St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon A revised text with introductions, notes and dissertations (part 2 of 4)

Preface

On the completion of another volume of my commentary, I wish again to renew my thanks for the assistance received from previous labourers in the same field. Such obligations must always be great; but it is not easy in a few words to apportion them fairly, and I shall not make the attempt. I have not consciously neglected any aid which might render this volume more complete; but at the same time I venture to hope that my previous commentaries have established my claim to be regarded as an independent worker, and in the present instance more especially I have found myself obliged to diverge widely from the treatment of my predecessors, and to draw largely from other materials than those which they have collected.

In the preface to a previous volume I expressed an intention of appending to my commentary on the Colossian Epistle an essay on ‘Christianity and Gnosis.’ This intention has not been fulfilled in the letter; but the subject enters largely into the investigation of the Colossian heresy, where it receives as much attention as, at all events for the present, it seems to require. It will necessarily come under discussion again, when the Pastoral Epistles are taken in hand.

The question of the genuineness of the two epistles contained in this volume has been deliberately deferred. It could not be discussed with any advantage apart from the Epistle to the Ephesians, for the three letters are inseparably bound together. Meanwhile however the doctrinal and historical discussions will, if I mistake not, have furnished answers to the main objections which have been urged; while the commentary will have shown how thoroughly natural the language and thoughts are, if conceived as arising out of an immediate emergency. More especially it will have been made apparent that the Epistle to the Colossians hangs together as a whole, and that the phenomena are altogether adverse to any theory of interpolation such as that recently put forward by Professor Holtzmann.

In the commentary, as well as in the introduction, it has been a chief aim to illustrate and develope the theological conception of the Person of Christ, which underlies the Epistle to the Colossians. The Colossian heresy for instance owes its importance mainly to the fact that it throws out this conception into bolder relief. To this portion of the subject therefore I venture to direct special attention.

I cannot conclude without offering my thanks to Mr A. A. VanSittart who, as on former occasions, has given his aid in correcting the proof sheets of this volume; and to the Rev. J. J. Scott, of Trinity College, who has prepared the index. I wish also to express my obligations to Dr Schiller-Szinessy, of whose Talmudical learning I have freely availed myself in verifying Frankel’s quotations and in other ways. I should add however that he is not in any degree responsible for my conclusions and has not even seen what I have written.

TRINITY COLLEGE, April 30, 1875.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

INTRODUCTION.

PAGE

I. The Churches of the Lycus 1–72

II. The Colossian Heresy 73–113

_On some points connected with the Essenes._

1. The name Essene 114–119

2. Origin and Affinities of the 119–157 Essenes

3. Essenism and Christianity 158–179

III. Character and Contents of the Epistle 180–194

TEXT AND NOTES 197–311

On some Various Readings in the Epistle 312–322

On the meaning of πλήρωμα 323–339

The Epistle from Laodicea 340–366

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

INTRODUCTION 369–395

TEXT AND NOTES 399–412

INDEX 415–424

I. THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

[Sidenote: Situation of the three cities.]

Lying in, or overhanging, the valley of the Lycus, a tributary of the Mæander, were three neighbouring towns, Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossæ[1]. The river flows, roughly speaking, from east to west; but at this point, which is some few miles above its junction with the Mæander, its direction is more nearly from south-east to north-west[2]. Laodicea and Hierapolis stand face to face, being situated respectively on the southern and northern sides of the valley, at a distance of six miles[3], and within sight of each other, the river lying in the open plain between the two. The site of Colossæ is somewhat higher up the stream, at a distance of perhaps ten or twelve miles[4] from the point where the road between Laodicea and Hierapolis crosses the Lycus. Unlike Laodicea and Hierapolis, which overhang the valley on opposite sides, Colossæ stands immediately on the river-bank, the two parts of the town being divided by the stream. The three cities lie so near to each other, that it would be quite possible to visit them all in the course of a single day.

Footnote 1:

The following are among the most important books of travel relating to this district; Pococke Description of the East and Some Other Countries, Vol. II, Part II, London 1745; Chandler Travels in Asia Minor etc., Oxford 1775; Leake Tour in Asia Minor, London 1824; Arundell Discoveries in Asia Minor, London 1834; Hamilton Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus, and Armenia, London 1842; Fellows Asia Minor, London 1839, Discoveries in Lycia, London 1840; de Tchihatcheff Asie Mineure, Description Physique, Statistique et Archéologique, Paris 1853 etc., with the accompanying Atlas (1860); de Laborde Voyage de l’Asie Mineure (the expedition itself took place in 1826, but the date on the title-page is 1838, and the introduction was written in 1861); Le Bas Voyage Archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure, continued by Waddington and not yet completed; Texier Description de l’Asie Mineure, Vol. I (1839). It is hardly necessary to add the smaller works of Texier and Le Bas on Asie Mineure (Paris 1862, 1863) in Didot’s series L’Univers, as these have only a secondary value. Of the books enumerated, Hamilton’s work is the most important for the topography, etc.; Tchihatcheff’s for the physical features; and Le Bas and Waddington’s for the inscriptions, etc. The best maps are those of Hamilton and Tchihatcheff; to which should be added the Karte von Klein-Asien by v. Vincke and others, published by Schropp, Berlin 1844.

Besides books on Asia Minor generally, some works relating especially to the Seven Churches may be mentioned. Smith’s Survey of the Seven Churches of Asia (1678) is a work of great merit for the time, and contains the earliest description of the sites of these Phrygian cities. It was published in Latin first, and translated by its author afterwards. Arundell’s Seven Churches (1828) is a well-known book. Allom and Walsh’s Constantinople and the Scenery of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor illustrated (1850) gives some views of this district. Svoboda’s Seven Churches of Asia (1869) contains 20 photographs and an introduction by the Rev. H. B. Tristram. This is a selection from a larger series of Svoboda’s photographs, published separately.

Footnote 2:

The maps differ very considerably in this respect, nor do the statements of travellers always agree. The direction of the river, as given in the text, accords with the maps of Hamilton and Tchihatcheff, and with the accounts of the most accurate writers.

Footnote 3:

Anton. Itin. p. 337 (Wesseling) gives the distance as 6 miles. See also Fellows Asia Minor p. 283, Hamilton I. p. 514. The relative position of the two cities appears in Laborde’s view, pl. xxxix.

Footnote 4:

I do not find any distinct notice of the distance; but, to judge from the maps and itineraries of modern travellers, this estimate will probably be found not very far wrong.

[Sidenote: Their neighbourhood and intercourse.]

Thus situated, they would necessarily hold constant intercourse with each other. We are not surprised therefore to find them so closely connected in the earliest ages of Christianity. It was the consequence of their position that they owed their knowledge of the Gospel to the same evangelist, that the same phases of thought prevailed in them, and that they were exposed to the same temptations, moral as well as intellectual.

[Sidenote: Physical forces at work.]

The physical features of the neighbourhood are very striking. Two potent forces of nature are actively at work to change the face of the country, the one destroying old land-marks, the other creating fresh ground.

[Sidenote: Frequent earthquakes.]

On the one hand, the valley of the Lycus was and is especially liable to violent earthquakes. The same danger indeed extends over large portions of Asia Minor, but this district is singled out by ancient writers[5] (and the testimony of modern travellers confirms the statement[6]), as the chief theatre of these catastrophes. Not once or twice only in the history of Laodicea do we read of such visitations laying waste the city itself or some flourishing town in the neighbourhood[7]. Though the exterior surface of the earth shows no traces of recent volcanoes, still the cavernous nature of the soil and the hot springs and mephitic vapours abounding here indicate the presence of those subterranean fires, which from time to time have manifested themselves in this work of destruction.

Footnote 5:

See especially Strabo xii. 8. 16 (p. 578) τὸ πολύτρητον τῆς χώρας καὶ τὸ εὔσειστον· εἰ γάρ τις ἄλλη, καὶ ἡ Λαοδίκεια εὔσειστος, καὶ τῆς πλησιοχώρου δὲ Κάρουρα.

Footnote 6:

Thus Pococke (p. 71) in 1745 writes of Denizli, which is close to Laodicea, ‘The old town was destroyed about 25 years past by an earthquake, in which 12,000 people perished.’

Footnote 7:

See below p. 38.

[Sidenote: Deposits of travertine.]

But, while the crust of the earth is constantly broken up by these forces from beneath, another agency is actively employed above ground in laying a new surface. If fire has its fitful outbursts of devastation, water is only less powerful in its gradual work of reconstruction. The lateral streams which swell the waters of the Lycus are thickly impregnated with calcareous matter, which they deposit in their course. The travertine formations of this valley are among the most remarkable in the world, surpassing even the striking phenomena of Tivoli and Clermont[8]. Ancient monuments are buried, fertile lands overlaid, river-beds choked up and streams diverted, fantastic grottos and cascades and archways of stone formed, by this strange capricious power, at once destructive and creative, working silently and relentlessly through long ages. Fatal to vegetation, these incrustations spread like a stony shroud over the ground. Gleaming like glaciers on the hill-side they attract the eye of the traveller at a distance of twenty miles[9], and form a singularly striking feature in scenery of more than common beauty and impressiveness.

Footnote 8:

Tchihatcheff P. I. Geogr. Phys. Comp. p. 344 sq., esp. p. 353. See the references below, pp. 9 sq., 15.

Footnote 9:

Fellows Asia Minor p. 283.

[Sidenote: Produce and manufactures of the district.]

At the same time, along with these destructive agencies, the fertility of the district was and is unusually great. Its rich pastures fed large flocks of sheep, whose fleeces were of a superior quality; and the trade in dyed woollen goods was the chief source of prosperity to these towns. For the bounty of nature was not confined to the production of the material, but extended also to the preparation of the fabric. The mineral streams had chemical qualities, which were highly valued by the dyer[10]. Hence we find that all the three towns, with which we are concerned, were famous in this branch of trade. At Hierapolis, as at Thyatira, the guild of the dyers appears in the inscriptions as an important and influential body[11]. Their colours vied in brilliancy with the richest scarlets and purples of the farther east[12]. Laodicea again was famous for the colour of its fleeces, probably a glossy black, which was much esteemed[13]. Here also we read of a guild of dyers[14]. And lastly, Colossæ gave its name to a peculiar dye, which seems to have been some shade of purple, and from which it derived a considerable revenue[15].

Footnote 10:

See note 13.

Footnote 11:

Boeckh Corp. Inscr. no. 3924 (at Hierapolis) τοῦτο τὸ ἡρῷον στεφανοῖ ἡ ἐργασία τῶν βαφεών. See Laborde’s view, pl. xxxv. In another inscription too (Le Bas and Waddington, no. 1687) there is mention of the purple-dyers, πορφυραβαφεῖς.

Footnote 12:

Strabo xiii. 4. 14 (p. 630) ἔστι δὲ καὶ πρὸς βαφὴν ἐρίων θαυμαστῶς σύμμετρον τὸ κατὰ τὴν Ἱερὰν πόλιν ὕδωρ, ὤστε τὰ ἐκ τῶν ῥιζῶν βαπτόμενα ἐνάμιλλα εἴναι τοῖς ἐκ τῆς κόκκου καὶ τοῖς ἁλουργέσιν.

Footnote 13:

Strabo xii. 8. 16 (p. 578) φέρει δ’ ὁ περὶ τὴν Λαοδίκειαν τόπος προβάτων ἀρετὰς οὐκ εἰς μαλακότητα μόνον τῶν ἐρίων, ᾖ καὶ τῶν Μιλησίων διαφέρει, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰς τὴν κοραξὴν χρόαν, ὥστε καὶ προσοδεύονται λαμπρῶς ἀπ’ αὐτῶν, ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ Κολοσσηνοὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁμωνύμου χρώματος, πλησίον οἰκοῦντες. For this strange adjective κοραξός (which seems to be derived from κόραξ and to mean ‘raven-black’) see the passages in Hase and Dindorf’s Steph. Thes. In Latin we find the form coracinus, Vitruv. viii. 3 § 14 ‘Aliis coracino colore,’ Laodicea being mentioned in the context. Vitruvius represents this as the natural colour of the fleeces, and attributes it to the water drunk by the sheep. See also Plin. N. H. viii. 48 § 73. So too Hieron. adv. Jovin. ii. 21 (II. p. 358) ‘Laodiceæ indumentis ornatus incedis.’ The ancient accounts of the natural colour of the fleeces in this neighbourhood are partially confirmed by modern travellers; e.g. Pococke p. 74, Chandler p. 228.

Footnote 14:

Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3938 [ἡ ἐργασία] τῶν γναφέ[ων καὶ βαφέων τῶν] (αλουργ[ῶ]ν.

Footnote 15:

See the passage of Strabo quoted p. 4, note 13. The place gives its name to the colour, and not conversely, as stated in Blakesley’s Herod. vii. 113. See also Plin. N. H. xxi. 9 § 27, ‘In vepribus nascitur cyclaminum ... flos ejus colossinus in coronas admittitur,’ a passage which assists in determining the colour.

[Sidenote: 1. LAODICEA.]

[Sidenote: Its name and history.]

1. Of these three towns LAODICEA, as the most important, deserves to be considered first. Laodice was a common name among the ladies of the royal house of the Seleucidæ, as Antiochus was among the princes. Hence Antiochia and Laodicea occur frequently as the designations of cities within the dominions of the Syrian kings. Laodicea on the Lycus[16], as it was surnamed to distinguish it from other towns so called, and more especially perhaps from its near neighbour Laodicea Catacecaumene, had borne in succession the names of Diospolis and Rhoas[17]; but when refounded by Antiochus Theos (B.C. 261–246), it was newly designated after his wife Laodice[18]. It is situated[19] on an undulating hill, or group of hills, which overhangs the valley on the south, being washed on either side by the streams of the Asopus and the Caprus, tributaries of the Lycus[20]. Behind it rise the snow-capped heights of Cadmus, the lofty mountain barrier which shuts in the south side of the main valley[21]. [Sidenote: Its growing prosperity.] A place of no great importance at first, it made rapid strides in the last days of the republic and under the earliest Cæsars, and had become, two or three generations before St Paul wrote, a populous and thriving city[22]. Among its famous inhabitants are mentioned the names of some philosophers, sophists, and rhetoricians, men renowned in their day but forgotten or almost forgotten now[23]. More to our purpose, as illustrating the boasted wealth and prosperity of the city, which appeared as a reproach and a stumblingblock in an Apostle’s eyes[24], are the facts, that one of its citizens, Polemo, became a king and a father of kings, and that another, Hiero, having accumulated enormous wealth, bequeathed all his property to the people and adorned the city with costly gifts[25]. To the good fortune of her principal sons, as well as to the fertility of the country around, the geographer Strabo ascribes the increase and prosperity of Laodicea. The ruins of public buildings still bear testimony by their number and magnificence to the past greatness of the city[26].

Footnote 16:

ἐπὶ Λύκῳ, Boeckh Corp. Inscr. no. 3938, Ptol. Geogr. v. 2, Tab. Peut. ‘laudicium pilycum’; πρὸς [τῷ] Λύκῳ, Eckhel Num. Vet. III. p. 166, Strabo l.c., Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 5881, 5893; πρὸς Λύκον, Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 6478. A citizen was styled Λαοδικεὺς ἀπὸ Λύκου, Diog. Laert. ix. 12 § 116.

Footnote 17:

Plin. N. H. v. 29.

Footnote 18:

Steph. Byz. s.v., who quotes the oracle in obedience to which (ὡς ἐκέλευσε Ζεὺς ὑψιβρεμέτης) it was founded.

Footnote 19:

For descriptions of Laodicea see Smith p. 250 sq., Pococke p. 71 sq., Chandler p. 224 sq., Arundell Seven Churches p. 84 sq., Asia Minor II. p. 180 sq., Fellows Asia Minor 280 sq., Hamilton I. p. 514 sq., Tchihatcheff P. I. p. 252 sq., 258 sq. See also the views in Laborde, pl. xxxix, Allom and Walsh II. p. 86, and Svoboda phot. 36–38.

The modern Turkish name is Eskihissar, ‘the Old Castle,’ corresponding to the modern Greek, Paleókastro, a common name for the sites of ancient cities; Leake p. 251. On the ancient site itself there is no town or village; the modern city Denizli is a few miles off.

Footnote 20:

The position of Laodicea with respect to the neighbouring streams is accurately described by Pliny N.H. v. 29 ‘Imposita est Lyco flumini, latera affluentibus Asopo et Capro’; see Tchihatcheff P. I. p. 258. Strabo xii. (l.c.) is more careless in his description (for it can hardly be, as Tchihatcheff assumes, that he has mistaken one of these two tributaries for the Lycus itself), ἐνταῦθα δὲ καὶ ὁ Κάπρος καὶ ὁ Λύκος συμβάλλε τῷ Μαιάνδρῳ ποταμῷ ποταμὸς εὐμεγέθης, where ἐνταῦθα refers to ὁ περὶ τὴν Λαοδίκειαν τόπος, and where by the junction of the stream with the Mæander must be intended the junction of the combined stream of the Lycus and Caprus. On the coins of Laodicea (Eckhel III. p. 166, Mionnet IV. p. 330, ib. Suppl. VII. p. 587, 589) the Lycus and Caprus appear together, being sometimes represented as a wolf and a wild-boar. The Asopus is omitted, either as being a less important stream or as being less capable of symbolical representation. Of modern travellers, Smith (p. 250), and after him Pococke (p. 72), have correctly described the position of the streams. Chandler (p. 227), misled by Strabo, mistakes the Caprus for the Lycus and the Lycus for the Mæander. The modern name of the Lycus is Tchoruk Sú.

Footnote 21:

The modern name of Cadmus is Baba-Dagh, ‘The father of mountains.’

Footnote 22:

Strabo xii. l.c. ἡ δὲ Λαοδίκεια μικρὰ πρότερον ὀῦσα ἀύξησιν ἔλαβεν ἐφ’ ἡμῶν καὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων πατέρων, καίτοι κακωθεῖσα ἐκ πολιορκίας ἐπὶ Μιθριδάτου τοῦ Ἐυπάτορος. Strabo flourished in the time of Augustus and the earlier years of Tiberius. The growing importance of Laodicea dates from before the age of Cicero: see p. 7.

Footnote 23:

Strabo l.c.; Diog. Laert. ix. 11 § 106, 12 § 116; Philostr. Vit. Soph. i. 25; Eckhel Doctr. Num. Vet. III. p. 162, 163 sq.

Footnote 24:

Rev. iii. 17; see below p. 43.

Footnote 25:

Strabo l.c.

Footnote 26:

The ruins of Laodicea have formed the quarry out of which the modern town of Denizli is built. Yet notwithstanding these depredations they are still very extensive, comprising an amphitheatre, two or three theatres, an aqueduct, etc. The amphitheatre was built by the munificence of a citizen of Laodicea only a few years after St Paul wrote, as the inscription testifies; Boeckh Corp. Inscr. no. 3935. See especially Hamilton I. p. 515 sq., who describes these ruins as ‘bearing the stamp of Roman extravagance and luxury, rather than of the stern and massive solidity of the Greeks.’

[Sidenote: Its political rank, as the capital of a conventus.]

Not less important, as throwing light on the Apostolic history, is the political status of Laodicea. Asia Minor under the Romans was divided into districts, each comprising several towns and having its chief city, in which the courts were held from time to time by the proconsul or legate of the province, and where the taxes from the subordinate towns were collected[27]. Each of these political aggregates was styled in Latin conventus, in Greek διοίκησις—a term afterwards borrowed by the Christian Church, being applied to a similar ecclesiastical aggregate, and thus naturalised in the languages of Christendom as diocese. At the head of the most important of these political dioceses, the ‘Cibyratic convention’ or ‘jurisdiction,’ as it was called, comprising not less than twenty-five towns, stood Laodicea[28]. Here in times past Cicero, as proconsul of Cilicia, had held his court[29]; hither at stated seasons flocked suitors, advocates, clerks, sheriffs’-officers, tax-collectors, pleasure-seekers, courtiers—all those crowds whom business or leisure or policy or curiosity would draw together from a wealthy and populous district, when the representative of the laws and the majesty of Rome appeared to receive homage and to hold his assize[30]. To this position as the chief city of the Cibyratic union the inscriptions probably refer, when they style Laodicea the ‘metropolis[31].’ And in its metropolitan rank we see an explanation of the fact, that to Laodicea, as to the centre of a Christian diocese also, whence their letters would readily be circulated among the neighbouring brotherhoods, two Apostles address themselves in succession, the one writing from his captivity in Rome[32], the other from his exile at Patmos[33].

Footnote 27:

See Becker and Marquardt Röm. Alterth. III. 1. p. 136 sq.

Footnote 28:

See Cic. ad Att. v. 21,‘Idibus Februariis ... forum institueram agere Laodiceæ Cibyraticum,’with the references in the next note: comp. also Plin. N.H. v. 29 ‘Una (jurisdictio) appellatur Cibyratica. Ipsum (i.e. Cibyra) oppidum Phrygiæ est. Conveniunt eo xxv civitates, celeberrima urbe Laodicea.’

Besides these passages, testimony is borne to the importance of the Cibyratic ‘conventus’ by Strabo, xiii. 4 § 17 (p. 631), ἐν ταῖς μεγίσταις ἐξετάζεται διοικήσεσι τῆς Ἀσίας ἡ Κιβυρατική. It will be remembered also that Horace singles out the Cibyratica negotia (Epist. i. 6. 33) to represent Oriental trade generally. The importance of Laodicea may be inferred from the fact that, though the union was named after Cibyra, its head-quarters were from the first fixed at or soon afterwards transferred to Laodicea.

Footnote 29:

See ad Fam. ii. 17, iii. 5, 7, 8, ix. 25, xiii. 54, 67, xv. 4; ad Att. v. 16, 17, 20, 21, vi. 1, 2, 3, 7. He visited Laodicea on several occasions, sometimes making a long stay there, and not a few of his letters are written thence. See especially his account of his work there, ad Att. vi. 2, ‘Hoc foro quod egi ex Idibus Februariis Laodiceæ ad Kalendas Maias omnium dioecesium, præter Ciliciæ, mirabilia quædam efficimus; ita multæ civitates, etc.’ Altogether Laodicea seems to have been second in importance to none of the cities in his province, except perhaps Tarsus. See also the notice, in Verr. Act. ii. I. c. 30.

Footnote 30:

The description which Dion Chrysostom gives in his eulogy of Celænæ (Apamea Cibotus), the metropolis of a neighbouring ‘dioecesis,’ enables us to realise the concourse which gathered together on these occasions: Orat. XXXV (II. p. 69) ξυνάγεται πλῆθος ἀνθρώπων δικαζομένων, δικαζόντων, ἡγεμόνων, ὑπηρετῶν, οἰκετῶν, κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 31:

On this word see Becker and Marquardt l.c. p. 138 sq. It had lost its original sense, as the mother city of a colony. Laodicea is styled ‘metropolis’ on the coins, Mionnet IV. p. 321.

Footnote 32:

Col. iv. 16 with the notes. See also below p. 37, and the introduction to the Epistle to the Ephesians.

Footnote 33:

Rev. iii. 14.

[Sidenote: Its religious worship.]

On the religious worship of Laodicea very little special information exists. Its tutelary deity was Zeus, whose guardianship had been recognised in Diospolis, the older name of the city, and who, having (according to the legend) commanded its rebuilding, was commemorated on its coins with the surname Laodicenus[34]. Occasionally he is also called Aseis, a title which perhaps reproduces a Syrian epithet of this deity, ‘the mighty.’ If this interpretation be correct, we have a link of connexion between Laodicea and the religions of the farther East—a connexion far from improbable, considering that Laodicea was refounded by a Syrian king and is not unlikely to have adopted some features of Syrian worship[35].

Footnote 34:

See Eckhel III. p. 159 sq. (passim), Mionnet IV. p. 315 sq., ib. Suppl. VII. p. 578 sq. (passim). In the coins commemorating an alliance with some other city Laodicea is represented by Zeus; e.g. Mionnet IV. pp. 320, 324, 331 sq., Suppl. VII. pp. 586, 589.

Footnote 35:

==αϲειϲ== or ==αϲειϲ λαοδικεων==. See Waddington Voyage en Asie Mineure au point de vue Numismatique (Paris 1853) pp. 25, 26 sq. Mr Waddington adopts a suggestion communicated to him by M. de Longpérier that this word represents the Aramaic עזיזא ‘the strong, mighty,’ which appears also in the Arabic ‘Aziz.’ This view gains some confirmation from the fact, not mentioned by Mr Waddington, that Ἄζιζος was an epithet of the Ares of Edessa: Julian Orat. iv; comp. Cureton Spic. Syr. p. 80, and see de Lagarde Gesamm. Abhandl. p. 16. On the other hand this Shemitic word elsewhere, when adopted into Greek or Latin, is written Ἄζιζος or Azizus: see Garrucci in the Archæologia XLIII. p. 45 ‘Tyrio Septimio Azizo,’ and Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 9893 Ἄζιζος Ἀγρίπα Σύρος. M. de Longpérier offers the alternative that ασειϲ, i.e. Ἀσίς, is equivalent to Ἀσιατικός. An objection to this view, stronger than those urged by Mr Waddington, is the fact that Ἀσίς seems only to be used as a feminine adjective. M. Renan points to the fact that this ζευς ασεις is represented with his hand on the horns of a goat, and on the strength of this coincidence would identify him with ‘the Azazel of the Semites’ (Saint Paul, p. 359), though tradition and orthography alike point to some other derivation of Azazel (עזאזל).

[Sidenote: 2. HIERAPOLIS.]

