u03b1) _The First Epistle to Timothy._ This view is\ndistinctly maintained by John Damascene[605] and by Theophylact[606];\nbut it took its rise much earlier. It appears in the margin of the\nPhiloxenian Syriac[607], and it seems to have suggested the\nsubscriptions found in many authorities at the close of that epistle.\nThe words \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 are found in AKL 47 etc., and many of\nthese define the place meant by the addition \u1f25\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2. A similar note is found in some Latin MSS. It is\nquite possible that this subscription was prior to the theory respecting\nthe interpretation of Col. iv. 16, and gave rise to it; but the converse\nis more probable, and in some MSS (a^{scr}, 74) the bearing of this\nsubscription on Col. iv. 16 is emphasized, \u1f30\u03b4\u1f78\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u1f10\u03ba \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\nThis identification has not been altogether without support in later\ntimes[608]. [Sidenote: 1 Thessalonians.](\u03b2) The _First Epistle to the\nThessalonians_. A final colophon in the Philoxenian Syriac asserts that\nit was \u2018written from Laodicea\u2019: and the same is stated in a later hand\nof d, \u2018scribens a Laodicea\u2019. Again an \u00c6thiopic MS, though giving Athens\nas the place of writing, adds that it was \u2018sent with Timotheus,\n_Tychicus_, and _Onesimus_[609].\u2019 This identification was perhaps\nsuggested by the fact that 1 Thessalonians follows next after Colossians\nin the common order of St Paul\u2019s Epistles. [Sidenote: 2\nThessalonians.](\u03b3) The _Second Epistle to the Thessalonians_. In the\nPeshito (as given by Schaaf[609]) there is a final colophon stating\nthat this epistle \u2018was written from Laodicea of Pisidia and was sent by\nthe hand of Tychicus[610]\u2019. Though the addition of Pisidia wrongly\ndefines the place as _Laodicea Combusta_, instead of _Laodicea ad\nLycum_, yet the mention of the messenger\u2019s name shows plainly that the\nidentification with the missing epistle of Col. iv. 16 was contemplated.\nSo too the Memphitic \u2018per Silvanum et _Tychicum_\u2019, and a Latin prologue\n\u2018per Titum et _Onesimum_\u2019. Again an \u00c6thiopic MS points to the same\nidentification, though strangely confused in its statements. In the\nsuperscription we are told that this epistle was written when the\nApostle was at Laodicea, but in the subscription that it \u2018was written at\nAthens to Laodicea and sent by Tychicus\u2019; while the prolegomena state\nthat it was written and left at Laodicea, and that afterwards, when St\nPaul wrote his letter to the Colossians from Rome, he gave directions\nthat it should be transmitted to the Thessalonians by the\nColossians[611]. [Sidenote: Galatians.](\u03b4) The _Epistle to the\nGalatians_[612]. This might have been chosen, partly because it affords\nno internal data for deciding where it was written, partly because like\nthe Colossian Epistle it is directed against a form of Judaism, and the\nadvocates of this hypothesis might not be careful to distinguish the two\ntypes, though very distinct in themselves. I find no support for it in\nthe subscriptions, except the notice \u2018per _Tychicum_\u2019 in some Slavonic\nMSS.\n\nFootnote 605:\n\n  _Op._ II. p. 214 (ed. Lequien) \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a4\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9. But he\n  adds \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a0\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd ... \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n  \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a0\u03ac\u03c5\u03bb\u1ff3 \u1f10\u03ba \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 606:\n\n  _ad loc._ \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f21 \u1f10\u03ba \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; \u1f21 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a4\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n  \u1f10\u03ba \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7. \u03a4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f23\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u1ff3\n  \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03af \u1f02\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u1fc3\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 607:\n\n  _ad loc._ \u2018Propter eam qu\u00e6 est ad Timotheum dixit.\u2019\n\nFootnote 608:\n\n  It is adopted by Erasmus in his paraphrase; \u2018vicissim vos legatis\n  epistolam qu\u00e6 Timotheo scripta fuit ex Laodicensium urbe\u2019: but in his\n  commentary he does not commit himself to it. For other names see Anger\n  p. 17, note k.\n\nFootnote 609:\n\n  _Catal. Bibl. Bodl. Cod. \u00c6thiop._ p. 23.\n\nFootnote 610:\n\n  In the editio princeps (Vienna 1555) the latter part of this colophon,\n  \u2018and was sent by the hand of Tychicus,\u2019 is wanting.\n\nFootnote 611:\n\n  _Catal. Bibl. Bodl. Cod. \u00c6thiop._ p. 23.\n\nFootnote 612:\n\n  Bloch, quoted in Anger p. 17 note l.\n\n[Sidenote: Objections to these solutions.]\n\nThe special difficulties attending this class of solutions are manifold.\n(1) It does not appear that St Paul had ever been at Laodicea when he\nwrote the letter to the Colossians. (2) All the epistles thus singled\nout are separated from the Colossian letter by an interval of some years\nat least. (3) In every case they can with a high degree of probability\nbe shown to have been written elsewhere than at Laodicea. Indeed, as St\nPaul had been long a prisoner either at C\u00e6sarea or at Rome, when he\nwrote to Coloss\u00e6, he could not have despatched a letter recently from\nLaodicea.\n\n[Sidenote: 3. A letter to the Laodiceans written by (_a_) St John. (_b_)\n           A companion of St Paul. (_c_) St Paul.]\n\n3. Thus we are thrown back on some form of the solution which makes it a\nletter written _to the Laodiceans_. And here we may at once reject the\nhypothesis that the writer was (_a_) St John[613]. The First Epistle of\nSt John, which has been selected, was written (as is allowed on all\nhands) much later than this date. Nor again does St Paul\u2019s language\nfavour the alternative, which others have maintained, that the letter in\nquestion was written by (_b_) one of St Paul\u2019s companions, e.g. Epaphras\nor Luke[614]. The writer must therefore have been (_c_) St Paul himself.\n\nFootnote 613:\n\n  A conjecture of Lightfoot\u2019s (_Works_ II. pp. 326, 339, London 1684),\n  but he does not lay much stress on it. He offers it \u2018rather then\n  conceive that any epistle of Paul is lost.\u2019 See also Anger p. 17, note\n  m.\n\nFootnote 614:\n\n  Baumgarten _Comm._ ad loc., quoted by Anger p. 25, note g.\n\nOn this assumption three alternatives offer themselves.\n\n[Sidenote: (i) A lost letter.]]\n\n(i). We may suppose that the epistle in question has been lost. It has\nbeen pointed out elsewhere that the Apostle must have written many\nletters which are not preserved in our Canon[615]. Thus there is no _a\npriori_ objection to this solution; and, being easy and obvious in\nitself, it has found common support in recent times. If therefore we had\nno positive reasons for identifying the Laodicean letter with one of the\nextant epistles of our Canon, we might at once close with this account\nof the matter. But such reasons do exist. And moreover, as we are\nobliged to suppose that at least three letters\u2014the Epistles to the\nColossians, to the Ephesians, and to Philemon\u2014were despatched by St Paul\nto Asia Minor at the same time, it is best not to postulate a fourth,\nunless we are obliged to do so.\n\nFootnote 615:\n\n  _Philippians_ p. 136 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: (ii) A Canonical epistle.]\n\n(ii). But, if it was not a lost letter, with which of the Canonical\nEpistles of St Paul can we identify it with most probability? Was it\n\n[Sidenote: (\u03b1) Hebrews. Philastrius.]\n\n(\u03b1) _The Epistle to the Hebrews?_ The supporters of this hypothesis are\nable to produce ancient evidence of a certain kind, though not such as\ncarries any real weight. Philastrius, writing about the close of the\nfourth century, says that some persons ascribed the authorship of the\nEpistle to the Hebrews to Luke the Evangelist, and adds that it was\nasserted (apparently by these same persons, though this is not quite\nclear) to have been written to the Laodiceans[616]. [Sidenote: Supposed\ntestimony of MS G.]Again in the Gr\u00e6co-Latin MS G of St Paul\u2019s Epistles,\nthe _Codex Boernerianus_, probably written in the ninth century, after\nthe Epistle to Philemon, which breaks off abruptly at ver. 20, a vacant\nspace is left, as if for the conclusion of this epistle: and then\nfollows a fresh title\n\n             ad      laudicenses      incipit      epistola\n   ==\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03f2\\ \\ \\ \\ \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b7\u03f2\u03b1\u03f2 \\ \\ \\ \\ \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \\ \\ \\ \\   \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b7==\n\nThis is evidently intended as the heading to another epistle. No other\nepistle however succeeds, but the leaf containing this title is followed\nby several leaves, which were originally left blank, but were filled at\na later date with extraneous matter. What then was this Epistle to the\nLaodiceans, which was intended to follow, but which the scribe was\nprevented from transcribing? As the Epistle to the Hebrews is not found\nin this MS, and as in the common order of the Pauline Epistles it would\nfollow the Epistle to Philemon, the title has frequently been supposed\nto refer to it. This opinion however does not appear at all probable.\nAnger[617] indeed argues in its favour on the ground that in the\ncompanion MS F, the _Codex Augiensis_, which (so far as regards the\nGreek text) must have been derived immediately from the same\narchetype[618], the Epistle to the Hebrews does really follow. But what\nare the facts? [Sidenote: Relation of G to F.]It is plain that the Greek\ntexts of G and F came from the same original: but it is equally plain\nthat the two scribes had different Latin texts before them\u2014that of G\nbeing the Old Latin, and that of F Jerome\u2019s revised Vulgate. No argument\ntherefore derived from the Latin text holds good for the Greek. But the\nphenomena of both MSS alike[619] show that the Greek text of their\ncommon archetype ended abruptly at Philem. 20 (probably owing to the\nloss of the final leaves of the volume). The two scribes therefore were\nleft severally to the resources of their respective Latin MSS. The\nscribe of F, whose Greek and Latin texts are in parallel columns,\nconcluded the Epistle to Philemon in Latin, though he could not match it\nwith its proper Greek; and after this he added the Epistle to the\nHebrews in Latin, no longer however leaving a blank column, as he had\ndone for the last few verses of Philemon. On the other hand the Latin\ntext in G is interlinear, the Latin words being written above the Greek\nto interpret them. When therefore the Greek text came to an end the\nscribe\u2019s work was done, for he could no longer interlineate. But he left\na blank space for the remainder of Philemon, hoping doubtless hereafter\nto find a Greek MS from which he could fill it in; and he likewise gave\nthe title of the epistle which he found next in his Latin copy, in Greek\nas well as in Latin. The Greek title however he had to supply for\nhimself. This is clear from the form, which shows it to have been\ntranslated from the Latin by a person who had the very smallest\nknowledge of Greek. No Greek in the most barbarous age would have\nwritten ==\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b7\u03f2\u03b1\u03f2== for ==\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03b1\u03f2== or ==\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03f2==.\nThe \u03b1\u03bf\u03c5 is a Latin corruption _au_ for _ao_, and the termination\n==\u03b1\u03f2== is a Latin\u2019s notion of the Greek accusative. Thus the whole\nword is a reproduction of the Latin \u2018Laudicenses,\u2019 the _en_ being\nrepresented as usual by the Greek \u03b5[620]. [Sidenote: The spurious\nLaodicean Epistle intended.]If so, we have only to ask what writing\nwould probably appear as _Epistola ad Laudicenses_ in a Latin copy; and\nto this question there can be only one answer. The apocryphal Epistle to\nthe Laodiceans occurs frequently in the Latin Bibles, being found at\nleast two or three centuries before the MS G was written. Though it does\nnot usually follow the Epistle to Philemon, yet its place varies very\nconsiderably in different Latin copies, and an instance will be given\nbelow[621] where it actually occurs in this position.\n\nFootnote 616:\n\n  _H\u00e6r._ lxxxix \u2018Sunt alii quoque qui epistolam Pauli ad Hebr\u00e6os non\n  adserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Barnab\u00e6 esse apostoli aut\n  Clementis de urbe Roma episcopi; alii autem Luc\u00e6 evangelist\u00e6 aiunt\n  epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam. Et quia addiderunt in ea\n  qu\u00e6dam non bene sentientes, inde non legitur in ecclesia; et si\n  legitur a quibusdam, non tamen in ecclesia legitur populo, nisi\n  tredecim epistol\u00e6 ipsius, et ad Hebr\u00e6os interdum. Et in ea quia\n  rhetorice scripsit, sermone plausibili, inde non putant esse ejusdem\n  apostoli; et quia factum Christum dicit in ea [Heb. iii. 2], inde non\n  legitur; de p\u0153nitentia autem [Heb. vi. 4, x. 26] propter Novatianos\n  \u00e6que. Cum ergo factum dicit Christum, corpore, non divinitate, dicit\n  factum, cum doceat ibidem quod divin\u00e6 sit et patern\u00e6 substanti\u00e6\n  filius, _Qui est splendor glori\u00e6_, inquit, _et imago substanti\u00e6 ejus_\n  [Heb. i. 3]\u2019 etc. Oehler punctuates the sentence with which we are\n  concerned thus: \u2018alii autem Luc\u00e6 evangelist\u00e6. Aiunt epistolam etiam ad\n  Laodicenses scriptam,\u2019 and in his note he adds \u2018videlicet Pauli esse\n  apostoli.\u2019 Thus he supposes the clause to refer to the apocryphal\n  Epistle to the Laodiceans: and Fabricius explains the reference\n  similarly. Such a reference however would be quite out of place here.\n  The whole paragraph before and after is taken up with discussing the\n  Epistle to the Hebrews; and the interposition of just six words,\n  referring to a wholly different matter, is inconceivable. We must\n  therefore punctuate either \u2018alii autem Luc\u00e6 evangelist\u00e6 aiunt\n  epistolam, etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam\u2019, or \u2018alii autem Luc\u00e6\n  evangelist\u00e6 aiunt; epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam.\u2019 In either\n  case it will mean that some persons supposed the Epistle to the\n  Hebrews to have been written to the Laodiceans.\n\nFootnote 617:\n\n  _Laodicenerbrief_ p. 29 sq.\n\nFootnote 618:\n\n  If indeed the Greek text of F was not copied immediately from G, as\n  has been recently maintained by Mr Hort in the _Journal of Philology_\n  III. p. 67. The divergent phenomena of the two Latin texts seem to me\n  unfavourable to this hypothesis; but it ought not to be hastily\n  rejected.\n\nFootnote 619:\n\n  Volkmar, the editor of Credner\u2019s _Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen\n  Kanon_ p. 299, with strange carelessness speaks of \u2018the appearance\n  (das Vorkommen) of the Laodicean Epistle in both the _Codices\n  Augiensis_ and _Boernerianus_ which in other respects are closely\n  allied.\u2019 There is no mention of it in the Codex Augiensis.\n\nFootnote 620:\n\n  It is curious that this MS, which was written by an Irish scribe,\n  should give the same corrupt form, Laud_ac_- for Laod_ac_-, which we\n  find in the Book of Armagh; see below p. 348.\n\nFootnote 621:\n\n  See p. 352. It occurs also in this position in the list of Aelfric\n  (see below p. 362), where the order of the Pauline Epistles is ...\n  Col., Hebr., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Philem., Laod.\n\n[Sidenote: This identification unsatisfactory.]\n\nThus beyond the notice in Philastrius there is no ancient support for\nthe identification of the missing letter of Col. iv. 16 with the Epistle\nto the Hebrews; and doubtless the persons to whom Philastrius alludes\nhad no more authority for their opinion than their modern successors.\nCritical conjecture, not historical tradition, led them to this result.\nThe theory therefore must stand or fall by its own merits. It has been\nmaintained by one or two modern writers[622], chiefly on the ground of\nsome partial coincidences between the Epistles to the Hebrews and the\nColossians; but the general character and purport of the two is wholly\ndissimilar, and they obviously deal with antagonists of a very different\ntype. The insuperable difficulty of supposing that two epistles so\nunlike in style were written by the same person to the same\nneighbourhood at or about the same time would still remain, even though\nthe Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews should be for a\nmoment granted.\n\nFootnote 622:\n\n  See especially Schneckenburger _Beitr\u00e4ge_ p. 153 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: (\u03b2) Philemon.]\n\n(\u03b2) The _Epistle to Philemon_ has been strongly advocated by\nWieseler[623], as the letter to which St Paul refers in this passage.\nFor this identification it is necessary to establish two points; (1)\nthat Philemon lived not at Coloss\u00e6, but at Laodicea; and (2) that the\nletter is addressed not to a private individual, but to a whole church.\nFor the first point there is something to be said. Though for reasons\nexplained elsewhere the abode of Philemon himself appears to have been\nat Coloss\u00e6, wherever Archippus may have resided[624], still two opinions\nmay very fairly be held on this point. But Wieseler\u2019s arguments entirely\nfail to establish his other position. [Sidenote: This epistle does not\nanswer the conditions.]The theme, the treatment, the whole tenour of the\nletter, mark it as private: and the mere fact that the Apostle\u2019s\ncourtesy leads him to include in the opening salutation the Christians\nwho met at Philemon\u2019s house is powerless to change its character. Why\nshould a letter, containing such intimate confidences, be read publicly\nin the Church, not only at Laodicea but at Coloss\u00e6, by the express order\nof the Apostle? The tact and delicacy of the Apostle\u2019s pleading for\nOnesimus would be nullified at one stroke by the demand for publication.\n\nFootnote 623:\n\n  Some earlier writers who maintained this view are mentioned by Anger,\n  p. 25, note f. It has since been more fully developed and more\n  vigorously urged by Wieseler, first in a programme _Commentat. de\n  Epist. Laodicena quam vulgo perditam putant_ 1844, and afterwards in\n  his well known work _Chronol. des Apostol. Zeit._ p. 450 sq. It may\n  therefore be identified with his name. He speaks of it with much\n  confidence as \u2018scarcely open to a doubt,\u2019 but he has not succeeded in\n  convincing others.\n\nFootnote 624:\n\n  See the introduction to the Epistle to Philemon.\n\n[Sidenote: (\u03b3) Ephesians.]\n\n(\u03b3) But may we not identify the letter in question with the _Epistle to\nthe Ephesians_, which also is known to have been despatched at the same\ntime with the Epistle to the Colossians? Unlike the Epistle to Philemon,\nit was addressed not to a private person but to a church or churches. If\ntherefore it can be shown that the Laodiceans were the recipients,\neither alone or with others, we have found the object of our search.\n[Sidenote: This is the true solution.]The arguments in favour of this\nsolution are reserved for the introduction to that epistle. Meanwhile it\nis sufficient to say that educated opinion is tending, though slowly, in\nthis direction, and to express the belief that ultimately this view will\nbe generally received[625].\n\nFootnote 625:\n\n  See above p. 37.\n\n[Sidenote: (iii) The extant un-canonical Epistle to the Laodiceans.]\n\n(iii) Another wholly different identification remains to be mentioned.\nIt was neither a lost epistle nor a Canonical epistle, thought some, but\nthe writing which is extant under the title of the \u2018Epistle to the\nLaodiceans,\u2019 though not generally received by the Church. Of the various\nopinions held respecting this apocryphal letter I shall have to speak\npresently. It is sufficient here to say that the advocates of its\ngenuineness fall into two classes. Either they assign to it a place in\nthe Canon with the other Epistles of St Paul, or they acquiesce in its\nexclusion, holding that the Church has authority to pronounce for or\nagainst the Canonicity even of Apostolic writings.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: General character of the spurious epistle.]\n\nThe apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans is a cento of Pauline phrases\nstrung together without any definite connexion or any clear object. They\nare taken chiefly from the Epistle to the Philippians, but here and\nthere one is borrowed elsewhere, e.g. from the Epistle to the Galatians.\nOf course it closes with an injunction to the Laodiceans to exchange\nepistles with the Colossians. The Apostle\u2019s injunction in Col. iv. 16\nsuggested the forgery, and such currency as it ever attained was due to\nthe support which that passage was supposed to give to it. Unlike most\nforgeries, it had no ulterior aim. It was not framed to advance any\nparticular opinions, whether heterodox or orthodox. It has no doctrinal\npeculiarities. Thus it is quite harmless, so far as falsity and\nstupidity combined can ever be regarded as harmless.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nAmong the more important MSS which contain this epistle are the\nfollowing. The letters in brackets [ ] give the designations adopted in\nthe apparatus of various readings which follows.\n\n1. _Fuldensis_ [F]. The famous MS of the Vulgate N. T. written for\nVictor Bishop of Capua, by whom it was read and corrected in the years\n546, 547; edited by Ern. Ranke, _Marburgi et Lipsi\u00e6_ 1868. The Laodicean\nEpistle occurs between Col. and 1 Tim. without any indication of\ndoubtful authenticity, except that it has no argument or table of\ncontents, like the other epistles. The scribe however has erroneously\ninterpolated part of the argument belonging to 1 Tim. between the title\nand the epistle; see p. 291 sq. of Ranke\u2019s edition.\n\n2. _Cavensis._ A MS of the whole Latin Bible, at the Monastery of La\nCava near Salerno, ascribed to the 6th or 7th or 8th century. See\nVercellone _Var. Lect. Vulg. Lat. Bibl._ I. p. lxxxviii. Unfortunately\nwe have no account of the readings in the Laodicean Epistle (for which\nit would be the most important authority after the Codex Fuldensis),\nexcept the last sentence quoted by Mai _Nov. Patr. Bibl._ I. 2. p. 63,\n\u2018Et facite legi Colossensium vobis.\u2019 Laod. here occurs between Col. and\n1 Thess. (Mai p. 62). Dr Westcott (Smith\u2019s _Dict. of the Bible s.v.\nVulgate_, p. 1713) has remarked that the two oldest authorities for the\ninterpolation of the three heavenly witnesses in 1 Joh. v. 7, this La\nCava MS and the _Speculum_ published by Mai, also support the Laodicean\nEpistle (see Mai l.c. pp. 7, 62 sq.). The two phenomena are combined in\nanother very ancient MS, Brit. Mus. _Add._ 11,852, described below.\n\n3. _Armachanus_ [A]. A MS of the N. T., now belonging to Trinity\nCollege, Dublin, and known as the \u2018Book of Armagh.\u2019 It was written in\nthe year 807, as ascertained by Bp. Graves; see the _Proceedings of the\nRoyal Irish Academy_ III. pp. 316, 356. The Laodicean Epistle follows\nColossians on fol. 138, but with the warning that Jerome denies its\ngenuineness. The text of the Laodicean Epistle in this MS is not so pure\nas might have been anticipated from its antiquity. I owe the collation\nof readings which is given below to the kindness of Dr Reeves, who is\nengaged in editing the MS.\n\n4. _Darmstadiensis_ [D]. A fol. MS of the whole Bible, defective from\nApoc. xxii. 12 to the end, now in the Grand-ducal library at Darmstadt,\nbut formerly belonging to the Cathedral Library at Cologne; presented by\nHermann Pius, Archbishop of Cologne from A.D. 890\u2013925. Laod. follows\nCol. A collation was made for Anger, from whom (p. 144) this account is\ntaken.\n\n5. _Bernensis_ no. 334 [B]. A 4to MS of miscellaneous contents, ending\nwith the Pauline Epistles, the last being the Epistle to the Laodiceans,\nwritten in the 9th cent. The Laodicean Epistle is a fragment, ending\nwith \u2018Gaudete in Christo et pr\u00e6cavete sordibus in lucro\u2019 (ver. 13). This\naccount is taken by Anger from Sinner _Catal. Cod. MSS. Bibl. Bern._ I.\np. 28. In his Addenda (p. 179) Anger gives a collation of this MS.\n\n6. _Toletanus_ [T] A MS of the Latin Bible belonging to the Cathedral\nLibrary at Toledo, and written about the 8th century: see Westcott in\nSmith\u2019s _Dict. of the Bible_, s.v. _Vulgate_ p. 1710, Vercellone _Var.\nLect._ I. p. lxxxiv. sq. The readings in the Laodicean Epistle are taken\nfrom Joh. Mariana _Schol. in Vet. et Nov. Test._, where it is printed in\nfull. The edition which I have used is dated Paris 1620 (p. 831). The\ntext however cannot be assumed to be strictly accurate, as Mariana had a\nprinted copy of the epistle before him, from which at all events he\nsupplied in brackets words wanting in the MS (see Anger p. 144), and\nwhich may have influenced his readings in other ways. In this MS Laod.\nfollows Col.\n\n7. _Parisiensis_ Reg. Lat. 3 (formerly 3562)[626] [P_{1}]. A Latin Bible,\nin one volume fol., called after Anowaretha by whom it was given to the\nmonastery of Glanfeuille (St Maur), and ascribed in the printed\nCatalogue to the 9th cent. Laod. follows Col. on fol. 379.\n\nFootnote 626:\n\n  So at least I find the number given in my notes. But in _Bentl. Crit.\n  Sacr._ p. xxxvii it is 3561.\n\n8. _Parisiensis_ Reg. Lat. 6 [P_{2}]. A MS of the Latin Bible in 4 vols.\nfol., according to the Catalogue probably written in the 10th cent. [?].\nIt belonged formerly to the Duc de Noailles. Laod. follows Col. It\ncontains numerous corrections in a later hand either between the lines\nor in the margin. The two hands are distinguished as P_{2}*, P_{2}**.\n\n9. _Parisiensis_ Reg. Lat. 250 (formerly 3572) [P_{3}]. A fol. MS of the\nN. T., described in the Catalogue as probably belonging to end of the\n9th cent. Laod. follows Col. It has a few corrections in a later hand.\nThe two hands are distinguished as P_{3}*, P_{3}**.\n\nThese three Parisian MSS I collated myself, but I had not time to\nexamine them as carefully as I could have wished.\n\n10. _Brit. Mus._ Add. 11,852. [G]. An important MS of St Paul\u2019s Epistles\nwritten in the 9th cent. It formerly belonged to the monastery of St\nGall, being one of the books with which the library there was enriched\nby Hartmot who was Abbot from A.D. 872 to 884 or 885. Laod. follows Heb.\nand has no capitula like the other epistles.\n\n11. _Brit. Mus._ Add. 10,546 [C]. A fol. MS of the Vulgate, commonly\nknown as \u2018Charlemagne\u2019s Bible,\u2019 but probably belonging to the age of\nCharles the Bald (\u2020 877). Laod. stands between Heb. and Apoc. It has no\nargument or capitula.\n\n12. _Brit. Mus._ Reg. 1. E. vii, viii [R]. An English MS of the Latin\nBible from Christ Church, Canterbury, written about the middle of the\n10th cent. Laod. follows Heb. This is the most ancient MS, so far as I\nam aware, in which the epistle has capitulations. It is here given in\nits fullest form, and thus presents the earliest example of what may be\ncalled the modern recension.\n\n13. _Brit. Mus._ Harl. 2833, 2834 [H_{1}]. A MS of the 13th cent. written\nfor the Cathedral of Angers. Laod. follows Apoc.\n\nThe readings of the four preceding MSS are taken from the collations in\nWestcott _Canon_ Appx. E p. 572 sq. (ed. 4).\n\n14. _Brit. Mus._ Harl. 3131 [H_{2}]. A smallish 4to. of the 12th cent.,\nsaid to be of German origin, with marginal and interlinear glosses in\nsome parts. Laod. stands between Philem. and Heb. It has no heading but\nonly a red initial letter P. At the end is 'Expl. Ep\u0305la\u0305 ad Laodicenses.\nPrologus ad Ebreos.'\n\n15. _Brit. Mus._ Sloane 539 [S]. A small fol. of the 12th cent., said to\nbe German. It contains St Paul\u2019s Epistles with glosses. The gloss on\nCol. iv. 16 \u2018et ea qu\u00e6 est Laodicensium etc.\u2019 runs \u2018quam ego eis misi ut\nipsi michi ut videatis hic esse responsum.\u2019 Laod. follows Heb., and has\nno glosses.\n\nThe two last MSS I collated myself.\n\n16. _Bodl._ Laud. Lat. 13 (formerly 810) [L_{1}]. A 4to MS in double\ncolumns of the 13th cent. containing the Latin Bible. See _Catal. Bibl.\nLaud. Cod. Lat._ p. 10. Laod. follows Col. Notwithstanding the date of\nthe MS, it gives a very ancient text of this epistle.\n\n17. _Bodl._ Laud. Lat. 8 (formerly 757) [L_{2}]. A fol. MS of the Latin\nBible, belonging to the end of the 12th cent. See _Catal. Bibl. Laud.\nCod. Lat._ p. 9. This is the same MS, which Anger describes (p. 145) as\n115C (its original mark), and of which he gives a collation. Laod.\nstands between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim.\n\nI am indebted for collations of these two Laudian MSS to the kindness of\nthe Rev. J. Wordsworth, Fellow of Brasenose College.\n\n18. _Vindob._ 287 [V]. The Pauline Epp., written by Marianus Scotus\n(i.e. the Irishman), A.D. 1079. See Alter _Nov. Test. ad Cod. Vindob.\nGr\u00e6ce Expressum_ II. p. 1040 sq., Denis _Cod. MSS Lat. Bibl. Vindob._ I.\nno. lviii, Zeuss _Grammatica Celtica_ p. xviii (ed. 2). The Epistle to\nthe Laodiceans is transcribed from this MS by Alter l.c. p. 1067 sq. It\nfollows Col.\n\n19. _Trin. Coll. Cantabr._ B. 5. 1 [X]. A fol. MS of the Latin Bible,\nwritten probably in the 12th century. Laod. follows Col. I have given a\ncollation of this MS, because (like Brit. Mus. Reg. 1. E. viii) it is an\nearly example of the completed form. The epistle is preceded by\ncapitula, as follows.\n\n              INCIPIUNT CAPITULA EPISTOLE AD LAODICENSES.\n\n1. Paulus Apostolus pro Laodicensibus domino gratias refert et hortatur\neos ne a seductoribus decipiantur.\n\n2. De manifestis vinculis apostoli in quibus letatur et gaudet.\n\n3. Monet Laodicenses apostolus ut sicut sui audierunt praesentia ita\nretineant et sine retractu faciant.\n\n4. Hortatur apostolus Laodicenses ut fide sint firmi et qu\u00e6 integra et\nvera et deo placita sunt faciant. et salutatio fratrum. EXPLICIUNT\nCAPITULA. INCIPIT EPISTOLA BEATI PAULI APOSTOLI AD LAODICENSES.\n\nThese capitulations may be compared with those given by Dr Westcott from\nReg. 1. E. viii, with which they are nearly identical.\n\nBesides these nineteen MSS, of which (with the exception of _Cavensis_)\ncollations are given below, it may be worth while recording the\nfollowing, as containing this epistle.\n\nAmong the Lambeth MSS are (i) no. 4, large folio, 12th or 13th cent.\nLaod. stands between Col. and 1 Thess. (ii) no. 90, small folio, 13th or\n14th cent. Laod. stands between Col. and 1 Thess. without title or\nheading of any kind. Apparently a good text. (iii) no. 348, 4to, 15th\ncent. Laod. stands between Col. and 1 Thess., without heading etc. (iv)\nno. 544, 8vo, 15th cent. Laod. stands between Col. and 1 Thess., without\nheading etc. (v) no. 1152, 4to, 13th or 14th cent. Laod. occupies the\nsame position as in the four preceding MSS and has no heading or title.\nThe first and last of these five MSS are collated by Dr Westcott\n(_Canon_ p. 572 sq.). I inspected them all.\n\nIn the Bodleian Library at Oxford belonging to the Canonici collection\nare (i) Canon. Bibl. 82 (see _Catal._ p. 277), very small 4to, 13th\ncent., containing parts of the N. T. St Paul\u2019s Epp. are at the end of\nthe volume, following Apoc. Laod. intervenes between Tit. and Philem.,\nbeginning \u2018Explicit epistola ad titum. Incipit ad laud.\u2019, and ending\n\u2018Explicit epistola ad laudicenses. Incipit ad phylemonem\u2019. (ii) Canon.\nBibl. 7 (see _Catal._ p. 251), small 4to, beginning of 14th cent.,\ncontaining Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp., Apoc., Paul. Epp. Laod. is at the\nend. (iii) Canon. Bibl. 16 (_Catal._ p. 256), small 4to, containing the\nN. T., 15th cent., written by the hand \u2018Stephani de Tautaldis\u2019. Laod.\nfollows Col. (iv) Canon. Bibl. 25 (_Catal._ p. 258), very small 4to,\nmutilated, early part of 15th cent. It contains a part of St Paul\u2019s Epp.\n(beginning in the middle of Gal.) and the Apocalypse. Laod. follows Col.\nFor information respecting these MSS I am indebted to the Rev. J.\nWordsworth.\n\nIn the University Library, Cambridge, I have observed the Epistle to the\nLaodiceans in the following MSS. (i) Dd. 5. 52 (see _Catal._ I. p. 273),\n4to, double columns, 14th cent. Laod. is between Col. and 1 Thess. (ii)\nEe. I. 9 (see _Catal._ II. p. 10), 4to, double columns, very small neat\nhand, 15th cent. It belonged to St Alban\u2019s. Laod. is between Col. and 1\nThess. (iii) Mm. 3. 2 (see _Catal._ IV. p. 174), fol., Latin Bible,\ndouble columns, 13th cent. Laod. is between Col. and 1 Thess., but the\nheading is \u2018Explicit epistola ad Colocenses, et hic incipit ad\nthesalocenses\u2019, after which Laod. follows immediately. At the top of the\npage is \u2018Ad Laudonenses\u2019. (iv) Ee. I. 16 (see _Catal._ II. p. 16), 4to,\ndouble columns, Latin Bible, 13th or 14th cent. The order of the N. T.\nis Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp., Paul Epp., Apoc. Here Laod. is between Heb.\nand Rev.; it is treated like the other books, except that it has no\nprologue.\n\nIn the College Libraries at Cambridge I have accidentally noticed the\nfollowing MSS as containing the epistle; for I have not undertaken any\nsystematic search. (i) St Peter\u2019s, O. 4. 6, fol., 2 columns, 13th cent.,\nLatin Bible. The order of the N. T. is Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp., Paul\nEpp., Apoc. The Epistle to the Laodiceans is between Heb. and Apoc. (ii)\nSidney \u0394. 5. 11, fol., 2 columns, Latin Bible, 13th cent. The order of\nthe N. T. is Evv., Paul. Epp., Acts, Cath. Epp., Apoc.; and Laod. is\nbetween 2 Thess. and 1 Tim. (iii) Emman. 2. 1. 6, large fol., Latin\nBible, early 14th cent. The order of the N. T. is different from the\nlast, being Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp., Paul. Epp.; Apoc.; but Laod. is in\nthe same position, between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim.\n\nNotice of a few other MSS, in which this epistle occurs, will be found\nin Hody _de Bibl. Text. Orig._ p. 664, and in Anger p. 145 sq.\n\nThis list, slight and partial as it is, will serve to show the wide\ncirculation of the Laodicean Epistle. At the same time it will have been\nobserved that its position varies very considerably in different copies.\n\n(i) The most common position is immediately after Colossians, as the\nnotice in Col. iv. 16 would suggest. This is its place in the most\nancient authorities, e.g. the Fulda, La Cava, and Toledo MSS, and the\nBook of Armagh.\n\n(ii) Another position is after 2 Thess. So Laud. Lat. 8, Sidn. [Delta].\n5. 11, Emman. 2. 1. 6: see also MSS in Hody _Bibl. Text. Orig._ p. 664.\nIt must be remembered that in the Latin Bibles the Epistles to the\nThessalonians sometimes precede and sometimes follow the Epistle to the\nColossians. Hence we get three arrangements in different MSS; (1) 1, 2\nThess., Col., Laod.; (2) Col., Laod., 1, 2 Thess.; (3) Col., 1, 2\nThess., Laod.\n\n(iii) It occurs at least in one instance between Titus and Philemon;\nOxon. Bodl. Canon. 82. Mai also (_Nov. Patr. Bibl._ I. 2. p. 63)\nmentions a \u2018very ancient MS\u2019, in which it stands between Titus and 1\nJohn; but he does not say how Titus and 1 John appear in such close\nneighbourhood.\n\n(iv) Again it follows Philemon in Brit. Mus. Harl. 3131. This also must\nhave been its position in the Latin MS which the scribe of the Codex\nBoernerianus had before him: see above p. 346.\n\n(v) Another and somewhat common position is after Hebrews; e.g. Brit.\nMus. Add. 11,852, Add. 10,546, Reg. I. E. viii, Sloane 539, Camb. Univ.\nEe. I. 16, Pet. O. 4. 6. See also Hody l.c.\n\n(vi) It is frequently placed at the end of the New Testament, and so\nafter the Apocalypse when the Apocalypse comes last, e.g. Harl. 2833.\nSometimes the Pauline Epistles follow the Apocalypse, so that Laod.\noccurs at the end at once of the Pauline Epistles and of the N. T.; e.g.\nBodl. Canon. Lat. 7.\n\nOther exceptional positions, e.g. after Galatians or after 3 John, are\nfound in versions and printed texts (see Anger p. 143); but no authority\nof Latin MSS is quoted for them.\n\nThe _Codex Fuldensis_, besides being the oldest MS, is also by far the\nmost trustworthy. In some instances indeed a true reading may be\npreserved in later MSS, where it has a false one; but such cases are\nrare. The text however was already corrupt in several places at this\ntime; and the variations in the later MSS are most frequently attempts\nof the scribes to render it intelligible by alteration or amplification.\nSuch for instance is the case with the mutilated reading \u2018quod est\u2019\n(ver. 13), which is amplified, even as early as the Book of Armagh, into\n\u2018quodcunque optimum est\u2019, though there can be little doubt that the\nexpression represents \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd of Phil. iii. 2, and the missing word\ntherefore is \u2018reliquum\u2019. The greatest contrast to F is presented by such\nMSS as RX, where the epistle has not only been filled out to the amplest\nproportions, but also supplied with a complete set of capitulations like\nthe Canonical books. Though for this reason these two MSS have no great\nvalue, yet they are interesting as being among the oldest which give the\namplified text, and I have therefore added a collation of them. On the\nother hand some much later MSS, especially L_{1}, preserve a very ancient\ntext, which closely resembles that of F.[627]\n\nFootnote 627:\n\n  The epistle has been critically edited by Anger _Laodicenerbrief_ p.\n  155 sq. and Westcott _Canon_ App. E. p. 572. I have already expressed\n  my obligations to both these writers for their collations of MSS.