Own

"herbs") is a very singular expression, and deserves Zoroastrian illustration. Even as an analogy the illustration is surely worth something, for a preExilic date for Isa. xxiv.-xxvii. cannot possibly be treated as respectfully as it is by Professor Ryle in his excellent book on the Canon. Mr. Moulton's "fortuitous parallel" from Yasna xxxi. 7 is interesting, and would really do good service in a comparison of Ahura Mazda and the Jehovah of the Second Isaiah. But I find it difficult to realize how he can add this very uncritical question: "Need I point out how powerfully this supports the unity of Ps. xix. ?" I have myself pointed out that the editor of Ps. xix. (whose mind we need not presume to have been void of ideas) may very possibly have had in his mind a comparison of the law upon earth to the sin in heaven, and this idea (which to the editor possibly justified the combination of passages in Ps. xix.) may indeed be illustrated by Mr. Moulton's quotation. But more than this cannot reasonably be argued; the Divine wisdom in its perfection and its manifoldness was a favourite subject of contemplation both in Judaism and in Zoroastrianism. The remark on "certain critics' principles" (p. 407) is amusing, but does not hit the mark. The principle of historical development does not require that progress should be always in a straight line, and the Gâthas are far from being perfect in spirituality. Similarly, the criticism on my "strictures" (!) upon the "scanty law" is utterly wrong. I appreciate, and indeed love, both parts of Ps. xix., as I have more than once sufficiently shown. Nor did I leave it for Mr. Moulton to quote the apotheosis of the daena in the later Avesta; it is really a parallel, not to "the psalmist's adoration (?) of the scanty Law," but to the virtual apotheosis of the Tôra in the later Judaism (Bampton Lectures, p. 358). Lastly, I have myself pointed out the parallels between the Zoroastrian language concerning the "wise Lord' and the expressions used in the prophecies respecting Jehovah, as helping to justify the supposition that Jewish believers would have felt an attraction towards the religion of Ahura Mazda. Altogether, let me assure readers of THE THINKER that there is more work of mine on Zoroastrianism behind the scenes than might be guessed from Mr. Moulton's criticisms, and that, rightly understood, my position is practically unassailable by any one. acquainted with recent researches on Zoroastrianism. And let me assure Mr. Moulton himself how glad I shall be if he can in any way stimulate an interest in that noble religion which in some important respects vies with the religion of the Bible. I trust that we shall soon hear of him again as making some original contribution to Zend scholarship, and thus entering the ranks of the masters of Zoroastrian lore.

THE INTENDED READERS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE

EPHESIANS.

BY REV. A. ROBERTSON, M.A., HATFIELD HALL, DURHAM.

THE following paper is devoted to a well-worn subject, and makes no claim. to offer a final solution of it. But it appears to the writer that a useful contribution to it may be made if the evidence is put together in a purely historical spirit and with all possible completeness.

We are met at starting with a difficulty. The treatment of our problem must differ widely, according to the estimate we form of the genuineness of the letter in question. If, in accordance with the view generally adopted in England, the Epistle is the work of St. Paul, it furnishes materials for a genuine historical investigation. If, according to the opinion of most foreign experts' who have recently investigated the question, the letter is at best the work of a disciple of St. Paul, the whole historical situation presupposed by it becomes imaginary; we have to ask, not to whom did the Apostle write, but to whom did the author wish to represent him as writing?

Yet the question at the head of this paper may be discussed hypothetically with important results to the other and larger problem. The difficulties which surround the address of the Epistle are claimed (by von Soden and others) to be a standing puzzle, on the assumption of its genuineness. The question is whether the hypothesis of its spuriousness removes, or augments, the difficulty.

We may, then, take as our text the remark of Kamphausen, that the Epistle was "either not written by Paul, or not written to the Ephesians," and ask, "is the question of the readers for whom the letter was written one which, on the provisional assumption of Pauline authorship, admits of a possible solution?"

Before discussing the internal evidence, which is the main purpose of this paper, it may be well to devote a few words to its title. All manuscripts and all versions, all fathers and all heretics, with the single exception of Marcion, and possibly others in his train ("haeretici," Tertull. adv. Marc., v. 11), give to our letter the title pòs 'Epertovs. What is important to observe is, that this title was not based on the mention of Ephesus in the body of the letter. Tertullian, who argues against Marcion, accuses him of tampering with the title, not with the text. Had he known of the disputed words in Eph. i. 1, he would certainly have mentioned them. We have evidence, therefore, that the title pòs 'Eper lovs was more universal than the reading ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in i. 1.

