69.The coinage of Apamea affords a striking example of Judaic influence at a later date. On coins struck at this place in the reigns of Severus, Macrinus, and the elder Philip, an ark is represented floating on the waters. Within are a man and a woman: on the roof a bird is perched; while in the air another bird approaches bearing an olive-branch in its claws. The ark bears the inscription ??e. Outside are two standing figures, a man and a woman (apparently the same two who have been represented within the ark), with their hands raised as in the attitude of prayer. The connexion of the ark of Noah with Apamea is explained by a passage in one of the Sibylline Oracles (i. 261 sq.), where the mountain overhanging Apamea is identified with Ararat, and the ark (???t??) is stated to have rested there. Whether this Apamea obtained its distinctive surname of Cibotus, the Ark or Chest, from its physical features, or from its position as the centre of taxation and finance for the district, or from some other cause, it is difficult to say. In any case this surname might naturally suggest to those acquainted with the Old Testament a connexion with the deluge of Noah; but the idea would not have been adopted in the coinage of the place without the pressure of strong Jewish influences. On these coins see Eckhel Doctr. Num. Vet. III. p. 132 sq., and the paper of Sir F. Madden in the Numismatic Chronicle N. S. VI. p. 173 sq. (1866), where they are figured.

70.Joseph. Ant. xiv. 10. 21.

71.Talm. Babl. MoËd Katon 26a, quoted by Neubauer, La GÉographie du Talmud p. 319, though he seems to have misunderstood the expression quoted in the text, of which he gives the sense, ‘Cette ville tremblait au bruit des flÈches qu’on avait tirÉes.’

It is probably this same Laodicea which is meant in another Talmudical passage, Talm. Babl. Baba Metziah 84a (also quoted by Neubauer, p. 311), in which Elijah appearing to R. Ishmael ben R. Jose, says ‘Thy father fled to Asia; flee thou to Laodicea,’ where Asia is supposed to mean Sardis.

72.An inscription found at Rome in the Jewish cemetery at the Porta Portuensis (Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 9916) runs thus; e??a . ??te . a?a . [e]???dea . ap? . ?ad???a?. ?.t.?. i.e. ???a ?e?ta? ??a ???da?a ?p? ?a?d??e?a?. Probably Laodicea on the Lycus is meant. Perhaps also we may refer another inscription (6478), which mentions one Trypho from Laodicea on the Lycus, to a Jewish source.

73.Acts ii. 10.

74.See p. 4.

75.Acts xvi. 14. Is there an allusion to this branch of trade in the message to the Church of Laodicea, Rev. iii. 17 ??? ??da? ?t? s? e? ? ... ?????? s????e?? s?? ?????sa? ... ??t?a ?e??? ??a pe?????, ?.t.?.? The only other of the seven messages, which contains an allusion to the white garments, is addressed to the Church of Sardis, where again there might be a reference to the ?a Sa?d?a????? (Arist. Pax 1174, Acharn. 112) and the f??????de? Sa?d?a???a? (Plato Com. in Athen. II. p. 48 E) of the comic poets.

76.Talm. Babl. Sabbath 147 b, quoted by Neubauer La GÉographie du Talmud p. 317: see Wiesner Schol. zum Babyl. Talm. p. 259 sq., and p. 207 sq. On the word translated ‘baths,’ see Rapoport’s Erech Millin p. 113, col. 1.

77.Acts xvi. 6 t?? F????a? ?a? Ga?at???? ???a?, the correct reading. For this use of F????a? as an adjective comp. Mark i. 5 p?sa ? ???da?a ???a, Joh. iii. 22 e?? t?? ???da?a? ???, Luke iii. 1 t?? ?t???a?a? ?a? ??a????t?d?? ???a?, Acts xiii. 14 ??t???e?a? t?? ??s?d?a? (the correct reading).

78.See Galatians, p. 18 sq., 22.

79.Acts xviii. 23.

80.M. Renan (Saint Paul pp. 51 sq., 126, 313) maintains that the Galatia of St Paul and St Luke is not the country properly so called, but that they are speaking of the Churches of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, which lay within the Roman province of Galatia. This interpretation of Galatia necessarily affects his view of St Paul’s routes (pp. 126 sq., 331 sq.); and he supposes the Apostle on his third missionary journey to have passed through the valley of the Lycus, without however remaining to preach the Gospel there (pp. 331 sq., 356 sq., 362). As Antioch in Pisidia would on this hypothesis be the farthest church in ‘Galatia and Phrygia’ which St Paul visited, his direct route from that city to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 23, xix. 1) would naturally lie by this valley. I have already (Galatians pp. 18 sq., 22) stated the serious objections to which this interpretation of ‘Galatia’ is open, and (if I mistake not) have answered most of M. Renan’s arguments by anticipation. But, as this interpretation nearly affects an important point in the history of St Paul’s dealings with the Colossians, it is necessary to subject it to a closer examination.

Without stopping to enquire whether this view is reconcilable with St Paul’s assertion (Col. ii. 1) that these churches in the Lycus valley ‘had not seen his face in the flesh,’ it will appear (I think) that M. Renan’s arguments are in some cases untenable and in others may be turned against himself. The three heads under which they may be conveniently considered are: (i) The use of the name ‘Galatia’; (ii) The itinerary of St Paul’s travels; (iii) The historical notices in the Epistle to the Galatians.

(i) On the first point, M. Renan states that St Paul was in the habit of using the official name for each district and therefore called the country which extends from Antioch in Pisidia to Derbe ‘Galatia,’ supporting this view by the Apostle’s use of Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia (p. 51). The answer is that the names of these elder provinces had very generally superseded the local names, but this was not the case with the other districts of Asia Minor where the provinces had been formed at a comparatively late date. The usage of St Luke is a good criterion. He also speaks of Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia; but at the same time his narrative abounds in historical or ethnographical names which have no official import; e.g. Lycaonia, Mysia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, Phrygia. Where we have no evidence, it is reasonable to assume that St Paul’s usage was conformable to St Luke’s. And again, if we consider St Luke’s account alone, how insuperable are the difficulties which this view of Galatia creates. The part of Asia Minor, with which we are immediately concerned, was comprised officially in the provinces of Asia and Galatia. On M. Renan’s showing, St Luke, after calling Antioch a city of Pisidia (xiii. 14) and Lystra and Derbe cities of Lycaonia (xiv. 6), treats all the three, together with the intermediate Iconium, as belonging to Galatia (xvi. 6, xviii. 23). He explains the inconsistency by saying that in the former case the narrative proceeds in detail, in the latter in masses. But if so, why should he combine a historical and ethnological name Phrygia with an official name Galatia in the same breath, when the two are different in kind and cannot be mutually exclusive? ‘Galatia and Asia,’ would be intelligible on this supposition, but not ‘Galatia and Phrygia.’ Moreover the very form of the expression in xvi. 6, ‘the Phrygian and Galatian country’ (according to the correct reading which M. Renan neglects) appears in its studied vagueness to exclude the idea that St Luke means the province of Galatia, whose boundaries were precisely marked. And even granting that the Christian communities of Lycaonia and Pisidia could by a straining of language be called Churches of Galatia, is it possible that St Paul would address them personally as ‘ye foolish Galatians’ (Gal. iii. 1)? Such language would be no more appropriate than if a modern preacher in a familiar address were to appeal to the Poles of Warsaw as ‘ye Russians,’ or the Hungarians of Pesth as ‘ye Austrians,’ or the Irish of Cork as ‘ye Englishmen.’

(ii) In the itinerary of St Paul several points require consideration. (a) M. Renan lays stress on the fact that in Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23, the order in which the names of Phrygia and Galatia occur is inverted. I seem to myself to have explained this satisfactorily in the text. He appears to be unaware of the correct reading in xvi. 6, t?? F????a? ?a? Ga?at???? ???a? (see Galatians p. 22), though it has an important bearing on St Paul’s probable route. (b) He states that Troas was St Paul’s aim (‘l’objectif de Saint Paul’) in the one case (xvi. 6), and Ephesus in the other (xviii. 23): consequently he argues that Galatia, properly so called, is inconceivable, as there was no reason why he should have made ‘this strange detour towards the north.’ The answer is that Troas was not his ‘objectif’ in the first instance, nor Ephesus in the second. On the first occasion St Luke states that the Apostle set out on his journey with quite different intentions, but that after he had got well to the north of Asia Minor he was driven by a series of divine intimations to proceed first to Troas and thence to cross over into Europe (see Philippians p. 48). This narrative seems to me to imply that he starts for his further travels from some point in the western part of Galatia proper. When he comes to the borders of Mysia, he designs bearing to the left and preaching in Asia; but a divine voice forbids him. He then purposes diverging to the right and delivering his message in Bithynia; but the same unseen power checks him again. Thus he is driven forward, and passes by Mysia to the coast at Troas (Acts xvi. 6–8). Here all is plain. But if we suppose him to start, not from some town in Galatia proper such as Pessinus, but from Antioch in Pisidia, why should Bithynia, which would be far out of the way, be mentioned at all? On the second occasion, St Paul’s primary object is to revisit the Galatian Churches which he had planted on the former journey (xviii. 23), and it is not till after he has fulfilled this intention that he goes to Ephesus. (c) M. Renan also calls attention to the difficulty of traversing ‘the central steppe’ of Asia Minor. ‘There was probably,’ he says, ‘at this epoch no route from Iconium to Ancyra,’ and in justification of this statement he refers to Perrot, de Gal. Rom. prov. p. 102, 103. Even so, there were regular roads from either Iconium or Antioch to Pessinus; and this route would serve equally well. Moreover the Apostle, who was accustomed to ‘perils of rivers, perils of robbers, perils in the wilderness’ (2 Cor. xi. 26), and who preferred walking from Troas to Assos (Acts xx. 13) while his companions sailed, would not be deterred by any rough or unfrequented paths. But the facts adduced by Perrot do not lend themselves to any such inference, nor does he himself draw it. He cites an inscription of the year A.D. 82 which speaks of A. CÆsennius Gallus, the legate of Domitian, as a great road-maker throughout the Eastern provinces of Asia Minor, and he suggests that the existing remains of a road between Ancyra and Iconium may be part of this governor’s work. Even if the suggestion be adopted, it is highly improbable that no road should have existed previously, when we consider the comparative facility of constructing a way along this line of country (Perrot p. 103) and the importance of such a direct route. (d) ‘In the conception of the author of the Acts,’ writes M. Renan, ‘the two journeys across Asia Minor are journeys of confirmation and not of conversion (Acts xv. 36, 41, xvi. 5, 6, xviii. 23).’ This statement seems to me to be only partially true. In both cases St Paul begins his tour by confirming churches already established, but in both he advances beyond this and breaks new ground. In the former he starts with the existing churches of Lycaonia and Pisidia and extends his labours to Galatia: in the latter he starts with the then existing churches of Galatia, and carries the Gospel into Macedonia and Achaia. This, so far as I can discover, was his general rule.

(iii) The notices in the Galatian Epistle, which appear to M. Renan to favour his view, are these: (a) St Paul appears to have ‘had intimate relations with the Galatian Church, at least as intimate as with the Corinthians and Thessalonians,’ whereas St Luke disposes of the Apostle’s preaching in Galatia very summarily, unless the communities of Lycaonia and Pisidia be included. But the Galatian Epistle by no means evinces the same close and varied personal relations which we find in the letters to these other churches, more especially to the Corinthians. And again; St Luke’s history is more or less fragmentary. Whole years are sometimes dismissed in a few verses. The stay in Arabia which made so deep an impression on St Paul himself is not even mentioned: the three months’ sojourn in Greece, though doubtless full of stirring events, only occupies a single verse in the narrative (Acts xx. 3). St Luke appears to have joined St Paul after his visit to Galatia (xvi. 10); and there is no reason why he should have dwelt on incidents with which he had no direct acquaintance. (b) M. Renan sees in the presence of emissaries from Jerusalem in the Galatian Churches an indication that Galatia proper is not meant. ‘It is improbable that they would have made such a journey.’ But why so? There were important Jewish settlements in Galatia proper (Galatians p. 9 sq.); there was a good road through Syria and Cilicia to Ancyra (Itin. Anton. p. 205 sq., Itin. Hierosol. p. 575 sq. ed. Wessel.); and if we find such emissaries as far away from Jerusalem as Corinth (2 Cor. xi. 13, etc.), there is at least no improbability that they should have reached Galatia. (c) Lastly; M. Renan thinks that the mention of Barnabas (Gal. ii. 1, 9, 13) implies that he was personally known to the churches addressed, and therefore points to Lycaonia and Pisidia. But are we to infer on the same grounds that he was personally known to the Corinthians (1 Cor. ix. 6), and to the Colossians (Col. iv. 10)? In fact the name of Barnabas, as a famous Apostle and an older disciple even than St Paul himself, would not fail to be well known in all the churches. On the other hand one or two notices in the Galatian Epistle present serious obstacles to M. Renan’s view. What are we to say for instance to St Paul’s statement, that he preached the Gospel in Galatia d?’ ?s???e?a? t?? sa???? (iv. 13), i.e. because he was detained by sickness (see Galatians pp. 23 sq., 172), whereas his journey to Lycaonia and Pisidia is distinctly planned with a view to missionary work? Why again is there no mention of Timothy, who was much in St Paul’s company about this time, and who on this showing was himself a Galatian? Some mention would seem to be especially suggested where St Paul is justifying his conduct respecting the attempt to compel Titus to be circumcised.

81.Col. i. 4.

82.i. 9 d?? t??t? ?a? ?e??, ?f’ ?? ???a? ????sae?, ?? pa??e?a, ?.t.?. This corresponds to ver. 6 ?a??? ?a? ?? ???, ?f’ ?? ???a? ????sate ?a? ?p????te t?? ????? t?? Te?? ?? ????e??. The day when they first heard the preaching of the Gospel, and the day when he first heard the tidings of this fact, are set against each other.

83.e.g. i. 5–8, 21–23, 25, 28, 29. ii. 5, 6.

84.ii. 1 ???? ??? ??? e?d??a? ?????? ????a ??? ?p?? ??? ?a? t?? ?? ?a?d??e?? ?a? ?s?? ??? ???a?a? t? p??s?p?? ?? ?? sa???, ??a pa?a?????s?? a? ?a?d?a? a?t??, s??as???te? ?.t.?. The question of interpretation is whether the people of ColossÆ and Laodicea belong to the same category with the ?s??, or not. The latter view is taken by one or two ancient interpreters (e.g. Theodoret in his introduction to the epistle), and has been adopted by several modern critics. Yet it is opposed alike to grammatical and logical considerations. (1) The grammatical form is unfavourable; for the preposition ?p?? is not repeated, so that all the persons mentioned are included under a vinculum. (2) No adequate sense can be extracted from the passage, so interpreted. For in this case what is the drift of the enumeration? If intended to be exhaustive, it does not fulfil the purpose; for nothing is said of others whom he had seen beside the Colossians and Laodiceans. If not intended to be exhaustive, it is meaningless; for there is no reason why the Colossians and Laodiceans especially should be set off against those whom he had not seen, or indeed why in this connexion those whom he had not seen should be mentioned at all. The whole context shows that the Apostle is dwelling on his spiritual communion with and interest in those with whom he has had no personal communications. St Jerome (Ep. cxxx. ad Demetr. § 2) has rightly caught the spirit of the passage; ‘Ignoti ad ignotam scribimus, dumtaxat juxta faciem corporalem. Alioquin interior homo pulcre sibi cognitus est illa notitia qua et Paulus apostolus Colossenses multosque credentium noverat quos ante non viderat.’ For parallels to this use of ?a? ?s??, see the note on the passage.

85.i. 6 ?? pa?t? t? ??s? ?st?? ?a?p?f????e??? ?a? a??a??e???, ?a??? ?a? ?? ???, ?f’ ?? ???a? ????sate ?a? ?p????te t?? ????? t?? Te?? ?? ????e??, ?a??? ???ete ?p? ?paf?? t?? ??ap?t?? s??d????? ???, ?? ?st?? p?st?? ?p?? ??? d??????? t?? ???st??, ? ?a? d???sa? ??? t?? ??? ???p?? ?? p?e?at?.

The various readings which obscure the meaning are these. (i) The received text for ?a??? ???ete has ?a??? ?a? ???ete. With this reading the passage suggests that the instructions of Epaphras were superadded to, and so distinct from, the original evangelization of ColossÆ; whereas the correct text identifies them. (ii) For ?p?? ??? the received reading is ?p?? ???. Thus the fact that St Paul did not preach at ColossÆ in person, but through his representative, is obliterated. In both cases the authority for the readings which I have adopted against the received text is overwhelming.

The obscurity of rendering is in ?a??? [?a?] ???ete ?p? ?paf??, translated in our English Version by the ambiguous expression, ‘as ye also learned of Epaphras.’ The true force of the words is, ‘according as ye were taught by Epaphras,’ being an explanation of ?? ????e??. See the notes on the passage.]

86.See especially xx. 18 ‘Ye know, from the first day when I set foot on Asia, how I was with you all the time’, and ver. 31 ‘For three years night and day I ceased not warning every one with tears.’ As it seems necessary to allow for a brief visit to Corinth (2 Cor. xii. 14, xiii. 1) during this period, other interruptions of long duration should not be postulated.

87.Acts xix. 26.

88.Acts xix. 10.

89.1 Cor. xvi. 19 ?sp????ta? ??? a? ?????s?a? t?? ?s?a?. In accordance with these facts it should be noticed that St Paul himself alluding to this period speaks of ‘Asia’, as the scene of his ministry (2 Cor. i. 8, Rom. xvi. 5).

90.Acts xix. 10 ‘disputing daily in the School of Tyrannus; and this continued for two years, so that all they which dwelt in Asia, etc.’

91.?a?d??e?? . efe???? . ?????a, Eckhel III. p. 165, Mionnet IV. p. 324, 325, 331, 332, Suppl. VII. p. 583, 586, 589; ?e?ap??e?t?? . efes??? . ?????a, Eckhel III. p. 155, 157, Mionnet IV. p. 299, 300, 307, Suppl. VII. p. 569, 571, 572, 574, 575. See Steiger Kolosser p. 50, and comp. Krause Civitat. Neocor. § 20.

92.Philem. 1, 2, 19.

93.Col. iv. 15. On the question whether the name is Nymphas or Nympha, see the notes there.

94.iv. 12, 13.

95.Acts xx. 16, 17.

96.See Philippians p. 6 sq.

97.Col. iv. 10, 11. See Philippians p. 17 sq.

98.i. 4, 8.

99.iv. 12, 13.

100.Tac. An. xv. 44.

101.Philem. 11 t?? p?t? s?? ????st?? ?.t.?.

102.Col. iv. 9; comp. Philem. 16.

103.i. 3–9, 21 sq.

104.ii. 1 sq.

105.ii. 4, 8, 18.

106.i. 1–20, ii. 9, iii. 4. The two threads are closely interwoven in St Paul’s refutation, as these references will show. The connexion of the two errors, as arising from the same false principle, will be considered more in detail in the next chapter.

107.i. 7, iv. 12.

108.For the reasons why Epaphras cannot be identified with Epaphroditus, who is mentioned in the Philippian letter, see Philippians p. 60, note 4. The later tradition, which makes him bishop of ColossÆ, is doubtless an inference from St Paul’s language and has no independent value. The further statement of the martyrologies, that he suffered martyrdom for his flock, can hardly be held to deserve any higher credit. His day is the 19th of July in the Western Calendar. His body is said to lie in the Church of S. Maria Maggiore at Rome.

109.Col. iv. 12.

110.Philem. 23 ? s??a?????t?? ??. The word may possibly have a metaphorical sense (see Philippians p. 11); but the literal meaning is more probable. St Jerome on Philem. 23 (VII. p. 762) gives the story that St Paul’s parents were natives of Giscala and, when the Romans invaded and wasted JudÆa, were banished thence with their son to Tarsus. He adds that Epaphras may have been St Paul’s fellow-prisoner at this time, and have been removed with his parents to ColossÆ. It is not quite clear whether this statement respecting Epaphras is part of the tradition, or Jerome’s own conjecture appended to it.

111.Acts xx. 4, 2 Tim. iv. 12.

112.See below, p. 37.

113.Col. iv. 7–9.

114.Acts xix. 29.

115.Acts xiii. 13, xv. 37–39.

116.Col. iv. 10–14.

117.iv. 15–17.

118.Philem. 11, 16.

119.ver. 19.

120.vv. 23, 24.

121.ver. 22.

122.See the introduction to the epistle.

123.Ephes. vi. 21, 22.

124.See Philippians p. 29 sq.; where reasons are given for placing the Philippian Epistle at an earlier, and the others at a later stage in the Apostle’s captivity.

125.See above, p. 3. Laodicea was visited by the following earthquakes in the ages preceding and subsequent to the Christian era.

(1) Before about B.C. 125, Orac. Sibyll. iii. 471, if the date now commonly assigned to this Sibylline Oracle be correct, and if the passage is to be regarded as a prophecy after the event. In iii. 347 Hierapolis is also mentioned as suffering in the same way; but it may be questioned whether the Phrygian city is meant.

(2) About B.C. 12, Strabo xii. 8, p. 579, Dion Cass. liv. 30. Strabo names only Laodicea and Tralles, but Dion Cassius says ? ?s?a t? ????? ?p??????a? t???? d?? se?s??? ???sta ?de?t?.

(3) A.D. 60 according to Tacitus (Ann. xiv. 27); A.D. 64 or 65 according to Eusebius (Chron. s.a.), who includes also Hierapolis and ColossÆ. To this earthquake allusion is made in a Sibylline Oracle written not many years after the event; Orac. Sibyll. iv. 107 (see also v. 289, vii. 23).

(4) Between A.D. 222 and A.D. 235, in the reign of Alexander Severus, as we learn from another Sibylline Oracle (xii. 280). On this occasion Hierapolis also suffered.

This list will probably be found not to have exhausted all these catastrophes on record.

The following earthquakes also are mentioned as happening in the neighbouring towns or in the district generally: the date uncertain, Carura (Strabo xii. 8, p. 578); A.D. 17 the twelve cities, Sardis being the worst sufferer (Tac. Ann. ii. 7, Plin. N.H. ii. 86, Dion Cass. lvii. 17, Strabo xii. 8, p. 579); A.D. 23 Cibyra (Tac. Ann. iv. 13); A.D. 53 Apamea (Tac. Ann. xii. 58): about A.D. 155, under Antoninus Pius, ‘Rhodiorum et AsiÆ oppida’ (Capitol. Anton. Pius 9); A.D. 178, under M. Aurelius, Smyrna and other cities (Chron. Pasch. I. p. 489, ed. Dind., Aristid. Or. xx, xxi, xli; see Clinton Fast. Rom. I. p. 176 sq., Hertzberg Griechenland etc. II. pp. 371, 410); A.D. 262, under Gallienus II (Trebell. Gallien. 5 ‘Malum tristius in AsiÆ urbibus fuit ... hiatus terrÆ plurimis in locis fuerunt, cum aqua salsa in fossis appareret,’ ib. 6 ‘vastatam Asiam ... elementorum concussionibus’). Strabo says (p. 579) that Philadelphia is more or less shaken daily (?a?’ ???a?), and that Apamea has suffered from numerous earthquakes.

126.Tac. Ann. xiv. 27 ‘Eodem anno ex inlustribus AsiÆ urbibus Laodicea, tremore terrÆ prolapsa, nullo a nobis remedio propriis opibus revaluit.’ The year is given ‘Nerone iv, Corn. Cosso consulibus’ (xiv. 20). Two different writers, in Smith’s Dictionary of Geography and Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, s.v. Laodicea, place the destruction of Laodicea in the reign of Tiberius, confusing this earthquake with an earlier one (Ann. ii. 47). By this earlier earthquake ‘duodecim celebres AsiÆ urbes conlapsÆ,’ but their names are given, and not one is situated in the valley of the Lycus.

127.Euseb. Chron. Ol. 210 (II. p. 154 sq., ed. SchÖne) ‘In Asia tres urbes terrÆ motu conciderunt Laodicea Hierapolis ColossÆ.’ The Armenian version and Jerome agree in placing it the next event in order after the fire at Rome (A.D. 64), though there is a difference of a year in the two texts. If the Sibylline Oracle, v. 317, refers to this earthquake, as seems probable, we have independent testimony that Hierapolis was involved in the catastrophe; comp. ib. v. 289.

128.This is evidently the idea of Orosius, vii. 7.

129.I draw this inference from his account of the earthquake in the reign of Tiberius. Tacitus (Ann. ii. 47) states that twelve cities were ruined in one night, and records their names. Pliny also, who mentions this earthquake as ‘the greatest within the memory of man’ (N.H. ii. 86), gives the same number. Eusebius however, Chron. Ol. 198 (II. p. 146 sq., ed. SchÖne), names thirteen cities, coinciding with Tacitus as far as he goes, but including Ephesus also. Now a monument was found at Puteoli (see Gronov. Thes. GrÆc. Ant. VII. p. 433 sq.), and is now in the Museum at Naples (Museo Borbonico XV, Tav. iv, v), dedicated to Tiberius and representing fourteen female figures with the names of fourteen Asiatic cities underneath; these names being the same as those mentioned by Tacitus with the addition of Ephesus and Cibyra. There can be no doubt that this was one of those monuments mentioned by Apollonius quoted in Phlegon (Fragm. 42, MÜller’s Fragm. Hist. GrÆc. III. p. 621) as erected to commemorate the liberality of Tiberius in contributing to the restoration of the ruined cities (see Eckhel Doct. Num. Vet. VI. 192 sq.). But no earthquake at Ephesus is mentioned by Tacitus. He does indeed speak of such a catastrophe as happening at Cibyra (Ann. iv. 13) six years later than the one which ruined the twelve cities, and of the relief which Tiberius afforded on this latter occasion as on the former. But we owe to Eusebius alone the fact that Ephesus also was seriously injured by an earthquake in the same year—perhaps not on the same night—with the twelve cities: and this fact is necessary to explain the monument. It should be added that Nipperdey (on Tac. Ann. ii. 47) supposes the earthquake at Ephesus to have been recorded in the lost portion of the fifth book of the Annals which comprised the years A.D. 29–31; but this bare hypothesis cannot outweigh the direct testimony of Eusebius.

130.Hertzberg (Geschichte Griechenlands unter der Herrschaft der RÖmer, II. p. 96) supposes that Tacitus and Eusebius refer to two different events, and that Laodicea was visited by earthquakes twice within a few years, A.D. 60 and A.D. 65.

131.Tac. Ann. xiv. 27, quoted above, p. 38, note 126. To this fact allusion is made in the feigned prediction of the Sibyllines, iv. 107 ????? ?a?d??e?a, s? d? t??se? p?t? se?s?? p?????a?, st?se? d? p???? p???? e???????a?, where st?se? must be the 2nd person, ‘Thou wilt rebuild thy city with its broad streets.’ This Sibylline poem was written about the year 80. The building of the amphitheatre mentioned above (p. 6, note 6), would form part of this work of reconstruction.

132.See below, p. 43.

133.Two notices however imply that St Mark had some personal connexion with Asia Minor in the years immediately succeeding the date of this reference: (1) St Peter, writing to the Churches of Asia Minor, sends a salutation from St Mark (1 Pet. v. 13); (2) St Paul gives charge to Timothy, who appears to be still residing at Ephesus, to take up Mark and bring him to Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11 ?????? ??a?a?? ??e et? sea?t??). Thus it seems fairly probable that St Mark’s projected visit to ColossÆ was paid.

134.2 Tim. iv. 20. By a strange error Lequien (Oriens Christ. I. p. 833) substitutes Hierapolis for Nicopolis in Tit. iii. 12, and argues from the passage that the Church of Hierapolis was founded by St Paul.

135.It was apparently during the interval between St Paul’s first captivity at Rome and his death, that St Peter wrote to the Churches of Asia Minor (1 Pet. i. 1). Whether in this interval he also visited personally the districts evangelized directly or indirectly by St Paul, we have no means of deciding. Such a visit is far from unlikely, but it can hardly have been of long duration. A copy of his letters would probably be sent to Laodicea, as a principal centre of Christianity in Proconsular Asia, which is among the provinces mentioned in the address of the First Epistle.

137.Col. i. 15–18.

138.Rev. iii. 14. It should be observed that this designation of our Lord (? ???? t?? ?t?se?? t?? Te??), which so closely resembles the language of the Colossian Epistle, does not occur in the messages to the other six Churches, nor do we there find anything resembling it.

139.Col. iii. 1.

140.Ephes. ii. 6 s????e??e? ?a? s??e????se? ?.t.?.

141.Rev. iii. 21 d?s? a?t? ?a??sa? et’ ???, ?.t.?. Here again it must be noticed that there is no such resemblance in the language of the promises to the faithful in the other six Churches. This double coincidence, affecting the two ideas which may be said to cover the whole ground in the Epistle to the Colossians, can hardly, I think, be fortuitous, and suggests an acquaintance with and recognition of the earlier Apostle’s teaching on the part of St John.

142.Col. iv. 17.

143.Rev. iii. 19. If the common view, that by the angel of the Church its chief pastor is meant, were correct, and if Archippus (as is very probable) had been living when St John wrote, the coincidence would be still more striking; see Trench’s Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia, p. 180. But for reasons given elsewhere (Philippians p. 197 sq.), this interpretation of the angels seems to me incorrect.

144.Rev. iii. 17, 18, where the correct reading with the repetition of the definite articles, ? ta?a?p???? ?a? ? ??e????, signifies the type, the embodiment of wretchedness, etc.

145.Tac. Ann. xiv. 27.