\n\n  In the apparatus of various readings, which is subjoined to the\n  epistle, I have not attempted to give such minute differences of\n  spelling as _e_ and _ae_, or _c_ and _t_ (_Laodicia_, _Laoditia_), nor\n  is the punctuation of the MSS noted.\n\n\n                            AD LAODICENSES.\n\n[Sidenote: Text of the epistle.]\n\nPaulus Apostolus non ab hominibus neque per hominem sed per Ihesum\nChristum, fratribus qui sunt Laodiciae. ^2Gratia vobis et pax a Deo\npatre et Domino Ihesu Christo.\n\n^3Gratias ago Christo per omnem orationem meam, quod permanentes estis\nin eo et perseverantes in operibus eius, promissum expectantes in diem\niudicii. ^4Neque destituant vos quorundam vaniloquia insinuantium, ut\nvos avertant a veritate evangelii quod a me praedicatur. ^5Et nunc\nfaciet Deus ut qui sunt ex me ad profectum veritatis evangelii\ndeservientes et facientes benignitatem operum quae salutis vitae\naeternae.\n\n^6Et nunc palam sunt vincula mea quae patior in Christo; quibus laetor\net gaudeo. ^7Et hoc mihi est ad salutem perpetuam; quod ipsum factum\norationibus vestris et administrante Spiritu sancto, sive per vitam sive\nper mortem. ^8Est enim mihi vivere in Christo et mori gaudium. ^9Et id\nipsum in vobis faciet misericordia sua, ut eandem dilectionem habeatis\net sitis unianimes.\n\n^{10}Ergo, dilectissimi, ut audistis praesentia mei, ita retinete et\nfacite in timore Dei, et erit vobis vita in aeternum: ^{11}Est enim Deus\nqui operatur in vos. ^{12}Et facite sine retractu quaecumque facitis.\n\n#^{13}al_13#Et quod est [reliquum], dilectissimi, gaudete in Christo; et\npraecavete sordidos in lucro. ^{14}Omnes sint petitiones vestrae palam\napud Deum; et estote firmi in sensu Christi. ^{15}Et quae integra et vera\net pudica et iusta et amabilia, facite. ^{16}Et quae audistis et\naccepistis in corde retinete; et erit vobis pax.\n\n^{18}Salutant vos sancti.\n\n^{19}Gratia Domini Ihesu cum spiritu vestro.\n\n^{20}Et facite legi Colosensibus et Colosensium vobis.\n\nInc. ad laodicenses F; Incipit epistola ad laodicenses (laudicenses\nP_{2}R) BDP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}CRH_{2}SV; Epistola ad laodicenses TM (_if this\nheading be not due to the editors themselves_); Incipit epistola pauli\nad laodicenses GH_{1}; Incipit epistola beati pauli ad laodicenses X;\nIncipit aepistola ad laudicenses sed hirunimus eam negat esse pauli A:\n_no heading_ in L_{1}L_{2}H_{2}.\n\napostolus] _om._ TM. hominibus] homine G.      ihesum christum] christum\nihesum T.      christum] _add._ \u2018et deum patrem omnipotentem qui\nsuscitavit eum a mortuis\u2019 RX.      fratribus qui sunt] his qui sunt\nfratribus A. _For_ fratribus B _has_ fratres.      laodiciae] laodicae\nT; ladoicie L; laudaciae A; laudiciae R; laodiceae B.\n\n2. patre] et patre nostro L_{1}; patre nostro H_{1}H_{2}SM; nostro\nA.     domino] add. nostro P_{2}P_{3}RGL_{2}.\n\n3. christo] deo meo DP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}CL_{1}; deo meo et christo ihesu\nRX.      meam] memoriam M.      permanentes estis] estis permanentes\nAGR.      in operibus eius] in operibus bonis H_{1}H_{2}S; om\nBDTP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}CM.      promissum expectantes] promissa expectantes T;\net promissum expectantes M; promissionem expectantes V; sperantes\npromissionem AG; sperantes promissum RX.      diem] die\nBTDP_{1}P_{3}GCRH_{1}H_{2}SL_{1}VMX.      iudicii] iudicationis GRX.\n\n4. neque] _add._ enim R.      destituant] distituant A; destituunt H_{1};\ndestituat M, Spec.; destituit DP_{1}P_{3}CM; distituit B; destitui P_{2};\ndisturbat T.       vaniloquia] vaniloquentia BDTP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}GCVM;\nvaneloquentia, Spec.      insinuantium] insinuantium se GM; insanientium\nH_{1}S;      insimulantium T. ut] sed ut BA; sed peto ne R; seductorum ne\nX.      vos] _om._ T. avertant] Spec.; evertant FML_{2}; evertent\nB.      evangelii] aevanguelii A (_and so below_).\n\n5. et nunc ... veritatis evangelii] _om._ L. faciet deus] deus faciet\nAG.       ut] _add._ sint G.      qui] que (_altered from_ qui) P_{3}*\n(or P_{3}**).      me] _add._ perveniant TM; _add._ proficiant V.      ad\nprofectum] imperfectum A; ad perfectum R; in profectum G.      veritatis\nevangelii] evangelii veritatis V.      deservientes] _add._ sint\nP_{2}**P_{3}**H_{1}H_{2}S. _For_ deservientes RX _have_ dei\nservientes.      et facientes] _repeated in_ L_{1}. _For_ facientes\nbenignitatem operum T _has_ benignitatem operum facientes.\noperum]      eorum RX; opera L_{2}.      quae] _om._ M; _add._ sunt\nAP_{2}**GCRH_{1}H_{2}SVX. _It is impossible to say in many cases whether a\nscribe intended_ operum quae _or_ operumque. _Ranke prints_ operumque\n_in_ F.       salutis] _add._ et L_{1}.\n\n6. nunc] n\u014d = non L_{2}.      palam sunt] sunt palam G; sunt\n(_om._ palam) A.       Christo] _add._ Ihesu (iesu)\nDP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}CVX.      quibus] in quibus TRMP_{2}. et] ut C.\n\n7. mihi] michi H_{1}S (_and so below_); enim (_for_ mihi)\nM.      factum] fletum L_{2}M; factum est TP_{3}**H_{1}S. orationibus]\noperationibus B.      vestris] meis DP_{1}.      et] est M: _om._\nTGRL_{1}X.      administrante spiritu sancto] administrantem spiritum\nsanctum FBL_{2}; amministrante spiritum sanctum DCP_{1}P_{2}* (_but there\nis an erasure in_ P_{1}). _For_ administrante L_{1}X _have_\namministrante; _and for_ spiritu sancto G _transposes and reads_\nsancto spiritu.      per mortem] mortem (_om._ per) H_{1}.\n\n8. est enim] etenim T.      mihi] _om._ M.      vivere] vivere vita\nDTP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}CVH_{1}H_{2}S; vere vita FL_{1}RMX; vera vita B;      vere\n(_altered into_ vivere _prima manu_) vita L_{2}.      gaudium] lucrum et\ngaudium A; gaudium ut lucrum H_{2}P_{2}**; gaudium vel lucrum H_{1}S.\n\n9. et] _om._ T; qui (_om._ et) V. id ipsum] in ipsum FBL_{2};      in\nidipsum L_{1}V; ipsum P_{2}GM; ipse TAH_{1}H_{2}SRX.      in vobis] vobis\nP_{2}; in nobis H_{2}.      misericordia sua] misericordiam suam\nFBDAP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}CH_{1}H_{2}RSVL_{1}XL_{2} (_but written_ misericordi\u0101 su\u0101\n_in several cases_).      et] _om._ L_{1}; ut V.      unianimes] unanimes\nBDTP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}GCH_{1}RL_{1}L_{2}VMSX.\n\n10. ergo] ego H_{2}. ut] et L_{2}.      praesentia mei] praesentiam ei DP;\npraesentiam G**; in praesentia mei P_{3}**; praesentiam mihi M;\npresenciam eius L_{2}; praesentiam dei A; pr\u00e6sentiam domini (dn\u012b)\nP_{2}**H_{1}H_{2}S.      ita] _om._ DP_{1}P_{2}**P_{3}CX.      retinete]\nretinere A; sentite T.      in] cum TM; _om._ B.       timore] timorem\nAB.      dei] domini H_{1}S.      vita] pax et vita RX. in aeternum] in\naeterno A; in aeterna G*; aeterna (eterna) G**PL_{1}.\n\n11. Est enim ... vos] _om._ (?) T.      enim] _om._ B.      vos] vobis\nGAH_{1}H_{2}SRVP_{2}** (_or_ P_{2}*) P_{3}**MX.\n\n12. retractu] retractatu BP_{2}RL_{2}; retractatione AGV; tractu T;\nreatu H_{1}S. _In_ P_{2}** ut peccato _is added_; _in_ H_{2} t\npeccato.      quaecumque] quodcumque TM.\n\n13. quod est reliquum] quod est FBTDP_{1}P_{2}*P_{3}*RCL_{1}L_{2}MX; quod est\noptimum GH_{1}H_{2}SV; quodcunque optimum est A; quodcunque est obtimum\nP_{2}**; quod bonum est P_{3}**: see p. 356. dilectissimi] dilectissime\nB.      christo] domino DP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}CX.      sordidos] _add._ omnes\nP_{2}**H_{1}H_{2}S; _add._ homines A. in] ut L_{1}.      lucro] lucrum RX.\n\n14. omnes] in omnibus G; homines (_attached to the preceding sentence_)\nTM.      sint] _omitted here and placed after_ palam H_{1}S.      apud]\naput F; ante AG.      deum] dominum A.      firmi in sensu christi]\nsensu firmi in christo ihesu R.\n\n15. quae] _add._ sunt R.      integra] intigra; _add._ sunt\nT.      vera] _add._ sunt DP_1P_2P_3CVX.      pudica et iusta] iusta et\npudica R.      iusta] iusta et casta AGV; casta et iusta\nP_2**H_1H_2S.      amabilia] _add._ sunt TH_1H_2SM; _add._ et sancta RX.\n\n16. audistis] _add._ et vidistis L_2.      accepistis] accipistis\nA.      pax] _add. ver._ 17, salutate omnes fratres (sanctos _for_\nfratres GV) in osculo sancto AGP_2**H_1H_2SRVX.\n\n18. sancti] omnes sancti AGRH_1SVX; sancti omnes H_2; _add._ in christo\nihesu RX.\n\n19. domini ihesu] domini nostri ihesu (iesu) christi\nDTAP_1P_2P_3GCH_1H_2SVMRX.\n\n20. et] _add._ hanc H_1H_2SP_2**.      legi] _add._ epistolam\nL_1P_3**      colosensibus et] _om._ FTDP_1P_2*P_3CVL_1L_2. _They are\nalso omitted in the La Cava_ MS; _see above_ p. 348.      colosensium]\n_add._ epistolam L_2. _The words_ colosensibus, colosensium, _are\ncommonly written with a single_ s, _more especially in the oldest MSS.\nIn L_1 the form is_ cholosensium.\n\n_The last sentence_ et facite etc. _is entirely omitted in_ M. _In_ RX\n_it is expanded into_ et facite legi colosensibus hanc epistolam et\ncolosensium (colosensibus R) vos legite. deus autem et pater domini\nnostri ihesu christi custodiat vos immaculatos in christo ihesu cui est\nhonor et gloria in secula seculorum. amen.\n\n_Subscriptions._ Explicit P_2P_3H_1; Exp. ad laodicenses F; Explicit\nepistola ad laodicenses (laudicenses R) DP_1GCH_2SRVX. _There is no\nsubscription in_ AL_1L_2, _and none is given for_ TM.\n\n[Sidenote: Notes on the epistle.]\n\nThe following notes are added for the sake of elucidating one or two\npoints of difficulty in the text or interpretation of the epistle.\n\n4 Neque] This is the passage quoted in the _Speculum_ \u00a7 50 published by\nMai _Nov. Patr. Bibl._ I. 2. p. 62 sq., \u2018Item ad Laodicenses: Neque\ndestituat vos quorundam vaneloquentia (_sic_) insinuantium, ut vos\navertant a veritate evangelii quod a me praedicatur\u2019. We ought possibly\nto adopt the reading \u2018destituat ... vaniloquentia\u2019 of this and other old\nmss in preference to the \u2018destituant ... vaniloquia\u2019 of F. \u2018Vaniloquium\u2019\nhowever is the rendering of \u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 1 Tim. i. 6, and is supported by\nsuch analogies as inaniloquium, maliloquium, multiloquium,\nstultiloquium, etc.; see Hagen _Sprachl. Er\u00f6rter. zur Vulgata_ p. 74,\nRoensch _Das Neue Testament Tertullians_ p. 710.\n\ndestituant] Properly \u2018_leave in the lurch_\u2019 and so \u2018_cheat_\u2019,\n\u2018_beguile_\u2019, e.g. Cic. _pro Rosc. Am._ 40 \u2018induxit, decepit, destituit,\nadversariis tradidit, omni fraude et perfidia fefellit.\u2019 In Heb. ix. 26\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 is translated \u2018ad destitutionem peccati\u2019. The\noriginal here may have been \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd or \u1f00\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.    insinuantium]\nIn late Latin this word means little more than \u2018to communicate\u2019, \u2018to\ninculcate\u2019, \u2018to teach\u2019: see the references in Roensch _Itala u. Vulgata_\np. 387, Heumann _Handlexicon des r\u00f6mischen Rechts_ s.v., Ducange\n_Glossarium_ s.v. So too \u2018insinuator\u2019 Tertull. _ad Nat._ ii. 1,\n\u2018insinuatrix\u2019 August. _Ep._ 110 (II. p. 317). In Acts xvii. 3 it is the\nrendering of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n5 ut qui sunt etc.] The passage, as it stands, is obviously corrupt; and\na comparison with Phil. i. 12 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u1f72 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd seems to reveal the nature of the corruption. (1)\nFor \u2018qui\u2019 we should probably read \u2018qu\u00e6\u2019, which indeed is found in some\nlate MSS of no authority. (2) There is a lacuna somewhere in the\nsentence, probably after \u2018evangelii\u2019. The original therefore would run\nin this form \u2018ut qu\u00e6 sunt ex me ad profectum veritatis [eveniant] ...\ndeservientes etc.,\u2019 the participles belonging to a separate sentence of\nwhich the beginning is lost. The supplements \u2018perveniant\u2019, \u2018proficiant\u2019,\nfound in some MSS give the right sense, though perhaps they are\nconjectural. The Vulgate of Phil. i. 12 is \u2018qu\u00e6 circa me sunt magis ad\nprofectum venerunt evangelii\u2019. In the latter part of the verse it is\nimpossible in many cases to say whether a MS intends \u2018operum qu\u00e6\u2019 or\n\u2018operumque\u2019; but the former is probably correct, as representing \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2: unless indeed this sentence also is corrupt or\nmutilated.\n\n7 administrante etc.] Considering the diversity of readings here, we may\nperhaps venture on the emendation \u2018administratione spiritus sancti\u2019, as\nthis more closely resembles the passage on which our text is founded,\nPhil. i. 19 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n12 retractu] \u2018_wavering_\u2019, \u2018_hesitation_\u2019. For this sense of\n\u2018retractare\u2019, \u2018to rehandle, discuss\u2019, and so \u2018to question, hesitate\u2019,\nand even \u2018to shirk, decline\u2019, see Oehler _Tertullian_, index p. cxciii,\nRoensch _N. T. Tertullian\u2019s_ p. 669, Ducange _Glossarium_ s.v.: comp.\ne.g. Iren. v. 11. 1 \u2018ne relinqueretur qu\u00e6stio his qui infideliter\nretractant de eo\u2019. So \u2018retractator\u2019 is equivalent to \u2018detractator\u2019 in\nTert. _de Jejun._ 15 \u2018retractatores hujus officii\u2019 (see Oehler\u2019s note);\nand in 1 Sam. xiv. 39 \u2018absque retractatione morietur\u2019 is the rendering\nof \u2018dying he shall die\u2019, \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. Here the expression\nprobably represents \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 ... \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd of Phil. ii. 14, which in the\nOld Latin is \u2018sine ... detractionibus\u2019. All three forms occur, retractus\n(Tert. _Scorp._ 1), retractatus (Tert. _Apol._ 4, _adv. Marc._ i. 1, v.\n3, _adv. Prax._ 2, and frequently), retractatio (Cic. _Tusc._ v. 29,\n\u2018sine retractatione\u2019 and so frequently; 1 Sam. l. c). Here \u2018retractus\u2019\nmust be preferred, both as being the least common form and as having the\nhighest MS authority. In Tert. _Scorp._ 1 however it is not used in this\nsame sense.\n\n13 quod est reliquum] I have already spoken of this passage, p. 352, and\nshall have to speak of it again, p. 357. The oldest and most trustworthy\nMSS have simply \u2018quod est\u2019. The word \u2018reliquum\u2019 must be supplied, as\nAnger truly discerned (p. 163); for the passage is taken from Phil. iii.\n1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3. See the Vulgate translation\nof \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd in 1 Cor. vii. 29. Later and less trustworthy authorities\nsupply \u2018optimum\u2019 or \u2018bonum\u2019.\n\n14 in sensu Christi] \u2018_in the mind of Christ_\u2019: for in 1 Cor. ii. 16\n\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 is rendered \u2018sensum Christi\u2019.\n\n20 facite legi etc.] Though the words \u2018Colosensibus et\u2019 are wanting in\nvery many of the authorities which are elsewhere most trustworthy, yet I\nhave felt justified in retaining them with other respectable copies,\nbecause (1) The hom\u0153oteleuton would account for their omission even\nin very ancient MSS; (2) The parallelism with Col. iv. 16 requires their\ninsertion; (3) The insertion is not like the device of a Latin scribe,\nwho would hardly have manipulated the sentence into a form which savours\nso strongly of a Greek original.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: Theory of a Greek original discussed.]\n\nIt is the general, though not universal, opinion that this epistle was\naltogether a forgery of the Western Church[628]; and consequently that\nthe Latin is not a translation from a lost Greek original, but preserves\nthe earliest form of the epistle. Though the forgery doubtless attained\nits widest circulation in the West, there are, I venture to think,\nstrong reasons for dissenting from this opinion.\n\nFootnote 628:\n\n  e.g. Anger _Laodicenerbrief_ p. 142 sq., Westcott _Canon_ p. 454 sq.\n  (ed. 4). Erasmus asks boldly, \u2018Qui factum est ut h\u00e6c epistola apud\n  Latinos extet, cum nullus sit apud Gr\u00e6cos, ne veterum quidem, qui\n  testetur eam a se lectam?\u2019 The accuracy of this statement will be\n  tested presently.\n\n[Sidenote: Frequent Grecisms in the epistle.]\n\nIf we read the epistle in its most authentic form, divested of the\nadditions contributed by the later MSS, we are struck with its cramped\nstyle. Altogether it has not the run of a Latin original. And, when we\ncome to examine it in detail, we find that this constraint is due very\nlargely to the fetters imposed by close adherence to Greek idiom. Thus\nfor instance we have ver. 5 \u2018_qui_ [or _qu\u00e6_] _sunt ex me_\u2019, \u03bf\u1f31 [or \u03c4\u1f70]\n\u1f10\u03be \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6; _operum qu\u00e6 salutis_, \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; ver. 6 _palam\nvincula mea qu\u00e6 patior_, \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f43\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9; ver. 13\n_sordidos in lucro_, \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2; ver. 20 _et facite legi Colosensibus\net Colosensium vobis_, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f21 \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 [\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76] \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd. It is quite possible indeed that parallels\nfor some of these anomalies may be found in Latin writers. Thus Tert.\n_c. Marc._ i. 23 \u2018redundantia justiti\u00e6 super _scribarum et Pharis\u00e6orum_\u2019\nis quoted to illustrate the genitive \u2018Colossensium\u2019 ver. 20.[629] The\nGreek cast however is not confined to one or two expressions but extends\nto the whole letter.\n\nFootnote 629:\n\n  Anger, p. 165.\n\n[Sidenote: It differs widely from the Old Latin and Vulgate Versions.]\n\nBut a yet stronger argument in favour of a Greek original remains. This\nepistle, as we saw, is a cento of passages from St Paul. If it had been\nwritten originally in Latin, we should expect to find that the passages\nwere taken directly from the Latin versions. This however is not the\ncase. Thus compare ver. 6 \u2018_palam_ sunt vincula mea\u2019 with Phil. i. 13\n\u2018ut vincula mea _manifesta_ fierent\u2019: ver. 7 \u2018_orationibus vestris et\nadministrante_ spiritu sancto\u2019 [_administratione_ spiritus sancti\u2019?]\nwith Phil. i. 19 \u2018_per vestram obsecrationem_ (V. _orationem_) et\n_subministrationem _ spiritus sancti\u2019; ver. 9 \u2018ut eandem _dilectionem_\nhabeatis et sitis unianimes\u2019 with Phil. ii. 2 \u2018eandem _caritatem_\nhabentes, unanimes\u2019; ver. 10 \u2018_ergo_, dilectissimi, ut _audistis_\npr\u00e6sentia mei ... _facite in_ timore\u2019 with Phil. ii. 12 \u2018_Propter quod_\n(V. _Itaque_) dilectissimi mihi (V. _charissimi_ mei) sicut semper\n_obaudistis_ (V. _obedistis_) ... pr\u00e6sentia (V. in pr\u00e6sentia) mei ...\n_cum_ timore (V. _metu_) ... _operamini_\u2019; ver. 11, 12 \u2018_Est enim Deus_\nqui operatur in vos (v. 1. vobis). Et facite sine _retractu_ qu\u00e6cumque\nfacitis\u2019 with Phil. ii. 13, 14 _Deus enim est_ qui operatur in vobis ...\nOmnia autem facite sine ... _detractionibus_ (V. _h\u00e6sitationibus_)\u2019;\nver. 13 _quod est_ [_reliquum_], dilectissimi, gaudete in Christo et\n_pr\u00e6cavete_\u2019 with Phil. iii. 1, 2 \u2018_de c\u00e6tero_, fratres mei, gaudete in\nDomino ... _Videte_\u2019; ib. \u2018_sordidos in lucro_\u2019 with the Latin\nrenderings of \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 1 Tim. iii. 8 \u2018_turpilucros_\u2019 (V. \u2018_turpe\nlucrum sectantes_\u2019), \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b4\u1fc6 Tit. i. 7 _turpilucrum_ (V. \u2018_turpis\nlucri cupidum_\u2019); ver. 14 \u2018_sint petitiones_ vestr\u00e6 _palam_ apud Deum\u2019\nwith Phil. iv. 6 \u2018_postulationes_ (V. petitiones) vestr\u00e6 _innotescant_\napud Deum\u2019; ver. 20 \u2018facite _legi_ Colosensibus et _Colosensium vobis_\u2019\nwith Col. iv. 16 \u2018facite _ut_ et in Laodicensium ecclesia _legatur_ et\n_eam qu\u00e6 Laodicensium_ (MSS Laodiciam) _est ut_ (om. V.) _vos legatis_\u2019.\nThese examples tell their own tale. [Sidenote: Thus internal evidence\nfavours a Greek original.]The occasional resemblances to the Latin\nVersion are easily explained on the ground that reminiscences of this\nversion would naturally occur to the translator of the epistle. The\nhabitual divergences from it are only accounted for on the hypothesis\nthat the original compiler was better acquainted with the New Testament\nin Greek than in Latin, and therefore presumably that he wrote in Greek.\n\n[Sidenote: External testimony to the same effect.]\n\nAnd, if we are led to this conclusion by an examination of the epistle\nitself, we shall find it confirmed by an appeal to external testimony.\nThere is ample evidence that a spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans was\nknown to Greek writers, as well as Latin, at a sufficiently early date.\n[Sidenote: [Muratorian Fragment].]A mention of such an epistle occurs as\nearly as the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon (about A.D. 170), where\nthe writer speaks of two letters, one to the Laodiceans and another to\nthe Alexandrians, as circulated under the name of Paul[630]. The bearing\nof the words however is uncertain. He may be referring to the Marcionite\nrecension of the canonical Epistle to the Ephesians, which was entitled\nby that heretic an Epistle to the Laodiceans[631]. Or, if this\nexplanation of his words be not correct (as perhaps it is not), still we\nshould not feel justified in assuming that he is referring to the extant\napocryphal epistle. Indeed we should hardly expect that an epistle of\nthis character would be written and circulated at so early a date. The\nreference in Col. iv. 16 offered a strong temptation to the forger, and\nprobably more than one unscrupulous person was induced by it to try his\nhand at falsification[632]. But, however this may be, it seems clear\nthat before the close of the fourth century our epistle was largely\ncirculated in the East and West alike. [Sidenote: Jerome.]\u2018Certain\npersons\u2019, writes Jerome in his account of St Paul, \u2018read also an Epistle\nto the Laodiceans, but it is rejected by all[633]\u2019. No doubt is\nentertained, that this father refers to our epistle. [Sidenote:\nTheodore.]If then we find that about the same time Theodore of\nMopsuestia also mentions an Epistle to the Laodiceans, which he condemns\nas spurious[634], it is a reasonable inference that the same writing is\nmeant. [Sidenote: Theodoret.]In this he is followed by Theodoret[635];\nand indeed the interpretations of Col. iv. 16 given by the Greek Fathers\nof this age were largely influenced as we have seen, by the presence of\na spurious epistle which they were anxious to discredit[636]. [Sidenote:\n2nd Council of Nic\u00e6a.]Even two or three centuries later the epistle\nseems to have been read in the East. At the Second Council of Nic\u00e6a\n(A.D. 787) it was found necessary to warn people against \u2018a forged\nEpistle to the Laodiceans\u2019 which was \u2018circulated, having a place in some\ncopies of the Apostle[637].\u2019\n\nFootnote 630:\n\n  _Canon Murat._ p. 47 (ed. Tregelles). The passage stands in the MS,\n  \u2018Fertur etiam ad Laudecenses alia ad Alexandrinos Pauli nomine fincte\n  ad heresem Marcionis et alia plura qu\u00e6 in catholicam eclesiam recepi\n  non potest.\u2019 There is obviously some corruption in the text. One very\n  simple emendation is the repetition of \u2018alia\u2019, so that the words would\n  run \u2018ad Laudicenses alia, alia ad Alexandrinos\u2019. In this case fincte\n  (= finct\u00e6) might refer to the two epistles first mentioned, and the\n  Latin would construe intelligibly. The writing described as \u2018ad\n  Laodicenses alia\u2019 might then be the Epistle to the Ephesians under its\n  Marcionite title, the writer probably not having any personal\n  knowledge of it, but supposing from its name that it was a different\n  and a forged writing. But what can then be the meaning of \u2018alia ad\n  Alexandrinos\u2019? Is it, as some have thought, the Epistle to the\n  Hebrews? But this could not under any circumstances be described as\n  \u2018fincta ad h\u00e6resem Marcionis\u2019, even though we should strain the\n  meaning of the preposition and interpret the words \u2018_against_ the\n  heresy of Marcion\u2019. And again our knowledge of Marcion\u2019s Canon is far\n  too full to admit the hypothesis that it included a spurious Epistle\n  to the Alexandrians, of which no notice is elsewhere preserved. We are\n  therefore driven to the conclusion that there is a hiatus here, as in\n  other places of this fragment, probably after \u2018Pauli nomine\u2019; and\n  \u2018finct\u00e6\u2019 will then refer not to the two epistles named before, but to\n  the mutilated epistles of Marcion\u2019s Canon which he had \u2018tampered with\n  to adapt them to his heresy\u2019. In this case the letter \u2018ad Laudicenses\u2019\n  may refer to our apocryphal epistle or to some earlier forgery.\n\nFootnote 631:\n\n  See the introduction to the Epistle to the Ephesians.\n\nFootnote 632:\n\n  Timotheus, who became Patriarch of Constantinople in 511, while still\n  a presbyter, includes in a list of apocryphal works forged by the\n  Manicheans \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 [i.e. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5] \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae,\n  Meurse p. 117 (quoted by Fabricius, _Cod. Apocr. N. T._ I.. p. 139).\n  Anger (p. 27) suggests that there is a confusion of the Marcionites\n  and Manicheans here. I am disposed to think that Timotheus recklessly\n  credits the Manicheans with several forgeries of which they were\n  innocent, among others with our apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans.\n  Still it is possible that there was another Laodicean Epistle forged\n  by these heretics to support their peculiar tenets.\n\nFootnote 633:\n\n  _Vir. Ill._ 5 (II. p. 840) \u2018Legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab\n  omnibus exploditur\u2019.\n\nFootnote 634:\n\n  The passage is quoted above, p. 341, note 593.\n\nFootnote 635:\n\n  \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 636:\n\n  Anger (p. 143) argues against a Greek original on the ground that the\n  Eastern Church, unlike the Latin, did not generally interpret Col. iv.\n  16 as meaning an epistle written _to_ the Laodiceans. The fact is\n  true, but the inference is wrong, as the language of the Greek\n  commentators themselves shows.\n\nFootnote 637:\n\n  Act. vi. Tom. v (Labbe viii. p. 1125 ed. Colet.) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n  \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74 \u1f15\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7, \u1f23\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: The Greek restored.]\n\nThe Epistle to the Laodiceans then in the original Greek would run\nsomewhat as follows[638]:\n\n                         ==\u03a0\u03a1\u039f\u03a3 \u039b\u0391\u039f\u0394\u0399\u039a\u0395\u0391\u03a3.==\n\n[Sidenote: ^a Gal. i. 1.]\n\n^a==\u03a0\u0391\u03a5\u039b\u039f\u03a3 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03f2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u1f30\u03b7\u03f2\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03f2 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03f2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03f2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03f2\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3.== [Sidenote: ^b Gal.\ni. 3.; Phil. i. 2.]^2^b==\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03f2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f30\u03b7\u03f2\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.==\n\n[Sidenote: ^c Phil. i. 3.]\n\n^3^c==\u0395\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u1ff6 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03f2\u1fc3 \u03b4\u03b5\u03ae\u03f2\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03f2\u03c4\u1f72 \u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03f2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03f2\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03f2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03f2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03f2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6,== [Sidenote: ^d Gal.\nv. 5.]^d==\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd== [Sidenote: ^e 2 Pet. ii.\n9; iii. 7; cf. Phil. ii. 16.]^e==\u03b5\u1f30\u03f2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03f2\u03b5\u03c9\u03f2.==\n\n^4==\u039c\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03f2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03f2\u03c9\u03f2\u03b9\u03bd== [Sidenote: ^f 1 Tim. i.\n6.]^f==\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03f2\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1== [Sidenote: ^g 2 Tim.\niv. 4.]^g==\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03f2\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03f2\u03c9\u03f2\u03b9\u03bd \u03c5\u03bc\u1fb6\u03f2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78== [Sidenote: ^h Col. i. 5; Gal.\nii. 5, 14.]^h==\u03c4\u1fc6\u03f2 \u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03f2== [Sidenote: ^i Gal. i. 11 (cf. i.\n8).]^i==\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03f2\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03f2 \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6.== ^5==\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03f2\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03f2 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1== [Sidenote: ^k Phil. i. 12.]^k==\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03be \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f30\u03f2\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03f2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03f2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 * * * \u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03f2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03f2\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03f2\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03f2 \u03f2\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03f2 [\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76] \u03c4\u1fc6\u03f2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc6\u03f2.== ^6==\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd== [Sidenote: ^l Phil. i. 13.]^l==\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03b5\u03f2\u03bc\u03bf\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03bf\u1f53\u03f2\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u1ff7, \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03f2== [Sidenote: ^m Matt. v. 12; cf. Phil. i.\n18]^m==\u03c7\u03c1\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9.== ^7==\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76== [Sidenote: ^n Phil. i.\n19.]^n==\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03cc \u1f10\u03f2\u03c4\u03af\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03f2 \u03f2\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u0390\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f43 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03f2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03ad\u03b7\u03f2\u03b5\u03c9\u03f2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03f2 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03f2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5,== [Sidenote: ^o Phil. i.\n20.]^o==\u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc6\u03f2 )\u03ad\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5.== [Sidenote: ^p Phil. i.\n21.]^8^p==\u1f11\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b6\u1fc6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac.==\n^9==\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03f2\u03b5\u03b9 [\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76] \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03f2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1==\n[Sidenote: ^q Phil. ii. 2.]^q==\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5, \u03f2\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03f2\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\n\u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03f2.== [Sidenote: ^r Phil. ii. 12.]^{10}^r==\u1f65\u03f2\u03c4\u03b5, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03af, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03f2\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03f2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03f2\u03af\u1fb3 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03f2== [Sidenote: ^s 2 Thess. ii. 5\n(see vulg.).]^s==\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03f2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03f2\u03b8\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03f2\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f30\u03f2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u00b7== [Sidenote: ^t Phil. ii. 13.]^{11}^t==\u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03f2\n\u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u1f10\u03f2\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd.== [Sidenote: ^u Phil. ii.\n14.]^{12}==\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76== ^u==\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03f2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03f2\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd== [Sidenote: ^x\nCol. iii. 17, 23.]^x==\u1f45 \u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5.==\n\n[Sidenote: ^y Phil. iii. 1.]^{13}==\u039a\u03b1\u1f76== ^y==\u03c4\u1f78 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03af,\n\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u1ff7. \u0392\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03f2== [Sidenote: ^z 1 Tim. iii. 8;\nTit. i. 7.]^z==\u03b1\u1f30\u03f2\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03f2.== [Sidenote: ^a Phil. iv.\n6.]^{14}^a==\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03ad\u03f2\u03b8\u03c9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03f2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76==\n[Sidenote: ^b 1 Cor. xv. 58.]^b==\u1f11\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03f2\u03b8\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd== [Sidenote:\n^c 1 Cor. ii. 16.]^c==\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bd\u03bf\u0390 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.== [Sidenote: ^d Phil.\niv. 8, 9.]^{15}^d==\u1f45\u03f2\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f41\u03bb\u03cc\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03f2\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03f2\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6, \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03f2\u03f2\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5.== ^{16}==\u1f03 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03f2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f14\u03f2\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u2019 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd.==\n\n[Sidenote: ^e Phil. iv. 22.]\n\n^{18}^e==\u1f08\u03f2\u03c0\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03f2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9.==\n\n[Sidenote: ^f Phil. iv. 23.]\n\n^{19}^f==\u1f29 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f38\u03b7\u03f2\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03f2\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03f2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd.==\n\n[Sidenote: ^g Col. iv. 16.]\n\n^{20}^g==\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03f2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03f2 \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03f2\u03f2\u03b1\u03b5\u1fe6\u03f2\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03f2\u03b8\u1fc7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03f2\u03f2\u03b1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd.==\n\nFootnote 638:\n\n  A Greek version is given in Elias Hutter\u2019s Polyglott New Testament\n  (Noreb. 1599); see Anger p. 147 note g. But I have retranslated the\n  epistle anew, introducing the Pauline passages, of which it is almost\n  entirely made up, as they stand in the Greek Testament. The references\n  are given in the margin.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: Scanty circulation in the East,]\n\nBut, though written originally in Greek, it was not among Greek\nChristians that this epistle attained its widest circulation. In the\nlatter part of the 8th century indeed, when the Second Council of Nic\u00e6a\nmet, it had found its way into some copies of St Paul\u2019s Epistles[639].\nBut the denunciation of this Council seems to have been effective in\nsecuring its ultimate exclusion. We discover no traces of it in any\nextant Greek MS, with the very doubtful exception which has already been\nconsidered[640]. [Sidenote: but wide diffusion in the West.]But in the\nLatin Church the case was different. St Jerome, as we saw, had\npronounced very decidedly against it. Yet even his authority was not\nsufficient to stamp it out. At least as early as the sixth century it\nfound a place in some copies of the Latin Bibles: and before the close\nof that century its genuineness was affirmed by perhaps the most\ninfluential theologian whom the Latin Church produced during the eleven\ncenturies which elapsed between the age of Jerome and Augustine and the\nera of the Reformation. [Sidenote: Gregory the Great.]Gregory the Great\ndid not indeed affirm its canonicity. He pronounced that the Church had\nrestricted the canonical Epistles of St Paul to fourteen, and he found a\nmystical explanation of this limitation in the number itself, which was\nattained by adding the number of the Commandments to the number of the\nGospels and thus fitly represented the teaching of the Apostle which\ncombines the two[641]. But at the same time he states that the Apostle\nwrote fifteen; and, though he does not mention the Epistle to the\nLaodiceans by name, there can be little doubt that he intended to\ninclude this as his fifteenth epistle, and that his words were rightly\nunderstood by subsequent writers as affirming its Pauline authorship.