1 For a long time Holtzmann's Kritik, which made Ephesians the work of an imitator, principally based on an alleged Pauline nucleus of our present Colossians, held the field. But now von Soden (most recently in the Hand-Kommentar, 1891) has rehabilitated Colossians, with a passing doubt as to eight and a half verses, at the expense of Ephesians; and Klopper, an ancient (1853) champion of the latter, has in 1891 delivered his mature judgment against it. * See below, II.; the point is discussed more fully in Dict. of Bible, ed. 2, 8. v. EPHESIANS.

The first point, then, which calls for careful consideration is

I. The genuineness of the words ev 'Epéσy (chap. i. 1).

(i.) The evidence. The words are omitted by BN, as well as by a corrector of 67, representative of a very ancient text, akin to but not dependent on B (Scrivener, Introd.,3 p. 266; Westcott and Hort, ii., p. 155). Origen (in Cramer, Cat., p. 102) knows nothing of them; he explains Toîs ovơw as "partaking of the nature of [God] who is," referring to Exod iii.; 1 Cor. i. 28, and expressly notes the phrase as peculiar to this Epistle, ἐπὶ μόνων Εφεσίων. Basil (c. Eunom., ii. 19) adopts this exegesis in substance, referring not only to earlier expositors (oi pò pov, probably Origen), but also to MSS. consulted by himself (καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων εὑρήκαμεν). The words cannot have been read by Marcion, nor by the other "heretics mentioned by Tertullian, nor by Tertullian himself, who certainly would not have failed to use so summary a disproof of Marcion's title for the Epistle had he known of it. On the other hand, & A B3 D and all other extant MSS. except those mentioned above, and all existing Versions, even the old Latin, read the words (there are faint traces of variation in the order), and from the close of the fourth century the reading év 'Epéry becomes universal. Jerome (ed. Vall. vii. 545), noticing Origen's explanation of Toîs ovou (without mentioning Origen by name), prefers the connexion "qui Ephesi sunt" as “simpler," clearly without seeing that the other explanation had been due to the absence of ev 'Ep. from the text; "so thoroughly had the received reading become established in Jerome's day" (Tischendorf, who gives the passages referred to at greater length).

(not even

(i.) To the weight of early evidence against the words, modern critics have added that of the axiom difficilior lectio potior. If the words were originally part of the greeting, how can their omission be accounted for? On the other hand, their insertion, if not original, in a place seemingly incomplete without some words of the kind, finds a ready explanation in the general and independent tradition that the Epistle was addressed to the Ephesians. It must, indeed, be allowed that, difficult as the verse becomes when the words are omitted, their insertion does not make all plain sailing. The harsh hyperbaton of the Received Text has no exact parallel in St. Paul 1 Cor. i. 1; Phil. i. 1, the places cited by W. Schmidt in loc). Still the difficulty of the textus receptus has been much exaggerated (by Dr. Milligan, Encyc. Brit.", viii., p. 459, note: he proves too much, laying himself open to a retort in favour of so difficult a reading). Inversions in the order of words are not uncommon with St. Paul, and, remembering this, it is quite admissible to translate, "to the saints and faithful in Christ Jesus, who are at Ephesus." (iii.) The fact that there is no trace of any alternative words must be allowed to weigh in favour of év 'Epée; but its precise weight depends mainly on the two following points.

(iv.) Do the words rois obaw, without év 'Epéro, yield a tolerable sense? No one would nowadays defend the fanciful interpretation of Origen and Basil; scarcely more probable are those of Schneckenburger (Beitr., " who

are so in reality"), or Milligan (" who exist, are what they are. . . . in Christ Jesus”; cf. ëσte, ii. 5). That of Matthies ("that are there" or "that there are") has a parallel in T ovσy (Acts xiii. 1), where, however, the determining words év 'Avt. supply just what in the present case is fatally lacking. Weiss, Hofmann, Westcott and Hort (hypothetically) suggest "who are also faithful," &c. But this, besides leaving the order of the words unaccounted for, is, like the two first-named views, open to the objection of giving the letter so wide a destination as to bring it within the class of general epistles, whereas the readers are distinctly contemplated as a definite group of persons (infra, III.). In short, no satisfactory sense for rois oow by itself has yet been found.

(v.) This result is clinched by the parallelism of the phrases used, in the similar greetings of other Epistles, to introduce a local address; compare Tois ovơw in Rom. i. 7, 2 Cor. i. 1, Phil. i. 1. It is hardly conceivable that the same words should be introduced by St. Paul, or still more by an imitator, in this Epistle, in the same place, in the same manner, but in a wholly different sense. When we add to this that, as shown above, no other satisfactory sense can be given, and that ev 'Epéo is the only claimant for the place thus evidently vacant, the evidence for the disputed words becomes very strong.