146.In all the other cases of earthquake which Tacitus records as happening in these Asiatic cities, Ann. ii. 47 (the twelve cities), iv. 13 (Cibyra), xii. 58 (Apamea), he mentions the fact of their obtaining relief from the Senate or the Emperor. On an earlier occasion Laodicea herself had not disdained under similar circumstances to receive assistance from Augustus: Strabo, xii. p. 579.

147.See the next chapter of this introduction.

148.Col. ii. 8, 18, 23.

149.i. 27.

150.ii. 2, 3.

151.Comp. Eph. i. 18 ‘The eyes of your understanding being enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints.’

152.Canon Murator. fol. 1, l. 14 (p. 17, ed. Tregelles), Cureton’s Ancient Syriac Documents pp. 32, 34. Comp. Papias in Euseb. H.E. iii. 39.

153.Papias in Euseb. H.E. iii. 39.

154.Polycrates in Euseb. H.E. iii. 31, v. 24 F???pp?? [t??] t?? d?de?a ?p?st????, ?? ?e????ta? ?? ?e?ap??e?, ?a? d?? ???at??e? a?t?? ?e???a???a? pa??????, ?a? ? ?t??a a?t?? ????t?? ?? ???? p?e?at? p???te?sa???, ? ?? ?f?s? ??apa?eta?. To this third daughter the statement of Clement of Alexandria must refer, though by a common looseness of expression he uses the plural number (Euseb. H.E. iii. 30), ? ?a? t??? ?p?st????? ?p?d????s??s?? ??t??? ?? ??? ?a? F???pp?? ?pa?d?p???sa?t?, F???pp?? d? ?a? t?? ???at??a? ??d??s?? ???d??e. On the other hand in the Dialogue between Caius and Proclus, Philip the Evangelist was represented as residing at Hierapolis (Euseb. H.E. iii. 31) et? t??t?? d? p??f?t?de? t?ssa?e? a? F???pp?? ?e?????ta? ?? ?e?ap??e? t? ?at? t?? ?s?a?? ? t?f?? a?t?? ?st?? ??e?, ?a? ? t?? pat??? a?t??, where the mention of the four daughters prophesying identifies the person meant (see Acts xxi. 8). Nothing can be clearer than that St Luke distinguishes Philip the Evangelist from Philip the Apostle; for (1) When the Seven are appointed, he distinctly states that this new office is created to relieve the Twelve of some onerous duties (Acts vi. 2–5). (2) After Philip the Evangelist has preached in Samaria, two of the Twelve are sent thither to convey the gifts of the Spirit, which required the presence of an Apostle (viii. 14–17). (3) When St Paul and his companions visit Philip at CÆsarea, he is carefully described as ‘the Evangelist, being one of the Seven’ (xxi. 8). As St Luke was a member of the Apostle’s company when this visit was paid, and stayed ‘many days’ in Philip’s house, the accuracy of his information cannot be questioned. Yet Eusebius (H.E. iii. 31) assumes the identity of the Apostle with the Evangelist, and describes the notice in the Dialogue of Caius and Proclus as being ‘in harmony with (s???d??)’ the language of Polycrates. And accordingly in another passage (H.E. iii. 39), when he has occasion to mention the conversations of Papias with Philip’s daughters at Hierapolis, he again supposes them to be the same who are mentioned in the Acts.

My reasons for believing that the Philip who lived at Hierapolis was not the Evangelist, but the Apostle, are as follows. (1) This is distinctly stated by the earliest witness, Polycrates, who was bishop of Ephesus at the close of the second century, and who besides claimed to have and probably had special opportunities of knowing early traditions. It is confirmed moreover by the notice in Clement of Alexandria, who is the next in order of time, and whose means of information also were good, for one of his earliest teachers was an Ionian Greek (Strom. I. 1, p. 322). (2) The other view depends solely on the authority of the Dialogue of Caius and Proclus. I have given reasons elsewhere for questioning the separate existence of the Roman presbyter Caius, and for supposing that this dialogue was written by Hippolytus bishop of Portus (Journal of Philology I. p. 98 sq., Cambridge, 1868). But however this may be, its author was a Roman ecclesiastic, and probably wrote some quarter of a century at least after Polycrates. In all respects therefore his authority is inferior. Moreover it is suspicious in form. It mentions four daughters instead of three, makes them all virgins, and represents them as prophetesses, thus showing a distinct aim of reproducing the particulars as given in Acts xxi. 9; whereas the account of Polycrates is divergent in all three respects. (3) A life-long friendship would naturally draw Philip the Apostle of Bethsaida after John, as it also drew Andrew. And, when we turn to St John’s Gospel, we can hardly resist the impression that incidents relating to Andrew and Philip had a special interest, not only for the writer of the Gospel, but also for his hearers (John i. 40, 43–46, vi. 5–8, xii. 20–22, xiv. 8, 9). Moreover the Apostles Andrew and Philip appear in this Gospel as inseparable companions. (4) Lastly; when Papias mentions collecting the sayings of the Twelve and of other early disciples from those who heard them, he gives a prominent place to these two Apostles t? ??d??a? ... e?pe? ? t? F???pp??, but there is no reference to Philip the Evangelist. When therefore we read later that he conversed with the daughters of Philip, it seems natural to infer that the Philip intended is the same person whom he has mentioned previously. It should be added, though no great value can be assigned to such channels of information, that the Acts of Philip place the Apostle at Hierapolis; Tischendorf, Act. Apost. Apocr. p. 75 sq.

On the other hand, those who suppose that the Evangelist, and not the Apostle, resided at Hierapolis, account for the other form of the tradition by the natural desire of the Asiatic Churches to trace their spiritual descent directly from the Twelve. This solution of the phenomenon might have been accepted, if the authorities in favour of Philip the Evangelist had been prior in time and superior in quality. There is no improbability in supposing that both the Philips were married and had daughters.

155.John xii. 20.

156.See above p. 45, note 154.

157.Euseb. H.E. iii. 39. This is the general reference for all those particulars respecting Papias which are derived from Eusebius.

158.See Westcott, Canon p. 63. On the opinions of Papias and on the nature of his work, I may perhaps be allowed to refer to an article in the Contemporary Review Aug. 1867, where I have collected and investigated all the notices of this father. The object of Papias’ work was not to construct a Gospel narrative, but to interpret and illustrate those already existing. I ought to add that on two minor points, the martyrdom of Papias and the identity of Philip with the Evangelist, I have been led to modify my views since the article was written.

159.Euseb. l.c. ?? d? ?at? t??? a?t??? ? ?ap?a? ?e??e??? d????s?? pa?e???f??a? ?a?as?a? ?p? [?p?]; t?? t?? F???pp?? ???at???? ????e?e?, t? ??? s?e??t???? ?e???? ??? ???stas?? ?at’ a?t?? ?e?????a? ?st??e?, ?a? a? p???? ?te??? pa??d???? pe?? ???st?? t?? ?p???????ta ?a?sa?? ?e????? ?.t.?. The information respecting the raising of the dead man might have come from the daughters of Philip, as the context seems certainly to imply, while yet the event happened in Papias’ own time (?at’ a?t??). It will be remembered that even IrenÆus mentions similar miracles as occurring in his own age (HÆr. ii. 32. 4). Eusebius does not say that the miraculous preservation of Justus Barsabas also occurred in the time of Papias.

160.Papias, or (as it is very frequently written in inscriptions) Pappias, is a common Phrygian name. It is found several times at Hierapolis, not only in inscriptions (Boeckh Corp. Inscr. no. 3930, 3912 a add.) but even on coins (Mionnet IV. p. 301). This is explained by the fact that it was an epithet of the Hierapolitan Zeus (Boeckh 3817 ?ap?? ??? s?t???), just as in Bithynia this same god was called ??pa? (Lobeck Aglaoph. p. 1048; see Boeckh Corp. Inscr. III. p. 1051). Hence as the name of a mortal it is equivalent to the Greek Diogenes; e.g. Boeckh no. 3912 a add., ?ap?a? t?? St??t???? ? ?a???e??? ????????. In an inscription at Trajanopolis we meet with it in a curious conjunction with other familiar names (Boeckh no. 3865 i add.) ?app?a? ???f??? ?a? ??????? ?.t.?. (see Waddington on Le Bas, Inscr. no. 718). This last belongs to the year A.D. 199. Other analogous Phrygian names are Ammias, Tatias (with the corresponding feminines), which with Latin terminations become Ammianus, Tatianus.

Thus at Hierapolis the name Papias is derived from heathen mythology, and accordingly the persons bearing it on the inscriptions and coins are all heathens. It may therefore be presumed that our Papias was of Gentile origin. The inference however is not absolutely certain, since elsewhere it is found borne by Jews; see the Talmudical references in Zunz Namen der Juden p. 16.

161.Chron. Pasch. sub ann. 163 s?? t? ???? d? ???????p? ?a? ????? ?’ ?p? F??ade?fe?a? a?t????s?? ?? S????? ?a? ?? ?e???? d? ?te???, ?? ??? ?? ?a? ?ap?a? ?a? ????? p?????, ?? ?a? ????afa f????ta? t? a?t???a. See also the Syrian epitome of Euseb. Chron. (II. p. 216 ed. SchÖne) ‘Cum persecutio in Asia esset, Polycarpos martyrium subiit et Papias, quorum martyria in libro (scripta) extant,’ but the Armenian version of the Chronicon mentions only Polycarp, while Jerome says ‘Polycarpus et Pionius fecere martyrium.’ In his history (iv. 15) Eusebius, after quoting the Martyrdom of Polycarp at length, adds ?? t? a?t? d? pe?? a?t?? ??af? ?a? ???a a?t???a s???pt? ... e?’ ?? ?a? ??t??d???? ... ?????ta?? t?? ?e ?? t?te pe????t?? a?t???? e?? t?? ???????et? ??????? ... ???? d? ?a? ????? ?? ?e???? p??e? t?? ?s?a? ?p???ata ea?t?????t?? f??eta?, ???p?? ?a? ?ap???? ?a? ???a???? ??a??????? ?.t.?. He here falls into the serious error of imagining that Metrodorus, Pionius, Carpus, Papylus, and the others were martyred under M. Aurelius, whereas we know from their extant Acts that they suffered in the Decian persecution. For the martyrdoms of Pionius and Metrodorus see Act. SS. Bolland. Feb. 1; for those of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonica, ib. April 13. The Acts of the former, which are included in Ruinart (Act. Sinc. Mart. p. 120 sq., 1689) are apparently the same which were seen by Eusebius. Those of the latter are a late compilation of the Metaphrast, but were probably founded on the earlier document. At all events the tradition of the persecution in which they suffered could hardly have been perverted or lost. Eusebius seems to have found their Acts bound up in the same volume with those of Polycarp, and without reading them through, to have drawn the hasty inference that they suffered at the same time. But notwithstanding the error, or perhaps owing to it, this passage in the Ecclesiastical History, by a confusion of the names Papias and Papylus, seems to have given rise to the statement respecting Papias in the Chronicon Paschale and in the Syrian epitome, as it obviously has misled Jerome respecting Pionius. If so, the martyrdom of Papias is a fiction, and he may have died a natural death at an earlier date; so that the not very serious difficulty of his longevity will disappear. The time of Polycarp’s martyrdom is fixed by various data as Easter A.D. 166 (see Clinton’s Fast. Rom. I. p. 157).

162.H E. iii. 39 sf?d?a s????? t?? ????. In another passage (iii. 36), as commonly read, Eusebius makes partial amends to Papias by calling him ???? t? p??ta ?t? ???sta ?????tat?? ?a? t?? ??af?? e?d???, but this passage is found to be a spurious interpolation (see Contemporary Review l.c. p. 12), and was probably added by some one who was acquainted with the work of Papias and desired to do him justice.

163.Iren. v. 33. 3, 4.

164.See on this subject Westcott Canon p. 64 sq.; Contemporary Review l.c. p. 12 sq.

165.The theory of the TÜbingen school may be studied in Baur’s Christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte or in Schwegler’s Nachapostolisches Zeitalter. It has been reproduced (at least as far as regards the Asiatic Churches) by Renan Saint Paul p. 366 sq.

166.See above p. 41 sq.

167.§ 3.

168.H.E. iv. 14 ? ?? t?? ?????a?p?? ?? t? d????e?s? p??? F???pp?s???? a?t?? ??af? fe????? e?? de??? ?????ta? t?s? a?t???a?? ?p? t?? ??t??? p??t??a? ?p?st????. This is all that Eusebius says with reference to Polycarp’s knowledge of the Canonical writings. It so happens that in an earlier passage (iii. 36) he has given an extract from Polycarp, in which St Paul’s name is mentioned; but the quotation is brought to illustrate the life of Ignatius, and the mention of the Apostle there is purely accidental.

169.H.E. v. 8 ???ta? d? ?a? t?? ??????? p??t?? ?p?st????, a?t???a ?? a?t?? p?e?sta e?sf????, ????? d? ?a? t?? ??t??? p??t??a?.

170.It is necessary to press this argument, because though it has never been answered and (so far as I can see) is quite unanswerable, yet thoughtful men, who have no sympathy with the TÜbingen views of early Christian history, still continue to argue from the silence of Eusebius, as though it had some real significance. To illustrate the omissions of Eusebius I have given only the instances of Polycarp and IrenÆus, because they are historically connected with Papias; but his silence is even more remarkable in other cases. Thus, when speaking of the epistle of the Roman Clement (H.E. iii. 38), he alludes to the coincidences with the Epistle to the Hebrews, but omits to mention the direct references to St Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians which is referred to by name, and is even silent about the numerous and patent quotations from the Epistle of St James.

171.Iren. HÆr. v. 33. 4.

172.The life of this Abercius is printed in the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum Oct. 22. It may safely be pronounced spurious. Among other incidents, the saint goes to Rome and casts out a demon from Lucilla, the daughter of M. Aurelius and Faustina, at the same time compelling the demon to take up an altar from Rome and transport it through the air to Hierapolis. But these Acts, though legendary themselves, contain an epitaph which has the ring of genuineness and which seems to have suggested the story to the pious forger who invented the Acts. This very interesting memorial is given and discussed at length by Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. III. p. 532 sq. It is inscribed by one Abercius of Hierapolis on his tomb, which he erected during his life-time. He declares himself a disciple of the good shepherd, who taught him trustworthy writings (???ata p?st?) and sent him to visit queenly Rome, where he saw a people sealed with the bright seal [of baptism]. He recounts also a journey to Syria and the East, when he crossed the Euphrates. He says that faith served up to him as a banquet the ????? from the fountain, giving him bread and wine. He states that he has reached his 72nd year. And he closes by threatening with severe penalties those who disturb his tomb. The resemblance of this inscription to others found in situ in the cemetery at Hierapolis, after allowance made for the Christian element, is very striking. The commencement ???e?t?? p??e?? closely resembles the form of another Hierapolitan inscription, Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3906; the enumeration of foreign tours has a counterpart in the monument of one Flavius Zeuxis which states that the deceased had made 72 voyages round the promontory of Malea to Italy (ib. 3920); and lastly, the prohibition against putting another grave upon his, and the imposition of fines to be paid to the treasury and the city if this injunction is violated, are echos of language which occurs again and again on tombstones in this city (ib. 3915, 3916, 3922, 3923, etc.). Out of this epitaph, which he found probably at Hierapolis, and which, as he himself tells us (§ 41), was in a much mutilated condition, the legend-writer apparently created his story, interpreting the queen, by which Abercius himself probably meant the city of Rome, to be the empress Faustina, with whom the saint is represented as having an interview, M. Aurelius himself being absent at the time on his German campaign. This view, that the epitaph is genuine and gave rise to the Acts, is also maintained by Garrucci (CiviltÀ Cattolica 1856, I. p. 683, II. p. 84, quoted in the Acta Sanct. l.c.), whose criticisms however are not always sound; and indeed as a whole it bears every mark of authenticity, though possibly it may contain some interpolations, which its mutilated condition would encourage.

The inscription itself however does not tell us what office Abercius held or when he lived. There was a person of this name bishop of Hierapolis present at the Council of Chalcedon A.D. 451 (Labb. Conc. IV. 862, 1204, 1341, 1392, 1496, 1744, ed. Coleti). But a chief pastor of the Church at this late date would have declared his office plainly; and the inscription points to a more primitive age, for the expressions are archaic and the writer seems to veil his profession of Christianity under language studiously obscure. The open profession of Christianity on inscriptions occurs at an earlier date in these parts than elsewhere. Already the word ????t?a??? or ????t?a??? is found on tombstones of the third century; Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3857 g, 3857 p, 3865 l; see Renan Saint Paul p. 363. Thus we are entirely at fault unless we accept the statement in the Acts.

And it is not unreasonable to suppose that, so far as regards the date and office of Abercius, the writer of these Acts followed some adequate historical tradition. Nor indeed is his statement altogether without confirmation. We have evidence that a person bearing this name lived in these parts of Asia Minor, somewhere about this time. An unknown writer of a polemical tract against Montanism dedicates his work to one Avircius Marcellus, at whose instigation it was written. Eusebius (H.E. v. 16), who is our authority for this fact, relates that Montanism found a determined and formidable opponent in Apollinaris at Hierapolis and ‘several other learned men of that day with him,’ who left large materials for a history of the movement. He then goes on to say; ????e??? ???? t?? ?at’ a?t?? ??af?? t?? e??????? d? t?? ... p???????eta? ... t??t?? t?? t??p??? ?? p?e?st?? ?s?? ?a? ??a??t?t?? ??????, ??ap?t? ???????e ????e??e, ?p?ta??e?? ?p? s?? s??????a? t??? ????? ?.t.?., i.e. ‘One of the aforesaid writers at the commencement of his treatise against them (the Montanists) etc.’ May not the person here addressed be the Abercius of the epitaph?

But if so, who is the writer that addresses him, and when did he live? Some MSS omit d? t??, and others substitute ?d?, thus making Apollinaris himself the writer. But the words seem certainly to have been part of the original text, as the sense requires them; for if they are omitted, t?? e??????? must be connected with ?at’ a?t??, where it is not wanted. Thus Eusebius quotes the writer anonymously; and those who assign the treatise to Apollinaris cannot plead the authority of the original text of the historian himself.

But after all may it not have been written by Apollinaris, though Eusebius was uncertain about the authorship? He quotes in succession three s?????ata or treatises, speaking of them as though they emanated from the same author. The first of these, from which the address to Avircius Marcellus is quoted, might very well have been composed soon after the Montanist controversy broke out (as Eusebius himself elsewhere states was the case with the work of Apollinaris, iv. 27 ?at? t?? t?? F????? a???se?? ... ?spe? ??f?e?? ????????); but the second and third distinctly state that they were written some time after the death of Montanus. May not Eusebius have had before him a volume containing a collection of tracts against Montanism ‘by Claudius Apollinaris and others,’ in which the authorship of the several tracts was not distinctly marked? This hypothesis would explain the words with which he prefaces his extracts, and would also account for his vague manner of quotation. It would also explain the omission of d? t?? in some texts (the ancient Syriac version boldly substitutes the name of Apollinaris), and would explain how Rufinus, Nicephorus, and others, who might have had independent information, ascribed the treatise to this father. I have already pointed out how Eusebius was led into a similar error of connecting together several martyrologies and treating them as contemporaneous, because they were collected in the same volume (p. 48, note 161). Elsewhere too I have endeavoured to show that he mistook the authorship of a tract which was bound up with others, owing to the absence of a title (Caius or Hippolytus? in the Journal of Philology I. p. 98 sq.).

On this hypothesis, Claudius Apollinaris would very probably be the author of the first of these treatises. If so, it would appear to have been written while he was still a presbyter, at the instigation of his bishop Avircius Marcellus whom he succeeded not long after in the see of Hierapolis.

If on the other hand Eusebius has correctly assigned the first treatise to the same writer as the second and third, who must have written after the beginning of the third century, Avircius Marcellus to whom it is addressed cannot have held the see of Hierapolis during the reign of M. Aurelius (A.D. 161–180); and, if he was ever bishop of this city, must have been a successor, not a predecessor, of Claudius Apollinaris. In this case we have the alternative of abandoning the identification of this Avircius with the Hierapolitan bishop of the same name, or of rejecting the statement of the Acts which places his episcopate in this reign.

The occurrence of the name Abercius in the later history of the see of Hierapolis (see p. 55) is no argument against the existence of this earlier bishop. It was no uncommon practice for the later occupants of sees to assume the name of some famous predecessor who lived in primitive or early times. The case of Ignatius at Antioch is only one of several examples which might be produced.

There is some ground for supposing that, like Papias and Apollinaris, Abercius earned a place in literary history. Baronio had in his hands an epistle to M. Aurelius, purporting to have been written by this Abercius, which he obviously considered genuine and which he describes as ‘apostolicum redolens spiritum,’ promising to publish it in his Annals (Martyr. Rom. Oct. 22). To his great grief however he afterwards lost it (‘doluimus vehementer e manibus nostris elapsam nescio quomodo’), and was therefore unable to fulfil his promise (Annal. s. a. 163, n. 15). A ???? d?das?a??a? by Abercius is mentioned in the Acts (§ 39); but this, if it ever existed, was doubtless spurious.

173.Some of the family, as we may infer from the monuments, held a high position in another Phrygian town. On a tablet at Æzani, on which is inscribed a letter from the emperor Septimius Severus in reply to the congratulations of the people at the elevation of Caracalla to the rank of Augustus (A.D. 198), we find the name of ??a?d??? . ap?????a???? . a?????a???, Boeckh 3837 (see III. p. 1066 add.). In another inscription at the same place, the same or another member of the family is commemorated as holding the office of prÆtor for the second time, ?t?at?????t?? . t? . . ?? . ap?????a????; Boeckh 3840, ib. p. 1067. See also the inscriptions 3842 c, 3846 z (ib. pp. 1069, 1078) at the same place, where again the name Apollinarius occurs. It is found also at Appia no. 3857 b (ib. p. 1086). At an earlier date one Claudius Apollinaris appears in command of the Roman fleet at Misenum (Tac. Hist. iii. 57, 76, 77). The name occurs also at Hierapolis itself, Boeckh, no. 3915. p . a????? . p . a????? . ap?????a???? . ?????a??[?] . ???? . ?e[...] . ap?????a??? . a?ed?? . ?.t.?., which shows that both the forms, Apollinaris and Apollinarius, by which the bishop of Hierapolis is designated, are legitimate. The former however is the correct Latin form, the latter being the Greek adaptation.

More than a generation later than our Apollinaris, Origen in his letter to Africanus (Op. I. 30, Delarue) sends greeting to a bishop bearing this name (t?? ?a??? ??? p?pa? ?p?????????), of whom nothing more is known.

174.Apollo Archegetes; see above p. 12, note 42.

175.Euseb. H.E. iv. 26, Chron. s. a. 171, 172, ‘Apollinaris Asianus, Hierapolitanus episcopus, insignis habetur.’

176.Collected in Routh’s ReliquiÆ SacrÆ I. p. 159 sq., and quite recently in Otto’s Corp. Apol. Christ. IX. p. 479 sq.

178.See below, p. 63.

179.The main point at issue was whether the exact day of the month should be observed, as the Quartodecimans maintained, irrespective of the day of the week. The fragment of Apollinaris (preserved in the Chron. Pasch. p. 13) relates to a discrepancy which some had found in the accounts of St Matthew and St John.

180.Eusebius represents the dioceses of ‘Asia’ and the neighbourhood, as absolutely unanimous; H.E. v. 23 t?? ?s?a? ?p?s?? a? pa?????a?, v. 24 t?? ?s?a? p?s?? ?a ta?? ?????? ?????s?a?? t?? pa?????a?. ‘Asia’ includes all this district, as appears from Polycrates, ib.

181.See Polycrates of Ephesus in Euseb. H.E. v. 24.

182.In Euseb. H.E. v. 19.

183.Eusebius (H.E. iv. 27) at the close of his list of the works of Apollinarius gives ?a? ? et? ta?ta s?????a?e ?at? t?? [t??] F????? a???se?? et’ ?? p???? ?a???t???e?s?? ??????, t?te ?e ?? ?spe? ??f?e?? ????????, ?t? t?? ???ta??? ?a ta?? a?t?? ?e?d?p??f?t?s?? ????? t?? pa?e?t??p?? p????????, i.e. the vagaries of Montanus and his followers had already begun when Apollinaris wrote, but Montanism assumed a new phase shortly after.

184.Included in the Libellus Synodicus published by Pappus; see Labb. Conc. I. 615, ed. Coleti. Though this council is not mentioned elsewhere, there is no sufficient ground for questioning its authenticity. The important part taken by Apollinaris against the Montanists is recognised by Eusebius H.E. v. 16, p??? t?? ?e?????? ?at? F???a? ???es?? ?p??? ?s????? ?a? ??ata????st?? ?p? t?? ?e?ap??e?? t?? ?p?????????.

After mentioning the council the compiler of this Synodicon speaks thus of the false prophets; ?? ?a? ?asf???, ?t?? da?????te?, ?a??? f?s?? ? a?t?? pat?? [i.e. ?p?????????], t?? ??? ?at?st?e?a?, s?? a?t??? d? ?at?????e ?a? Te?d?t?? t?? s??t?a. He evidently has before him the fragments of the anonymous treatises quoted by Eusebius (H.E. v. 16), as the following parallels taken from these fragments shew: ?? ?p? ??e??????? ?a? da?????t? ... ?asf?e?? d?d?s???t?? t?? ?p???ad?s???? p?e?at?? ... t?? ??? ?atast???a? ???da p??d?t?? d???? ... ???? ?p?t??p?? t??a Te?d?t?? p???? a??e? ????? ... tete?e?t??as? ???ta??? te ?a? Te?d?t?? ?a? ? p??e?????? ????. Thus he must have had before him a text of Eusebius which omitted the words d? t?? at the commencement, as they are omitted in some existing MSS (see above, p. 56, note); and accordingly he ascribed all the treatises to Apollinaris. The parallels are taken from the first and second treatises; the first might have been written by Apollinaris, but the second was certainly not by his hand, as it refers to much later events (see above, p. 56).

Hefele (Conciliengeschichte I. p. 71) places the date of this council before A.D. 150. But if the testimony of Eusebius is worth anything, this is impossible; for he states that the writings of Claudius Apollinaris against the Montanists were later than his Apology to M. Aurelius (see p. 59, note 183), and this Apology was not written till after A.D. 174 (see p. 61, note 187). The chronology of Montanism is very perplexing, but Hefele’s dates appear to be much too early. The Chronicon of Eusebius gives the rise of Montanism under A.D. 172 or 173, and this statement is consistent with the notices in his History. But if this date be correct, it most probably refers to Montanism as a distinct system; and the fires had probably been smouldering within the Church for some time before they broke out.

It will be observed that the writer of the Synodicon identifies Theodotus the Montanist (see Euseb. H.E. v. 3) with Theodotus the leather-seller who was a Monarchian. There is no authority for this identification in Eusebius.

185.Theodoret. H.E. i. 21.

186.Socr. H.E. iii. 7.

187.Euseb. H.E. iv. 26, 27. He referred in this Apology to the incident of the so-called Thundering Legion, which happened A.D. 174; and as reported by Eusebius (H.E. v. 5), he stated that the legion was thus named by the emperor in commemoration of this miraculous thunderstorm. As a contemporary however, he must probably have known that the title Legio Fulminata existed long before; and we may conjecture that he used some ambiguous expression implying that it was fitly so named (e.g. ?p????? t?? s??t???a?), which Eusebius and later writers misunderstood; just as Eusebius himself (v. 24) speaks of IrenÆus as fe?????? t?? ?? t? p??s?????? a?t? te t? t??p? e?????p????. Of the words used by Eusebius, ???e?a? t? ?e????t? p??? t?? as????? e???f??a? p??s?????a?, we may suspect that ???e?a? t? ?e????t? p??s?????a? is an expression borrowed from Apollinaris himself, while p??? t?? as????? e???f??a? gives Eusebius’ own erroneous interpretation of his author’s meaning.

The name of this legion was Fulminata, not Fulminatrix, as it is often carelessly written out, where the inscriptions have merely FVLM.; see Becker and Marquardt RÖm. Alterth. III. 2, p. 353.

189.A list of his works is given by Eusebius (H.E. iv. 27), who explains that there were many others which he had not seen. This list omits the work on the Paschal Feast, which is quoted in the Chronicon Paschale p. 13 (ed. Dind.), and the treatise on Piety, of which we know from Photius Bibl. 14.

190.Theodoret. HÆr. Fab. iii. 2 ???? ????pa???? ?a? p??? t? ???se? t?? ?e??? ?a? t?? ????e? pa?de?a? p??se???f??. So too Jerome, Ep. 70 (I. p. 428, ed. Vallarsi), names him among those who were equally versed in sacred and profane literature.

191.Photius l.c., ????????? d? ? ???? ?a? f??se? ???????? ?e???????.

192.Euseb. H.E. iv. 21, Jerome l.c., Theodoret. l.c., Socr. H.E. iii. 7.

193.Iren. in Euseb. H.E. v. 24 ? d?af???a t?? ??ste?a? (the fast which preceded the Paschal festival) t?? ?????a? t?? p?ste?? s???st?s?.

194.Melito in Euseb. H.E. iv. 26 ?p? Se????????? ?a???? ????p?t?? t?? ?s?a?, ? S??a??? ?a??? ?a?t???se?, ????et? ??t?s?? p???? ?? ?a?d??e?? pe?? t?? p?s?a ?pes??t?? ?at? ?a???? ?? ??e??a?? ta?? ???a??, ?a? ????f? ta?ta (i.e. Melito’s own treatise on the Paschal festival).

195.Besides Melito (l.c.), Polycrates of Ephesus refers to him with respect; Euseb. H.E. v. 24, t? d? de? ???e?? S??a??? ?p?s??p?? ?a? ??t??a, ?? ?? ?a?d??e?? ?e????ta?.