\nThe influence of this great name is perceptible in the statements of\nlater writers. [Sidenote: Haymo of Halberstadt.]Haymo of Halberstadt,\nwho died A.D. 853, commenting on Col. iv. 16, says, The Apostle \u2018enjoins\nthe Laodicean Epistle to be read to the Colossians, because though it is\nvery short and is not reckoned in the Canon, yet still it has some\nuse[642]\u2019.[Sidenote: Hervey of Dole.] And between two or three centuries\nlater Hervey of Dole (c. A.D. 1130), if it be not Anselm of Laon[643],\ncommenting on this same passage, says: \u2018Although the Apostle wrote this\nepistle also as his fifteenth or sixteenth[644], and it is established\nby Apostolic authority like the rest, yet holy Church does not reckon\nmore than fourteen,\u2019 and he proceeds to justify this limitation of the\nCanon with the arguments and in the language of Gregory[645]. Others\nhowever did not confine themselves to the qualified recognition given to\nthe epistle by the great Bishop of Rome. Gregory had carefully\ndistinguished between genuineness and canonicity; but this important\ndistinction was not seldom disregarded by later writers. [Sidenote:\nEnglish Church. Aelfric.]In the English Church more especially it was\nforgotten. Thus Aelfric abbot of Cerne, who wrote during the closing\nyears of the tenth century, speaks as follows of St Paul: \u2018Fifteen\nepistles wrote this one Apostle to the nations by him converted unto the\nfaith: which are large books in the Bible and make much for our\namendment, if we follow his doctrine that was teacher of the Gentiles\u2019.\nHe then gives a list of the Apostle\u2019s writings, which closes with \u2018one\nto Philemon and one to the Laodiceans; fifteen in all as loud as thunder\nto faithful people[646]\u2019. [Sidenote: John of Salisbury.]Again, nearly\ntwo centuries later John of Salisbury, likewise writing on the Canon,\nreckons \u2018Fifteen epistles of Paul included in one volume, though it be\nthe wide-spread and common opinion of nearly all that there are only\nfourteen; ten to churches and four to individuals: supposing that the\none addressed to the Hebrews is to be reckoned among the Epistles of\nPaul, as Jerome the doctor of doctors seems to lay down in his preface,\nwhere he refuteth the cavils of those who contended that it was not\nPaul\u2019s. But the fifteenth is that which is addressed to the Church of\nthe Laodiceans; and though, as Jerome saith, it be rejected by all,\nnevertheless was it written by the Apostle. Nor is this opinion assumed\non the conjecture of others, but it is confirmed by the testimony of the\nApostle himself: for he maketh mention of it in the Epistle to the\nColossians in these words, _When this epistle shall have been read among\nyou_, etc. (Col. iv. 16)[647]\u2019. Aelfric and John are the typical\ntheologians of the Church in this country in their respective ages. The\nConquest effected a revolution in ecclesiastical and theological\nmatters. The Old English Church was separated from the Anglo-Norman\nChurch in not a few points both of doctrine and of discipline. Yet here\nwe find the representative men of learning in both agreed on this one\npoint\u2014the authorship and canonicity of the Epistle to the Laodiceans.\nFrom the language of John of Salisbury however it appears that such was\nnot the common verdict at least in his age, and that on this point the\ninstinct of the many was more sound than the learning of the few. Nor\nindeed was it the undisputed opinion even of the learned in this country\nduring this interval. [Sidenote: The epistle repudiated by Lanfranc.]The\nfirst Norman Archbishop, Lanfranc, an Italian by birth and education,\nexplains the passage in the Colossian Epistle as referring to a letter\nwritten by the Laodiceans to the Apostle, and adds that otherwise \u2018there\nwould be more than thirteen Epistles of Paul[648]\u2019. Thus he tacitly\nignores the Epistle to the Laodiceans, with which he can hardly have\nbeen unacquainted.\n\nFootnote 639:\n\n  Quoted above, p. 359, note 637.\n\nFootnote 640:\n\n  See above, p. 315 sq.\n\nFootnote 641:\n\n  Greg. Magn. _Mor. in Iob._ xxxv. \u00a7 25 (III. p. 433, ed. Gallicc.)\n  \u2018Recte vita ecclesi\u00e6 multiplicata per decem et quattuor computatur;\n  quia utrumque testamentum custodiens, et tam secundum Legis decalogum\n  quam secundum quattuor Evangelii libros vivens, usque ad perfectionis\n  culmen extenditur. Unde et Paulus apostolus quamvis epistolas\n  quindecim scripserit, sancta tamen ecclesia non amplius quam\n  quatuordecim tenet, ut ex ipso epistolarum numero ostenderet quod\n  doctor egregius Legis et Evangelii secreta rimasset\u2019.\n\nFootnote 642:\n\n  _Patrol. Lat._ CXVII. p. 765 (ed. Migne) \u2018Et eam qu\u00e6 erat Laodicensium\n  ideo pr\u00e6cipit Colossensibus legi, quia, licet perparva sit et in\n  Canone non habeatur, aliquid tamen utilitatis habet\u2019. He uses the\n  expression \u2018eam qu\u00e6 erat Laodicensium\u2019, because \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 was\n  translated in the Latin Bible \u2018eam qu\u00e6 Laodicensium est\u2019.\n\nFootnote 643:\n\n  See _Galatians_ p. 232 on the authorship of this commentary.\n\nFootnote 644:\n\n  A third Epistle to the Corinthians being perhaps reckoned as the 15th;\n  see Fabric. _Cod. Apocr. Nov. Test._ II p. 866.\n\nFootnote 645:\n\n  _Patrol. Lat._ CLXXXI. p. 1355 sq. (ed. Migne) \u2018_et ea_ similiter\n  epistola, _qu\u00e6 Laodicensium_ est, i.e. quam ego Laodicensibus misi,\n  legatur vobis. Quamvis et hanc epistolam quintamdecimam vel\n  sextamdecimam apostolus scripserit, et auctoritas eam apostolica sicut\n  c\u00e6tera firmavit, sancta tamen ecclesia non amplius quam quatuordecim\n  tenet, ut ex ipso epistolarum numero ostenderet etc.\u2019 At the end of\n  the notes to the Colossians he adds \u2018Hucusque protenditur epistola qu\u00e6\n  missa est ad Colossenses. Congruum autem videtur ut propter notitiam\n  legentium subjiciamus eam qu\u00e6 est ad Laodicenses directa; quam, ut\n  diximus, in usu non habet ecclesia. Est ergo talis.\u2019 Then follows the\n  text of the Laodicean Epistle, but it is not annotated.\n\nFootnote 646:\n\n  _A Saxon Treatise concerning the Old and New Testament_ by \u00c6lfricus\n  Abbas, p. 28 (ed. W. L\u2019Isle, London 1623).\n\nFootnote 647:\n\n  Ioann. Sarisb. _Epist._ 143 (I. p. 210 ed. Giles) \u2018Epistol\u00e6 Pauli\n  quindecim uno volumine comprehens\u00e6, licet sit vulgata et fere omnium\n  communis opinio non esse nisi quatuordecim, decem ad ecclesias,\n  quatuor ad personas; si tamen illa qu\u00e6 ad Hebr\u00e6os est connumeranda est\n  epistolis Pauli, quod in pr\u00e6fatione ejus astruere videtur doctorum\n  doctor Hieronymus, illorum dissolvens argutias qui eam Pauli non esse\n  contendebant. C\u00e6terum quintadecima est illa qu\u00e6 ecclesi\u00e6 Laodicensium\n  scribitur; et licet, ut ait Hieronymus, ab omnibus explodatur, tamen\n  ab apostolo scripta est: neque sententia h\u00e6c de aliorum pr\u00e6sumitur\n  opinione sed ipsius apostoli testimonio roboratur. Meminit enim ipsius\n  in epistola ad Colossenses his verbis, _Quum lecta fuerit apud vos h\u00e6c\n  epistola, etc._\u2019\n\nFootnote 648:\n\n  _Patrol. Lat._ CL. p. 331 (ed. Migne) on Col. iv. 16 \u2018H\u00e6c si esset\n  apostoli, _ad Laodicenses_ diceret, non _Laodicensium_; et plusquam\n  tredecim essent epistol\u00e6 Pauli\u2019. We should perhaps read xiiii for\n  xiii, \u2018quatuordecim\u2019 for \u2018tredecim\u2019, as Lanfranc is not likely to have\n  questioned the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews.\n\n[Sidenote: Occurrence in MSS of all ages and countries.]\n\nIndeed the safest criterion of the extent to which this opinion\nprevailed, is to be found in the manuscripts. At all ages from the sixth\nto the fifteenth century we have examples of its occurrence among the\nPauline Epistles and most frequently without any marks which imply doubt\nrespecting its canonicity. These instances are more common in proportion\nto the number of extant MSS in the earlier epoch than in the later[649].\nIn one of the three or four extant authorities for the Old Latin Version\nof the Pauline Epistles it has a place[650]. In one of the two most\nancient copies of Jerome\u2019s revised Vulgate it is found[651]. Among the\nfirst class MSS of this latter Version its insertion is almost as common\nas its omission. This phenomenon moreover is not confined to any one\ncountry. Italy, Spain, France, Ireland, England, Germany,\nSwitzerland\u2014all the great nations of Latin Christendom\u2014contribute\nexamples of early manuscripts in which this epistle has a place[652].\n\nFootnote 649:\n\n  The proportion however is very different in different collections. In\n  the Cambridge University Library I found the epistle in four only out\n  of some thirty MSS Which I inspected; whereas in the Lambeth Library\n  the proportion was far greater.\n\nFootnote 650:\n\n  The _Speculum_ of Mai, see above, p. 348.\n\nFootnote 651:\n\n  The Codex Fuldensis, which was written within a few years of the Codex\n  Amiatinus.\n\nFootnote 652:\n\n  The list of MSS given above p. 348 sq. will substantiate this\n  statement.\n\n[Sidenote: Versions.]\n\nAnd, when the Scriptures came to be translated into the vernacular\nlanguages of modern Europe, this epistle was not uncommonly included.\n[Sidenote: Albigensian.]Thus we meet with an Albigensian version, which\nis said to belong to the thirteenth century[653]. [Sidenote:\nBohemian.]Thus too it is found in the Bohemian language, both in\nmanuscript and in the early printed Bibles, in various recensions[654].\n[Sidenote: German.]And again an old German translation is extant, which,\njudging from linguistic peculiarities, cannot be assigned to a later\ndate than about the fourteenth century, and was printed in not less than\nfourteen editions of the German Bible at the close of the fifteenth and\nthe beginning of the sixteenth centuries, before Luther\u2019s version\nappeared[655]. [Sidenote: English.]In the early English Bibles too it\nhas a place. Though it was excluded by both Wycliffe and Purvey, yet it\ndid not long remain untranslated and appears in two different and quite\nindependent versions, in MSS written before the middle of the fifteenth\ncentury[656]. The prologue prefixed to the commoner of the two forms\nruns as follows:\n\n[Sidenote: English prologue.]\n\n\u2018Laodicensis ben also Colocenses, as tweye townes and oo peple in\nmaners. These ben of Asie, and among hem hadden be false apostlis, and\ndisceyuede manye. Therfore the postle bringith hem to mynde of his\nconuersacion and trewe preching of the gospel, and excitith hem to be\nstidfast in the trewe witt and loue of Crist, and to be of oo wil. But\nthis pistil is not in comyn Latyn bookis, and therfor it was but late\ntranslatid into Englisch tunge[657].\u2019\n\nFootnote 653:\n\n  An account of this MS, which is at Lyons, is given by Reuss in the\n  _Revue de Th\u00e9ologie_ v. p. 334 (Strassb. 1852). He ascribes the\n  translation of the New Testament to the 13th century, and dates the MS\n  a little later.\n\nFootnote 654:\n\n  This version is printed by Anger, p. 170 sq.\n\nFootnote 655:\n\n  See Anger, p. 149 sq., p. 166 sq.\n\nFootnote 656:\n\n  These two versions are printed in Lewis\u2019s New Testament translated by\n  J. Wiclif (1731) p. 99 sq., and in Forshall and Madden\u2019s _Wycliffite\n  Versions of the Holy Bible_ (1850) IV. p. 438 sq. They are also given\n  by Anger p. 168 sq. (1843), who takes the rarer form from Lewis and\n  the other from a Dresden MS. Dr Westcott also has printed the commoner\n  version in his _Canon_, p. 457 (ed. 4), from Forshall and Madden.\n\n  Of one of these two versions Forshall and Madden give a collation of\n  several MSS; the other is taken from a single MS (I. p. xxxii). Lewis\n  does not state whence he derived the rarer of these two versions, but\n  there can be little doubt that it came from the same MS _Pepys._ 2073\n  (belonging to Magd. Coll. Cambridge) from which it was taken by\n  Forshall and Madden (I. p. lvii); since he elsewhere mentions using\n  this MS (p. 104). The version is not known to exist in any other.\n  Forshall and Madden give the date of the MS as about 1440.\n\nFootnote 657:\n\n  From Forshall and Madden, IV. p. 438. The earliest MSS which contain\n  the common version of the Laodicean Epistle (to which this prologue is\n  prefixed) date about A.D. 1430.\n\n[Sidenote: Two Versions of the epistle.]\n\nThe two forms of the epistle in its English dress are as follows[658].\nThe version on the left hand is extant only in a single MS; the other,\nwhich occupies the right column, is comparatively common.\n\n\u2018Poul, apostle, not of men, ne bi man, but bi Jhesu Crist, to the\nbritheren that ben of Laodice, grace to \u021dou, and pees of God the fadir,\nand of the Lord Jhesu Crist. Gracis I do to Crist bi al myn orisoun,\nthat \u021de be dwellinge in him and lastinge, bi the biheest abidinge in the\ndai of doom. Ne he vnordeynede vs of sum veyn speche feynynge, that vs\nouerturne fro the sothfastnesse of the gospel that of me is prechid.\nAlso now schal God do hem leuynge, and doynge of blessdnesse of werkis,\nwhich heelthe of lyf is. And now openli ben my boondis, whiche I suffre\nin Crist Jhesu, in whiche I glad and ioie. And that is to me heelthe\neuerlastynge, that that I dide with oure preieris, and mynystringe the\nHoly Spirit, bi lijf or bi deeth. It is forsothe to me lijf into Crist,\nand to die ioie withouten eende. In vs he schal do his merci, that \u021de\nhaue the same louynge, and that \u021de be of o wil. Therfore, derlyngis, as\n\u021de han herd in presence of me, hold \u021de, and do \u021de in drede of God; and\nit schal be to \u021dou lijf withouten eend. It is forsothe God that worchith\nin vs. And do \u021de withouten ony withdrawinge, what soeuere \u021de doon. And\nthat it is, derlyngis, ioie \u021de in Crist, and flee \u021de maad foul in clay.\nAlle \u021doure axingis ben open anentis God, and be \u021de fastned in the witt\nof Crist. And whiche been hool, and sooth, and chast, and rightwijs, and\nlouable, do \u021de; and whiche herden and take in herte, hold \u021de; and it\nschal be to \u021dou pees. Holi men greeten \u021dou weel, in the grace of oure\nLord Jhesu Crist, with the Holi Goost. And do \u021de that pistil of\nColosensis to be red to \u021dou. Amen.\n\n\u2018Poul, apostle, not of men, ne by man, but bi Jhesu Crist, to the\nbritheren that ben at Laodice, grace to \u021dou, and pees of God the fadir,\nand of the Lord Jhesu Crist. I do thankyngis to my God bi al my preier,\nthat \u021de be dwelling and lastyng in him, abiding the biheest in the day\nof doom. For neithir the veyn spekyng of summe vnwise men hath lettide\n\u021dou, the whiche wolden turne \u021dou fro the treuthe of the gospel, that is\nprechid of me. And now hem that ben of me, to the profi\u021dt of truthe of\nthe gospel, God schal make disseruyng, and doyng benygnyte of werkis,\nand helthe of euerlasting lijf. And now my boondis ben open, which Y\nsuffre in Crist Jhesu, in whiche Y glade and ioie. And that is to me to\neuerlastyng helthe, that this same thing be doon by \u021doure preiers, and\nmynystryng of the Holi Goost, either bi lijf, either bi deeth. Forsothe\nto me it is lijf to lyue in Crist, and to die ioie. And his mercy schal\ndo in \u021dou the same thing, that \u021de moun haue the same loue, and that \u021de\nbe of oo will. Therfore, \u021de weel biloued britheren, holde \u021de, and do \u021de\nin the dreede of God, as \u021de han herde the presence of me; and lijf schal\nbe to \u021dou withouten eende. Sotheli it is God that worchith in \u021dou. And,\nmy weel biloued britheren, do \u021de without eny withdrawyng what euer\nthingis \u021de don. Joie \u021de in Crist, and eschewe \u021de men defoulid in lucre,\n_either foul wynnyng_. Be alle \u021doure askyngis open anentis God, and be\n\u021de stidefast in the witt of Crist. And do \u021de tho thingis that ben hool,\nand trewe, and chaast, and iust, and able to be loued; and kepe \u021de in\nherte tho thingis that \u021de haue herd and take; and pees schal be to \u021dou.\nAlle holi men greten \u021dou weel. The grace of oure Lord Jhesu Crist be\nwith \u021doure spirit. And do \u021de that pistil of Colocensis to be red to \u021dou.\n\nFootnote 658:\n\n  Printed from Forshall and Madden l.c. I am assured by those who are\n  thoroughly conversant with old English, that they can discern no\n  difference of date in these two versions, and that they both belong\n  probably to the early years of the 15th century. The rarer version is\n  taken from a better Latin text than the other.\n\n[Sidenote: Revival of learning and condemnation of the epistle.]\n\nThus for more than nine centuries this forged epistle hovered about the\ndoors of the sacred Canon, without either finding admission or being\nperemptorily excluded. At length the revival of learning dealt its\ndeath-blow to this as to so many other spurious pretensions. As a rule,\nRoman Catholics and Reformers were equally strong in their condemnation\nof its worthlessness. The language of Erasmus more especially is worth\nquoting for its own sake, and must not be diluted by translation:\n\n[Sidenote: Strictures of Erasmus.]\n\n\u2018Nihil habet Pauli pr\u00e6ter voculas aliquot ex c\u00e6teris ejus epistolis\nmendicatas.... Non est cujusvis hominis Paulinum pectus effingere.\nTonat, fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paulus. At h\u00e6c, pr\u00e6terquam quod\nbrevissima est, quam friget, quam jacet!... Quanquam quid attinet\nargumentari? Legat, qui volet, epistolam.... Nullum argumentum\nefficacius persuaserit eam non esse Pauli quam ipsa epistola. Et si quid\nmihi naris est, ejusdem est opificis qui n\u00e6niis suis omnium veterum\ntheologorum omnia scripta contaminavit, conspurcavit, perdidit, ac\npr\u00e6cipue ejus qui pr\u00e6 c\u00e6teris indignus erat ea contumelia, nempe D.\nHieronymi[659]\u2019.\n\nFootnote 659:\n\n  On Col. iv. 16. Erasmus is too hard upon the writer of this letter,\n  when he charges him with such a mass of forgeries. He does not explain\n  how this hypothesis is consistent with the condemnation of the Epistle\n  to the Laodiceans in Hieron. _Vir. Ill._ 5 (quoted above p. 359).\n\n[Sidenote: Exceptions.]\n\nBut some eccentric spirits on both sides were still found to maintain\nits genuineness. [Sidenote: Pr\u00e6torius.]Thus on the one hand the Lutheran\nSteph. Pr\u00e6torius prefaces his edition of this epistle (A.D. 1595) with\nthe statement that he \u2018restores it to the Christian Church\u2019; he gives\nhis opinion that it was written \u2018either by the Apostle himself or by\nsome other Apostolic man\u2019: he declares that to himself it is \u2018redolent\nof the spirit and grace of the most divine Paul\u2019; and he recommends\nyounger teachers of the Gospel to \u2018try their strength in explaining it\u2019,\nthat thus \u2018accustoming themselves gradually to the Apostolic doctrine\nthey may extract thence a flavour sweeter than ambrosia and\nnectar[660].\u2019 [Sidenote: Stapleton.]On the other hand the Jesuit\nStapleton was not less eager in his advocacy of this miserable cento. To\nhim its genuineness had a controversial value. Along with several other\napocryphal writings which he accepted in like manner, it was important\nin his eyes as showing that the Church had authority to exclude even\nApostolic writings from the Canon, if she judged fit[661]. But such\nphenomena were quite abnormal. The dawn of the Reformation epoch had\neffectually scared away this ghost of a Pauline epistle, which (we may\nconfidently hope) has been laid for ever and will not again be suffered\nto haunt the mind of the Church.\n\nFootnote 660:\n\n  _Pauli Apostoli ad Laodicenses Epistola, Latine et Germanice_,\n  Hamburg, 1595, of which the preface is given in Fabricius _Cod. Apocr.\n  Nov. Test._ II. p. 867. It is curious that the only two arguments\n  against its genuineness which he thinks worthy of notice are (1) Its\n  brevity; which he answers by appealing to the Epistle to Philemon; and\n  (2) Its recommendation of works (\u2018quod scripsit opera esse facienda\n  qu\u00e6 sunt salutis \u00e6tern\u00e6\u2019); which he explains to refer to works that\n  proceed of faith.\n\nFootnote 661:\n\n  See Bp. Davenant on Col. iv. 16: \u2018Detestanda Stapletonis opinio, qui\n  ipsius Pauli epistolam esse statuit, quam omnes patres ut adulterinam\n  et insulsam repudiarunt: nec sanior conclusio, quam inde deducere\n  voluit, posse nimirum ecclesiam germanam et veram apostoli Pauli\n  epistolam pro sua authoritate e Canone excludere\u2019. So also Whitaker\n  _Disputation on Scripture_ passim (see the references given above, p.\n  341, note 595).\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                          EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.\n\n                      INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE.\n\n[Sidenote: Unique character of the epistle.]\n\n\nThe Epistle to Philemon holds a unique place among the Apostle\u2019s\nwritings. It is the only strictly private letter which has been\npreserved. The Pastoral Epistles indeed are addressed to individuals,\nbut they discuss important matters of Church discipline and government.\nEvidently they were intended to be read by others besides those to whom\nthey are immediately addressed. On the other hand the letter before us\ndoes not once touch upon any question of public interest. It is\naddressed apparently to a layman. It is wholly occupied with an incident\nof domestic life. The occasion which called it forth was altogether\ncommon-place. It is only one sample of numberless letters which must\nhave been written to his many friends and disciples by one of St Paul\u2019s\neager temperament and warm affections, in the course of a long and\nchequered life. [Sidenote: Its value.]Yet to ourselves this fragment,\nwhich has been rescued, we know not how, from the wreck of a large and\nvaried correspondence, is infinitely precious. Nowhere is the social\ninfluence of the Gospel more strikingly exerted; nowhere does the\nnobility of the Apostle\u2019s character receive a more vivid illustration\nthan in this accidental pleading on behalf of a runaway slave.\n\n[Sidenote: The persons addressed.]\n\nThe letter introduces us to an ordinary household in a small town of\nPhrygia. Four members of it are mentioned by name, the father, the\nmother, the son, and the slave.\n\n[Sidenote: 1. Philemon.]\n\n1. The head of the family bears a name which, for good or for evil, was\nnot unknown in connexion with Phrygian story. [Sidenote: Occurrence of\nthe name in Phrygia.]The legend of Philemon and Baucis, the aged\npeasants who entertained not angels but gods unawares, and were rewarded\nby their divine guests for their homely hospitality and their conjugal\nlove[662], is one of the most attractive in Greek mythology, and\ncontrasts favourably with many a revolting tale in which the powers of\nOlympus are represented as visiting this lower earth. It has a special\ninterest too for the Apostolic history, because it suggests an\nexplanation of the scene at Lystra, when the barbarians would have\nsacrificed to the Apostles, imagining that the same two gods, Zeus and\nHermes, had once again deigned to visit, in the likeness of men, those\nregions which they had graced of old by their presence[663]. Again, in\nhistorical times we read of one Philemon who obtained an unenviable\nnotoriety at Athens by assuming the rights of Athenian citizenship,\nthough a Phrygian and apparently a slave[664]. Otherwise the name is not\ndistinctively Phrygian. It does not occur with any special frequency in\nthe inscriptions belonging to this country; and though several persons\nbearing this name rose to eminence in literary history, not one, so far\nas we know, was a Phrygian.\n\nFootnote 662:\n\n  Ovid. _Met._ vii. 626 sq. \u2018Jupiter huc, _specie mortali_, cumque\n  parente Venit Atlantiades positis caducifer alis\u2019 etc.\n\nFootnote 663:\n\n  Acts xiv. 11 \u03bf\u1f35 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 _\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2_ \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2\n  \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. There are two points worth observing in the Phrygian legend, as\n  illustrating the Apostolic history. (1) It is a miracle, which opens\n  the eyes of the peasant couple to the divinity of their guests thus\n  disguised; (2) The immediate effect of this miracle is their attempt\n  to sacrifice to their divine visitors, \u2018dis hospitibus mactare\n  parabant\u2019. The familiarity with this beautiful story may have\n  suggested to the barbarians of Lystra, whose \u2018Lycaonian speech\u2019 was\n  not improbably a dialect of Phrygian, that the same two gods, Zeus and\n  Hermes, had again visited this region on an errand at once of\n  beneficence and of vengeance, while at the same time it would prompt\n  them to conciliate the deities by a similar mode of propitiation,\n  \u1f24\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 664:\n\n  Aristoph. _Av._ 762 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd \u03a6\u03c1\u1f7a\u03be ... \u03c6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2\n  \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.\n\n[Sidenote: This Philemon a Colossian]\n\nThe Philemon with whom we are concerned was a native, or at least an\ninhabitant, of Coloss\u00e6. This appears from the fact that his slave is\nmentioned as belonging to that place. It may be added also, in\nconfirmation of this view, that in one of two epistles written and\ndespatched at the same time St Paul announces the restoration of\nOnesimus to his master, while in the other he speaks of this same person\nas revisiting Coloss\u00e6[665]. On the other hand it would not be safe to\nlay any stress on the statement of Theodoret, that Philemon\u2019s house was\nstill standing at Coloss\u00e6 when he wrote[666], for traditions of this\nkind have seldom any historical worth.\n\nFootnote 665:\n\n  Compare Col. iv. 9 with Philem. 11 sq.\n\nFootnote 666:\n\n  Theodoret in his preface to the epistle says \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03b5 [[\u1f41\n  \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd] \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5. This is generally taken to mean that Philemon\u2019s house was\n  still standing, when Theodoret wrote. This may be the correct\n  interpretation, but the language is not quite explicit.\n\n[Sidenote: converted by St Paul.]\n\nPhilemon had been converted by St Paul himself[667]. At what time or\nunder what circumstances he received his first lessons in the Gospel, we\ndo not know: but the Apostle\u2019s long residence at Ephesus naturally\nsuggests itself as the period when he was most likely to have become\nacquainted with a citizen of Coloss\u00e6[668].\n\nFootnote 667:\n\n  ver. 19.\n\nFootnote 668:\n\n  See above, p. 30 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: His evangelical zeal,]\n\nPhilemon proved not unworthy of his spiritual parentage. Though to\nEpaphras belongs the chief glory of preaching the Gospel at\nColoss\u00e6[669], his labours were well seconded by Philemon. The title of\n\u2018fellow-labourer,\u2019 conferred upon him by the Apostle[670], is a noble\ntestimony to his evangelical zeal. Like Nymphas in the neighbouring\nChurch of Laodicea[671], Philemon had placed his house at the disposal\nof the Christians at Coloss\u00e6 for their religious and social\ngatherings[672]. Like Gaius[673], to whom the only other private letter\nin the Apostolic Canon is addressed[674], he was generous in his\nhospitalities. [Sidenote: and wide hospitality.]All those with whom he\ncame in contact spoke with gratitude of his kindly attentions[675]. Of\nhis subsequent career we have no certain knowledge. [Sidenote: Legendary\nmartyrdom.]Legendary story indeed promotes him to the bishopric of\nColoss\u00e6[676], and records how he was martyred in his native city under\nNero[677]. But this tradition or fiction is not entitled to any credit.\nAll that we really know of Philemon is contained within this epistle\nitself.\n\nFootnote 669:\n\n  See above, p. 31 sq.\n\nFootnote 670:\n\n  ver. 1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u1ff7 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 671:\n\n  Col. iv. 15.\n\nFootnote 672:\n\n  ver. 2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3. The Greek commentators, Chrysostom\n  and Theodoret, suppose that St Paul designates Philemon\u2019s own family\n  (including his slaves) by this honourable title of \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, in order\n  to interest them in his petition. This is plainly wrong. See the note\n  on Col. iv. 15.\n\nFootnote 673:\n\n  3 Joh. 5 sq.\n\nFootnote 674:\n\n  I take the view that the \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 addressed in the Second Epistle of St\n  John is some church personified, as indeed the whole tenour of the\n  epistle seems to imply: see esp. vv. 4, 7 sq. The salutation to the\n  \u2018elect lady\u2019 (ver. 1) from her \u2018elect sister\u2019 (ver. 15) will then be a\n  greeting sent to one church from another; just as in 1 Peter, the\n  letter is addressed at the outset \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (i. 1) and\n  contains at the close a salutation from \u1f21 \u1f10\u03bd \u0392\u03b1\u03b2\u03c5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae (v.\n  13).\n\nFootnote 675:\n\n  vv. 5, 7.\n\nFootnote 676:\n\n  _Apost. Const._ vii. 46 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u1fb3 \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 [\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2]\n  \u1f0c\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, \u0392\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n  \u1f48\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. The Greek _Men\u00e6a_ however make Philemon bishop\n  of Gaza; see Tillemont I. p. 574 note lxvi.\n\nFootnote 677:\n\n  See Tillemont I. pp. 290, 574, for the references.\n\n[Sidenote: 2. Apphia his wife.]\n\n2. It is a safe inference from the connexion of the names that Apphia\nwas the wife of Philemon[678]. The commentators assume without misgiving\nthat we have here the familiar Roman name Appia, though they do not\nexplain the intrusion of the aspirate[679]. This seems to be a mistake.\n[Sidenote: A strictly Phrygian name.]The word occurs very frequently on\nPhrygian inscriptions as a proper name, and is doubtless of native\norigin. At Aphrodisias and Philadelphia, at Eumenia and Apamea Cibotus,\nat Stratonicea, at Philomelium, at \u00c6zani and Coti\u00e6um and Doryl\u00e6um, at\nalmost all the towns far and near, which were either Phrygian or subject\nto Phrygian influences, and in which any fair number of inscriptions has\nbeen preserved, the name is found. If no example has been discovered at\nColoss\u00e6 itself, we must remember that not a single proper name has been\npreserved on any monumental inscription at this place. It is generally\nwritten either Apphia or Aphphia[680]; more rarely Aphia, which is\nperhaps due merely to the carelessness of the stonecutters[681].\n[Sidenote: Its affinities]But, so far as I have observed, it always\npreserves the aspirate. Its diminutive is Apphion or Aphphion or\nAphion[682]. The allied form Aphphias or Aphias, also a woman\u2019s name, is\nfound, though less commonly[683]; and we likewise frequently meet with\nthe shorter form Apphe or Aphphe[684]. The man\u2019s name corresponding to\nApphia is Apphianos, but this is rare[685]. The root would appear to be\nsome Phrygian term of endearment or relationship[686]. [Sidenote: and\nanalogies.]It occurs commonly in connexion with other Phrygian names of\na like stamp, more especially Ammia, which undergoes the same\nmodifications of form, Amia, Ammias, Ammion or Amion, Ammiane or\nAmmiana, with the corresponding masculine Ammianos[687]. With these we\nmay also compare Tatia, Tatias, Tation, Tatiane or Tatiana, Tatianos.\nSimilar too is the name Papias or Pappias, with the lengthened form\nPapianos, to which corresponds the feminine Papiane[688]. So again we\nhave Nannas or Nanas, Nanna or Nana, with their derivatives, in these\nPhrygian inscriptions[689]. [Sidenote: Not to be confused with the Latin\nAppia.]There is a tendency in some of the allied forms of Apphia or\nAphphia to drop the aspirate so that they are written with a _pp_, more\nespecially in Appe[690], but not in the word itself; nor have I observed\nconversely any disposition to write the Roman name Appia with an\naspirate, Apphia or Aphphia[691]. Even if such a disposition could be\nproved, the main point for which I am contending can hardly be\nquestioned. With the overwhelming evidence of the inscriptions before\nus, it is impossible to doubt that Apphia is a native Phrygian\nname[692].\n\nFootnote 678:\n\n  Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3814 \u039d\u03ad\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c6\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. In the\n  following inscriptions also a wife bearing the name Apphia (Aphphia,\n  Aphia) or Apphion (Aphphion, Aphion) is mentioned in connexion with\n  her husband; 2720, 2782, 2836, 3446, 2775 b, c, d, 2837 b, 3849, 3902\n  m, 3962, 4141, 4277, 4321 f, 3846 z^{17}, etc.\n\n  M. Renan (_Saint Paul_ p. 360) says, \u2018Appia, diaconesse de cette\n  ville\u2019. Like other direct statements of this same writer, as for\n  instance that the Colossians sent a deputation to St Paul\n  (_L\u2019Antechrist_ p. 90), this assertion rests on no authority.\n\nFootnote 679:\n\n  They speak of \u1f08\u03c0\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 as a softened form of the Latin _Appia_, and quote\n  Acts xxviii. 15, where however the form is \u1f08\u03c0\u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. Even Ewald writes\n  the word Appia.\n\nFootnote 680:\n\n  \u1f08\u03c0\u03c6\u03af\u03b1, no. 2782, 2835, 2950, 3432, 3446, 2775 b, c, d, 2837 b, 3902 m,\n  3962, 4124, 4145: \u1f08\u03c6\u03c6\u03af\u03b1, no. 3814, 4141, 4277, 4321 f, 3827 l, 3846 z,\n  3846 z^{17}. So far as I could trace any law, the form \u1f08\u03c6\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 is\n  preferred in the northern and more distant towns like \u00c6zani and\n  Coti\u00e6um, while \u1f08\u03c0\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 prevails in the southern towns in the more\n  immediate neighbourhood of Coloss\u00e6, such as Aphrodisias. This accords\n  with the evidence of our MSS, in which \u1f08\u03c0\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 is the best supported\n  form, though \u1f08\u03c6\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 is found in some. In Theod. Mops. (Cramer\u2019s _Cat._\n  p. 105) it becomes \u1f08\u03bc\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 by a common corruption; and Old Latin copies\n  write the dative _Apphiadi_ from the allied form _Apphias_.\n\n  The most interesting of these inscriptions mentioning the name is no.\n  2782 at Aphrodisias, where there is a notice of \u03a6\u03bb. \u1f08\u03c0\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n  \u1f08\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nFootnote 681:\n\n  no. 2720, 3827.\n\nFootnote 682:\n\n  \u1f0c\u03c0\u03c6\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd or \u1f0c\u03c6\u03c6\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd 2733, 2836, 3295, 3849, 3902 m, 4207; \u1f0c\u03c6\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd 3846\n  z^{34} and \u1f0c\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd 3846 z^{31}; and even \u1f0c\u03c6\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, 3167, 3278. In 3902 m\n  the mother\u2019s name is \u1f08\u03c0\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 and the daughter\u2019s \u1f0c\u03c0\u03c6\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 683:\n\n  \u1f08\u03c6\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, 3697, 3983; \u1f08\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 3879.\n\nFootnote 684:\n\n  \u1f0c\u03c6\u03c6\u03b7 3816, 3390, 4143; \u1f0c\u03c0\u03c6\u03b7 3796, 4122.\n\nFootnote 685:\n\n  It is met with at the neighbouring town of Hierapolis, in the form\n  \u1f08\u03c0\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 no. 3911. It also occurs on coins of not very distant parts\n  of Asia Minor, being written either \u1f08\u03c0\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 or \u1f08\u03c6\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; Mionnet III.\n  p. 179, 184, IV. p. 65, 67, _Suppl._ VI. p. 293, VII. p. 365.\n\nFootnote 686:\n\n  Suidas \u1f0c\u03c0\u03c6\u03b1: \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, and so Bekk. _Anecd._ p.\n  441. Eustath. _Il._ p. 565 says \u1f04\u03c0\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd \u1f08\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f21\n  \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f02\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c0\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., and he\n  adds \u1f30\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f04\u03c0\u03c6\u03b1 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f04\u03c0\u03c6\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\n  \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f42\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f04\u03c0\u03c6\u03b1 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f08\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd.\n  These words were found in writers of Attic comedy (Pollux iii. 74 \u1f21\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u1ff3\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03c6\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; comp.