[Sidenote: Its situation.]

2. On the north of the valley, opposite to the sloping hills which mark the site of Laodicea, is a broad level terrace jutting out from the mountain side and overhanging the plain with almost precipitous sides. On this plateau are scattered the vast ruins of HIERAPOLIS[36]. The mountains upon which it abuts occupy the wedge of ground between the Mæander and the Lycus; but, as the Mæander above its junction with the Lycus passes through a narrow ravine, they blend, when seen from a distance, with the loftier range of the Mesogis which overhangs the right bank of the Mæander almost from its source to its embouchure, and form with it the northern barrier to the view, as the Cadmus range does the southern, the broad valley stretching between. Thus Hierapolis may be said to lie over against Mesogis, as Laodicea lies over against Cadmus[37].

Footnote 36:

For descriptions of Hierapolis, see Smith p. 245 sq., Pococke p. 75 sq., Chandler 229 sq., Arundell Seven Churches p. 79 sq., Hamilton p. 517 sq., Fellows Asia Minor p. 283 sq. For the travertine deposits see especially the description and plates in Tchihatcheff P. I. p. 345, together with the views in Laborde (pl. xxxii-xxxviii), and Svoboda (photogr. 41–47). Tchihatcheff repeatedly calls the place Hieropolis; but this form, though commonly used of other towns (see Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἱεραπόλις, Leake Num. Hell. p. 67), appears not to occur as a designation of the Phrygian city, which seems always to be written Hierapolis. The citizens however are sometimes called Ἱεροπολῖται on the coins.

The modern name is given differently by travellers. It is generally called Pambouk-Kalessi, i.e. ‘cotton-castle,’ supposed to allude to the appearance of the petrifactions, though cotton is grown in the neighbourhood (Hamilton I. p. 517). So Smith, Pococke, Chandler, Arundell, Tchihatcheff, Waddington, and others. M. Renan says ‘Tambouk, et non Pambouk, Kalessi’ (S. Paul p. 357). Laborde gives the word Tambouk in some places and Pambouk in others; and Leake says ‘Hierapolis, now called Tabúk-Kale or Pambuk-Kale’ (p. 252).

Footnote 37:

Strabo xiii. 4. 14 (p. 629) says ὑπερβαλοῦσι δὲ τὴν Μεσωγίδα ... πόλεις εἰσὶ πρὸς μὲν τῇ Μεσωγὶδι καταντικρὺ Λαοδικείας Ἱερὰ πόλις, κ.τ.λ. He cannot mean that Hierapolis was situated immediately in or by the Mesogis (for the name does not seem ever to be applied to the mountains between the Lycus and Mæander), but that with respect to Laodicea it stood over against the Mesogis, as I have explained it in the text. The view in Laborde (pl. xxxix) shows the appearance of Hierapolis from Laodicea. Strabo had himself visited the place and must have known how it was situated. Some modern travellers however (e.g. Chandler and Arundell) speak of the plateau of Hierapolis as part of the Mesogis. Steiger (Kolosser p. 33) gets over the difficulty by translating Strabo’s words, ‘near the Mesogis but on the opposite side (i.e. of the Mæander) is the Laodicean Hierapolis’ (to distinguish it from others of the name); but καταντικρὺ cannot be separated from Λαοδικείας without violence.

[Sidenote: Remarkable physical features.]

It is at Hierapolis that the remarkable physical features which distinguish the valley of the Lycus display themselves in the fullest perfection. Over the steep cliffs which support the plateau of the city, tumble cascades of pure white stone, the deposit of calcareous matter from the streams which, after traversing this upper level, are precipitated over the ledge into the plain beneath and assume the most fantastic shapes in their descent. At one time overhanging in cornices fringed with stalactites, at another hollowed out into basins or broken up with ridges, they mark the site of the city at a distance, glistening on the mountain-side like foaming cataracts frozen in the fall.

[Sidenote: Their relation to the Apostolic history.]

But for the immediate history of St Paul’s Epistles the striking beauty of the scenery has no value. It is not probable that he had visited this district when the letters to the Colossians and Laodiceans were written. Were it otherwise, we can hardly suppose, that educated under widely different influences and occupied with deeper and more absorbing thoughts, he would have shared the enthusiasm which this scenery inspires in the modern traveller. Still it will give a reality to our conceptions, if we try to picture to ourselves the external features of that city, which was destined before long to become the adopted home of Apostles and other personal disciples of the Lord, and to play a conspicuous part—second perhaps only to Ephesus—in the history of the Church during the ages immediately succeeding the Apostles.

[Sidenote: Hierapolis a famous watering-place.]

Like Laodicea, Hierapolis was at this time an important and a growing city, though not like Laodicea holding metropolitan rank[38]. Besides the trade in dyed wools, which it shared in common with the neighbouring towns, it had another source of wealth and prosperity peculiar to itself. The streams to which the scenery owes the remarkable features already described, are endowed with valuable medicinal qualities, while at the same time they are so copious that the ancient city is described as full of self-made baths[39]. An inscription, still legible among the ruins, celebrates their virtues in heroic verse, thus apostrophizing the city:

Hail, fairest soil in all broad Asia’s realm; Hail, golden city, nymph divine, bedeck’d With flowing rills, thy jewels[40].

Coins of Hierapolis too are extant of various types, on which Æsculapius and Hygeia appear either singly or together[41]. To this fashionable watering-place, thus favoured by nature, seekers of pleasure and seekers of health alike were drawn.

Footnote 38:

On its ecclesiastical title of metropolis, see below, p. 70, note 277.

Footnote 39:

Strabo l.c. οὕτω δ’ ἐστὶν ἄφθονον τὸ πλῆθος τοῦ ὕδατος ὥστε ἡ πόλις μεστὴ τῶν αὐτομάτων βαλανείων ἐστί.

Footnote 40:

Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3909, Ἀσίδος εὐρείης προφερέστατον οὖδας ἁπάντων, χαίροις, χρυσόπολι Ἱεράπολι, πότνια Νυμφῶν, νάμασιν, ἀγλαΐῃσι, κεκασμένη.

Footnote 41:

Mionnet IV. p. 297, 306, 307, ib. Suppl. VII. p. 567; Waddington Voyage etc. p. 24.

[Sidenote: The magnificence of its ruins.]

To the ancient magnificence of Hierapolis its extant ruins bear ample testimony. More favoured than Laodicea, it has not in its immediate neighbourhood any modern town or village of importance, whose inhabitants have been tempted to quarry materials for their houses out of the memorials of its former greatness. Hence the whole plateau is covered with ruins, of which the extent and the good taste are equally remarkable; and of these the palæstra and the thermæ, as might be expected, are among the more prominent.

[Sidenote: Its religious worship.]

A city, which combined the pursuit of health and of gaiety, had fitly chosen as its patron deity Apollo, the god alike of medicine and of festivity, here worshipped especially as ‘Archegetes,’ the Founder[42]. But more important, as illustrating the religious temper of this Phrygian city, is another fact connected with it. [Sidenote: The Plutonium.]In Hierapolis was a spot called the Plutonium, a hot well or spring, from whose narrow mouth issued a mephitic vapour immediately fatal to those who stood over the opening and inhaled its fumes. To the mutilated priests of Cybele alone (so it was believed) an immunity was given from heaven, which freed them from its deadly effects[43]. Indeed this city appears to have been a chief centre of the passionate mystical devotion of ancient Phrygia. But indications are not wanting, that in addition to this older worship religious rites were borrowed also from other parts of the East, more especially from Egypt[44]. By the multitude of her temples Hierapolis established her right to the title of the ‘sacred city,’ which she bore[45].

Footnote 42:

Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3905, 3906; Mionnet iv. pp. 297, 301, 307, ib. Suppl. vii. p. 568, 569, 570. In coins struck to commemorate alliances with other cities, Hierapolis is represented by Apollo Archegetes: Mionnet IV. p. 303, ib. Suppl. VII. 572, 573, 574; Waddington Voyage etc. p. 25; and see Eckhel III. p. 156. On the meaning of Archegetes, under which name Apollo was worshipped by other cities also, who regarded him as their founder, see Spanheim on Callim. Hymn. Apoll. 57.

Footnote 43:

Strabo l.c. He himself had seen the phenomenon and was doubtful how to account for the immunity of these priests, εἴτε θείᾳ προνοίᾳ ... εἴτε ἀντιδότοις τισὶ δυνάμεσι τούτου συμβαίνοντος. See also Plin. N. H. ii. 93 § 95 ‘locum ... matris tantum magnæ sacerdoti innoxium.’ Dion Cass. (Xiphil.) lxviii. 27, who also witnessed the phenomenon, adds οὐ μὴν καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν αὐτοῦ συννοῆσαι ἔχω, λέγω δὲ ἅ τε εἶδον ὡς εἶδον καὶ ἃ ἤκουσα ὡς ἤκουσα. Ammian. Marc. xxiii. 6. 18 also mentions this marvel, but speaks cautiously, ‘ut asserunt quidam,’ and adds ‘quod qua causa eveniat, rationibus physicis permittatur.’ Comp. Anthol. VII. p. 190 Εἴ τις ἀπάγξασθαι μὲν ὀκνεῖ θανάτου δ’ ἐπιθυμεῖ, ἐξ Ἱερᾶς πόλεως ψυχρὸν ὕδωρ πιέτω; Stobæus Ecl. i. 34, p. 680. Laborde states (p. 83) that he discovered by experiment that the waters are sometimes fatal to animal life and sometimes perfectly harmless; and if this be substantiated, we have a solution of the marvel. Other modern travellers, who have visited the Plutonium, are Cockerell (Leake p. 342), and Svoboda. In Svoboda’s work a chemical analysis of the waters is given.

Footnote 44:

On a coin of Hierapolis, Pluto-Serapis appears seated, while before him stands Isis with a sistrum in her hand; Waddington Voyage etc. p. 24. See also Mionnet IV. pp. 296, 305; Leake Num. Hell. p. 66.

The worship of Serapis appears elsewhere in this neighbourhood. At Chonæ (Colossæ) is an inscription recording a vow to this deity; Le Bas Asie Mineure inscr. 1693 b.

Footnote 45:

Steph. Byz. s.v. ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱερὰ πολλὰ ἔχειν.

[Sidenote: The birth-place of Epictetus.]

Though at this time we have no record of famous citizens at Hierapolis, such as graced the annals of Laodicea, yet a generation or two later she numbered among her sons one nobler far than the rhetoricians and sophists, the millionaires and princes, of whom her neighbour could boast. The lame slave Epictetus, the loftiest of heathen moralists, must have been growing up to manhood when the first rumours of the Gospel reached his native city. Did any chance throw him across the path of Epaphras, who first announced the glad-tidings there? [Sidenote: Epictetus and Christianity.]Did he ever meet the great Apostle himself, while dragging out his long captivity at Rome, or when after his release he paid his long-promised visit to the valley of the Lycus? We should be glad to think that these two men met together face to face—the greatest of Christian, and the greatest of heathen preachers. Such a meeting would solve more than one riddle. A Christian Epictetus certainly was not; his Stoic doctrine and his Stoic morality are alike apparent: but nevertheless his language presents some strange coincidences with the Apostolic writings, which would thus receive an explanation[46]. It must be confessed however, that of any outward intercourse between the Apostle and the philosopher history furnishes no hint.

Footnote 46:

See Philippians, pp. 312, 313.

[Sidenote: 3. COLOSSÆ.]

3. While the sites of Laodicea and Hierapolis are conspicuous, so that they were early identified by their ruins, the same is not the case with COLOSSÆ. [Sidenote: Difficulty of determining its site.]Only within the present generation has the position of this once famous city been ascertained, and even now it lacks the confirmation of any inscription found in situ and giving the name[47]. [Sidenote: Subterranean channel of the Lycus.]Herodotus states that in Colossæ the river Lycus disappears in a subterranean cave, emerging again at a distance of about five stades[48]; and this very singular landmark--the underground passage of a stream for half a mile—might be thought to have placed the site of the city beyond the reach of controversy. But this is not the case. In the immediate neighbourhood of the only ruins which can possibly be identified with Colossæ, no such subterranean channel has been discovered. But on the other hand the appearance of the river at this point suggests that at one time the narrow gorge through which it runs, as it traverses the ruins, was overarched for some distance with incrustations of travertine, and that this natural bridge was broken up afterwards by an earthquake, so as to expose the channel of the stream[49]. This explanation seems satisfactory. If it be rejected, we must look for the underground channel, not within the city itself, as the words of Herodotus strictly interpreted require, but at some point higher up the stream. In either case there can be little doubt that these are the ruins of Colossæ. [Sidenote: Petrifying stream.]The fact mentioned by Pliny[50], that there is in this city a river which turns brick into stone, is satisfied by a side stream flowing into the Lycus from the north, and laying large deposits of calcareous matter; though in this region, as we have seen, such a phenomenon is very far from rare. The site of Colossæ then, as determined by these considerations, lies two or three miles north of the present town of Chonos, the mediæval Chonæ, and some twelve miles east of Laodicea. The Lycus traverses the site of the ruins, dividing the city into two parts, the necropolis standing on the right or northern bank, and the town itself on the left.

Footnote 47:

See however a mutilated inscription (Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3956) with the letters ...==ηνων==, found near Chonæ.

Footnote 48:

Herod. vii. 30 ἀπίκετο ἐς Κολοσσάς, πόλιν μεγάλην Φρυγίης, ἐν τῇ Λύκος ποταμὸς ἐς χάσμα γῆς ἐσβάλλων ἀφανίζεται, ἔπειτα διὰ σταδίων ὡς πέντε μάλιστά κῃ ἀναφαινόμενος ἐκδιδοῖ καὶ οὖτος ἐς τὸν Μαίανδρον.

Footnote 49:

This is the explanation of Hamilton (I. p. 509 sq.), who (with the doubtful exception of Laborde) has the merit of having first identified and described the site of Colossæ. It stands on the Tchoruk Sú (Lycus) at the point where it is joined by two other streams, the Bounar Bashi Sú and the Ak-Sú. In confirmation of his opinion, Hamilton found a tradition in the neighbourhood that the river had once been covered over at this spot (p. 522). He followed the course of the Lycus for some distance without finding any subterranean channel (p. 521 sq.).

It is difficult to say whether the following account in Strabo xii. 8 § 16 (p. 578) refers to the Lycus or not; ὄρος Κάδμος ἐξ οὓ καὶ ὁ Λύκος ῥεῖ καὶ ἄλλος ὁμώνυμος τῷ ὄρει· τὸ πλέον δ’ οὗτος ὑπὸ γῆς ῥυὲις εἶτ’ ἀνακύψας συνέπεσεν εἰς ταὐτὸ τοῖς ἄλλοις ποταμοῖς, ἐμφαίνων ἅμα καὶ τὸ πολύτρητον τῆς χώρας καὶ τὸ εὔσειστον. If the Lycus is meant, may not συνέπεσεν imply that this remarkable feature had changed before Strabo wrote?

Laborde (p. 103), who visited the place before Hamilton, though his account was apparently not published till later, fixes on the same site for Colossæ, but thinks that he has discovered the subterranean course of the Lycus, to which Herodotus refers, much higher up a stream, close to its source (‘à dix pas de cette source’), which he describes as ‘à deux lieues au nord de Colossæ.’ Yet in the same paragraph he says ‘Or il [Hérodote, exact cicerone] savait que le Lycus disparaît près de Colossæ, ville considérable de la Phrygie’ (the italics are his own). He apparently does not see the vast difference between his près de Colossæ thus widely interpreted and the precise ἐν τῇ of Herodotus himself. Obviously no great reliance can be placed on the accuracy of a writer, who treats his authorities thus. The subterranean stream which Laborde saw, and of which he gives a view (pl. xl), may possibly be the phenomenon to which Herodotus alludes; but if so, Herodotus has expressed himself very carelessly. On the whole Hamilton’s solution seems much more probable.

Arundell’s account (Seven Churches p. 98 sq., Asia Minor p. 160 sq.) is very confused, and it is not clear whether he has fixed on the right site for Colossæ; but it bears testimony to the existence of two subterranean courses of rivers, though neither of them is close enough to the city to satisfy Herodotus’ description.

Footnote 50:

Plin. N.H. xxxi. 2 § 20. This is the Ak-Sú, which has strongly petrifying qualities.

[Sidenote: Its ancient greatness]

Commanding the approaches to a pass in the Cadmus range, and standing on a great high-way communicating between Eastern and Western Asia, Colossæ at an early date appears as a very important place. Here the mighty host of Xerxes halted on its march against Greece; it is mentioned on this occasion as ‘a great city of Phrygia[51].’ Here too Cyrus remained seven days on his daring enterprise which terminated so fatally; the Greek captain, who records the expedition, speaks of it as ‘a populous city, prosperous and great[52].’ But after this time its glory seems to wane. The political supremacy [Sidenote: and later decline.]of Laodicea and the growing popularity of Hierapolis gradually drain its strength; and Strabo, writing about two generations before St Paul, describes it as a ‘small town[53]’ in the district of which Laodicea was the capital. We shall therefore be prepared to find that, while Laodicea and Hierapolis both hold important places in the early records of the Church, Colossæ disappears wholly from the pages of history. Its comparative insignificance is still attested by its ruins, which are few and meagre[54], while the vast remains of temples, baths, theatres, aqueducts, gymnasia, and sepulchres, strewing the extensive sites of its more fortunate neighbours, still bear witness to their ancient prosperity and magnificence. It is not even mentioned by Ptolemy, though his enumeration of towns includes several inconsiderable places[55]. Without doubt Colossæ was the least important Church, to which any epistle of St Paul was addressed.

Footnote 51:

Herod. vii. 30. See p. 14, note 48.

Footnote 52:

Xen. Anab. i. 2. 6 ἐξελαύνει διὰ Φρυγίας ... εἰς Κολοσσάς, πόλιν οἰκουμένην, εὐδαίμονα καὶ μεγάλην.

Footnote 53:

πόλισμα, Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p. 576). Plin. N. H. v. 32 § 41 writes ‘Phrygia ... oppida ibi celeberrima præter jam dicta, Ancyra, Andria, Celænæ, Colossæ,’ etc. The commentators, referring to this passage, overlook the words ’præter jam dicta,’ and represent Pliny as calling Colossæ ‘oppidum celeberrimum.’ Not unnaturally they find it difficult to reconcile this expression with Strabo’s statement. But in fact Pliny has already exhausted all the considerable towns, Hierapolis, Laodicea, Apamea, etc., and even much less important places than these (see v. 28, 29 § 29), so that only decayed and third-rate towns remain. The Ancyra here mentioned is not the capital of Galatia, but a much smaller Phrygian town.

Footnote 54:

Laborde p. 102 ‘De cette grande célébrité de Colossæ il ne reste presque rien: ce sont des substructions sans suite, des fragments sans grandeur; les restes d’un théâtre de médiocre dimension, une acropole sans hardiesse,’ etc.

Footnote 55:

Geogr. v. 2.

[Sidenote: Uncertain orthography of the name.]

And perhaps also we may regard the variation in the orthography of the name as another indication of its comparative obscurity and its early extinction. Are we to write Colossæ or Colassæ? So far as the evidence goes, the conclusion would seem to be that, while Colossæ alone occurs during the classical period and in St Paul’s time, it was afterwards supplanted by Colassæ, when the town itself had either disappeared altogether or was already passing out of notice[56].

Footnote 56:

All Greek writers till some centuries after the Christian era write it Κολοσσαί: so Herod. vii. 30, Xen. Anab. i. 2. 6, Strabo xii. 8. 13, Diod. xiv. 80, Polyæn. Strat. vii. 16. 1; though in one or more MSS of some of these authors it is written Κολασσαί, showing the tendency of later scribes. Colossæ is also the universal form in Latin writers. The coins moreover, even as late as the reign of Gordian (A.D. 238–244) when they ceased to be struck, universally have ==κολοϲϲηνοι== (or ==κολοϲηνοι==); Mionnet IV. p. 267 sq.: see Babington Numismatic Chronicle New series III. p. 1 sq., 6. In Hierocles (Synecd. p. 666, Wessel.) and in the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 46) Κολασσαί seems to be the original reading of the text, and in later Byzantine writers this form is common. If Prof. Babington (p. 3) were right in supposing that it is connected with κολοσσός, the question of the correct spelling might be regarded as settled; but in a Phrygian city over which so many Eastern nations swept in succession, who shall say to what language the name belonged, or what are its affinities?

Thus, judging from classical usage, we should say that Κολοσσαί was the old form and that Κολασσαί did not supplant it till some time after St Paul’s age. This view is confirmed by a review of the authorities for the different readings in the New Testament.

In the opening of the epistle (i. 1) the authorities for ἐν Κολοσσαῖς are overwhelming. It is read by אBDFGL (A is obliterated here and C is wanting); and in the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Armenian Versions. On the other hand ἐν Κολασσαῖς is read by KP. 17. 37. 47, and among the versions by the Memphitic and the Philoxenian Syriac (ܩܘܠܐܣܘܤ, though the marg. gives ==κολϲϲαιϲ==). In the Peshito also the present reading represents Κολασσαῖς, but as the vowel was not expressed originally and depends on the later pointing, its authority can hardly be quoted. The Thebaic is wanting here.

In the heading of the epistle however there is considerably more authority for the form in α. Κολασσαεις is the reading of AB^* KP. 37 (Κολασαεις). 47. C is wanting here, but has Κολασσαεις in the subscription. On the other hand Κολοσσαεις (or Κολοσσαις) appears in אB^1 (according to Tregelles, but B^3 Tisch.; see his introd. p. xxxxviii) DFG (but G has left Κολασσαεις in the heading of one page, and Κολαοσαεις in another) L. 17 (Κολοσαεις), in the Latin Version, and in the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac. The readings of both Peshito and Philoxenian (text) here depend on the vocalisation; and those of other versions are not recorded. In the subscription the preponderance of authority is even more favourable to Κολασσαεις.

Taking into account the obvious tendency which there would be in scribes to make the title πρὸς Κολοσσαεῖς or πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς conform to the opening ἐν Κολοσσαῖς or ἐν Κολασσαῖς, as shown in G, we seem to arrive at the conclusion that, while ἐν Κολοσσαῖς was indisputably the original reading in the opening, πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς was probably the earlier reading in the title. If so, the title must have been added at a somewhat later date; which is not improbable.

Connected with this question is the variation in the adjectival form, -ηνός or -αεύς. Parallels to this double termination occur in other words; e.g. Δοκιμηνός, Δοκιμεύς; Λαοδικηνός, Λαοδικεύς; Νικαηνός, Νικαεύς; Σαγαλασσηνός, Σαγαλασσεύς, etc. The coins, while they universally exhibit the form in ο, are equally persistent in the termination -ηνός, ==κολοϲϲηνων==; and it is curious that to the form Κολοσσηνοί in Strabo xii. 8 § 16 (p. 578) there is a various reading Κολασσαεῖς. Thus, though there is no necessary connexion between the two, the termination -ηνός seems to go with the ο form, and the termination -αεύς with the α form.

For the above reasons I have written confidently ἐν Κολοσσαῖς in the text, and with more hesitation πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς in the superscription.

[Sidenote: Ethnological relations of the three cities.]

Considered ethnologically, these three cities are generally regarded as belonging to Phrygia. But as they are situated on the western border of Phrygia, and as the frontier line separating Phrygia from Lydia and Caria was not distinctly traced, this designation is not persistent[57]. Thus Laodicea is sometimes assigned to Caria, more rarely to Lydia[58]; and again, Hierapolis is described as half Lydian, half Phrygian[59]. On the other hand I have not observed that Colossæ is ever regarded as other than Phrygian[60], partly perhaps because the notices relating to it belong to an earlier date when these several names denoted political as well as ethnological divisions, and their limits were definitely marked in consequence, but chiefly because it lies some miles to the east of the other cities, and therefore farther from the doubtful border land.

Footnote 57:

Strabo, xiii. 4. 12 (p. 628) τὰ δ’ ἑξῆς ἐπὶ τὰ νότια μέρη τοῖς τόποις τούτοις ἐμπλοκὰς ἔχει μέχρι πρὸς τὸν Ταῦρον, ὥστε καὶ τὰ Φρύγια καὶ τὰ Καρικὰ καὶ τὰ Λύδια καὶ ἔτι τὰ τῶν Μυσῶν δυσδιάκριτα εἶναι παραπίπτοντα εἰς ἄλληλα· εἰς δὲ τὴν σύγχυσιν ταύτην οὐ μικρὰ συλλαμβάνει τὸ τοὺς Ῥωμαίους μὴ κατὰ φῦλα διελεῖν αὐτούς κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 58:

To Phrygia, Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p. 576), Polyb. v. 57, and so generally; to Caria, Orac. Sibyll. iii. 472 Καρῶν ἀγλαὸν ἄστυ, Ptol. v. 2, Philostr. Vit. Soph. i. 25 (though in the context Philostratus adds that at one time τῇ Φρυγίᾳ ξυνετάττετο); to Lydia, Steph. Byz. s.v. On the coins the city is sometimes represented as seated between two female figures ==φρυγια== and ==καρια==; Eckhel III. p. 160, comp. Mionnet IV. p. 329. From its situation on the confines of the three countries Laodicea seems to have obtained the surname Trimitaria or Trimetaria, by which it is sometimes designated in later times: see below, p. 65, note 205, and comp. Wesseling, Itin. p. 665.

Footnote 59:

Steph. Byz. s.v. says μεταξὺ Φρυγίας καὶ Λυδίας πόλις. But generally Hierapolis is assigned to Phrygia: e.g. Ptol. v. 2, Vitruv. viii. 3 § 10.