196.Labb. Conc. II. 57, 62, ed. Coleti; Cowper’s Syriac Miscellanies p. 11, 28. It is remarkable that after Papias all the early bishops of Hierapolis of whom any notice is preserved, have Roman names; Avircius Marcellus (?), Claudius Apollinaris, Flaccus, Lucius, Venantius.

197.Labb. Conc. II. 57, 62; Cowper’s Syriac Miscellanies pp. 11, 28, 34. He had also been present at the Synod of Ancyra held about A.D. 314 (see Galatians p. 34); ib. p. 41.

198.Labb. Conc. II. 236.

199.ib. 744.

200.Athanas. ad Episc. Ægypt. 8 (Op. I. p. 219), Hist. Arian. ad Mon. 74 (ib. p. 307).

201.Labb. Conc. II. 744.

202.Cowper’s Syriac Miscell. p. 39.

203.Labb. Conc. III. 1085, 1222, Mans. Conc. IV. 1367. The name of this bishop of Hierapolis is variously written, but Venantius seems to be the true orthography. For some unexplained reason, though present in person he signs by deputy. He had before subscribed the protest to Cyril against commencing the proceedings before the arrival of John of Antioch (Mans. Conc. V. 767), and perhaps his acquiescence in the decisions of the Council was not very hearty.

204.Labb. Conc. IV. 892, 925, 928, 1107, 1170, 1171, 1185. In the Acts of this heretical council, as occasionally in those of the Council of Chalcedon, Laodicea is surnamed Trimitaria (see above, p. 18, note 2). Following Le Quien (Or. Christ. I. p. 835), I have assumed the Stephanus who was present at the Latrocinium to have been bishop of the Phrygian Hierapolis, though I have not found any decisive indication which Hierapolis is meant. On the other hand the bishop of the Syrian Hierapolis at this time certainly bore the name Stephanus (Labb. Conc. IV. 727, 1506, [1550], 1644, 1836, V. 46); and the synod held under Stephanus A.D. 445, which Wiltsch (Geography and Statistics of the Church I. p. 170, Eng. Trans.) assigns to our Hierapolis, belongs to the Syrian city of the same name, as the connexion with Perrha shews: Labb. Conc. IV. 727, 1644.

205.Labb. Conc. IV. 853, 862, 1195, 1204, 1241, 1312, 1337, 1383, 1392, 1444, 1445, 1463, 1480, 1481, 1496, 1501, 1505, 1716, 1732, 1736, 1744, 1746, 1751.

206.The bishops of both sees are addressed by the Emperor Leo in his letter respecting the Council of Chalcedon: but their replies are not preserved. Nunechius is still bishop of Laodicea; but Hierapolis has again changed hands, and Philippus has succeeded Abercius (Labb. Conc. IV. 1836 sq.). Nunechius of Laodicea was one of those who signed the decree against simony at the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 459): Conc. V. 50.

207.See for instance the tergiversation of Theodorus of Laodicea and Ignatius of Hierapolis in the matter of Photius and the 8th General Council.

208.This council cannot have been held earlier than the year 344, as the 7th canon makes mention of the Photinians, and Photinus did not attract notice before that year: see Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p. 722 sq. In the ancient lists of Councils it stands after that of Antioch (A.D. 341), and before that of Constantinople (A.D. 381). Dr Westcott (History of the Canon, p. 400) is inclined to place it about A.D. 363, and this is the time very generally adopted.

Here however a difficulty presents itself, which has not been noticed hitherto. In the Syriac MS Brit. Mus. Add. 14,528, are lists of the bishops present at the earlier councils, including Laodicea (see Wright’s Catalogue of the Syriac MSS in the British Museum, DCCCVI, p. 1030 sq.). These lists have been published by Cowper (Syriac Miscell. p. 42 sq., Analecta NicÆna p. 36), who however has transposed the lists of Antioch and Laodicea, so that he ascribes to the Antiochian Synod the names which really belong to the Laodicean. This is determined (as I am informed by Prof. Wright) by the position of the lists.

The Laodicean list then, which seems to be imperfect, contains twenty names; and, when examined, it yields these results. (1) At least three-fourths of the names can be identified with bishops who sat at NicÆa, and probably the exceptions would be fewer, if in some cases they had not been obscured by transcription into Syriac and by the errors of copyists. (2) When identified, they are found to belong in almost every instance to Coelesyria, Phoenicia, Palestine, Cilicia, and Isauria, whereas apparently not one comes from Phrygia, Lydia, or the other western districts of Asia Minor.

Supposing that this is a genuine Laodicean list, we are led by the first result to place it as near in time as possible to the Council of NicÆa; and by the second to question whether after all the Syrian Laodicea may not have been meant instead of the Phrygian. On the other hand tradition is unanimous in placing this synod in the Phrygian town, and in this very Syriac MS the heading of the canons begins ‘Of the Synod of Laodicea of Phrygia.’ On the whole it appears probable that this supposed list of bishops who met at Laodicea belongs to some other Council. The Laodicean Synod seems to have been, as Dr Westcott describes it (l.c.), ‘A small gathering of clergy from parts of Lydia and Phrygia.’

In a large mosaic in the Church at Bethlehem, in which all the more important Councils are represented, we find the following inscription; [?] ???a s???d?? ? ?? ?a?d??e?? t?? F????a? t?? ?? ?p?s??p?? ?????e? d?? ???ta??? ?? [t]?[?] ???p?? ???se??? t??[t???] ?? a??et????? ?a? ??????? t?? ??e?e?a? ? ???a s???d?? ??e?e?t?se? (Ciampini de Sacr. Ædif. a Constant. constr. p. 156; comp. Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 8953). From its position we might infer that the synod to which this inscription refers was supposed to have taken place before the Council of NicÆa; and if so, it may have been one of those Asiatic synods held against Montanism at the end of the second or beginning of the third century. But, inasmuch as no record of any such synod is preserved elsewhere, we must probably refer it to the well-known Council of Laodicea in the fourth century. In this case however the description is not very correct, for though Montanism is incidentally condemned in the eighth canon, yet this condemnation was not the main object of the council and occupies a very subordinate place. The Bethlehem mosaics were completed A.D. 1169: see Boeckh C. I. 8736.

209.The canons of this Council, 59 in number, will be found in Labb. Conc. I. 1530 sq., ed. Coleti. The last of these forbids the reading of any but ‘the Canonical books of the New and Old Testament.’ To this is often appended (sometimes as a 60th canon) a list of the Canonical books; but Dr Westcott has shown that this list is a later addition and does not belong to the original decrees of the council (Canon p. 400 sq.).

210.By the Quinisextine Council (A.D. 692) in the East (Labb. Conc. VII. 1345), and by the Synod of Aix-la-Chapelle (A.D. 789) in the West (Conc. IX. 10 sq.).

211.Theodoret about a century after the Laodicean Council, commenting on Col. ii. 18, states that this disease (t? p????) which St Paul denounces ‘long remained in Phrygia and Pisidia.’ ‘For this reason also,’ he adds, ‘a synod convened in Laodicea of Phrygia forbad by a decree the offering prayer to angels; and even to the present time oratories of the holy Michael may be seen among them and their neighbours.’ See also below p. 71, note 219. A curious inscription, found in the theatre at Miletus (Boeckh C. I. 2895), illustrates this tendency. It is an inscription in seven columns, each having a different planetary symbol, and a different permutation of the vowels with the same invocation a??e . f??at?? . t?? . p???? . ??????? . ?a? . pa?ta? . t??? . ?at??????ta?, while at the common base is written a??a??e??? . f??a??eta? . ? . p???? . ??????? . ?a? . pa?te? . ?? . ?at... Boeckh writes, ‘Etsi hic titulus Gnosticorum et Basilidianorum commentis prorsus congruus est, tamen potuit ab ethnicis Milesiis scriptus esse; quare nolui eum inter Christianos rejicere, quum prÆsertim publicÆ Milesiorum superstitionis documentum insigne sit.’ The idea of the seven h?????, combined in the one a?????e???, seems certainly to point to Jewish, if not Christian, influences: Rev. i. 4, iii. 1, iv. 5, v. 6.

212.Though there is no direct mention of ‘magic’ in the letter to the Colossians, yet it was a characteristic tendency of this part of Asia: Acts xix. 19, 2 Tim. iii. 8, 13. See the note on Gal. v. 20. The term a??at???? is used in this decree in its ordinary sense of astrologers, soothsayers.

213.A Play on the double sense of f??a?t????? (1) a safeguard or amulet, (2) a guard-house.

214.A list of the bishoprics belonging to this province at the time of the Council of Chalcedon is given, Labb. Conc. IV. 1501, 1716.

215.Conc. IV. 1716, 1744.

216.At the 5th and 6th General Councils (A.D. 553 and A.D. 680) Hierapolis is styled a metropolis (Labb. Conc. VI. 220, VII. 1068, 1097, 1117); and in the latter case it is designated metropolis of Phrygia Pacatiana, though this same designation is still given to Laodicea. Synnada retains its position as metropolis of Phrygia Salutaris.

From this time forward Hierapolis seems always to hold metropolitan rank. But no notice is preserved of the circumstances under which the change was made. In the NotitiÆ it generally occurs twice—first as a suffragan see of Phrygia Salutaris, and secondly as metropolis of another Phrygia Pacatiana (distinct from that which has Laodicea for its metropolis): Hieroclis Synecdemus et NotitiÆ (ed. Parthey) Not. 1, pp. 56, 57, 69, 73; Not. 3, pp. 114, 124; Not. 7, pp. 152, 161; Not. 8, pp. 164, 176, 180; Not. 9, pp. 193, 197; Not. 10, pp. 212, 220. In this latter position it is placed quite out of the proper geographical order, thus showing that its metropolitan jurisdiction was created comparatively late. The number of dioceses in the province is generally given as 9; Nilus ib. p. 301. The name of the province is variously corrupted from ?a?at?a???, e.g. ?appat?a???, ?appad???a?. Unless the ecclesiastical position of Hierapolis was altogether anomalous, as a province within a province, its double mention in the NotitiÆ must be explained by a confusion of its earlier and later status.

217.See Mionnet IV. p. 269, Leake Numism. Hellen. p. 45.

218.Joannes Curopalata p. 686 (ed. Bonn.) f?? ... t??? ???????? ?pa???????sa t?? ?? ???a?? p???te?a? ?a? a?t?? t?? pe????t?? ?? ?a?as? ?a? ??a??as? t?? ????st?at???? ?a?? ?ata?ae?? ?? a?a??? ... ?a? t? d? s?et???te???, ?d? t?? t?? ??sat?? s??a??a? ?? ?pe? ?? pa?a?????te? p?ta?? ??e?se ???e??e??? d?? t?? t?? ????st?at???? pa?a??? ?p?d??a? ?a? ?e?s??a? ?? d?? p?a???? ?stat??? t? ?e?a ?a? ???? e?d????? ????s?, t??? ?atapefe???ta? d?at???sa?, ?.t.?. The ‘worship of angels’ is curiously connected with the physical features of the country in the legend to which Curopalata refers. The people were in imminent danger from a sudden inundation of the Lycus, when the archangel Michael appeared and opened a chasm in the earth through which the waters flowed away harmlessly: Hartley’s Researches in Greece p. 53. See another legend, or another version of the legend, in which the archangel interposes, in Laborde p. 103.

It was the birth-place of Nicetas Choniates, one of the most important of the Byzantine historians, who thus speaks of it (de Manuel vi. 2, p. 230, ed. Bonn.); F????a? te ?a? ?a?d??e?a? d?e???? ?f???e?ta? ?? ???a?, p???? e?da???a ?a? e?????, p??a? t?? ???ass??, t?? ??? t?? s????af??? pat??da, ?a? t?? ???a??e????? ?a?? e?s??? e???e? ???st?? ?a? ????e? ?????st?? ??ta ?a? ?a?as?a? ?e???? ?pa?ta ????? ?.t.?., where a corrupt reading ?a?ass?? for ???ass?? has misled some. It will be remembered that the words p???? e?da???a ?a? e????? are borrowed from Xenophon’s description of ColossÆ (Anab. i. 2. 6): see above, p. 15, note 52.

He again alludes to his native place, de Isaac. ii. 2, pp. 52, 3 t??? ?a?d??e?? d? F???a? ???a??? ?????se?, ?spe? ?a? t??? t?? ????? t?? ??? ????t??a?, and Urbs Capta 16, p. 842, t? d? ?? ??? t?? s????af??? ????ta pat??? a? ???a? ?a? ? ????t???? ta?t? F?????? ?a?d??e?a.

219.Thus Hamilton (I. p. 514) reports that an earthquake which occurred at Denizli about a hundred years ago caused the inhabitants to remove their residences to a different locality, where they have remained ever since. Earthquakes have been largely instrumental in changing the sites of cities situated within the range of their influence.

220.At the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) Nunechius of Laodicea subscribes ‘for the absent bishops under him,’ among whom is mentioned ?p?fa???? p??e?? ???ass?? (Labb. Conc. IV. 1501, ed. Coleti; comp. ib. 1745). At the Quinisextine Council (A.D. 692) occurs the signature of ??s?? ?p?s??p?? p??e?? ???assa?? (sic) ?a?at?a??? (Conc. VII. 1408). At the 2nd Council of NicÆa (A.D. 787) the name of the see is in a transition state; the bishop Theodosius (or Dositheus) signs himself sometimes ????? ?t?? ???ass??, sometimes ????? simply (Conc. VIII. 689, 796, 988, 1200, 1222, 1357, 1378, 1432, 1523, 1533, in many of which passages the word ????? is grossly corrupted). At later Councils the see is called ???a?; and this is the name which it bears in the NotitiÆ (pp. 97, 127, 199, 222, 303, ed. Parthey).

221.For the remains of Christian churches at Laodicea see Fellows Asia Minor p. 282, Pococke p. 74. A description of the three fine churches at Hierapolis is given in Fergusson’s Illustrated Handbook of Architecture II. p. 967 sq.; comp. Texier Asie Mineure I. p. 143.

222.Col. ii. 16, 17, 21 sq.

223.ii. 11.

224.ii. 4, 8, 18, 23.

225.The Colossian heresy has been made the subject of special dissertations by Schneckenburger BeitrÄge zur Einleitung ins N. T. (Stuttgart 1832), and Ueber das Alter der jÜdischen Proselyten-Taufe, nebst einer Beilage Über die Irrlehrer zu ColossÄ (Berlin 1828); by Osiander Ueber die Colossischen Irrlehrer (TÜbinger Zeitschrift for 1834, III. p. 96 sq.); and by Rheinwald De Pseudodoctoribus Colossensibus (Bonn 1834). But more valuable contributions to the subject will often be found in introductions to the commentaries on the epistle. Those of Bleek, Davies, Meyer, Olshausen, Steiger, and De Wette may be mentioned. Among other works which may be consulted are Baur Der Apostel Paulus p. 417 sq.; Boehmer Isagoge in Epistolam ad Colossenses, Berlin 1829, p. 56 sq., p. 277 sq.; Burton Inquiry into the Heresies of the Apostolic Age, Lectures IV, V; Ewald Die Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus p. 462 sq.; Hilgenfeld Der Gnosticismus u. das Neue Testament in the Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Theol. XIII. p. 233 sq.; R. A. Lipsius in Schenkels Bibel-Lexikon, s.v. Gnosis; Mayerhoff Der Brief an die Colosser p. 107 sq.; Neander Planting of the Christian Church I. p. 319 sq. (Eng. Trans.); De PressensÉ Trois Premiers SiÈcles II. p. 194 sq.; Storr Opuscula II. p. 149 sq.; Thiersch Die Kirche im Apostolischen Zeitalter p. 146 sq. Of all the accounts of these Colossian false teachers, I have found none more satisfactory than that of Neander, whose opinions are followed in the main by the most sober of later writers.

In the investigation which follows I have assumed that the Colossian false teachers were Christians in some sense. The views maintained by some earlier critics, who regarded them as (1) Jews, or (2) Greek philosophers, or (3) Chaldean magi, have found no favour and do not need serious consideration. See Meyer’s introduction for an enumeration of such views. A refutation of them will be found in Bleek’s Vorlesungen p. 12 sq.

226.See below, p. 83 sq.

227.See below, p. 107 sq.

228.Col. ii. 8–23. Hilgenfeld (Der Gnosticismus etc. p. 250 sq.) contends strenuously for the separation of the two elements. He argues that ‘these two tendencies are related to one another as fire and water, and nothing stands in the way of allowing the author after the first side-glance at the Gnostics to pass over with ver. 11 to the Judaizers, with whom Col. ii. 16 sq. is exclusively concerned.’ He supposes therefore that ii. 8–10 refers to ‘pure Gnostics,’ and ii. 16–23 to ‘pure Judaizers.’ To this it is sufficient to answer (1) That, if the two elements be so antagonistic, they managed nevertheless to reconcile their differences; for we find them united in several JudÆo-Gnostic heresies in the first half of the second century, ?????sa? ???, ??te? ????st?? t? p???, p?? ?a? ???assa, ?a? t? p?st’ ?de???t??; (2) That the two passages are directly connected together by t? st???e?a t?? ??s??, which occurs in both vv. 8, 20; (3) That it is not a simple transition once for all from the Gnostic to the Judaic element, but the epistle passes to and fro several times from the one to the other; while no hint is given that two separate heresies are attacked, but on the contrary the sentences are connected in a logical sequence (e.g. ver. 9 ?t?, 10 ??, 11 ?? ?, 12 ?? ?, 13 ?a?, 16 ???). I hope to make this point clear in my notes on the passage.

The hypothesis of more than one heresy is maintained also by Heinrichs (Koppe N. T. VII. Part 2, 1803). At an earlier date it seems to be favoured by Grotius (notes on ii. 16, 21); but his language is not very explicit. And earlier still Calvin in his argument to the epistle writes, ‘Putant aliqui duo fuisse hominum genera, qui abducere tentarent Colossenses ab evangelii puritate,’ but rejects this view as uncalled for.

The same question is raised with regard to the heretical teachers of the Pastoral Epistles, and should probably be answered in the same way.

229.The chief authorities for the history of Gnosticism are Neander Church History II. p. 1 sq.; Baur Die Christliche Gnosis (TÜbingen, 1835); Matter Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme (2nd ed., Strasbourg and Paris, 1843); R. A. Lipsius Gnosticismus in Ersch u. Gruber s.v. (Leipzig, 1860); and for Gnostic art, King Gnostics and their Remains (London 1864).

230.See esp. Iren. i. 6. 1 sq., Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. p. 433 sq. (Potter). On the words t??e???, p?e?at????, by which they designated the possessors of this higher gnosis, see the notes on Col. i. 28, and Phil. iii. 15.

231.See Neander l.c. p. 1 sq., from whom the epithet is borrowed.

232.The fathers speak of this as the main question about which the Gnostics busy themselves; Unde malum? p??e? ? ?a??a; Tertull. de PrÆscr. 7, adv. Marc. I. 2, Eus. H.E. v. 27; passages quoted by Baur Christliche Gnosis p. 19. On the leading conceptions of Gnosticism see especially Neander, l.c. p. 9 sq.

233.On this point see Clem. Strom. iii. 5 (p. 529) e?? d?? d?e???te? p???ata ?p?sa? t?? a???se?? ?p??????e?a a?t???? ? ??? t?? ?d?af???? ??? d?d?s???s??, ? t? ?p??t???? ????sa? ?????te?a? d?? d?ssee?a? ?a? f??ape????s???? ?ata???????s?, with the whole passage which follows. As examples of the one extreme may be instanced the Carpocratians and Cainites: of the other the Encratites.

234.See for instance the description of the Carpocratians in Iren. i. 25. 3 sq., ii. 32. 1 sq., Hippol. HÆr. vii. 32, Epiphan. HÆr. xxvii. 2 sq.; from which passages it appears that they justified their moral profligacy on the principle that the highest perfection consists in the most complete contempt of mundane things.

235.It will be seen from the description in the text, that Gnosticism (as I have defined it) presupposes only a belief in one God, the absolute Being, as against the vulgar polytheism. All its essential features, as a speculative system, may be explained from this simple element of belief, without any intervention of specially Christian or even Jewish doctrine. Christianity added two new elements to it; (1) the idea of Redemption, (2) the person of Christ. To explain the former, and to find a place for the latter, henceforth become prominent questions which press for solution; and Gnosticism in its several developments undergoes various modifications in the endeavour to solve them. Redemption must be set in some relation to the fundamental Gnostic conception of the antagonism between God and matter; and Christ must have some place found for Him in the fundamental Gnostic doctrine of emanations.

If it be urged that there is no authority for the name ‘Gnostic’ as applied to these pre-Christian theosophists, I am not concerned to prove the contrary, as my main position is not affected thereby. The term ‘Gnostic’ is here used, only because no other is so convenient, or so appropriate. See note 239, p. 81.

236.This question will require closer investigation when I come to discuss the genuineness of the Epistle to the Colossians. Meanwhile I content myself with referring to Baur Christliche Gnosis p. 29 sq. and Lipsius Gnosticismus p. 230 sq. Both these writers concede, and indeed insist upon, the non-Christian basis of Gnosticism, at least so far as I have maintained it in the text. Thus for instance Baur says (p. 52), ‘Though Christian gnosis is the completion of gnosis, yet the Christian element in gnosis is not so essential as that gnosis cannot still be gnosis even without this element. But just as we can abstract it from the Christian element, so can we also go still further and regard even the Jewish as not strictly an essential element of gnosis.’ In another work (Die drei ersten Jahrhunderte, p. 167, 1st ed.) he expresses himself still more strongly to the same effect, but the expressions are modified in the second edition.

237.We may perhaps gather from the notices which are preserved that, though the substantive ???s?? was used with more or less precision even before contact with Christianity to designate the superior illumination of these opinions, the adjective ???st???? was not distinctly applied to those who maintained them till somewhat later. Still it is possible that pre-Christian Gnostics already so designated themselves. Hippolytus speaks of the Naassenes or Ophites as giving themselves this name; HÆr. v. 6 et? d? ta?ta ?pe???esa? ?a?t??? ???st?????, f?s???te? ???? t? ??? ????s?e??; comp. §§ 8, 11. His language seems to imply (though it is not explicit) that they were the first to adopt the name. The Ophites were plainly among the earliest Gnostic sects, as the heathen element is still predominant in their teaching, and their Christianity seems to have been a later graft on their pagan theosophy; but at what stage in their development they adopted the name ???st???? does not appear. IrenÆus (HÆr. i. 25. 6) speaks of the name as affected especially by the Carpocratians. For the use of the substantive ???s?? see 1 Cor. viii. 1, xiii. 2, 8, 1 Tim. vi. 20, and the note on Col. ii. 3: comp. Rev. ii. 24 ??t??e? ??? ????sa? t? a??a t?? Sata??, ?? ?????s?? (as explained by the passage already quoted from Hippol. HÆr. v. 6; see Galatians, p. 298, note 3).

238.The name Epicureans seems to be applied to them even in the Talmud; see Eisenmenger’s Entdecktes Judenthum i. pp. 95, 694 sq.; comp. Keim Geschichte Jesu von Nazara i. p. 281.

239.For the Pharisees see Vit. 2 pa?ap??s??? ?st? t? pa?’ ????s? St???? ?e?????: for the Essenes, Ant. xv. 10. 4 d?a?t? ???e??? t? pa?’ ????s?? ?p? ???a????? ?atadede?????.

240. The really important contemporary sources of information respecting the Essenes are Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 2–13, Ant. xiii. 5. 9, xviii. 1. 5, Vit. 2 (with notices of individual Essenes Bell. Jud. i. 3. 5, ii. 7. 3, ii. 20. 4, iii. 2. 1, Ant. xiii. 11. 2, xv. 10. 4, 5); and Philo, Quod omnis probus liber § 12 sq. (II. p. 457 sq.), Apol. pro Jud. (II. p. 632 sq., a fragment quoted by Eusebius PrÆp. Evang. viii. 11 ). The account of the Therapeutes by the latter writer, de Vita Contemplativa (II. p. 471 sq.), must also be consulted, as describing a closely allied sect. To these should be added the short notice of Pliny, N.H. v. 15. 17, as expressing the views of a Roman writer. His account, we may conjecture, was taken from Alexander Polyhistor, a contemporary of Sulla, whom he mentions in his prefatory elenchus as one of his authorities for this 5th book, and who wrote a work On the Jews (Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 21, p. 396, Euseb. PrÆp. Ev. ix. 17). Significant mention of the Essenes is found also in the Christian Hegesippus (Euseb. H.E. iv. 22) and in the heathen Dion Chrysostom (Synesius Dion 3, p. 39). Epiphanius (HÆr. pp. 28 sq., 40 sq.) discusses two separate sects, which he calls Essenes and OssÆans respectively. These are doubtless different names of the same persons. His account is, as usual, confused and inaccurate, but has a certain value. All other authorities are secondary. Hippolytus, HÆr. ix. 18–28, follows Josephus (Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 2 sq.) almost exclusively. Porphyry also (de Abstinentia, iv. II sq.) copies this same passage of Josephus, with a few unimportant exceptions probably taken from a lost work by the same author, p??? t??? ?????a?, which he mentions by name. Eusebius (PrÆp. Evang. viii. II sq., ix. 3) contents himself with quoting Philo and Porphyry. Solinus (Polyh. xxxv. 9 sq.) merely abstracts Pliny. Talmudical and Rabbinical passages, supposed to contain references to the Essenes, are collected by Frankel in the articles mentioned in a later paragraph; but the allusions are most uncertain (see the appendix to this chapter). The authorities for the history of the Essenes are the subject of an article by W. Clemens in the Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. 1869, p. 328 sq.

The attack on the genuineness of Philo’s treatise De Vita Contemplativa made by GrÄtz (III. p. 463 sq.) has been met by Zeller (Philosophie, III. ii. p. 255 sq.), whose refutation is complete. The attack of the same writer (III. p. 464) on the genuineness of the treatise Quod omnis probus liber> Zeller considers too frivolous to need refuting (ib. p. 235). A refutation will be found in the above-mentioned article of W. Clemens (p. 340 sq.).

Of modern writings relating to the Essenes the following may be especially mentioned; Bellermann Ueber EssÄer u. Therapeuten, Berlin 1821; GfrÖrer Philo II. p. 299 sq.; DÄhne Ersch u. Gruber’s EncyklopÄdie s.v.; Frankel Zeitschrift fÜr die religiÖsen Interessen des Judenthums 1846 p. 441 sq., Monatschrift fÜr Geschichte u. Wissenschaft des Judenthums 1853 p. 30 sq., 61 sq.; BÖttgerUeber den Orden der EssÄer, Dresden 1849; Ewald Geschichte des Volkes Israel IV. p. 420 sq., VII. p. 153 sq.; Ritschl Entstehung der Altkatholischen Kirche p. 179 sq. (ed. 2, 1857), and Theologische JahrbÜcher 1855, p. 315 sq.; Jost Geschichte des Judenthums I. p. 207 sq.; Graetz Geschichte der Juden III. p. 79 sq., 463 sq. (ed. 2, 1863); Hilgenfeld JÜdische Apocalyptik p. 245 sq., and Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. X. p. 97 sq., XI. p. 343 sq., XIV. p. 30 sq.; Westcott Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible s.v.; Ginsburg The Essenes, London 1864, and in Kitto’s CyclopÆdia s.v.; Derenbourg L’Histoire et la GÉographie de la Palestine p. 166 sq., 460 sq.; Keim Geschichte Jesu von Nazara I. p. 282 sq.; Hausrath Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte I. p. 133 sq.; Lipsius Schenkel’s Bibel Lexikon s.v.; Herzfeld Geschichte des Volkes Israel II. 368 sq., 388 sq., 509 sq. (ed. 2, 1863); Zeller Philosophie der Griechen III. 2. p. 234 sq. (ed. 2, 1868); Langen Judenthum in PalÄstina p. 190 sq.; LÖwy Kritisch-talmudisches Lexicon s.v. (Wien 1863); Weiss Zur Geschichte der jÜdischen Tradition p. 120 sq. (Wien).

242.Philo Quod omn. prob. lib. § 12. Of the Therapeutes see Philo Vit. Cont. § 3, 4.

243.B.J. l.c. § 9 s?a? d? ???st?? pa?’ a?t??? et? t?? Te?? t? ???a t?? ?????t??, ??? ?asf??s? t?? e?? t??t?? (i.e. t?? ?????t??), ?????es?a? ?a??t?: comp. § 10.

244.B.J. l.c. § 2 ???? ?? ?pe????a pa?’ a?t??? ... t?? t?? ???a???? ?se??e?a? f??ass?e??? ?a? ?de?a? t??e?? pepe?s???? t?? p??? ??a p?st??, Ant. xviii. 1. 5; Philo Fragm. p. 633 ???? pa??t?sa?t? et? t?? d?afe???t?? ?s?e?? ?????te?a?? ?ssa??? ??? ??de?? ??eta? ???a??a, d??t? f??a?t?? ? ???? ?a? ????t?p?? ?? et???? ?a? de???? ??d??? ??? pa?asa?e?sa?, with more to the same purpose. This peculiarity astonished the heathen Pliny, N.H. v. 15, ‘gens sola et in toto orbe prÆter ceteros mira, sine ulla femina, venere abdicata.... In diem ex Æquo convenarum turba renascitur large frequentantibus.... Ita per sÆculorum millia (incredibile dictu) gens Æterna est, in qua nemo nascitur. Tam foecunda illis aliorum vitÆ poenitentia est.’