(vi.) But if so, how are we to explain the formidable combination of testimony against them? The explanation must be sought in connexion with the fact (to be shown infra, IV.) that the letter was not meant to be read by the Ephesian Christians only. Supposing Tychicus to have been provided with a single copy to which the Ephesians would be entitled, he would have made copies for the other Churches which he was to visit. In these copies the words év 'Epéo might be omitted, while a natural respect for the writer would forbid alike the substitution of other words and the omission of more than could be helped. This hypothesis seems free from the objections raised by Kamphausen (Ursprüngl. Leserkreis d. Eph. Briefes, in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol., 1866, p. 742), Meyer, and others, to the hypothesis (of Bleek and many earlier critics, and favoured "on the whole " by Westcott and Hort) of a blank space left in the original letter to be filled up by the name of any particular Church to which a copy of the Epistle might be brought. This is said, with some justice, to be (1) too modern for St. Paul; (2) at variance with his practice when addressing several Churches at once (cf. Gal. i. 2; 2 Cor. i. 1); and (3) not to explain the facts, for the ev would in that case have stood in the original and in all the copies, while some of the latter would have contained the names of other towns. If the above hypothesis be adopted, it will be unnecessary to regard the omission (with Meyer, Ellicott, &c.) as an early piece of textual criticism, due to the phenomena to be noted.

1 The omission would thus correspond in purpose to that of èv 'Pwμŋ (Rom. i. 7), in G, g (Cod. Börn.), an omission possibly (see Lightfoot in Journ. of Phil., 1870) indicative of a circulation of that Epistle (in a form abridged by the omission of xv., xvi.) as an encyclical letter.

presently (IV.). The critical faculty of the Early Church was not very sensitive to such difficulties; even the Antiochene Fathers (Thd. Mops., and Thdt. on i. 15) put them aside with the ready explanation that St. Paul had not yet visited Ephesus when the Epistle was written! Still less could the omission be accounted for by dogmatic prepossessions. The only possible motive of the kind, viz., in favour of Origen's ontological interpretation (supra), is much too far-fetched.

(vii.) To sum up: the positive arguments for the genuineness of the words are exceedingly strong, while the early and weighty evidence against them can be harmonized with the supposition that they originally stood part of the letter. The known Ephesian destination of the letter might account for their insertion by a later hand (so von Soden, "vom Titulus aus "); but it harmonizes even more easily with their recognition as genuine. The evidence goes to show that from the first the Epistle was circulated both with them and without them, but that in either form it was known as an Epistle to the Ephesians. The explanation of this is matter for conjecture; but, in view of the facts now to be mentioned, the conjecture given above may claim reasonable probability.

II. Connexion of the Epistle with Ephesus. This must be regarded as certain. If the words év 'Epéo are, as we have shown reason for thinking, genuine, the question is closed. But it is hardly less so if they are spurious. In the latter case, and in the absence of other internal evidence to suggest it, nothing but a foundation of fact could have given rise to the title πρὸς Ἐφεσίους (Von Soden's alternative suggestion, p. 78 seq., is somewhat too subtle); not only Tertullian and Ignatius, but Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen regarded the Epistle as addressed to the Ephesians; while Tertullian's "haeretici" seem to be merely the followers of Marcion, whose designation, "ad Laodicenos," would appear, from Tertullian's words, to have been simply an inference of his own, not indeed directly due to doctrinal motives, but yet indirectly so, as lending credit to his more serious. manipulations of the text of the New Testament, "quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator." Tertullian regarded Marcion as the first to change the title of the Epistle, and there is no evidence to prove that he was wrong. The suggestion of Bleek (Einl., § 169), that Marcion represented a tradition current in Pontus, or founded his theory upon MS. evidence, rests upon nothing but the alleged absence of doctrinal motive, which is met by what has just been said. The coincidence of vi. 21 with 2 Tim. iv. 12 is far too slender a basis to account for a tradition so universal as that to which Marcion is the solitary exception. But it is not safe to build too much upon certain coincidences between the language of our Epistle and that of St. Paul's address (in Acts xx.) to the Ephesian Tрeoẞúrepot (given by Alford, Proleg., § 2, 8; cf. Holtzmann, Kritik, p. 252).

III. The Epistle addressed to a definite circle of Gentile readers. St. Paul has heard of their faith (i. 15); distinguishes them from some others to whom he is also writing (vi. 21, κaì iμeîs); treats them as exclusively Gentiles