Footnote 60:

Colossæ is assigned to Phrygia in Herod. vii. 30, Xen. Anab. i. 2. 6, Strabo xii. 8. 13, Diod. xiv. 80, Plin. N. H. v. 32 § 41, Polyæn. Strat. vii. 16. 1.

[Sidenote: Their political relations.]

Phrygia however ceased to have any political significance, when this country came under the dominion of the Romans. Politically speaking, the three cities with the rest of the Cibyratic union belonged at this time to Asia, the proconsular province[61]. As an Asiatic Church accordingly Laodicea is addressed in the Apocalyptic letter. To this province they had been assigned in the first instance; then they were handed over to Cilicia[62]; afterwards they were transferred and re-transferred from the one to the other; till finally, before the Christian era, they became a permanent part of Asia, their original province. Here they remained, until the close of the fourth century, when a new distribution of the Roman empire was made, and the province of Phrygia Pacatiana created with Laodicea as its capital[63].

Footnote 61:

After the year B.C. 49 they seem to have been permanently attached to ‘Asia’: before that time they are bandied about between Asia and Cilicia. These alternations are traced by Bergmann de Asia provincia (Berlin, 1846) and in Philologus II. 4 (1847) p. 641 sq. See Becker and Marquardt Röm. Alterth. III. I. p. 130 sq. Laodicea is assigned to ‘Asia’ in Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 6512, 6541, 6626.

The name ‘Asia’ will be used throughout this chapter in its political sense, as applying to the Roman province.

Footnote 62:

Cic. ad Fam. xiii. 67 ‘ex provincia mea Ciliciensi, cui scis τρεῖς διοικήσεις Asiaticas [i.e. Cibyraticam, Apamensem, Synnadensem] attributas fuisse’; ad Att. v. 21 ‘mea expectatio Asiæ nostrarum diœcesium’ and ‘in hac mea Asia.’ See also above p. 7, notes 2, 3.

Footnote 63:

3 Hierocles Synecd. p. 664 sq. (Wessel.): see below p. 69.

[Sidenote: Important Jewish settlement in this neighbourhood.]

The Epistle to the Colossians supposes a powerful Jewish colony in Laodicea and the neighbourhood. We are not however left to draw this inference from the epistle alone, but the fact is established by ample independent testimony. When, with the insolent licence characteristic of Oriental kings, Antiochus the Great transplanted two thousand Jewish families from Babylonia and Mesopotamia into Lydia and Phrygia[64],[Sidenote: Colony of Antiochus the Great.] we can hardly doubt that among the principal stations of these new colonists would be the two most thriving cities of Phrygia, which were also the two most important settlements of the Syrian kings, Apamea and Laodicea, the one founded by his grandfather Antiochus the First, the other by his father Antiochus the Second. If the commercial importance of Apamea at this time was greater (for somewhat later it was reckoned second only to Ephesus among the cities of Asia Minor as a centre of trade), the political rank of Laodicea stood higher[65]. When mention is made of Lydia and Phrygia[66], this latter city especially is pointed out by its position, for it stood near the frontier of the two countries. A Jewish settlement once established, the influx of their fellow-countrymen would be rapid and continuous. Accordingly under the Roman domination we find them gathered here in very large numbers.[Sidenote: Confiscations of Flaccus.] When Flaccus the proprætor of Asia (B.C. 62), who was afterwards accused of maladministration in his province and defended by Cicero, forbade the contributions of the Jews to the temple-worship and the consequent exportation of money to Palestine, he seized as contraband not less than twenty pounds weight in gold in the single district of which Laodicea was the capital[67]. Calculated at the rate of a half-shekel for each man, this sum represents a population of more than eleven thousand adult freemen[68]; for women, children, and slaves were exempted. It must be remembered however, that this is only the sum which the Roman officers succeeded in detecting and confiscating; and that therefore the whole Jewish population would probably be much larger than this partial estimate implies. The amount seized at Apamea, the other great Phrygian centre, was five times as large as this[69]. [Sidenote: Other evidence.]Somewhat later we have a document purporting to be a decree of the Laodiceans, in which they thank the Roman Consul for a measure granting to Jews the liberty of observing their sabbaths and practising other rites of their religion[70]; and though this decree is probably spurious, yet it serves equally well to show that at this time Laodicea was regarded as an important centre of the dispersion in Asia Minor. To the same effect may be quoted the extravagant hyperbole in the Talmud, that when on a certain occasion an insurrection of the Jews broke out in Cæsarea the metropolis of Cappadocia, which brought down upon their heads the cruel vengeance of king Sapor and led to a massacre of 12,000, ‘the wall of Laodicea was cloven with the sound of the harpstrings’ in the fatal and premature merriment of the insurgents[71]. This place was doubtless singled out, because it had a peculiar interest for the Jews, as one of their chief settlements[72]. It will be remembered also, that Phrygia is especially mentioned among those countries which furnished their quota of worshippers at Jerusalem, and were thus represented at the baptism of the Christian Church on the great day of Pentecost[73].

Footnote 64:

Joseph. Antiq. xii. 3, 4.

Footnote 65:

Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p. 576) εἶτα Ἀπάμεια ἡ Κιβωτὸς λεγομένη καὶ Λαοδὶκεια αἵπερ εἰσὶ μέγισται τῶν κατὰ τὴν Φρυγίαν πόλεων. Below § 15 (p. 577) he says Ἀπάμεια δ’ ἐστὶν ἐμπόριον μέγα τῆς ἰδίως λεγομένης Ἀσίας δευτερεῦον μετὰ τὴν Ἔφεσον. The relative importance of Apamea and Laodicea two or three generations earlier than St Paul may be inferred from the notices in Cicero; but there is reason for thinking that Laodicea afterwards grew more rapidly than Apamea.

Footnote 66:

In Josephus l.c. the words are τὰ κατὰ τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Λυδίαν, the two names being under the vinculum of the one article: while immediately afterwards Lydia is dropped and Phrygia alone named, πέμψαι τινὰς ... εἰς Φρυγίαν.

Footnote 67:

Cic. pro Flacc. 28 ‘Sequitur auri illa invidia Judaici.... Quum aurum Judæorum nomine quotannis ex Italia et ex omnibus provinciis Hierosolyma exportari soleret, Flaccus sanxit edicto ne ex Asia exportari liceret ... multitudinem Judæorum, flagrantem nonnumquam in concionibus, pro republica contemnere gravitatis summæ fuit.... Apameæ manifesto comprehensum ante pedes prætoris in foro expensum est auri pondo centum paullo minus ... Laodiceæ viginti pondo paullo amplius.’

Josephus (Antiq. xiv. 7. 2), quoting the words of Strabo, πέμψας δὲ Μιθριδάτης εἰς Κῶ ἔλαβε ... τὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ὀκτακόσια τάλαντα, explains this enormous sum as composed of the temple-offerings of the Jews which they sent to Cos for safety out of the way of Mithridates.

Footnote 68:

This calculation supposes (1) That the half-shekel weighs 110 gr; (2) That the Roman pound is 5050 gr; (3) That the relation of gold to silver was at this time as 12 : 1. This last estimate is possibly somewhat too high.

Footnote 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 νωε. 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 (κιβωτός) 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.

Footnote 70:

Joseph. Ant. xiv. 10. 21.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 72:

An inscription found at Rome in the Jewish cemetery at the Porta Portuensis (Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 9916) runs thus; ==ενθα . κιτε . αμμια . [ε]ιουδεα . απο . λαδικιαϲ.== κ.τ.λ. i.e. ἔνθα κεῖται Ἀμμία Ἰουδαία ἀπὸ Λαοδικείας. 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.

Footnote 73:

Acts ii. 10.

[Sidenote: Special attractions of Hierapolis.]

Mention has already been made of the traffic in dyed wools, which formed the staple of commerce in the valley of the Lycus[74]. It may be inferred from other notices that this branch of trade had a peculiar attraction for the Jews[75]. If so, their commercial instincts would constantly bring fresh recruits to a colony which was already very considerable. But the neighbourhood held out other inducements besides this. Hierapolis, the gay watering place, the pleasant resort of idlers, had charms for them, as well as Laodicea the busy commercial city. At least such was the complaint of stricter patriots at home. ‘The wines and the baths of Phrygia,’ writes a Talmudist bitterly, ‘have separated the ten tribes from Israel[76].’

Footnote 74:

See p. 4.

Footnote 75:

Acts xvi. 14. Is there an allusion to this branch of trade in the message to the Church of Laodicea, Rev. iii. 17 οὐκ οἶδας ὅτι σύ εἶ ὁ ... γυμνός· συμβουλεύω σοι ἀγοράσαι ... ἱμάτια λευκὰ ἵνα περιβάλῃ, κ.τ.λ.? 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 βάμμα Σαρδιανικόν (Arist. Pax 1174, Acharn. 112) and the φοινικίδες Σαρδιανικαί (Plato Com. in Athen. II. p. 48 E) of the comic poets.

Footnote 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.

[Sidenote: St Paul had not visited the district when he wrote.]

There is no ground for supposing that, when St Paul wrote his Epistle to the Colossians, he had ever visited the church in which he evinces so deep an interest. Whether we examine the narrative in the Acts, or whether we gather up the notices in the epistle itself, we find no hint that he had ever been in this neighbourhood; but on the contrary some expressions indirectly exclude the supposition of a visit to the district.

[Sidenote: What is meant by Phrygia in St Luke?]

It is true that St Luke more than once mentions Phrygia as lying on St Paul’s route or as witnessing his labours. But Phrygia was a vague and comprehensive term; nor can we assume that the valley of the Lycus was intended, unless the direction of his route or the context of the narrative distinctly points to this south-western corner of Phrygia. In neither of the two passages, where St Paul is stated to have travelled through Phrygia, is this the case.

[Sidenote: 1. St Paul’s visit to Phrygia on his second missionary journey.]

1. On his second missionary journey, after he has revisited and confirmed the churches of Pisidia and Lycaonia founded on his first visit, he passes through ‘the Phrygian and Galatian country[77].’ I have pointed out elsewhere that this expression must be used to denote the region which might be called indifferently Phrygia or Galatia—the land which had originally belonged to the Phrygians and had afterwards been colonised by the Gauls; or the parts of either country which lay in the immediate neighbourhood of this debatable ground[78]. This region lies considerably north and east of the valley of the Lycus. Assuming that the last of the Lycaonian and Pisidian towns at which St Paul halted was Antioch, he would not on any probable supposition approach nearer to Colossæ than Apamea Cibotus on his way to ‘the Phrygian and Galatian country’, nor indeed need he have gone nearly so far westward as this. And again on his departure from this region he journeys by Mysia to Troas, leaving ‘Asia’ on his left hand and Bithynia on his right. Thus the notices of his route conspire to show that his path on this occasion lay far away from the valley of the Lycus.

Footnote 77:

Acts xvi. 6 τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν, the correct reading. For this use of Φρυγίαν as an adjective comp. Mark i. 5 πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα, Joh. iii. 22 εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν γῆν, Luke iii. 1 τῆς Ἰτουραίας καὶ Τραχωνίτιδος χώρας, Acts xiii. 14 Ἀντιόχειαν τὴν Πισιδίαν (the correct reading).

Footnote 78:

See Galatians, p. 18 sq., 22.

[Sidenote: 2. His visit on his third missionary journey.]

2. But if he was not brought into the neighbourhood of Colossæ on his second missionary journey, it is equally improbable that he visited it on his third. So far as regards Asia Minor, he seems to have confined himself to revisiting the churches already founded; the new ground which he broke was in Macedonia and Greece. Thus when we are told that during this third journey St Paul after leaving Antioch ‘passed in order through the Galatian country and Phrygia, confirming all the disciples,’[79] we can hardly doubt that ‘the Galatian country and Phrygia’ in this latter passage denotes essentially the same region as ‘the Phrygian and Galatian country’ in the former. The slight change of expression is explained by the altered direction of his route. In the first instance his course, as determined by its extreme limits—Antioch in Pisidia its starting point, and Alexandria Troas its termination—would be northward for the first part of the way, and thus would lie on the border land of Phrygia and Galatia; whereas on this second occasion, when he was travelling from Antioch in Syria to Ephesus, its direction would be generally from east to west, and the more strictly Galatian district would be traversed before the Phrygian. If we suppose him to leave Galatia at Pessinus on its western border, he would pass along the great highway—formerly a Persian and at this time a Roman road—by Synnada and Sardis to Ephesus, traversing the heart of Phrygia, but following the valleys of the Hermus and Cayster, and separated from the Mæander and Lycus by the high mountain ranges which bound these latter to the north[80].

Footnote 79:

Acts xviii. 23.

Footnote 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, τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν (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 δι’ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός (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.

[Sidenote: The inference from]

Thus St Luke’s narrative seems to exclude any visit of the Apostle to the Churches of the Lycus before his first [Sidenote: St Luke’s narrative]Roman captivity. And this inference is confirmed by St Paul’s own language to the Colossians.

[Sidenote: borne out by St Paul’s own language.]

He represents his knowledge of their continued progress, and even of their first initiation, in the truths of the Gospel, as derived from the report of others. He describes himself as hearing of their faith in Christ and their love to the saints[81]. He recalls the day when he first heard of their Christian profession and zeal[82]. .[Sidenote: Silence of St Paul.]Though opportunities occur again and again where he would naturally have referred to his direct personal relations with them, if he had been their evangelist, he abstains from any such reference. He speaks of their being instructed in the Gospel, of his own preaching the Gospel, several times in the course of the letter, but he never places the two in any direct connexion, though the one reference stands in the immediate neighbourhood of the other[83]. Moreover, if he had actually visited Colossæ, it must appear strange that he should not once allude to any incident occurring during his sojourn there, for this epistle would then be the single exception to his ordinary practice. And lastly; in one passage at least, if interpreted in its natural sense, he declares that the Colossians were personally unknown to him: ‘I would have you know,’ he writes, ‘how great a conflict I have for you and them that are in Laodicea and as many as have not seen my face in the flesh’[84].

Footnote 81:

Col. i. 4.

Footnote 82:

i. 9 διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς, ἀφ’ ἥς ἡμέρας ἠκούσαμεν, οὐ παυόμεθα, κ.τ.λ. This corresponds to ver. 6 καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, ἀφ’ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσατε καὶ ἐπέγνωτε τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. 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.

Footnote 83:

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

Footnote 84:

ii. 1 θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα ἔχω ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ καὶ ὅσοι οὐχ ἑώρακαν τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐν σαρκί, ἵνα παρακληθῶσιν αἱ καρδίαι αὐτῶν, συμβιβασθέντες κ.τ.λ. The question of interpretation is whether the people of Colossæ and Laodicea belong to the same category with the ὅσοι, 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 ὑπὲρ 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 καὶ ὅσοι, see the note on the passage.

[Sidenote: Epaphras was the evangelist of this district.]

But, if he was not directly their evangelist, yet to him they were indirectly indebted for their knowledge of the truth. Epaphras had been his delegate to them, his representative in Christ. By Epaphras they had been converted to the Gospel. This is the evident meaning of a passage in the opening of the epistle, which has been much obscured by misreading and mistranslation, and which may be paraphrased thus: ‘The Gospel, which has spread and borne fruit throughout the rest of the world, has been equally successful among yourselves. This fertile growth has been manifested in you from the first day when the message of God’s grace was preached to you, and accepted by you—preached not as now with adulterations by these false teachers, but in its genuine simplicity by Epaphras our beloved fellowservant; he has been a faithful minister of Christ and a faithful representative of us, and from him we have received tidings of your love in the Spirit’[85].

Footnote 85:

i. 6 ἐν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ ἔστιν καρποφορούμενον καὶ αὐξανόμενον, καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, ἀφ’ ἤς ἡμέρας ἠκούσατε καὶ ἐπέγνωτε τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καθὼς ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ Ἐπαφρᾶ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ συνδούλου ἡμῶν, ὅς ἐστιν πιστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν διάκονος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ καὶ δηλώσας ἡμῖν τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην ἐν πνεύματι.

The various readings which obscure the meaning are these. (i) The received text for καθὼς ἐμάθετε has καθὼς καὶ ἐμάθετε. 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 ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν the received reading is ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν. 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 καθὼς [καὶ] ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ Ἐπαφρᾶ, 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 ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. See the notes on the passage.]

[Sidenote: St Paul’s residence at Ephesus instrumental in their conversion.]

How or when the conversion of the Colossians took place, we have no direct information. Yet it can hardly be wrong to connect the event with St Paul’s long sojourn at Ephesus. Here he remained preaching for three whole years. It is possible indeed that during this period he paid short visits to other neighbouring cities of Asia: [Sidenote: A.D. 54–57.] but if so, the notices in the Acts oblige us to suppose these interruptions to his residence in Ephesus to have been slight and infrequent[86]. Yet, though the Apostle himself was stationary in the capital, the Apostle’s influence and teaching spread far beyond the limits of the city and its immediate neighbourhood. It was hardly an exaggeration when Demetrius declared that ‘almost throughout all Asia this Paul had persuaded and turned away much people’[87]. The sacred historian himself uses equally strong language in describing the effects of the Apostle’s preaching; ‘All they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks’[88]. In accordance with these notices, the Apostle himself in an epistle written during this sojourn sends salutations to Corinth, not from the Church of Ephesus specially, as might have been anticipated, but from the ‘Churches of Asia’ generally[89]. St Luke, it should be observed, ascribes this dissemination of the Gospel, not to journeys undertaken by the Apostle, but to his preaching at Ephesus itself[90]. Thither, as to the metropolis of Western Asia, would flock crowds from all the towns and villages far and near. Thence they would carry away, each to his own neighbourhood, the spiritual treasure which they had so unexpectedly found.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 87:

Acts xix. 26.

Footnote 88:

Acts xix. 10.

Footnote 89:

1 Cor. xvi. 19 ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τῆς Ἀσίας. 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).

Footnote 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.’

[Sidenote: Close alliance of these cities with Ephesus.]

Among the places thus represented at the Asiatic metropolis would doubtless be the cities lying in the valley of the Lycus. The bonds of amity between these places and Ephesus appear to have been unusually strong. The Concord of the Laodiceans and Ephesians, the Concord of the Hierapolitans and Ephesians, are repeatedly commemorated on medals struck for the purpose[91]. [Sidenote: The work of Philemon and Nymphas,] Thus the Colossians, Epaphras and Philemon, the latter with his household[92], and perhaps also the Laodicean Nymphas[93], would fall in with the Apostle of the Gentiles and hear from his lips the first tidings of a heavenly life.

Footnote 91:

λαοδικεων . εφεϲιων . ομονοια, Eckhel III. p. 165, Mionnet IV. p. 324, 325, 331, 332, Suppl. VII. p. 583, 586, 589; ιεραπολειτων . εφεσιων . ομονοια, 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.

Footnote 92:

Philem. 1, 2, 19.

Footnote 93:

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

[Sidenote: but especially Epaphras.]

But, whatever service may have been rendered by Philemon at Colossæ, or by Nymphas at Laodicea, it was to Epaphras especially that all the three cities were indebted for their knowledge of the Gospel. Though he was a Colossian by birth, the fervency of his prayers and the energy of his love are represented as extending equally to Laodicea and Hierapolis[94]. It is obvious that he looked upon himself as responsible for the spiritual well-being of all alike.

Footnote 94:

iv. 12, 13.

[Sidenote: St Paul still a stranger to this district.]

We pass over a period of five or six years. St Paul’s first captivity in Rome is now drawing to a close. During this interval he has not once visited the valley of the Lycus. He has, it is true, skirted the coast and called at Miletus, which lies near the mouth of the Mæander; but, though the elders of Ephesus were summoned to meet him there[95], no mention is made of any representatives from these more distant towns.

Footnote 95:

Acts xx. 16, 17.

[Sidenote: His imprisonment at Rome.]

I have elsewhere described the Apostle’s circumstances during his residence in Rome, so far as they are known to us[96]. It is sufficient to say here, that though he is still a prisoner, friends new and old minister freely to his wants. Meanwhile the alienation of the Judaic Christians is complete. Three only, remaining faithful to him, are commemorated as honourable exceptions in the general desertion[97].

Footnote 96:

See Philippians p. 6 sq.

Footnote 97:

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

[Sidenote: Colossæ brought before his notice by two incidents.]

We have seen that Colossæ was an unimportant place, and that it had no direct personal claims on the Apostle. We might therefore feel surprise that, thus doubly disqualified, it should nevertheless attract his special attention at a critical moment, when severe personal trials were superadded to ‘the care of all the churches.’ But two circumstances, the one affecting his public duties, the other private and personal, happening at this time, conspired to bring Colossæ prominently before his notice.

[Sidenote: 1. The mission of EPAPHRAS.]

1. He had received a visit from EPAPHRAS. The dangerous condition of the Colossian and neighbouring churches had filled the mind of their evangelist with alarm. A strange form of heresy had broken out in these brotherhoods—a combination of Judaic formalism with Oriental mystic speculation—and was already spreading rapidly. His distress was extreme. He gratefully acknowledged and reported their faith in Christ and their works of love[98]. But this only quickened his anxiety. He had ‘much toil for them’; he was ‘ever wrestling in his prayers on their behalf,’ that they might stand fast and not abandon the simplicity of their earlier faith[99]. He came to Rome, we may suppose, for the express purpose of laying this state of things before the Apostle and seeking his counsel and assistance.

Footnote 98:

i. 4, 8.

Footnote 99:

iv. 12, 13.

[Sidenote: 2. ONESIMUS a fugitive in Rome.]

2. But at the time when Epaphras paid this visit, St Paul was also in communication with another Colossian, who had visited Rome under very different circumstances. ONESIMUS, the runaway slave, had sought the metropolis, the common sink of all nations[100], probably as a convenient hiding place, where he might escape detection among its crowds and make a livelihood as best he could. Here, perhaps accidentally, perhaps through the intervention of Epaphras, he fell in with his master’s old friend. The Apostle interested himself in his case, instructed him in the Gospel, and transformed him from a good-for-nothing slave[101] into a ‘faithful and beloved brother[102].’

Footnote 100:

Tac. An. xv. 44.

Footnote 101:

Philem. 11 τόν ποτέ σοι ἄχρηστον κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 102:

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

[Sidenote: The Apostle despatches three letters simultaneously.]

This combination of circumstances called the Apostle’s attention to the Churches of the Lycus, and more especially to Colossæ. His letters, which had been found ‘weighty and powerful’ in other cases, might not be unavailing now; and in this hope he took up his pen. Three epistles were written and despatched at the same time to this district.

[Sidenote: 1. The EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.]

1. He addresses a special letter to the COLOSSIANS, written in the joint names of himself and Timothy, warning them against the errors of the false teachers. He gratefully acknowledges the report which he has received of their love and zeal[103]. He assures them of the conflict which agitates him on their behalf[104]. He warns them to be on their guard against the delusive logic of enticing words, against the vain deceit of a false philosophy[105]. [Sidenote: The theological and the practical error of the Colossians.]The purity of their Christianity is endangered by two errors, recommended to them by their heretical leaders—the one theological, the other practical—but both alike springing from the same source, the conception of matter as the origin and abode of evil. Thus, regarding God and matter as directly antagonistic and therefore apart from and having no communication with each other, they sought to explain the creation and government of the world by interposing a series of intermediate beings, emanations or angels, to whom accordingly they offered worship. At the same time, since they held that evil resided, not in the rebellious spirit of man, but in the innate properties of matter, they sought to overcome it by a rigid ascetic discipline, which failed after all to touch the springs of action. [Sidenote: The proper corrective to both lies in the Christ of the Gospel.]As both errors flowed from the same source, they must be corrected by the application of the same remedy, the Christ of the Gospel. In the Person of Christ, the one mediator between heaven and earth, is the true solution of the theological difficulty. Through the Life in Christ, the purification of the heart through faith and love, is the effectual triumph over moral evil[106]. [Sidenote: References to Epaphras.]St Paul therefore prescribes to the Colossians the true teaching of the Gospel, as the best antidote to the twofold danger which threatens at once their theological creed and their moral principles; while at the same time he enforces his lesson by the claims of personal affection, appealing to the devotion of their evangelist Epaphras on their behalf[107].

Footnote 103:

i. 3–9, 21 sq.

Footnote 104:

ii. 1 sq.

Footnote 105:

ii. 4, 8, 18.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 107:

i. 7, iv. 12.

Of Epaphras himself we know nothing beyond the few but significant notices which connect him with Colossæ[108]. He did not return to Colossæ as the bearer of the letter, but remained behind with St Paul[109]. As St Paul in a contemporary epistle designates him his fellow-prisoner[110], it may be inferred that his zeal and affection had involved him in the Apostle’s captivity, and that his continuance in Rome was enforced. But however this may be, the letter was placed in the hands of Tychicus, a native of proconsular Asia, probably of Ephesus[111],[Sidenote: Tychicus and Onesimus accompany the letter.] who was entrusted with a wider mission at this time, and in its discharge would be obliged to visit the valley of the Lycus[112]. At the same time he was accompanied by Onesimus, whom the Colossians had only known hitherto as a worthless slave, but who now returns to them with the stamp of the Apostle’s warm approval. St Paul says very little about himself, because Tychicus and Onesimus would be able by word of mouth to communicate all information to the Colossians[113]. [Sidenote: The salutations.]But he sends one or two salutations which deserve a few words of explanation. Epaphras of course greets his fellow-townsmen and children in the faith. Other names are those of Aristarchus the Thessalonian, who had been with the Apostle at Ephesus[114] and may possibly have formed some personal connexion with the Colossians at that time: Mark, against whom apparently the Apostle fears that a prejudice may be entertained (perhaps the fact of his earlier desertion, and of St Paul’s dissatisfaction in consequence[115], may have been widely known), and for whom therefore he asks a favourable reception at his approaching visit to Colossæ, according to instructions which they had already received; and Jesus the Just, of whose relations with the Colossians we know nothing, and whose only claim to a mention may have been his singular fidelity to the Apostle at a critical juncture. Salutations moreover are added from Luke and from Demas; and here again their close companionship with the Apostle is, so far as we know, the sole cause of their names appearing[116].