245.B.J. l.c. § 13. Josephus speaks of these as ?te??? ?ss???? t??a, ? d?a?ta? ?? ?a? ??? ?a? ???a t??? ?????? ??f??????, d?est?? d? t? ?at? ???? d???. We may suppose that they corresponded to the third order of a Benedictine or Franciscan brotherhood; so that, living in the world, they would observe the rule up to a certain point, but would not be bound by vows of celibacy or subject to the more rigorous discipline of the sect.

246.B.J. l.c. § 5; see Philo’s account of the Therapeutes, Vit. Cont. § 4 s?t???ta? d? p???te??? ??d??, ???? ??t?? e?te??? ?a? ???? ??e?, ??? ?? ???d?a?t?tat?? pa?a?t???s?? ?ss?p?? p?t?? ?d?? ?aat?a??? a?t??? ?st??; and again more to the same effect in § 9: and compare the Essene story of St James in Hegesippus (Euseb. H.E. ii. 23) ????? ?a? s??e?a ??? ?p?e?, ??d? ?????? ?fa?e. Their abstention from animal food accounts for Porphyry’s giving them so prominent a place in his treatise: see Zeller, p. 243.

247.B.J. l.c. § 8.

248.B.J. l.c. § 3 ????da d? ?p??a????s? t? ??a??? ?.t.?.; Hegesippus l.c. ??a??? ??? ??e??at?.

249.B.J. l.c. § 5 p??? ?e ?? t? ?e??? ?d??? e?see??? p??? ??? ??as?e?? t?? ????? ??d?? f??????ta? t?? e????, pat????? de?? t??a? e?? a?t?? e????, ?spe? ??ete???te? ??ate??a?. Compare what Philo says of the Therapeutes, Vit. Cont. § 3 ????? ?? ???s???t?? e??e??a? a?t??e??? t?? ??t?? e??e??a?, f?t?? ???a???? t?? d?a???a? a?t?? ??ap??s???a?, and ib. § 11. On the attempt of Frankel (Zeitschr. p. 458) to resolve this worship, which Josephus states to be offered to the sun (e?? a?t??), into the ordinary prayers of the Pharisaic Jew at day-break, see the appendix to this chapter.

250.B.J. l.c. § 9 ?? ? t?? a???? ??????e? t?? ?e??. There can be no doubt, I think, that by t?? ?e?? is meant the ‘sun-god’; comp. Eur. Heracl. 749 ?e?? faes???t?? a??a?, Alc. 722 t? f????? t??t? t?? ?e??, Appian PrÆf. 9 d?????? t?? ?e??, Lib. 113 t?? ?e?? pe?? de???? ?sp??a? ??t??, Civ. iv. 79 d????t?? ??t? t?? ?e??: comp. Herod. ii. 24. Dr Ginsburg has obliterated this very important touch by translating t?? a???? t?? ?e?? ‘the Divine rays’ (Essenes p. 47). It is a significant fact that Hippolytus (HÆr. ix. 25) omits the words t?? ?e??, evidently regarding them as a stumbling-block. How Josephus expressed himself in the original Hebrew of the Bellum Judaicum, it is vain to speculate: but the Greek translation was authorised, if not made, by him.

251.Epiphan. HÆr. xix. 2, xx. 3 ?ss???? d? et?st?sa? ?p? ???da?s?? e?? t?? t?? Sa?a??? a??es??, liii. 1, 2 Sa?a??? ??? ????e???ta? ???a???, from the Hebrew ??? ‘the sun.’ The historical connexion of the SampsÆans with the Essenes is evident from these passages: though it is difficult to say what their precise relations to each other were. See the appendix.

252.B.J. l.c. § 11 ?a? ??? ????ta? pa?’ a?t??? ?de ? d??a, f?a?t? ?? e??a? t? s?ata ?a? t?? ???? ?? ????? a?t???, t?? d? ????? ??a??t??? ?e? d?a??e?? ... ?pe?d?? d? ??e??s? t?? ?at? s???a des??, ??a d? a???? d???e?a? ?p???a???a?, t?te ?a??e?? ?a? ete????? f??es?a? ?.t.?. To this doctrine the teaching of the Pharisees stands in direct contrast; ib. § 13: comp. also Ant. xviii. 1. 3, 5.

Nothing can be more explicit than the language of Josephus. On the other hand Hippolytus (HÆr. ix. 27) says of them ???????s? ??? ?a? t?? s???a ??ast?ses?a? ?a? ?ses?a? ????at?? ?? t??p?? ?d? ????at?? ?st?? ? ???? ?.t.?.; but his authority is worthless on this point, as he can have had no personal knowledge of the facts: see Zeller p. 251, note 2. Hilgenfeld takes a different view; Zeitschr. XIV. p. 49.

253.Ant. xviii. 1. 5 e?? d? t? ?e??? ??a??at? te st?????te? ??s?a? ??? ?p?te???s? d?af???t?t? ???e???, ?? ??????e?, ?a? d?’ a?t? e????e??? t?? ?????? tee??sat?? ?f’ a?t?? t?? ??s?a? ?p?te???s?. So Philo Quod omn. prob. lib. § 12 describes them as ?? ??a ?ata????te? ???’ ?e??p?epe?? t?? ?a?t?? d?a???a? ?atas?e???e?? ??????te?.

254.The following considerations show that their abstention should probably be explained in this way: (1) Though the language of Josephus may be ambiguous, that of Philo is unequivocal on this point; (2) Their abstention from the temple-sacrifices cannot be considered apart from the fact that they ate no animal food: see above p. 86, note 246. (3) The Christianized Essenes, or Ebionites, though strong Judaizers in many respects, yet distinctly protested against the sacrifice of animals; see Clem. Hom. iii. 45, 52, and comp. Ritschl p. 224. On this subject see also Zeller p. 242 sq., and the appendix to this chapter.

255.Ant. xviii. 1. 5 ?e?e?? te [?e???t????s?] d?? p???s?? s?t?? te ?a? ???t??, B.J. ii. 8. 5 p???ate??eta? d? ? ?e?e?? t?? t??f?? ?.t.?.; see Ritschl p. 181.

256.B.J. l.c. § 7 ?????? a?t??? ???s? f????de?? ... ?te ????e?? t? t??? a??et?st?? ?te ?t????? a?t?? t? ???se??, ?a? ?? ???? ?a??t?? t?? ????ta?. p??? t??t??? ?????s? ?de?? ?? etad???a? t?? d???t?? ?t???? ? ?? a?t?? et??ae?? ?f??es?a? d? ??ste?a? ?a? s??t???se?? ????? t? te t?? a???se?? a?t?? ???a ?a? t? t?? ??????? ???ata. With this notice should be compared the Ebionite d?aa?t???a, or protest of initiation, prefixed to the Clementine Homilies, which shows how closely the Christian Essenes followed the practice of their Jewish predecessors in this respect. See Zeller p. 254.

257.See below, in the appendix.

258.Philo Omn. prob. lib. § 12 (p. 458) t? d? f?s???? ?? e???? ? ?at? ?????p???? f?s?? ete?????s?a?? ?p???p??te?, p??? ?s?? a?t?? pe?? ?p???e?? Te?? ?a? t?? t?? pa?t?? ?e??se?? f???s?fe?ta?.

259.The word Apocrypha was used originally to designate the secret books which contained the esoteric doctrine of a sect. The secondary sense ‘spurious’ was derived from the general character of these writings, which were heretical, generally Gnostic, forgeries. See Prof. Plumptre’s article Apocrypha in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, and the note on ?p????f?? below, ii. 3.

260.B.J. ii. 8. 12 e?s? d? ?? a?t??? ?? ?a? t? ?????ta p??????s?e?? ?p?s?????ta?, ????? ?e?a?? ?a? d?af????? ???e?a?? ?a? p??f?t?? ?p?f???as?? ?pa?d?t????e???? sp????? d?, e?p?te, ?? ta?? p??a???e?ses?? ?st???s??s??. Dr Ginsburg (p. 49) translates ????? ?e?a?? ‘the sacred Scripture,’ and p??f?t?? ?p?f???as?? ‘the sayings of the prophets’; but as the definite articles are wanting, the expressions cannot be so rendered, nor does there seem to be any reference to the Canonical writings.

We learn from an anecdote in Ant. xiii. II. 2, that the teachers of this sect communicated the art of prediction to their disciples by instruction. We may therefore conjecture that with the Essenes this acquisition was connected with magic or astrology. At all events it is not treated as a direct inspiration.

261.B.J. ii. 8. 6 sp??d????s? d? ??t?p?? pe?? t? t?? pa?a??? s?????ata, ???sta t? p??? ?f??e?a? ????? ?a? s?at?? ???????te?? ???e? a?t??? p??? ?e?ape?a? pa??? ???a? te ??e??t????? ?a? ????? ?d??t?te? ??e?e????ta?. This passage might seem at first sight to refer simply to the medicinal qualities of vegetable and mineral substances; but a comparison with another notice in Josephus invests it with a different meaning. In Ant. viii. 2. 5 he states that Solomon, having received by divine inspiration the art of defeating demons for the advantage and healing of man (e?? ?f??e?a? ?a? ?e?ape?a? t??? ?????p???), composed and left behind him charms (?p?d??) by which diseases were allayed, and diverse kinds of exorcisms (t??p??? ??????se??) by which demons were cast out. ‘This mode of healing,’ he adds, ‘is very powerful even to the present day’; and he then relates how, as he was credibly informed (?st???sa), one of his countrymen, Eleazar by name, had healed several persons possessed by demons in the presence of Vespasian and his sons and a number of officers and common soldiers. This he did by applying to the nose of the possessed his ring, which had concealed in it one of the roots which Solomon had directed to be used, and thus drawing out the demon through the nostrils of the person smelling it. At the same time he adjured the evil spirit not to return, ‘making mention of Solomon and repeating the charms composed by him.’ On one occasion this Eleazar gave ocular proof that the demon was exorcized; and thus, adds Josephus, saf?? ? S??????? ?a??stat? s??es?? ?a? s?f?a. On these books relating to the occult arts and ascribed to Solomon see Fabricius Cod. Pseud. Vet. Test. I. p. 1036 sq., where many curious notices are gathered together. Comp. especially Origen, In Matth. Comm. xxxv. § 110 (III. p. 910), Pseudo-Just. QuÆst. 55.

This interpretation explains all the expressions in the passage. The ????? ?d??t?te? naturally points to the use of charms or amulets, as may be seen e.g. from the treatise, Damigeron de Lapidibus, printed in the Spicil. Solemn. III. p. 324 sq.: comp. King Antique Gems Sect. IV, Gnostics and their Remains. The reference to ‘the books of the ancients’ thus finds an adequate explanation. On the other hand the only expression which seemed to militate against this view, ??e??t????? ???a?, is justified by the story in the Antiquities. It should be added also that Hippolytus (HÆr. ix. 22) paraphrases the language of Josephus so as to give it this sense; p??? d? pe??????? ????s? pe?? ?t??a? ?a? ??????, pe??e???te??? ??te? p??? t?? t??t?? ??e??e?a?, f?s???te? ? ?t?? ta?ta ?e?????a?. The sense which pe??e???? (‘curiosus’) bears in Acts xix. 19 and elsewhere, referring to magical arts, illustrates its use here.

Thus these Essenes were dealers in charms, rather than physicians. And yet it is quite possible that along with this practice of the occult sciences they studied the healing art in its nobler forms. The works of Alexander of Tralles, an eminent ancient physician, constantly recommend the use of such charms, of which some obviously come from a Jewish source and not improbably may have been taken from these Solomonian books to which Josephus refers. A number of passages from this and other writers, specifying charms of various kinds, are given in Becker and Marquardt Rom. Alterth. IV. p. 116 sq. See also Spencer’s note on Orig. c. Cels. p. 17 sq.

262.See especially B.J. ii. 8. 7, 10.

263.I have said nothing of the Cabbala, as a development of Jewish thought illustrating the Colossian heresy: because the books containing the Cabbalistic speculations are comparatively recent, and if they contain ancient elements, it seems impossible to separate these from later additions or to assign to them even an approximate date. The Cabbalistic doctrine however will serve to show to what extent Judaism may be developed in the direction of speculative mysticism.

264.Philo Fragm. p. 632 ?????s? d? p????? ?? p??e?? t?? ???da?a?, p????? d? ??a?, ?a? e?????? ?a? p???a????p??? ??????; Joseph. B.J. ii. 8. 4 ?a d? ??? ?st?? a?t?? p????, ???’ ?? ???st? ?at?????s? p?????. On the notices of the settlements and dispersion of the Essenes see Zeller p. 239.

265.Philo names JudÆa in Fragm. p. 632; Palestine and Syria in Quod omn. prob. lib. 12 p. 457. Their chief settlements were in the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea. This fact is mentioned by the heathen writers Pliny (N.H. v. 15) and Dion Chrysostom (Synesius Dio 3). The name of the ‘Essene gate’ at Jerusalem (B.J. v. 4. 2) seems to point to some establishment of the order close to the walls of that city.

266.They are only known to us from Philo’s treatise de Vita Contemplativa. Their settlements were on the shores of the Mareotic lake near Alexandria. Unlike the Essenes, they were not gathered together in convents as members of a fraternity, but lived apart as anchorites, though in the same neighbourhood. In other respects their tenets and practices are very similar to those of the Essenes.

267.See above, p. 19 sq.

268.Acts xix. 13 t?? pe??e??????? ???da??? ??????st??.

269.See above p. 91, note 261.

270.On the later contact of Essenism with Christianity, see the appendix, and Galatians p. 310 sq.

271.There is doubtless a reference to the charms called ?f?s?a ???ata in this passage: see Wetstein ad loc., and the references in Becker and Marquardt RÖm. Alterth. IV. p. 123 sq. But this supposition does not exclude the Jews from a share in these magical arts, while the context points to some such participation.

272.I can only regard it as an accidental coincidence that the epulones of the Ephesian Artemis were called Essenes, Pausan. viii. 13. 1 t??? t? ??t??d? ?st??t??a? t? ?fes?? ?????????, ?a???????? d? ?p? t?? p???t?? ?ss??a?: see Guhl Ephesiaca 106 sq. The Etymol. Magn. has ?ss??: ? as??e?? ?at? ?fes????, and adds several absurd derivations of the word. In the sense of ‘a king’ it is used by Callimachus Hymn. Jov. 66 ?? se ?e?? ?ss??a p???? ??sa?. It is probably not a Greek word, as other terms connected with the worship of the Ephesian Artemis (e.g. e??????, a Persian word) point to an oriental or at least a non-Greek origin; and some have derived it from the Aramaic ???? chasin ‘strong’ or ‘powerful.’ But there is no sufficient ground for connecting it directly with the name of the sect ?ss???? or ?ssa???, as some writers are disposed to do (e.g. Spanheim on Callim. l.c., Creuzer Symbolik IV. pp. 347, 349); though this view is favoured by the fact that certain ascetic practices were enjoined on these pagan ‘Essenes.’

273.Its date is fixed by the following allusions. The temple at Jerusalem has been destroyed by Titus (vv. 122 sq.), and the cities of Campania have been overwhelmed in fire and ashes (vv. 127 sq.). Nero has disappeared and his disappearance has been followed by bloody contests in Rome (vv. 116 sq.); but his return is still expected (vv. 134 sq.).

274.See vv. 27–30 ?? ????? ?? ?pa?ta? ?p?st?????s?? ?d??te?, ?a? ????, e??a?a ????? ?d??ata ??f?? ??as?? ?????? e?as??a ?a? ??s??s? tet?ap?d?? ?.t.?. In an earlier passage vv. 8 sq. it is said of God, ??te ??? ????? ??e? ?a? ????? ?d?????ta ??f?tat?? ??d?? te, ??t?? p???a???a ????.

275.ver. 160 ?? p?ta??? ???sas?e ???? d?a? a?????s?. Another point of contact with the Essenes is the great stress on prayers before meals, ver. 26 e???????te? p??? p??e?? fa??e?? te. Ewald (Sibyll. BÜcher p. 46) points also to the prominence of the words e?see??, e?se??, e?se?a (vv. 26, 35, 42, 45, 133, 148, 151, 162, 165, 181, 183) to designate the elect of God, as tending in the same direction. The force of this latter argument will depend mainly on the derivation which is given to the name Essene. See the appendix.

276.Thus for instance, Ewald (l.c., p. 47) points to the tacit approval of marriage in ver. 33. I hardly think however that this passage, which merely condemns adultery, can be taken to imply so much. More irreconcilable with pure Essenism is the belief in the resurrection of the body and the future life on earth, which is maintained in vv. 176 sq.; though Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. XIV. p. 49) does not recognise the difficulty. See above p. 88. This Sibylline writer was perhaps rather a Hemerobaptist than an Essene. On the relation of the Hemerobaptists and Essenes see the appendix. Alexandre, Orac. Sibyll. (II. p. 323), says of this Sibylline Oracle, ‘Ipse liber haud dubie Christianus est,’ but there is nothing distinctly Christian in its teaching.

277.vv. 106 sq., 145 sq.; see above p. 40, note 131. It begins ????? ?e?? ?s??? e?a?a????? ????p?? te.

278.The exceptional activity of the forces of nature in these districts of Asia Minor may have directed the speculations of the Ionic school towards physics, and more especially towards cosmogony. In Heraclitus there is also a strong mystical element. But besides such broader affinities, I venture to call attention to special dicta of the two philosophers mentioned in the text, which curiously recall the tenets of the JudÆo-Gnostic teachers. Thales declared (Diog. Laert. i. 27) t?? ??s?? ?????? ?a? da????? p????, or, as reported by Aristotle (de An. i. 5, p. 411), p??ta p???? ?e?? e?^?a?. In a recorded saying of Heraclitus we have the very language of a Gnostic teacher; Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 13, p. 699, t? ?? t?? ???s??? ??? ???pte?? ?p?st?? ??a??, ?a?’ ??????e?t??? ?p?st?? ??? d?af?????e? t? ? ????s?es?a?. See above pp. 77, 92.

279.For the characteristic features of Phrygian religious worship see Steiger Kolosser p. 70 sq.

280.The prominence, which the Phrygian mysteries and Phrygian rites held in the syncretism of the Ophites, is clear from the account of Hippolytus HÆr. v. 7 sq. Indeed Phrygia appears to have been the proper home of Ophitism. Yet the admixture of Judaic elements is not less obvious, as their name Naassene, derived from the Hebrew word for a serpent, shows.

281.The name, by which the Montanists were commonly known in the early ages, was the sect of the ‘Phrygians’; Clem. Strom. vii. 17, p. 900 a? d? [t?? a??es???] ?p? ?????? [p??sa???e???ta?], ?? ? t?? F????? (comp. Eus. H.E. iv. 27, v. 16, Hipp. HÆr. viii. 19, x. 25). From ?? (or ?) ?at? F????? (Eus. H.E. ii. 25, v. 16, 18, vi. 20) comes the soloecistic Latin name Cataphryges.

282.Socrates (iv. 28) accounts for the spread of Novatianism in Phrygia by the s?f??s??? of the Phrygian temper. If so, it is a striking testimony to the power of Christianity, that under its influence the religious enthusiasm of the Phrygians should have taken this direction, and that they should have exchanged the fanatical orgiasm of their heathen worship for the rigid puritanism of the Novatianist.

283.i. 28 ????et???te? p??ta ?????p?? ?a? d?d?s???te? p??ta ?????p?? ?? p?s? s?f?? ??a pa?ast?s?e? p??ta ?????p?? t??e??? ?? ???st? ?.t.?. The reiteration has offended the scribes; and the first p??ta ?????p?? is omitted in some copies, the second in others. For t??e??? see the note on the passage.

284.The connexion of the sentences should be carefully observed. After the passage quoted in the last note comes the asseveration that this is the one object of the Apostle’s preaching (i. 29) e?? ? ?a? ??p?? ?.t.?.; then the expression of concern on behalf of the Colossians (ii. 1) ???? ??? ??? e?d??a? ?????? ????a ??? ?p?? ??? ?.t.?.; then the desire that they may be brought (ii. 2) e?? p?? p???t?? t?? p????f???a? t?? s???se??, e?? ?p????s?? t?? ?st????? t?? Te??; then the definition of this mystery (ii. 2, 3), ???st?? ?? ? e?s?? p??te? ?? ??sa???? ?.t.?.; then the warning against the false teachers (ii. 4) t??t? ???? ??a ?de?? ??? pa?a??????ta? ?.t.?.

285.Col. iii. 11 after pe??t?? ?a? ?????st?a the Apostle adds ??a???, S?????. There is nothing corresponding to this in the parallel passage, Gal. iii. 28.

286.For s?f?a see i. 9, 28, ii. 3, iii. 16, iv. 5; for s??es?? i. 9, ii. 2; for ???s?? ii. 3; for ?p????s?? i. 9, 10, ii. 2, iii. 10.

287.ii. 4 p??a??????a, ii. 8 ?e?? ?p?t?.

288.ii. 23 ????? ?? ????ta s?f?a?, where the ?? suggests the contrast of the suppressed clause.

289.e.g. i. 9, 28, iii. 16 ?? p?s? s?f??; ii. 2 t?? p????f???a?. For the ‘wealth’ of this knowledge compare i. 27, ii. 2, iii. 16; and see above p. 44.

290.ii. 4, 18.

291.i. 26, 27, ii. 2, iv. 3.

292.ii. 2 ?? ? e?s?? p??te? ?? ??sa???? t?? s?f?a? ?a? t?? ???se?? ?p????f??. For the meaning of ?p????f?? see above p. 90, and the note on the passage.

293.The two great Christological passages are i. 15–20, ii. 9–15. They will be found to justify the statements in this and the following paragraphs of the text. For the meaning of individual expressions see the notes on the passages.

294.See the detached note on p????a.

295.i. 19 ?? a?t? e?d???se? p?? t? p????a ?at????sa?, ii. 9 ?? a?t? ?at???e? p?? t? p????a t?? ?e?t?t?? s?at????.

296.See especially i. 16 e?te ?????? e?te ?????t?te? e?te ???a? e?te ????s?a? ?.t.?., compared with the parallel passage in Eph. i. 21 ?pe???? p?s?? ????? ?a? e???s?a? ?a? d???e?? ?a? ?????t?t?? ?a? pa?t?? ???at?? ???a?????? ?.t.?. Compare also ii. 10 ? ?efa?? p?s?? ????? ?a? ????s?a?, and ii. 15 ?pe?d?s?e??? t?? ????? ?a? t?? ????s?a? ?.t.?.

297.ii. 18 ????? ?? tape???f??s??? ?a? ???s?e?? t?? ??????? ?.t.?.

298.ii. 10; comp. i. 9.

300.ii. 18.

301.iii. 17.

302.iii. 18, 20, 23.

303.At least in 2 Tim. iii. 1–7, where, though the most monstrous developments of the evil were still future, the Apostle’s language implies that it had already begun. On the other hand in the picture of the heresy in 1 Tim. iv. 2 the ascetic tendency still predominates.

304.2 Pet. ii. 10 sq., Jude 8.

305.Apoc. ii. 14, 20–22.

306.See the notes on Clem. Rom. Ep. ii. § 9.

307.ii. 16.

308.ii. 21.

309.ii. 23.

310.Asceticism is of two kinds. There is the asceticism of dualism (whether conscious or unconscious), which springs from a false principle; and there is the asceticism of self-discipline, which is the training of the Christian athlete (1 Cor. ix. 27). I need not say that the remarks in the text apply only to the former.

311.Gal. ii. 21, v. 2, 4.

312.ii. 8, 20–22.

313.ii. 23 ??? ?? t?? t??? p??? p??s???? t?? sa????: see the note on these words.

314.iii. 1, 2.

315.iii. 3, 5.

316.iii. 10.

317.See above p. 41 sq.

318.The relation of Cerinthus to the Colossian heresy is briefly indicated by Neander Planting of Christianity I. p. 325 sq. (Eng. Trans.). It has been remarked by other writers also, both earlier and later. The subject appeared to me to deserve a fuller investigation than it has yet received.

319.Hippol. HÆr. vii. 33 ????pt??? pa?de?? ?s???e??, x. 21 ? ?? ????pt? ?s???e??, Theodoret. HÆr. Fab. ii. 3 ?? ????pt? p?eÎst?? d?at???a? ??????.

321.Epiphanius (xxviii. 2 sq.) represents him as the ringleader of the Judaizing opponents of the Apostles in the Acts and Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians. Philastrius (HÆr. 36) takes the same line.]

322.The well-known story of the encounter between St John and Cerinthus in the bath is related by IrenÆus (iii. 3. 4) on the authority of Polycarp, who appears from the sequence of IrenÆus’ narrative to have told it at Rome, when he paid his visit to Anicetus; ?? ?a? ?p? ?????t?? ?p?d??sa? t? ??? p?????? ?p? t?? p??e??????? a??et???? ?p?st?e?e? ... ?a? e?s?? ?? ??????te? a?t?Û ?t? ??????? ?.t.?.

323.Iren. iii. II. 1.

324.Church History II. p. 42 (Bohn’s Trans.).

325.See the Dialogue of Caius and Proclus in Euseb. H.E. iii. 28, Dionysius of Alexandria, ib. vii. 25, Theodoret. l.c., Augustin. HÆr. 8.

326.See below p. 111.

327.Epiphan. HÆr. xxviii. 4, 5, Philastr. HÆr. 36, Augustin. l.c. The statements of these writers would not carry much weight in themselves; but in this instance they are rendered highly probable by the known Judaism of Cerinthus.

328.Epiphan. HÆr. xxviii. 5, xxx. 14, Philastr. HÆr. 36.

329.Epiphan. HÆr. xxviii. 1 p??s??e?? t? ???da?s? ?p? ?????.

330.Iren. i. 26. 1 ‘Non a primo Deo factum esse mundum docuit, sed a virtute quadam valde separata et distante ab ea principalitate quÆ est super universa, et ignorante eum qui est super omnia Deum’; Hippol. HÆr. vii. 33 ??e?e? ??? ?p? t?? p??t?? Te?? ?e?????a? t?? ??s??, ???’ ?p? d?????? t???? ?e????s???? t?? ?p?? t? ??a ????s?a? ?a? ??????s?? t?? ?p?? p??ta Te??, x. 21 ?p? d???e?? t???? ???e?????, p??? ?e????s???? ?a? d?est?s?? t?? ?p?? t? ??a a??e?t?a? ?a? ??????s?? t?? ?p?? p??ta Te??.

331.Pseudo-Tertull. HÆr. 3 ‘Carpocrates prÆterea hanc tulit sectam: Unam esse dicit virtutem in superioribus principalem, ex hac prolatos angelos atque virtutes, quos distantes longe a superioribus virtutibus mundum istum in inferioribus partibus condidisse.... Post hunc Cerinthus hÆreticus erupit, similia docens. Nam et ipse mundum institutum esse ab illis dicit’; Epiphan. HÆr. xxviii. 1 ??a e??a? t?? ??????? t?? t?? ??s?? pep?????t??; Theodoret. H. F. ii. 3 ??a ?? e??a? t?? t?? ???? Te??, ??? a?t?? d? e??a? t?? ??s?? d????????, ???? d???e?? t???? ?e????s??a? ?a? pa?te??? a?t?? ??????sa?; Augustin. HÆr. 8. The one statement is quite reconcilable with the other. Among those angels by whose instrumentality the world was created, Cerinthus appears to have assigned a position of preeminence to one, whom he regarded as the demiurge in a special sense and under whom the others worked; see Neander Church History II. p. 43.

332.Pseudo-Tertull. l.c.; Epiphan. HÆr. xxviii. 4 t?? ded???ta ???? ??a e??a? t?? ??????? t?? t?? ??s?? pep?????t??.

333.I am quite unable to see any reference to the Gnostic conception of an Æon in the passages of the New Testament, which are sometimes quoted in support of this view, e.g., by Baur Paulus p. 428, Burton Lectures p. 111 sq.

334.Iren. i. 26. 1, Hippol. HÆr. vii. 33, x. 21, Epiphan. HÆr. xxviii. 1, Theodoret. H. F. ii. 3. The arguments by which Lipsius (Gnosticismus pp. 245, 258, in Ersch u. Gruber; Quellenkritik des Epiphanios p. 118 sq.) attempts to show that Cerinthus did not separate the Christ from Jesus, and that IrenÆus (and subsequent authors copying him) have wrongly attributed to this heretic the theories of later Gnostics, seem insufficient to outweigh these direct statements. It is more probable that the system of Cerinthus should have admitted some foreign elements not very consistent with his Judaic standing point, than that these writers should have been misinformed. Inconsistency was a necessary condition of Judaic Gnosticism. The point however is comparatively unimportant as affecting my main purpose.

335.IrenÆus (iii. 11. 1), after speaking of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans, proceeds ‘non, quemadmodum illi dicunt, alterum quidem fabricatorem (i.e. demiurgum), alium autem Patrem Domini: et alium quidem fabricatoris filium, alterum vero de superioribus Christum, quem et impassibilem perseverasse, descendentem in Jesum filium fabricatoris, et iterum revolasse in suum pleroma.’ The doctrine is precisely that which he has before ascribed to Cerinthus (i. 26. 1), but the mode of statement may have been borrowed from the Nicolaitans or from some later Gnostics. There is however no improbability in the supposition that Cerinthus used the word pleroma in this way; see the detached note on p????a below.

336.i. 19, ii. 9. See above p. 102, note 295. On the force of ?at???e?? see the note on the earlier of the two passages.

337.ii. 6 pa?e??ete t?? ???st??, ??s??? t?? ??????.

338.i. 20, 22.

339.Zeitschrift p. 449 ‘FÜr EssÄer liegt, wie schon von anderen Seiten bemerkt wurde, das Hebr. ????, fÜr Essener, nach einer Bemerkung des Herrn L. LÖw im Orient, das Hebr. ???? nahe’; see also pp. 454, 455; Monatschrift p. 32.