\n  Xenarchus \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019\n  \u1f00\u03c0\u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03c9\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, Meineke _Fragm. Com._ III. p. 617): and\n  doubtless they were heard commonly in Attic homes. But were they not\n  learnt in the nursery from Phrygian slaves? \u1f08\u03c0\u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd appears in two\n  inscriptions almost as a proper name, 2637 \u039a\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03b4\u03af\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, 3277\n  \u1f00\u03c0\u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u039b\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae. In no. 4207 (at Telmissus) we have \u1f19\u03bb\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u1f0c\u03c6\u03c6\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, so that it seems sometimes to have been employed side by side\n  with a Greek name; comp. no. 3912 a \u03a0\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 ... \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2,\n  quoted above p. 48. This will account for the frequency of the names,\n  Apphia, Apphion, etc. In Theocr. XV. 13 we have \u1f00\u03c0\u03c6\u1fe6\u03c2, and in Callim.\n  _Hym. Dian._ 6 \u1f04\u03c0\u03c0\u03b1, as a term of endearment applied to a father.\n\nFootnote 687:\n\n  This appears from the fact that Ammias and Ammianos appear sometimes\n  as the names of mother and son respectively in the same inscriptions;\n  e.g. 3846 z^{82}, 3847 k, 3882 i.\n\nFootnote 688:\n\n  On the name Papias or Pappias see above p. 48.\n\nFootnote 689:\n\n  See Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ III. p. 1085 for the names \u039d\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, etc.\n\nFootnote 690:\n\n  We have not only the form \u1f0c\u03c0\u03c0\u03b7 several times (e.g. 3827 x, 3846 p,\n  3846 x, 3846 z^{46}, etc.); but also \u1f0c\u03c0\u03c0\u03b7\u03c2 3827 g, 3846 n, 3846 z^{77},\n  still as a woman\u2019s name. These all occur in the same neighbourhood, at\n  Coti\u00e6um and \u00c6zani. I have not noticed any instance of this phenomenon\n  in the names Apphia, Apphion; though probably, where Roman influences\n  were especially strong, there would be a tendency to transform a\n  Phrygian name into a Roman, e.g. Apphia into Appia, and Apphianus into\n  Appianus.\n\nFootnote 691:\n\n  In the Greek historians of Rome for instance the personal name is\n  always \u1f0c\u03c0\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 and the road \u1f08\u03c0\u03c0\u03af\u03b1; so too in Acts xxviii. 15 it is\n  \u1f08\u03c0\u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 692:\n\n  The point to be observed is that examples of these names are thickest\n  in the heart of Phrygia, that they diminish in frequency as Phrygian\n  influence becomes weaker, and that they almost, though not entirely,\n  disappear in other parts of the Greek and Roman world.\n\n[Sidenote: Her share in the letter.]\n\nOf this Phrygian matron we know nothing more than can be learnt from\nthis epistle. The tradition or fiction which represents her as martyred\ntogether with her husband may be safely disregarded. St Paul addresses\nher as a Christian[693]. Equally with her husband she had been aggrieved\nby the misconduct of their slave Onesimus, and equally with him she\nmight interest herself in the penitent\u2019s future well-being.\n\nFootnote 693:\n\n  ver. 2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1fc7. See the note.\n\n[Sidenote: 3. Archippus, the son.]\n\n3. With less confidence, but still with a reasonable degree of\nprobability, we may infer that Archippus, who is likewise mentioned in\nthe opening salutation, was a son[694] of Philemon and Apphia. The\ninscriptions do not exhibit the name in any such frequency either in\nPhrygia or in the surrounding districts, as to suggest that it was\ncharacteristic of these parts[695]. [Sidenote: His office]Our Archippus\nheld some important office in the Church[696]; but what this was, we are\nnot told. St Paul speaks of it as a \u2018ministry\u2019 (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1). Some have\ninterpreted the term technically as signifying the diaconate; but St\nPaul\u2019s emphatic message seems to imply a more important position than\nthis. Others again suppose that he succeeded Epaphras as bishop of\nColoss\u00e6, when Epaphras left his native city to join the Apostle at\nRome[697]; but the assumption of a regular and continuous episcopate in\nsuch a place as Coloss\u00e6 at this date seems to involve an anachronism.\nMore probable than either is the hypothesis which makes him a presbyter.\nOr perhaps he held a missionary charge, and belonged to the order of\n\u2018evangelists[698].\u2019 Another question too arises respecting Archippus.\nWhere was he exercising this ministry, whatever it may have been? At\nColoss\u00e6, or at Laodicea? [Sidenote: and abode,]His connexion with\nPhilemon would suggest the former place. But in the Epistle to the\nColossians his name is mentioned immediately after the salutations to\nthe Laodiceans and the directions affecting that Church; and this fact\nseems to connect him with Laodicea. [Sidenote: Laodicea, rather than\nColoss\u00e6.]On the whole this appears to be the more probable\nsolution[699]. Laodicea was within walking distance of Coloss\u00e6[700].\nArchippus must have been in constant communication with his parents, who\nlived there; and it was therefore quite natural that, writing to the\nfather and mother, St Paul should mention the son\u2019s name also in the\nopening address, though he was not on the spot. An early tradition, if\nit be not a critical inference from the allusion in the Colossian\nletter, makes him bishop not of Coloss\u00e6, but of Laodicea[701].\n\nFootnote 694:\n\n  So Theodore of Mopsuestia. But Chrysostom \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f34\u03c3\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd, and\n  Theodoret \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f0c\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf.\n\nFootnote 695:\n\n  It occurs in two Smyrn\u00e6an inscriptions, no. 3143, 3224.\n\nFootnote 696:\n\n  Col. iv. 17 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f23\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n  \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 697:\n\n  So the Ambrosian Hilary on Col. iv. 17.\n\nFootnote 698:\n\n  Ephes. iv. 11 bears testimony to the existence of the office of\n  evangelist at this date.\n\nFootnote 699:\n\n  It is adopted by Theodore of Mopsuestia. On the other hand Theodoret\n  argues against this view on critical grounds; \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n  \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1fa4\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n  \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9: but he does not allege any traditional support for his own\n  opinion.\n\nFootnote 700:\n\n  See above pp. 2, 15.\n\nFootnote 701:\n\n  _Apost. Const._ vii, 46 quoted above p. 372, note 676.\n\n[Sidenote: His career.]\n\nOf the apprehensions which the Apostle seems to have entertained\nrespecting Archippus, I have already spoken[702]. It is not improbable\nthat they were suggested by his youth and inexperience. St Paul here\naddresses him as his \u2018fellow-soldier[703],\u2019 but we are not informed on\nwhat spiritual campaigns they had served in company. Of his subsequent\ncareer we have no trustworthy evidence. Tradition represents him as\nhaving suffered martyrdom at Coloss\u00e6 with his father and mother.\n\nFootnote 702:\n\n  See p. 42.\n\nFootnote 703:\n\n  ver. 2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc3 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. See the note.\n\n[Sidenote: 4. Onesimus.]\n\n4. But far more important to the history of Christianity than the\nparents or the son of the family, is the servant. The name Onesimus was\nvery commonly borne by slaves. Like other words signifying utility,\nworth, and so forth, it naturally lent itself to this purpose[704].\nAccordingly the inscriptions offer a very large number of examples in\nwhich it appears as the name of some slave or freedman[705]; [Sidenote:\nA servile name.]and even where this is not the case, the accompaniments\nfrequently show that the person was of servile descent, though he might\nnever himself have been a slave[706]. Indeed it occurs more than once as\na fictitious name for a slave[707], a fact which points significantly to\nthe social condition naturally suggested by it. In the inscriptions of\nproconsular Asia it is found[708]; but no stress can be laid on this\ncoincidence, for its occurrence as a proper name was doubtless\ncoextensive with the use of the Greek language. More important is the\nfact that in the early history of Christianity it attains some eminence\nin this region. [Sidenote: Its prominence among the Christians of\nproconsular Asia.]One Onesimus is bishop of Ephesus in the first years\nof the second century, when Ignatius passes through Asia Minor on his\nway to martyrdom, and is mentioned by the saint in terms of warm\naffection and respect[709]. Another, apparently an influential layman,\nabout half a century later urges Melito bishop of Sardis to compile a\nvolume of extracts from the scriptures; and to him this father dedicates\nthe work when completed[710]. Thus it would appear that the memory of\nthe Colossian slave had invested the name with a special popularity\namong Christians in this district.\n\nFootnote 704:\n\n  e.g. Chresimus, Chrestus, Onesiphorus, Symphorus, Carpus, etc. So too\n  the corresponding female names Onesime, Chreste, Sympherusa, etc.: but\n  more commonly the women\u2019s names are of a different cast of meaning,\n  Arescusa, Prepusa, Terpusa, Thallusa, Tryphosa, etc.\n\nFootnote 705:\n\n  e.g. in the _Corp. Inscr. Lat._ III. p. 323, no. 2146, p. 359, no.\n  2723, p. 986, no. 6107 (where it is spelled Honesimus); and in\n  Muratori, CC. 6, DXXIX. 5, CMLXVIII. 4, MIII. 2, MDXVIII. 2, MDXXIII.\n  4, MDLI. 9, MDLXXI. 5, MDLXXV. 1, MDXCII. 8, MDXCVI. 7, MDCVI. 2,\n  MDCX. 19, MDCXIV. 17, 39; and the corresponding female name Onesime in\n  MCCXXXIX. 12, MDXLVI. 6, MDCXII. 9. A more diligent search than I have\n  made would probably increase the number of examples very largely.\n\nFootnote 706:\n\n  e.g. _Corp. Inscr. Lat._ III. p. 238, no. 1467, D. M. M. AVR \u00b7 ONESIMO\n  \u00b7 CARPION \u00b7 AVG \u00b7 LIB \u00b7 TABVL \u00b7 FILIO. In the next generation any\n  direct notice of servile origin would disappear; but the names very\n  often indicate it. It need not however necessarily denote low\n  extraction: see e.g. Liv. xliv. 16.\n\nFootnote 707:\n\n  Menander _Inc._ 312 (Meineke _Fragm. Com._ IV. p. 300), where the\n  \u1f48\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 addressed is a slave, as appears from the mention of his\n  \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, i.e. master; Galen _de Opt. Doctr._ I (I. p. 41 ed. K\u00fchn),\n  where there is a reference to a work of Phavorinus in which was\n  introduced one Onesimus \u1f41 \u03a0\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2;\n  _Anthol. Gr\u00e6c._ II. p. 161, where the context shows that the person\n  addressed as Onesimus is a slave; ib. II. p. 482, where the master,\n  leaving legacies to his servants, says \u1f48\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f35\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 | \u03bc\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c2\n  \u1f10\u03c7\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9 \u0394\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c7\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9\u00b7 | \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03a3\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u03a3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1,\n  \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. See also the use of the name in the Latin play quoted Suet.\n  _Galb._ 13 (according to one reading).\n\nFootnote 708:\n\n  It occurs as near to Coloss\u00e6 as Aphrodisias; Boeckh _C. I._ no. 2743.\n\nFootnote 709:\n\n  Ign. _Ephes._ I. \u1f10\u03bd \u1f48\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u1fc3 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76\n  \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u1ff3 ... \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f00\u03be\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n  \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9; see also \u00a7\u00a7 2, 5, 6.\n\nFootnote 710:\n\n  Melito in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26 \u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f48\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1ff7 \u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n  \u1f18\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f20\u03be\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n[Sidenote: Position and conduct of Onesimus.]\n\nOnesimus represented the least respectable type of the least respectable\nclass in the social scale. He was regarded by philosophers as a \u2018live\nchattel\u2019, a \u2018live implement[711]\u2019; and he had taken philosophy at her\nword. He had done what a chattel or an implement might be expected to\ndo, if endued with life and intelligence. He was treated by the law as\nhaving no rights[712]; and he had carried the principles of the law to\ntheir logical consequences. He had declined to entertain any\nresponsibilities. There was absolutely nothing to recommend him. He was\na slave, and what was worse, a Phrygian slave; and he had confirmed the\npopular estimate of his class[713] and nation[714] by his own conduct.\nHe was a thief and a runaway. His offence did not differ in any way, so\nfar as we know, from the vulgar type of slavish offences. He seems to\nhave done just what the representative slave in the Roman comedy\nthreatens to do, when he gets into trouble. He had \u2018packed up some goods\nand taken to his heels[715].\u2019 Rome was the natural cesspool for these\noffscourings of humanity[716]. In the thronging crowds of the metropolis\nwas his best hope of secresy. In the dregs of the city rabble he would\nfind the society of congenial spirits.\n\nFootnote 711:\n\n  Aristot. _Pol._ i. 4 (p. 1253) \u1f41 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03bc\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9 \u1f14\u03bc\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd, _Eth. Nic._\n  viii. 13 (p. 1161) \u1f41 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bc\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f44\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. See also the classification of \u2018implements\u2019 in Varro, _de Re\n  rust._ I. 17. 1 \u2018Instrumenti genus vocale et semivocale et mutum:\n  vocale, in quo sunt servi; semivocale, in quo boves; mutum, in quo\n  plaustra\u2019.\n\nFootnote 712:\n\n  Dig. iv. 5 \u2018Servile caput nullum jus habet\u2019 (Paulus); _ib._ l. 17 \u2018In\n  personam servilem nulla cadit obligatio\u2019 (Ulpianus).\n\nFootnote 713:\n\n  Plaut. _Pseud._ I. 2, 6 \u2018Ubi data occasiost, rape, clepe, tene,\n  harpaga, bibe, es, fuge; hoc eorum opust\u2019; Ovid. _Amor._ i. 15. 17\n  \u2018Dum fallax servus\u2019.\n\nFootnote 714:\n\n  Cicero speaks thus of Phrygia and the neighbouring districts; _pro\n  Flacc._ 27 \u2018Utrum igitur nostrum est an vestrum hoc proverbium\n  _Phrygem plagis fieri solere meliorem_? Quid de tota Caria? Nonne hoc\n  vestra voce vulgatum est; si quid cum periculo experiri velis, _in\n  Care_ id potissimum esse faciendum? Quid porro in Gr\u00e6co sermone tam\n  tritum est, quam si quis despicatui ducitur, ut _Mysorum ultimus_ esse\n  dicatur? Nam quid ego dicam de Lydia? Quis unquam Gr\u00e6cus com\u0153diam\n  scripsit in qua servus primarum partium non Lydus esset\u2019: comp.\n  Alciphr. _Epist._ iii. 38 \u03a6\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; Apollod.\n  Com. (Meineke, IV. p. 451) \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a6\u03c1\u03cd\u03be \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. This last\n  passage refers to the cowardice with which, besides all their other\n  bad qualities, the Phrygians were credited: comp. Anon. Com. (_ib._\n  IV. p. 652) \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u1ff6 \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2, Tertull. _de Anim._ 20 \u2018Comici\n  Phrygas timidos illudunt\u2019: see Ribbeck _Com. Lat._ p. 106.\n\nFootnote 715:\n\n  Ter. _Phorm._ i. 4. 13 \u2018aliquid convasassem, atque hinc me protinam\n  conjicerem in pedes\u2019.\n\nFootnote 716:\n\n  Sall. _Cat._ xxxvii. 5 \u2018Romam sicuti in sentinam confluxerant\u2019: comp.\n  Tac. _Ann._ xv. 44.\n\n[Sidenote: His encounter with St Paul in Rome]\n\nBut at Rome the Apostle spread his net for him, and he was caught in its\nmeshes. How he first came in contact with the imprisoned missionary, we\ncan only conjecture. Was it an accidental encounter with his\nfellow-townsman Epaphras in the streets of Rome which led to the\ninterview? Was it the pressure of want which induced him to seek alms\nfrom one whose large-hearted charity must have been a household word in\nhis master\u2019s family? Or did the memory of solemn words, which he had\nchanced to overhear at those weekly gatherings in the upper chamber at\nColoss\u00e6, haunt him in his loneliness, till, yielding to the fascination,\nhe was constrained to unburden himself to the one man who could soothe\nhis terrors and satisfy his yearnings? Whatever motive may have drawn\nhim to the Apostle\u2019s side\u2014whether the pangs of hunger or the gnawings of\nconscience\u2014when he was once within the range of attraction, he could not\nescape. [Sidenote: and conversion.]He listened, was impressed, was\nconvinced, was baptized. The slave of Philemon became the freedman of\nChrist[717]. St Paul found not only a sincere convert, but a devoted\nfriend, in his latest son in the faith. Aristotle had said that there\nought not to be, and could not be, any friendship with a slave _qua_\nslave, though there might be _qua_ man[718]; and others had held still\nstronger language to the same effect. The Apostle did not recognize the\nphilosopher\u2019s subtle distinction. For him the conventional barrier\nbetween slave and free had altogether vanished before the dissolving\npresence of an eternal verity[719]. [Sidenote: St Paul\u2019s affection for\nhim.]He found in Onesimus something more than a slave, a beloved brother\nboth as a slave and as a man, \u2018both in the flesh and in the Lord[720].\u2019\nThe great capacity for good which appears in the typical slave of Greek\nand Roman fiction, notwithstanding all the fraud and profligacy\noverlying it, was evoked and developed here by the inspiration of a new\nfaith and the incentive of a new hope. The genial, affectionate, winning\ndisposition, purified and elevated by a higher knowledge, had found its\nproper scope. Altogether this new friendship was a solace and a strength\nto the Apostle in his weary captivity, which he could ill afford to\nforego. To take away Onesimus was to tear out Paul\u2019s heart[721].\n\nFootnote 717:\n\n  1 Cor. vii. 22.\n\nFootnote 718:\n\n  _Eth. Nic._ viii. 13 (p. 1161) \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\n  \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f97 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd\n  \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f41 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bc\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f44\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f97 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f97 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. On the views of Aristotle respecting slavery see Becker\u2019s\n  _Charikles_ III. p. 2 sq. (ed. 2, 1854) with the editor K. F.\n  Hermann\u2019s references to the literature of the subject, p. 5.\n\nFootnote 719:\n\n  1 Cor. vii. 21 sq., Gal. iii. 28, Col. iii. 11. With this contrast the\n  expression attributed to a speaker in Macrob. _Sat._ i. 11 \u2018quasi vero\n  curent divina de servis\u2019.\n\nFootnote 720:\n\n  Philem. 16.\n\nFootnote 721:\n\n  ver. 12.\n\n[Sidenote: Necessity for his return]\n\nBut there was an imperious demand for the sacrifice. Onesimus had\nrepented, but he had not made restitution. He could only do this by\nsubmitting again to the servitude from which he had escaped. Philemon\nmust be made to feel that, when Onesimus was gained for Christ, he was\nregained for his old master also. But if the claim of duty demanded a\ngreat sacrifice from Paul, it demanded a greater still from Onesimus.\n[Sidenote: notwithstanding the risk.]By returning he would place himself\nentirely at the mercy of the master whom he had wronged. Roman law, more\ncruel than Athenian, practically imposed no limits to the power of the\nmaster over his slave[722]. The alternative of life or death rested\nsolely with Philemon, and slaves were constantly crucified for far\nlighter offences than his[723]. A thief and a runaway, he laid no claim\nto forgiveness.\n\nFootnote 722:\n\n  _Dig._ i. 6 \u2018In potestate sunt servi dominorum; quae quidem potestas\n  juris gentium est: nam apud omnes peraeque gentes animadvertere\n  possumus dominis in servos vitae necisque potestatem fuisse\u2019. Comp.\n  Senec. _de Clem._ i. 18 \u2018Cum in servum omnia liceant\u2019.\n\nFootnote 723:\n\n  So the mistress in Juv. _Sat._ vi. 219 sq. \u2018Pone crucem servo. Meruit\n  quo crimine servus supplicium? quis testis adest? quis detulit?... O\n  demens, ita servus homo est? nil fecerit, esto. Hoc volo, sic jubeo,\n  etc.\u2019 Compare the words of the slave in Plautus _Mil. Glor._ ii. 4. 19\n  \u2018Noli minitari: scio crucem futuram mihi sepulcrum: Ibi mei sunt\n  majores siti, pater, avos, proavos, abavos\u2019.\n\n[Sidenote: Mediation of Tychicus]\n\n[Sidenote: supplemented by the Apostle\u2019s letter.]\n\nA favourable opportunity occurred for restoring Onesimus to his master.\nTychicus, as the bearer of letters from the Apostle to Laodicea and\nColoss\u00e6, had occasion to visit those parts. He might undertake the\noffice of mediator, and plead the cause of the penitent slave with the\noffended master. Under his shelter Onesimus would be safer than if he\nencountered Philemon alone. But St Paul is not satisfied with this\nprecaution. He will with his own hand write a few words of eager\naffectionate entreaty, identifying himself with the cause of Onesimus.\nSo he takes up his pen.\n\n[Sidenote: Analysis of the letter.]\n\nAfter the opening salutation to Philemon and the members of his family,\nhe expresses his thankfulness for the report which has reached his ears\nof his friend\u2019s charitable deeds. It is a great joy and encouragement to\nthe Apostle that so many brethren have had cause to bless his name. This\nwide-spread reputation for kindliness emboldens him to reveal his object\nin writing. Though he has a right to command, he prefers rather to\nentreat. He has a petition to prefer on behalf of a child of his own.\nThis is none other than Onesimus, whom Philemon will remember only as a\nworthless creature, altogether untrue to his name, but who now is a\nreformed man. He would have wished to detain Onesimus, for he can ill\nafford to dispense with his loving services. Indeed Philemon would\ndoubtless have been glad thus to minister vicariously to the Apostle\u2019s\nwants. But a benefit which wears the appearance of being forced, whether\ntruly so or not, loses all its value, and therefore he sends him back.\nNay, there may have been in this desertion a Divine providence which it\nwould ill become him Paul to thwart. Onesimus may have been withheld\nfrom Philemon for a time, that he might be restored to him for ever. He\nmay have left as a slave, that he might return more than a slave. To\nothers\u2014to the Apostle himself especially\u2014he is now a dearly beloved\nbrother. Must he not be this and more than this to Philemon, whether in\nearthly things or in heavenly things? He therefore begs Philemon to\nreceive Onesimus as he would receive himself. As for any injury that he\nmay have done, as for any money that he may owe, the Apostle makes\nhimself responsible for this. The present letter may be accepted as a\nbond, a security for repayment. Yet at the same time he cannot refrain\nfrom reminding Philemon that he might fairly claim the remission of so\nsmall an amount. Does not his friend owe to him his own soul besides?\nYes, he has a right to look for some filial gratitude and duty from one\nto whom he stands in the relation of a spiritual father. Philemon will\nsurely not refuse him this comfort in his many trials. He writes in the\nfull confidence that he will be obeyed; he is quite sure that his friend\nwill do more than is asked of him. At the same time he trusts to see him\nbefore very long, and to talk over this and other matters. Philemon may\nprovide him a lodging: for he hopes through their prayers that he may be\nliberated, and given back to them. Then follow the salutations, and the\nletter ends with the Apostle\u2019s benediction.\n\n[Sidenote: Result of the appeal.]\n\nOf the result of this appeal we have no certain knowledge. It is\nreasonable to suppose however that Philemon would not belie the\nApostle\u2019s hopes; that he would receive the slave as a brother; that he\nwould even go beyond the expressed terms of the Apostle\u2019s petition, and\nemancipate the penitent. But all this is a mere conjecture. One\ntradition makes Onesimus bishop of Ephesus[724]. But this obviously\narises from a confusion with his namesake, who lived about half a\ncentury later[725]. [Sidenote: Legendary history.]Another story points\nto Ber\u0153a in Macedonia as his see[726]. This is at least free from the\nsuspicion of having been suggested by any notice in the Apostolic\nwritings: but the authority on which it rests does not entitle it to\nmuch credit. The legend of his missionary labours in Spain and of his\nmartyrdom at Rome may have been built on the hypothesis of his\ncontinuing in the Apostle\u2019s company, following in the Apostle\u2019s\nfootsteps, and sharing the Apostle\u2019s fate. Another story, which gives a\ncircumstantial account of his martyrdom at Puteoli, seems to confuse him\nwith a namesake who suffered, or was related to have suffered, in the\nDecian persecution[727].\n\nFootnote 724:\n\n  See _Acta Sanct. Boll._ xvi Febr. (II. p. 857 sq. ed. nov.) for the\n  authorities, if they deserve the name.\n\nFootnote 725:\n\n  If we take the earlier date of the Epistles of St Ignatius, A.D. 107,\n  we get an interval of 44 years between the Onesimus of St Paul and the\n  Onesimus of Ignatius. It is not altogether impossible therefore that\n  the same person may be intended. But on the other hand the language of\n  Ignatius (_Ephes._ 1 sq.) leaves the impression that he is speaking of\n  a person comparatively young and untried in office.\n\nFootnote 726:\n\n  _Apost. Const._ vii. 46, quoted above, p. 372, note 676.\n\nFootnote 727:\n\n  For these ecclesiastical legends see _Act. Sanct._ l.c. p. 858 sq.\n\n[Sidenote: Depreciation of the epistle in early times.]\n\nThe estimate formed of this epistle at various epochs has differed\nwidely. In the fourth century there was a strong bias against it. The\n\u2018spirit of the age\u2019 had no sympathy with either the subject or the\nhandling. Like the spirit of more than one later age, it was enamoured\nof its own narrowness, which it mistook for largeness of view, and it\ncould not condescend to such trivialities as were here offered to it.\nIts maxim seemed to be _De minimis non curat evangelium_. Of what\naccount was the fate of a single insignificant slave, long since dead\nand gone, to those before whose eyes the battle of the creeds was still\nraging? This letter taught them nothing about questions of theological\ninterest, nothing about matters of ecclesiastical discipline; and\ntherefore they would have none of it. They denied that it had been\nwritten by St Paul. It mattered nothing to them that the Church from the\nearliest ages had accepted it as genuine, that even the remorseless\n\u2018higher criticism\u2019 of a Marcion had not ventured to lay hands on\nit[728]. It was wholly unworthy of the Apostle. If written by him, they\ncontended, it must have been written when he was not under the influence\nof the Spirit: its contents were altogether so unedifying. [Sidenote:\nReply of the fathers.]We may infer from the replies of Jerome[729], of\nChrysostom[730], and of Theodore of Mopsuestia[731], that they felt\nthemselves to be stemming a fierce current of prejudice which had set in\nthis direction. But they were strong in the excellence of their cause,\nand they nobly vindicated this epistle against its assailants.\n\nFootnote 728:\n\n  Hieron. _Comm. in Philem._ Pr\u00e6f. VII. p. 743 \u2018Pauli esse epistolam ad\n  Philemonem saltem Marcione auctore doceantur: qui, quum c\u00e6teras\n  epistolas ejusdem vel non susceperit vel qu\u00e6dam in his mutaverit atque\n  corroserit, in hanc solam manus non est ausus mittere, quia sua illam\n  brevitas defendebat\u2019. St Jerome has in his mind the passage of\n  Tertullian _adv. Marc._ v. 21 \u2018Soli huic epistol\u00e6 brevitas sua\n  profuit, ut falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet\u2019.\n\nFootnote 729:\n\n  _ib._ p. 742 sq. \u2018Qui nolunt inter epistolas Pauli eam recipere qu\u00e6 ad\n  Philemonem scribitur, aiunt non semper apostolum nec omnia Christo in\n  se loquente dixisse, quia nec humana imbecillitas unum tenorem Sancti\n  Spiritus ferre potuisset etc.... His et c\u00e6teris istius modi volunt aut\n  epistolam non esse Pauli qu\u00e6 ad Philemonem scribitur aut, etiamsi\n  Pauli sit, nihil habere quod \u00e6dificare nos possit etc.... sed mihi\n  videntur, dum epistolam simplicitatis arguunt, suam imperitiam\n  prodere, non intelligentes quid in singulis sermonibus virtutis et\n  sapienti\u00e6 lateat\u2019.\n\nFootnote 730:\n\n  _Argum. in Philem._ \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03c4\u03ac\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f34\u03b3\u03b5 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f20\u03be\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd,\n  \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f11\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd\n  \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f04\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., and he goes on to discuss the value of the\n  epistle at some length.\n\nFootnote 731:\n\n  _Spicil. Solesm._ I. W. 149 \u2018Quid vero ex ea lucri possit acquiri,\n  convenit manifestius explicare, quia nec omnibus id existimo posse\n  esse cognitum; quod maxime heri jam ipse a nobis disseri postulasti\u2019;\n  _ib._ p. 152 \u2018De his et nunc superius dixi, quod non omnes similiter\n  arbitror potius se (potuisse?) prospicere\u2019.\n\n[Sidenote: High estimate of modern writers.]\n\nIn modern times there has been no disposition to under-rate its value.\nEven Luther and Calvin, whose bias tended to the depreciation of the\nethical as compared with the doctrinal portions of the scriptures, show\na true appreciation of its beauty and significance. [Sidenote:\nLuther.]\u2018This epistle\u2019, writes Luther, \u2018showeth a right noble lovely\nexample of Christian love. Here we see how St Paul layeth himself out\nfor poor Onesimus, and with all his means pleadeth his cause with his\nmaster: and so setteth himself as if he were Onesimus, and had himself\ndone wrong to Philemon. Even as Christ did for us with God the Father,\nthus also doth St Paul for Onesimus with Philemon.... We are all his\nOnesimi, to my thinking\u2019. [Sidenote: Calvin.]\u2018Though he handleth a\nsubject\u2019, says Calvin, \u2018which otherwise were low and mean, yet after his\nmanner he is borne up aloft unto God. With such modest entreaty doth he\nhumble himself on behalf of the lowest of men, that scarce anywhere else\nis the gentleness of his spirit portrayed more truly to the life.\u2019 And\nthe chorus of admiration has been swelled by later voices from the most\nopposite quarters. [Sidenote: Later writers.]\u2018The single Epistle to\nPhilemon,\u2019 says one quoted by Bengel, \u2018very far surpasses all the wisdom\nof the world\u2019[732]. \u2018Nowhere\u2019, writes Ewald, \u2018can the sensibility and\nwarmth of a tender friendship blend more beautifully with the loftier\nfeeling of a commanding spirit, a teacher and an Apostle, than in this\nletter, at once so brief, and yet so surpassingly full and\nsignificant[733].\u2019 \u2018A true little chef d\u2019\u0153uvre of the art of\nletter-writing,\u2019 exclaims M. Renan characteristically[734]. \u2018We have\nhere\u2019, writes Sabatier, \u2018only a few familiar lines, but so full of\ngrace, of salt, of serious and trustful affection, that this short\nepistle gleams like a pearl of the most exquisite purity in the rich\ntreasure of the New Testament[735]\u2019. Even Baur, while laying violent\nhands upon it, is constrained to speak of this \u2018little letter\u2019 as\n\u2018making such an agreeable impression by its attractive form\u2019 and as\npenetrated \u2018with the noblest Christian spirit\u2019[736].\n\nFootnote 732:\n\n  Franke _Pr\u00e6f. N. T. Gr\u00e6c._ p. 26, 27, quoted by Bengel on Philem. 1.\n\nFootnote 733:\n\n  _Die Sendschreiben_ etc. p. 458.\n\nFootnote 734:\n\n  _L\u2019Antechrist_ p. 96.\n\nFootnote 735:\n\n  _L\u2019Ap\u00f4tre Paul_ p. 194. He goes on to say; \u2018Never has the precept\n  which Paul himself gave at the end of his letter to the Colossians\n  been better realised, \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9, \u1f05\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f20\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (Col. iv. 6).\u2019\n\nFootnote 736:\n\n  _Paulus_ p. 476.\n\n[Sidenote: The epistle compared with a letter of Pliny,]\n\nThe Epistle to Philemon has more than once been compared with the\nfollowing letter addressed to a friend by the younger Pliny on a\nsomewhat similar occasion[737]:\n\nYour freedman, with whom you had told me you were vexed, came to me, and\nthrowing himself down before me clung to my feet, as if they had been\nyours. He was profuse in his tears and his entreaties; he was profuse\nalso in his silence. In short, he convinced me of his penitence. I\nbelieve that he is indeed a reformed character, because he feels that he\nhas done wrong. You are angry, I know; and you have reason to be angry,\nthis also I know: but mercy wins the highest praise just when there is\nthe most righteous cause for anger. You loved the man, and, I hope, will\ncontinue to love him: meanwhile it is enough, that you should allow\nyourself to yield to his prayers. You may be angry again, if he deserves\nit; and in this you will be the more readily pardoned if you yield now.\nConcede something to his youth, something to his tears, something to\nyour own indulgent disposition. Do not torture him, lest you torture\nyourself at the same time. For it _is_ torture to you, when one of your\ngentle temper is angry. I am afraid lest I should appear not to ask but\nto compel, if I should add my prayers to his. Yet I will add them the\nmore fully and unreservedly, because I scolded the man himself with\nsharpness and severity; for I threatened him straitly that I would never\nask you again. This I said to him, for it was necessary to alarm him;\nbut I do not use the same language to you. For perchance I shall ask\nagain, and shall be successful again; only let my request be such, as it\nbecomes me to prefer and you to grant. Farewell.\n\nFootnote 737:\n\n  Plin. _Ep._ ix. 21.\n\n[Sidenote: as an expression of character.]\n\nThe younger Pliny is the noblest type of a true Roman gentleman, and\nthis touching letter needs no words of praise. Yet, if purity of diction\nbe excepted, there will hardly be any difference of opinion in awarding\nthe palm to the Christian Apostle. As an expression of simple dignity,\nof refined courtesy, of large sympathy, and of warm personal affection,\nthe Epistle to Philemon stands unrivalled. And its pre-eminence is the\nmore remarkable because in style it is exceptionally loose. It owes\nnothing to the graces of rhetoric; its effect is due solely to the\nspirit of the writer.\n\n[Sidenote: Its higher interest.]\n\nBut the interest which attaches to this short epistle as an expression\nof individual character is far less important than its significance as\nexhibiting the attitude of Christianity to a widely spread and\ncharacteristic social institution of the ancient world.\n\n[Sidenote: Slavery among the Hebrews.]\n\nSlavery was practised by the Hebrews under the sanction of the Mosaic\nlaw, not less than by the Greeks and Romans. But though the same in\nname, it was in its actual working something wholly different. The\nHebrew was not suffered either by law-giver or by prophet to forget that\nhe himself had been a bondman in the land of Egypt; and all his\nrelations to his dependents were moulded by the sympathy of this\nrecollection. His slaves were members of his family; they were members\nalso of the Holy Congregation. They had their religious, as well as\ntheir social, rights. If Hebrews, their liberty was secured to them\nafter six years\u2019 service at the outside. If foreigners, they were\nprotected by the laws from the tyranny and violence of their masters.\nConsidering the conditions of ancient society, and more especially of\nancient warfare, slavery as practised among the Hebrews was probably an\nescape from alternatives which would have involved a far greater amount\nof human misery. Still even in this form it was only a temporary\nconcession, till the fulness of time came, and the world was taught that\n\u2018in Christ is neither bond nor free[738]\u2019.\n\nFootnote 738:\n\n  On slavery among the Hebrews see the admirable work of Prof. Goldwin\n  Smith _Does the Bible sanction American slavery?_ p. 1 sq.