Footnote 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.

Footnote 109:

Col. iv. 12.

Footnote 110:

Philem. 23 ὁ συναιχμάλωτός μου. 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.

Footnote 111:

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

Footnote 112:

See below, p. 37.

Footnote 113:

Col. iv. 7–9.

Footnote 114:

Acts xix. 29.

Footnote 115:

Acts xiii. 13, xv. 37–39.

Footnote 116:

Col. iv. 10–14.

[Sidenote: Charge respecting Laodicea.]

Lastly, the Laodiceans were closely connected with the Colossians by local and spiritual ties. To the Church of Laodicea therefore, and to the household of one Nymphas who was a prominent member of it, he sends greeting. At the same time he directs them to interchange letters with the Laodiceans; for to Laodicea also he had written. And he closes his salutations with a message to Archippus, a resident either at Colossæ or at Laodicea (for on this point we are left to conjecture), who held some important office in the Church, and respecting whose zeal he seems to have entertained a misgiving[117].

Footnote 117:

iv. 15–17.

[Sidenote: 2. The LETTER TO PHILEMON.]

2. But, while providing for the spiritual welfare of the whole Colossian Church, he did not forget the temporal interests of its humblest member. Having attended to the solicitations of the evangelist Epaphras, he addressed himself to the troubles of the runaway slave Onesimus. The mission of Tychicus to Colossæ was a favourable opportunity of restoring him to Philemon; for Tychicus, well known as the Apostle’s friend and fellow-labourer, might throw the shield of his protection over him and avert the worst consequences of Philemon’s anger. But, not content with this measure of precaution, the Apostle himself writes to PHILEMON on the offender’s behalf, recommending him as a changed man[118], and claiming forgiveness for him as a return due from Philemon to himself as to his spiritual father[119].

Footnote 118:

Philem. 11, 16.

Footnote 119:

ver. 19.

The salutations in this letter are the same as those in the Epistle to the Colossians with the exception of Jesus Justus, whose name is omitted[120]. Towards the close St Paul declares his hope of release and intention of visiting Colossæ, and asks Philemon to ‘prepare a lodging’ for him[121].

Footnote 120:

vv. 23, 24.

Footnote 121:

ver. 22.

[Sidenote: 3. The CIRCULAR LETTER, of which a copy is sent to LAODICEA.]

3. But at the same time with the two letters destined especially for Colossæ, the Apostle despatched a third, which had a wider scope. It has been already mentioned that Tychicus was charged with a mission to the Asiatic Churches. It has been noticed also that the Colossians were directed to procure and read a letter in the possession of the Laodiceans. These two facts are closely connected. The Apostle wrote at this time a circular letter to the Asiatic Churches, which got its ultimate designation from the metropolitan city and is consequently known to us as the Epistle to the EPHESIANS[122]. It was the immediate object of Tychicus’ journey to deliver copies of this letter at all the principal centres of Christianity in the district, and at the same time to communicate by word of mouth the Apostle’s special messages to each[123]. Among these centres was Laodicea. Thus his mission brought him into the immediate neighbourhood of Colossæ. But he was not charged to deliver another copy of the circular letter at Colossæ itself, for this Church would be regarded only as a dependency of Laodicea; and besides he was the bearer of a special letter from the Apostle to them. It was sufficient therefore to provide that the Laodicean copy should be circulated and read at Colossæ.

Footnote 122:

See the introduction to the epistle.

Footnote 123:

Ephes. vi. 21, 22.

[Sidenote: Personal links connecting the three letters.]

Thus the three letters are closely related. Tychicus is the personal link of connexion between the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians; Onesimus between those to the Colossians and to Philemon.

For reasons given elsewhere[124], it would appear that these three letters were written and despatched towards the close of [Sidenote: Earthquake in the Lycus Valley.]the Apostle’s captivity, about the year 63. At some time not very distant from this date, a great catastrophe overtook the cities of the Lycus valley. An earthquake was no uncommon occurrence in this region[125]. But on this occasion the shock had been unusually violent, and Laodicea, the flourishing and populous, was laid in ruins. Tacitus, who is our earliest authority for this fact, places it in the year 60 and is silent about the neighbouring towns[126]. Eusebius however makes it subsequent [Sidenote: Its probable date.]to the burning of Rome (A.D. 64), and mentions Hierapolis and Colossæ also as involved in the disaster[127]; while later writers, adopting the date of Eusebius and including the three cities with him, represent it as one of a series of divine judgments on the heathen world for the persecution of the Christians which followed on the fire[128]. Having no direct knowledge of the source from which Eusebius derived his information, we should naturally be disposed to accept the authority of Tacitus for the date, as more trustworthy. But, as indications occur elsewhere that Eusebius followed unusually good authorities in recording these earthquakes[129], it is far from improbable that he [Sidenote: Bearing on the chronology of these letters.] gives the correct date[130]. In this case the catastrophe was subsequent to the writing of these letters. If on the other hand the year named by Tacitus be adopted, we gain a subsidiary confirmation of the comparatively late date which I have ventured to assign to these epistles on independent grounds; for, if they had been written two years earlier, when the blow was recent, we might reasonably have expected to find some reference to a disaster which had devastated Laodicea and from which Colossæ cannot have escaped altogether without injury. The additional fact mentioned by the Roman historian, that Laodicea was rebuilt from her own resources without the usual assistance from Rome[131], is valuable as illustrating a later notice in the Apostolic writings[132].

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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 ἡ Ἀσία τὸ ἔθνος ἐπικουρίας τινὸς διὰ σεισμοὺς μάλιστα ἐδεῖτο.

(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 (καθ’ ἡμέραν), and that Apamea has suffered from numerous earthquakes.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 128:

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

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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 Τλῆμον Λαοδίκεια, σὲ δὲ τρώσει ποτὲ σεισμὸς πρηνίξας, στήσει δὲ πάλιν πόλιν εὐρυάγυιαν, where στήσει 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.

Footnote 132:

See below, p. 43.

[Sidenote: St Mark’s intended visit.]

It has been seen that, when these letters were written, St Mark was intending shortly to visit Colossæ, and that the Apostle himself, looking forward to his release, hoped at length to make a personal acquaintance with these Churches, which hitherto he knew only through the report of others. Whether St Mark’s visit was ever paid or not, we have no means of determining[133]. Of St Paul himself it is reasonable to assume, [Sidenote: St Paul probably visits Colossæ.] that in the interval between his first and second Roman captivity he found some opportunity of carrying out his design. At all events we find him at Miletus, near to the mouth of the Mæander[134]; and the journey between this place and Laodicea is neither long nor difficult.

Footnote 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 Μάρκον ἀναλαβὼν ἄγε μετὰ σεαυτοῦ). Thus it seems fairly probable that St Mark’s projected visit to Colossæ was paid.

Footnote 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.

[Sidenote: St John in Asia Minor.]

At the time of this visit—the first and last, we may suppose, which he paid to the valley of the Lycus—St Paul’s direction of the Asiatic Churches is drawing to a close. With his death they pass into the hands of St John[135], who takes up his abode in Asia Minor. Of Colossæ and Hierapolis we hear nothing more in the New Testament: but from his exile in[Sidenote: The message to Laodicea.] Patmos the beloved disciple delivers his Lord’s message to the Church of Laodicea[136]; a message doubtless intended to be communicated also to the two subordinate Churches, to which it would apply almost equally well.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 136:

Rev. iii. 14–21.

[Sidenote: Correspondences between the Apocalypse and St Paul’s Epistles.]

The message communicated by St John to Laodicea prolongs the note which was struck by St Paul in the letter to Colossæ. An interval of a very few years has not materially altered the character of these Churches. Obviously the same temper prevails, the same errors are rife, the same correction must be applied.

[Sidenote: 1. The doctrine of the Person of Christ,]

1. Thus, while St Paul finds it necessary to enforce the truth that Christ is the image of the invisible God, that in Him all the divine fulness dwells, that He existed before all things, that through Him all things were created and in Him all things are sustained, that He is the primary source (ἀρχή) and has the pre-eminence in all things[137]; so in almost identical language St John, speaking in the person of our Lord, declares that He is the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the primary source (ἀρχή) of the creation of God[138]. Some lingering shreds of the old heresy, we may suppose, still hung about these Churches, and instead of ‘holding fast the Head’ they were even yet prone to substitute intermediate agencies, angelic mediators, as links in the chain which should bind man to God. They still failed to realise the majesty and significance, the completeness, of the Person of Christ.

Footnote 137:

Col. i. 15–18.

Footnote 138:

Rev. iii. 14. It should be observed that this designation of our Lord (ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ), 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.

[Sidenote: and practical duties which follow upon it.]

And the practical duty also, which follows from the recognition of the theological truth, is enforced by both Apostles in very similar language. If St Paul entreats the Colossians to seek those things which are above, where Christ is seated on the right hand of God[139], and in the companion epistle, which also he directs them to read, reminds the Churches that God raised them with Christ and seated them with him in heavenly places in Christ Jesus[140]; in like manner St John gives this promise to the Laodiceans in the name of his Lord: ‘He that overcometh, I will grant to him to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame and did sit with my Father in His throne[141]’.

Footnote 139:

Col. iii. 1.

Footnote 140:

Ephes. ii. 6 συνήγειρεν καὶ συνεκάθισεν κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 141:

Rev. iii. 21 δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι μετ’ ἐμοῦ, κ.τ.λ. 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.

[Sidenote: 2. Warning against lukewarmness.]

2. But again; after a parting salutation to the Church of Laodicea St Paul closes with a warning to Archippus, apparently its chief pastor, to take heed to his ministry[142]. Some signs of slackened zeal seem to have called forth this rebuke. It may be an accidental coincidence, but it is at least worthy of notice, that lukewarmness is the special sin denounced in the angel of the Laodiceans, and that the necessity of greater earnestness is the burden of the message to that Church[143]. As with the people, so is it with the priest. The community takes its colour from and communicates its colour to its spiritual rulers. The ‘be zealous’ of St John is the counterpart to the ‘take heed’ of St Paul.

Footnote 142:

Col. iv. 17.

Footnote 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.

[Sidenote: 3. The pride of wealth denounced.]

3. Lastly; in the Apocalyptic message the pride of wealth is sternly condemned in the Laodicean Church: ‘For that thou sayest I am rich and have gotten me riches and have need of nothing, and knowest not that thou art utterly wretched and miserable and beggarly and blind and naked, I counsel thee to buy gold of me refined with fire, that thou mayest have riches[144].’ This proud vaunt receives its best illustration from a recent occurrence at Laodicea, to which allusion has already been made. Only a very few years before this date an earthquake had laid the city in ruins. Yet from this catastrophe she rose again with more than her former splendour. [Sidenote: The vaunt of Laodicea.]This however was not her chief title to respect. While other cities, prostrated by a like visitation, had sought relief from the concessions of the Roman senate or the liberality of the emperor’s purse, it was the glory of Laodicea that she alone neither courted nor obtained assistance, but recovered by her own resources. ‘Nullo a nobis remedio,’ says the Roman historian, ‘propriis opibus revaluit[145].’ Thus she had asserted a proud independence, to which neither far-famed metropolitan Ephesus, nor old imperial Sardis, nor her prosperous commercial neighbours, Apamea and Cibyra, could lay claim[146]. No one would dispute her boast that she ‘had gotten riches and had need of nothing.’

Footnote 144:

Rev. iii. 17, 18, where the correct reading with the repetition of the definite articles, ὁ ταλαίπωρος καὶ ὁ ἐλεινός, signifies the type, the embodiment of wretchedness, etc.

Footnote 145:

Tac. Ann. xiv. 27.

Footnote 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.

[Sidenote: Pride of intellectual wealth.]

But is there not a second and subsidiary idea underlying the Apocalyptic rebuke? The pride of intellectual wealth, we may well suspect, was a temptation at Laodicea hardly less strong than the pride of material resources. When St Paul wrote, the theology of the Gospel and the comprehension of the Church were alike endangered by a spirit of intellectual exclusiveness[147] in these cities. He warned them against a vain philosophy, against a show of wisdom, against an intrusive mystic speculation, which vainly puffed up the fleshly mind[148]. He tacitly contrasted with this false intellectual wealth ‘the riches of the glory of God’s mystery revealed in Christ[149],’ the riches of the full assurance of understanding, the genuine treasures of wisdom and knowledge[150]. May not the same contrast be discerned in the language of St John? The Laodiceans boast of their enlightenment, but they are blind, and to cure their blindness they must seek eye-salve from the hands of the great Physician. They vaunt their wealth of knowledge, but they are wretched paupers, and must beg the refined gold of the Gospel to relieve their wants[151].

Footnote 147:

See the next chapter of this introduction.

Footnote 148:

Col. ii. 8, 18, 23.

Footnote 149:

i. 27.

Footnote 150:

ii. 2, 3.

Footnote 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.’

This is the last notice in the Apostolic records relating to the Churches in the valley of the Lycus; but during the succeeding ages the Christian communities of this district play a conspicuous part in the struggles and the development of the Church. [Sidenote: The early disciples settle in proconsular Asia]When after the destruction of Jerusalem St John fixed his abode at Ephesus, it would appear that not a few of the oldest surviving members of the Palestinian Church accompanied him into ‘Asia,’ which henceforward became the head-quarters of Apostolic authority. In this body of emigrants Andrew[152] and Philip among the Twelve, Aristion and John the presbyter[153] among other personal disciples of the Lord, are especially mentioned.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 153:

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

[Sidenote: and especially at Hierapolis.]

Among the chief settlements of this Christian dispersion was Hierapolis. This fact explains how these Phrygian Churches assumed a prominence in the ecclesiastical history of the second century, for which we are hardly prepared by their antecedents as they appear in connexion with St Paul, and which they failed to maintain in the history of the later Church.

Here at all events was settled Philip of Bethsaida[154], the [Sidenote: Philip the Apostle with his daughters.] early friend and fellow-townsman of St John, and the first Apostle who is recorded to have held communication with the Gentiles[155]. Here he died and was buried; and here after his decease lived his two virgin daughters, who survived to a very advanced age and thus handed down to the second century the traditions of the earliest days of the Church. A third daughter, who was married, had settled in Ephesus, where her body rested[156]. [Sidenote: Their traditions collected by Papias.]It was from the two daughters who resided at Hierapolis, that Papias heard several stories of the first preachers of the Gospel, which he transmitted to posterity in his work[157].

Footnote 154:

Polycrates in Euseb. H.E. iii. 31, v. 24 Φίλιππον [τὸν] τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων, ὃς κεκοίμηται ἐν Ἱεραπόλει, καὶ δύο θυγατέρες αὐτοῦ γεγηρακυῖαι παρθένοι, καὶ ἠ ἑτέρα αὐτοῦ θυγάτηρ ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι πολιτευσαμένη, ἣ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ἀναπαύεται. 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), ἣ καὶ τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἀποδοκιμάσουσι· Πέτρος μὲν γὰρ καὶ Φίλιππος ἐπαιδοποιήσαντο, Φίλιππος δὲ καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας ἀνδράσιν ἐξέδωκε. 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) μετὰ τοῦτον δὲ προφήτιδες τέσσαρες αἱ Φίλιππου γεγένηνται ἐν Ἱεραπόλει τῇ κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν· ὁ τάφος αὐτῶν ἐστὶν ἐκεῖ, καὶ ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῶν, 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 (συνᾴδων)’ 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 τί Ἀνδρέας ... εἶπεν ἢ τί Φίλιππος, 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.

Footnote 155:

John xii. 20.

Footnote 156:

See above p. 45, note 154.

Footnote 157:

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

This Papias had conversed not only with the daughters of Philip, but also with at least two personal disciples of the Lord, Aristion and John the presbyter. He made it his business to gather traditions respecting the sayings of the Saviour and His Apostles; and he published a work in five books, entitled An Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, using the information thus collected to illustrate the discourses, and perhaps the doings, of Christ as recorded in the Gospels[158]. Among other stories he related, apparently on the authority of these daughters of Philip, how a certain dead man had been restored to life in his own day, and how Justus Barsabas, who is mentioned in the Acts, had drunk a deadly poison and miraculously escaped from any evil effects[159].

Footnote 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.

Footnote 159:

Euseb. l.c. ὡς δὲ κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ὁ Παπίας γενόμενος διήγησιν παρειληφέναι θαυμασίαν ὑπὸ [ἀπο]; τῶν τοῦ Φιλίππου θυγατέρων μνημονεύει, τὰ νῦν σημειωτέον· νεκροῦ γὰρ ἀνάστασιν κατ’ αὐτὸν γεγονυῖαν ἱστορεῖ, καὶ αὖ πάλιν ἕτερον παράδοξον περὶ Ἰοῦστον τὸν ἐπικληθέντα Βαρσαβᾶν γεγονός κ.τ.λ. 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 (κατ’ αὐτόν). 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.

[Sidenote: Life and teaching of PAPIAS.]

If we may judge by his name, PAPIAS was a native of Phrygia, probably of Hierapolis[160], of which he afterwards became bishop, and must have grown up to youth or early manhood before the close of the first century. He is said to have suffered martyrdom at Pergamum about the year 165; but there is good reason for distrusting this statement, independently of any chronological difficulty which it involves[161]. Otherwise [Sidenote: Account of Eusebius.]he must have lived to a very advanced age. Eusebius, to whom chiefly we owe our information respecting him, was repelled by his millennarian views, and describes him as a man of mean intelligence[162], accusing him of misunderstanding the Apostolic sayings respecting the kingdom of Christ and thus interpreting in a material sense expressions which were intended to be mystical and symbolical. This disparaging account, though one-sided, was indeed not altogether undeserved, for his love of the marvellous seems to have overpowered his faculty of discrimination. But the adverse verdict of Eusebius must be corrected by the more sympathetic language of Irenæus[163], who possibly may have known him personally, and who certainly must have been well acquainted with his reputation and character.

Footnote 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 Παπίᾳ Διῒ σωτῆρι), just as in Bithynia this same god was called Πάπας (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., Παπίας τοῦ Στράτωνος ὁ καλούμενος Διογένης. In an inscription at Trajanopolis we meet with it in a curious conjunction with other familiar names (Boeckh no. 3865 i add.) Παππίας Τροφίμου καὶ Τυχικῆς κ.τ.λ. (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.

Footnote 161:

Chron. Pasch. sub ann. 163 σὺν τῷ ἁγίῳ δὲ Πολυκάρπῳ καὶ ἄλλοι θ’ ἀπὸ Φιλαδελφείας μαρτυροῦσιν ἐν Σμύρνῃ· καὶ ἐν Περγάμῳ δὲ ἕτεροι, ἐν οἷς ἧν καὶ Παπίας καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοί, ὧν καὶ ἔγγραφα φέρονται τὰ μαρτύρια. 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 ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ δὲ περὶ αὐτοῦ γραφῇ καὶ ἄλλα μαρτύρια συνῆπτο ... μεθ’ ὧν καὶ Μητρόδωρος ... ἀνήρηται· τῶν γε μὴν τὸτε περιβοήτων μαρτύρων εἷς τις ἐγνωρίζετο Πιόνιος ... ἑξῆς δὲ καὶ ἄλλων ἐν Περγάμῳ πόλει τῆς Ἀσίας ὑπομνήματα μεμαρτυρηκότων φέρεται, Κάρπου καὶ Παπύλου καὶ γυναικὸς Ἀγαθονίκης κ.τ.λ. 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).

Footnote 162:

H E. iii. 39 σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν. In another passage (iii. 36), as commonly read, Eusebius makes partial amends to Papias by calling him ἀνὴρ τὰ πάντα ὅτι μάλιστα λογιώτατος καὶ τῆς γραφῆς εἰδήμων, 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.

Footnote 163:

Iren. v. 33. 3, 4.

Much has been written respecting the relation of this writer to the Canonical Gospels, but the discussion has no very direct bearing on our special subject, and may be dismissed here[164]. One question however, which has a real importance as affecting the progress of the Gospel in these parts, has been raised by modern criticism and must not be passed over in silence.

Footnote 164:

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

[Sidenote: A modern hypothesis respecting Christianity in Asia Minor stated and discussed.]

It has been supposed that there was an entire dislocation and discontinuity in the history of Christianity in Asia Minor at a certain epoch; that the Apostle of the Gentiles was ignored and his teaching repudiated, if not anathematized; and that on its ruins was erected the standard of Judaism, around which with a marvellous unanimity deserters from the Pauline Gospel rallied. Of this retrograde faith St John is supposed to have been the great champion, and Papias a typical and important representative[165].

Footnote 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.

The subject, as a whole, is too wide for a full investigation here. I must content myself with occupying a limited area, showing not only the historical baselessness, but the strong inherent improbability of the theory, as applied to Hierapolis and the neighbouring churches. As this district is its chief strong-hold, a repulse at this point must involve its ultimate defeat along the whole line.

[Sidenote: The position of St John]

Of St John himself I have already spoken[166]. It has been shown that his language addressed to these Churches is not only not opposed to St Paul’s teaching, but presents remarkable coincidences with it. So far at least the theory finds no support; and, when from St John we turn to Papias, the case is not different. [Sidenote: and of Papias.]The advocates of the hypothesis in question lay the chief stress of their argument on the silence of Papias, or rather of Eusebius. Eusebius quotes a passage from Papias, in which the bishop of Hierapolis mentions collecting from trustworthy sources the sayings of certain Apostles and early disciples; but St Paul is not named among them. He also gives short extracts from Papias referring to the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark, and mentions that this writer made use of the first Epistle of St John and the first Epistle of St Peter; but here again there is no allusion to St Paul’s writings. Whether referring to the personal testimony or to the Canonical writings of the Apostles, Papias, we are reminded, is equally silent about St Paul.

Footnote 166:

See above p. 41 sq.

On both these points a satisfactory answer can be given; but the two cases are essentially different, and must be considered apart.

[Sidenote: 1. The traditions collected by Papias.]

(1) The range of personal testimony which Papias would be able to collect depended on his opportunities. Before he had grown up to manhood, the personal reminiscences of St Paul would have almost died out. The Apostle of the Gentiles had not resided more than three years even at Ephesus, and seems to have paid only one brief visit to the valley of the Lycus, even if he visited it at all. Such recollections of St Paul as might once have lingered here would certainly be overshadowed by and forgotten in the later sojourn of St John, which, beginning where they ceased, extended over more than a quarter of a century. To St John, and to those personal disciples of Christ who surrounded him, Papias and his contemporaries would naturally and almost inevitably look for the traditions which they so eagerly collected. This is the case with the leading representative of the Asiatic school in the next generation, Irenæus, whose traditions are almost wholly derived from St John and his companions, while at the same time he evinces an entire sympathy with the work and teaching of St Paul. But indeed, even if it had been otherwise, the object which Papias had directly in view did not suggest any appeal to St Paul’s authority. He was writing an ‘Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord,’ and he sought to supplement and interpret these by traditions of our Lord’s life, such as eyewitnesses only could give. St Paul could have no place among those personal disciples of Christ, of whom alone he is speaking in this preface to his work, which Eusebius quotes.

[Sidenote: 2. His references to the Canonical writings.]

(2) But, though we have no right to expect any mention of St Paul where the appeal is to personal testimony, yet with quotations from or references to the Canonical writings the case, it may be argued, is different. Here at all events we might look for some recognition of St Paul. To this argument it would perhaps be a sufficient reply, that St Paul’s Epistles do not furnish any matter which must necessarily have been introduced into a work such as Papias composed. But the complete and decisive answer is this; that the silence of Eusebius, so far from carrying with it the silence of Papias, does not [Sidenote: No weight to be attached to the silence of Eusebius.] even afford a presumption in this direction. Papias may have quoted St Paul again and again, and yet Eusebius would see no reason to chronicle the fact. His usage in other cases is decisive on this point. The Epistle of Polycarp which was read by Eusebius is the same which we still possess. Not only does it teem with the most obvious quotations from St Paul, but in one passage it directly mentions his writing to the Philippians[167]. Yet the historian, describing its relation to the Canonical Scriptures, contents himself with saying that it ‘employs some testimonies from the former Epistle of Peter[168].’ Exactly similar is his language respecting Irenæus also. Irenæus, as is well known, cites by name almost every one of St Paul’s Epistles; yet the description which Eusebius gives under this same head, after quoting this writer’s notices respecting the history of the Gospels and the Apocalypse, is that ‘he mentions also the first Epistle of John, alleging very many testimonies from it, and in like manner also the former Epistle of Peter[169].’ There is every reason therefore to suppose that Eusebius would deal with Papias as he has dealt with Polycarp and Irenæus, and that, unless Papias had introduced some curious fact relating to St Paul, it would not have occurred to him to record mere quotations from or references to this Apostle’s letters. It may be supposed that Eusebius records with a fair amount of attention references to the Catholic Epistles in early writers, because the limits of the Canon in this part were not accurately fixed. On the other hand the Epistles of St Paul were universally received and therefore did not need to be accredited by any such testimony. But whatever may be the explanation, the fact is patent, and it furnishes a complete answer to the argument drawn from his silence in the case of Papias[170].