340.e.g. Keim (p. 286) and Derenbourg (p. 166, 461 sq.), who both derive Essene from ???? ‘a physician.’

341.Mishna Chagigah ii. 7; Zeitschr. p. 454, Monatschr. pp. 33, 62. See Frankel’s own account of this R. Jose in an earlier volume, Monatschr. I. p. 405 sq.

342.Zeitschr. p. 457, Monatschr. p. 69 sq.; see below, p. 126.

343.Niddah 38 a; see LÖwy s.v. EssÄer.

344.Mishna Kerithuth vi. 3, Nedarim 10 a; see Monatschr. p. 65.

345.Thus GrÄtz (III. p. 81) speaking of the community of goods among the Essenes writes, ‘From this view springs the proverb; Every Chassid says; Mine and thine belong to thee (not me)’ thus giving a turn to the expression which in its original connexion it does not at all justify. Of the existence of such a proverb I have found no traces. It certainly is not suggested in the passage of Pirke Aboth. Later in the volume (p. 467) GrÄtz tacitly alters the words to make them express reciprocation or community of goods, substituting ‘Thine is mine’ for ‘Thine is thine’ in the second clause; ‘The Chassid must have no property of his own, but must treat it as belonging to the Society (??? ??? ??? ??? ????).’ At least, as he gives no reference, I suppose that he refers to the same passage. In this loose way he treats the whole subject. Keim (p. 294) quotes the passage correctly, but refers it nevertheless to Essene communism.

346.This is Hitzig’s view (Geschichte des Volkes Israel p. 427). He maintains that "they were called ‘Hasidim’ by the later Jews because the Syrian Essenes means exactly the same as ‘Hasidim.’"

347.Zeitschr. pp. 455, 457; Monatschr. p. 32.

348.Monatschr. p. 32.

349.Zeitschr. p. 455.

350.Frankel Monatschr. p. 71: comp. Derenbourg p. 170 sq.

351.See LÖwy Krit.-Talm. Lex. s.v. EssÄer.

352.Urged in favour of this derivation by Herzfeld II. p. 398.

353.The oath taken by the Essenes (Joseph. B.J. ii. 8. 7) s??t???se?? ... t? t?? a???se?? a?t?? ???a can have nothing to do with accuracy in transcribing copies, as Herzfeld (II. pp. 398, 407) seems to think. The natural meaning of s??t??e??, ‘to keep safe or close’ and so ‘not to divulge’ (e.g. Polyb. xxxi. 6. 5 ??? ???fa??e t?? ?a?t?? ????? ???? s??et??e? pa?’ ?a?t?), is also the meaning suggested here by the context.

354.The passage is adduced in support of this derivation by Derenbourg p. 175.

355.See Zeitschr. p 438, Monatschr. pp. 68–70.

356.See above, p. 118.

357.Taanith 24b, Yoma 53b; see Surenhuis Mishna III. p. 313.

358.In this and similar cases it is unnecessary to consider whether the persons mentioned might have belonged to those looser disciples of Essenism, who married (see above, p. 85): because the identification is meaningless unless they belonged to the strict order itself.

359.Ginsburg in Kitto’s CyclopÆdia s.v., I. p. 829: comp. Essenes pp. 22, 28.

360.e.g. Geiger Zeitschrift f. JÜdische Theologie VI. p. 20 sq.; Zunz Gottesdienstliche VortrÄge p. 108 sq.: comp. Steinschneider Catal. Heb. Bibl. Bodl. col. 2032 sq. These two last references are given by Dr Ginsburg himself.

361.Essenes p. 30; comp. Kitto’s CyclopÆdia, s.v. Essenes.

362.It is given by Landsberg in the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums 1862, no. 33, p. 459, a reference pointed out to me by a friend.

363.Zeitschr. p. 450 sq., Monatschr. pp. 31, 70.

364.As the notices in Josephus (B.J. ii. 8) relating to this point have been frequently misunderstood, it may be well once for all to explain his meaning. The grades of the Essene order are mentioned in two separate notices, apparently, though not really, discordant. (1) In § 10 he says that they are ‘divided into four sections according to the duration of their discipline’ (d?????ta? ?at? ?????? t?? ?s??se?? e?? ???a? t?ssa?a?), adding that the older members are considered to be defiled by contact with the younger, i.e. each superior grade by contact with the inferior. So far his meaning is clear. (2) In § 8 he states that one who is anxious to become a member of the sect undergoes a year’s probation, submitting to discipline but ‘remaining outside.’ Then, ‘after he has given evidence of his perseverance (et? t?? t?? ?a?te??a? ?p?de????), his character is tested for two years more; and, if found worthy, he is accordingly admitted into the society.’ A comparison with the other passage shows that these two years comprise the period spent in the second and third grades, each extending over a year. After passing through these three stages in three successive years, he enters upon the fourth and highest grade, thus becoming a perfect member.

It is stated by Dr Ginsburg (Essenes p. 12 sq., comp. Kitto’s CyclopÆdia s.v. p. 828) that the Essenes passed through eight stages ‘from the beginning of the noviciate to the achievement of the highest spiritual state,’ this last stage qualifying them, like Elias, to be forerunners of the Messiah. But it is a pure hypothesis that the Talmudical notices thus combined have anything to do with the Essenes; and, as I shall have occasion to point out afterwards, there is no ground for ascribing to this sect any Messianic expectations whatever.

365.Zeitschr. p. 452, note.

366.The entrance into lower grade was described as ‘taking ?????’ or ‘wings.’ The meaning of this expression has been the subject of much discussion; see e.g. Herzfeld II. p. 390 sq., Frankel Monatschr. p. 33 sq.

367.The contempt with which a chaber would look down upon the vulgar herd, the ?am haarets, finds expression in the language of the Pharisees, Joh. vii. 49 ? ????? ??t?? ? ? ????s??? t?? ???? ?p??at?? e?s??. Again in Acts iv. 13, where the Apostles are described as ?d??ta?, the expression is equivalent to ?am haarets. See the passages quoted in Buxtorf, Lex. p. 1626.

368.All these particulars and others may be gathered from Bekhoroth 30 b, Mishna Demai ii. 2, 3, Jerus. Demai ii. 3, v. 1, Tosifta Demai 2, Aboth R. Nathan c. 41.

369.See Herzfeld II. p. 386.

370.Monatschr. p. 35.

371.Zeitschr. pp. 458, 461, Monatschr. pp. 32, 36.

372.It is added however in Midrash Qoheleth ix. 9 ‘Some say that they (the holy congregation) devoted the whole of the winter to studying the Scriptures and the summer to work.’

373.Monatschr. p. 32.

374.Ib. p. 70.

375.See Derenbourg p. 175.

376.Monatschr. p. 32.

377.Monatschr. pp. 32, 68.

378.Ib. p. 67.

379.See below, p. 166.

380.Zeitschr. p. 455.

381.See below, p. 161.

382.BeitrÄge II. p. 199. In this derivation he is followed by Graetz (III. p. 82, 468) and Derenbourg (p. 166).

383.Monatschr. p. 31.

384.‘The attempt to point out the Essenes in our patristic (i.e. rabbinical) literature,’ says Herzfeld truly (II. p. 397), ‘has led to a splendid hypothesis-hunt (einer stattlichen Hypothesenjagd).’

385.Monatschr. p. 31.

386.Monatschr. p. 64.

387.B.J. ii. 8. 5 ?a??pe? e?? ????? t? t?e??? pa?a?????ta? t? de?p??t?????: see also the passages quoted above p. 89, note 255.

388.See below, p. 142.

389.Herzfeld (II. p. 403) is unable to reconcile any rejection of the Old Testament Scriptures with the reverence paid to Moses by the Essenes (B.J. ii. 8. 9, 10). The Christian Essenes however did combine both these incongruous tenets by the expedient which is explained in the text. Herzfeld himself suggests that allegorical interpretation may have been employed to justify this abstention from the temple sacrifices.

390.See Galatians, p. 310 sq.

391.Epiphanius (HÆr. xviii. I, p. 38) again describes, as the account was handed down to him (?? ? e?? ??? ????? pe????e? ?????), the tenets of a Jewish sect which he calls the Nasareans, a?t?? d? ?? pa?ed??et? t?? pe?t?te????, ???? ?????e?, ?? t?? ???s?a, ?a? ?t? ?d??at? ????es?a? ?p?ste?e?, ?? ta?t?? d? f?s??, ???’ ?t??a?. ??e? t? ?? p??ta f???tt??s? t?? ???da??v ???da??? ??te?, ??s?a? d? ??? ????? ??te ?????? ete????, ???? ???t?? ?? pa?’ a?t??? t? ??e?? eta?a??e?? ? ??s???e?? a?t???. ?fas??? ??? pep??s?a? ta?ta t? ???a ?a? ?d?? t??t?? ?p? t?? pat???? ?e?e??s?a?. Here we have in combination all the features which we are seeking. The cradle of this sect is placed by him in Gilead and Bashan and ‘the regions beyond the Jordan.’ He uses similar language also (xxx. 18, p. 142) in describing the Ebionites, whom he places in much the same localities (naming Moab also), and whose Essene features are unmistakeable: ??te ??? d????ta? t?? pe?t?te???? ???s??? ???? ???? t??a ??ata ?p??????s??. ?ta? d? a?t??? e?p?? pe?? ?????? ??se?? ?.t.?. These parallels will speak for themselves.

392.Zeitschr. p. 458.

393.See Ginsburg Essenes p. 69 sq.

394.Berakhoth i. 4; see Derenbourg, p. 169 sq.

395.See above, p. 87, note 249.

396.See above, p. 83.

397.Galatians p. 311 sq. See also below, p. 167.

398.See p. 136, note 391.

399.Galatians p. 312, note 1. For another derivation see below, p. 167.

400.Celibacy however is not one of these: comp. Epiphan. HÆr. xix. 1 (p. 40) ?pe????eta? d? t? pa??e???, ?se? d? t?? ?????te?a?, ??a????e? d? ????. In this respect they departed from the original principles of Essenism, alleging, as it would appear, a special revelation (?? d??e? ?p??a???e??) in justification. In like manner marriage is commended in the Clementine Homilies.

401.The important place which the heavenly bodies held in the system of Philo, who regarded them as animated beings, may be seen from GfrÖrer’s Philo I. p. 349 sq.

402.Keim I. p. 289.

403.See Wiesner Schol. zum Babyl. Talm. I. pp. 18, 20.

404.Monatschr. p. 37.

405.Justin Martyr more than once taunts the Jewish rabbis with their reckless encouragement of polygamy. See Dial. 134, p. 363 D, t??? ?s???t??? ?a? t?f???? d?das?????? ???, ??t??e? ?a? ???? ??? ?a? t?ssa?a? ?a? p??te ??e?? ??? ???a??a? ??ast?? s???????s?? ?a? ??? e???f?? t?? ?d?? ?p????s? a?t?? ?.t.?., ib. 141, p. 371 A, B, ?p???? p??tt??s?? ?? ?p? t?? ?????? ??? ?????p??, ?at? p?sa? ??? ???a ?? ?p?d??s?s?? ? p??spef??s?? ???e??? ???at? ???? ???a??a? ?.t.?., with Otto’s note on the first passage.

406.See above, p. 91, note 261.

407.Dial. 85, p. 311 C, ?d? ??t?? ?? ?? ??? ?p????sta? t? t????, ?spe? ?a? t? ????, ???e??? ?????????s? ?a? ????as? ?a? ?atad?s??? ????ta?.

408.Herzfeld, II. p. 392 sq.

409.See above, p. 120.

410.Orient 1849, pp. 489, 537, 553.

411.B.J. i. 3. 5 pa????ta d?? t?? ?e???. In the parallel narrative, Ant. xiii. II. 2, the expression is pa????ta t? ?e???, which does not imply so much; but the less precise notice must be interpreted by the more precise. Even then however it is not directly stated that Judas himself was within the temple area.

412.See above, pp. 89, 134 sq.

413.Ant. xv. 10. 4.

414.Zeller Philosophie der Griechen, Th. III. Abth. 2, p. 281.

415.Diog. Laert. viii. 17; see Zeller l.c. p. 282, note 5. The precept in question occurs among a number of insignificant details, and has no special prominence given to it. In the Life of Apollonius by Philostratus (e.g. vi. 10) considerable stress is laid on the worship of the sun (Zeller l.c. p. 137, note 6); but the syncretism of this late work detracts from its value as representing Pythagorean doctrine.

416.Zeller l.c. p. 68 (comp. I. p. 242). While disputing Zeller’s position, I have freely made use of his references. It is impossible not to admire the mastery of detail and clearness of exposition in this work, even when the conclusions seem questionable.

417.Athen. iv. p. 161, Diog. Laert. viii. 37. See the index to Meineke Fragm. Com. s. vv. p??a???????, etc. The words commonly used by these satirists are p??a?????e??, p??a????st??, p??a????s??. The persons so satirized were probably in many cases not more Pythagoreans than modern teetotallers are Rechabites.

418.Diog. Laert. viii. 24 sq.; see Zeller l.c. p. 74–78.

419.Cic. Tim. I ‘sic judico, post illos nobiles Pythagoreos quorum disciplina extincta est quodammodo, cum aliquot sÆcula in Italia Siciliaque viguisset, hunc exstitisse qui illam renovaret.’

420.Sen. N.Q. vii. 32 ‘Pythagorica illa invidiosa turbÆ schola prÆceptorem non invenit.’

421.N.H. v. 15. The passage is at which Josephus thinks it necessary to insert an account of the Essenes as already flourishing (Ant. xiii. 5. 9), is prior to the revival of the Neopythagorean school. How much earlier the Jewish sect arose, we are without data for determining.

422.See p. 83, note 240.

423.Diog. Laert. viii. 42.

425.l.c. p. 288 sq.

426.l.c. p. 290 sq.

427.See the references in Zeller I. p. 218 sq.; comp. III. 2, p. 67.

428.Keim (Geschichte Jesu von Nazara I. p. 303) refers to Tac. Hist. iii. 24 ‘Undique clamor; et orientem solem (ita in Syria mos est) tertiani salutavere,’ as illustrating this Essene practice. The commentators on Tacitus quote a similar notice of the Parthians in Herodian iv. 15 ?a d? ???? ???s???t? ?f??? ??t?a??? s?? e??st? p???e? st?at??? ?spas?e??? d? t?? ?????, ?? ???? a?t???, ?? ??a??? ?.t.?.

429.See e.g. Vendidad Farg. xix; and the liturgical portions of the book are largely taken up with invocations of these intermediate beings. Some extracts are given in Davies’ Colossians p. 146 sq.

430.Hilgenfeld (Zeitschrift x. p. 99 sq.) finds coincidences even more special than these. He is answered by Zeller (III. 2. p. 276), but defends his position again (Zeitschrift xi. p. 347 sq.), though with no great success. Among other points of coincidence Hilgenfeld remarks on the axe (Jos. B.J. ii. 8. 7) which was given to the novices among the Essenes, and connects it with the ?????a?te?a (Plin. N.H. xxxvi. 19) of the magi. Zeller contents himself with replying that the use of the axe among the Essenes for purposes of divination is a pure conjecture, not resting on any known fact. He might have answered with much more effect that Josephus elsewhere (§ 9) defines it as a spade or shovel, and assigns to it a very different use. Hilgenfeld has damaged his cause by laying stress on these accidental resemblances. So far as regards minor coincidences, Zeller makes out as good a case for his Pythagoreans, as Hilgenfeld for his magians.

431.Those who allow any foreign Oriental element in Essenism most commonly ascribe it to Persia: e.g. among the more recent writers, Hilgenfeld (l.c.) and Lipsius Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexikon s.v. EssÄer p. 189.

432.l.c. p. 275.

433.See Gibbon Decline and Fall c. viii, Milman History of Christianity II. p. 247 sq. The latter speaks of this restoration of Zoroastrianism, as ‘perhaps the only instance of the vigorous revival of a Pagan religion.’ It was far purer and less Pagan than the system which it superseded; and this may account for its renewed life.

434.See MÜller Fragm. Hist. GrÆc. III. p. 53 sq. for this work of Hermippus pe?? ?????. He flourished about B.C. 200. See Max MÜller Lectures on the Science of Language 1st ser. p. 86.

435.Strabo xv. 3. 15 (p. 733) ?? d? t? ?appad???? (p??? ??? ??e? t? t?? ????? f????, ?? ?a? p??a???? ?a????ta?? p???? d? ?a? t?? ?e?s???? ?e?? ?e??) ?.t.?.

436.At least in one instance, Asmodeus (Tob. iii. 17); see M. MÜller Chips from a German Workshop I. p. 148 sq. For the different dates assigned to the book of Tobit see Dr Westcott’s article Tobit in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible p. 1525.

437.Zeitschrift X. p. 103 sq.; comp. XI. p. 351. M. Renan also (Langues SÉmitiques III. iv. 1, Vie de JÉsus p. 98) suggests that Buddhist influences operated in Palestine.

438.X. p. 105 ‘was schon an sich, zumal in dieser Zeit, schwerlich Alexandria ad Caucasum, sondern nur Alexandrien in Aegypten bedeuten kann.’ Comp. XI. p. 351, where he repeats the same argument in reply to Zeller. This is a very natural inference from a western point of view; but, when we place ourselves in the position of a Buddhist writer to whom Bactria was Greece, the relative proportions of things are wholly changed.

439.Die Religion des Buddha I. p. 193.

440.Comp. e.g. Weber Die Verbindungen Indiens mit den LÄndern im Westen p.675 in the Allgem. Monatschr. f. Wissensch. u. Literatur, Braunschweig 1853; Lassen Indische Alterthumskunde II. p. 236; Hardy Manual of Budhism p. 516.

441.For its geographical meaning in older Indian writers see KÖppen l.c. Since then it has entirely departed from its original signification, and Yavana is now a common term used by the Hindoos to designate the Mohammedans. Thus the Greek name has come to be applied to a people which of all others is most unlike the Greeks. This change of meaning admirably illustrates the use of ????? among the Jews, which in like manner, from being the name of an alien nation, became the name of an alien religion, irrespective of nationality: see the note on Gal. ii. 3.

442.Mahawanso p. 171, Turnour’s translation.

443.How for instance, if any such establishment had ever existed at Alexandria, could Strabo have used the language which is quoted in the next note?

444.Consistently with this view, we may allow that single Indians would visit Alexandria from time to time for purposes of trade or for other reasons, and not more than this is required by the rhetorical passage in Dion Chrysost. Or. xxxii (p. 373) ??? ??? ????e ?? ???? ?????a? pa?’ ??? ... ???? ?a? ?a?t????? ?a? S???a? ?a? ???sa? ?a? ??d?? t????. The qualifying t??a? shows how very slight was the communication between India and Alexandria. The mission of PantÆnus may have been suggested by the presence of such stray visitors. Jerome (Vir. Ill. 36) says that he went ‘rogatus ab illius gentis legatis.’ It must remain doubtful however, whether some other region than Hindostan, such as Æthiopia for instance, is not meant, when PantÆnus is said to have gone to India: see Cave’s Lives of the Primitive Fathers p. 188 sq.

How very slight the communication was between India and the West in the early years of the Christian era, appears from this passage of Strabo XV. 1. 4 (p. 686); ?a? ?? ??? d? ?? ????pt?? p????te? ?p?????? t? ?e??? ?a? t? ??a?? ???p? ???? t?? ??d???? sp????? ?? ?a? pe??pep?e??as? ???? t?? G?????, ?a? ??t?? d’ ?d??ta? ?a? ??d?? p??? ?st???a? t?? t?p?? ???s???, after which he goes on to say that the only instance of Indian travellers in the West was the embassy sent to Augustus (see below p. 155), which came ?f’ ???? t?p?? ?a? pa?’ ???? as?????.

The communications between India and the West are investigated by two recent writers, Reinaud Relations Politiques et Commerciales de l’Empire Romain avec l’Asie Centrale, Paris 1863, and Priaulx The Indian Travels of Apollonius of Tyana and the Indian Embassies to Rome, 1873. The latter work, which is very thorough and satisfactory, would have saved me much labour of independent investigation, if I had seen it in time.

445.Strabo XV. 1. 59, p. 712. In the MSS it is written Ga???a?, but this must be an error either introduced by Strabo’s transcribers or found in the copy of Megasthenes which this author used. This is plain not only from the Indian word itself, but also from the parallel passage in Clement of Alexandria (Strom. i. 15). From the coincidences of language it is clear that Clement also derived his information from Megasthenes, whose name he mentions just below. The fragments of Megasthenes relating to the Indian philosophers will be found in MÜller Fragm. Hist. GrÆc. II. p. 437. They were previously edited by Schwanbeck, Megasthenis Indica (BonnÆ 1846).

For Sa???a? we also find the form Saa?a??? in other writers; e.g. Clem. Alex. l.c., Bardesanes in Porphyr. de Abstin. iv. 17, Orig. c. Cels. i. 19 (I. p. 342). This divergence is explained by the fact that the Pali word sammana corresponds to the Sanskrit sramana. See Schwanbeck, l.c. p. 17, quoted by MÜller p. 437.

It should be borne in mind however, that several eminent Indian scholars believe Megasthenes to have meant not Buddhists but Brahmins by his Sa???a?. So for instance Lassen Rhein. Mus. 1833, p. 180 sq., Ind. Alterth. II. p. 700: and Prof. Max MÜller (Pref. to Rogers’s Translation of Buddhaghosha’s Parables, London 1870, p. lii) says; ‘That Lassen is right in taking the Sa???a?, mentioned by Megasthenes, for Brahmanic, not for Buddhist ascetics, might be proved also by their dress. Dresses made of the bark of trees are not Buddhistic.’ If this opinion be correct, the earlier notices of Buddhism in Greek writers entirely disappear, and my position is strengthened. But for the following reasons the other view appears to me more probable: (1) The term sramana is the common term for the Buddhist ascetic, whereas it is very seldom used of the Brahmin.

(2) The ???a??? (another form of sramana), mentioned below p. 156, note 450, appears to have been a Buddhist. This view is taken even by Lassen, Ind. Alterth. III. p. 60.

(3) The distinction of ??a???e? and Sa???a? in Megasthenes or the writers following him corresponds to the distinction of ??a???e? and Saa?a??? in Bardesanes, Origen, and others; and, as Schwanbeck has shown (l.c.), the account of the Sa???a? in Megasthenes for the most part is a close parallel to the account of the Saa?a??? in Bardesanes (or at least in Porphyry’s report of Bardesanes). It seems more probable therefore that Megasthenes has been guilty of confusion in describing the dress of the Sa???a?, than that Brahmins are intended by the term.

The Pali form, Saa?a???, as a designation of the Buddhists, first occurs in Clement of Alexandria or Bardesanes, whichever may be the earlier writer. It is generally ascribed to Alexander Polyhistor, who flourished B.C. 80–60, because his authority is quoted by Cyril of Alexandria (c. Julian. iv. p. 133) in the same context in which the Saa?a??? are mentioned. This inference is drawn by Schwanbeck, Max MÜller, Lassen, and others. An examination of Cyril’s language however shows that the statement for which he quotes the authority of Alexander Polyhistor does not extend to the mention of the SamanÆi. Indeed all the facts given in this passage of Cyril (including the reference to Polyhistor) are taken from Clement of Alexandria (Strom. i. 15; see the next note), whose account Cyril has abridged. It is possible indeed that Clement himself derived the statement from Polyhistor, but nothing in Clement’s own language points to this.

446.The narrative of Bardesanes is given by Porphyry de Abst. iv. 17. The Buddhist ascetics are there called Saa?a??? (see the last note). The work of Bardesanes, recounting his conversations with these Indian ambassadors, is quoted again by Porphyry in a fragment preserved by StobÆus Ecl. iii. 56 (p. 141). In this last passage the embassy is said to have arrived ?p? t?? as??e?a? t?? ??t?????? t?? ?? ??s??, by which, if the words be correct, must be meant Elagabalus (A.D. 218–222), the spurious Antonine (see Hilgenfeld Bardesanes p. 12 sq.). Other ancient authorities however place Bardesanes in the reign of one of the older Antonines; and, as the context is somewhat corrupt, we cannot feel quite certain about the date. Bardesanes gives by far the most accurate account of the Buddhists to be found in any ancient Greek writer; but even here the monstrous stories, which the Indian ambassadors related to him, show how little trustworthy such sources of information were.

447.Except possibly Arrian, Ind. viii. 1, who mentions an ancient Indian king, Budyas (???d?a?) by name; but what he relates of him is quite inconsistent with the history of Buddha, and probably some one else is intended.

448.In this passage (Strom. i. 15, p. 359) Clement apparently mentions these same persons three times, supposing that he is describing three different schools of Oriental philosophers. (1) He speaks of Saa?a??? ???t??? (comp. Cyrill. Alex. l.c.); (2) He distinguishes two classes of Indian gymnosophists, whom he calls Sa???a? and ??a???a?. These are Buddhists and Brahmins respectively (see p. 153, note 445); (3) He says afterwards e?s? d? t?? ??d?? ?? t??? ???tta pe???e??? pa?a????as??, ?? d?’ ?pe????? se??t?t?? e?? [???] ?e?? tet???as?. Schwanbeck indeed maintains that Clement here intends to describe the same persons whom he has just mentioned as Sa???a?; but this is not the natural interpretation of his language, which must mean ‘There are also among the Indians those who obey the precepts of Buddha.’ Probably Schwanbeck is right in identifying the Sa???a? with the Buddhist ascetics, but Clement appears not to have known this. In fact he has obtained his information from different sources, and so repeated himself without being aware of it. Where he got the first fact it is impossible to say. The second, as we saw, was derived from Megasthenes. The third, relating to Buddha, came, as we may conjecture, either from PantÆnus (if indeed Hindostan is really meant by the India of his missionary labours) or from some chance Indian visitor at Alexandria.

In another passage (Strom. iii. 7, p. 539) Clement speaks of certain Indian celibates and ascetics, who are called Se???. As he distinguishes them from the gymnosophists, and mentions the pyramid as a sacred building with them, the identification with the Buddhists can hardly be doubted. Here therefore Se??? is a Grecized form of Saa?a???; and this modification of the word would occur naturally to Clement, because se???, se?e???, were already used of the ascetic life: e.g. Philo de Vit. Cont. 3 (p. 475 M) ?e??? ? ?a?e?ta? se?e??? ?a? ??ast????? ?? ? ????e??? t? t?? se??? ??? ?st???a te????ta?.

449.HÆr. i. 24.

450.The chief authority is Nicolaus of Damascus in Strabo xv. i. 73 (p. 270). The incident is mentioned also in Dion Cass. liv. 9. Nicolaus had met these ambassadors at Antioch, and gives an interesting account of the motley company and their strange presents. This fanatic, who was one of the number, immolated himself in the presence of an astonished crowd, and perhaps of the emperor himself, at Athens. He anointed himself and then leapt smiling on the pyre. The inscription on his tomb was ?a?a??????? ??d?? ?p? ?a???s?? ?at? t? p?t??a ??d?? ??? ?a?t?? ?pa?a?at?sa? ?e?ta?. The tomb was visible at least as late as the age of Plutarch, who recording the self-immolation of Calanus before Alexander (Vit. Alex. 69) says, t??t? p?????? ?tes?? ?ste??? ????? ??d?? ?? ????a?? ?a?sa?? s???? ?p???se, ?a? de????ta? ???? ??? t? ??e??? ??d?? p??sa???e??e???. Strabo also places the two incidents in conjunction in another passage in which he refers to this person, xv. 1. 4 (p. 686) ? ?ata?a?sa? ?a?t?? ?????s? s?f?st?? ??d??, ?a??pe? ?a? ? ???a??? ?.t.?.

The reasons for supposing this person to have been a Buddhist, rather than a Brahmin, are: (1) The name ?a?a??????? (which appears with some variations in the MSS of Strabo), being apparently the Indian sramanakarja, i.e. ‘teacher of the ascetics,’ in other words, a Buddhist priest; (2) The place Bargosa, i.e. Barygaza, where Buddhism flourished in that age. See Priaulx p. 78 sq. In Dion Cassius it is written ???a???.

And have we not here an explanation of 1 Cor. xiii. 3, if ??a ?a???s?a? be the right reading? The passage, being written before the fires of the Neronian persecution, requires explanation. Now it is clear from Plutarch that the ‘Tomb of the Indian’ was one of the sights shown to strangers at Athens: and the Apostle, who observed the altar a????t?? ?e??, was not likely to overlook the sepulchre with the strange inscription ea?t?? apa?a?at??a? ?e?ta?. Indeed the incident would probably be pressed on his notice in his discussions with Stoics and Epicureans, and he would be forced to declare himself as to the value of these Indian self-immolations, when he preached the doctrine of self-sacrifice. We may well imagine therefore that the fate of this poor Buddhist fanatic was present to his mind when he penned the words ?a? ??? pa?ad? t? s?? ?? ... ???p?? d? ? ???, ??d?? ?fe???a?. Indeed it would furnish an almost equally good illustration of the text, whether we read ?? ?a???s?a? or ??a ?a???s?a?. Dion Cassius (l.c.) suggests that the deed was done ?p? f???t??a? or e?? ?p?de????. How much attention these religious suicides of the Indians attracted in the Apostolic age (doubtless because the act of this Buddhist priest had brought the subject vividly before men’s minds in the West), we may infer from the speech which Josephus puts in the mouth of Eleazar (B.J. vii. 8. 7), ????e? e?? ??d??? t??? s?f?a? ?s???? ?p?s????????? ... ?? d? ... p??? t? s?a pa?ad??te?, ?p?? d? ?a? ?a?a??t?t?? ?p??????s? t?? s?at?? t?? ?????, ????e??? te?e?t?s? ... ??’ ??? ??? a?d??e?a ?e???? ??d?? f??????te?;

451.In the reign of Claudius an embassy arrived from Taprobane (Ceylon); and from these ambassadors Pliny derived his information regarding the island, N.H. vi. 24. Respecting their religion however he says only two words ‘coli Herculem,’ by whom probably Rama is meant (Priaulx p. 116). From this and other statements it appears that they were Tamils and not Singalese, and thus belonged to the non-Buddhist part of the island; see Priaulx p. 91 sq.