\n\nAmong the Jews the slaves formed only a small fraction of the whole\npopulation[739]. They occupy a very insignificant place in the pictures\nof Hebrew life and history which have been handed down to us. [Sidenote:\nLarge number of slaves in Greece and Rome.]But in Greece and Rome the\ncase was far different. In our enthusiastic eulogies of free,\nenlightened, democratic Athens, we are apt to forget that the interests\nof the many were ruthlessly sacrificed to the selfishness of the few.\nThe slaves of Attica on the most probable computation were about four\ntimes as numerous as the citizens, and about three times as numerous as\nthe whole free population of the state, including the resident\naliens[740]. They were consigned for the most part to labour in gangs in\nthe fields or the mines or the factories, without any hope of bettering\ntheir condition. In the light of these facts we see what was really\nmeant by popular government and equal rights at Athens. The proportions\nof the slave population elsewhere were even greater. In the small island\nof \u00c6gina, scarcely exceeding forty English square miles in extent, there\nwere 470,000 slaves; in the contracted territory of Corinth there were\nnot less than 460,000[741]. The statistics of slave-holding in Italy are\nquite as startling. We are told that wealthy Roman landowners sometimes\npossessed as many as ten or twenty thousand slaves, or even more[742].\nWe may indeed not unreasonably view these vague and general statements\nwith suspicion: but it is a fact that, a few years before the Christian\nera, one Claudius Isidorus left by will more than four thousand slaves,\nthough he had incurred serious losses by the civil war[743].\n\nFootnote 739:\n\n  In Ezra ii. 65 the number of slaves compared with the number of free\n  is a little more than one to six.\n\nFootnote 740:\n\n  Boeckh _Public Economy of Athens_ p. 35 sq. According to a census\n  taken by Demetrius Phalereus there were in the year 309 B. C. 21,000\n  citizens, 10,000 residents, and 400,000 slaves (Ctesicles in Athen.\n  vi. p. 272 B). This would make the proportion of slaves to citizens\n  nearly twenty to one. It is supposed however that the number of\n  citizens here includes only adult males, whereas the number of slaves\n  may comprise both sexes and all ages. Hence Boeckh\u2019s estimate which is\n  adopted in the text. For other calculations see Wallon _Histoire de\n  l\u2019Esclavage_ I. p. 221 sq.\n\nFootnote 741:\n\n  Athen. _l.c._ p. 272 B, D. The statement respecting \u00c6gina is given on\n  the authority of Aristotle; that respecting Corinth on the authority\n  of Epitim\u00e6us.\n\nFootnote 742:\n\n  Athen. _l.c._ \u1fec\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n  See Becker _Gallus_ II. p. 113 (ed. 3).\n\nFootnote 743:\n\n  Plin. _N.H._ xxxiii. 47.\n\n[Sidenote: Cruelty of Roman law towards slaves.]\n\nAnd these vast masses of human beings had no protection from Roman\nlaw[744]. The slave had no relationships, no conjugal rights.\nCohabitation was allowed to him at his owner\u2019s pleasure, but not\nmarriage. His companion was sometimes assigned to him by lot[745]. The\nslave was absolutely at his master\u2019s disposal; for the smallest offence\nhe might be scourged, mutilated, crucified, thrown to the wild\nbeasts[746]. Only two or three years before the letter to Philemon was\nwritten, and probably during St Paul\u2019s residence in Rome, a terrible\ntragedy had been enacted under the sanction of the law[747]. [Sidenote:\nMurder of Pedanius Secundus.]Pedanius Secundus, a senator, had been\nslain by one of his slaves in a fit of anger or jealousy. The law\ndemanded that in such cases all the slaves under the same roof at the\ntime should be put to death. On the present occasion four hundred\npersons were condemned to suffer by this inhuman enactment. The populace\nhowever interposed to rescue them, and a tumult ensued. The Senate\naccordingly took the matter into deliberation. Among the speakers C.\nCassius strongly advocated the enforcement of the law. \u2018The disposition\nof slaves,\u2019 he argued, \u2018were regarded with suspicion by our ancestors,\neven when they were born on the same estates or in the same houses and\nlearnt to feel an affection for their masters from the first. Now\nhowever, when we have several nations among our slaves, with various\nrites, with foreign religions or none at all, it is not possible to keep\ndown such a rabble except by fear.\u2019 These sentiments prevailed, and the\nlaw was put in force. But the roads were lined by a military guard, as\nthe prisoners were led to execution, to prevent a popular outbreak. This\nincident illustrates not only the heartless cruelty of the law, but also\nthe social dangers arising out of slavery. Indeed the universal distrust\nhad already found expression in a common proverb,\u2018As many enemies as\nslaves[748].\u2019 But this was not the only way in which slavery avenged\nitself on the Romans. The spread of luxury and idleness was a direct\nconsequence of the state of things. Work came to be regarded as a low\nand degrading, because a servile occupation. Meanwhile sensuality in its\nvilest forms was fostered by the tremendous power which placed the slave\nat the mercy of the master\u2019s worst passions[749].\n\nFootnote 744:\n\n  On the condition of Greek and Roman slaves the able and exhaustive\n  work of Wallon _Histoire de l\u2019Esclavage dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9_ (Paris 1847)\n  is the chief authority. See also Becker and Marquardt _R\u00f6m. Alterth._\n  v. 1. p. 139 sq.; Becker _Charikles_ II. p. 1 sq., _Gallus_ II. p. 99\n  sq. The practical working of slavery among the Romans is placed in its\n  most favourable light in Gaston Bossier, _La Religion Romaine_ II. p.\n  343 sq. (Paris 1874).\n\nFootnote 745:\n\n  _R\u00f6m. Alterth._ l.c. p. 184 sq.; _Gallus_ II. p. 144 sq. In this, as\n  in other respects, the cruelty of the legislature was mitigated by the\n  humanity of individual masters; and the inscriptions show that male\n  and female slaves in many cases were allowed to live together through\n  life as man and wife, though the law did not recognise or secure their\n  union. It was reserved for Constantine to take the initiative in\n  protecting the conjugal and family rights of slaves by legislature;\n  _Cod. Theod._ ii. 25. 1.\n\nFootnote 746:\n\n  Wallon II. p. 177 sq.; _R\u00f6m. Alterth._ l.c.; _Gallus_ II. p. 145 sq.;\n  Rein _Privatrecht der R\u00f6mer_ p. 552 sq. Hadrian first took away from\n  masters the power of life and death over their slaves; Spart. _Vit.\n  Hadr._ 18 \u2018Servos a dominis occidi vetuit eosque jussit damnari per\n  judices, si digni essent\u2019. For earlier legislative enactments which\n  had afforded a very feeble protection to slaves, see below p. 393.\n\nFootnote 747:\n\n  Tac. _Ann._ xiv. 42. This incident took place A. D. 61. The law in\n  question was the _Senatusconsultum Silonianum_, passed under Augustus\n  A. D. 10.\n\nFootnote 748:\n\n  Senec. _Ep. Mor._ 47 \u2018Deinde ejusdem arroganti\u00e6 proverbium jactatur\n  _totidem hostes esse quot servos_\u2019; comp. Macrob. i. II. 13. See also\n  Festus p. 261 (Ed. Mueller) \u2018_Quot servi tot hostes_ in proverbio\n  est.\u2019]\n\nFootnote 749:\n\n  See the saying of Haterius in the elder Seneca _Controv._ iv. Pr\u00e6f.,\n  \u2018Impudicitia in ingenuo crimen est, _in servo necessitas_, in liberto\n  officium\u2019, with its context. Wallon (I. p. 332) sums up the condition\n  of the slave thus: \u2018L\u2019esclave appartenait au ma\u00eetre: par lui m\u00eame, il\n  n\u2019\u00e9tait rien, il n\u2019avait rien. Voil\u00e0 le principe; et tout ce qu\u2019on en\n  peut tirer par voie de cons\u00e9quence formait aussi, en fait, l\u2019\u00e9tat\n  commun des esclaves dans la plupart des pays. A toutes les \u00e9poques,\n  dans toutes les situations de la vie, cette autorit\u00e9 souveraine plane\n  sur eux et modifie leur destin\u00e9e par ses rigueurs comme par son\n  indifference. Dans l\u2019\u00e2ge de la force et dans la pl\u00e9nitude de leurs\n  facult\u00e9s, elle les vouait, \u00e0 son choix, soit au travail, soit au vice;\n  au travail les natures grossi\u00e8res; au vice, les natures plus\n  d\u00e9licates, nourries pour le plaisir du ma\u00eetre, et qui lorsqu\u2019il en\n  \u00e9tait las, \u00e9taient rel\u00e9gu\u00e9es dans la prostitution a son profit. Avant\n  et apr\u00e8s l\u2019\u00e2ge du travail, abandonn\u00e9s a leur faiblesse ou a leurs\n  infirmit\u00e9s; enfants, ils grandissaient dans le d\u00e9sordre; viellards,\n  ils mouraient souvent dans la mis\u00e8re; morts, ils \u00e9taient quelquefois\n  d\u00e9laiss\u00e9s sur la voie publique....\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: Christianity not revolutionary.]\n\nWith this wide-spread institution Christianity found itself in conflict.\nHow was the evil to be met? Slavery was inwoven into the texture of\nsociety; and to prohibit slavery was to tear society into shreds.\nNothing less than a servile war with its certain horrors and its\ndoubtful issues must have been the consequence. Such a mode of operation\nwas altogether alien to the spirit of the Gospel. \u2018The New Testament\u2019,\nit has been truly said, \u2018is not concerned with any political or social\ninstitutions; for political and social institutions belong to particular\nnations and particular phases of society\u2019. \u2018Nothing marks the divine\ncharacter of the Gospel more than its perfect freedom from any appeal to\nthe spirit of political revolution[750]\u2019. It belongs to all time: and\ntherefore, instead of attacking special abuses, it lays down universal\nprinciples which shall undermine the evil.\n\nFootnote 750:\n\n  G. Smith _Does the Bible etc.?_ pp. 95, 96.\n\n[Sidenote: St Paul\u2019s treatment of the case of Onesimus.]\n\nHence the Gospel never directly attacks slavery as an institution: the\nApostles never command the liberation of slaves as an absolute duty. It\nis a remarkable fact that St Paul in this epistle stops short of any\npositive injunction. The word \u2018emancipation\u2019 seems to be trembling on\nhis lips, and yet he does not once utter it. He charges Philemon to take\nthe runaway slave Onesimus into his confidence again; to receive him\nwith all affection; to regard him no more as a slave but as a brother;\nto treat him with the same consideration, the same love, which he\nentertains for the Apostle himself to whom he owes everything. In fact\nhe tells him to do very much more than emancipate his slave, but this\none thing he does not directly enjoin. St Paul\u2019s treatment of this\nindividual case is an apt illustration of the attitude of Christianity\ntowards slavery in general.\n\n[Sidenote: His language respecting slavery elsewhere.]\n\nSimilar also is his language elsewhere. Writing to the Corinthians, he\ndeclares the absolute equality of the freeman and the slave in the sight\nof God[751]. It follows therefore that the slave may cheerfully\nacquiesce in his lot, knowing that all earthly distinctions vanish in\nthe light of this eternal truth. If his freedom should be offered to\nhim, he will do well to accept it, for it puts him in a more\nadvantageous position[752]: but meanwhile he need not give himself any\nconcern about his lot in life. So again, when he addresses the Ephesians\nand Colossians on the mutual obligations of masters and slaves, he is\ncontent to insist on the broad fact that both alike are slaves of a\nheavenly Master, and to enforce the duties which flow from its\nrecognition[753]. He has no word of reproach for the masters on the\ninjustice of their position; he breathes no hint to the slaves of a\nsocial grievance needing redress.\n\nFootnote 751:\n\n  1 Cor. vii. 21 sq.\n\nFootnote 752:\n\n  The clause, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, has\n  been differently interpreted from early times, either as recommending\n  the slave to avail himself of any opportunity of emancipation, or as\n  advising him to refuse the offer of freedom and to remain in\n  servitude. The earliest commentator whose opinion I have observed,\n  Origen (in Cram. _Cat._ p. 140), interprets it as favourable to\n  liberty, but he confuses the meaning by giving a metaphorical sense to\n  slavery, \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f60\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1. Again, Severianus\n  (ib. p. 141) distinctly explains it as recommending a state of\n  liberty. On the other hand Chrysostom, while mentioning that \u2018certain\n  persons\u2019 interpret it \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9, himself\n  supposes St Paul to advise the slave\u2019s remaining in slavery. And so\n  Theodoret and others. The balance of argument seems to be decidedly in\n  favour of the former view.\n\n  (1) The actual language must be considered first. And here (i) the\n  particles \u03b5\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 will suit either interpretation. If they are\n  translated \u2018even though\u2019, the clause recommends the continuance in\n  slavery. But \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 may be equally well taken with \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, and the words\n  will then mean \u2018if it _should_ be in your power to obtain your\n  freedom\u2019. So above ver. 11 \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc7: comp. Luke xi. 18 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7, 1 Pet. iii. 14 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd. (ii) The expression \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 seems to\n  direct the slave to _avail himself_ of some _new_ opportunity offered,\n  and therefore to recommend liberty; comp. ix. 12, 15.\n\n  (2) The immediate context will admit either interpretation. If slavery\n  be preferred, the sentence is continuous. If liberty, the clause \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019\n  \u03b5\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 ... \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 is parenthetical. In this latter case its\n  motive is to correct misapprehension, as if the Apostle would say,\n  \u2018When I declare the absolute indifference of the two states in the\n  sight of God, I do not mean to say that you should not avail\n  yourselves of freedom, if it comes in your way; it puts you in a more\n  advantageous position, and you will do well to prefer it\u2019. Such a\n  corrective parenthesis is altogether after St Paul\u2019s manner, and\n  indeed instances occur in this very context: e.g. ver. 11 \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc7 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., ver. 15 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u1f04\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. This last\n  passage is an exact parallel, for the \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 of ver. 16 is connected\n  immediately with ver. 14, the parenthesis being disregarded as here.\n\n  (3) The argument which seems decisive is the extreme improbability\n  that St Paul should have recommended slavery in preference to freedom.\n  For (i) Such a recommendation would be alien to the spirit of a man\n  whose sense of political right was so strong, and who asserted his\n  citizenship so stanchly on more than one occasion (Acts xvi. 37, xxii.\n  28). (ii) The independent position of the freeman would give him an\n  obvious advantage in doing the work of Christ, which it is difficult\n  to imagine St Paul enjoining him deliberately to forego. (iii)\n  Throughout the passage the Apostle, while maintaining the indifference\n  of these earthly relations in the sight of God, yet always gives the\n  preference to a position of _independence_, whenever it comes to a\n  Christian naturally and without any undue impatience on his part. The\n  spirit which animates St Paul\u2019s injunctions here may be seen from vv.\n  8, 11, 15, 26, 27 etc.\n\nFootnote 753:\n\n  Ephes. vi. 5\u20139, Col. iii. 22-iv. 1.\n\n[Sidenote: The Christian idea fatal to slavery.]\n\nBut meanwhile a principle is boldly enunciated, which must in the end\nprove fatal to slavery. When the Gospel taught that God had made all men\nand women upon earth of one family; that all alike were His sons and His\ndaughters; that, whatever conventional distinctions human society might\nset up, the supreme King of Heaven refused to acknowledge any; that the\nslave notwithstanding his slavery was Christ\u2019s freedman, and the free\nnotwithstanding his liberty was Christ\u2019s slave; when the Church carried\nout this principle by admitting the slave to her highest privileges,\ninviting him to kneel side by side with his master at the same holy\ntable; when in short the Apostolic precept that \u2018in Christ Jesus is\nneither bond nor free\u2019 was not only recognised but acted upon, then\nslavery was doomed. Henceforward it was only a question of time. Here\nwas the idea which must act as a solvent, must disintegrate this\nvenerable institution, however deeply rooted and however widely spread.\n[Sidenote: Its general tendency.]\u2018The brotherhood of man, in short, is\nthe idea which Christianity in its social phase has been always striving\nto realise, and the progress of which constitutes the social history of\nChristendom. With what difficulties this idea has struggled; how it has\nbeen marred by revolutionary violence, as well as impeded by reactionary\nselfishness; to what chimerical hopes, to what wild schemes, to what\ncalamitous disappointments, to what desperate conflicts, it has given\nbirth; how often being misunderstood and misapplied, it has brought not\npeace on earth but a sword\u2014it is needless here to rehearse. Still, as we\nlook back over the range of past history, we can see beyond doubt that\nit is towards this goal that Christianity as a social principle has been\nalways tending and still tends[754].\u2019\n\nFootnote 754:\n\n  G. Smith _Does the Bible etc.?_ p. 121.\n\n[Sidenote: Its effects on slavery.]\n\nAnd this beneficent tendency of the Gospel was felt at once in its\neffects on slavery. The Church indeed, even in the ardour of her\nearliest love, did not prohibit her sons from retaining slaves in their\nhouseholds. It is quite plain from extant notices, that in the earlier\ncenturies, as in the later, Christians owned slaves[755] like their\nheathen neighbours, without forfeiting consideration among their\nfellow-believers. But nevertheless the Christian idea was not a\ndead-letter. [Sidenote: Protection and manumission of slaves.]The\nchivalry of the Gospel which regarded the weak and helpless from\nwhatever cause, as its special charge, which extended its protection to\nthe widow, the orphan, the sick, the aged, and the prisoner, was not\nlikely to neglect the slave. Accordingly we find that one of the\nearliest forms which Christian benevolence took was the contribution of\nfunds for the liberation of slaves[756]. [Sidenote: Honours paid to\nslave martyrs.]But even more important than overt acts like these was\nthe moral and social importance with which the slave was now invested.\nAmong the heroes and heroines of the Church were found not a few members\nof this class. When slave girls like Blandina in Gaul or Felicitas in\nAfrica, having won for themselves the crown of martyrdom, were\ncelebrated in the festivals of the Church with honours denied to the\nmost powerful and noblest born of mankind, social prejudice had received\na wound which could never be healed.\n\nFootnote 755:\n\n  Athenag. _Suppl._ 35 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03af \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019\n  \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. It would even appear that the domestic servant who betrayed\n  Polycarp (_Mart. Polyc._ 6) was a slave, for he was put to the\n  torture. Comp. Justin. _Apol._ ii. 12.\n\nFootnote 756:\n\n  Ignat. _Polyc._ 4 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, _Apost.\n  Const._ iv. 9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03be \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f00\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, _\u1fe5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n  \u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2_ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n[Sidenote: Christianity predominant.]\n\nWhile the Church was still kept in subjection, moral influence and\nprivate enterprise were her only weapons. But Christianity was no sooner\nseated on the throne of the C\u00e6sars than its influence began to be felt\nin the imperial policy[757]. [Sidenote: Legislation of Constantine.]The\nlegislation of Constantine, despite its startling inequalities, forms a\nunique chapter in the statute book of Rome. In its mixed character\nindeed it reflects the transitional position of its author. But after\nall allowance made for its very patent defects, its general advance in\nthe direction of humanity and purity is far greater than can be traced\nin the legislation even of the most humane and virtuous of his heathen\npredecessors. More especially in the extension of legal protection to\nslaves, and in the encouragement given to emancipation, we have an\nearnest of the future work which Christianity was destined to do for\nthis oppressed class of mankind, though the relief which it gave was\nafter all very partial and tentative[758].\n\nFootnote 757:\n\n  It must not however be forgotten that, even before Christianity became\n  the predominant religion, a more humane spirit had entered into Roman\n  legislation. The important enactment of Hadrian has been already\n  mentioned, p. 387, note 746. Even earlier the _lex Petronia_ (of which\n  the date is uncertain) had prohibited masters from making their slaves\n  fight with wild beasts in mere caprice and without an order from a\n  judge (Dig. xlviii. 8. 11); and Claudius (A.D. 47), finding that the\n  practice of turning out sick slaves into the streets to die was on the\n  increase, ordered that those who survived this treatment should have\n  their freedom (Dion Cass. lx. 29, Suet. _Claud._ 25). For these and\n  similar enactments of the heathen emperors see Wallon III. p. 60 sq.,\n  _R\u00f6m. Alterth._ V. I. 197, Rein _Privatrecht d. R\u00f6mer_ p. 560 sq. The\n  character of this exceptional legislation is the strongest impeachment\n  of the general cruelty of the law; while at the same time subsequent\n  notices show how very far from effective it was even within its own\n  narrow limits. See for instance the passage in Galen, v. p. 17 (ed.\n  K\u00fchn) \u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c1\u03cd\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03b9\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n  \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (comp. _ib._ p. 584), or Seneca _de Ira_ iii. 3. 6 \u2018eculei et\n  fidicul\u00e6 et ergastula et cruces et circundati defossis corporibus\n  ignes et cadavera quoque trahens uncus, varia vinculorum genera, varia\n  p\u0153narum, lacerationes membrorum, inscriptiones frontis et bestiarum\n  immanium cave\u00e6.\u2019\n\n  On the causes of these ameliorations in the law see _R\u00f6m. Alterth._ V.\n  1. p. 199.\n\nFootnote 758:\n\n  On the legislation of Constantine affecting slavery see De Broglie\n  _L\u2019Eglise et l\u2019Empire Romain_, I. p. 304 sq. (ed. 5), Chawner\n  _Influence of Christianity upon the Legislation of Constantine the\n  Great_, p. 73 sq., Wallon III. p. 414 sq. The legislation of Justinian\n  is still more honourably distinguished for its alleviation of the\n  evils of slavery.\n\n[Sidenote: Subsequent activity of the Church.]\n\nAnd on the whole this part has been faithfully and courageously\nperformed by the Church. There have been shameful exceptions now and\nthen: there has been occasional timidity and excess of caution. The\ncommentaries of the fathers on this epistle are an illustration of this\nlatter fault[759]. Much may be pardoned to men who shrink from seeming\nto countenance a violent social revolution. But notwithstanding, it is a\nbroad and patent fact that throughout the early and middle ages the\ninfluence of the Church was exerted strongly on the side of humanity in\nthis matter[760]. The emancipation of slaves was regarded as a principal\naim of the higher Christian life[761]; the amelioration of serfdom was a\nmatter of constant solicitude with the rulers of the Church.\n\n[Sidenote: The conquests and hopes of the present time.]\n\nAnd at length we seem to see the beginning of the end. The rapid strides\ntowards emancipation during the present generation are without a\nparallel in the history of the world. The abolition of slavery\nthroughout the British Empire at an enormous material sacrifice is one\nof the greatest moral conquests which England has ever achieved. The\nliberation of twenty millions of serfs throughout the Russian dominions\nhas thrown a halo of glory round the name of Alexander II., which no\ntime can dim. The emancipation of the negro in the vast republic of the\nNew World was a victory not less important than either to the well-being\nof the human race. Thus within the short period of little more than a\nquarter of a century this reproach of civilisation and humanity has been\nwiped out in the three greatest empires of the world. It is a fit sequel\nto these achievements, that at length a well directed attack should have\nbeen made on the central fortress of slavery and the slave-trade, the\ninterior of Africa. May we not venture to predict that in future ages,\nwhen distance of view shall have adjusted the true relations of events,\nwhen the brilliancy of empires and the fame of wars shall have sunk to\ntheir proper level of significance, this epoch will stand out in the\nhistory of mankind as the era of liberation? If so, the Epistle to\nPhilemon, as the earliest prelude to these magnificent social victories,\nmust be invested with more than common interest for our generation.\n\nFootnote 759:\n\n  _E.g._ Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia (_Spic. Solesm._ I. p.\n  152). Yet St Chrysostom himself pleads the cause of slaves earnestly\n  elsewhere. In _Hom. xl. ad 1 Cor._ x. p. 385 he says of slavery, \u2018It\n  is the penalty of sin and the punishment of disobedience. But when\n  Christ came, he annulled even this, _For in Christ Jesus there is no\n  slave nor free_. Therefore it is not necessary to have a slave; but,\n  if it should be necessary, then one only or at most a second\u2019. And he\n  then tells his audience that if they really care for the welfare of\n  slaves, they must \u2018buy them, and having taught them some art that they\n  may maintain themselves, set them free.\u2019 \u2018I know,\u2019 he adds, \u2018that I am\n  annoying my hearers; but what can I do? For this purpose I am\n  appointed, and I will not cease speaking so.\u2019 On the attitude of this\n  father towards slavery see M\u00f6hler p. 89 sq.\n\nFootnote 760:\n\n  On the influence of Christianity in this respect see Wallon III. p.\n  314 sq., Schmidt _Essai historique sur la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Civile dans le Monde\n  Romain etc._ p. 228 sq. (1853), M\u00f6hler _Gesammelte Schriften_ II. p.\n  54 sq., G. Smith _Does the Bible etc.?_ p. 95 sq., E. S. Talbot\n  _Slavery as affected by Christianity_ (1869), Lecky _Rationalism in\n  Europe_ II. p. 255 sq., _European Morals_ II. p. 65 sq.\n\nFootnote 761:\n\n  M\u00f6hler p. 99 sq., Schmidt p. 246 sq., Lecky _E. M._ II. p. 73 sq.\n\n\n\n\n                             \u03a0\u03a1\u039f\u03a3 \u03a6\u0399\u039b\u0397\u039c\u039f\u039d\u0391.\n\n\n\n\n                 WHERE THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS, THERE\n                              IS LIBERTY.\n\n                    WHO IS WEAK, AND I AM NOT WEAK?\n                    WHO IS OFFENDED, AND I BURN NOT?\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n            _Such ever was love\u2019s way: to rise, it stoops._\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                            \u03a0\u03a1\u039f\u03a3  \u03a6\u0399\u039b\u0397\u039c\u039f\u039d\u0391.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n1\u20133]\n\n^1\u03a0\u0391\u03a5\u039b\u039f\u03a3, \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a4\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2, \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u1ff7 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd ^2\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c0\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc3 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3\u00b7 ^3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd\n\n\n1\u20133. \u2018PAUL, now a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and TIMOTHY a brother in the\nfaith, unto PHILEMON our dearly-beloved and fellow-labourer in the\nGospel, and unto APPHIA our sister, and unto ARCHIPPUS our\nfellow-soldier in Christ, and to the Church which assembles in thy\nhouse. Grace and peace to you all from God our Father and the Lord Jesus\nChrist.\u2019\n\n1. \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2] The authoritative title of \u2018Apostle\u2019 is dropped, because\nthroughout this letter St Paul desires to entreat rather than to command\n(ver. 8, 9); see the note on Phil. i. 1. In its place is substituted a\ndesignation which would touch his friend\u2019s heart. How could Philemon\nresist an appeal which was penned within prison walls and by a manacled\nhand? For this characteristic reference to his \u2018bonds\u2019 see the note on\nver. 13.\n\n\u03a4\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2] Timothy seems to have been with St Paul during a great part of\nhis three years\u2019 sojourn in Ephesus (Acts xix. 22), and could hardly\nhave failed to make the acquaintance of Philemon. For the designation \u1f41\n\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03cc\u03c2 applied to Timothy see the note on Col. i. 1.\n\n\u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] On the persons here addressed, and the language in\nwhich they are described, see the introduction p. 369 sq.\n\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u1ff7] It would probably be during St Paul\u2019s long sojourn at Ephesus\nthat Philemon had laboured with him: see above p. 31 sq.\n\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd] should probably be attached to \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff7 as well as to \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u1ff7;\ncomp. Rom. xvi. 5, 8, 9, 1 Cor. x. 14, Phil. ii. 12.\n\n2. \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1fc7] For this the received text has \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u1fc7. Internal\nprobabilities can be urged in favour of both readings. On the one hand\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u1fc7 might have been introduced for the sake of conformity to the\npreceding \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff7; on the other \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1fc7 might have been substituted for\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u1fc7 on grounds of false delicacy. Theodore of Mopsuestia (_Spicil.\nSolesm._ I. p. 154), who had the reading \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u1fc7, feels an apology\nnecessary: \u2018Istius temporis (i.e. of the present time) homines\npropemodum omnes in crimine vocandos esse existimant, modo si audierint\nnomen charitatis. Apostolus vero non sic sentiebat; sed contrario etc.\u2019\nI have preferred \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1fc7, because the preponderance of ancient\nauthority is very decidedly in its favour.\n\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u1fc3] These spiritual campaigns, in which Archippus was his\ncomrade, probably took place while St Paul was at Ephesus (A.D. 54\u201357).\nFor the word \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 see Phil. ii. 25. The metaphor of \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1,\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, is common in St Paul.\n\n\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] probably at Coloss\u00e6; see above p. 370 sq. For the\nmeaning of the expression see the note on Col. iv. 15.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n4, 5]\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n^4\u0395\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6 \u03c4\u1fb7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5, \u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, ^5\u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd\n\n\n4\u20137. \u2018I never cease to give thanks to my God for thy well-doing, and\nthou art ever mentioned in my prayers. For they tell me of thy love and\nfaith\u2014thy faith which thou hast in the Lord Jesus, and thy love which\nthou showest towards all the saints; and it is my prayer that this\nactive sympathy and charity, thus springing from thy faith, may abound\nmore and more, as thou attainest to the perfect knowledge of every good\nthing bestowed upon us by God, looking unto and striving after Christ.\nFor indeed it gave me great joy and comfort to hear of thy\nloving-kindness, and to learn how the hearts of God\u2019s people had been\ncheered and refreshed by thy help, my dear brother\u2019.\n\nThe Apostle\u2019s thanksgiving and intercessory prayer (ver. 4)\u2014the cause of\nhis thanksgiving (ver. 5)\u2014the purport of his prayer (ver. 6)\u2014the joy and\ncomfort which he has in Philemon\u2019s good deeds (ver. 7)\u2014this is the very\nsimple order of topics in these verses. But meanwhile all established\nprinciples of arrangement are defied in the anxiety to give expression\nto the thought which is uppermost for the moment. The clause \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. is separated from \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., on which it depends, by the\nintervening clause \u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. which introduces another thought.\nIt itself interposes between two clauses \u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. and \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f21\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., which stand in the closest logical and grammatical\nconnexion with each other. Its own component elements are dislocated and\ninverted in the struggle of the several ideas for immediate utterance.\nAnd lastly, in \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. there is again a recurrence to a topic\nwhich has occurred in an earlier part of the sentence (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd ...\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2) but which has been dropped, before it was\nexhausted, owing to the pressure of another more importunate thought.\n\n4. \u0395\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6] See the note on 1 Thess. i. 2.\n\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5] should probably be taken with \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6 (rather than with\n\u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.), according to St Paul\u2019s usual collocation in these\nopening thanksgivings: see the notes on Col. i. 3, Phil. i. 3.\n\n\u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_making mention of thee_.\u2019 For \u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 see\nthe note on 1 Thess. i. 2. Here the \u2018mention\u2019 involves the idea of\nintercession _on behalf of_ Philemon, and so introduces the \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\nof ver. 6. See the note there.\n\n5. \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd] This information would probably come from Epaphras (Col. i.\n7, 8, iv. 12) rather than from Onesimus. The participle is connected\nmore directly with \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6 than with the intervening words, and\nexplains the grounds of the Apostle\u2019s thanksgiving.\n\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] i.e. \u2018the faith which thou hast towards the Lord\nJesus Christ and the love which thou showest to all the saints.\u2019 The\nlogical order is violated, and the clauses are inverted in the second\npart of the sentence, thus producing an example of the figure called\nchiasm; see Gal. iv. 4, 5. This results here from the Apostle\u2019s setting\ndown the thoughts in the sequence in which they occur to him, without\npaying regard to symmetrical arrangement. The first and prominent\nthought is Philemon\u2019s love. This suggests the mention of his faith, as\nthe source from which it springs. This again requires a reference to the\nobject of faith. And then at length comes the deferred sequel to the\nfirst thought\u2014the range and comprehensiveness of his love. The\ntransition from the object of faith to the object of love is more easy,\nbecause the love is represented as springing from the faith. Some copies\ntranspose the order, reading \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd\u2014an obvious\nemendation. Others would obviate the difficulty by giving to \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd the\nmeaning \u2018fidelity, stedfastness\u2019: Winer \u00a7 1. p. 511 sq. Thus they are\nenabled to refer both words, \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd, equally to both the\nclauses which follow. But, though this is a legitimate sense of \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2\nin St Paul (see _Galatians_, p. 155), yet in immediate connexion with \u1f23\u03bd\n\u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, it is hardly possible that the word can\nhave any other than its proper theological meaning. See the opening of\nthe contemporary epistle, Col. i. 4.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n6]\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f23\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, ^6\u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd\n\n\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The change of prepositions, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u2018_towards_ the\nLord\u2019 and \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u2018_unto_ the saints\u2019, deserves attention. It\nseems to arise from the instinctive desire to separate the two clauses,\nas they refer to different words in the preceding part of the sentence.