Footnote 167:

§ 3.

Footnote 168:

H.E. iv. 14 ὁ γέ τοι Πολύκαρπος ἐν τῇ δηλωθείσῃ πρὸς Φιλιππησίους αὐτοῦ γραφῇ φερομένῃ εἰς δεῦρο κέχρηταί τισι μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς. 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.

Footnote 169:

H.E. v. 8 μέμνηται δὲ καὶ τῆς Ἰωάννου πρώτης ἐπιστολῆς, μαρτύρια ἐξ αὐτῆς πλεῖστα εἰσφέρων, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῆς Πέτρου προτέρας.

Footnote 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.

[Sidenote: The views of Papias inferred from his associates.]

But, if the assumption has been proved to be baseless, have we any grounds for saying that it is also highly improbable? Here it seems fair to argue from the well-known to the unknown. Of the opinions of Papias respecting St Paul we know absolutely nothing; of the opinions of Polycarp and Irenæus ample evidence lies before us. Noscitur a sociis is a sound maxim to apply in such a case. Papias was a companion of Polycarp, and he is quoted with deference by Irenæus[171]. Is it probable that his opinions should be diametrically opposed to those of his friend and contemporary on a cardinal point affecting the very conception of Christianity (for the rejection of St Paul must be considered in this light)? or that this vital heterodoxy, if it existed, should have escaped an intelligent critic of the next generation who had the five books of his work before him, who himself had passed his early life in Asia Minor, and who yet appeals to Papias as preserving the doctrinal tradition which had been handed down from the Apostles themselves to his own time? I say nothing of Eusebius himself, who, with a distinct prejudice against Papias, accuses him of no worse heresy in his writings than entertaining millennarian views.

Footnote 171:

Iren. Hær. v. 33. 4.

[Sidenote: Millennarian views consistent with the recognition of St Paul.]

It may indeed be confessed that a man like Papias, whose natural bent, assisted by his Phrygian education, was towards sensuous views of religion, would not be likely to appreciate the essentially spiritual teaching of St Paul; but this proves nothing. The difference between unconscious want of sympathy and conscious rejection is all important for the matter in hand. The same charge might be brought against numberless theologians, whether in the middle ages or in more modern times, into whose minds it never entered to question the authority of the Apostle and who quote his writings with the utmost reverence. Neither in the primitive days of Christianity nor in its later stages has the profession of Chiliastic views been found inconsistent with the fullest recognition of St Paul’s Apostolic claims. In the early Church Irenæus and Tertullian are notable instances of this combination; and in our own age and country a tendency to millennarian speculations has been commonly associated with the staunchest adherence to the fundamental doctrines of St Paul.

[Sidenote: ABERCIUS probably his successor.]

As the successor of Papias and the predecessor of Claudius Apollinaris in the see of Hierapolis, we may perhaps name ABERCIUS or AVIRCIUS[172]. His legendary Acts assign his episcopate to the reign of Marcus Aurelius; and, though they are disfigured by extravagant fictions, yet the date may perhaps be accepted, as it seems to be confirmed by other evidence. An inscription on his tombstone recorded how he had paid one [Sidenote: His journeys.] visit to the city of Rome, and another to the banks of the Euphrates. These long journeys are not without parallels in the lives of contemporary bishops. Polycarp of Smyrna visited Rome, hoping to adjust the Paschal controversy; Melito of Sardis went as far as Palestine, desiring to ascertain on the spot the facts relating to the Canon of the Old Testament Scriptures. These or similar motives may have influenced Abercius to undertake his distant journeys. If we may assume the identification of this bishop with one Avircius Marcellus who is mentioned in a contemporary document, he took an active interest in the Montanist controversy, as from his position he was likely to do.

Footnote 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 (γράμματα πιστά) 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 ιχθυς 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 Ἐκλεκτῆς πόλεως 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 χριϲτιανοϲ or χρηϲτιανοϲ 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; ἀρχόμενος γοῦν τῆς κατ’ αὐτῶν γραφῆς τῶν εἰρημένων δή τις ... προοιμιάζεται ... τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον· Ἐκ πλείστου ὅσου καὶ ἱκανωτάτου χρόνου, ἀγαπητὲ Ἀουίρκιε Μάρκελλε, ἐπιταχθεὶς ὑπὸ σοῦ συγγράψαι τινὰ λόγον κ.τ.λ., 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 δή τις, and others substitute ἤδη, 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, τῶν εἰρημένων must be connected with κατ’ αὐτῶν, 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 συγγράμματα 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 κατὰ τῆς τῶν Φρυγῶν αἱρέσεως ... ὥσπερ ἐκφύειν ἀρχομένης); 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 δή τις 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 βίβλος διδασκαλίας by Abercius is mentioned in the Acts (§ 39); but this, if it ever existed, was doubtless spurious.

[Sidenote: CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS bishop of Hierapolis.]

The literary character of the see of Hierapolis, which had been inaugurated by Papias, was ably sustained by CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS. His surname, which seems to have been common in these parts[173], may have been derived from the patron deity of Hierapolis[174] and suggests a Gentile origin. His intimate acquaintance with heathen literature, which is mentioned by more than one ancient writer, points in the same direction. During the reign of M. Aurelius he had already made himself a name by his writings, and seems to have been promoted to the see of Hierapolis before the death of that emperor[175].

Footnote 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 ==κλαυδιοϲ . απολλιναριοϲ . αυρηλιανοϲ==, 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, ==ϲτρατηγουντοϲ . το . β . κλ . απολλιναριου==; 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. ==π . αιλιοϲ . π . αιλιου . απολλιναριου . ιουλιανο[υ] . υιοϲ . ϲε[...] . απολλιναριϲ . μακεδων .== κ.τ.λ., 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 (τὸν καλὸν ἡμῶν πάπαν Ἀπολινάριον), of whom nothing more is known.

Footnote 174:

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

Footnote 175:

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

[Sidenote: His literary works.]

Of his works, which were very numerous, only a few scanty fragments have survived[176]. The imperfect lists however, which have reached us, bear ample testimony both to the literary activity of the man, and to the prominence of the Church, over which he presided, in the great theological and ecclesiastical controversies of the age.

Footnote 176:

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

[Sidenote: He takes part in the two chief controversies of the day.]

The two questions, which especially agitated the Churches of Asia Minor during the last thirty years of the first century, were the celebration of the Easter festival and the pretensions of the Montanist prophets. In both disputes Claudius Apollinaris took an active and conspicuous part.

[Sidenote: 1. The Paschal question.]

1. The Paschal controversy, after smouldering long both here and elsewhere, first burst into flames in the neighbouring Church of Laodicea[178]. An able bishop of Hierapolis therefore must necessarily have been involved in the dispute, even if he had been desirous of avoiding it. What side Apollinaris took in the controversy the extant fragments of his work do not by themselves enable us to decide; for they deal merely with a subsidiary question which does not seriously affect the main issue[179]. But we can hardly doubt that with Polycarp of Smyrna and Melito of Sardis and Polycrates of Ephesus he defended the practice which was universal in Asia[180], observing the Paschal anniversary on the 14th Nisan whether it fell on a Friday or not, and invoking the authority of St John at Ephesus, and of St Philip at his own Hierapolis[181], against the divergent usage of Alexandria and Palestine and the West.

Footnote 178:

See below, p. 63.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 180:

Eusebius represents the dioceses of ‘Asia’ and the neighbourhood, as absolutely unanimous; H.E. v. 23 τῆς Ασίας ἁπάσης αἱ παροικίαι, v. 24 τῆς Ασίας πάσης ἅμα ταῖς ὁμόροις ἐκκλησίαις τὰς παροικίας. ‘Asia’ includes all this district, as appears from Polycrates, ib.

Footnote 181:

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

[Sidenote: 2. Montanism.]

2. His writings on the Montanist controversy were still more famous, and are recommended as an authority on the subject by Serapion of Antioch a few years after the author’s death[182]. Though later than many of his works[183], they were written soon after Montanus had divulged the extravagance of his pretensions and before Montanism had attained its complete development. If a later notice may be trusted, Apollinaris was not satisfied with attacking Montanism in writing, but summoned at Hierapolis a council of twenty-six bishops besides himself, where this heresy was condemned and sentence of excommunication pronounced against Montanus together with his adherent the pretended prophetess Maximilla[184].

Footnote 182:

In Euseb. H.E. v. 19.

Footnote 183:

Eusebius (H.E. iv. 27) at the close of his list of the works of Apollinarius gives καὶ ἃ μετὰ ταῦτα συνέγραψε κατὰ τῆς [τῶν] Φρυγῶν αἱρέσεως μετ’ οὐ πολὺν καινοτομηθείσης χρόνον, τότε γε μὴν ὥσπερ ἐκφύειν ἀρχομένης, ἔτι τοῦ Μοντανοῦ ἅμα ταῖς αὐτοῦ ψευδοπροφήτισιν ἀρχὰς τῆς παρεκτροπῆς ποιουμένου, i.e. the vagaries of Montanus and his followers had already begun when Apollinaris wrote, but Montanism assumed a new phase shortly after.

Footnote 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, πρὸς τὴν λεγομένην κατὰ Φρύγας ἅιρεσιν ὅπλον ἰσχυρὸν καὶ ἀκαταγώνιστον ἐπὶ τῆς Ἱεραπόλεως τὸν Ἀπολινάριον.

After mentioning the council the compiler of this Synodicon speaks thus of the false prophets; οἳ καὶ βλασφήμως, ἤτοι δαιμονῶντες, καθώς φησιν ὁ αὐτὸς πατήρ [i.e. Ἀπολινάριος], τὸν βίον κατέστρεψαν, σὺν αὐτοῖς δὲ κατέκρινε καὶ Θεόδοτον τὸν σκυτέα. 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: ὡς ἐπὶ ἐνεργουμένῳ καὶ δαιμονῶντι ... βλασφημεῖν διδάσκοντος τοῦ ἀπηυθαδισμένου πνεύματος ... τὸν βιὸν καταστρέψαι Ἰούδα προδότου δίκην ... οἶον ἐπίτροπόν τινα Θεόδοτον πολὺς αἱρεῖ λόγος ... τετελευτήκασι Μοντανός τε καὶ Θεόδοτος και ἡ προειρημένη γυνή. Thus he must have had before him a text of Eusebius which omitted the words δή τις 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.

[Sidenote: His other hæresiological writings.]

Nor were his controversial writings confined to these two topics. In one place he refuted the Encratites[185]; in another he upheld the orthodox teaching respecting the true humanity of Christ[186]. It is plain that he did not confine himself to questions especially affecting Asia Minor; but that the doctrine and the practice of the Church generally found in him a vigorous advocate, who was equally opposed to the novelties of heretical teaching and the rigours of overstrained asceticism.

Footnote 185:

Theodoret. H.E. i. 21.

Footnote 186:

Socr. H.E. iii. 7.

Nor again did Apollinaris restrict himself to controversies carried on between Christian and Christian. He appears alike as the champion of the Gospel against attacks from without, and as the promoter of Christian life and devotion within the pale of the Church. [Sidenote: His apologetic] On the one hand he was the author of an apology addressed to M. Aurelius[187], of a controversial treatise in five books against the Greeks, and of a second in two books against the Jews[188]; on the other we find mentioned among his [Sidenote: and didactic works.] writings a work in two books on Truth, and a second on Piety, besides several of which the titles have not come down to us[189]. He seems indeed to have written on almost every subject which interested the Church of his age. He was not only well versed in the Scriptures, but showed a wide acquaintance with secular literature also[190]. His style is praised by a competent judge[191], and his orthodoxy was such as to satisfy the dogmatic precision of the post-Nicene age[192].

Footnote 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. ἐπώνυμον τῆς συντυχίας), which Eusebius and later writers misunderstood; just as Eusebius himself (v. 24) speaks of Irenæus as φερώνυμός τις ὢν τῇ προσηγορίᾳ αὐτῷ τε τῷ τρόπῳ εἰρηνοποίος. Of the words used by Eusebius, οἰκείαν τῷ γεγονότι πρὸς τοῦ βασιλέως εἰληφέναι προσηγορίαν, we may suspect that οἰκείαν τῷ γεγονότι προσηγορίαν is an expression borrowed from Apollinaris himself, while πρὸς τοῦ βασιλέως εἰληφέναι 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.

Footnote 188:

The words καὶ πρὸς Ἰουδαίους πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον are omitted in some MSS and by Rufinus. They are found however in the very ancient Syriac version, and are doubtless genuine. Their omission is due to the homœoteleuton, as they are immediately preceded by καὶ περὶ ἀληθείας πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 190:

Theodoret. Hær. Fab. iii. 2 ἀνὴρ ἀξιὲπαινος καὶ πρὸς τῇ γνώσει τῶν θείων καὶ τὴν ἔξωθεν παιδείαν προσειληφώς. So too Jerome, Ep. 70 (I. p. 428, ed. Vallarsi), names him among those who were equally versed in sacred and profane literature.

Footnote 191:

Photius l.c., ἀξιόλογος δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ καὶ φράσει ἀξιολόγῳ κεχρημένος.

Footnote 192:

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

[Sidenote: Important bearing of these facts on the history of Christianity.]

These facts are not unimportant in their bearing on the question which has been already discussed in relation to Papias. If there had been such a discontinuity of doctrine and practice in the Church of Hierapolis as the theory in question assumes, if the Pauline Gospel was repudiated in the later years of the first century and rank Judaism adopted in its stead, how can we explain the position of Apollinaris? Obviously a counter-revolution must have taken place, which undid the effects of the former. One dislocation must have been compensated by another. And yet Irenæus knows nothing of these religious convulsions which must have shaken the doctrine of the Church to its foundations, but represents the tradition as one, continuous, unbroken, reaching back through the elders of the Asiatic Churches, through Papias and Polycarp, to St John himself—Irenæus who received his Christian education in Asia Minor, who throughout life was in communication with the churches there, and who had already reached middle age when this second revolution is supposed to have occurred. The demands on our credulity, which this theory makes, are enormous. And its improbability becomes only the more glaring, as we extend our view.[Sidenote: Solidarity of the Church in the second century.] For the solidarity of the Church is the one striking fact unmistakably revealed to us, as here and there the veil which shrouds the history of the second century is lifted. Anicetus and Soter and Eleutherus and Victor at Rome, Pantænus and Clement at Alexandria, Polycrates at Ephesus, Papias and Apollinaris at Hierapolis, Polycarp at Smyrna, Melito at Sardis, Ignatius and Serapion at Antioch, Primus and Dionysius at Corinth, Pothinus and Irenæus in Gaul, Philippus and Pinytus in Crete, Hegesippus and Narcissus in Palestine, all are bound together by the ties of a common organization and the sympathy of a common creed. The Paschal controversy is especially valuable, as showing the limits of divergence consistent with the unity of the Church. The study of this controversy teaches us to appreciate with ever increasing force the pregnant saying of Irenæus that the difference of the usage establishes the harmony of the faith[193].

Footnote 193:

Iren. in Euseb. H.E. v. 24 ἡ διαφωνία τῆς νηστείας (the fast which preceded the Paschal festival) τὴν ὁμόνοιαν τῆς πίστεως συνίστησι.

[Sidenote: Activity of Laodicea.]

Though Laodicea cannot show the same intellectual activity as Hierapolis during the second century, yet in practical energy she is not wanting.

[Sidenote: Martyrdom of Sagaris. c. A.D. 165.]

The same persecution, which, permitted if not encouraged by the imperial Stoic, was fatal to Polycarp at Smyrna, deprived Laodicea also of her bishop Sagaris[194]. The exact year in which he fell a martyr is not known; but we can hardly be wrong in assuming that his death was nearly coincident with those of Polycarp and his companions. His name appears to have been held in great honour[195].

Footnote 194:

Melito in Euseb. H.E. iv. 26 ἐπὶ Σερουιλλίου Παύλου ἀνθυπάτου τῆς Ἀσίας, ᾧ Σάγαρις καιρῷ ἐμαρτύρησεν, ἐγένετο ζήτησις πολλὴ ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ περὶ τοῦ πάσχα ἐμπεσόντος κατὰ καιρὸν ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις, καὶ ἐγράφη ταῦτα (i.e. Melito’s own treatise on the Paschal festival).

Footnote 195:

Besides Melito (l.c.), Polycrates of Ephesus refers to him with respect; Euseb. H.E. v. 24, τὶ δὲ δεῖ λέγειν Σάγαριν ἐπίσκοπον καὶ μάρτυρα, ὅς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ κεκοίμηται.

[Sidenote: Outbreak of the Paschal controversy.]

But while the Church of Laodicea was thus contending against foes without, she was also torn asunder by feuds within. Coincident with the martyrdom of Sagaris was the outburst of the Paschal controversy, of which mention has been already made, and which for more than a century and a half disturbed the peace of the Church, until it was finally laid at rest by the Council of Nicæa. The Laodiceans would naturally regulate their festival by the Asiatic or Quartodeciman usage, strictly observing the day of the month and disregarding the day of the week. But a great commercial centre like Laodicea must have attracted large crowds of foreign Christians from Palestine or Egypt or Rome or Gaul, who were accustomed to commemorate the Passion always on a Friday and the Resurrection on a Sunday according to the western practice; and in this way probably the dispute arose. The treatise on the Paschal Festival by Melito of Sardis was written on this occasion to defend the Asiatic practice. The fact that Laodicea became the head-quarters of the controversy is a speaking testimony to the prominence of this Church in the latter half of the second century.

[Sidenote: Hierapolis and Laodicea in later history.]

At a later date the influence of both Hierapolis and Laodicea has sensibly declined. In the great controversies of the fourth s and fifth centuries they take no conspicuous part. Among their bishops there is not one who has left his mark on history. And yet their names appear at most of the great Councils, in which they bear a silent part. [Sidenote: The Arian heresy. NICÆA A.D. 325.]At Nicæa Hierapolis was represented by Flaccus[196], Laodicea by Nunechius[197]. They both acquiesced in its decrees, and the latter as metropolitan published them throughout the Phrygian Churches[198]. Soon after, both sees lapsed into Arianism. [Sidenote: Philippopolis A.D. 347.] At the synod of Philippopolis, composed of bishops who had seceded from the Council of Sardica, the representatives of these two sees were present and joined in the condemnation of the Athanasians. On this occasion Hierapolis was still represented by Flaccus, who had thus turned traitor to his former faith[199]. On the other hand Laodicea had changed its bishop twice meanwhile. Cecropius had won the imperial favour by his abuse of the orthodox party, and was first promoted to Laodicea, whence he was translated to Nicomedia[200]. He was succeeded by Nonnius, who signed the Arian decree at Philippopolis[201]. When these sees recovered their orthodoxy we [Sidenote: CONSTANTINOPLE. A.D. 381.]] do not know; but it is perhaps a significant fact, that neither is represented at the second general Council, held at Constantinople [Sidenote: The Nestorian and Eutychian heresies. EPHESUS. A.D. 431.] (A.D. 381)[202]. At the third general Council, which met at Ephesus, Laodicea is represented by Aristonicus, Hierapolis by Venantius[203]. Both bishops sign the decrees condemning Nestorius. Again in the next Christological controversy which agitated the Church the two sees bear their part. At the notorious [Sidenote: Latrocinium. A.D. 449.] Robbers’ Synod, held also at Ephesus, Laodicea was represented by another Nunechius, Hierapolis by Stephanus. Both bishops committed themselves to the policy of Dioscorus and the opinions of the heretic Eutyches[204]. Yet with the fickleness which characterized these sees at an earlier date during the Arian controversy, we find their representatives two years [Sidenote: CHALCEDON. A.D. 451.] later at the Council of Chalcedon siding with the orthodox party and condemning the Eutychian heresy which they had so lately supported[205]. Nunechius is still bishop of Laodicea, and reverses his former vote. Stephanus has been succeeded at Hierapolis by Abercius, whose orthodoxy, so far as we know, had not been compromised by any previous expression of opinion[206].

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 198:

Labb. Conc. II. 236.

Footnote 199:

ib. 744.

Footnote 200:

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

Footnote 201:

Labb. Conc. II. 744.

Footnote 202:

Cowper’s Syriac Miscell. p. 39.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

[Sidenote: Later vacillation of these sees.]

The history of these churches at a later date is such as might have been anticipated from their attitude during the period of the first Four General Councils. The sees of Laodicea and Hierapolis, one or both, are represented at all the more important assemblies of the Church; and the same vacillation and infirmity of purpose, which had characterized their holders in the earlier councils, marks the proceedings of their later successors[207].

Footnote 207:

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

[Sidenote: Their comparative unimportance.]

But, though the two sees thus continue to bear witness to their existence by the repeated presence of their occupants at councils and synods, yet the real influence of Laodicea and Hierapolis on the Church at large has terminated with the close of the second century. On one occasion only did either [Sidenote: COUNCIL OF LAODICEA an exception.] community assume a position of prominence. About the middle of the fourth century a council was held at Laodicea[208]. It [Sidenote: Its decree on the Canon.] was convened more especially to settle some points of ecclesiastical discipline; but incidentally the assembled bishops were led to make an order respecting the Canon of Scripture[209]. As this was the first occasion in which the subject had been brought formally before the notice of an ecclesiastical assembly this Council of Laodicea secured a notoriety which it would not otherwise have obtained, and to which it was hardly entitled by its constitution or its proceedings. Its decrees were confirmed and adopted by later councils both in the East and in the West[210].

Footnote 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 Cœlesyria, Phœnicia, 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; [Ἡ] ἁγία σύνοδος ἡ ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ τῆς Φρυγίας των κὲ ἐπισκόπων γέγονεν διὰ Μοντανὸν κὲ [τ]ὰ[ς] λοιπὰς ἑρέσεις· τού[τους] ὡς αἱρετικοὺς καὶ ἐχθροὺς τῆς ἀλεθείας ἡ ἁγία σύνοδος ἀνεθεμάτισεν (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.

Footnote 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.).

Footnote 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.).

[Sidenote: Its decrees illustrate the Epistle to the Colossians.]

More important however for my special purpose, than the influence of this synod on the Church at large, is the light which its canons throw on the heretical tendencies of this district, and on the warnings of St Paul in the Colossian Epistle. To illustrate this fact it will only be necessary to write out some of these canons at length:

[Sidenote: Col. ii. 14, 16, 17.]

29. ‘It is not right for Christians to Judaize and abstain from labour on the sabbath, but to work on this same day. They should pay respect rather to the Lord’s day, and, if possible, abstain from labour on it as Christians. But if they should be found Judaizers, let them be anathema in the sight of Christ.’

[Sidenote: Col. ii. 18.]

35. ‘It is not right for Christians to abandon the Church of God and go away and invoke angels (ἀγγέλους ὀνομάζειν)[211] and hold conventicles (συνάξεις ποιεῖν); for these things are forbidden. If therefore any one is found devoting himself to this secret idolatry, let him be anathema, because he abandoned our Lord Jesus Christ and went after idolatry.’

Footnote 211:

Theodoret about a century after the Laodicean Council, commenting on Col. ii. 18, states that this disease (τὸ πάθος) 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 ==αγιε . φυλατον . την . πολιν . μιληϲιων . και . πανταϲ . τουϲ . κατοικουνταϲ==, while at the common base is written ==αρχαγγελοι . φυλαϲϲεται . η . πολιϲ . μιληϲιων . και . παντεϲ . οι . κατ...== 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 hάγιοι, combined in the one αρχάγγελος, seems certainly to point to Jewish, if not Christian, influences: Rev. i. 4, iii. 1, iv. 5, v. 6.

36. ‘It is not right for priests or clergy to be magicians or enchanters or mathematicians or astrologers[212], or to make safe-guards (φυλακτήρια) as they are called, for such things are prisons (δεσμωτήρια) of their souls[213]: and we have enjoined that they which wear them be cast out of the Church.’

Footnote 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 μαθηματικοὶ is used in this decree in its ordinary sense of astrologers, soothsayers.

Footnote 213:

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

37. ‘It is not right to receive from Jews or heretics the festive offerings which they send about, nor to join in their festivals.’

38. ‘It is not right to receive unleavened bread from the Jews or to participate in their impieties.’

It is strange, at this late date, to find still lingering in these churches the same readiness to be ‘judged in respect of an holiday or a new moon or a sabbath,’ with the same tendency to relinquish the hold of the Head and to substitute ‘a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels,’ which three centuries before had called forth the Apostle’s rebuke and warning in the Epistle to the Colossians.

[Sidenote: Ecclesiastical status of Laodicea and Hierapolis.]

During the flourishing period of the Eastern Church, Laodicea appears as the metropolis of the province of Phrygia Pacatiana, counting among its suffragan bishoprics the see of Colossæ[214]. On the other hand Hierapolis, though only six miles distant, belonged to the neighbouring province of Phrygia Salutaris[215], whose metropolis was Synnada, and of which it was one of the most important sees. The stream of the Lycus seems to have formed the boundary line between the two ecclesiastical provinces. At a later date Hierapolis itself was raised to metropolitan rank[216].

Footnote 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.

Footnote 215:

Conc. IV. 1716, 1744.

Footnote 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 Πακατιανῆς, e.g. Καππατιανῆς, Καππαδοκίας. 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.

[Sidenote: Obscurity of Colossæ.]