452.Even its influence on Manicheism however is disputed in a learned article in the Home and Foreign Review III. p. 143 sq. (1863), by Mr P. Le Page Renouf (see Academy 1873, p. 399).

453.De Quincey’s attempt to prove that the Essenes were actually Christians (Works VI p. 270 sq., IX p. 253 sq.), who used the machinery of an esoteric society to inculcate their doctrines ‘for fear of the Jews,’ is conceived in a wholly different spirit from the theories of the writers mentioned in the text; but it is even more untenable and does not deserve serious refutation.

454.GrÄtz III p. 217.

455.Ginsburg Essenes p. 24.

456.See above, p. 130.

457.Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.

458.This fact is fully recognised by several recent writers, who will not be suspected of any undue bias towards traditional views of Christian history. Thus Lipsius writes (p. 190), ‘In the general development of Jewish life Essenism occupies a far more subordinate place than is commonly ascribed to it.’ And Keim expresses himself to the same effect (I. p. 305). Derenbourg also, after using similar language, adds this wise caution, ‘In any case, in the present state of our acquaintance with the Essenes, which is so imperfect and has no chance of being extended, the greatest prudence is required of science, if she prefers to be true rather than adventurous, if she has at heart rather to enlighten than to surprise’ (p. 461). Even GrÄtz in one passage can write soberly on this subject: ‘The Essenes had throughout no influence on political movements, from which they held aloof as far as possible’ (III. p. 86).

459.These are (1) Matt. iii. 7; (2) Matt. xvi. 1 sq.; (3) Matt. xxii. 23 sq., Mark xii. 18, Luke xx. 27.

460.See above p. 86.

461.GrÄtz III. p. 220.

462.t? ???????t????, Joseph. B.J. ii. 8. 3. See also Philo Fragm. 632 ?p?? t?? ?????fe????, and the context.

463.Ewald (VI. p. 649) regards this Banus as representing an extravagant development of the school of John, and thus supplying a link between the real teaching of the Baptist and the doctrine of the Hemerobaptists professing to be derived from him.

464.The passage is so important that I give it in full; Joseph. Vit. 2 pe?? ???a?de?a d? ?t? ?e??e??? ???????? t?? pa?’ ??? a???se?? ?pe???a? ?ae??. t?e?? d’ e?s?? a?ta?? Fa??sa??? ?? ? p??t?, ?a? Sadd???a??? ? de?t??a, t??t? d? ? ?ss????, ?a??? p??????? e?pae?. ??t?? ??? ???? a???ses?a? t?? ???st??, e? p?sa? ?ata?????. s????a????sa? ???? ?a?t?? ?a? p???? p????e?? t?? t?e?? d??????. ?a? ?d? t?? ??te??e? ?pe???a? ??a??? ?a?t? ???sa? e??a?, p???e??? t??a ?a???? ???a ?at? t?? ????a? d?at??e??, ?s??t? ?? ?p? d??d??? ???e???, t??f?? d? t?? a?t??t?? f?????? p??sfe??e???, ????? d? ?dat? t?? ???a? ?a? t?? ???ta p??????? ????e??? p??? ???e?a?, ????t?? ??e???? a?t??. ?a? d?at???a? pa?’ a?t? ???a?t??? t?e?? ?a? t?? ?p????a? te?e??sa? e?? t?? p???? ?p?st?ef??. ???ea?a?de?a d’ ?t? ???? ?????? te p???te?es?a? t? Fa??sa??? a???se? ?ata???????? ?.t.?.

465.Matt. ix. 14 sq., xi. 17 sq., Mark ii. 18 sq., Luke v. 33, vii. 31 sq.

466.The word ?e??apt?sta? is generally taken to mean ‘daily-bathers,’ and this meaning is suggested by Apost. Const. vi. 6 ??t??e?, ?a?’ (e??st?? ???a? ??? ? apt?s??ta?, ??? ?s????s??, ib. 23 ??t? ?a??e????? ?? ???? d??? ?pt?sa, Epiphan. HÆr. xvii. 1 (p. 37) e? ? t? ?pa ?a?’ ???st?? ???a? apt????t? t?? ?? ?dat?. But, if the word is intended as a translation of Toble-shacharith ‘morning bathers,’ as it seems to be, it must signify rather ‘day-bathers’; and this is more in accordance with the analogy of other compounds from ???a, as ?e?????, ?e??d????, ?e??s??p??, etc.

Josephus (B.J. ii. 8. 5) represents the Essenes as bathing, not at dawn, but at the fifth hour, just before their meal. This is hardly consistent either with the name of the Toble-shacharith, or with the Talmudical anecdote of them quoted above p. 132. Of Banus he reports (Vit. 2) that he ‘bathed often day and night in cold water.’

467.See above p. 132.

468.The former expression is used of Apollos, Acts xviii. 24; the latter of ‘certain disciples,’ Acts xix. 1.

469.This appears from the whole narrative, but is distinctly stated in ver. 25, as correctly read, ?d?das?e? ?????? t? pe?? t?? ??s??, not t?? ?????? as in the received text.

470.The p?ste?sa?te? in xix. 1 is slightly ambiguous, and some expressions in the passage might suggest the opposite: but a??t?? seems decisive, for the word would not be used absolutely except of Christian disciples; comp. vi. 1, 2, 7, ix. 10, 19, 26, 38, and frequently.

471.John i. 8.

472.John v. 35 ??e???? ?? ? ?????? ? ?a??e??? ?a? fa???? ?.t.?. The word ?a?e?? is not only ‘to burn,’ but not unfrequently also ‘to kindle, to set on fire,’ as e.g. Xen. Anab. iv. 4. 12 ?? ????? ??ast??te? p?? ??a???, so that ? ?a??e??? may mean either ‘which burns away’ or ‘which is lighted.’ With the former meaning it would denote the transitoriness, with the latter the derivative character, of John’s ministry. There seems no reason for excluding either idea here. Thus the whole expression would mean ‘the lamp which is kindled and burns away, and (only so) gives light.’ For an example of two verbs or participles joined together, where the second describes a result conditional upon the first, see 1 Pet. ii. 20 e? ?a?t????te? ?a? ???af???e??? ?p?e?e?te ... e? ??a??p?????te? ?a? p?s???te? ?p?e?e?te, 1 Thess. iv. 1 p?? de? pe??pate?? ?a? ???s?e?? Te?.

473.See John i. 15–34, iii. 23–30, v. 33 sq.: comp. x. 41, 42. This aspect of St John’s Gospel has been brought out by Ewald Jahrb. der Bibl. Wissensch. III. p. 156 sq.; see also Geschichte VII. p. 152 sq., die Johanneischen Schriften p. 13. There is perhaps an allusion to these ‘disciples of John’ in 1 Joh. v. 6 ??? ?? t? ?dat? ????, ???’ ?? t? ?dat? ?a? ?? t? ??at?? ?a? t? p?e?a ?.t.?.; comp. Acts i. 5, xi. 16, xix. 4.

474.Apost. Const. vi. 6; comp. § 23. See p. 162, note 2.

475.Clem. Recogn. i. 54 ‘ex discipulis Johannis, qui ... magistrum suum veluti Christum praedicarunt,’ ib. § 60 ‘Ecce unus ex discipulis Johannis adfirmabat Christum Johannem fuisse, et non Jesum; in tantum, inquit, ut et ipse Jesus omnibus hominibus et prophetis majorem esse pronuntiaverit Johannem etc.’; see also § 63.

476.See above p. 96.

477.Clem. Recogn. l.c. This portion of the Clementine Recognitions is apparently taken from an older Judaizing romance, the Ascents of James (see Galatians pp. 316, 349). Hegesippus also (in Euseb. H.E. iv. 22) mentions the Hemerobaptists in his list of Jewish sects; and it is not improbable that this list was given as an introduction to his account of the labours and martyrdom of St James (see Euseb. H.E. ii. 23). If so, it was probably derived from the same source as the notice in the Recognitions.

478.They are called Baptists by Justin Mart. Dial. 10, p. 307 A. He mentions them among other Jewish sects, without however alluding to John.

479.By the author of the Recognitions (l.c.) who denies the claim; and by the author of the Homilies (see below p. 166, note 482), who allows it.

480.These Mandeans are a rapidly diminishing sect living in the region about the Tigris and the Euphrates, south of Bagdad. Our most exact knowledge of them is derived from Petermann (Herzog’s Real-EncyklopÄdie s. vv. MendÄer, Zabier, and Deutsche Zeitschrift 1854 p. 181 sq. 1856 p. 331 sq., 342 sq., 363 sq., 386 sq.) who has had personal intercourse with them; and from Chwolson (die Ssabier u. der Ssabismus I. p. 100 sq.) who has investigated the Arabic authorities for their earlier history. The names by which they are known are (1) Mendeans, or more properly Mandeans, ?????? Mandaye, contracted from ???? ????? Manda dechaye ‘the word of life.’ This is their own name among themselves, and points to their Gnostic pretentions. (2) Sabeans, Tsabiyun, possibly from the root ??? ‘to dip’ on account of their frequent lustrations (Chwolson I. p. 110; but see Galatians p. 312), though this is not the derivation of the word which they themselves adopt, and other etymologies have found favour with some recent writers (see Petermann Herzog’s Real-Encykl. Suppl. XVIII. p. 342 s.v. Zabier). This is the name by which they are known in the Koran and in Arabic writers, and by which they call themselves when speaking to others. (3) Nasoreans, ??????? Natsoraye. This term is at present confined to those among them who are distinguished in knowledge or in business. (4) ‘Christians of St John, or Disciples of St John’ (i.e. the Baptist). This name is not known among themselves, and was incorrectly given to them by European travellers and missionaries. At the same time John the Baptist has a very prominent place in their theological system, as the one true prophet. On the other hand they are not Christians in any sense.

These Mandeans, the true Sabeans, must not be confused with the false Sabeans, polytheists and star-worshippers, whose locality is Northern Mesopotamia. Chwolson (I. p. 139 sq.) has shown that these last adopted the name in the 9th century to escape persecution from the Mohammedans, because in the Koran the Sabeans, as monotheists, are ranged with the Jews and Christians, and viewed in a more favourable light than polytheists. The name however has generally been applied in modern times to the false rather than to the true Sabeans.

481.See p. 96 sq.

482.Hegesipp. in Euseb. H.E. iv. 22, Apost. Const. vi. 6. So also the Pseudo-Hieronymus in the Indiculus de HÆresibus (Corp. HÆres. I. p. 283, ed. Oehler).

483.Clem. Hom. ii. 23 ??????? t?? ????et? ?e??apt?st??, ?? ?a? t?? ?????? ??? ??s?? ?at? t?? t?? s?????a? ????? ????et? p???d??. It is then stated that, as Christ had twelve leading disciples, so John had thirty. This, it is argued, was a providential dispensation—the one number represents the solar, the other the lunar period; and so they illustrate another point in this writer’s theory, that in the syzygies the true and the false are the male and female principle respectively. Among these 30 disciples he places Simon Magus. With this the doctrine of the Mandeans stands in direct opposition. They too have their syzygies, but John with them represents the true principle.

484.HÆr. xvii. 1 (p. 37) ?sa t?? ??aat??? ?a? Fa??sa??? f?????sa. But he adds that they resemble the Sadducees ‘not only in the matter of the resurrection of the dead, but also in their unbelief and in the other points.’

485.See Galatians p. 311 sq. on this Book of Elchesai.

486.See above p. 137.

487.See Chwolson I. p. 112 sq., II. p. 543 sq. The Arabic writer En-Nedim, who lived towards the close of the tenth century, says that the founder of the Sabeans (i.e. Mandeans) was El-chasaich (??????lhsh) the doctrine of two coordinate principles, the male and female. This notice, as far as it goes, agrees with the account of Elchesai or Elxai in Hippolytus (HÆr. ix. 13 sq.) and Epiphanius (HÆr. xix. 1 sq.). But the derivation of the name Elchesai given by Epiphanius (HÆr. xix. 2) d??a?? ?e?a????? (??? ???) is different and probably correct (see Galatians p. 312).

489.See Galatians p. 348 sq.

490.See Galatians p. 311.

491.Clem. Hom. xii. 6, where St Peter is made to say ??t? ??? ?a? ??a?a?? ???a?, ?a? spa???? ?a??????; comp. xv. 7 ?dat?? ???? ?a? ??t??.

492.Clem. Alex. PÆdag. ii. 1 (p. 174) spe??t?? ?a? ????d???? ?a? ?a????? ??e? ??e?? ete?a.a?e?.

493.See Galatians p. 349, note.

494.Epiphanius (HÆr. xxx. 16) mentions two points especially, in which the character of this work is shown: (1) It represented James as condemning the sacrifices and the fire on the altar (see above pp. 134–136): (2) It published the most unfounded calumnies against St Paul.

495.Lipsius, Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexicon, p. 191.

496.Rom. xiv. 2, 21.

497.See Galatians p. 310 sq.

498.GrÄtz (III. p. 233) considers this narrative an interpolation made from a Pauline point of view (‘eine paulinistische Tendenz-interpolation’). This theory of interpolation, interposing wherever the evidence is unfavourable, cuts up all argument by the roots. In this instance however GrÄtz is consistently carrying out a principle, which he broadly lays down elsewhere. He regards it as the great merit of Baur and his school, that they explained the origin of the Gospels by the conflict of two opposing camps, the Ebionite and the Pauline. ‘By this master-key,’ he adds, ‘criticism was first put in a position to test what is historical in the Gospels, and what bears the stamp of a polemical tendency (was einen tendentiÖsen polemischen Charakter hat). Indeed by this means the element of trustworthy history in the Gospels melts down to a minimum’ (III. p. 224). In other words the judgment is not to be pronounced upon the evidence, but the evidence must be mutilated to suit the judgment. The method is not new. The sectarians of the second century, whether Judaic or anti-Judaic, had severally their ‘master-key.’ The master-key of Marcion was a conflict also—the antagonism of the Old and New Testaments. Under his hands the historical element in the New Testament dissolved rapidly. The master-key of the anti-Marcionite writer of the Clementine Homilies was likewise a conflict, though of another kind—the conflict of fire and water, of the sacrificial and the baptismal systems. Wherever sacrifice was mentioned with approval, there was a ‘Tendenz-interpolation’ (see above p. 136). In this manner again the genuine element in the Old Testament melted down to a minimum.

499.GrÄtz however (III. p. 228) sees a coincidence between Christ’s teaching and Essenism in this notice. Not to do him injustice, I will translate his own words (correcting however several misprints in the Greek): ‘For the connexion of Jesus with the Essenes compare moreover Mark xi. 16 ?a? ??? ?f?e? ? ??s??? ??a t?? d?e????? s?e??? d?? t?? ?e??? with Josephus B.J. ii. 8. 9 ???’ ??d? s?e??? t? eta????sa? ?a????s?? ?? ?ssa???.’ He does not explain what this notice, which refers solely to the scrupulous observance of the sabbath, has to do with the profanation of the temple, with which the passage in the Gospel is alone concerned. I have seen GrÄtz’s history described as a ‘masterly’ work. The first requisites in a historian are accuracy in stating facts and sobriety in drawing inferences. Without these, it is difficult to see what claims a history can have to this honourable epithet: and in those portions of his work, which I have consulted, I have not found either.

500.See above p. 87.

501.Matt. xi. 19, Luke vii. 34.

502.Ginsburg Essenes p. 14.

503.1 Cor. vii. 26–31.

504.See p. 134 sq.

505.Matt. xxi. 12 sq., 23 sq., xxiv. 1 sq., xxvi. 55, Mark xi. 11, 15 sq., 27, xii. 35, xiii. 1 sq., xiv. 49, Luke ii. 46, xix. 45, xx. 1 sq., xxi. 37 sq., xxii. 53, John ii. 14 sq., v. 14, vii. 14, viii. 2, 20, 59, x. 23, xi. 56, xviii. 20.

506.Luke xxiv. 53, Acts ii. 46, iii. 1 sq., v. 20 sq., 42.

507.Matt. xxiii. 18 sq.: comp. v. 23, 24.

508.Matt. viii. 4, Mark i. 44, Luke v. 14.

509.Matt. ix. 13, xii. 7.

510.See above p. 88.

511.Jos. B.J. ii. 8. 6 p?? t? ????? ?p’ a?t?? ?s????te??? ?????? t? d? ???e?? a?t??? pe???stata?, ?e???? t? t?? ?p?????a? ?p??a????te?? ?d? ??? ?ate???s?a? fas? t?? ?p?st??e??? d??a ?e??, Philo Omn. prob. lib. 12 (II. p. 458) t?? f??????? de??ata pa?????ta? ???a ... t? ????t?? ?.t.?. Accordingly Josephus relates (Ant. xv. 10. 4) that Herod the Great excused the Essenes from taking the oath of allegiance to him. Yet they were not altogether true to their principles; for Josephus says (B.J. ii. 8. 7), that on initiation into the sect the members were bound by fearful oaths (?????? f????de??) to fulfil certain conditions; and he twice again in the same passage mentions oaths (?????s?, t????t??? ??????) in this connexion.

512.On the distinctions which the Jewish doctors made between the validity of different kinds of oaths, see the passages quoted in Lightfoot and SchÖttgen on Matt. v. 33 sq. The Talmudical tract Shebhuoth tells its own tale, and is the best comment on the precepts in the Sermon on the Mount.

513.See e.g. the passages in Wetstein on Matt. v. 37.

514.Baba Metsia 49 a. See also Lightfoot on Matt. v. 34.

515.514: Acts v. 4.

516.Philo Omn. prob. lib. § 12 (II. p. 458) d????? te pa?’ a?t??? ??d? e?? ?st?? ???’ ??e??e??? p??te? ?.t.?., Fragm. II. p. 632 ??? ??d??p?d??, Jos. Ant. xviii. I. 5 ??te d????? ?p?t?de???s? ?t?s??.

517.See for instance the passages from Seneca quoted in Philippians p. 305.

518.Is. lxi. I. e?a??e??sas?a? pt?????, quoted in Luke iv. 18. There are references to this particular part of the prophecy again in Matt. xi. 5, Luke vii. 22, and probably also in the beatitude a?????? ?? pt???? ?.t.?., Matt. v. 3, Luke vi. 20.

519.GrÄtz Gesch. III. p. 219.

520.ib. p. 470.

521.Lipsius Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexikon s.v. EssÄer p. 190, Keim Jesus von Nazara I. p. 305. Both these writers express themselves very decidedly against the view maintained by GrÄtz. ‘The Essene art of soothsaying,’ writes Lipsius, ‘has absolutely nothing to do with the Messianic prophecy. ‘Of all this,’ says Keim,‘there is no trace.’

522.Keim l.c.

523.How little can be made out of Philo’s Messianic utterances by one who is anxious to make the most possible out of them, may be seen from GfrÖrer’s treatment of the subject, Philo I. p. 486 sq. The treatises which bear on this topic are the de PrÆmiis et Poenis (I. p. 408, ed. Mangey) and the de Execrationibus (I. p. 429). They deserve to be read, if only for the negative results which they yield.

524.Joh. xiv. 6, Acts iv. 12, Joh. iii. 36.

525.I am indebted for the term theanthropism, as describing the substance of the new dispensation, to an article by Prof. Westcott in the Contemporary Review IV. p. 417 (December, 1867); but it has been used independently, though in very rare instances, by other writers. The value of terms such as I have employed here in fixing ideas is enhanced by their strangeness, and will excuse any appearance of affectation.

In applying the terms theanthropism and soteriology to the New Testament, as distinguished from the Old, it is not meant to suggest that the ideas involved in them were wholly wanting in the Old, but only to indicate that the conceptions, which were inchoate and tentative and subsidiary in the one, attain the most prominent position and are distinctly realised in the other.

526.ii. 20, 22.

527.iii. 1 sq.

528.ii. 11 ?? t? ?pe?d?se? t?? s?at?? t?? sa????, iii. 5 ?e???sate ??? t? ??? with ver. 8 ???? d? ?p??es?e ?a? ?e?? t? p??ta, and ver. 9 ?pe?d?s?e??? t?? pa?a??? ?????p??. See the notes on the several passages.

529.1 Thess. i. 1, v. 28.

530.1 Cor. viii. 6 d?’ ?? t? p??ta ?a? ?e?? d?’ a?t??. The expression d?’ ?? implies the conception of the Logos, even where the term itself is not used. See the dissertation on the doctrine of the Logos in the Apostolic writers.

531.Joh. i. 3 p??ta d?’ a?t?? ????et? ?.t.?., Heb. i. 2 d?’ ?? ?a? ?p???se? t??? a???a?.

532.The remarks on the theology of the Apostolic Fathers, as compared with the Apostles, in Dorner’s Lehre von der Person Christi I. p. 130 sq. seem to me perfectly just and highly significant. See also de PressensÉ Trois Premiers SiÈcles II. p. 406 sq. on the unsystematic spirit of the Apostolic Fathers.

533.See for instance the passages quoted in the note on Clem. Rom. 2 t? pa??ata a?t??.

534.The unguarded language of Justin for instance illustrates the statement in the text. On the one hand Petavius, Theol. Dogm. de Trin. ii. 3. 2, distinctly accuses him of Arianism: on the other Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. ii. 4. 1 sq., indignantly repudiates the charge and claims him as strictly orthodox. Petavius indeed approaches the subject from the point of view of later Western theology and, unable to appreciate Justin’s doctrine of the Logos, does less than justice to this father; but nevertheless Justin’s language is occasionally such as no Athanasian could have used. The treatment of this father by Dorner (Lehre I. p. 414 sq.) is just and avoids both extremes.

535. The references to the patristic quotations in the following pages have all been verified. I have also consulted the Egyptian and Syriac Versions in every case, and the Armenian and Latin in some instances, before giving the readings. As regards the MSS, I have contented myself with the collations as given in Tregelles and Tischendorf, not verifying them unless I had reason to suspect an error.

The readings of the Memphitic Version are very incorrectly given even by the principal editors, such as Tregelles and Tischendorf; the translation of Wilkins being commonly adopted, though full of errors, and no attention being paid to the various readings of Boetticher’s text. Besides the errors corrected in the following pages, I have also observed these places where the text of this version is incorrectly reported; ii. 7 ?? a?t? not omitted; ii. 13 the second ??? not omitted; ii. 17 the singular (?), not the plural (?); iii. 4 ???, not ???; iii. 16 t? Te?, not t? ?????; iii. 22 t?? ??????, not t?? Te??; iv. 3 doubtful whether d?’ ? or d?’ ??; and probably there are others.

536.In this passage B (with some few other authorities) has t?? Te?? for t?? ???st??, thus substituting a commoner expression (ii. 2, 1 Cor. iv. 1, Rev. x. 7; comp. 1 Cor. ii. 1, v.l.) for a less common (Ephes. iii. 4).

537.It is true that in the text (Spicil. Solesm. I. p. 123, Rab. Maur. Op. VII. p. 539, Migne) he is credited with the later Latin reading ut cognoscat quÆ circa vos sunt, but his comment implies the other; ‘Quoniam omnia vobis nota faciet Tychicus illa quÆ erga me sunt, propterea a me directus est cum Onesimo fratre qui a vobis venerat, ut nota vobis faciant quÆ erga nos sunt [= ???te t? pe?? ???] et oblectent vos per suum adventum [= ?a? pa?a?a??s? t?? ?a?d?a? ???], omnia quÆ hic aguntur manifesta facientes vobis.’ See Spicil. Solesm. l.c.; the comment is mutilated in Rab. Maur. Op. l.c.

538.In the text; but in the commentary he is made to write ??a ??? ???, f?s?, t? pe?? ???, an impossible reading.

539.More probably the latter. In Rom. xvi the terminations -a and ?? for the feminine and masculine names respectively are carefully reproduced in the Harclean Version. In ver. 15 indeed we have Julias, but the translator doubtless considered the name to be a contraction for Julianus. The proper Syriac termination -a seems only to be employed for the Greek -a? in very familiar names such as Barnaba, Luka.

540.The meaning of this word p????a is the subject of a paper De vocis p????a vario sensu in N. T. in Storr’s Opusc. Acad. I. p. 144 sq., and of an elaborate note in Fritzsche’s Rom. II. p. 469 sq. Storr attempts to show that it always has an active sense ‘id quod implet’ in the New Testament. Fritzsche rightly objects to assigning a persistently active sense to a word which has a directly passive termination: and he himself attributes to it two main senses, ‘id quod impletur’ and ‘id quo res impletur’, the latter being the more common. He apparently considers that he has surmounted the difficulties involved in Storr’s view, for he speaks of this last as a passive sense, though in fact it is nothing more than ‘id quod implet’ expressed in other words. In Rom. xiii. 10 p????a ???? he concedes an active sense ‘legis completio’, h. e. ‘observatio’.

541.The English word complement has two distinct senses. It is either (i) the complete set, the entire quantity or number, which satisfies a given standard or cadre, as e.g. the complement of a regiment; or (ii) the number or quantity which, when added to a preexisting number or quantity, produces completeness; as e.g. the complement of an angle, i.e. the angle by which it falls short of being a complete right angle. In other words, it is either the whole or the part. As a theological term, p????a corresponds to the first of these two senses; and with this meaning alone the word ‘complement’ will be used in the following dissertation.

542.The first of the two passages is contained in the short Syriac recension of the Ignatian Epistles, though loosely translated; the other is wanting there. I need not stop to enquire whether the second was written by St Ignatius himself or by an interpolator. The interpolated epistles, if they be interpolated, can hardly be later than the middle of the second century and are therefore early enough to afford valuable illustrations of the Apostles’ language.

543.The common texts read ?a? p????at?, but there can be little doubt (from a comparison of the authorities) that ?a? should be struck out. The present Syriac text has et perfectÆ for p????at?; but there is no reason for supposing that the Syriac translator had another reading before him. A slight change in the Syriac, ???????bswmlia for ???????wmsmlia, would bring this Version into entire accordance with the Greek; and the confusion was the more easy, because the latter word occurs in the immediate context. Or the translator may have indulged in a paraphrase according to his wont; just as in the longer Latin Version p????at? here is translated repletÆ.

544.See the notes on Col. i. 15 sq.

545.de PrÆm. et PÆn. 18 (II. p. 425). The important words are ?? ??ast?? ????? p????a e??a? p???a????p?? s???e?e?a?, ?de??? ???e?f???t?? ? ????? ? ???at?? t?? ?sa ?p?f???eta? ?.t.?. The construction of the subsequent part of the sentence is obscure; and for ?????? we should probably read ?????.

546.Arist. Pol. iv. 4 (p. 1291).

547.See the notes on Col. ii. 19 (p. 266).

548.Ephes. v. 27 sq.

549.The Apostle in this passage (Ephes. iv. 13) is evidently contemplating the collective body, and not the individual believers. He writes ?? p??te?, not p??te?, and ??d?a t??e???, not ??d?a? te??????. As he has said before ??? ???st? ??? ?d??? [?] ????? ?at? t? ?t??? t?? d??e?? t?? ???st??, so now he describes the result of these various partial graces bestowed on individuals to be the unity and mature growth of the whole, ‘the building up of the body’, e??? ?ata?t?s?e? ?? p??te? e?? t?? ???t?ta ... e?? ??d?a t??e???, e?? ?t??? ?????a? t?? p????at?? t?? ???st??. This corporate being must grow up into the one colossal Man, the standard of whose spiritual and moral stature is nothing less than the pleroma of Christ Himself.

550.Matt. v. 48.

551.iii. 16. 1 ‘Quoniam autem sunt qui dicunt Iesum quidem receptaculum Christi fuisse, in quem desuper quasi columbam descendisse, et quum indicasset innominabilem Patrem, incomprehensibiliter et invisibiliter intrasse in pleroma’.

552.i. 26. 1 ‘post baptismum descendisse in eum ab ea principalitate, quÆ est super omnia, Christum figura columbÆ; et tunc annuntiasse incognitum Patrem et virtutes perfecisse: in fine autem revolasse iterum Christum de Iesu et Iesum passum esse et resurrexisse, etc.’

553.iii. 11. 1 ‘iterum revolasse in suum pleroma’. This expression is the connecting link between the other two passages. This third passage is quoted more at length, above, p. 112: but I ought to have stated there that illi is referred by several critics to the Valentinians, and that certainly some characteristic errors of the Valentinian teaching are specified immediately after. The probable explanation seems to be that illi is intended to include the Gnostics generally, and that IrenÆus mentions in illustration the principal errors of Gnostic teaching, irrespective of the schools to which they belong. He goes on to say that St John in his Gospel desired to exclude ‘omnia talia’.

554.I have not been able however to verify the statement in Harvey’s IrenÆus I. p. lxxiii that ‘The Valentinian notion of a spiritual marriage between the souls of the elect and the angels of the Pleroma originated with Cerinthus’.

555.See p. 101 sq., and the notes on i. 19.

556.p. 107 sq.

557.Hippol. R.H. vii. 22 fe??e? ??? p??? ?a? d?d???e t?? ?at? p?????? t?? ?e????t?? ??s?a? ? ?as??e?d??. Basilides asked why the absolute First Cause should be likened to a spider spinning threads from itself, or a smith or carpenter working up his materials. The later Basilideans, apparently influenced by Valentinianism, superadded to the teaching of their founder in this respect; but the strong language quoted by Hippolytus leaves no doubt about the mind of Basilides himself.