\nOf the two prepositions the former (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf-\u03c2) signifies _direction_\n\u2018forward to\u2019, \u2018towards\u2019; the latter (\u1f10\u03bd-\u03c2) _arrival_ and so _contact_,\n\u2018in-to\u2019, \u2018unto.\u2019 Consequently either might be used in either connexion;\nand as a matter of fact \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 is much more common with \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 (\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd),\nas it is also with \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7, \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 being quite exceptional (1 Thess. i. 8 \u1f21\n\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd; comp. 2 Cor. iii. 4). But where a\ndistinction is necessary, there is a propriety in using \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 of the\nfaith which aspires _towards_ Christ, and \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 of the love which is\nexerted _upon_ men. Some good copies read \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 here in both clauses.\n\n6. \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] to be taken with \u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., as giving\nthe aim and purport of St Paul\u2019s prayer. Others connect it with h\u1f72\u03bd\n\u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, as if it described the tendency of Philemon\u2019s faith, \u2018ita ut\u2019;\nbut, even if \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 could bear this meaning, such a connexion is\naltogether harsh and improbable.\n\n\u1f21 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] Of many interpretations which have been, or might be,\ngiven of these words, two seem to deserve consideration. (1) \u2018Your\nfriendly offices and sympathies, your kindly deeds of charity, which\nspring from your faith\u2019: comp. Phil. i. 5 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, Heb. xiii. 16 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\"\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, whence \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\nis used especially of \u2018contributions, almsgiving\u2019, Rom. xv. 26, 2 Cor.\nviii. 4, ix. 13. (2) \u2018Your communion with God through faith\u2019: comp. 1\nCor. i. 9, and see also 2 Cor. xiii. 13, 1 Joh. i. 3, 6, 7. The parallel\npassages strongly support the former sense. Other interpretations\nproposed are, \u2018The participation of others in your faith, through your\nexample\u2019, or \u2018your communion with me, springing out of your faith\u2019. This\nlast, which is widely received, is suggested by ver. 17; \u03b5\u1f30 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36,\n\u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, writes Chrysostom, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd (comp. Tit. i. 3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd): but it seems quite out\nof place in this context.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae\u03c2] \u2018_effective_\u2019. The Latin translators must have read \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae\u03c2,\nfor they render the word _evidens_ or _manifesta_. Jerome (_ad loc._)\nspeaks of _evidens_ as the reading of the Latin, and _efficax_ of the\nGreek text. The converse error appears in the MSS of _Clem. Hom._ xvii.\n5, \u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 for \u1f10\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_in the perfect knowledge of every good thing_\u2019.\nThis \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, involving as it does the complete appropriation of all\ntruth and the unreserved identification with God\u2019s will, is the goal and\ncrown of the believer\u2019s course. The Apostle does not say \u2018in the\npossession\u2019 or \u2018in the performance\u2019 but \u2018in the knowledge of every good\nthing\u2019; for, in this higher sense of knowledge, to know is both to\npossess and to perform. In all the epistles of the Roman captivity St\nPaul\u2019s prayer for his correspondents culminates in this word \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2:\nsee the note on Col. i. 9. This \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is the result and the reward\nof faith manifesting itself in deeds of love, \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. For the sequence comp. Ephes. iv. 13 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., Tit. i. 1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd. The \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 therefore which\nthe Apostle contemplates is Philemon\u2019s own. There is no reference to the\nforce of his example on others, as it is sometimes interpreted, \u2018in\ntheir recognition of every good thing which is wrought in you\u2019.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n7]\n\n\u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. ^7\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u1fc3\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03ad.\n\n                        6. \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd] \u2018_which is in us Christians_\u2019, \u2018which is placed within our\nreach by the Gospel\u2019; i.e. the whole range of spiritual blessings, the\ncomplete cycle of Christian truth. If the reading \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd be\nadopted, the reference will be restricted to the brotherhood at Coloss\u00e6,\nbut the meaning must be substantially the same. Though \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd has somewhat\nbetter support, we seem to be justified in preferring \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd as being much\nmore expressive. In such cases the MSS are of no great authority; and in\nthe present instance scribes would be strongly tempted to alter \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd\ninto \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd from a misapprehension of the sense, and a wish to apply the\nwords to Philemon and his household. A similar misapprehension doubtless\nled in some copies to the omission of \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, which seemed to be\nsuperfluous but is really required for the sense.\n\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd] \u2018_unto Christ_\u2019, i.e. leading to Him as the goal. The words\nshould be connected not with \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, but with the main statement of\nthe sentence \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n7. \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1] This sentence again must not be connected with the words\nimmediately preceding. It gives the motive of the Apostle\u2019s thanksgiving\nmentioned in ver. 4. This thanksgiving was the outpouring of gratitude\nfor the joy and comfort that he had received in his bonds, from the\nreport of Philemon\u2019s generous charity. The connexion therefore is\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 ...... \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd ... \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. For \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd the received text (Steph. but not Elz.) reads\n\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd, which is taken to mean \u2018thankfulness\u2019 (1 Tim. i. 12, 2 Tim. i.\n3); but this reading is absolutely condemned by the paucity of ancient\nauthority.\n\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1] \u2018_the heart, the spirits_\u2019. On \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1, the nobler\nviscera, regarded as the seat of the emotions, see the note on Phil. i.\n8. Here the prominent idea is that of terror, grief, despondency, etc.\n\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9] \u2018_have been relieved, refreshed_\u2019, comp. ver. 20. The\ncompound \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c5\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 expresses a temporary relief, as the simple\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 expresses a final cessation: Plut. _Vit. Lucull._ 5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f56\u03b8\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039c\u03b9\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n8, 9]\n\n^8 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bd\u1fc6\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, ^9\n\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6, \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\n\n                         9. \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd _\u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9_ \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 _\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9_. Thus it implies\n\u2018relaxation, refreshment,\u2019 as a preparation for the renewal of labour or\nsuffering. It is an Ignatian as well as a Pauline word; _Ephes._ 2,\n_Smyrn._ 9, 10, 12, _Trall._ 12, _Magn._ 15, _Rom._ 10.\n\n\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03ad] For the appeal suggested by the emphatic position of the word,\ncomp. Gal. vi. 18. See also the note on ver. 20 below.\n\n8\u201317. \u2018Encouraged by these tidings of thy loving spirit, I prefer to\nentreat, where I might command. My office gives me authority to dictate\nthy duty in plain language, but love bids me plead as a suitor. Have I\nnot indeed a right to command\u2014I Paul whom Christ Jesus long ago\ncommissioned as His ambassador, and whom now He has exalted to the rank\nof His prisoner? But I entreat thee. I have a favour to ask for a son of\nmy own\u2014one doubly dear to me, because I became his father amidst the\nsorrows of my bonds. I speak of Onesimus, who in times past was found\nwholly untrue to his name, who was then far from useful to thee, but now\nis useful to thee\u2014yea, and to myself also. Him I send back to thee, and\nI entreat thee to take him into thy favour, for in giving him I am\ngiving my own heart. Indeed I would gladly have detained him with me,\nthat he might minister to me on thy behalf, in these bonds with which\nthe Gospel has invested me. But I had scruples. I did not wish to do\nanything without thy direct consent; for then it might have seemed\n(though it were only seeming) as if thy kindly offices had been rendered\nby compulsion and not of free will. So I have sent him back. Indeed it\nmay have been God\u2019s providential design, that he was parted from thee\nfor a season, only that thou mightest regain him for ever; that he left\nthee as a slave, only that he might return to thee a beloved brother.\nThis indeed he is to me most of all; and, if to me, must he not be so\nmuch more to thee, both in worldly things and in spiritual? If therefore\nthou regardest me as a friend and companion, take him to thee, as if he\nwere myself\u2019.\n\n8. \u0394\u03b9\u03cc] i.e. \u2018Seeing that I have these proofs of thy love, I prefer to\nentreat, where I might command\u2019.\n\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd] \u2018_confidence_\u2019, literally \u2018_freedom_\u2019 or \u2018_privilege of\nspeech_\u2019; see the notes on Col. ii. 15, Ephes. iii. 12. It was his\nApostolic authority which gave him this right to command in plain\nlanguage. Hence the addition \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7.\n\n\u03c4\u03bf \u1f00\u03bd\u1fc6\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd] \u2018_what is fitting_\u2019: see the note on Col. iii. 18.\n\n9. \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd] \u2018_for love\u2019s sake_\u2019, i.e. \u2018having respect to the\nclaims of love\u2019. It is not Philemon\u2019s love (vv. 5, 7,) nor St Paul\u2019s own\nlove, but love absolutely, love regarded as a principle which demands a\ndeferential respect.\n\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_being such an one as Paul an ambassador, and now\nalso a prisoner, of Christ Jesus_\u2019. Several questions of more or less\ndifficulty arise on these words. (1) Is \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f64\u03bd to be connected with\nor separated from \u1f61\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.? If separated, \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f64\u03bd will mean\n\u2018though as an Apostle I am armed with such authority\u2019, and \u1f61\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. will describe his condescension to entreaty, \u2018yet as simply Paul,\netc.\u2019 But the other construction is much more probable for the following\nreasons., (_a_) \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f64\u03bd so used, implying, as it would, something of\na _personal_ boast, seems unlike St Paul\u2019s usual mode of speaking.\nSeveral interpreters indeed, taking \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f64\u03bd separately, refer it to\nver. 8, \u2018seeing that this is my disposition\u2019, i.e. \u2018seeing that I desire\nto entreat\u2019; but \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 suggests more than an accidental impulse.\n(_b_) As \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f61\u03c2 are correlative words, it is more natural to\nconnect them together; comp. Plato _Symp._ 181 E \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., Alexis (Meineke _Fragm. Com._ III. p. 399)\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b6\u1fc6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f41\u03b9 \u03ba\u03cd\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9. Such passages are an answer to the\nobjection that \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 would require some stronger word than \u1f61\u03c2, such\nas \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c2, or \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5. Even after such expressions as \u1f41 \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc,\ninstances occur of \u1f65\u03c2 (\u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1): see Lobeck _Phryn._ p. 427, Stallbaum on\nPlat. _Ph\u00e6d._ 86 A. Indeed it may be questioned whether any word but \u1f61\u03c2\nwould give exactly St Paul\u2019s meaning here. (_c_) All the Greek\ncommentators without a single exception connect the words \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f65\u03c2\n\u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 together. (2) Assuming that the words \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. are\ntaken together, should they be connected with the preceding or the\nfollowing sentence? On the whole the passage is more forcible, if they\nare linked to the preceding words. In this case the resumptive \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\n(ver. 10) begins a new sentence, which introduces a fresh subject. The\nApostle has before described the character of his appeal; he now speaks\nof its object. (3) In either connexion, what is the point of the words\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.? Do they lay down the grounds of his\n_entreaty_, or do they enforce his right to _command_? If the view of\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 adopted below be correct, the latter must be the true\ninterpretation; but even though \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 be taken in its ordinary\nsense, this will still remain the more probable alternative; for, while\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 and \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 would suit either entreaty or command, the\naddition \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 suggests an appeal to authority.\n\n\u1f61\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2] The mention of his personal name involves an assertion of\nauthority, as in Ephes. iii. 1; comp. Gal. v. 2, with the note there.\nTheodoret writes, \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1, \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2] Comparing a passage in the contemporary epistle, Ephes. vi.\n20 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f41\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f01\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, it had occurred to me that we should read\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2 here, before I was aware that this conjecture had been\nanticipated by others, e.g. by Bentley (_Crit. Sacr._ p. 93) and by\nBenson (_Paraphrase etc. on Six Epistles of St Paul_ p. 357). It has\nsince been suggested independently in Linwood\u2019s _Observ. qu\u00e6d. in\nnonnulla N. T. loca_ 1865, and probably others have entertained the same\nthought. Still believing that St Paul here speaks of himself as an\n\u2018ambassador\u2019, I now question whether any change is necessary. There is\nreason for thinking that in the common dialect \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 may have been\nwritten indifferently for \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2 in St Paul\u2019s time; and if so, the\nform here may be due, not to some comparatively late scribe, but to the\noriginal autograph itself or to an immediate transcript. In 1 Macc. xiv.\n21 the Sinaitic MS has \u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 (a corruption of \u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u03b9,\nfor the common reading is \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1f70\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31); in xiv. 22 it reads\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u0399\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd; but in xiii. 21 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2: though in all passages\nalike the meaning is \u2018ambassadors\u2019. Again the Alexandrian MS has\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 in xiii. 21, but \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 in xiv. 22, and \u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u03b9\n(i.e. \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1f70\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31) in xiv. 21. In 2 Macc. xi. 34 this same MS has\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5, and the reading of the common texts of the LXX (even\nTischendorf and Fritzsche) there is \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. Grimm treats it as\nmeaning \u2018ambassadors\u2019, without even noticing the form. Other MSS are\nalso mentioned in Holmes and Parsons which have the form \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in 1\nMacc. xiii. 21. In 2 Chron. xxxii. 31 again the word for \u2018ambassador\u2019 is\nwritten thus in the _Vatican_ MS, though the \u03b5 is added above the line;\nand here too several MSS in Holmes and Parsons agree in reading\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2. Thus it is plain that, in the age of our earliest extant MSS\nat all events, the scribes used both forms indifferently in this sense.\nSo also Eusebius on Isaiah xviii. 2 writes \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b5 \u1f08\u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 _\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2_\n\u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03ce\u03bd, (\u039f \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2. Again in Ignat.\n_Smyrn._ 11 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 is the form in all the MSS of either recension,\nthough the meaning is plainly \u2018an ambassador of God.\u2019 So too in _Clem.\nHom._ Ep. Clem. 6 the MSS read \u1f41 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, which even\nSchwegler and Dressel tacitly retain. See also Appian _Samn._ 7, where\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 is due to the later editors, and _Acta Thom\u00e6_ \u00a7 10, where\nthere is a v. l. \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in at least one MS. And probably examples of\nthis substitution might be largely multiplied. The main reason for\nadopting this reading is the parallel passage, which suggests it very\nstrongly. The difficulty which many find in St Paul\u2019s describing himself\nas an old man is not serious. On any showing he must have been verging\non sixty at this time, and may have been some years older. A life of\nunintermittent toil and suffering, such as he had lived, would bring a\npremature decay; and looking back on a long eventful life, he would\nnaturally so think and speak of himself. Thus Roger Bacon (_Opus Majus_\nI 10, p. 15, ed. Jebb; _Opus Tertium_ p. 63, ed. Brewer) writes \u2018me\nsenem\u2019, \u2018nos senes\u2019, in 1267, though he appears to have been not more\nthan fifty-two or fifty-three at the time and lived at least a quarter\nof a century after (see E. Charles _Roger Bacon, Sa Vie etc._ pp. 4 sq.,\n40). So too Scott in his fifty-fifth year speaks of himself as \u2018an old\ngrey man\u2019 and \u2018aged\u2019 (Lockhart\u2019s _Life_ VIII. pp. 327, 357). It is more\ndifficult to understand how St Paul should make his age a ground of\nappeal to Philemon who, if Archippus was his son, cannot have been much\nyounger than himself. The commentator Hilary says that the Apostle\nappeals to his friend \u2018quasi co\u00e6vum \u00e6tatis\u2019, but this idea is foreign to\nthe context. The comment of Theophylact is, \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f64\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9,\n_\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2_, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f04\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd,\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03be\u03af\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5_ \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Does he mean to include both meanings in\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2? Or is he accidentally borrowing the term \u2018ambassador\u2019 from\nsome earlier commentator without seeing its bearing?\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2] Another title to respect. The mention of his bonds might\nsuggest either an appeal for commiseration or a claim of authority: see\nthe note on ver. 13. Here the addition of \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 invests it with\nthe character of an official title, and so gives prominence to the\nlatter idea. To his old office of \u2018ambassador\u2019 Christ has added the new\ntitle of \u2018prisoner\u2019. The genitive \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 belongs to \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 as\nwell as to \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, and in both cases describes the person who confers\nthe office or rank.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n10]\n\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6. ^{10}\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd,\n\n\n10. \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] St Chrysostom remarks on the Apostle\u2019s\nwithholding the name, until he has favourably disposed Philemon both to\nthe request and to the object of it; \u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. The whole passage deserves to be read.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n11]\n\n\u1f43\u03bd [\u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c] \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f48\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, ^{11}\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\n\n\n\u1f43\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] So too 1 Cor. iv. 15. In Gal. iv. 19 he speaks of\nhimself as suffering a mother\u2019s pangs for his children in the faith.\nComp. Phil. _Leg. ad Cai._ 8 (II. p. 554) \u1f10\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039c\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\n\u0393\u03b1\u0390\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f22 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f27\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2] He was doubly dear to the Apostle, as being the child\nof his sorrows.\n\n\u1f48\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd] for \u1f48\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 by attraction, as e.g. Mark vi. 16 \u1f43\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f38\u03ce\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd. Henceforward he will be true to his\nname, no longer \u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, but \u1f40\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2: comp. Ruth i. 20 \u2018Call me not\nNaomi (pleasant) but call me Mara (bitter) etc.\u2019 The word \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is a\nsynonyme for \u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, Demosth. _Phil._ iii. \u00a7 40 (p. 121) \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\n_\u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1_ \u1f04\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1 _\u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1_ \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.: comp. Pseudophocyl. 37\n(34) \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. The significance\nof names was a matter of special importance among the ancients. Hence\nthey were careful in the inauguration of any great work that only those\nwho had _bona nomina_, _prospera nomina_, _fausta nomina_, should take\npart: Cic. _de Div._ i. 45, Plin. _N.H._ xxviii. 2. 5, Tac. _Hist._ iv.\n53. On the value attached to names by the ancients, and more especially\nby the Hebrews, see Farrar _Chapters on Language_ p. 267 sq., where a\nlarge number of instances are collected. Here however there is nothing\nmore than an affectionate play on a name, such as might occur to any one\nat any time: comp. Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24 \u1f41 )\u0395\u03b9\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n12]\n\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 [\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76] \u03c3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f54\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f43\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03ac \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9.\n^{12}\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bc\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1,\n\n\n11. \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f54\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd] Comp. Plat. _Resp._ iii. p. 411 A \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\n\u1f00\u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 ... \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd. Of these words, \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is found only here,\n\u03b5\u1f54\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 occurs also 2 Tim. ii. 21, iv. 11, in the New Testament. Both\nappear in the LXX. In Matt. xxv. 30 a slave is described as \u1f00\u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2. For\nthe mode of expression comp. Ephes. v. 15 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c3\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9.\nSome have discovered in these words a reference to \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, as commonly\npronounced \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2; comp. Theoph. _ad Autol._ i. 12 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f21\u03b4\u1f7a \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b5\u1f54\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. and see _Philippians_ p. 16 note. Any such allusion\nhowever, even if it should not involve an anachronism, is far too\nrecondite to be probable here. The play on words is exhausted in the\nreference to \u1f48\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u03af] An after-thought; comp. Phil. ii. 27 \u1f20\u03bb\u03ad\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ad. This accounts for the exceptional order, where\naccording to common Greek usage the first person would naturally precede\nthe second.\n\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1] \u2018_I send back_\u2019, the epistolary aorist used for the present:\nsee the notes on Phil. ii. 25, 28. So too \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1, ver. 19, 21 (see the\nnote). It is clear both from the context here, and from Col. iv. 7\u20139,\nthat Onesimus accompanied the letter.\n\n12. \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The reading of the received text is _\u03c3\u1f7a \u03b4\u1f72_\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bc\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1, _\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6_. The words thus\nsupplied doubtless give the right construction, but must be rejected as\ndeficient in authority. The accusative is suspended; the sentence\nchanges its form and loses itself in a number of dependent clauses; and\nthe main point is not resumed till ver. 17 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ad, the\ngrammar having been meanwhile dislocated. For the emphatic position of\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd comp. John ix. 21, 23, Ephes. i. 22.\n\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bc\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1] \u2018_my very heart_\u2019, a mode of speech common in all\nlanguages. For the meaning of \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1 see the note on Phil. i. 8. Comp.\n_Test. Patr._ Zab. 8, Neph. 4, in both which passages Christ is called\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd of God, and in the first it is said \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd ...\n\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1f72\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b7\u03c3\u1fc3 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03b3\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\nOtherwise \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bc\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1 has been interpreted \u2018_my son_\u2019 (comp. ver. 10\n\u1f43\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.), and it is so rendered here in the Peshito. For this\nsense of \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1 comp. Artemid. _Oneir._ i. 44 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, _ib._ v. 57 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1 [\u1f10\u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5] \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f14\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9. With this meaning it is used not less of the\nfather than of the mother; e.g. Philo _de Joseph._ 5 (II. p. 45) \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03c9\u03c7\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 ... \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, Basil.\n_Op._ III. p. 501 \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd. The\nLatin _viscera_ occurs still more frequently in this sense, as the\npassages quoted in Wetstein and Suicer show. For this latter\ninterpretation there is much to be said. But it adds nothing to the\nprevious \u1f43\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., and (what is a more serious objection) it\nis wholly unsupported by St Paul\u2019s usage elsewhere, which connects\n\u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1 with a different class of ideas: see e.g. vv. 7, 20.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n13, 14]\n\n^{13}\u1f43\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f10\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03b5\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u00b7 ^{14}\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2\n\n\n13. \u1f10\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd] \u2018_I was of a mind_\u2019, distinguished from \u1f20\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1, which\nfollows, in two respects; (1) While \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 involves the idea of\n\u2018purpose, deliberation, desire, mind\u2019, \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd denotes simply \u2018will\u2019;\nEpictet. i. 12. 13 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9, \u03c4\u1f78 \u0394\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1; \u03bf\u1f54 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, iii. 24, 54 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5 \u1f41\u03c1\u1fb7\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f43\u03bd\n\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f44\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9. (2) The change of tenses is significant. The imperfect\nimplies a tentative, inchoate process; while the aorist describes a\ndefinite and complete act. The will stepped in and put an end to the\ninclinations of the mind. Indeed the imperfect of this and similar verbs\nare not infrequently used where the wish is stopped at the outset by\nsome antecedent consideration which renders it impossible, and thus\npractically it is not entertained at all: e.g. Arist. _Ran._ 866\n\u1f10\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5, Antiph. _de Herod. c\u00e6d._ I (p. 129)\n\u1f10\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd ... \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; Is\u00e6us _de Arist. h\u00e6r._ I (p. 79)\n\u1f10\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd ... \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03be \u1f34\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., \u00c6sch. _c. Ctes._ 2 (p. 53)\n\u1f10\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd, \u1f66 )\u0391\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 ... \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., Lucian _Abd._\nI \u1f10\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. ... \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.; see K\u00fchner \u00a7\n392 _b_ (II. p. 177). So Acts xxv. 22 \u1f10\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, not \u2018I should wish\u2019 (as Winer \u00a7 xli. p. 353) but \u2018I could have\nwished\u2019, i.e. \u2018if it had not been too much to ask\u2019. Similarly \u1f24\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\nGal. iv. 20, \u03b7\u1f50\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd Rom. ix. 3. See _Revision of the English New\nTestament_ p. 96. So here a not improbable meaning would be not \u2018I was\ndesirous\u2019, but \u2018I could have desired\u2019.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd] \u2018_to detain_\u2019 or \u2018_retain_\u2019, opposed to the following \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u1fc3\u03c2,\nver. 15.\n\n\u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] Comp. Phil. ii. 30 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, 1 Cor. xvi. 17 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f51\u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. See the note on Col. i. 7. With a delicate tact the Apostle\nassumes that Philemon would have wished to perform these friendly\noffices in person, if it had been possible.\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2] An indirect appeal to his compassion: see vv. 1, 9, 10.\nIn this instance however (as in ver. 9) the appeal assumes a tone of\nauthority, by reference to the occasion of his bonds. For the genitive\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, describing the origin, comp. Col. i. 23 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. They were not shackles which self had riveted, but a chain\nwith which Christ had invested him. Thus they were as a badge of office\nor a decoration of honour. In this respect, as in others, the language\nof St Paul is echoed in the epistles of St Ignatius. Here too entreaty\nand triumph alternate; the saint\u2019s bonds are at once a ground for appeal\nand a theme of thanksgiving: _Trall._ 12 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5,\n_Philad._ 7 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, _Ephes._ 11 \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 (i.e. \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7\n\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6) \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, _Smyrn._ 10\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, _Magn._ 1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f84\u03b4\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; see also _Ephes._ 1, 3, 21, _Magn._ 12,\n_Trall._ 1, 5, 10, _Smyrn._ 4, 11, _Polyc._ 2, _Rom._ 1, 4, 5, _Philad._\n5.\n\n14. \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018_without thy approval, consent_\u2019; Polyb. ii. 21. 1,\n3, \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c6\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2, \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2: similarly \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\n[\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2] \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2, e.g. Polyb. xxi. 8. 7, Ign. _Polyc._ 4.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n15, 16]\n\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f20\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f96, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f11\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 ^{15}\u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u1fc3\u03c2, ^{16}\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd,\n\n\n\u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd] St Paul does not say \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd but \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd.\nHe will not suppose that it would really be by constraint; but it must\nnot even wear _the appearance_ (\u1f61\u03c2) of being so: comp. 2 Cor. xi. 17 \u1f61\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u1fc3. See Plin. _Ep._ ix. 21 \u2018Vereor ne videar non rogare sed\ncogere\u2019; where, as here, the writer is asking his correspondent to\nforgive a domestic who has offended.\n\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5] \u2018_the benefit_ arising _from thee_\u2019, i.e. \u2018the good which\nI should get from the continued presence of Onesimus, and which would be\nowing to thee\u2019.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f11\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd] as in Num. xv. 3. The form \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f11\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd is perhaps more\nclassical: Thuc. viii. 27 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f11\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f22 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c5 \u03b3\u03b5 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u1fc3. The word\nunderstood in the one case appears to be \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd (Porphyr. _de Abst._ i.\n9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f11\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, comp. Eur. _Med._ 751 \u1f11\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u1ff3); in the\nother, \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd (so \u1f11\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3, \u1f10\u03be \u1f11\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, etc.): comp. Lobeck _Phryn._ p.\n4.\n\n15. \u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 explains an additional motive which guided\nthe Apostle\u2019s decision: \u2018I did not dare to detain him, however much I\ndesired it. I might have defeated the purpose for which God in His good\nprovidence allowed him to leave thee\u2019.\n\n\u1f10\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7] \u2018He does not say\u2019, writes Chrysostom, \u2018_For this cause he\nfled_, but _For this cause he was parted_: for he would appease Philemon\nby a more euphemistic phrase. And again he does not say _he parted\nhimself_, but _he was parted_: since the design was not Onesimus\u2019 own to\ndepart for this or that reason: just as Joseph also, when excusing his\nbrethren, says (Gen. xlv. 5) _God did send me hither_.\u2019\n\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd] \u2018_for an hour_\u2019, \u2018_for a short season_\u2019: 2 Cor. vii. 8, Gal.\nii. 5. \u2018It was only a brief moment after all\u2019, the Apostle would say,\n\u2018compared with the magnitude of the work wrought in it. He departed a\nreprobate; he returns a saved man. He departed for a few months; he\nreturns to be with you for all time and for eternity\u2019. The sense of\n\u03b1\u1f34\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd must not be arbitrarily limited. Since he left, Onesimus had\nobtained eternal life, and eternal life involves eternal interchange of\nfriendship. His services to his old master were no longer barred by the\ngates of death.\n\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u1fc3\u03c2] In this connexion \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd may bear either of two senses: (1)\n\u2018_to have back, to have in return_\u2019: or (2) \u2018_to have to the full, to\nhave wholly_\u2019, as in Phil. iv. 18 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03c9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 (see the note). In other\nwords the prominent idea in the word may be either _restitution_, or\n_completeness_. The former is the more probable sense here, as suggested\nby \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd in verse 13 and by \u1f10\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 in this verse.\n\n16. \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd] St Paul does not say \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd but \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd. It was a\nmatter of indifference whether he were outwardly \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 or outwardly\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, since both are one in Christ (Col. iii. 11). But though he\nmight still remain a slave, he could no longer be _as_ a slave. A change\nhad been wrought in him, independently of his possible manumission: in\nChrist he had become a brother. It should be noticed also that the\nnegative is not \u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9, but \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9. The negation is thus wholly\nindependent of \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 ... \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u1fc3\u03c2. It describes not the possible view of\nPhilemon, but the actual state of Onesimus. The \u2018no more as a slave\u2019 is\nan absolute fact, whether Philemon chooses to recognise it or not.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n17\u201319]\n\n\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u03af, \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3. ^{17}\u03b5\u1f30 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ad\u00b7 ^{18}\u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u03ad\n\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f20\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03ad\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5 \u1f22 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f11\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b1. ^{19}\u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1\n\n\n\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd] \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9, writes\nChrysostom, apostrophizing Philemon.\n\n\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] Having first said \u2018most of all to me\u2019, he goes a\nstep further, \u2018more than most of all to thee\u2019.\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] \u2018In both spheres alike, in the affairs of this\nworld and in the affairs of the higher life.\u2019 In the former, as Meyer\npointedly says, Philemon had the brother for a slave; in the latter he\nhad the slave for a brother: comp. Ign. _Trall._ 12 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9.\n\n17. \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd] \u2018_thou holdest me to be a comrade, an intimate\nfriend_\u2019. For this use of \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd comp. Luke xiv. 18 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fc3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd,\nPhil. ii. 29 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5. Those are \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03af, who have\ncommon interests, common feelings, common work.\n\n18\u201322. \u2018But if he has done thee any injury, or if he stands in thy debt,\nset it down to my account. Here is my signature\u2014_Paul_\u2014in my own\nhandwriting. Accept this as my bond. I will repay thee. For I will not\ninsist, as I might, that thou art indebted to me for much more than\nthis; that thou owest to me thine own self. Yes, dear brother, let me\nreceive from my son in the faith such a return as a father has a right\nto expect. Cheer and refresh my spirits in Christ. I have full\nconfidence in thy compliance, as I write this; for I know that thou wilt\ndo even more than I ask. At the same time also prepare to receive me on\na visit; for I hope that through your prayers I shall be set free and\ngiven to you once more\u2019.\n\n18. \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9] The case is stated hypothetically but the words doubtless\ndescribe the actual offence of Onesimus. He had done his master some\ninjury, probably had robbed him; and he had fled to escape punishment.\nSee the introduction.\n\n\u1f22 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9] defining the offence which has been indicated in \u1f20\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd.\nBut still the Apostle refrains from using the plain word \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd. He\nwould spare the penitent slave, and avoid irritating the injured master.\n\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b1] \u2018_reckon it in_\u2019, \u2018_set it down_\u2019. This form must be adopted\ninstead of \u1f10\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 which stands in the received text, as the great\npreponderance of authority shows. On the other hand we have \u1f10\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\nRom. v. 13 (though with a v. l. \u1f10\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9), \u1f10\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd Boeckh _C. I._\nno. 1732 A, and \u1f10\u03bd\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 _Edict. Diocl._ in _Corp. Inscr. Lat._ III.\np. 836. But the word is so rare in any form, that these occurrences of\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd afford no ground for excluding \u1f10\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1fb6\u03bd as impossible. The two\nforms might be employed side by side, just as we find \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u1fb6\u03bd and \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd,\n\u03be\u03c5\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bd and \u03be\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb6\u03bd and \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd (Matt. xv. 23), and the like; see\nButtmann _Ausf. Gramm._ \u00a7 112 (II. p. 53). The word \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1fb6\u03bd, as used by\nLucian _Lexiph._ 15 (where it is a desiderative \u2018to be eager to speak\u2019,\nlike \u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u1fb6\u03bd, \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u1fb6\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u1fb6\u03bd, etc.), has nothing to do with the use of\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1fb6\u03bd here.\n\n19. \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2] The introduction of his own name gives it the character\nof a formal and binding signature: comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 21, Col. iv. 18, 2\nThess. iii. 17. A signature to a deed in ancient or medi\u00e6val times would\ncommonly take this form \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1,\u2014\u2018_I_ so and so\u2019; where we should\nomit the marks of the first person.\n\n\u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1] An epistolary or documentary aorist, as in ver. 21; so too\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1 ver. 11. See the note on \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1 Gal. vi. 11. The aorist is the\ntense commonly used in signatures; e.g. \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1 to the conciliar\ndecrees.\n\nThis incidental mention of his autograph, occurring where it does, shows\nthat he wrote the whole letter with his own hand. This procedure is\nquite exceptional, just as the purport of the letter is exceptional. In\nall other cases he appears to have employed an amanuensis, only adding a\nfew words in his own handwriting at the close: see the note on Gal.\n_l.c._\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n20]\n\n\u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03bc\u1fc7 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03af, \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03c9\u00b7 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03ad\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2. ^{20}\u03bd\u03b1\u03af, \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03ad, \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f40\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3\u00b7 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7.\n\n\n\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9] \u2018_not to say_\u2019, as 2 Cor. ix. 4. There is a suppressed\nthought, \u2018though indeed you cannot fairly claim repayment\u2019, \u2018though\nindeed you owe me (\u1f40\u03c6\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2) as much as this\u2019, on which the \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74\n\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. is dependent. Hence \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03ad\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u2018_owest besides_\u2019; for this is\nthe common meaning of the word.\n\n\u03c3\u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd] St Paul was his spiritual father, who had begotten him in the\nfaith, and to whom therefore he owed his being; comp. Plato _Legg._ iv.\np. 717 B \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c6\u03ad\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n... \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72, \u1f03 \u03ba\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, _\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd_\n... \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2, _\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1_ \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n20. \u03bd\u03b1\u03af] introducing an affectionate appeal as in Phil. iv. 3 \u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1ff6\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ad.\n\n\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03ad] It is the entreaty of a brother to a brother on behalf of a\nbrother (ver. 16). For the pathetic appeal involved in the word see the\nnotes on Gal. iii. 15, vi. 1, 18; and comp. ver. 7.\n\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03ce] \u2018I seem to be entreating for Onesimus; but I am pleading for\n_myself_: the favour will be done to me\u2019; comp. ver. 17 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ad. The emphatic \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce identifies the cause of Onesimus with his own.\n\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f40\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd] \u2018_may I have satisfaction, find comfort in thee_\u2019, i.e.\n\u2018may I receive such a return from thee, as a father has a right to\nexpect from his child.\u2019 The common use of the word \u1f40\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd would suggest\nthe thought of filial offices; e.g. Arist. _Thesm._ 469 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd _\u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd_, Lucian _Philops._ 27 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f44\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd _\u03c5\u1f31\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd_,\n\u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd, \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7, \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, Ps-Ignat. _Hero_ 6 \u1f40\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5,\n_\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd_ \u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd, Synes. _Ep._ 44 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f40\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd _\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd_ \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, with other passages\nquoted in Wetstein. So too for \u1f44\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f44\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, compare Eur. _Med._ 1025\nsq. \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03c3\u03c6\u1ff7\u03bd _\u1f44\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9_ ... \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u2019 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, \u1f66 _\u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u2019_,\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03b8\u03c1\u03b5\u03c8\u03ac\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd, _Alc._ 333 \u1f05\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 _\u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd_\u00b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 _\u1f44\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd_\n)\u03b5\u03cd\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, Philem. _Inc._ 64 (IV. p. 55 Meineke) \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ad\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03b5, \u03bc\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03cc \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 _\u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2_, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\n\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9, Ecclus. xxx. 2 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd _\u1f51\u1f76\u03bf\u03bd_ \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 _\u1f40\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9_ \u1f10\u03c0\u2019\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 (the only passage in the LXX where the word occurs). The prayer\n\u1f40\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f40\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, etc., occurs several times in Ignatius;\n_Polyc._ 1, 6, _Magn._ 2, 12, _Ephes._ 2. It is not unlikely that\n\u1f40\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd here involves a reference to the name Onesimus; see the note on\nver. 11. The Hebrew fondness for playing on names makes such an allusion\nat least possible.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n21, 22]\n\n^{21}\u03a0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03ac \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9, \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f03 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2. ^{22}\u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b6\u03c9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd.\n\n\n\u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3] As he had begotten Philemon \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 (comp. 1 Cor. iv. 15,\n17), so it was \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 that he looked for the recompense of filial\noffices.\n\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] See the note ver. 7.\n\n21. \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1] \u2018_I write_\u2019: see the note on ver. 19.\n\n\u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f03 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] What was the thought upmost in the Apostle\u2019s mind\nwhen he penned these words? Did he contemplate the manumission of\nOnesimus? If so, the restraint which he imposes upon himself is\nsignificant. Indeed throughout this epistle the idea would seem to be\npresent to his thoughts, though the word never passes his lips. This\nreserve is eminently characteristic of the Gospel. Slavery is never\ndirectly attacked as such, but principles are inculcated which must\nprove fatal to it.\n\n22. \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] When St Paul first contemplated visiting Rome, he had\nintended, after leaving the metropolis, to pass westward into Spain;\nRom. xv. 24, 28. But by this time he appears to have altered his plans,\npurposing first to revisit Greece and Asia Minor. Thus in Phil. ii. 24\nhe looks forward to seeing the Philippians shortly; while here he\ncontemplates a visit to the Churches of the Lycus valley.\n\nThere is a gentle compulsion in this mention of a personal visit to\nColoss\u00e6. The Apostle would thus be able to see for himself that Philemon\nhad not disappointed his expectations. Similarly Serapion in Eus. _H.E._\nvi. 12 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u1fb6\u03c4\u03ad \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n\u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd] \u2018_a lodging_\u2019; comp. _Clem. Hom._ xii. 2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b1\u03be\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f11\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. So the Latin _parare hospitium_ Cic. _ad Att._ xiv. 2,\nMart. _Ep._ ix. 1. This latter passage, \u2018Vale et para hospitium\u2019,\nclosely resembles St Paul\u2019s language here. In the expression before us\n\u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 is probably the _place_ of entertainment: but in such phrases as\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b5\u03c0\u1f76 \u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, and the\nlike, it denotes the offices of hospitality. The Latin _hospitium_ also\nincludes both senses. The \u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, as a lodging, may denote either\nquarters in an inn or a room in a private house: see _Philippians_ p. 9.\nFor the latter comp. Plato _Tim._ 20 C \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u039a\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f57\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1. In this case the response would doubtless be\na hospitable reception in Philemon\u2019s home; but the request does not\nassume so much as this.\n\n\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9] \u2018_I shall be granted to you_\u2019. The grant (\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9) of\none person to another, may be for purposes either (1) of destruction, as\nActs xxv. 11 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 (comp. ver. 16), or (2)\nof preservation, as Acts iii. 14 \u1f90\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03b1 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd,\nand here.\n\n23\u201325. \u2018Epaphras my fellow-captive in Christ Jesus salutes you. As do\nalso Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow-labourers. The grace\nof our Lord Jesus Christ be with thee and thy household, and sanctify\nthe spirit of you all.\u2019\n\n23 sq. For these salutations see the notes on Col. iv. 10 sq. Epaphras\nis mentioned first because he was a Colossian (Col. iv. 12) and, as the\nevangelist of Coloss\u00e6 (see p. 29 sq.), doubtless well known to Philemon.\nOf the four others Aristarchus and Mark belonged to the Circumcision\n(Col. iv. 11), while Demas and Luke were Gentile Christians. All these\nwere of Greek or Asiatic origin and would probably be well known to\nPhilemon, at least by name. On the other hand Jesus Justus, who is\nhonourably mentioned in the Colossian letter (iv. 11), but passed over\nhere, may have been a Roman Christian.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n23\u201325]\n\n^{23}\u1f08\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c3\u03b5 \u1f18\u03c0\u03b1\u03c6\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c7\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6,\n^{24}\u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f08\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u1fb6\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n^{25}\u1f29 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 [\u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd] \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\n\n\u1f41 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c7\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2] On the possible meanings of this title see Col. iv. 10,\nwhere it is given not to Epaphras but to Aristarchus.\n\n25. \u1f29 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.] The same form of farewell as in Gal. vi. 18; comp. 2\nTim. iv. 22.\n\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd] The persons whose names are mentioned in the opening salutation.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                      _ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS._\n\n\np. 6, l. 12. On Polemo and his family see _Ephemeris Epigraphica_ I. p.\n        270 sq. (1873).\n\np. 38, note 125. The investigations of M. Waddington respecting the\n        chronology of this period (see below) require a modification of\n        the dates here given for the earthquakes in the second century.\n        He enumerates three: (1) One at Rhodes, from A.D. 138\u2013142; (2)\n        One which destroyed Mitylene and did considerable damage to\n        Smyrna, A.D. 151\u2013152; (3) One which destroyed Smyrna A.D. 180.\n        These two last have been confounded together by previous\n        writers. See M. Waddington\u2019s _M\u00e9moire_, pp. 242 sq., 267 sq.\n\np. 48, note 160. On the names Ammias, Tatias, which are feminine and not\n        masculine, see below p. 373.\n\np. 49, note. I have here given the commonly received date for the\n        martyrdom of Polycarp; for I had not then seen M. Waddington\u2019s\n        investigations. This writer seems to have proved conclusively\n        that it took place several years earlier, A.D. 155: see his\n        _M\u00e9moire sur la Chronologie du Rh\u00e9teur \u00c6lius Aristide_ p. 232\n        sq., in the _M\u00e9moires de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des Inscriptions_, &c. XXVI.\n        (1867).\n\npp. 52, 53. As these remarks respecting the silence of Eusebius will\n        seem to be directed against the opinions expressed in a recent\n        work, it may be worth while stating that the early sheets of\n        this commentary were struck off nearly twelve months before\n        _Supernatural Religion_ was published. The expression in p. 53,\n        note 170, \u2018numerous and patent quotations,\u2019 is too strongly\n        worded, though the references to St James in Clement\u2019s Epistle\n        seem to me to be clear. I might however have chosen other more\n        palpable illustrations from that epistle.\n\np. 63, l. 12. The Proconsulate of Paullus, under whom this martyrdom\n        took place, is dated by Borghesi (_[OE]uvres_ VIII. p. 507)\n        somewhere between A.D. 163\u2013168, by Waddington (_Fastes des\n        Provinces Asiatiques_ p. 731, in Le Bas and Waddington _Voyage\n        Arch\u00e9ologique etc._) probably A.D. 164\u2013166. This rests on the\n        assumption that the _Servillius Paullus_ here named must be\n        identified with _L. Sergius Paullus_ of the inscriptions. The\n        name _Sergius_ is elsewhere confounded with _Servius_\n        (_Servillius_) owing to the use of contractions (see Borghesi\n        IV. p. 493, VIII. p. 504). The mistake must have been introduced\n        very early into the text of Eusebius. All the Greek MSS have\n        _Servillius_ (_Servilius_), and so it is written in the Syriac\n        Version. Ruffinus however writes it correctly _Sergius_.\n\np. 71, line 1. We may conjecture that it was the earthquake under\n        Gallienus (A.D. 262) which proved fatal to Coloss\u00e6 (see above p.\n        38, note 125). This is consistent with the fact that no\n        Colossian coins later than Gordian (A.D. 238\u2013244) are extant.\n        When St Chrysostom wrote, the city existed no longer, as may be\n        inferred from his comment (XI. p. 323) \u2018\u1f29 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd\u00b7\n        \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\u2019\n\n        On the other hand M. Renan (_L\u2019Antechrist_ p. 99) says of the\n        earthquake under _Nero_, \u2018Colosses ne sut se relever; elle\n        disparut presque du nombre des \u00e9glises;\u2019 and he adds in a note\n        \u2018Colosses n\u2019a pas de monnaies imp\u00e9riales [Waddington].\u2019 This is\n        a mistake, and he must have misunderstood M. Waddington.\n\np. 77, note 229. To this list of works add Mansel\u2019s _Gnostic Heresies of\n        the First and Second Centuries_ (London 1875).\n\np. 112, note 336. See p. 330, note 553.\n\np. 160, l. 4. For \u2018argument for silence\u2019 read \u2018argument from silence.\u2019\n\np. 205, col. 1, l. 30. Strike out \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 before \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9.\n\np. 210, col. 1, l. 2. The dissertation to which reference is here made\n        is deferred to a later volume.\n\np. 250, col. 2, l. 21. Strike out the words in brackets.\n\np. 270, col. 1. \u1f05\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Comp. Seneca _de Vit. beat._ 7 \u2018in\n        ipso usu sui periturum.\u2019\n\np. 280, col. 1, l. 23. For \u2018Ammianus\u2019 read \u2018Ammonius.\u2019\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                 INDEX.\n\n\n        Abercius (Avircius), Bp. of Hierapolis, p. 54 sq.\n        Acts of the Apostles; passages explained, p. 23 (xiii. 4, xvi.\n           6);\n          p. 95 (xix. 13, 19);\n          p. 370 (xiv. 11).\n        \u00e6dificatori\u00e6, the sufferings of Christ as, p. 232\n        \u00c6lfric on the Epistle to Laodiceans, p. 362\n        Alasanda or Alasadda, p. 152\n        Alexander of Tralles on charms, p. 92\n        Alexandria, a supposed Buddhist establishment at, p. 151\n        Andrew, St, in Asia, p. 45\n        Angelolatry condemned, p. 101, 103, 184, i. 16, ii. 10, 15, 18;\n          forbidden by the Council of Laodicea, p. 68\n        angelology of Cerinthus, p. 110;\n          of Essenism, p. 96;\n          of the Jews, ii. 18\n        Angels, orders of, i. 16\n        Anselm of Laon, p. 361\n        Antiochus the Great, colony of, in Asia Minor, p. 19\n        Antiochus Theos refounds Laodicea, p. 5\n        aorist, epistolary, iv. 8, Ph. 11, 19, 21;\n          contrasted with perfect, i. 16\n        Apamea, p. 19, 20;\n          Jews at, p. 21\n        Apocalypse, correspondences with St Paul\u2019s Epistles to Asia, 41\n           sq.\n        apocrypha, use of word, p. 90, ii. 3\n        Apollinaris, see Claudius Apollinaris\n        Apollo Archegetes worshipped at Hierapolis, p. 12\n        Apostolic Fathers, Christology of, p. 190\n        Apostolic Writings, Christology of, p. 189\n        Apphia, wife of Philemon, p. 372;\n          the name Phrygian, 372 sq.\n        Archippus, iv. 17;\n          son of Philemon, 374;\n          office and abode, 375;\n          rebuke to, 43\n        Arian heresy in Hierapolis and Laodicea, p. 64\n        Arian use of the expression \u2018First-born of all creation,\u2019 i. 15\n        Aristarchus, iv. 10\n        Aristion, p. 45\n        Aristotle, on slavery, p. 379;\n          definition of \u2018knowledge,\u2019 ii. 3;\n          of \u2018wisdom,\u2019 i. 9\n        Armagh, Book of, p. 348, 352\n        article, omission of the definite, i. 4\n        asah, a supposed derivation of Essenes, p. 126\n        Ascents of James, p. 168\n        asceticism among the Jewish sects, p. 87;\n          Colossian heretics, p. 104;\n          Essenes, p. 173;\n          a result of Gnosticism, p. 79\n        Aseis, a Laodicean title of Zeus, p. 8\n        Asia, meaning of, p. 19\n        Asia Minor, geography of, p. 1 sq.;\n          list of writers on, p. 1;\n          how divided under the Romans, 7;\n          a modern hypothesis about Christianity in, p. 50\n        Asid\u00e6ans, p. 120\n        asya, a supposed derivation of Essene, p. 125\n        Athanasius, on \u2018Firstborn of all Creation,\u2019 i. 15\n        Athens, a Buddhist burnt alive at, p. 155\n        Augustine, on \u2018Firstborn of all Creation,\u2019 i. 15;\n          on \u2018wisdom and knowledge,\u2019 ii. 3\n        \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7, \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, i. 13\n        \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, i. 2\n        \u1f00\u03b3\u03ce\u03bd, \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, i. 29, ii. 1, iv. 12\n        \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03cc\u03c2 (\u1f41), i, 1\n        \u1f00\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, iii. 21\n        \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1, iii. 8\n        \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, iii. 5\n        \u1f05\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2, iv. 6\n        \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, \u1f21 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, i. 5;\n          \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3, i. 6\n        \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac, after \u03b5\u1f30 or \u03b5\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af in St Paul, ii. 5\n        \u1f04\u03bc\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, i. 22\n        \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03ac\u03c5\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, Ph. 7\n        \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, p. 230\n        \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, i. 22\n        \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c8\u03af\u03bf\u03c2, iv. 10\n        \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, iii. 18;\n          \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bd\u1fc6\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, Ph. 8\n        \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9, iii. 22\n        \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, i. 24\n        \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, iii. 24\n        \u1f00\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, i. 16\n        \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03b4\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, ii. 15\n        \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, ii. 11\n        \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, Ph. 15\n        \u1f00\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, i. 21\n        \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, ii. 20\n        \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, i. 20, 21\n        \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, ii. 3\n        \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, i. 14\n        \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, ii. 22\n        \u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, ii. 21\n        \u1f00\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, i. 10\n        \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae applied to Christ, p. 41; i. 16, 18\n        \u03b1\u1f50\u03be\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, i. 6\n        \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, i. 17\n        \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, ii. 23\n        \u1f01\u03c6\u03ae, ii. 19\n        \u1f00\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, ii. 11\n        \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, Ph. 11\n\n\n        B (Cod. Vaticanus), excellence of, p. 314.\n\n        Banaim, the, p. 132\n\n        Banus not an Essene, p. 161\n\n        Bardesanes, on Buddhists, 154;\n          his date, p. 155\n\n        Barnabas, life of, iv. 10;\n          epistle ascribed to, _ib._\n\n        basilica, iv. 15\n\n        Basilides, p. 331\n\n        Baur, p. 77, 81, 384\n\n        Bene-hakkeneseth, p. 130\n\n        Brahminism, p. 154, 155\n\n        Buddhism, assumed influence on Essenism, p. 151 sq.;\n          supposed establishment of, in Alexandria, p. 151;\n          unknown in the West, p. 153 sq.;\n          four steps of, p. 157\n\n        Buddhist at Athens, p. 155\n\n        \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, p. 250\n\n        \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, iii. 11\n\n        \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, iii. 8\n\n        \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, Ph. 13\n\n        \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, iii. 15\n\n\n        Cabbala, see Kabbala\n\n        Cainites, p. 79\n\n        Calvin, iii. 8, p. 341, 384\n\n        Canonical writings and Papias, p. 52\n\n        Carpocratians, p. 79, 80\n\n        Cataphryges, p. 98\n\n        Cavensis, codex, p. 348\n\n        celibacy, p. 173\n\n        Cerinthus, p. 107 sq.;\n          Judaism of, p. 108;\n          Gnosticism of, _ib._;\n          cosmogony of, p. 109;\n          Christology of, p. 111 sq.;\n          pleroma of, p. 330\n\n        chaber, p. 128\n\n        Chagigah, on ceremonial purity, p. 128\n\n        Chalcedon, council of, p. 65\n\n        chasha, chashaim, a derivation of Essene, p. 119\n\n        chasi, chasyo, a derivation of Essene, p. 118;\n          connexion with chasid, p. 124\n\n        chasid, a false derivation of Essene, p. 115\n\n        Chasidim, p. 120;\n          not a proper name for the Essenes, p. 122\n\n        chasin, chosin, a false derivation for Essene, p. 116\n\n        chaza, chazya, a derivation of Essene, p. 117\n\n        Chonos or Chon\u00e6, p. 15, 71\n\n        Christ, the Person of, p. 34;\n          St Paul\u2019s doctrine about, p. 41, 181 sq., i. 15\u201320, ii. 9\u201315;\n          the Word Incarnate, p. 101, 102;\n          the pleroma in Him p. 102, i. 19, ii. 9, 10;\n          Life in Him, the remedy against sin, p. 34, 186 sq.;\n          His teaching and practice not Essene, p. 170 sq.\n\n        Christianity, not an outgrowth of Essenism, p. 159;\n          in relation to Epictetus, p. 13;\n          to Gnosticism, p. 80;\n          to slavery, p. 389, 391 sq.\n\n        Christianity in Asia Minor, p. 50\n\n        Christianized Essenes, p. 89, 90, 135\n\n        Christians of St John, p. 165\n\n        Christology of Ep. to Col., p. 101, 188;\n          of other Apostolic writings, p. 189;\n          of succeeding ages, p. 190\n\n        Chronicon Paschale, p. 48, 61\n\n        Chrysostom, i. 13, 15, iii. 16, p. 340, Ph. 15, p. 383\n\n        Cibotus, p. 21\n\n        Cibyratic convention, p. 7\n\n        Circular Letter\u2014the Ep. to the Ephesians\u2014p. 37\n\n        Claudius, embassy from Ceylon in the reign of, p. 156\n\n        Claudius Apollinaris, the name, p. 57 sq.;\n          his works, p. 58 sq.