But while Laodicea and Hierapolis held the foremost place in the records of the early Church, and continued to bear an active, though inconspicuous part, in later Christian history, Colossæ was from the very first a cipher. The town itself, as we have seen, was already waning in importance, when the Apostle wrote; and its subsequent decline seems to have been rapid. Not a single event in Christian history is connected with its name; and its very existence is only rescued from oblivion, when at long intervals some bishop of Colossæ attaches his signature to the decree of an ecclesiastical synod. The city ceased to strike coins in the reign of Gordian (A.D. [Sidenote: It is supplanted by Chonæ.] 238–244)[217]. It fell gradually into decay, being supplanted by the neighbouring town Chonæ, the modern Chonos, so called from the natural funnels by which the streams here disappear in underground channels formed by the incrustations of travertine[218]. We may conjecture also that its ruin was hastened by a renewed assault of its ancient enemy, the earthquake[219]. It is commonly said that Chonæ is built on the site of the ancient Colossæ; but the later town stands at some distance from the earlier, as Salisbury does from Old Sarum. The episcopal see necessarily followed the population; though for some time after its removal to the new town the bishop still continued to use the older title, with or without the addition of Chonæ by way of explanation, till at length the name of this primitive Apostolic Church passes wholly out of sight[220].

Footnote 217:

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

Footnote 218:

Joannes Curopalata p. 686 (ed. Bonn.) φήμη ... τοὺς Τούρκους ἀπαγγέλλουσα τὴν ἐν Χώναις πολιτείαν καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν περιβόητον ἐν θαύμασι καὶ ἀναθήμασι τοῦ ἀρχιστρατήγου ναὸν καταλαβεῖν ἐν μαχαίρᾳ ... καὶ τὸ δὴ σχετλιώτερον, μηδὲ τὰς τοῦ χάσματος σήραγγας ἐν ᾧπερ οἱ παραρρέοντες ποταμοὶ ἐκεῖσε χωνευόμενοι διὰ τῆς τοῦ ἀρχιστρατήγου παλαιᾶς ἐπιδημίας καὶ θεοσημίας ὡς διὰ πρανοῦς ἀστατοῦν τὸ ῥεῦμα καὶ λιὰν εὐδρομοῦν ἔχουσι, τοὺς καταπεφευγότας διατηρῆσαι, κ.τ.λ. 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.); Φρυγίαν τε καὶ Λαοδίκειαν διελθὼν ἀφικνεῖται ἐς Χώνας, πόλιν εὐδαίμονα καὶ μεγάλην, πάλαι τὰς Κολασσάς, τὲν ἐμοῦ τοῦ συγγραφέως πατρίδα, καὶ τὸν ἀρχαγγελικὸν ναὸν εἰσιὼν μεγέθει μέγιστον καὶ κάλλει κάλλιστον ὄντα καὶ θαυμασίας χειρὸς ἅπαντα ἔργον κ.τ.λ., where a corrupt reading Παλασσὰς for Κολασσὰς has misled some. It will be remembered that the words πόλιν εὐδαίμονα καὶ μεγάλην 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 τοὺς Λαοδικεῖς δὲ Φρύγας μυριαχῶς ἐκάκωσεν, ὥσπερ καὶ τοὺς τῶν Χωνῶν τῶν ἐμῶν οἰκήτορας, and Urbs Capta 16, p. 842, τὸ δὲ ἤν ἐμοῦ τοῦ συγγραφέως Νικήτα πατρὶς αἱ Χῶναι καὶ ἡ ἀγχιτέρμων ταύτῃ Φρυγικὴ Λαοδίκεια.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 220:

At the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) Nunechius of Laodicea subscribes ‘for the absent bishops under him,’ among whom is mentioned Ἐπιφανίου πόλεως Κολασσῶν (Labb. Conc. IV. 1501, ed. Coleti; comp. ib. 1745). At the Quinisextine Council (A.D. 692) occurs the signature of Κοσμᾶς ἐπίσκοπος πόλεως Κολασσαῆς (sic) Πακατιανῆς (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 Χωνῶν ἤτοι Κολασσῶν, sometimes Χωνῶν simply (Conc. VIII. 689, 796, 988, 1200, 1222, 1357, 1378, 1432, 1523, 1533, in many of which passages the word Χωνῶν is grossly corrupted). At later Councils the see is called Χῶναι; and this is the name which it bears in the Notitiæ (pp. 97, 127, 199, 222, 303, ed. Parthey).

[Sidenote: Turkish conquest.]

The Turkish conquest pressed with more than common severity on these districts. When the day of visitation came, the Church was taken by surprise. Occupied with ignoble quarrels and selfish interests, she had no ear for the voice of Him who demanded admission. The door was barred and the knock unheeded. The long-impending doom overtook her, and the golden candlestick was removed for ever from the Eternal Presence[221].

Footnote 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.

II. THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

[Sidenote: Two elements in the Colossian heresy.]

From the language of St Paul, addressed to the Church of Colossæ, we may infer the presence of two disturbing elements which threatened the purity of Christian faith and practice in this community. These elements are distinguishable in themselves, though it does not follow that they present the teaching of two distinct parties.

[Sidenote: 1. JUDAIC.]

1. A mere glance at the epistle suffices to detect the presence of JUDAISM in the teaching which the Apostle combats. The observance of sabbaths and new moons is decisive in this respect. The distinction of meats and drinks points in the same direction[222]. Even the enforcement of the initiatory rite of Judaism may be inferred from the contrast implied in St Paul’s recommendation of the spiritual circumcision[223].

[Sidenote: 2. GNOSTIC.]

2. On the other hand a closer examination of its language shows that these Judaic features do not exhaust the portraiture of the heresy or heresies against which the epistle is directed. We discern an element of theosophic speculation, which is alien to the spirit of Judaism proper. We are confronted with a shadowy mysticism, which loses itself in the contemplation of the unseen world. We discover a tendency to interpose certain spiritual agencies, intermediate beings, between God and man, as the instruments of communication and the objects of worship[224]. Anticipating the result which will appear more clearly hereafter, we may say that along with its Judaism there was a GNOSTIC element in the false teaching which prevailed at Colossæ.

Footnote 222:

Col. ii. 16, 17, 21 sq.

Footnote 223:

ii. 11.

Footnote 224:

ii. 4, 8, 18, 23.

[Sidenote: Are these combined or separate?]

Have we then two heresies here, or one only? Were these elements distinct, or were they fused into the same system? In other words, Is St Paul controverting a phase of Judaism on the one hand, and a phase of Gnosticism on the other; or did he find himself in conflict with a Judæo-Gnostic heresy which combined the two[225]?

Footnote 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.

[Sidenote: General reasons for supposing one heresy only, in which they are fused.]

On closer examination we find ourselves compelled to adopt the latter alternative. The epistle itself contains no hint that the Apostle has more than one set of antagonists in view; and the needless multiplication of persons or events is always to be deprecated in historical criticism. Nor indeed does the hypothesis of a single complex heresy present any real difficulty. If the two elements seem irreconcileable, or at least incongruous, at first sight, the incongruity disappears on further examination. It will be shown in the course of this investigation, that some special tendencies of religious thought among the Jews themselves before and about this time prepared the way for such a combination in a Christian community like the Church of Colossæ[226]. Moreover we shall find that the Christian heresies of the next succeeding ages exhibit in a more developed form the same complex type, which here appears in its nascent state[227]; this later development not only showing that the combination was historically possible in itself, but likewise presupposing some earlier stage of its existence such as confronts us at Colossæ.

Footnote 226:

See below, p. 83 sq.

Footnote 227:

See below, p. 107 sq.

[Sidenote: S. Paul’s language is decisive on this point.]

But in fact the Apostle’s language hardly leaves the question open. The two elements are so closely interwoven in his refutation, that it is impossible to separate them. He passes backwards and forwards from the one to the other in such a way as to show that they are only parts of one complex whole. On this point the logical connexion of the sentences is decisive: ‘Beware lest any man make spoil of you through philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world.... Ye were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands.... And you ... did He quicken, ... blotting out the handwriting of ordinances which was against you.... Let no man therefore judge you in meat or drink, or in respect of a holy day or a new moon or a sabbath.... Let no man beguile you of your prize in a self-imposed humility and service of angels.... If ye died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why ... are ye subject to ordinances ... which things have a show of wisdom in self-imposed service and humility and hard treatment of the body, but are of no value against indulgence of the flesh[228].’ Here the superior wisdom, the speculative element which is characteristic of Gnosticism, and the ritual observance, the practical element which was supplied by Judaism, are regarded not only as springing from the same stem, but also as intertwined in their growth. And the more carefully we examine the sequence of the Apostle’s thoughts, the more intimate will the connexion appear.

Footnote 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, ξυνώμοσαν γάρ, ὄντες ἔχθιστοι τὸ πρίν, πῦρ καὶ θάλασσα, καὶ τὰ πίστ’ ἐδειξάτην; (2) That the two passages are directly connected together by τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, 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 ὅτι, 10 ὃς, 11 ἐν ᾧ, 12 ἐν ᾧ, 13 καὶ, 16 οὖν). 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.

[Sidenote: Gnosticism must be defined and described.]

Having described the speculative element in this complex heresy provisionally as Gnostic, I purpose enquiring in the first place, how far Judaism prior to and independently of Christianity had allied itself with Gnostic modes of thought; and afterwards, whether the description of the Colossian heresy is such as to justify us in thus classing it as a species of Gnosticism. But, as a preliminary to these enquiries, some definition of the word, or at least some conception of the leading ideas which it involves, will be necessary. With its complex varieties and elaborate developments we have no concern here: for, if Gnosticism can be found at all in the records of the Apostolic age, it will obviously appear in a simple and elementary form. Divested of its accessories and presented in its barest outline, it is not difficult of delineation[229].

Footnote 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).

[Sidenote: 1. Intellectual exclusiveness of Gnosticism.]

1. As the name attests[230], Gnosticism implies the possession of a superior wisdom, which is hidden from others. It makes a distinction between the select few who have this higher gift, and the vulgar many who are without it. Faith, blind faith, suffices the latter, while knowledge is the exclusive possession of the former. Thus it recognises a separation of intellectual caste in religion, introducing the distinction of an esoteric and an exoteric doctrine, and interposing an initiation of some kind or other between the two classes. In short it is animated by the exclusive aristocratic spirit[231], which distinguishes the ancient religions, and from which it was a main function of Christianity to deliver mankind.

Footnote 230:

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

Footnote 231:

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

[Sidenote: Speculative tenets of Gnosticism.]

2. This was its spirit; and the intellectual questions, on which its energies were concentrated and to which it professed to hold the key, were mainly twofold. How can the work of creation be explained? and, How are we to account for the existence of evil[232]? To reconcile the creation of the world and [Sidenote: Creation of the world, and existence of evil.] the existence of evil with the conception of God as the absolute Being, was the problem which all the Gnostic systems set themselves to solve. It will be seen that the two questions cannot be treated independently but have a very close and intimate connexion with each other.

Footnote 232:

The fathers speak of this as the main question about which the Gnostics busy themselves; Unde malum? πόθεν ἡ κακία; 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.

[Sidenote: Existence of evil, how to be explained?]

The Gnostic argument ran as follows: Did God create the world out of nothing, evolve it from Himself? Then, God being perfectly good and creation having resulted from His sole act without any opposing or modifying influence, evil would have been impossible; for otherwise we are driven to the conclusion that God created evil.

[Sidenote: Matter the abode of evil.]

This solution being rejected as impossible, the Gnostic was obliged to postulate some antagonistic principle independent of God, by which His creative energy was thwarted and limited. This opposing principle, the kingdom of evil, he conceived to be the world of matter. The precise idea of its mode of operation varies in different Gnostic systems. It is sometimes regarded as a dead passive resistance, sometimes as a turbulent active power. But, though the exact point of view may shift, the object contemplated is always the same. In some way or other evil is regarded as residing in the material, sensible world. Thus Gnostic speculation on the existence of evil ends in a dualism.

[Sidenote: Creation, how to be explained?]

This point being conceded, the ulterior question arises: How then is creation possible? How can the Infinite communicate with the Finite, the Good with the Evil? How can God act upon matter? God is perfect, absolute, incomprehensible.

This, the Gnostic went on to argue, could only have been possible by some self-limitation on the part of God. God must express Himself in some way. There must be some evolution, some effluence, of Deity. [Sidenote: Doctrine of emanations.] Thus the Divine Being germinates, as it were; and the first germination again evolves a second from itself in like manner. In this way we obtain a series of successive emanations, which may be more or fewer, as the requirements of any particular system demand. In each successive evolution the Divine element is feebler. They sink gradually lower and lower in the scale, as they are farther removed from their source; until at length contact with matter is possible, and creation ensues. These are the emanations, æons, spirits, or angels, of Gnosticism, conceived as more or less concrete and personal according to the different aspects in which they are regarded in different systems.

[Sidenote: 3. Practical errors of Gnosticism.]

3. Such is the bare outline (and nothing more is needed for my immediate purpose) of the speculative views of Gnosticism. But it is obvious that these views must have exerted a powerful influence on the ethical systems of their advocates, and thus they would involve important practical consequences. If matter is the principle of evil, it is of infinite moment for a man to know how he can avoid its baneful influence and thus keep his higher nature unclogged and unsullied.

[Sidenote: Two opposite ethical rules.]

To this practical question two directly opposite answers were given[233]:

Footnote 233:

On this point see Clem. Strom. iii. 5 (p. 529) εἰς δύο διελόντες πράγματα ἁπάσας τὰς αἱρέσεις ἀποκρινώμεθα αὐτοῖς· ἢ γάρ τοι ἀδιαφόρως ζῆν διδάσκουσιν, ἢ τὸ ὑπέρτονον ἄγουσαι ἐγκράτειαν διὰ δυσσεβείας καὶ φιλαπεχθημοσύνης καταγγέλλουσι, with the whole passage which follows. As examples of the one extreme may be instanced the Carpocratians and Cainites: of the other the Encratites.

[Sidenote: (i) Rigid asceticism.]

(i) On the one hand, it was contended that the desired end might best be attained by a rigorous abstinence. Thus communication with matter, if it could not be entirely avoided, might be reduced to a minimum. Its grosser defilements at all events would be escaped. The material part of man would be subdued and mortified, if it could not be annihilated; and the spirit, thus set free, would be sublimated, and rise to its proper level. Thus the ethics of Gnosticism pointed in the first instance to a strict asceticism.

[Sidenote: (ii) Unrestrained license.]

(ii) But obviously the results thus attained are very slight and inadequate. Matter is about us everywhere. We do but touch the skirts of the evil, when we endeavour to fence ourselves about by prohibitive ordinances, as for instance, when we enjoin a spare diet or forbid marriage. Some more comprehensive rule is wanted, which shall apply to every contingency and every moment of our lives. Arguing in this way, other Gnostic teachers arrived at an ethical rule directly opposed to the former. ‘Cultivate an entire indifference,’ they said, ‘to the world of sense. Do not give it a thought one way or the other, but follow your own impulses. The ascetic principle assigns a certain importance to matter. The ascetic fails in consequence to assert his own independence. The true rule of life is to treat matter as something alien to you, towards which you have no duties or obligations and which you can use or leave unused as you like[234].’ In this way the reaction from rigid asceticism led to the opposite extreme of unrestrained licentiousness, both alike springing from the same false conception of matter as the principle of evil.

Footnote 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.

[Sidenote: Original independence of Gnosticism and its subsequent connexion with Christianity.]

Gnosticism, as defined by these characteristic features, has obviously no necessary connexion with Christianity[235]. Christianity would naturally arouse it to unwonted activity, by leading men to dwell more earnestly on the nature and power of evil, and thus stimulating more systematic thought on the theological questions which had already arrested attention. After no long time Gnosticism would absorb into its system more or fewer Christian elements, or Christianity in some of its forms would receive a tinge from Gnosticism. But the thing itself had an independent root, and seems to have been prior in time. The probabilities of the case, and the scanty traditions of history, alike point to this independence of the two[236]. If so, it is a matter of little moment at what precise time the name ‘Gnostic’ was adopted, whether before or after contact with Christianity; for we are concerned only with the growth and direction of thought which the name represents[237].

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 237:

We may perhaps gather from the notices which are preserved that, though the substantive γνῶσις was used with more or less precision even before contact with Christianity to designate the superior illumination of these opinions, the adjective γνωστικοί 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 μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἐπεκάλεσαν ἑαυτοὺς γνωστικοὺς, φάσκοντες μόνοι τὰ βάθη γινώσκειν; 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 γνωστικοί does not appear. Irenæus (Hær. i. 25. 6) speaks of the name as affected especially by the Carpocratians. For the use of the substantive γνῶσις see 1 Cor. viii. 1, xiii. 2, 8, 1 Tim. vi. 20, and the note on Col. ii. 3: comp. Rev. ii. 24 ὄιτινες οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τὰ βαθέα τοῦ Σατανᾶ, ὡς λέγουσιν (as explained by the passage already quoted from Hippol. Hær. v. 6; see Galatians, p. 298, note 3).

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Its alliance with Judaism before Christianity.]

If then Gnosticism was not an offspring of Christianity, but a direction of religious speculation which existed independently, we are at liberty to entertain the question whether it did not form an alliance with Judaism, contemporaneously with or prior to its alliance with Christianity. There is at least no obstacle which bars such an investigation at the outset. If this should prove to be the case, then we have a combination which prepares the way for the otherwise strange phenomena presented in the Epistle to the Colossians.

[Sidenote: The three sects of the Jews.]

Those, who have sought analogies to the three Jewish sects among the philosophical schools of Greece and Rome, have compared the Sadducees to the Epicureans, the Pharisees to the Stoics, and the Essenes to the Pythagoreans. Like all historical parallels, this comparison is open to misapprehension: but, carefully guarded, the illustration is pertinent and instructive.

[Sidenote: Sadduceeism, purely negative.]

With the Sadducees we have no concern here. Whatever respect may be due to their attitude in the earlier stages of their history, at the Christian era at least they have ceased to deserve our sympathy; for their position has become mainly negative. They take their stand on denials—the denial of the existence of angels, the denial of the resurrection of the dead, the denial of a progressive development in the Jewish Church. In these negative tendencies, in the materialistic teaching of the sect, and in the moral consequences to which it led, a very rough resemblance to the Epicureans will appear[238].

Footnote 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.

[Sidenote: Phariseeism and Essenism compared.]

The two positive sects were the Pharisees and the Essenes. Both alike were strict observers of the ritual law; but, while the Pharisee was essentially practical, the tendency of the Essene was to mysticism; while the Pharisee was a man of the world, the Essene was a member of a brotherhood. In this respect the Stoic and the Pythagorean were the nearest counterparts which the history of Greek philosophy and social life could offer. These analogies indeed are suggested by Josephus himself[239].

Footnote 239:

For the Pharisees see Vit. 2 παραπλήσιός ἐστι τῇ παρ’ Ἕλλησι Στωϊκῇ λεγομένῃ: for the Essenes, Ant. xv. 10. 4 διαίτῃ χρώμενον τῇ παρ’ Ἕλλησιν ὑπὸ Πυθαγόρου καταδεδειγμένῃ.

[Sidenote: Elusive features of Essenism.]

While the portrait of the Pharisee is distinctly traced and easily recognised, this is not the case with the Essene. The Essene is the great enigma of Hebrew history. Admired alike by Jew, by Heathen, and by Christian, he yet remains a dim vague outline, on which the highest subtlety of successive critics has been employed to supply a substantial form and an adequate colouring. An ascetic mystical dreamy recluse, he seems too far removed from the hard experience of life to be capable of realisation.

[Sidenote: A sufficiently distinct portrait of the sect attainable.]

And yet by careful use of the existing materials the portrait of this sect may be so far restored, as to establish with a reasonable amount of probability the point with which alone we are here concerned. It will appear from the delineations of ancient writers, more especially of Philo and Josephus, that the characteristic feature of Essenism was a particular direction of mystic speculation, involving a rigid asceticism as its practical consequence. Following the definition of Gnosticism which has been already given, we may not unfitly call this tendency Gnostic.

[Sidenote: Main features of Essenism.]

Having anticipated the results in this statement, I shall now endeavour to develope the main features of Essenism; and, while doing so, I will ask my readers to bear in mind the portrait of the Colossian heresy in St Paul, and to mark the resemblances, as the enquiry proceeds[240].

Footnote 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, πρὸς τοὺς Ἑλληνας, 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.; BÖTTGER_Ueber 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).

The Judaic element is especially prominent in the life and teaching of the sect. The Essene was exceptionally rigorous in his observance of the Mosaic ritual. In his strict abstinence [Sidenote: Observance of the Mosaic law.] from work on the sabbath he far surpassed all the other Jews. He would not light a fire, would not move a vessel, would not perform even the most ordinary functions of life[241]. The whole day was given up to religious exercises and to exposition of the Scriptures[242]. His respect for the law extended also to the law-giver. After God, the name of Moses was held in the highest reverence. He who blasphemed his name was punished with death[243]. In all these points the Essene was an exaggeration, almost a caricature, of the Pharisee.

Footnote 241:

B.J. ii. 8. 9 φυλάσσονται ... ταῖς ἑβδόμασιν ἔργων ἐφάπτεσθαι διαφορώτατα Ἰουδαίων ἁπάντων· οὐ μόνον γὰρ τροφὰς ἑαυτοῖς πρὸ ἡμέρας μιᾶς παρασκευάζουσιν, ὡς μηδὲ πῦρ ἐναύοιεν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ σκεῦός τι μετακινῆσαι θαρῥοῦσιν κ.τ.λ. Hippolytus (Hær. ix. 25) adds that some of them do not so much as leave their beds on this day.

Footnote 242:

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

Footnote 243:

B.J. l.c. § 9 σέβας δὲ μέγιστον παρ’ αὐτοῖς μετὰ τὸν Θεὸν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ νομοθέτου, κἂν βλασφημήσῃ τις εἰς τοῦτον (i.e. τὸν νομοθέτην), κολάζεσθαι θανάτῳ: comp. § 10.

[Sidenote: External elements superadded.]

So far the Essene has not departed from the principles of normal Judaism; but here the divergence begins. In three main points we trace the working of influences, which must have been derived from external sources.

[Sidenote: 1. Rigid asceticism, in respect to]

1. To the legalism of the Pharisee, the Essene added an asceticism, which was peculiarly his own, and which in many respects contradicted the tenets of the other sect. The honourable, and even exaggerated, estimate of marriage, which was characteristic of the Jew, and of the Pharisee as the typical Jew, found no favour with the Essene[244]. [Sidenote: marriage,]Marriage was to him an abomination. Those Essenes who lived together as members of an order, and in whom the principles of the sect were carried to their logical consequences, eschewed it altogether. To secure the continuance of their brotherhood they adopted children, whom they brought up in the doctrines and practices of the community. There were others however who took a different view. They accepted marriage, as necessary for the preservation of the race. Yet even with them it seems to have been regarded only as an inevitable evil. They fenced it off by stringent rules, demanding a three years’ probation and enjoining various purificatory rites[245]. The conception of marriage, as quickening and educating the affections and thus exalting and refining human life, was wholly foreign to their minds. Woman was a mere instrument of temptation in their eyes, deceitful, faithless, selfish, jealous, misled and misleading by her passions.

Footnote 244:

B.J. l.c. § 2 γάμου μὲν ὑπεροψία παρ’ αὐτοῖς ... τὰς τῶν γυναίκων ἀσελγείας φυλασσόμενοι καὶ μηδεμίαν τηρεῖν πεπεισμένοι τὴν πρὸς ἕνα πίστιν, Ant. xviii. 1. 5; Philo Fragm. p. 633 γάμον παρῃτήσαντο μετὰ τοῦ διαφερόντως ἀσκεῖν ἐγκράτειαν· Ἐσσαίων γὰρ οὐδεις ἄγεται γυναῖκα, δίοτι φίλαυτον ἡ γυνὴ καὶ ζηλότυπον οὐ μετρίως καὶ δεινὸν ἀνδρὸς ἤθη παρασαλεῦσαι, 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 fœcunda illis aliorum vitæ pœnitentia est.’

Footnote 245:

B.J. l.c. § 13. Josephus speaks of these as ἕτερον Ἐσσηνῶν τάγμα, ὃ δίαιταν μὲν καὶ ἔθη καὶ νόμιμα τοῖς ἄλλοις ὁμοφρονοῦν, διεστὸς δὲ τῇ κατὰ γάμον δόξῃ. 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.

[Sidenote: meats and drinks,]

But their ascetic tendencies did not stop here. The Pharisee was very careful to observe the distinction of meats lawful and unlawful, as laid down by the Mosaic code, and even rendered these ordinances vexatious by minute definitions of his own. But the Essene went far beyond him. He drank no wine, he did not touch animal food. His meal consisted of a piece of bread and a single mess of vegetables. Even this simple fare was prepared for him by special officers consecrated for the purpose, that it might be free from all contamination[246]. Nay, so stringent were the rules of the order on this point, that when an Essene was excommunicated, he often died of starvation, being bound by his oath not to take food prepared by defiled hands, and thus being reduced to eat the very grass of the field[247].

Footnote 246:

B.J. l.c. § 5; see Philo’s account of the Therapeutes, Vit. Cont. § 4 σιτοῦνται δὲ πολυτελὲς οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ ἄρτον εὐτελῆ· καὶ ὄψον ἅλες, οὓς οἱ ἀβροδιαιτότατοι παραρτύουσιν ὑσσώπῳ· ποτὸν ὕδωρ ναματιαῖον αὐτοῖς ἐστιν; and again more to the same effect in § 9: and compare the Essene story of St James in Hegesippus (Euseb. H.E. ii. 23) οἶνον καὶ σίκερα οὐκ ἔπιεν, οὐδὲ ἔμψυχον ἔφαγε. Their abstention from animal food accounts for Porphyry’s giving them so prominent a place in his treatise: see Zeller, p. 243.