558.For the various modes in which the relation of the absolute first principle to the pleroma was represented in different Valentinian schools, see Iren. i. 1. 1, i. 2. 4, i. 11. 1, 3, 5, i. 12. 1, etc. The main distinction is that stated in the text: the first principle was represented in two ways; either (i) as a monad, outside the pleroma; or (ii) as a dyad, a syzygy, most commonly under the designation of ????? and S???, included within the pleroma but fenced off from the other Æons. The Valentinian doctrine as given by Hippolytus (vi. 29 sq.) represents the former type. There are good, though perhaps not absolutely decisive, reasons for supposing that this father gives the original teaching of Valentinus himself. For (1) this very doctrine of the monad seems to point to an earlier date. It is the link which connects the system of Valentinus not only with Pythagoreanism to which (as Hippolytus points out) he was so largely indebted, but also with the teaching of the earlier heresiarch Basilides, whose first principle likewise was a monad, the absolute nothing, the non-existent God. The conception of the first principle as a dyad seems to have been a later, and not very happy, modification of the doctrine of the founder, being in fact an extension of the principle of syzygies which Valentinus with a truer philosophical conception had restricted to the derived essences. (2) The exposition of Hippolytus throughout exhibits a system at once more consistent and more simple, than the luxuriant developments of the later Valentinians, such as PtolemÆus and Marcus. (3) The sequence of his statement points to the same conclusion. He gives a consecutive account of some one system, turning aside from time to time to notice the variations of different Valentinian schools from this standard and again resuming the main thread of his exposition. It seems most natural therefore that he should have taken the system of the founder as his basis. On the other hand IrenÆus (i. 11. 1) states that Valentinus represented the first principle as a dyad (????t?? or ?????, and S???): but there is no evidence that he had any direct or indirect knowledge of the writings of Valentinus himself, and his information was derived from the later disciples of the school, more especially from the PtolemÆans.

559.Iren. i. 4. 1, 2, ii. 3. 1, ii. 4. 1, 3, ii. 5. 1, ii. 8. 1–3, ii. 14. 3, iii. 25. 6, 7, etc.

560.Iren. i. 6. 3, i. 7. 1 sq., ii. 14. 3, ii. 15. 3 sq., ii. 20. 5, ii. 30. 3, etc.

561.Iren. i. 5. 2, ii. 14. 3; comp. Hippol. vi. 34.

562.Iren. i. 4. 1 ?????s?? ?? s??a?? [s????] ?a? ?e??at?? t?p??? )e?e??s?a? ?.t.?. The Greek MS reads ?a? s????at??, but the rendering of the early Latin translation ‘in umbrÆ [et?] vacuitatis locis’ leaves no doubt about the word in the original text. Tertullian says of this Achamoth (adv. Valent. 14) ‘explosa est in loca luminis aliena ... in vacuum atque inane illud Epicuri’. See note 567.

563.Iren. i. 2. 6, Hippol. vi. 32.

564.They quoted, as referring to this descent of the second Christ into the kenoma, the words of St Paul, Phil. ii. 7 ?a?t?? ?????se?; Clem. Alex. Exc. Theod. 35 (p. 978).

565.Iren. i. 7. 1 ?a? t??t? e??a? ??f??? ?a? ??f??, ??f??a d? t? p?? p????a: comp. Hippol. vi. 34 ? ??f??? a?t??.

566.This language is so frequent that special references are needless. In Iren. ii. 5. 3 we have a still stronger expression, ‘in ventre pleromatis’.

567.Iren. ii. 14. 3 ‘Umbram autem et vacuum ipsorum a Democrito et Epicuro sumentes sibimetipsis aptaverunt, quum illi primum multum sermonem fecerint de vacuo et de atomis’.

568.Hippol. vi. 31 ?a?e?ta? d? ???? ?? ??t?? ?t? ?f????e? ?p? t?? p????at?? ??? t? ?st???a? et????? de ?t? et??e? ?a? t?? ?ste??at?? (i.e. as standing between the p????a and ?st???a)? sta???? d?, ?t? p?p??e? ??????? ?a? ?eta???t??, ?? ? d??as?a? ?d?? t?? ?ste??at?? ?ata?e??s?a? ????? t?? ??t?? p????at?? a?????. IrenÆus represents the Marcosians as designating the Demiurge ?a?p?? ?ste??at?? i. 17. 2, i. 19. 1, ii. prÆf. 1, ii. 1. 1 (comp. i. 14. 1). This was perhaps intended originally as an antithesis to the name of the Christ, who was ?a?p?? p????at??. The Marcosians however apparently meant Sophia Achamoth by this ?ste??a. This transference from the whole to the part would be in strict accordance with their terminology: for as they called the supramundane Æons p????ata (Iren. i. 14. 2, 5; quoted in Hippol. vi. 43, 46), so also by analogy they might designate the mundane Powers ?ste??ata (comp. Iren. i. 16. 3). The term, as it occurs in the document used by Hippolytus, plainly denotes the whole mundane region.

Hippolytus does not use the word ????a, though so common in IrenÆus. This fact seems to point to the earlier date of the Valentinian document which he uses, and so to bear out the result arrived at in a previous note (p. 332) that we have here a work of Valentinus himself. The word ?st???a appears also in Exc. Theod. 22 (p. 974).

569.e.g. Hippol. vi. 34, Iren. i. 2. 6. See especially Iren. ii. 7. 3 ‘Quoniam enim pleroma ipsorum triginta Aeones sunt, ipsi testantur’.

570.See the passages from IrenÆus quoted above, note 568; comp. Exc. Theod. 32, 33 (p. 977). Similarly ????? is a synonym for the Æons, ?????? t? ????, Exc. Theod. 25 (p. 975).

571.Heracleon in Orig. in Ioann. xiii, iv. p. 205 sq. The passages are collected in Stieren’s IrenÆus p. 947 sq. See especially p. 950 ??eta? [? ??a?????] t?? Saa?e?t?d?? t?? ?e??e??? ?p? t?? s?t???? ??d?a t? p????a e??a? a?t??, ??a s?? ??e??? ?e????? p??? t?? s?t??a ???ses?a? pa?’ a?t?? t?? d??a?? ?a? t?? ???s?? ?a? t?? ?????as?? t?? p??? t? p????a a?t?? d?????? ?? ??? pe?? ??d???, f?s?, ??s???? ??e?e? ... ????? a?t? t?? s?t??a e??????a?, F???s?? s?? t?? ??d?a ?a? ???? ????de? d?????ta t?? ?p? t?? p????at?? s??????. Lower down Heracleon says ?? a?t?? ? ???? ?? t? ?????. By this last expression I suppose he means that the great Æon Man of the Ogdoad, the eternal archetype of mankind, comprises in itself archetypes corresponding to each individual man and woman, not indeed of the whole human race (for the Valentinian would exclude the psychical and carnal portion from any participation in this higher region) but of the spiritual portion thereof.

572.Origen expressly states that Heracleon read ?? for p??te. The number six was supposed to symbolize the material creature: see Heracleon on ‘the forty and six years’ of John ii. 20 (Stieren p. 947). There is no reason to think that Heracleon falsified the text here; he appears to have found this various reading already in his copy.

574.Iren. i. 2. 6 te?e??tat?? ?????? te ?a? ?st??? t?? p????at??.

575.Iren. i. 2. 6, i. 3. 4.

576.Iren. i. 3. 4. The passages are given in the text as they are quoted by IrenÆus from the Valentinians. Three out of the four are incorrect.

577.Iren. i. 12. 4; comp. Exc. Theod. 31 (p. 977) e? ? ?ate???? e?d???a t?? ???? ??? ?? a?t? ??? p?? t? p????a ?? s?at????.

578.Iren. i. 4. 5 ?p?? ?? a?t? t? p??ta ?t?s??, t? ??at? ?a? t? ???ata, ??????, ?e?t?te?, ?????t?te?, where the misquotation is remarkable. In Exc. Theod. 43 (p. 979) the words run p??ta ??? ?? a?t? ??t?s?? t? ??at? ?a? t? ???ata, ??????, ?????t?te?, as??e?a?, ?e?t?te?, ?e?t?????a?? d?? ?a? ? Te?? a?t?? ?pe????se? ?.t.?. (the last words being taken from Phil. ii. 9 sq.).

579.Thus they interpreted Ephes. iii. 21 e?? p?sa? t?? ?e??a? t?? a????? t?? a????? as referring to their generated Æons: Iren. i. 3. 1. Similar is the use which they made of expressions in the opening chapter of St John, where they found their first Ogdoad described: ib. i. 8. 5.

580.R. H. viii. 10 (p. 267).

581.ib. viii. 9.

582.ib. viii. 10 (p. 266).

583.R. H. v. 8.

584.R. H. v. 12.

585.See KÖstlin in Theolog. Jahrb. TÜbingen 1854, p. 185.

586.Pistis Sophia p. 3 sq.

587.ib. p. 15 sq.: comp. pp. 4, 60, 75, 187, 275.

588.ib. p. 28 sq.: comp. p. 56. On p. 7 p????a is opposed to ????, apparently in the sense of ‘completion’.

589.Matt. v. 18.

590.R. H. viii. 13.

591.The work of Anger, Ueber den Laodicenerbrief (Leipzig 1843), is very complete. He enumerates and discusses very thoroughly the opinions of his predecessors, omitting hardly anything relating to the literature of the subject which was accessible at the time when he wrote. His exposition of his own view, though not less elaborate, is less satisfactory. A later monograph by A. Sartori, Ueber den Laodicenserbrief (LÜbeck 1853), is much slighter and contributes nothing new.

592.ad loc. t???? ?????s?? ?t? ???? t?? ?a???? p??? a?t??? ?pesta?????, ???? t?? pa?’ a?t?? ?????? ?? ??? e?pe t?? p??? ?a?d???a? ???? t?? ?? ?a?d??e?a?.

593.Rab. Maur. Op. VI. p. 540 (Migne) ‘Non quia ad Laodicenses scribit. Unde quidam falsam epistolam ad Laodicenses ex nomine beati Pauli confingendam esse existimaverunt; nec enim erat vera epistola. Æstimaverunt autem quidam illam esse, quÆ in hoc loco est significata. Apostolus vero non [ad] Laodicenses dicit sed ex Laodicea; quam illi scripserunt ad apostolum, in quam aliqua reprehensionis digna inferebantur, quam etiam hac de causa jussit apud eos legi, ut ipsi reprehendant seipsos discentes quÆ de ipsis erant dicta’ (see Spic. Solesm. I. p. 133) etc.

594.After repeating the argument based on the expression t?? ?? ?a?d??e?a?, Theodoret says e???? d? a?t??? ? t? ?? ???assa?? ?e??e?a a?t??sas?a? ? t? a?t? t??t??? ?e??s????a?.

595.This however may be questioned. On the other hand Beza (ad loc.), Whitaker (Disputation on Scripture pp. 108, 303, 468 sq., 526, 531, Parker Society’s ed.), and others, who explain the passage in this way, urge that it is required by the Greek ?? ?a?d??e?a?, and complain that the other interpretation depends on the erroneous Latin rendering.

596.Or, ‘that which was written from Laodicea.’ The difference depends on the vocalisation of ??????ldikia which may be either (1) ‘Laodicea,’ as in vv. 13, 15, or (2) ‘the Laodiceans,’ as in the previous clause in this same ver. 16.

597.Calvin is very positive; ‘Bis hallucinati sunt qui Paulum arbitrati sunt ad Laodicenses scripsisse. Non dubito quin epistola fuerit ad Paulum missa.... Impostura autem nimis crassa fuit, quod nebulo nescio quis hoc prÆtextu epistolam supponere ausus est adeo insulsam, ut nihil a Pauli spiritu magis alienum fingi queat.’ The last sentence reveals the motive which unconsciously led so many to adopt this unnatural interpretation of St Paul’s language.

598.ad loc. ‘Multo foedius errarunt qui ex hoc loco suspicati sunt quandam fuisse epistolam Pauli ad Laodicenses ... quum potius significet Paulus epistolam aliquam ad se missam Laodicea, aut potius qua responsuri essent Laodicenses Colossensibus.’

599.Works II. p. 326.

600.Ann. Eccl. s. a. 60, § xiii.

601.e.g. Tillemont Mem. Eccl. p. 576.

602.See the note on iv. 16.

603.e.g. Storr Opusc. II. p. 124 sq.

604.So for instance Corn. À Lapide, as an alternative, ‘vel certe ad ipsos Colossenses, ut vult Theodor.’; but I do not find anything of the kind in Theodoret. This view also commends itself to Beza.

605.Op. II. p. 214 (ed. Lequien) t?? p??? ????e?? p??t?? ???e?. But he adds t???? fas?? ?t? ???? t?? ?a???? p??? a?t??? ?pesta????? ... ???? t?? pa?’ a?t?? ????? ?? ?a?d??e?a? ??afe?sa?.

606.ad loc. t?? d? ?? ? ?? ?a?d??e?a?; ? p??? ????e?? p??t?? a?t? ??? ?? ?a?d??e?a? ????f?. ????? d? fas?? ?t? ?? ?? ?a?d??e?? ?a??? ?p?ste??a?, ???’ ??? ??da t? ?? ??e???? ?de? a?t??? p??? e?t??s??.

607.ad loc. ‘Propter eam quÆ est ad Timotheum dixit.’

608.It is adopted by Erasmus in his paraphrase; ‘vicissim vos legatis epistolam quÆ Timotheo scripta fuit ex Laodicensium urbe’: but in his commentary he does not commit himself to it. For other names see Anger p. 17, note k.

609.Catal. Bibl. Bodl. Cod. Æthiop. p. 23.

610.In the editio princeps (Vienna 1555) the latter part of this colophon, ‘and was sent by the hand of Tychicus,’ is wanting.

611.Catal. Bibl. Bodl. Cod. Æthiop. p. 23.

612.Bloch, quoted in Anger p. 17 note l.

613.A conjecture of Lightfoot’s (Works II. pp. 326, 339, London 1684), but he does not lay much stress on it. He offers it ‘rather then conceive that any epistle of Paul is lost.’ See also Anger p. 17, note m.

614.Baumgarten Comm. ad loc., quoted by Anger p. 25, note g.

615.Philippians p. 136 sq.

616.HÆr. lxxxix ‘Sunt alii quoque qui epistolam Pauli ad HebrÆos non adserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut BarnabÆ esse apostoli aut Clementis de urbe Roma episcopi; alii autem LucÆ evangelistÆ aiunt epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam. Et quia addiderunt in ea quÆdam non bene sentientes, inde non legitur in ecclesia; et si legitur a quibusdam, non tamen in ecclesia legitur populo, nisi tredecim epistolÆ ipsius, et ad HebrÆos interdum. Et in ea quia rhetorice scripsit, sermone plausibili, inde non putant esse ejusdem apostoli; et quia factum Christum dicit in ea [Heb. iii. 2], inde non legitur; de poenitentia autem [Heb. vi. 4, x. 26] propter Novatianos Æque. Cum ergo factum dicit Christum, corpore, non divinitate, dicit factum, cum doceat ibidem quod divinÆ sit et paternÆ substantiÆ filius, Qui est splendor gloriÆ, inquit, et imago substantiÆ ejus [Heb. i. 3]’ etc. Oehler punctuates the sentence with which we are concerned thus: ‘alii autem LucÆ evangelistÆ. Aiunt epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam,’ and in his note he adds ‘videlicet Pauli esse apostoli.’ Thus he supposes the clause to refer to the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans: and Fabricius explains the reference similarly. Such a reference however would be quite out of place here. The whole paragraph before and after is taken up with discussing the Epistle to the Hebrews; and the interposition of just six words, referring to a wholly different matter, is inconceivable. We must therefore punctuate either ‘alii autem LucÆ evangelistÆ aiunt epistolam, etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam’, or ‘alii autem LucÆ evangelistÆ aiunt; epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam.’ In either case it will mean that some persons supposed the Epistle to the Hebrews to have been written to the Laodiceans.

617.Laodicenerbrief p. 29 sq.

618.If indeed the Greek text of F was not copied immediately from G, as has been recently maintained by Mr Hort in the Journal of Philology III. p. 67. The divergent phenomena of the two Latin texts seem to me unfavourable to this hypothesis; but it ought not to be hastily rejected.

619.Volkmar, the editor of Credner’s Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanon p. 299, with strange carelessness speaks of ‘the appearance (das Vorkommen) of the Laodicean Epistle in both the Codices Augiensis and Boernerianus which in other respects are closely allied.’ There is no mention of it in the Codex Augiensis.

620.It is curious that this MS, which was written by an Irish scribe, should give the same corrupt form, Laudac- for Laodac-, which we find in the Book of Armagh; see below p. 348.

621.See p. 352. It occurs also in this position in the list of Aelfric (see below p. 362), where the order of the Pauline Epistles is ... Col., Hebr., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Philem., Laod.

622.See especially Schneckenburger BeitrÄge p. 153 sq.

623.Some earlier writers who maintained this view are mentioned by Anger, p. 25, note f. It has since been more fully developed and more vigorously urged by Wieseler, first in a programme Commentat. de Epist. Laodicena quam vulgo perditam putant 1844, and afterwards in his well known work Chronol. des Apostol. Zeit. p. 450 sq. It may therefore be identified with his name. He speaks of it with much confidence as ‘scarcely open to a doubt,’ but he has not succeeded in convincing others.

624.See the introduction to the Epistle to Philemon.

625.See above p. 37.

626.So at least I find the number given in my notes. But in Bentl. Crit. Sacr. p. xxxvii it is 3561.

627.The epistle has been critically edited by Anger Laodicenerbrief p. 155 sq. and Westcott Canon App. E. p. 572. I have already expressed my obligations to both these writers for their collations of MSS.

In the apparatus of various readings, which is subjoined to the epistle, I have not attempted to give such minute differences of spelling as e and ae, or c and t (Laodicia, Laoditia), nor is the punctuation of the MSS noted.

628.e.g. Anger Laodicenerbrief p. 142 sq., Westcott Canon p. 454 sq. (ed. 4). Erasmus asks boldly, ‘Qui factum est ut hÆc epistola apud Latinos extet, cum nullus sit apud GrÆcos, ne veterum quidem, qui testetur eam a se lectam?’ The accuracy of this statement will be tested presently.

629.Anger, p. 165.

630.Canon Murat. p. 47 (ed. Tregelles). The passage stands in the MS, ‘Fertur etiam ad Laudecenses alia ad Alexandrinos Pauli nomine fincte ad heresem Marcionis et alia plura quÆ in catholicam eclesiam recepi non potest.’ There is obviously some corruption in the text. One very simple emendation is the repetition of ‘alia’, so that the words would run ‘ad Laudicenses alia, alia ad Alexandrinos’. In this case fincte (= finctÆ) might refer to the two epistles first mentioned, and the Latin would construe intelligibly. The writing described as ‘ad Laodicenses alia’ might then be the Epistle to the Ephesians under its Marcionite title, the writer probably not having any personal knowledge of it, but supposing from its name that it was a different and a forged writing. But what can then be the meaning of ‘alia ad Alexandrinos’? Is it, as some have thought, the Epistle to the Hebrews? But this could not under any circumstances be described as ‘fincta ad hÆresem Marcionis’, even though we should strain the meaning of the preposition and interpret the words ‘against the heresy of Marcion’. And again our knowledge of Marcion’s Canon is far too full to admit the hypothesis that it included a spurious Epistle to the Alexandrians, of which no notice is elsewhere preserved. We are therefore driven to the conclusion that there is a hiatus here, as in other places of this fragment, probably after ‘Pauli nomine’; and ‘finctÆ’ will then refer not to the two epistles named before, but to the mutilated epistles of Marcion’s Canon which he had ‘tampered with to adapt them to his heresy’. In this case the letter ‘ad Laudicenses’ may refer to our apocryphal epistle or to some earlier forgery.

631.See the introduction to the Epistle to the Ephesians.

632.Timotheus, who became Patriarch of Constantinople in 511, while still a presbyter, includes in a list of apocryphal works forged by the Manicheans ? pe?te?a?de??t? [i.e. t?? ?a????] p??? ?a?d??e?? ?p?st???, Meurse p. 117 (quoted by Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. I.. p. 139). Anger (p. 27) suggests that there is a confusion of the Marcionites and Manicheans here. I am disposed to think that Timotheus recklessly credits the Manicheans with several forgeries of which they were innocent, among others with our apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans. Still it is possible that there was another Laodicean Epistle forged by these heretics to support their peculiar tenets.

633.Vir. Ill. 5 (II. p. 840) ‘Legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omnibus exploditur’.

634.The passage is quoted above, p. 341, note 593.

635.t???? ?p??a?? ?a? p??? ?a?d???a? a?t?? ?e??af??a?? a?t??a t????? ?a? p??sf????s? pep?as???? ?p?st????.

636.Anger (p. 143) argues against a Greek original on the ground that the Eastern Church, unlike the Latin, did not generally interpret Col. iv. 16 as meaning an epistle written to the Laodiceans. The fact is true, but the inference is wrong, as the language of the Greek commentators themselves shows.

637.Act. vi. Tom. v (Labbe viii. p. 1125 ed. Colet.) ?a? ??? t?? ?e??? ?p?st???? p??? ?a?d??e?? f??eta? p?ast? ?p?st??? ?? t?s? ????? t?? ?p?st???? ???e????, ?? ?? p?te?e? ??? ?ped???asa? ?? a?t?? ????t??a?.

638.A Greek version is given in Elias Hutter’s Polyglott New Testament (Noreb. 1599); see Anger p. 147 note g. But I have retranslated the epistle anew, introducing the Pauline passages, of which it is almost entirely made up, as they stand in the Greek Testament. The references are given in the margin.

639.Quoted above, p. 359, note 637.

640.See above, p. 315 sq.

641.Greg. Magn. Mor. in Iob. xxxv. § 25 (III. p. 433, ed. Gallicc.) ‘Recte vita ecclesiÆ multiplicata per decem et quattuor computatur; quia utrumque testamentum custodiens, et tam secundum Legis decalogum quam secundum quattuor Evangelii libros vivens, usque ad perfectionis culmen extenditur. Unde et Paulus apostolus quamvis epistolas quindecim scripserit, sancta tamen ecclesia non amplius quam quatuordecim tenet, ut ex ipso epistolarum numero ostenderet quod doctor egregius Legis et Evangelii secreta rimasset’.

642.Patrol. Lat. CXVII. p. 765 (ed. Migne) ‘Et eam quÆ erat Laodicensium ideo prÆcipit Colossensibus legi, quia, licet perparva sit et in Canone non habeatur, aliquid tamen utilitatis habet’. He uses the expression ‘eam quÆ erat Laodicensium’, because t?? ?? ?a?d??e?a? was translated in the Latin Bible ‘eam quÆ Laodicensium est’.

643.See Galatians p. 232 on the authorship of this commentary.

644.A third Epistle to the Corinthians being perhaps reckoned as the 15th; see Fabric. Cod. Apocr. Nov. Test. II p. 866.

645.Patrol. Lat. CLXXXI. p. 1355 sq. (ed. Migne) ‘et ea similiter epistola, quÆ Laodicensium est, i.e. quam ego Laodicensibus misi, legatur vobis. Quamvis et hanc epistolam quintamdecimam vel sextamdecimam apostolus scripserit, et auctoritas eam apostolica sicut cÆtera firmavit, sancta tamen ecclesia non amplius quam quatuordecim tenet, ut ex ipso epistolarum numero ostenderet etc.’ At the end of the notes to the Colossians he adds ‘Hucusque protenditur epistola quÆ missa est ad Colossenses. Congruum autem videtur ut propter notitiam legentium subjiciamus eam quÆ est ad Laodicenses directa; quam, ut diximus, in usu non habet ecclesia. Est ergo talis.’ Then follows the text of the Laodicean Epistle, but it is not annotated.

646.A Saxon Treatise concerning the Old and New Testament by Ælfricus Abbas, p. 28 (ed. W. L’Isle, London 1623).

647.Ioann. Sarisb. Epist. 143 (I. p. 210 ed. Giles) ‘EpistolÆ Pauli quindecim uno volumine comprehensÆ, licet sit vulgata et fere omnium communis opinio non esse nisi quatuordecim, decem ad ecclesias, quatuor ad personas; si tamen illa quÆ ad HebrÆos est connumeranda est epistolis Pauli, quod in prÆfatione ejus astruere videtur doctorum doctor Hieronymus, illorum dissolvens argutias qui eam Pauli non esse contendebant. CÆterum quintadecima est illa quÆ ecclesiÆ Laodicensium scribitur; et licet, ut ait Hieronymus, ab omnibus explodatur, tamen ab apostolo scripta est: neque sententia hÆc de aliorum prÆsumitur opinione sed ipsius apostoli testimonio roboratur. Meminit enim ipsius in epistola ad Colossenses his verbis, Quum lecta fuerit apud vos hÆc epistola, etc.’

648.Patrol. Lat. CL. p. 331 (ed. Migne) on Col. iv. 16 ‘HÆc si esset apostoli, ad Laodicenses diceret, non Laodicensium; et plusquam tredecim essent epistolÆ Pauli’. We should perhaps read xiiii for xiii, ‘quatuordecim’ for ‘tredecim’, as Lanfranc is not likely to have questioned the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

649.The proportion however is very different in different collections. In the Cambridge University Library I found the epistle in four only out of some thirty MSS Which I inspected; whereas in the Lambeth Library the proportion was far greater.

650.The Speculum of Mai, see above, p. 348.

651.The Codex Fuldensis, which was written within a few years of the Codex Amiatinus.

652.The list of MSS given above p. 348 sq. will substantiate this statement.

653.An account of this MS, which is at Lyons, is given by Reuss in the Revue de ThÉologie v. p. 334 (Strassb. 1852). He ascribes the translation of the New Testament to the 13th century, and dates the MS a little later.

654.This version is printed by Anger, p. 170 sq.

655.See Anger, p. 149 sq., p. 166 sq.

656.These two versions are printed in Lewis’s New Testament translated by J. Wiclif (1731) p. 99 sq., and in Forshall and Madden’s Wycliffite Versions of the Holy Bible (1850) IV. p. 438 sq. They are also given by Anger p. 168 sq. (1843), who takes the rarer form from Lewis and the other from a Dresden MS. Dr Westcott also has printed the commoner version in his Canon, p. 457 (ed. 4), from Forshall and Madden.

Of one of these two versions Forshall and Madden give a collation of several MSS; the other is taken from a single MS (I. p. xxxii). Lewis does not state whence he derived the rarer of these two versions, but there can be little doubt that it came from the same MS Pepys. 2073 (belonging to Magd. Coll. Cambridge) from which it was taken by Forshall and Madden (I. p. lvii); since he elsewhere mentions using this MS (p. 104). The version is not known to exist in any other. Forshall and Madden give the date of the MS as about 1440.

657.From Forshall and Madden, IV. p. 438. The earliest MSS which contain the common version of the Laodicean Epistle (to which this prologue is prefixed) date about A.D. 1430.

658.Printed from Forshall and Madden l.c. I am assured by those who are thoroughly conversant with old English, that they can discern no difference of date in these two versions, and that they both belong probably to the early years of the 15th century. The rarer version is taken from a better Latin text than the other.

659.On Col. iv. 16. Erasmus is too hard upon the writer of this letter, when he charges him with such a mass of forgeries. He does not explain how this hypothesis is consistent with the condemnation of the Epistle to the Laodiceans in Hieron. Vir. Ill. 5 (quoted above p. 359).

660.Pauli Apostoli ad Laodicenses Epistola, Latine et Germanice, Hamburg, 1595, of which the preface is given in Fabricius Cod. Apocr. Nov. Test. II. p. 867. It is curious that the only two arguments against its genuineness which he thinks worthy of notice are (1) Its brevity; which he answers by appealing to the Epistle to Philemon; and (2) Its recommendation of works (‘quod scripsit opera esse facienda quÆ sunt salutis ÆternÆ’); which he explains to refer to works that proceed of faith.

661.See Bp. Davenant on Col. iv. 16: ‘Detestanda Stapletonis opinio, qui ipsius Pauli epistolam esse statuit, quam omnes patres ut adulterinam et insulsam repudiarunt: nec sanior conclusio, quam inde deducere voluit, posse nimirum ecclesiam germanam et veram apostoli Pauli epistolam pro sua authoritate e Canone excludere’. So also Whitaker Disputation on Scripture passim (see the references given above, p. 341, note 595).

662.Ovid. Met. vii. 626 sq. ‘Jupiter huc, specie mortali, cumque parente Venit Atlantiades positis caducifer alis’ etc.

663.Acts xiv. 11 ?? ?e?? ???????te? ?????p??? ?at??sa? p??? ??? ?.t.?. There are two points worth observing in the Phrygian legend, as illustrating the Apostolic history. (1) It is a miracle, which opens the eyes of the peasant couple to the divinity of their guests thus disguised; (2) The immediate effect of this miracle is their attempt to sacrifice to their divine visitors, ‘dis hospitibus mactare parabant’. The familiarity with this beautiful story may have suggested to the barbarians of Lystra, whose ‘Lycaonian speech’ was not improbably a dialect of Phrygian, that the same two gods, Zeus and Hermes, had again visited this region on an errand at once of beneficence and of vengeance, while at the same time it would prompt them to conciliate the deities by a similar mode of propitiation, ??e??? ??e??.

664.Aristoph. Av. 762 e? d? t?????e? t?? ?? F??? ... f??????? ????? ????d’ ?sta?, t?? F??????? ??????.

665.Compare Col. iv. 9 with Philem. 11 sq.