\n\n        Clement of Alexandria, p. 79, 98, 154, 168, i. 9, 15, ii. 8,\n           iii. 5, 16\n\n        Clement of Rome (\u00a7 7) Col. i. 3;\n          (\u00a7 58) i. 11;\n          (\u00a7 33, i. 15;\n          (Ep. ii. \u00a7 9), p. 104\n\n        Clementine Homilies, p. 136, 168\n\n        Clementine Recognitions, p. 164\n\n        Clermont, p. 3\n\n        collegia, iv. 15\n\n        Coloss\u00e6, orthography of, p. 16, i. 2;\n          situation, etc., p. 1 sq.;\n          distance from Laodicea, p. 376;\n          site, p. 13;\n          ancient greatness and decline, p. 15;\n          a Phrygian city, p. 18 sq.;\n          Jewish colony at, p. 19;\n          not visited by St Paul when the epistle was written, p. 23;\n          Epaphras the evangelist of, p. 29;\n          intended visit of Mark to, p. 40;\n          visit of St Paul to, p. 41;\n          obscurity of, p. 70;\n          a suffragan see of Laodicea, p. 69;\n          the Turkish conquest of, p. 71\n\n        Colossian heresy, nature of, p. 73 sq., 89, ii. 8;\n          writers upon, p. 74;\n          had regard to the Person of Christ, p. 112;\n          relation to Gnosticism, p. 98;\n          St Paul\u2019s answer to, p. 181 sq.\n\n        Colossians, Epistle to, p. 33;\n          bearers of, p. 35;\n          salutations in, _ib._;\n          charge respecting Laodicea, p. 36;\n          written by an amanuensis, iv. 18;\n          Christology of, p. 188;\n          style of, p. 191;\n          analysis of, p. 192;\n          various readings, see _readings_\n\n        colossinus, p. 4\n\n        community of goods, p. 176\n\n        Concord of the Laodiceans and Ephesians, etc., p. 31\n\n        Congregation, the holy, at Jerusalem, p. 131\n\n        Constantine, legislation of, p. 393\n\n        Constantinople, Council of, p. 65\n\n        conventus (Roman), p. 7\n\n        Corinth, visit of St Paul to, during his residence at Ephesus,\n           p. 30\n\n        Corinthians, First Epistle to; passages explained: (i. 19, i. 9;\n          (ii. 6, 7, i. 28;\n          (v. 9, iv. 16;\n          (vii. 21) p. 390;\n          (viii. 6) p. 188;\n          (ix. 24, ii. 18;\n          (x. 26) p. 326;\n          (xi. 7, i. 15;\n          (xiii. 3) p. 156;\n          (xiii. 12, i. 9;\n          (xv. 24, i. 16\n\n        Corinthians, Second Epistle to; passages explained: (i. 7, i.\n           24;\n          (iii. 6, i. 12;\n          (iv. 4, i. 15;\n          (v. 14, 15, ii. 20;\n          (vi. 1, i. 6;\n          (vi. 4, 6, i. 11;\n          (viii. 9, i. 6;\n          (ix. 12) _ib._;\n          (xiii. 5, i. 27\n\n        Cornelius a Lapide, p. 342\n\n        Creation, Gnostic speculations about, p. 78 sq.;\n          Essene do., p. 90\n\n        Cyril of Alexandria, p. 154\n\n        \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af, i. 6, iii. 1\n\n        \u03ba\u03b1\u03af in both members of a comparison, i. 6\n\n        \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9, ii. 1\n\n        \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 and \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2, ii. 10\n\n        \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b1, iii. 8\n\n        \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, i. 6\n\n        \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, ii. 18\n\n        \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, i. 22\n\n        \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, i. 19\n\n        \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, ii. 18\n\n        \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae, i. 18\n\n        \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, iii. 24\n\n        \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, i. 12\n\n        \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, iii. 12\n\n        \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, Ph. 6\n\n        \u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, iii. 25\n\n        \u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u1fb6\u03bd, i. 29\n\n        \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03cc\u03c2, p. 4\n\n        \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, ii. 8\n\n        \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, ii. 19\n\n        \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, i. 11\n\n        \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, ii. 16\n\n        \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, i. 15\n\n        \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f41, (Christ, i. 10;\n          (Master), iii. 24\n\n        \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, i. 16\n\n        \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, i. 15\n\n        \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, ii. 13, iii. 13, Ph. 22\n\n        \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, i. 2, (\u1f21, iii. 16;\n          \u1f21 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, i. 6\n\n        \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd, ii. 14\n\n        \u03a7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, iii. 12\n\n\n        Damascene: see _John Damascene_\n\n        Darmstadiensis Codex, p. 348\n\n        dative (of instrument), ii. 7, iii. 16;\n          (of part affected), i. 4\n\n        Demas, p. 36, iv. 14, Ph. 24\n\n        Denizli, p. 7;\n          earthquake at, p. 3\n\n        diocese, p. 7\n\n        Diognetus, Epistle to, i. 18\n\n        Dion Chrysostom, p. 81, 153\n\n        Diospolis, an old name of Laodicea, p. 68\n\n        Divinity of Christ, p. 101 sq., 182 sq., i. 15\n\n        Docet\u00e6, use of pleroma by, p. 337\n\n        dualism, p. 78, 87, 149\n\n        dyes of Coloss\u00e6 and the neighbourhood, p. 4\n\n        \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, ii. 15\n\n        \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, Ph. 1, 10\n\n        \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, Ph. 13\n\n        \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac with gen., used of the Logos, p. 188, i. 16, 20\n\n        \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, iv. 7, 17\n\n        \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, i. 28\n\n        \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, p. 7\n\n        \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, ii. 14\n\n        \u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, ii. 20\n\n        \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1, i. 11, 27\n\n        \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, Ph. 16;\n          \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, iv. 12\n\n        \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2, i. 16\n\n        \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, i. 11\n\n\n        Earthquakes in the valley of the Lycus, p. 38\n\n        Ebionite Christology of Cerinthus, p. 110\n\n        economy of revelation perfected, p. 185\n\n        Elchesai, founder of the Mandeans, p. 167\n\n        Elchesai, Book of, p. 137\n\n        elders, primitive, p. 132\n\n        Eleazar expels evil spirits, p. 91\n\n        English Church on the Epistle to Laodicea, p. 362\n\n        English versions of the Epistle to Laodicea, p. 364\n\n        Epaphras, p. 34;\n          evangelist of Coloss\u00e6, p. 29, 31;\n          mission to St Paul, p. 32, iv. 12, Ph. 23\n\n        Epaphroditus, p. 34\n\n        Ephesians, Epistle to; a circular letter, p. 37;\n          readings in, harmonistic with Epist. to Col., p. 312 sq.;\n          passages explained, i. 18 , i. 23);\n            i. 21 , i. 16);\n            i. 23 , i. 18);\n            ii. 3 , iii. 6);\n            ii. 4 , iii. 1);\n            ii. 4, 5 , ii. 13);\n            ii. 12 , i. 21);\n            ii. 14 , i. 17);\n            ii. 15 , ii. 14);\n            ii. 16 , i. 20);\n            ii. 20 , ii. 7);\n            iii. 17 , ii. 17);\n            iii. 21 , i. 26);\n            iv. 10, 11 , i. 17);\n            iv. 18 , i. 21);\n            iv. 19, v. 3 (iii. 5);\n            v. 32 (i. 26)\n\n        Ephesus, Council of, p. 65\n\n        Ephesus, St Paul at, p. 30, 95;\n          exorcists at, p. 95\n\n        Epictetus, p. 13\n\n        Epiphanius, account of Cerinthus, p. 107;\n          on the Nasareans, p. 136\n\n        epistolary aorist, Ph. 11, 19, 21\n\n        epulones of Ephesian Artemis called Essenes, p. 96\n\n        Erasmus on the Epistle to Laodicea, p. 365\n\n        Essene, meaning of term, p. 94;\n          the name, p. 114 sq.;\n          Frankel\u2019s theory, p. 121 sq.\n\n        Essenes, p. 82, ii. 8;\n          list of writers upon, p. 83;\n          localities of, p. 93;\n          asceticism of, p. 85;\n          speculations of, p. 87;\n          exclusiveness of, p. 92;\n          Josephus and Philo chief authorities upon, p. 134;\n          oath taken by, p. 127;\n          their grades, p. 129;\n          origin and affinities, p. 119 sq.;\n          relation to Christianity, p. 158;\n          to Pharisaism, p. 101, 120;\n          to Neopythagoreanism, p. 143;\n          to Hemerobaptists, p. 166;\n          to Gnosticism, p. 92;\n          to Parsism, p. 149;\n          to Buddhism, p. 157;\n          excused by Herod the Great from taking the oath of allegiance,\n             p. 176;\n          fortune tellers, p. 178;\n          silence of New Test. about, p. 159;\n          in relation to John the Baptist, p. 160;\n          to James the Lord\u2019s brother, p. 168;\n          Christianized Essenes, p. 135\n\n        Essenism, p. 82;\n          main features of, p. 83 sq.;\n          compared with Christianity, p. 170 sq.;\n          the sabbath, p. 170;\n          lustrations, p. 171;\n          avoidance of strangers, p. 172;\n          asceticism, celibacy, p. 173;\n          avoidance of the Temple, p. 174;\n          denial of the resurrection of the body, p. 175;\n          certain supposed coincidences with Christianity, p. 175\n\n        Eusebius, on the earthquakes in the valley of the Lycus, p. 39;\n          his mistake respecting some martyrdoms, p. 48;\n          silence on quotations from Canonical writings, p. 52;\n          on tracts against Montanism, p. 56;\n          the Thundering Legion, p. 61;\n          on Marcellus, i. 15\n\n        evil, Gnostic theories about, p. 78\n\n        exorcists at Ephesus, p. 95\n\n        \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 and \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, i. 12;\n          and \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, iii. 13\n\n        \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce, Ph. 19\n\n        \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, ii. 23\n\n        \u03b5\u1f34 \u03b3\u03b5, i. 23\n\n        \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd, i. 15, iii. 11\n\n        \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, i. 6\n\n        \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2, i. 6, ii. 22, Ph. 6\n\n        \u1f10\u03ba \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd), iv. 16\n\n        \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, iv. 15\n\n        \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, iii. 12\n\n        \u1f10\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1fb6\u03bd, Ph. 18\n\n        \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03c2, i. 5\n\n        \u1f10\u03bd, iv. 12;\n          denoting the sphere, i. 4;\n          \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7, i. 16;\n          \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9, ii. 16;\n          \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, iv. 12;\n          \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, i. 18;\n          \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, i. 21;\n          \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, i. 27, iii. 16;\n          \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7, i. 2\n\n        \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, i. 29\n\n        \u1f14\u03bd\u03b9, iii. 11\n\n        \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, iv. 5\n\n        \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03b9\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, ii. 14\n\n        \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, i. 13, 16\n\n        \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 (\u1f41\u1f30, iv. 5\n\n        \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae, ii. 16\n\n        \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, p. 100, i. 6, 9, Ph. 6\n\n        \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, iii. 5\n\n        \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, i. 23\n\n        \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae (\u1f21), iv. 16\n\n        \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, ii. 19\n\n        \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, ii. 7\n\n        \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, iii. 23\n\n        \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, iii. 21\n\n        \u1f10\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, ii. 7\n\n        \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, iii. 6\n\n        \u03b5\u1f50\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, iii. 20\n\n        \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1, \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, i. 19\n\n        \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1, ii. 7, i. 3;\n          \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, iii. 15\n\n        \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, p. 95\n\n        \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, Ph. 17\n\n        \u1f10\u03c7\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03af, i. 21\n\n\n        F (Codex Augiensis) relation to G, p. 345\n\n        Firstborn of all Creation, i. 15\n\n        Flaccus, p. 20\n\n        Frankel on the Essenes, p. 121 sq.\n\n\n        G (Codex Boernerianus) relation to F, p. 345\n        Galatia, meaning of, in St Paul and St Luke, p. 24\n        Galatian and Colossian Judaism compared, p. 105, i. 28\n        Galatians, Epistle to; passages explained, i. 24 (Gal. ii. 20);\n          i. 28 (iv. 19);\n          ii. 8 (iv. 3)\n        Galen, ii. 19, 20\n        Ginsburg, (Dr) p. 88, 127 sq.\n        Gnostic, p. 80 sq.\n        Gnostic element in Colossian heresy, p. 73 sq.\n        Gnostic sects, use of pleroma by, p. 330\n        Gnosticism, list of writers on, p. 77;\n          definition of, p. 76 sq.;\n          intellectual exclusiveness of, p. 77;\n          speculations of, p. 77 sq.;\n          practical errors of, p.79 sq.;\n          independent of Christianity, p. 80;\n          relation to Judaism, p. 81;\n          to Essenism, p. 93;\n          to Colossian heresy, p. 98\n        grades of Essenes, p. 129\n        Gr\u00e4tz, p. 123, 160, 161, 170\n        Greece, slavery in, p. 386\n        Gregory the Great on the Epistle to the Laodiceans, p. 361\n        guild of dyers, p. 4\n        \u0393\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, p. 153\n        \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, i. 9, ii. 3\n        \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, p. 81\n\n\n        Hamartiology of the Old Testament, p. 185\n        Haymo of Halberstadt, on the Epistle to the Laodiceans, p. 361\n        Hebrew slavery, p. 385 sq.\n        Hebrews, Epistle to the; passages explained, i. 11 (Heb. xi.\n           34);\n          i. 15 (i. 2, 3, 6)\n        Hefele on the date of Claudius Apollinaris, p. 185\n        Hemerobaptists, p. 162\n        Herod the Great excuses the oath of allegiance to the Essenes,\n           p. 176\n        Hervey of Dole, on the Epistle to the Laodiceans, p. 361\n        Hierapolis, p. 9;\n          modern name, p. 9;\n          physical features of, p. 10;\n          a famous watering place, p. 11;\n          the Plutonium at, p. 12;\n          birthplace of Epictetus, p. 13;\n          political relations of, p. 18;\n          attractions for Jews, p. 22;\n          a Christian settlement, p. 45;\n          Philip of Bethsaida at, p. 45 sq.;\n          Council at, p. 59;\n          Papias, bishop of, p. 48 sq.;\n          Abercius, bishop of, p. 54 sq.;\n          Claudius Apollinaris, bishop of, p. 57 sq.;\n          dyes of, p. 4\n        Hilgenfeld, p. 75;\n          on the Essenes, p. 150 sq.\n\n\n        James the Lord\u2019s brother, p. 167\n        Jerome, p. 29;\n          on St Paul\u2019s parents, p. 35;\n          on the Epistle to the Laodiceans, p. 359 sq.\n        Jesus Justus, iv. 11\n        Jews, sects of the, p. 82\n\n\n        imperfect, iii. 18\n\n        indicative after \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u03ae, ii. 8\n\n        infinitive of consequence, i. 10, iv. 3, 6\n\n        John (St) in Asia Minor, p. 41;\n          Apocalypse, passages explained, p. 41 (iii. 14\u201321);\n          Gospel, p. 163 (i. 8, v. 35);\n          Second Epistle, p. 371;\n          Third Epistle, _ib._\n\n        John the Baptist, not an Essene, p. 160;\n          disciples of, at Ephesus, p. 163\n\n        John (St), Christians of, p. 165\n\n        John Damascene, p. 15\n\n        John of Salisbury on the Epistle to the Laodiceans, p. 362\n\n        Josephus on Essenism, p. 133 sq.\n\n        Judaism and Gnosticism, p. 81\n\n        \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1, iv. 16\n\n        \u1f38\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, iv. 11\n\n        \u1f30\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, iv. 1\n\n\n        Kabbala, p. 93, i. 16, ii. 8\n\n\n        Lanfranc on the Epistle to the Laodiceans, p. 363\n        Laodicea, name and history, p. 5;\n          condition, p. 6;\n          political rank and relations, p. 7, 18;\n          religious worship at, p. 8;\n          Council of, p. 66;\n          ecclesiastical status, p. 69;\n          dyes of, p. 4;\n          surnamed Trimetaria, p. 18;\n          the vaunt of, p. 44\n        Laodicea, the letter from, iv. 16;\n          p. 340 sq.\n        Laodiceans, apocryphal Epistle to the, p. 347 sq.;\n          list of MSS of, p. 349 sq.;\n          Latin text of, p. 353;\n          notes on, p. 355 sq.;\n          theory of a Greek original, p. 357;\n          restoration of the Greek, p. 359;\n          circulation of, p. 360 sq.;\n          English prologue and versions, p. 364;\n          strictures of Erasmus on, p. 365;\n          genuineness maintained by some, p. 366\n        Latrocinium, see _Robbers\u2019 Synod_\n        Legio Fulminata, p. 61\n        legislation of Constantine on slavery, p. 393\n        Logos, the, i. 15\n        Luke, St, iv. 14;\n          his narrative of St Paul\u2019s third missionary journey, p. 24\n             sq.;\n          makes a distinction between Philip the Apostle and Philip the\n             Evangelist, p. 45, 59\n        lukewarmness at Laodicea, p. 42\n        lustrations of the Essenes, p. 171\n        Luther\u2019s estimate of the Epistle to Philemon, p. 383\n        Lycus, district of the;\n          list of writers on, p. 1 sq.;\n          physical features of, p. 2 sq.;\n          produce of, p. 4;\n          subterranean channel of the, p. 14;\n          earthquakes in, p. 38 sq.\n        Lycus, Churches of the, p. 1 sq.;\n          evangelised by Epaphras, p. 29 sq.;\n          ecclesiastical status of, p. 69\n        \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1, iv. 13\n        \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, ii. 23\n\n\n        Magic, forbidden by Council of Laodicea, p. 69;\n          among the Essenes, p. 140\n        magical books at Ephesus, p. 95;\n          magical charms among the Essenes, p. 90 sq.\n        Mandeans, p. 165\n        Marcosians, p. 335\n        Mark (St), iv. 10;\n          visits Coloss\u00e6, p. 40\n        marriage depreciated by the Essenes, p. 139\n        Matthew (St) Gospel of, accepted by Cerinthus and the Ebionites,\n           p. 108\n        Megasthenes, p. 153\n        monasticism of the Essenes, p. 157\n        Monoimus, the Arabian, p. 339\n        Montanism, Claudius Apollinaris on, p. 59;\n          Phrygian origin of, p. 98\n        morning bathers, p. 132\n        Muratorian Fragment on the Epistle to the Laodiceans, p. 358\n        \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, i. 11, iii. 12\n        \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c2, i. 12\n        \u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, Ph. 4\n        \u03bc\u03bf\u03bc\u03c6\u03ae, iii. 13\n        \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2, i. 15\n        \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, i. 26\n\n\n        Naassenes, p. 337\n        Nasoreans, p. 138, 165\n        Neander on Cerinthus, p. 108\n        Neopythagoreanism and Essenism, p. 146 sq.\n        New Testament, relation of, to the Old Testament, p. 184\n        Nic\u00e6a, Bishops of Hierapolis and Laodicea at the Council of, p.\n           65\n        Nicetas Choniates, p. 71\n        nominative with definite article for vocative, iii. 18\n        Novatianism in Phrygia, p. 98\n        Nymphas, iv. 15, p. 31\n        \u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, ii. 16\n        \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2, iii. 10\n        \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, i. 28\n        \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd with aorist, i. 21\n\n\n        Observance of the Sabbath by the Essenes and our Lord, p. 170\n\n        Onesimus, p. 377, Ph. 10;\n          at Rome, p. 33;\n          encounters St Paul, p. 378;\n          returns to Philemon, p. 35, 379 sq.;\n          legendary history of, p. 382\n\n        Ophites, the, p. 81, 98, 337\n\n        Oracle, see _Sibylline Oracle_\n\n        \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, i. 25\n\n        \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, iv. 15\n\n        \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, i. 25\n\n        \u1f44\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f40\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd, Ph. 20\n\n        \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae, iii. 8\n\n        \u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, iii. 5, iv. 11\n\n        \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, iii. 22\n\n        \u1fa0\u03b4\u03ae, iii. 16\n\n        \u1f61\u03c2, Ph. 14, 16\n\n        .ix\n        Papias, p. 47;\n          writings of, _ib._;\n          life and teaching of, p. 48;\n          account of, given by Eusebius, p. 49;\n          traditions collected by, p. 51 sq.;\n          references to the Canonical writings, p. 51 sq.;\n          silence of Eusebius, p. 52;\n          views inferred from his associates, p. 53\n\n        Parsism, resemblances to, in Essenism, p. 149 sq.;\n          spread by the destruction of the Persian empire, p. 150;\n          influence of, p. 151\n\n        participle used for imperative, iii. 16\n\n        Paschal controversy, p. 59, 63\n\n        Paul (St) visits Phrygia on his second missionary journey, p.\n           23;\n          had not visited Coloss\u00e6 when he wrote, p. 23 sq.;\n          visits Phrygia on his third journey, p. 24;\n          silence about personal relations with Coloss\u00e6, p. 28;\n          at Ephesus, p. 30, 95 sq.;\n          at Rome, p. 32;\n          mission of Epaphras to, _ib._;\n          meets with Onesimus, p. 33, 378;\n          despatches three letters, p. 33;\n          visits Coloss\u00e6, p. 41;\n          his plans after his release, Ph. 22;\n          uses an amanuensis, iv. 18;\n          his signature, iv. 18, Ph. 19;\n          coincidences with words of our Lord, ii. 22;\n          his teaching on the universality of the Gospel, p. 99;\n          on the kingdom of Christ, i. 13 sq.;\n          on the orders of angels, i. 16 sq.;\n          on philosophy, ii. 8;\n          on the Incarnation, ii. 9;\n          on the abolition of distinctions, iii. 11;\n          on slavery, iii. 22 sq., p. 389 sq.;\n          his cosmogony and theology, p. 101 sq.;\n          his answer to the Colossian heresy, p. 181 sq.;\n          his Christology, p. 188, i. 15 sq.;\n          his relations with Philemon, p. 370 sq.;\n          connects baptism and death, ii. 11, 20, iii. 3;\n          makes use of metaphors from the mysteries, i. 26, 28;\n          from the stadium, ii. 18, iii. 14;\n          his rapid change of metaphor, ii. 7\n\n        Paul (St) Epistles of, correspondences with the Apocalypse\u2014on\n           the Person of Christ, p. 41;\n          warning against lukewarmness, p. 42;\n          against pride of wealth, p. 43\n\n        Paul (St) apocryphal Epistle of, to the Laodiceans, p. 353\n\n        Pedanius Secundus, execution of his slaves, p. 388\n\n        Person of Christ, St Paul and St John on, p. 41 sq.;\n          St Paul\u2019s answer to the Colossian heresy, p. 181 sq., i. 15\n             sq.\n\n        personal pronoun used for reflexive, i. 20, 22\n\n        Peter (St) and the Church in Asia Minor, p. 41\n\n        petrifying stream at Coloss\u00e6, p. 15\n\n        Pharisees, p. 82;\n          relation to Essenes, p. 82, 120, 141\n\n        Philemon, p. 31, 370 sq.;\n          legendary history of, p. 371;\n          his wife, p. 372;\n          his son, p. 374\n\n        Philemon, Epistle to;\n          Introduction to, p. 369;\n          character of, p. 370;\n          analysis of, p. 380 sq.;\n          different estimates of, p. 382 sq.;\n          compared with a letter of Pliny, p. 384\n\n        Philip the Apostle, in Asia, p. 45 sq.;\n          confused with Philip the Evangelist, p. 45\n\n        Philippopolis, synod of, p. 64\n\n        Philo, on the Essenes, p. 133;\n          his use of Logos, i. 15\n\n        Phrygia, p. 17 sq.;\n          meaning of the phrase in St Luke, p. 23;\n          religious tendencies of, p. 97 sq.;\n          see _Paul (St)_\n\n        Pistis Sophia, p. 339\n\n        Pliny the younger, a letter of, p. 384 sq.\n\n        pleroma, detached note upon, p. 323\n\n        Plutonium, at Hierapolis, p. 12\n\n        Polycarp, martyrdom of, p. 49\n\n        poverty, respect paid to, by Essenes and Christ, p. 177\n\n        Pr\u00e6torius accepts the Epistle to the Laodiceans as genuine, p.\n           366\n\n        Pythagoreanism and Essenism, p. 144;\n          disappearance of, p. 146\n\n        \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, iii. 5\n\n        \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, ii. 2\n\n        \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, ii. 6\n\n        \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, ii. 13\n\n        \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2, i. 6\n\n        \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, iv. 1\n\n        \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, iv. 11\n\n        \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3, ii. 15, Ph. 8\n\n        \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2, \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, i. 16;\n          \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, i. 15;\n          \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, i. 16\n\n        \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, i. 3;\n          \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, i. 2\n\n        \u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, Ph. 7\n\n        \u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1, ii. 4\n\n        \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, iii. 19\n\n        \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03af, i. 2\n\n        \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03b1, iii. 5\n\n        \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, iv. 12\n\n        \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, ii. 2\n\n        \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, i. 25, iv. 17\n\n        \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, i. 19, ii. 9, p. 323 sq.\n\n        \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae, ii. 23\n\n        \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, i. 27\n\n        \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, iii. 5\n\n        \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b0\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, iii. 12\n\n        \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, Ph. 8\n\n        \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, i. 17\n\n        \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, i. 5\n\n        \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, ii. 23, Ph. 5\n\n        \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, iv. 2\n\n        \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03c8\u03af\u03b1, iii. 25\n\n        \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, i. 15, 18\n\n        \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1, ii. 8\n\n        \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac, ii. 22\n\n        \u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, i. 9\n\n        \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, p. 69\n\n        \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, iii. 16\n\n\n        Quartodeciman controversy, p. 59, 63\n        Quinisextine Council, p. 68\n\n\n        Readings, harmonized with corresponding passages in the Epistle\n           to the Ephesians,\n          p. 312 (iii. 6);\n          p. 313 (ii. 21, v. 19)\n        readings, various,\n          p. 315 (i. 3);\n          p. 316 (i. 4, i. 7);\n          p. 317 (i. 12, i. 14, i. 22);\n          p. 318 (ii. 2);\n          p. 319 (ii. 16);\n          p. 320 (ii. 18, ii. 23);\n          p. 321 (iv. 8);\n          p. 322 (iv. 15)\n        Renan, on the meaning of Galatia in St Paul and St Luke, p. 25;\n          his estimate of the Epistle to Philemon, p. 384\n        Restoration, under Ezra, p. 119\n        resurrection of the body denied, p. 88, 175\n        Revelation; see _Apocalypse_\n        Robbers\u2019 Synod, p. 65\n        Roman slavery, p. 387\n        Rome, Onesimus at, p. 378;\n          St Paul at, p. 32\n        \u1fe5\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, ii. 7\n\n\n        Sabbath, observance of, by Christ and the Essenes compared, p.\n           170\n        Sab\u00e6ans, p. 165\n        sacrifices prohibited by Essenes, p. 89, 134\n        Sadduceeism, p. 82\n        Sagaris, Bishop of Laodicea, p. 63\n        Saman\u00e6i, p. 154\n        Samps\u00e6ans, p. 137\n        Sarman\u00e6, p. 153\n        satisfactori\u00e6, sufferings of Christ regarded as, i. 25\n        Secundus, see _Pedanius Secundus_\n        Sibylline Oracle, p. 96\n        silence of Eusebius, p. 52 sq.;\n          of the New Testament about the Essenes, p. 159\n        slave martyrs, p. 392\n        slavery, Hebrew, p. 385;\n          Greek, p. 386;\n          Roman, p. 387;\n          St Paul\u2019s treatment of, p. 389 sq.;\n          attitude of Christianity towards, p. 391 sq.;\n          prohibited by Essenes, p. 177;\n          legislation of Constantine, p. 393;\n          of Justinian, p. 394;\n          abolition of, p. 394\n        Socrates on Novatianism in Phrygia, p. 98\n        solidarity of the Church in the second century, p. 62\n        Sophia of Valentinus, p. 333;\n          Sophia Achamoth, p. 334\n        soteriology of the New Testament, p. 185\n        stadium, metaphor from the, ii. 18\n        Stapleton receives the Epistle to the Laodiceans as genuine, p.\n           366\n        Strabo on Buddhism, p. 153\n        Sunworship, p. 87, 137 sq., 149\n        \u03c3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, ii. 16\n        \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, i. 22\n        \u03a3\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2, iii. 11\n        \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1, i. 9, 28, ii. 3, iii. 16\n        \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1 (\u03c4\u1f70), iii. 12, Ph. 7, 12\n        \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, ii. 5\n        \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 (\u03c4\u1f70), ii. 8\n        \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, ii. 8\n        \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, ii. 2, 19\n        \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c7\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, iv. 10\n        \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, ii. 19, iii. 14\n        \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, i. 7, iv. 7\n        \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, i. 9, ii. 2\n        \u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, Ph. 2\n        \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, ii. 11\n        \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2, ii. 9\n\n\n        Tacitus on the earthquake at Laodicea, p. 39\n        Talmud, supposed etymologies of Essene in, p. 116 sq., 125 sq.;\n          supposed allusions to the Essenes, p. 128\n        Temple, avoidance of the, p. 174\n        Testaments, Old and New, p. 185\n        Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, on the orders of angels, i.\n           16\n        theanthropism of the New Testament, p. 185\n        thundering legion, p. 61\n        Thyatira, dyes of, p. 4\n        Timotheus, his position in these epistles, i. 1, Ph. 1;\n          \u2018the brother,\u2019 i. 1\n        Tivoli compared with the valley of the Lycus, p. 3\n        travertine deposits in the valley of the Lycus, p. 3\n        Trimetaria, a surname of Laodicea, p. 18\n        Tychicus, iv. 7, p. 35, 380.\n        \u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7, iii. 12\n        \u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b9\u03c2, ii. 5\n        \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, i. 28\n        \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 (indef.), St Paul\u2019s use of, ii. 8\n        \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f64\u03bd, Ph. 9, 12\n        \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, Ph. 13;\n          \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd, ii. 18\n        \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, i. 1\n        \u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, i. 23\n        \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, ii. 9\n        \u03b8\u03b9\u03b3\u03b3\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, ii. 21\n        \u03b8\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, ii. 20\n        \u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, ii. 15\n        \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, iii. 8\n        \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5, iv. 3\n\n\n        \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, iii. 16\n        \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c2, ii. 14\n        \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae, i. 11\n        \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1, i. 24, p. 335 sq.\n\n\n        Valentinianism, different forms of, p. 332 sq.\n        Valentinians accept St Paul and St John, p. 336\n        Valentinus, use of pleroma by, p. 331\n        versions of the Epistle to the Laodiceans, Latin, p. 357;\n          Bohemian, German, and English, p. 363 sq.\n        Vethikin, p. 131\n\n\n        Word, the, p. 101, see _Logos_, _Christ_\n        Wycliffe excluded the Apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans from\n           his Bible, p. 363\n\n\n        Yavana or Yona, p. 152\n\n\n        Zeller on Essenism, p. 143 sq.\n        Zenda-vesta, p. 149\n        Zoroastrianism and Essenism, p. 149 sq.\n\n        CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.\n\n\n\n\n                               Transcriber\u2019s Note\n\n        Minor lapses in punctuation have been rectified. Certain other\n        editorial or printing errors have been noted below, and\n        corrected.\n\n        On p. 286, in the note on i. 12 of Colossians for \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76\n        \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, the citation of Romans 8:33, referring to \u2018God\u2019s\n        elect\u2019 was incorrect, appearing as Romans 8.3. The correction\n        has been made.\n\n        On p. 321. there are two separate references to footnote 537.\n        This seems to be intentional, and have been retained. Likewise,\n        on p. 343, footnote 609 is repeated. It seems most likely that\n        the second instance is correct, but both have been retained.\n\n        On p. 416, in the Index, the entry for \u1f05\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 refers to iv. 5.\n        However, the word and its gloss appear in iv. 6.\n\n p. 28               He recal[l]s                        Added.\n\n p. 43        n. 143 coin[ci]dence                       Added.\n\n p. 121       n. 339 Zeitsc[h]rift                       Added.\n\n p. 199              a similar pheno[nem/men]on          Transposed.\n\n p. 213              _c. Eunom._ iv ([p. ]I.p. 292)      Removed.\n\n p. 230              The thought underlying \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd seems    Added.\n                     [to] be this\n\n p. 231              explaining it [as ]\u2018the later\u2019      Added.\n\n p. 323              theological con[fu]sion             Added.\n\n p. 373       n. 680 from the allied f[ro/or]m           Transposed.\n                     _Apphias_.","title":"St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon: A revised text with introductions, notes and dissertations","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":216828}