Footnote 247:

B.J. l.c. § 8.

[Sidenote: and oil for anointing.]

Again, in hot climates oil for anointing the body is almost a necessary of life. From this too the Essenes strictly abstained. Even if they were accidentally smeared, they were careful at once to wash themselves, holding the mere touch to be a contamination[248].

Footnote 248:

B.J. l.c. § 3 κηλῖδα δὲ ὑπολαμβάνουσι τὸ ἔλαιον κ.τ.λ.; Hegesippus l.c. ἔλαιον οὐκ ἠλείψατο.

[Sidenote: Underlying principle of this asceticism.]

From these facts it seems clear that Essene abstinence was something more than the mere exaggeration of Pharisaic principles. The rigour of the Pharisee was based on his obligation of obedience to an absolute external law. The Essene introduced a new principle. He condemned in any form the gratification of the natural cravings, nor would he consent to regard it as moral or immoral only according to the motive which suggested it or the consequences which flowed from it. It was in itself an absolute evil. He sought to disengage himself, as far as possible, from the conditions of physical life. In short, in the asceticism of the Essene we seem to see the germ of that Gnostic dualism which regards matter as the principle, or at least the abode, of evil.

[Sidenote: 2. Speculative tenets.]

2. And, when we come to investigate the speculative tenets of the sect, we shall find that the Essenes have diverged appreciably from the common type of Jewish orthodoxy.

[Sidenote: (i) Tendency to sun-worship.]

(i) Attention was directed above to their respect for Moses and the Mosaic law, which they shared in common with the Pharisee. But there was another side to their theological teaching. Though our information is somewhat defective, still in the scanty notices which are preserved we find sufficient indications that they had absorbed some foreign elements of religious thought into their system. Thus at day-break they addressed certain prayers, which had been handed down from their forefathers, to the Sun, ‘as if entreating him to rise[249].’ They were careful also to conceal and bury all polluting substances, so as not ‘to insult the rays of the god[250].’ We cannot indeed suppose that they regarded the sun as more than a symbol of the unseen power who gives light and life; but their outward demonstrations of reverence were sufficiently prominent to attach to them, or to a sect derived from them, the epithet of ‘Sun-worshippers[251],’ and some connexion with the characteristic feature of Parsee devotion at once suggests itself. The practice at all events stands in strong contrast to the denunciations of worship paid to the ‘hosts of heaven’ in the Hebrew prophets.

Footnote 249:

B.J. l.c. § 5 πρός γε μὴν τὸ θεῖον ἰδίως εὐσεβεῖς· πρὶν γὰρ ἀνασχεῖν τὸν ἥλιον οὐδὲν φθέγγονται τῶν βεβήλων, πατρίους δεώω τινας εἰς αὐτὸν εὐχάς, ὥσπερ ἱκετεύοντες ἀνατεῖλαι. Compare what Philo says of the Therapeutes, Vit. Cont. § 3 ἡλίου μὲν ἀνίσχοντος εὐημερίαν αἰτούμενοι τὴν ὄντως εὐημερίαν, φωτὸς οὐρανίου την δίανοιαν αὐτῶν ἀναπλησθῆναι, and ib. § 11. On the attempt of Frankel (Zeitschr. p. 458) to resolve this worship, which Josephus states to be offered to the sun (εἰς αὐτόν), into the ordinary prayers of the Pharisaic Jew at day-break, see the appendix to this chapter.

Footnote 250:

B.J. l.c. § 9 ὡς μὴ τὰς αὐγὰς ὑβρίζοιεν τοῦ θεοῦ. There can be no doubt, I think, that by τοῦ θεοῦ is meant the ‘sun-god’; comp. Eur. Heracl. 749 θεοῦ φαεσίμβροτοι αὐγαί, Alc. 722 τὸ φέγγος τοῦτο τοῦ θεοῦ, Appian Præf. 9 δυομένου τοῦ θεοῦ, Lib. 113 τοῦ θεοῦ περὶ δείλην ἑσπέραν ὄντος, Civ. iv. 79 δύνοντος ἄρτι τοῦ θεοῦ: comp. Herod. ii. 24. Dr Ginsburg has obliterated this very important touch by translating τὰς αὐγὰς τοῦ θεοῦ ‘the Divine rays’ (Essenes p. 47). It is a significant fact that Hippolytus (Hær. ix. 25) omits the words τοῦ θεοῦ, 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.

Footnote 251:

Epiphan. Hær. xix. 2, xx. 3 Ὀσσηνοὶ δὲ μετέστησαν ἀπὸ Ἰουδαϊσμοῦ εἰς τὴν τῶν Σαμψαίων αἵρεσιν, liii. 1, 2 Σαμψαῖοι γὰρ ἑρμηνεύονται Ἡλιακοί, from the Hebrew שמש ‘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.

[Sidenote: (ii) Resurrection of the body denied.]

(ii) Nor again is it an insignificant fact that, while the Pharisee maintained the resurrection of the body as a cardinal article of his faith, the Essene restricted himself to a belief in the immortality of the soul. The soul, he maintained, was confined in the flesh, as in a prison-house. Only when disengaged from these fetters would it be truly free. Then it would soar aloft, rejoicing in its newly attained liberty[252]. This doctrine accords with the fundamental conception of the malignity of matter. To those who held this conception a resurrection of the body would be repulsive, as involving a perpetuation of evil.

Footnote 252:

B.J. l.c. § 11 καὶ γὰρ ἕρρωται παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἥδε ἡ δόξα, φθαρτὰ μὲν εἶναι τὰ σώματα καὶ τὴν ὕλην οὐ μόνιμον αὐτοῖς, τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς ἀθανάτους ἀεὶ διαμένειν ... ἐπειδὰν δὲ ἀνεθῶσι τῶν κατὰ σάρκα δεσμῶν, οἷα δὴ μακρᾶς δουλείας ἀπηλλαγμένας, τότε χαίρειν καὶ μετεῶρους φέρεσθαι κ.τ.λ. 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 ὁμολογοῦσι γὰρ καὶ τὴν σάρκα ἀναστήσεσθαι καὶ ἔσεσθαι ἀθάνατον ὃν τρόπον ἤδη ἀθάνατός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή κ.τ.λ.; 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.

[Sidenote: (iii) Prohibition of sacrifices.]

(iii) But they also separated themselves from the religious belief of the orthodox Jew in another respect, which would provoke more notice. While they sent gifts to the temple at Jerusalem, they refused to offer sacrifices there[253]. It would appear that the slaughter of animals was altogether forbidden by their creed[254]. It is certain that they were afraid of contracting some ceremonial impurity by offering victims in the temple. Meanwhile they had sacrifices, bloodless sacrifices, of their own. They regarded their simple meals with their accompanying prayers and thanksgiving, not only as devotional but even as sacrificial rites. Those who prepared and presided over these meals were their consecrated priests[255].

Footnote 253:

Ant. xviii. 1. 5 εἰς δὲ τὸ ἱερὸν ἀναθήματά τε στέλλοντες θυσίας οὐκ ἐπιτελοῦσι διαφορότητι ἁγνειῶν, ἃς νομίζοιεν, καὶ δι’ αὐτὸ εἰργόμενοι τοῦ κοινοῦ τεμενίσματος ἐφ’ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσι. So Philo Quod omn. prob. lib. § 12 describes them as οὐ ζῷα καταθύοντες ἀλλ’ ἱεροπρεπεῖς τὰς ἑαυτῶν διανοίας κατασκευάζειν ἀξιοῦντες.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 255:

Ant. xviii. 1. 5 ἱερεῖς τε [χειροτονοῦσι] διὰ ποίησιν σίτου τε καὶ βρωμάτων, B.J. ii. 8. 5 προκατεύχεται δὲ ὁ ἱερεὺς τῆς τροφῆς κ.τ.λ.; see Ritschl p. 181.

[Sidenote: (iv) Esoteric doctrine of angels.]

(iv) In what other respects they may have departed from, or added to, the normal creed of Judaism, we do not know. But it is expressly stated that, when a novice after passing through the probationary stages was admitted to the full privileges of the order, the oath of admission bound him ‘to conceal nothing from the members of the sect, and to report nothing concerning them to others, even though threatened with death; not to communicate any of their doctrines to anyone otherwise than as he himself had received them; but to abstain from robbery, and in like manner to guard carefully the books of their sect, and the names of the angels[256].’ It may be reasonably supposed that more lurks under this last expression than meets the ear. This esoteric doctrine, relating to angelic beings, may have been another link which attached Essenism to the religion of Zoroaster[257]. At all events we seem to be justified in connecting it with the self-imposed service and worshipping of angels at Colossæ: and we may well suspect that we have here a germ which was developed into the Gnostic doctrine of æons or emanations.

Footnote 256:

B.J. l.c. § 7 ὅρκους αὐτοῖς ὄμνυσι φρικώδεις ... μήτε κρύψειν τι τοὺς αἱρετιστὰς μήτε ἑτέροις αὐτῶν τι μηνύσειν, καὶ ἂν μέχρι θανάτου τὶς βιάζηται. πρὸς τούτοις ὀμνύουσι μηδενὶ μὲν μεταδοῦναι τῶν δογμάτων ἑτέρως ἢ ὡς αὐτὸς μετέλαβεν· ἀφέξεσθαι δὲ λῃστείας καὶ συντηρήσειν ὁμοίως τὰ τε τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν βιβλία καὶ τὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων ὀνόματα. With this notice should be compared the Ebionite διαμαρτυρία, 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.

Footnote 257:

See below, in the appendix.

[Sidenote: (v) Speculations on God and Creation.]

(v) If so, it is not unconnected with another notice relating to Essene peculiarities. The Gnostic doctrine of intermediate beings between God and the world, as we have seen, was intimately connected with speculations respecting creation. Now we are specially informed that the Essenes, while leaving physical studies in general to speculative idlers (μετεωρολέσχαις), as being beyond the reach of human nature, yet excepted from their general condemnation that philosophy which treats of the existence of God and the generation of the universe[258].

Footnote 258:

Philo Omn. prob. lib. § 12 (p. 458) τὸ δὲ φυσικὸν ὡς μεῖζον ἢ κατὰ ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν μετεωρολέσχαις ἀπολιπόντες, πλὴν ὅσον αὐτοῦ περὶ ὑπάρξεως Θεοῦ καὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς γενέσεως φιλοσοφεῖται.

[Sidenote: (vi) Magical charms.]

(vi) Mention has been made incidentally of certain secret books peculiar to the sect. The existence of such an apocryphal literature was a sure token of some abnormal development in doctrine[259]. In the passage quoted it is mentioned in relation to some form of angelology. Elsewhere their skill in prediction, for which they were especially famous, is connected with the perusal of certain ‘sacred books,’ which however are not described[260]. But more especially, we are told that the Essenes studied with extraordinary diligence the writings of the ancients, selecting those especially which could be turned to profit for soul and body, and that from these they learnt the qualities of roots and the properties of stones[261]. This expression, as illustrated by other notices, points clearly to the study of occult sciences, and recalls the alliance with the practice of magical arts, which was a distinguishing feature of Gnosticism, and is condemned by Christian teachers even in the heresies of the Apostolic age.

Footnote 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 ἀπόκρυφοι below, ii. 3.

Footnote 260:

B.J. ii. 8. 12 εἰσὶ δὲ ἐν αὐτοῖς οἳ καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα προγινώσκειν ὑπισχνοῦνται, βίβλοις ἱεραῖς καὶ διαφόροις ἁγνείαις καὶ προφητῶν ἀποφθέγμασιν ἐμπαιδοτριβούμενοι· σπάνιον δὲ, εἴποτε, ἐν ταῖς προαγορεύσεσιν ἀστοχήσουσιν. Dr Ginsburg (p. 49) translates βίβλοις ἱεραῖς ‘the sacred Scripture,’ and προφητῶν ἀποφθέγμασιν ‘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.

Footnote 261:

B.J. ii. 8. 6 σπουδάζουσι δὲ ἐκτόπως περὶ τὰ τῶν παλαιῶν συγγράμματα, μάλιστα τὰ πρὸς ὠφέλειαν ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἐκλέγοντες· ἔνθεν αὐτοῖς πρὸς θεραπείαν παθῶν ῥίζαι τε ἀλεξιτήριοι καὶ λίθων ἰδιότητες ἀνερευνῶνται. 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 (εἰς ὠφέλειαν καὶ θεραπείαν τοῖς ἀνθρῶποις), composed and left behind him charms (ἐπῳδάς) by which diseases were allayed, and diverse kinds of exorcisms (τρόπους ἐξορκώσεων) 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 (ἱστόρησα), 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, σαφὴς ἡ Σολομῶνος καθίστατο σύνεσις καὶ σοφία. 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 λίθων ἰδιότητες 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, ἀλεξιτήριοι ῥίζαι, 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; πάνυ δὲ περιέργως ἔχουσι περὶ βοτάνας καὶ λίθους, περιεργότεροι ὄντες πρὸς τὰς τούτων ἐνεργείας, φάσκοντες μὴ μάτην ταῦτα γενονέναι. The sense which περίεργος (‘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.

[Sidenote: 3. Exclusive spirit of Essenism.]

3. But the notice to which I have just alluded suggests a broader affinity with Gnosticism. Not only did the theological speculations of the Essenes take a Gnostic turn, but they guarded their peculiar tenets with Gnostic reserve. They too had their esoteric doctrine which they looked upon as the exclusive possession of the privileged few; their ‘mysteries’ which it was a grievous offence to communicate to the uninitiated. This doctrine was contained, as we have seen, in an apocryphal literature. Their whole organisation was arranged so as to prevent the divulgence of its secrets to those without. The long period of noviciate, the careful rites of initiation, the distinction of the several orders[262] in the community, the solemn oaths by which they bound their members, were so many safeguards against a betrayal of this precious deposit, which they held to be restricted to the inmost circle of the brotherhood.

Footnote 262:

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

[Sidenote: The three notes of Gnosticism found in the Essenes.]

In selecting these details I have not attempted to give a finished portrait of Essenism. From this point of view the delineation would be imperfect and misleading: for I have left out of sight the nobler features of the sect, their courageous endurance, their simple piety, their brotherly love. My object was solely to call attention to those features which distinguish it from the normal type of Judaism, and seem to justify the attribution of Gnostic influences. And here it has been seen that the three characteristics, which were singled out above as distinctive of Gnosticism, reappear in the Essenes; though it has been convenient to consider them in the reversed order. This Jewish sect exhibits the same exclusiveness in the communication of its doctrines. Its theological speculations take the same direction, dwelling on the mysteries of creation, regarding matter as the abode of evil, and postulating certain intermediate spiritual agencies as necessary links of communication between heaven and earth. And lastly, its speculative opinions involve the same ethical conclusions, and lead in like manner to a rigid asceticism. If the notices relating to these points do not always explain themselves, yet read in the light of the heresies of the Apostolic age and in that of subsequent Judæo-Gnostic Christianity, their bearing seems to be distinct enough; so that we should not be far wrong, if we were to designate Essenism as Gnostic Judaism[263].

Footnote 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.

[Sidenote: How widely were the Essenes dispersed?]

But the Essenes of whom historical notices are preserved were inhabitants of the Holy Land. Their monasteries were situated on the shores of the Dead Sea. We are told indeed, that the sect was not confined to any one place, and that members of the order were found in great numbers in divers cities and villages[264]. But Judæa in one notice, Palestine and Syria in another, are especially named as the localities of the Essene settlements[265]. Have we any reason to suppose that they were represented among the Jews of the Dispersion? In Egypt indeed we find ourselves confronted with a similar ascetic sect, the Therapeutes, who may perhaps have had an independent origin, but who nevertheless exhibit substantially the same type of Jewish thought and practice[266]. But the Dispersion of Egypt, it may be argued, was exceptional; and we might expect to find here organisations and developments of Judaism hardly less marked and various than in the mother country. [Sidenote: Do they appear in Asia Minor?] What ground have we for assuming the existence of this type in Asia Minor? Do we meet with any traces of it in the cities of the Lycus, or in proconsular Asia generally, which would justify the opinion that it might make its influence felt in the Christian communities of that district?

Footnote 264:

Philo Fragm. p. 632 οἰκοῦσι δὲ πολλὰς μὲν πόλεις τῆς Ἰουδαίας, πολλὰς δὲ κώμας, καὶ μεγάλους καὶ πολυανθρώπους ὁμίλους; Joseph. B.J. ii. 8. 4 μία δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτῶν πόλις, ἀλλ’ ἐν ἑκάστῃ κατοικοῦσι πολλοί. On the notices of the settlements and dispersion of the Essenes see Zeller p. 239.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

[Sidenote: How the term Essene is to be understood.]

Now it has been shown that the colonies of the Jews in this neighbourhood were populous and influential[267]; and it might be argued with great probability that among these large numbers Essene Judaism could not be unrepresented. But indeed throughout this investigation, when I speak of the Judaism in the Colossian Church as Essene, I do not assume a precise identity of origin, but only an essential affinity of type, with the Essenes of the mother country. As a matter of history, it may or may not have sprung from the colonies on the shores of the Dead Sea; but as this can neither be proved nor disproved, so also it is immaterial to my main [Sidenote: Probabilities of the case.] purpose. All along its frontier, wherever Judaism became enamoured of and was wedded to Oriental mysticism, the same union would produce substantially the same results. In a country where Phrygia, Persia, Syria, all in turn had moulded religious thought, it would be strange indeed if Judaism entirely escaped these influences. Nor, as a matter of fact, are indications wanting to show that it was not unaffected [Sidenote: Direct indications.] by them. If the traces are few, they are at least as numerous and as clear as with our defective information on the whole subject we have any right to expect in this particular instance.

Footnote 267:

See above, p. 19 sq.

[Sidenote: St Paul at Ephesus A.D. 54–57.]

When St Paul visits Ephesus, he comes in contact with certain strolling Jews, exorcists, who attempt to cast out evil spirits[268]. Connecting this fact with the notices of Josephus, from which we infer that exorcisms of this kind were especially [Sidenote: Exorcisms and] practised by the Essenes[269], we seem to have an indication of their presence in the capital of proconsular Asia. If so, it is a significant fact that in their exorcisms they employed the name of our Lord: for then we must regard this as the earliest notice of those overtures of alliance on the part of Essenism, which involved such important consequences in the subsequent history of the Church[270]. It is also worth observing, that the next incident in St Luke’s narrative is the burning [Sidenote: magical books.] of their magical books by those whom St Paul converted on this occasion[271]. As Jews are especially mentioned among these converts, and as books of charms are ascribed to the Essenes by Josephus, the two incidents, standing in this close connexion, throw great light on the type of Judaism which thus appears at Ephesus[272].

Footnote 268:

Acts xix. 13 τῶν περιερχομένων Ἰουδαίων ἐξορκιστῶν.

Footnote 269:

See above p. 91, note 261.

Footnote 270:

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

Footnote 271:

There is doubtless a reference to the charms called Ἐφέσια γράμματα 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.

Footnote 272:

I can only regard it as an accidental coincidence that the epulones of the Ephesian Artemis were called Essenes, Pausan. viii. 13. 1 τοὺς τῇ Ἀρτέμιδι ἱστιάτορας τῇ Ἐφεσίᾳ γινομένους, καλουμένους δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν πολιτῶν Ἐσσῆνας: see Guhl Ephesiaca 106 sq. The Etymol. Magn. has Ἐσσήν: ὁ βασιλεὺς κατὰ Ἐφεσίους, and adds several absurd derivations of the word. In the sense of ‘a king’ it is used by Callimachus Hymn. Jov. 66 οὔ σε θεῶν ἐσσῆνα πάλιν θέσαν. It is probably not a Greek word, as other terms connected with the worship of the Ephesian Artemis (e.g. μεγάβυζος, a Persian word) point to an oriental or at least a non-Greek origin; and some have derived it from the Aramaic הסין chasin ‘strong’ or ‘powerful.’ But there is no sufficient ground for connecting it directly with the name of the sect Ἐσσηνοί or Ἐσσαῖοι, 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.’

[Sidenote: Sibylline Oracle A.D. 80.]

Somewhat later we have another notice which bears in the same direction. The Sibylline Oracle, which forms the fourth book in the existing collection, is discovered by internal evidence to have been written about A.D. 80[273]. It is plainly a product of Judaism, but its Judaism does not belong to the normal Pharisaic type. With Essenism it rejects sacrifices, even regarding the shedding of blood as a pollution[274], and with Essenism also it inculcates the duty of frequent washings[275]. Yet from other indications we are led to the conclusion, that this poem was not written in the interests of Essenism properly so called, but represents some allied though independent development of Judaism. In some respects at all events its language seems quite inconsistent with the purer type of Essenism[276]. But its general tendency is clear: and of its locality there can hardly be a doubt. The affairs of Asia Minor occupy a disproportionate space in the poet’s description of the past and vision of the future. The cities of the Mæander and its neighbourhood, among these Laodicea, are mentioned with emphasis[277].

Footnote 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.).

Footnote 274:

See vv. 27–30 οἳ νηοὺς μὲν ἅπαντας ἀποστρέψουσιν ἰδόντες, καὶ βωμοὺς, εἰκαῖα λίθων ἱδρύματα κωφῶν ἅιμασιν ἐμψύχων μεμιασμένα καὶ θυσίῃσι τετραπόδων κ.τ.λ. In an earlier passage vv. 8 sq. it is said of God, οὔτε γὰρ οἴκον ἔχει ναῷ λίθον ἱδρυθέντα κωφότατον νωδόν τε, βροτῶν πολυαλγέα λώβην.

Footnote 275:

ver. 160 ἐν ποταμοῖς λούσασθε ὅλον δέμας αἐνάοισι. Another point of contact with the Essenes is the great stress on prayers before meals, ver. 26 εὐλογέοντες πρὶν πιέειν φαγέειν τε. Ewald (Sibyll. Bücher p. 46) points also to the prominence of the words εὐσεβεῖν, εὐσεβής, εὐσεβία (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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 277:

vv. 106 sq., 145 sq.; see above p. 40, note 131. It begins κλῦθι λεὼς Ἀσίης μεγαλαυχέος Εὐρώπης τε.

[Sidenote: Phrygia and Asia congenial to this type of religion.]

And certainly the moral and intellectual atmosphere would not be unfavourable to the growth of such a plant. The same district, which in speculative philosophy had produced a Thales and a Heraclitus[278], had developed in popular religion the worship of the Phrygian Cybele and Sabazius and of the Ephesian Artemis[279]. Cosmological speculation, mystic theosophy, religious fanaticism, all had their home here. Associated with Judaism or with Christianity the natural temperament and the intellectual bias of the people would take a new direction; but the old type would not be altogether obliterated. Phrygia reared the hybrid monstrosities of Ophitism[280]. She was the mother of Montanist enthusiasm[281], and the foster-mother of Novatian rigorism[282]. The syncretist, the mystic, the devotee, the puritan, would find a congenial climate in these regions of Asia Minor.

Footnote 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) τὸν κόσμον ἔμψυχον καὶ δαιμόνων πλήρη, or, as reported by Aristotle (de An. i. 5, p. 411), πάντα πλήρη θεῶν εἰ^ναι. In a recorded saying of Heraclitus we have the very language of a Gnostic teacher; Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 13, p. 699, τὰ μὲν τῆς γνώσιος βάθη κρύπτειν ἀπιστίη ἀγαθή, καθ’ Ἡηράκλειτον· ἀπιστίη γὰρ διαφυγγάνει τὸ μὴ γινώσκεσθαι. See above pp. 77, 92.

Footnote 279:

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

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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 αἱ δὲ [τῶν αἱρεσέων] ἀπὸ ἔθνους [προσαγορεύονται], ὡς ἡ τῶν Φρυγῶν (comp. Eus. H.E. iv. 27, v. 16, Hipp. Hær. viii. 19, x. 25). From οἱ (or ἡ) κατὰ Φρυγάς (Eus. H.E. ii. 25, v. 16, 18, vi. 20) comes the solœcistic Latin name Cataphryges.

Footnote 282:

Socrates (iv. 28) accounts for the spread of Novatianism in Phrygia by the σωφροσύνη 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.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Previous results summed up.]

It has thus been shown first, that Essene Judaism was Gnostic in its character; and secondly, that this type of Jewish thought and practice had established itself in the Apostolic age in those parts of Asia Minor with which we are more directly concerned. It now remains to examine the heresy of the [Sidenote: Is the Colossian heresy Gnostic?] Colossian Church more nearly, and to see whether it deserves the name, which provisionally was given to it, of Gnostic Judaism. Its Judaism all will allow. Its claim to be regarded as Gnostic will require a closer scrutiny. And in conducting [Sidenote: Three notes of Gnosticism.] this examination, it will be convenient to take the three notes of Gnosticism which have been already laid down, and to enquire how far it satisfies these tests.

[Sidenote: 1. Intellectual exclusiveness.]

1. It has been pointed out that Gnosticism strove to establish, or rather to preserve, an intellectual oligarchy in religion. It had its hidden wisdom, its exclusive mysteries, its privileged class.