666.Theodoret in his preface to the epistle says p???? de e??e [[? F?????] t?? ????ssa?? ?a? ? ????a d? a?t?? ???? t?? pa???t?? e????e. This is generally taken to mean that Philemon’s house was still standing, when Theodoret wrote. This may be the correct interpretation, but the language is not quite explicit.

668.See above, p. 30 sq.

669.See above, p. 31 sq.

670.ver. 1 s??e??? ???.

671.Col. iv. 15.

672.ver. 2 t? ?at’ ????? s?? ?????s??. The Greek commentators, Chrysostom and Theodoret, suppose that St Paul designates Philemon’s own family (including his slaves) by this honourable title of ?????s?a, in order to interest them in his petition. This is plainly wrong. See the note on Col. iv. 15.

673.3 Joh. 5 sq.

674.I take the view that the ????a addressed in the Second Epistle of St John is some church personified, as indeed the whole tenour of the epistle seems to imply: see esp. vv. 4, 7 sq. The salutation to the ‘elect lady’ (ver. 1) from her ‘elect sister’ (ver. 15) will then be a greeting sent to one church from another; just as in 1 Peter, the letter is addressed at the outset ???e?t??? ???t?? ?.t.?. (i. 1) and contains at the close a salutation from ? ?? ?a????? s??e??e?t? (v. 13).

675.vv. 5, 7.

676.Apost. Const. vii. 46 t?? d? ?? F????? ?a?d??e?a? [?p?s??p??] ????pp??, ???ass?e?? d? F?????, ?e???a? d? t?? ?at? ?a?ed???a? ???s??? ? F???????. The Greek MenÆa however make Philemon bishop of Gaza; see Tillemont I. p. 574 note lxvi.

677.See Tillemont I. pp. 290, 574, for the references.

678.Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3814 ????a?d??? ?a? ?ff?a ???? a?t??. In the following inscriptions also a wife bearing the name Apphia (Aphphia, Aphia) or Apphion (Aphphion, Aphion) is mentioned in connexion with her husband; 2720, 2782, 2836, 3446, 2775 b, c, d, 2837 b, 3849, 3902 m, 3962, 4141, 4277, 4321 f, 3846 z¹⁷, etc.

M. Renan (Saint Paul p. 360) says, ‘Appia, diaconesse de cette ville’. Like other direct statements of this same writer, as for instance that the Colossians sent a deputation to St Paul (L’Antechrist p. 90), this assertion rests on no authority.

679.They speak of ?pf?a as a softened form of the Latin Appia, and quote Acts xxviii. 15, where however the form is ?pp???. Even Ewald writes the word Appia.

680.?pf?a, no. 2782, 2835, 2950, 3432, 3446, 2775 b, c, d, 2837 b, 3902 m, 3962, 4124, 4145: ?ff?a, no. 3814, 4141, 4277, 4321 f, 3827 l, 3846 z, 3846 z¹⁷. So far as I could trace any law, the form ?ff?a is preferred in the northern and more distant towns like Æzani and CotiÆum, while ?pf?a prevails in the southern towns in the more immediate neighbourhood of ColossÆ, such as Aphrodisias. This accords with the evidence of our MSS, in which ?pf?a is the best supported form, though ?ff?a is found in some. In Theod. Mops. (Cramer’s Cat. p. 105) it becomes ?f?a by a common corruption; and Old Latin copies write the dative Apphiadi from the allied form Apphias.

The most interesting of these inscriptions mentioning the name is no. 2782 at Aphrodisias, where there is a notice of F?. ?pf?a? ????e?e?a? ?s?a?, ?t??? ?a? ?de?f?? ?a? ??? s?????t????, f???p?t??d?? ?.t.?.

681.no. 2720, 3827.

682.?pf??? or ?ff??? 2733, 2836, 3295, 3849, 3902 m, 4207; ?f??? 3846 z³⁴ and ?fe??? 3846 z³¹; and even ?ffe??, 3167, 3278. In 3902 m the mother’s name is ?pf?a and the daughter’s ?pf???.

683.?ff?a?, 3697, 3983; ?f?a? 3879.

684.?ff? 3816, 3390, 4143; ?pf? 3796, 4122.

685.It is met with at the neighbouring town of Hierapolis, in the form ?pf?a??? no. 3911. It also occurs on coins of not very distant parts of Asia Minor, being written either ?pf?a??? or ?ff?a???; Mionnet III. p. 179, 184, IV. p. 65, 67, Suppl. VI. p. 293, VII. p. 365.

686.Suidas ?pfa: ?de?f?? ?a? ?de?f?? ?p?????sa, and so Bekk. Anecd. p. 441. Eustath. Il. p. 565 says ?pfa? t?? ?de?f?? ?tt???? ??? ? ?de?f? e?p?? ??, ?a? p?ppa? t?? pat??a ???? ? pa?? ?.t.?., and he adds ?st??? d? ?t? ?? t?? ?? ?????? ?pfa ???eta? ?a? t? ?pf???, ?p?????sa ?? ???????? t???? d? ?a? t? ?pfa ?p?????sa fas?? ?tt????. These words were found in writers of Attic comedy (Pollux iii. 74 ? pa?? t??? ????? ???d??? ?pf?a ?a? ?pf??? ?a? ?pf?????; comp. Xenarchus t??? ?? ?????ta? ??ta? ?p??a???e?a? pat??d?a, t??? d’ ?pf???a, t??? ?e?t?????, Meineke Fragm. Com. III. p. 617): and doubtless they were heard commonly in Attic homes. But were they not learnt in the nursery from Phrygian slaves? ?pf????? appears in two inscriptions almost as a proper name, 2637 ??a?d?a ?pf?????, 3277 ?pf????? ?????a??. In no. 4207 (at Telmissus) we have ????? ? ?a? ?ff???, so that it seems sometimes to have been employed side by side with a Greek name; comp. no. 3912 a ?ap?a? ... ? ?a???e??? ????????, quoted above p. 48. This will account for the frequency of the names, Apphia, Apphion, etc. In Theocr. XV. 13 we have ?pf??, and in Callim. Hym. Dian. 6 ?ppa, as a term of endearment applied to a father.

687.This appears from the fact that Ammias and Ammianos appear sometimes as the names of mother and son respectively in the same inscriptions; e.g. 3846 z⁸², 3847 k, 3882 i.

688.On the name Papias or Pappias see above p. 48.

689.See Boeckh Corp. Inscr. III. p. 1085 for the names ???a?, etc.

690.We have not only the form ?pp? several times (e.g. 3827 x, 3846 p, 3846 x, 3846 z⁴⁶, etc.); but also ?pp?? 3827 g, 3846 n, 3846 z⁷⁷, still as a woman’s name. These all occur in the same neighbourhood, at CotiÆum and Æzani. I have not noticed any instance of this phenomenon in the names Apphia, Apphion; though probably, where Roman influences were especially strong, there would be a tendency to transform a Phrygian name into a Roman, e.g. Apphia into Appia, and Apphianus into Appianus.

691.In the Greek historians of Rome for instance the personal name is always ?pp??? and the road ?pp?a; so too in Acts xxviii. 15 it is ?pp??? F????.

692.The point to be observed is that examples of these names are thickest in the heart of Phrygia, that they diminish in frequency as Phrygian influence becomes weaker, and that they almost, though not entirely, disappear in other parts of the Greek and Roman world.

693.ver. 2 t? ?de?f?. See the note.

694.So Theodore of Mopsuestia. But Chrysostom ?te??? t??a ?s?? f????, and Theodoret ? d? ????pp?? t?? d?das?a??a? a?t?? ?pep?ste?t?.

695.It occurs in two SmyrnÆan inscriptions, no. 3143, 3224.

696.Col. iv. 17 ??pe t?? d?a????a? ?? pa???ae? ?? ?????, ??a a?t?? p??????.

697.So the Ambrosian Hilary on Col. iv. 17.

698.Ephes. iv. 11 bears testimony to the existence of the office of evangelist at this date.

699.It is adopted by Theodore of Mopsuestia. On the other hand Theodoret argues against this view on critical grounds; t???? ?fasa? t??t?? ?a?d??e?a? ?e?e??s?a? d?d?s?a???, ???’ ? p??? F?????a ?p?st??? d?d?s?e? ?? ?? ???assa?? ??t?? ??e?? t? ??? F?????? ?a? t??t?? s??t?tte?: but he does not allege any traditional support for his own opinion.

700.See above pp. 2, 15.

701.Apost. Const. vii, 46 quoted above p. 372, note 676.

702.See p. 42.

703.ver. 2 t? s??st?at??t? ???. See the note.

704.e.g. Chresimus, Chrestus, Onesiphorus, Symphorus, Carpus, etc. So too the corresponding female names Onesime, Chreste, Sympherusa, etc.: but more commonly the women’s names are of a different cast of meaning, Arescusa, Prepusa, Terpusa, Thallusa, Tryphosa, etc.

705.e.g. in the Corp. Inscr. Lat. III. p. 323, no. 2146, p. 359, no. 2723, p. 986, no. 6107 (where it is spelled Honesimus); and in Muratori, CC. 6, DXXIX. 5, CMLXVIII. 4, MIII. 2, MDXVIII. 2, MDXXIII. 4, MDLI. 9, MDLXXI. 5, MDLXXV. 1, MDXCII. 8, MDXCVI. 7, MDCVI. 2, MDCX. 19, MDCXIV. 17, 39; and the corresponding female name Onesime in MCCXXXIX. 12, MDXLVI. 6, MDCXII. 9. A more diligent search than I have made would probably increase the number of examples very largely.

706.e.g. Corp. Inscr. Lat. III. p. 238, no. 1467, D. M. M. AVR · ONESIMO · CARPION · AVG · LIB · TABVL · FILIO. In the next generation any direct notice of servile origin would disappear; but the names very often indicate it. It need not however necessarily denote low extraction: see e.g. Liv. xliv. 16.

707.Menander Inc. 312 (Meineke Fragm. Com. IV. p. 300), where the ???s??? addressed is a slave, as appears from the mention of his t??f???, i.e. master; Galen de Opt. Doctr. I (I. p. 41 ed. KÜhn), where there is a reference to a work of Phavorinus in which was introduced one Onesimus ? ????t????? d????? ?p??t?t? d?a?e??e???; Anthol. GrÆc. II. p. 161, where the context shows that the person addressed as Onesimus is a slave; ib. II. p. 482, where the master, leaving legacies to his servants, says ???s??? e???s? p??te " ??? ???t? ???? d’ e???s? ??? ???t?? " pe?t????ta S????? S???t? d??a, ?.t.?. See also the use of the name in the Latin play quoted Suet. Galb. 13 (according to one reading).

708.It occurs as near to ColossÆ as Aphrodisias; Boeckh C. I. no. 2743.

709.Ign. Ephes. I. ?? ???s?? t? ?? ???p? ?d????t? ??? d? ?? sa??? ?p?s??p? ... e?????t?? ? ?a??s?e??? ??? ?????? ??s?? t????t?? ?p?s??p?? ?e?t?s?a?; see also §§ 2, 5, 6.

710.Melito in Euseb. H.E. iv. 26 ?e??t?? ???s?? t? ?de?f? ?a??e??. ?pe?d? p??????? ????sa? ?.t.?.

711.Aristot. Pol. i. 4 (p. 1253) ? d????? ?t?? t? ??????, Eth. Nic. viii. 13 (p. 1161) ? ??? d????? ?????? ???a???, t? d’ ???a??? ?????? d?????. See also the classification of ‘implements’ in Varro, de Re rust. I. 17. 1 ‘Instrumenti genus vocale et semivocale et mutum: vocale, in quo sunt servi; semivocale, in quo boves; mutum, in quo plaustra’.

712.Dig. iv. 5 ‘Servile caput nullum jus habet’ (Paulus); ib. l. 17 ‘In personam servilem nulla cadit obligatio’ (Ulpianus).

713.Plaut. Pseud. I. 2, 6 ‘Ubi data occasiost, rape, clepe, tene, harpaga, bibe, es, fuge; hoc eorum opust’; Ovid. Amor. i. 15. 17 ‘Dum fallax servus’.

714.Cicero speaks thus of Phrygia and the neighbouring districts; pro Flacc. 27 ‘Utrum igitur nostrum est an vestrum hoc proverbium Phrygem plagis fieri solere meliorem? Quid de tota Caria? Nonne hoc vestra voce vulgatum est; si quid cum periculo experiri velis, in Care id potissimum esse faciendum? Quid porro in GrÆco sermone tam tritum est, quam si quis despicatui ducitur, ut Mysorum ultimus esse dicatur? Nam quid ego dicam de Lydia? Quis unquam GrÆcus comoediam scripsit in qua servus primarum partium non Lydus esset’: comp. Alciphr. Epist. iii. 38 F???a ????t?? ??? p?????? ?.t.?.; Apollod. Com. (Meineke, IV. p. 451) ?? pa?ta??? F??? e?? ?.t.?. This last passage refers to the cowardice with which, besides all their other bad qualities, the Phrygians were credited: comp. Anon. Com. (ib. IV. p. 652) de???te??? ?a?? F?????, Tertull. de Anim. 20 ‘Comici Phrygas timidos illudunt’: see Ribbeck Com. Lat. p. 106.

715.Ter. Phorm. i. 4. 13 ‘aliquid convasassem, atque hinc me protinam conjicerem in pedes’.

716.Sall. Cat. xxxvii. 5 ‘Romam sicuti in sentinam confluxerant’: comp. Tac. Ann. xv. 44.

717.1 Cor. vii. 22.

718.Eth. Nic. viii. 13 (p. 1161) f???a d’ ??? ?st? p??? t? ????a ??d? d??a???? ???’ ??d? p??? ?pp?? ? ???, ??d? p??? d????? ? d?????? ??d?? ??? ?????? ?st??? ? ??? d????? ?????? ???a???, t? d’ ???a??? ?????? d?????? ? ?? ??? d?????, ??? ?st? f???a p??? a?t??, ? d’ ?????p?? ?.t.?. On the views of Aristotle respecting slavery see Becker’s Charikles III. p. 2 sq. (ed. 2, 1854) with the editor K. F. Hermann’s references to the literature of the subject, p. 5.

719.1 Cor. vii. 21 sq., Gal. iii. 28, Col. iii. 11. With this contrast the expression attributed to a speaker in Macrob. Sat. i. 11 ‘quasi vero curent divina de servis’.

720.Philem. 16.

721.ver. 12.

722.Dig. i. 6 ‘In potestate sunt servi dominorum; quae quidem potestas juris gentium est: nam apud omnes peraeque gentes animadvertere possumus dominis in servos vitae necisque potestatem fuisse’. Comp. Senec. de Clem. i. 18 ‘Cum in servum omnia liceant’.

723.So the mistress in Juv. Sat. vi. 219 sq. ‘Pone crucem servo. Meruit quo crimine servus supplicium? quis testis adest? quis detulit?... O demens, ita servus homo est? nil fecerit, esto. Hoc volo, sic jubeo, etc.’ Compare the words of the slave in Plautus Mil. Glor. ii. 4. 19 ‘Noli minitari: scio crucem futuram mihi sepulcrum: Ibi mei sunt majores siti, pater, avos, proavos, abavos’.

724.See Acta Sanct. Boll. xvi Febr. (II. p. 857 sq. ed. nov.) for the authorities, if they deserve the name.

725.If we take the earlier date of the Epistles of St Ignatius, A.D. 107, we get an interval of 44 years between the Onesimus of St Paul and the Onesimus of Ignatius. It is not altogether impossible therefore that the same person may be intended. But on the other hand the language of Ignatius (Ephes. 1 sq.) leaves the impression that he is speaking of a person comparatively young and untried in office.

726.Apost. Const. vii. 46, quoted above, p. 372, note 676.

727.For these ecclesiastical legends see Act. Sanct. l.c. p. 858 sq.

728.Hieron. Comm. in Philem. PrÆf. VII. p. 743 ‘Pauli esse epistolam ad Philemonem saltem Marcione auctore doceantur: qui, quum cÆteras epistolas ejusdem vel non susceperit vel quÆdam in his mutaverit atque corroserit, in hanc solam manus non est ausus mittere, quia sua illam brevitas defendebat’. St Jerome has in his mind the passage of Tertullian adv. Marc. v. 21 ‘Soli huic epistolÆ brevitas sua profuit, ut falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet’.

729.ib. p. 742 sq. ‘Qui nolunt inter epistolas Pauli eam recipere quÆ ad Philemonem scribitur, aiunt non semper apostolum nec omnia Christo in se loquente dixisse, quia nec humana imbecillitas unum tenorem Sancti Spiritus ferre potuisset etc.... His et cÆteris istius modi volunt aut epistolam non esse Pauli quÆ ad Philemonem scribitur aut, etiamsi Pauli sit, nihil habere quod Ædificare nos possit etc.... sed mihi videntur, dum epistolam simplicitatis arguunt, suam imperitiam prodere, non intelligentes quid in singulis sermonibus virtutis et sapientiÆ lateat’.

730.Argum. in Philem. ???’ ?pe?d? t???? fas? pe??tt?? e??a? t? ?a? t??t?? p??s?e?s?a? t?? ?p?st????, e??e ?p?? p???at?? ????? ????se?, ?p?? ???? ??d???, a??t?sa? ?s?? ta?ta ???a???s?? ?t? ????? e?s?? ??????t?? ????? ?.t.?., and he goes on to discuss the value of the epistle at some length.

731.Spicil. Solesm. I. W. 149 ‘Quid vero ex ea lucri possit acquiri, convenit manifestius explicare, quia nec omnibus id existimo posse esse cognitum; quod maxime heri jam ipse a nobis disseri postulasti’; ib. p. 152 ‘De his et nunc superius dixi, quod non omnes similiter arbitror potius se (potuisse?) prospicere’.

732.Franke PrÆf. N. T. GrÆc. p. 26, 27, quoted by Bengel on Philem. 1.

733.Die Sendschreiben etc. p. 458.

734.L’Antechrist p. 96.

735.L’ApÔtre Paul p. 194. He goes on to say; ‘Never has the precept which Paul himself gave at the end of his letter to the Colossians been better realised, ? ????? ??? p??t?te ?? ????t?, ??at? ??t????? ?.t.?. (Col. iv. 6).’

736.Paulus p. 476.

737.Plin. Ep. ix. 21.

738.On slavery among the Hebrews see the admirable work of Prof. Goldwin Smith Does the Bible sanction American slavery? p. 1 sq.

739.In Ezra ii. 65 the number of slaves compared with the number of free is a little more than one to six.

740.Boeckh Public Economy of Athens p. 35 sq. According to a census taken by Demetrius Phalereus there were in the year 309 B. C. 21,000 citizens, 10,000 residents, and 400,000 slaves (Ctesicles in Athen. vi. p. 272 B). This would make the proportion of slaves to citizens nearly twenty to one. It is supposed however that the number of citizens here includes only adult males, whereas the number of slaves may comprise both sexes and all ages. Hence Boeckh’s estimate which is adopted in the text. For other calculations see Wallon Histoire de l’Esclavage I. p. 221 sq.

741.Athen. l.c. p. 272 B, D. The statement respecting Ægina is given on the authority of Aristotle; that respecting Corinth on the authority of EpitimÆus.

742.Athen. l.c. ??a??? ??ast?? ... p?e?st??? ?s??? ?e?t????? ????ta?? ?a? ??? ?????? ?a? d?s?????? ?a? ?t? p?e???? d? p?p????? ???t??ta?. See Becker Gallus II. p. 113 (ed. 3).

743.Plin. N.H. xxxiii. 47.

744.On the condition of Greek and Roman slaves the able and exhaustive work of Wallon Histoire de l’Esclavage dans l’AntiquitÉ (Paris 1847) is the chief authority. See also Becker and Marquardt RÖm. Alterth. v. 1. p. 139 sq.; Becker Charikles II. p. 1 sq., Gallus II. p. 99 sq. The practical working of slavery among the Romans is placed in its most favourable light in Gaston Bossier, La Religion Romaine II. p. 343 sq. (Paris 1874).

745.RÖm. Alterth. l.c. p. 184 sq.; Gallus II. p. 144 sq. In this, as in other respects, the cruelty of the legislature was mitigated by the humanity of individual masters; and the inscriptions show that male and female slaves in many cases were allowed to live together through life as man and wife, though the law did not recognise or secure their union. It was reserved for Constantine to take the initiative in protecting the conjugal and family rights of slaves by legislature; Cod. Theod. ii. 25. 1.

746.Wallon II. p. 177 sq.; RÖm. Alterth. l.c.; Gallus II. p. 145 sq.; Rein Privatrecht der RÖmer p. 552 sq. Hadrian first took away from masters the power of life and death over their slaves; Spart. Vit. Hadr. 18 ‘Servos a dominis occidi vetuit eosque jussit damnari per judices, si digni essent’. For earlier legislative enactments which had afforded a very feeble protection to slaves, see below p. 393.

747.Tac. Ann. xiv. 42. This incident took place A. D. 61. The law in question was the Senatusconsultum Silonianum, passed under Augustus A. D. 10.

748.Senec. Ep. Mor. 47 ‘Deinde ejusdem arrogantiÆ proverbium jactatur totidem hostes esse quot servos’; comp. Macrob. i. II. 13. See also Festus p. 261 (Ed. Mueller) ‘Quot servi tot hostes in proverbio est.’]

749.See the saying of Haterius in the elder Seneca Controv. iv. PrÆf., ‘Impudicitia in ingenuo crimen est, in servo necessitas, in liberto officium’, with its context. Wallon (I. p. 332) sums up the condition of the slave thus: ‘L’esclave appartenait au maÎtre: par lui mÊme, il n’Était rien, il n’avait rien. VoilÀ le principe; et tout ce qu’on en peut tirer par voie de consÉquence formait aussi, en fait, l’État commun des esclaves dans la plupart des pays. A toutes les Époques, dans toutes les situations de la vie, cette autoritÉ souveraine plane sur eux et modifie leur destinÉe par ses rigueurs comme par son indifference. Dans l’Âge de la force et dans la plÉnitude de leurs facultÉs, elle les vouait, À son choix, soit au travail, soit au vice; au travail les natures grossiÈres; au vice, les natures plus dÉlicates, nourries pour le plaisir du maÎtre, et qui lorsqu’il en Était las, Étaient relÉguÉes dans la prostitution a son profit. Avant et aprÈs l’Âge du travail, abandonnÉs a leur faiblesse ou a leurs infirmitÉs; enfants, ils grandissaient dans le dÉsordre; viellards, ils mouraient souvent dans la misÈre; morts, ils Étaient quelquefois dÉlaissÉs sur la voie publique....’

750.G. Smith Does the Bible etc.? pp. 95, 96.

751.1 Cor. vii. 21 sq.

752.The clause, ???’ e? ?a? d??asa? ??e??e??? ?e??s?a?, ????? ???sa?, has been differently interpreted from early times, either as recommending the slave to avail himself of any opportunity of emancipation, or as advising him to refuse the offer of freedom and to remain in servitude. The earliest commentator whose opinion I have observed, Origen (in Cram. Cat. p. 140), interprets it as favourable to liberty, but he confuses the meaning by giving a metaphorical sense to slavery, d????? ???ase? ??a??a??? t?? ?e?a???ta. Again, Severianus (ib. p. 141) distinctly explains it as recommending a state of liberty. On the other hand Chrysostom, while mentioning that ‘certain persons’ interpret it e? d??asa? ??e??e?????a?, ??e??e????t?, himself supposes St Paul to advise the slave’s remaining in slavery. And so Theodoret and others. The balance of argument seems to be decidedly in favour of the former view.

(1) The actual language must be considered first. And here (i) the particles e? ?a? will suit either interpretation. If they are translated ‘even though’, the clause recommends the continuance in slavery. But ?a? may be equally well taken with d??asa?, and the words will then mean ‘if it should be in your power to obtain your freedom’. So above ver. 11 ??? d? ?a? ????s??: comp. Luke xi. 18 e? d? ?a? ? Sata??? ?f’ ?a?t?? d?ee??s??, 1 Pet. iii. 14 ???’ e? ?a? p?s???te d?? d??a??s????. (ii) The expression ????? ???sa? seems to direct the slave to avail himself of some new opportunity offered, and therefore to recommend liberty; comp. ix. 12, 15.

(2) The immediate context will admit either interpretation. If slavery be preferred, the sentence is continuous. If liberty, the clause ???’ e? ?a? ... ????? ???sa? is parenthetical. In this latter case its motive is to correct misapprehension, as if the Apostle would say, ‘When I declare the absolute indifference of the two states in the sight of God, I do not mean to say that you should not avail yourselves of freedom, if it comes in your way; it puts you in a more advantageous position, and you will do well to prefer it’. Such a corrective parenthesis is altogether after St Paul’s manner, and indeed instances occur in this very context: e.g. ver. 11 ??? d? ?a? ????s?? ?.t.?., ver. 15 e? d? ? ?p?st?? ?????eta? ?.t.?. This last passage is an exact parallel, for the ??? of ver. 16 is connected immediately with ver. 14, the parenthesis being disregarded as here.

(3) The argument which seems decisive is the extreme improbability that St Paul should have recommended slavery in preference to freedom. For (i) Such a recommendation would be alien to the spirit of a man whose sense of political right was so strong, and who asserted his citizenship so stanchly on more than one occasion (Acts xvi. 37, xxii. 28). (ii) The independent position of the freeman would give him an obvious advantage in doing the work of Christ, which it is difficult to imagine St Paul enjoining him deliberately to forego. (iii) Throughout the passage the Apostle, while maintaining the indifference of these earthly relations in the sight of God, yet always gives the preference to a position of independence, whenever it comes to a Christian naturally and without any undue impatience on his part. The spirit which animates St Paul’s injunctions here may be seen from vv. 8, 11, 15, 26, 27 etc.

754.G. Smith Does the Bible etc.? p. 121.

755.Athenag. Suppl. 35 d????? e?s?? ???, t??? ?? ?a? p?e???? t??? d’ ???tt???. It would even appear that the domestic servant who betrayed Polycarp (Mart. Polyc. 6) was a slave, for he was put to the torture. Comp. Justin. Apol. ii. 12.

756.Ignat. Polyc. 4 ? ???t?sa? ?p? t?? ?????? ??e??e???s?a?, Apost. Const. iv. 9 t? ?? a?t??, ?? p??e????ae?, ???????e?a ???ata d?at?ssete d?a??????te? e?? ????as??? t?? ?????, ???e??? d?????? ?a? a??a??t???, des????, ?.t.?.

757.It must not however be forgotten that, even before Christianity became the predominant religion, a more humane spirit had entered into Roman legislation. The important enactment of Hadrian has been already mentioned, p. 387, note 746. Even earlier the lex Petronia (of which the date is uncertain) had prohibited masters from making their slaves fight with wild beasts in mere caprice and without an order from a judge (Dig. xlviii. 8. 11); and Claudius (A.D. 47), finding that the practice of turning out sick slaves into the streets to die was on the increase, ordered that those who survived this treatment should have their freedom (Dion Cass. lx. 29, Suet. Claud. 25). For these and similar enactments of the heathen emperors see Wallon III. p. 60 sq., RÖm. Alterth. V. I. 197, Rein Privatrecht d. RÖmer p. 560 sq. The character of this exceptional legislation is the strongest impeachment of the general cruelty of the law; while at the same time subsequent notices show how very far from effective it was even within its own narrow limits. See for instance the passage in Galen, v. p. 17 (ed. KÜhn) ?a?t????s? ?a? t??? ?f?a???? ?????tt??s? ?a? ??af??? ?e?t??s?? ?.t.?. (comp. ib. p. 584), or Seneca de Ira iii. 3. 6 ‘eculei et fidiculÆ et ergastula et cruces et circundati defossis corporibus ignes et cadavera quoque trahens uncus, varia vinculorum genera, varia poenarum, lacerationes membrorum, inscriptiones frontis et bestiarum immanium caveÆ.’

On the causes of these ameliorations in the law see RÖm. Alterth. V. 1. p. 199.

758.On the legislation of Constantine affecting slavery see De Broglie L’Eglise et l’Empire Romain, I. p. 304 sq. (ed. 5), Chawner Influence of Christianity upon the Legislation of Constantine the Great, p. 73 sq., Wallon III. p. 414 sq. The legislation of Justinian is still more honourably distinguished for its alleviation of the evils of slavery.

759.E.g. Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spic. Solesm. I. p. 152). Yet St Chrysostom himself pleads the cause of slaves earnestly elsewhere. In Hom. xl. ad 1 Cor. x. p. 385 he says of slavery, ‘It is the penalty of sin and the punishment of disobedience. But when Christ came, he annulled even this, For in Christ Jesus there is no slave nor free. Therefore it is not necessary to have a slave; but, if it should be necessary, then one only or at most a second’. And he then tells his audience that if they really care for the welfare of slaves, they must ‘buy them, and having taught them some art that they may maintain themselves, set them free.’ ‘I know,’ he adds, ‘that I am annoying my hearers; but what can I do? For this purpose I am appointed, and I will not cease speaking so.’ On the attitude of this father towards slavery see MÖhler p. 89 sq.

760.On the influence of Christianity in this respect see Wallon III. p. 314 sq., Schmidt Essai historique sur la SociÉtÉ Civile dans le Monde Romain etc. p. 228 sq. (1853), MÖhler Gesammelte Schriften II. p. 54 sq., G. Smith Does the Bible etc.? p. 95 sq., E. S. Talbot Slavery as affected by Christianity (1869), Lecky Rationalism in Europe II. p. 255 sq., European Morals II. p. 65 sq.

761.MÖhler p. 99 sq., Schmidt p. 246 sq., Lecky E. M. II. p. 73 sq.