Now I think it will be evident, that St Paul in this epistle [Sidenote: St Paul contends for the universality of the Gospel,] feels himself challenged to contend for the universality of the Gospel. This indeed is a characteristic feature of the Apostle’s teaching at all times, and holds an equally prominent place in the epistles of an earlier date. But the point to be observed is, that the Apostle, in maintaining this doctrine, has changed the mode of his defence; and this fact suggests that there has been a change in the direction of the attack. It is no longer against national exclusiveness, but against intellectual exclusiveness, that he contends. His adversaries do not now plead ceremonial restrictions, or at least do not plead these alone: but they erect an artificial barrier of spiritual privilege, even more fatal to the universal claims of the Gospel, because more specious and more insidious. It is not now against Jew as such, but against the Jew become Gnostic, that he fights the battle of liberty. In other words; it is not against Christian Pharisaism but against Christian Essenism that he defends his position. Only in the light of such an antagonism can we understand the emphatic iteration with which he claims to ‘warn every man and teach every man in every wisdom, that he may present [Sidenote: against the pretentions of an aristocracy of intellect.] every man perfect in Christ Jesus[283].’ It will be remembered that ‘wisdom’ in Gnostic teaching was the exclusive possession of the few; it will not be forgotten that ‘perfection’ was the term especially applied in their language to this privileged minority, as contradistinguished from the common herd of believers; and thus it will be readily understood why St Paul should go on to say that this universality of the Gospel is the one object of his contention, to which all the energies of his life are directed, and having done so, should express his intense anxiety for the Churches of Colossæ and the neighbourhood, lest they should be led astray by a spurious wisdom to desert the true knowledge[284]. This danger also will enable us to appreciate a novel feature in another passage of the epistle. While dwelling on the obliteration of all distinctions in Christ, he repeats his earlier contrasts, ‘Greek and Jew,’ ‘circumcision and uncircumcision,’ ‘bondslave and free’; but to these he adds new words which at once give a wider scope and a more immediate application to the lesson. In Christ the existence of ‘barbarian’ and even ‘Scythian,’ the lowest type of barbarian, is extinguished[285]. As culture, civilisation, philosophy, knowledge, are no conditions of acceptance, so neither is their absence any disqualification in the believer. The aristocracy of intellectual discernment, which Gnosticism upheld in religion, is abhorrent to the first principles of the Gospel.

Footnote 283:

i. 28 νουθετούντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον καὶ διδάσκοντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ ἵνα παραστήσωμεν πάντα ἄνθρωπον τέλειον ἐν Χριστῷ κ.τ.λ. The reiteration has offended the scribes; and the first πάντα ἄνθρωπον is omitted in some copies, the second in others. For τέλειον see the note on the passage.

Footnote 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) εἰς ὃ καὶ κοπιῶ κ.τ.λ.; then the expression of concern on behalf of the Colossians (ii. 1) θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα ἔχω ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν κ.τ.λ.; then the desire that they may be brought (ii. 2) εἰς πᾶν πλοῦτος τῆς πληροφορίας τῆς συνέσεως, εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ; then the definition of this mystery (ii. 2, 3), Χριστοῦ ἐν ᾧ εἰσὶν πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ κ.τ.λ.; then the warning against the false teachers (ii. 4) τοῦτο λέγω ἵνα μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς παραλογίζηται κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 285:

Col. iii. 11 after περιτομὴ καὶ ἀκροβυστία the Apostle adds βάρβαρος, Σκύθης. There is nothing corresponding to this in the parallel passage, Gal. iii. 28.

[Sidenote: He contrasts the true wisdom with the false,]

Hence also must be explained the frequent occurrence of the words ‘wisdom’ (σοφία), ‘intelligence’ (σύνεσις), ‘knowledge’ (γνῶσις), ‘perfect knowledge’ (ἐπίγνωσις), in this epistle[286]. St Paul takes up the language of his opponents, and translates it into a higher sphere. The false teachers put forward a ‘philosophy,’ but it was only an empty deceit, only a plausible display of false-reasoning[287]. They pretended ‘wisdom,’ but it was merely the profession, not the reality[288]. Against these pretentions the Apostle sets the true wisdom of the Gospel. On its wealth, its fulness, its perfection, he is never tired of dwelling[289]. The true wisdom, he would argue, is essentially spiritual and yet essentially definite; while the false is argumentative, is speculative, [Sidenote: and dwells on the veritable mystery.] is vague and dreamy[290]. Again they had their rites of initiation. St Paul contrasts with these the one universal, comprehensive mystery[291], the knowledge of God in Christ. This mystery is complete in itself: it contains ‘all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge hidden’ in it[292]. Moreover it is offered to all without distinction: though once hidden, its revelation is unrestricted, except by the waywardness and disobedience of men. The esoteric spirit of Gnosticism finds no countenance in the Apostle’s teaching.

Footnote 286:

For σοφία see i. 9, 28, ii. 3, iii. 16, iv. 5; for σύνεσις i. 9, ii. 2; for γνῶσις ii. 3; for ἐπίγνωσις i. 9, 10, ii. 2, iii. 10.

Footnote 287:

ii. 4 πιθανολογία, ii. 8 κενὴ ἀπάτη.

Footnote 288:

ii. 23 λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας, where the μὲν suggests the contrast of the suppressed clause.

Footnote 289:

e.g. i. 9, 28, iii. 16 ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ; ii. 2 τῆς πληροφορίας. For the ‘wealth’ of this knowledge compare i. 27, ii. 2, iii. 16; and see above p. 44.

Footnote 290:

ii. 4, 18.

Footnote 291:

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

Footnote 292:

ii. 2 ἐν ᾧ εἰσὶν πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ τῆς γνώσεως ἀπόκρυφοι. For the meaning of ἀπόκρυφοι see above p. 90, and the note on the passage.

[Sidenote: 2. Speculative tenets. Cosmogony and theology.]

2. From the informing spirit of Gnosticism we turn to the speculative tenets—the cosmogony and the theology of the Gnostic.

And here too the affinities to Gnosticism reveal themselves in the Colossian heresy. We cannot fail to observe that the [Sidenote: St Paul attacks the doctrine of angelic mediators,] Apostle has in view the doctrine of intermediate agencies, regarded as instruments in the creation and government of the world. Though this tenet is not distinctly mentioned, it is tacitly assumed in the teaching which St Paul opposes to it. Against the philosophy of successive evolutions from the Divine nature, angelic mediators forming the successive links in the chain which binds the finite to the Infinite, he sets the doctrine [Sidenote: setting against it the doctrine of the Word Incarnate,] of the one Eternal Son, the Word of God begotten before the worlds[293]. The angelology of the heretics had a twofold bearing; it was intimately connected at once with cosmogony and with religion. Correspondingly St Paul represents the mediatorial function of Christ as twofold: it is exercised in the natural creation, and it is exercised in the spiritual creation. In both these spheres His initiative is absolute, His control is universal, His action is complete. By His agency the world of matter was created and is sustained. He is at once the beginning and the [Sidenote: as the reconciler of heaven and earth.] end of the material universe; ‘All things have been created through Him and unto Him.’ Nor is His office in the spiritual world less complete. In the Church, as in the Universe, He is sole, absolute, supreme; the primary source from which all life proceeds and the ultimate arbiter in whom all feuds are reconciled.

Footnote 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.

[Sidenote: His relations to (1) Deity; as God manifested.]

On the one hand, in relation to Deity, He is the visible image of the invisible God. He is not only the chief manifestation of the Divine nature: He exhausts the Godhead manifested. In Him resides the totality of the Divine powers and attributes. For this totality Gnostic teachers had a technical [Sidenote: The pleroma resides in Him.] term, the pleroma or plenitude[294]. From the pleroma they supposed that all those agencies issued, through which God has at any time exerted His power in creation, or manifested His will through revelation. These mediatorial beings would retain more or less of its influence, according as they claimed direct parentage from it or traced their descent through successive evolutions. But in all cases this pleroma was distributed, diluted, transformed and darkened by foreign admixture. They were only partial and blurred images, often deceptive caricatures, of their original, broken lights of the great central Light. It is not improbable that, like later speculators of the same school, they found a place somewhere or other in their genealogy of spiritual beings for the Christ. If so, St Paul’s language becomes doubly significant. But this hypothesis is not needed to explain its reference. In contrast to their doctrine, he asserts and repeats the assertion, that the pleroma abides absolutely and wholly in Christ as the Word of God[295]. The entire light is concentrated in Him.

Footnote 294:

See the detached note on πλήρωμα.

Footnote 295:

i. 19 ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι, ii. 9 ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς.

[Sidenote: (2) Created things; as absolute Lord.]

Hence it follows that, as regards created things, His supremacy must be absolute. In heaven as in earth, over things immaterial as over things material, He is king. Speculations on the nature of intermediate spiritual agencies—their names, their ranks, their offices—were rife in the schools of Judæo-Gnostic thought. ‘Thrones, dominations, princedoms, virtues, powers’–these formed part of the spiritual nomenclature which they had invented to describe different grades of angelic mediators. Without entering into these speculations, the Apostle asserts that Christ is Lord of all, the highest and the lowest, whatever rank they may hold and by whatever name they are called[296], for they are parts of creation and He is the source of creation. Through Him they became, and unto Him they tend.

Footnote 296:

See especially i. 16 εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι κ.τ.λ., compared with the parallel passage in Eph. i. 21 ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ εξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότητος καὶ παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου κ.τ.λ. Compare also ii. 10 ἡ κεφαλὴ πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας, and ii. 15 ἀπεκδυσάμενος τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας κ.τ.λ.

[Sidenote: Angelolatry is therefore condemned]

Hence the worship of angels, which the false teachers inculcated, was utterly wrong in principle. The motive of this angelolatry it is not difficult to imagine. There was a show of humility[297], for there was a confession of weakness, in this subservience to inferior mediatorial agencies. It was held feasible to grasp at the lower links of the chain which bound earth to heaven, when heaven itself seemed far beyond the reach of man. The successive grades of intermediate beings were as successive steps, by which man might mount the ladder leading up to the throne of God. This carefully woven web of sophistry the Apostle tears to shreds. The doctrine of the false teachers was based on confident assumptions respecting angelic beings of whom they could know nothing. It was moreover a denial of Christ’s twofold personality and His [Sidenote: as a denial of His perfect mediation.] mediatorial office. It follows from the true conception of Christ’s Person, that He and He alone can bridge over the chasm between earth and heaven; for He is at once the lowest and the highest. He raises up man to God, for He brings down God to man. Thus the chain is reduced to a single link, this link being the Word made flesh. As the pleroma resides in Him, so is it communicated to us through Him[298]. To substitute allegiance to any other spiritual mediator is to sever the connexion of the limbs with the Head, which is the centre of life and the mainspring of all energy throughout the body[300].

Footnote 297:

ii. 18 θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 298:

ii. 10; comp. i. 9.

Footnote 300:

ii. 18.

[Sidenote: The Apostle’s practical inference.]

Hence follows the practical conclusion, that, whatever is done, must be done in the name of the Lord[301]. Wives must submit to their husbands ‘in the Lord’: children must obey their parents ‘in the Lord’: servants must work for the masters as working ‘unto the Lord[302].’ This iteration, ‘in the Lord,’ ‘unto the Lord,’ is not an irrelevant form of words; but arises as an immediate inference from the main idea which underlies the doctrinal portion of the epistle.

Footnote 301:

iii. 17.

Footnote 302:

iii. 18, 20, 23.

[Sidenote: 3. Moral results of Gnostic doctrine.]

3. It has been shown that the speculative tenets of Gnosticism might lead (and as a matter of fact we know that they did lead) to either of two practical extremes, to rigid asceticism or to unbridled license. The latter alternative appears to some extent in the heresy of the Pastoral Epistles[303], and still more plainly in those of the Catholic Epistles[304] and the Apocalypse[305]. It is constantly urged by Catholic writers as a reproach against later Gnostic sects[306].

Footnote 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.

Footnote 304:

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

Footnote 305:

Apoc. ii. 14, 20–22.

Footnote 306:

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

[Sidenote: Asceticism of the Colossian heresy]

But the former and nobler extreme was the first impulse of the Gnostic. To escape from the infection of evil by escaping from the domination of matter was his chief anxiety. This appears very plainly in the Colossian heresy. Though the prohibitions to which the Apostle alludes might be explained in part by the ordinances of the Mosaic ritual, this explanation will not cover all the facts. Thus for instance drinks are mentioned as well as meats[307], though on the former the law of Moses is silent. Thus again the rigorous denunciation, ‘Touch not, taste not, handle not[308],’ seems to go very far beyond the Levitical enactments. And moreover the motive of these prohibitions [Sidenote: not explained by its Judaism.] is Essene rather than Pharisaic, Gnostic rather than Jewish. These severities of discipline were intended ‘to check indulgence of the flesh[309].’ They professed to treat the body with entire disregard, to ignore its cravings and to deny its wants. In short; they betray a strong ascetic tendency[310], of which normal Judaism, as represented by the Pharisee, offers no explanation.

Footnote 307:

ii. 16.

Footnote 308:

ii. 21.

Footnote 309:

ii. 23.

Footnote 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.

[Sidenote: St Paul’s reply shows its Gnostic bearing.]

And St Paul’s answer points to the same inference. The difference will appear more plainly, if we compare it with his treatment of Pharisaic Judaism in the Galatian Church. This epistle offers nothing at all corresponding to his language on that occasion; ‘If righteousness be by law, then Christ died in vain’; ‘If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing’; ‘Christ is nullified for you, whosoever are justified by law; ye are fallen from grace[311].’ The point of view in fact is wholly changed. With these Essene or Gnostic Judaizers the Mosaic law was neither the motive nor the standard, it was only the starting point, of their austerities. Hence in replying the [Sidenote: It is no longer the contrast of law and grace.] Apostle no longer deals with law, as law; he no longer points the contrast of grace and works; but he enters upon the moral aspects of these ascetic practices. He denounces them, as concentrating the thoughts on earthly and perishable things[312]. He points out that they fail in their purpose, and are found valueless against carnal indulgences[313]. In their place he offers the true and only remedy against sin—the elevation of the inner life in Christ, the transference of the affections into a higher sphere[314], where the temptations of the flesh are powerless. Thus dying with Christ, they will kill all their earthly members[315]. Thus rising with Christ, they will be renewed in the image of God their Creator[316].

Footnote 311:

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

Footnote 312:

ii. 8, 20–22.

Footnote 313:

ii. 23 οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός: see the note on these words.

Footnote 314:

iii. 1, 2.

Footnote 315:

iii. 3, 5.

Footnote 316:

iii. 10.

[Sidenote: The truth of the above result tested by]

In attempting to draw a complete portrait of the Colossian heresy from a few features accidentally exhibited in St Paul’s epistle, it has been necessary to supply certain links; and some assurance may not unreasonably be required that this has not been done arbitrarily. Nor is this security wanting. In all such cases the test will be twofold. The result must be consistent with itself: and it must do no violence to the historical conditions under which the phenomena arose.

[Sidenote: (1) Its inherent consistency and symmetry.]

1. In the present instance the former of these tests is fully satisfied. The consistency and the symmetry of the result is its great recommendation. The postulate of a Gnostic type brings the separate parts of the representation into direct connexion. The speculative opinions and the practical tendencies of the heresy thus explain, and are explained by, each other. It is analogous to the hypothesis of the comparative anatomist, who by referring the fossil remains to their proper type restores the whole skeleton of some unknown animal from a few bones belonging to different extremities of the body, and without the intermediate and connecting parts. In the one case, as in the other, the result is the justification of the postulate.

[Sidenote: (2) Its place in a historical sequence.]

2. And again; the historical conditions of the problem are carefully observed. It has been shown already, that Judaism in the preceding age had in one of its developments assumed a form which was the natural precursor of the Colossian heresy. In order to complete the argument it will be necessary to show that Christianity in the generation next succeeding exhibited a perverted type, which was its natural outgrowth. If this can be done, the Colossian heresy will take its proper place in a regular historical sequence.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Continuance of this type of Judæo-Gnosticism in the district.]

I have already pointed out, that the language of St John in the Apocalypse, which was probably written within a few years of this epistle, seems to imply the continuance in this district of the same type of heresy which is here denounced by St Paul[317]. But the notices in this book are not more definite than those of the Epistle to the Colossians itself; and we are led to look outside the Canonical writings for some more explicit evidence. Has early Christian history then preserved any record of a distinctly Gnostic school existing on the confines of the Apostolic age, which may be considered a legitimate development of the phase of religious speculation that confronts us here?

Footnote 317:

See above p. 41 sq.

[Sidenote: Heresy of Cerinthus.]

[Sidenote: His date and place.]

We find exactly the phenomenon which we are seeking in the heresy of Cerinthus[318]. The time, the place, the circumstances, all agree. This heresiarch is said to have been originally a native of Alexandria[319]; but proconsular Asia is allowed on all hands to have been the scene of his activity as a teacher[320]. He lived and taught at the close of the Apostolic age, that is, in the latest decade of the first century. Some writers indeed make him an antagonist of St Peter and St Paul[321], but their authority is not trustworthy, nor is this very early date at all probable. But there can be no reasonable doubt that he was a contemporary of St John, who was related by Polycarp to have denounced him face to face on one memorable occasion[322], and is moreover said by Irenæus to have written his Gospel with the direct object of confuting his errors[323].

Footnote 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.

Footnote 319:

Hippol. Hær. vii. 33 Αἰγυπτίων παιδείᾳ ἀσκηθείς, x. 21 ὁ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ἀσκηθείς, Theodoret. Hær. Fab. ii. 3 ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ πλεîστον διατρίψας χρόνον.

Footnote 320:

Iren. i. 26. 1 ‘et Cerinthus autem quidam ... in Asia docuit,’ Epiphan. Hær. xxviii. 1 ἐγένετο δὲ οὗτος ὁ Κήρινθος ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ διατρίβων, κἀκεῖσε τοῦ κηρύγματος τὴν ἀρχὴν πεποιημένος, Theodoret. 1. c. ὕστερον εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν ἀφίκετο. The scene of his encounter with St John in the bath is placed at Ephesus: see below, note 322.

Footnote 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.]

Footnote 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; ὃς καὶ ἐπὶ Ἀνικήτου ἐπιδημήσας τῄ Ῥώμῃ πολλοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν προειρημένων αἱρετικῶν ἐπέστρεψεν ... καὶ εἰσὶν οἱ ἀκηκοότες αὐτοû ὅτι Ἰωάννης κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 323:

Iren. iii. II. 1.

[Sidenote: Cerinthus a link between Judaism and Gnosticism.]

‘Cerinthus,’ writes Neander, ‘is best entitled to be considered as the intermediate link between the Judaizing and the Gnostic sects.’ ‘Even among the ancients,’ he adds, ‘opposite reports respecting his doctrines have been given from opposite points of view, according as the Gnostic or the Judaizing element was exclusively insisted upon: and the dispute on this point has been kept up even to modern times. In point of chronology too Cerinthus may be regarded as representing the principle in its transition from Judaism to Gnosticism[324].’

Footnote 324:

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

[Sidenote: Judaism still prominent in his system]

Of his Judaism no doubt has been or can be entertained. The gross Chiliastic doctrine ascribed to him[325], even though it may have been exaggerated in the representations of adverse writers, can only be explained by a Jewish origin. His conception of the Person of Christ was Ebionite, that is Judaic, in its main features[326]. He is said moreover to have enforced the rite of circumcision and to have inculcated the observance of sabbaths[327]. It is related also that the Cerinthians, like the Ebionites, accepted the Gospel of St Matthew alone[328].’

Footnote 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.

Footnote 326:

See below p. 111.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 328:

Epiphan. Hær. xxviii. 5, xxx. 14, Philastr. Hær. 36.

[Sidenote: though Gnosticism is already aggressive.]

At the same time, it is said by an ancient writer that his adherence to Judaism was only partial[329]. This limitation is doubtless correct. As Gnostic principles asserted themselves more distinctly, pure Judaism necessarily suffered. All or nearly all the early Gnostic heresies were Judaic; and for a time a compromise was effected which involved more or less concession on either side. But the ultimate incompatibility of the two at length became evident, and a precarious alliance was exchanged for an open antagonism. This final result however was not reached till the middle of the second century: and meanwhile it was a question to what extent Judaism was prepared to make concessions for the sake of this new ally. Even the Jewish Essenes, as we have seen, departed from the orthodox position in the matter of sacrifices; and if we possessed fuller information, we should probably find that they made still larger concessions than this. Of the Colossian heretics we can only form a conjecture, but the angelology and angelolatry attributed to them point to a further step in the same direction. As we pass from them to Cerinthus we are [Sidenote: Gnostic element in his teaching.] no longer left in doubt; for the Gnostic element has clearly gained the ascendant, though it has not yet driven its rival out of the field. Two characteristic features in his teaching especially deserve consideration, both as evincing the tendency of his speculations and as throwing back light on the notices in the Colossian Epistle.

Footnote 329:

Epiphan. Hær. xxviii. 1 προσέχειν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ ἀπὸ μέρους.

[Sidenote: 1. His Gnostic Cosmogony]

1. His cosmogony is essentially Gnostic. The great problem of creation presented itself to him in the same aspect; and the solution which he offered was generically the same. The world, he asserted, was not made by the highest God, but by an angel or power far removed from, and ignorant of, this supreme Being[330]. Other authorities describing his system speak not of a single power, but of powers, as creating the universe[331]; but all alike represent this demiurge, or these demiurges, as ignorant of the absolute God. It is moreover stated that he held the Mosaic law to have been given not by the supreme God Himself, but by this angel, or one of these angels, who created the world[332].

Footnote 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 ἔλεγεν οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ πρώτου Θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλ’ ὑπὸ δυνάμέως τινος κεχωρισμένης τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα ἐξουσίας καὶ ἀγνοοῦσης τὸν ὑπὲρ πάντα Θεόν, x. 21 ὑπὸ δυνάμεώς τινος ἀγγελικῆς, πολὺ κεχωρισμένης καὶ διεστώσης τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα αὐθεντίας καὶ ἀγνοουσης τὸν ὑπὲρ πάντα Θεόν.

Footnote 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 ἕνα εἶναι τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν τὸν κόσμον πεποιηκότων; Theodoret. H. F. ii. 3 ἕνα μὲν εἶναι τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεόν, οὐκ αὐτὸν δὲ εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου δημιουργόν, ἀλλὰ δυνάμεις τινὰς κεχωρισμένας καὶ παντελῶς αὐτὸν ἀγνοούσας; 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.

Footnote 332:

Pseudo-Tertull. l.c.; Epiphan. Hær. xxviii. 4 τὸν δεδωκότα νόμον ἕνα εἶναι τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν τὸν κόσμον πεποιηκότων.

[Sidenote: and consequent angelology.]

From these notices it is plain that angelology had an important place in his speculations; and that he employed it to explain the existence of evil supposed to be inherent in the physical world, as well as to account for the imperfections of the old dispensation. The ‘remote distance’ of his angelic demiurge from the supreme God can hardly be explained except on the hypothesis of successive generations of these intermediate agencies. Thus his solution is thoroughly Gnostic. At the same time, as contrasted with later and more sharply defined Gnostic systems, the Judaic origin and complexion of his cosmogony is obvious. His intermediate agencies still retain the name and the personality of angels, and have not yet given way to those vague idealities which, as emanations [Sidenote: Angels of earlier and æons of later Gnostics.] or æons, took their place in later speculations. Thus his theory is linked on to the angelology of later Judaism founded on the angelic appearances recorded in the Old Testament narrative. And again: while later Gnostics represent the demiurge and giver of the law as antagonistic to the supreme and good God, Cerinthus does not go beyond postulating his ignorance. He went as far as he could without breaking entirely with the Old Testament and abandoning his Judaic standing-ground.

[Sidenote: Cerinthus a link between the Colossian heresy and later Gnosticism.]

In these respects Cerinthus is the proper link between the incipient gnosis of the Colossian heretics and the mature gnosis of the second century. In the Colossian epistle we still breathe the atmosphere of Jewish angelology, nor is there any trace of the æon of later Gnosticism[333]; while yet speculation is so far advanced that the angels have an important function in explaining the mysteries of the creation and government of the world. On the other hand it has not reached the point at which we find it in Cerinthus. Gnostic conceptions respecting the relation of the demiurgic agency to the supreme God would appear to have passed through three stages. This relation was represented first, as imperfect appreciation; next, as entire ignorance; lastly, as direct antagonism. The second and third are the standing points of Cerinthus and of the later Gnostic teachers respectively. The first was probably the position of the Colossian false teachers. The imperfections of the natural world, they would urge, were due to the limited capacities of these angels to whom the demiurgic work was committed, and to their imperfect sympathy with the supreme God; but at the same time they might fitly receive worship as mediators between God and man; and indeed humanity seemed in its weakness to need the intervention of some such beings less remote from itself than the highest heaven.

Footnote 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.

[Sidenote: 2. His Christology.]

2. Again the Christology of Cerinthus deserves attention from this point of view. Here all our authorities are agreed. As a Judaizer Cerinthus held with the Ebionites that Jesus was only the son of Joseph and Mary, born in the natural way. As a Gnostic he maintained that the Christ first descended in the form of a dove on the carpenter’s son at his baptism; that He revealed to him the unknown Father, and worked miracles through him: and that at length He took His flight and left him, so that Jesus alone suffered and rose, while the Christ remained impassible[334]. It would appear also, though this is not certain, that he described this re-ascension of the Christ, as a return ‘to His own pleroma[335].’

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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 πλήρωμα below.

[Sidenote: Approach towards Cerinthian Christology in the Colossian heresy.]

Now it is not clear from St Paul’s language what opinions the Colossian heretics held respecting the person of our Lord; but we may safely assume that he regarded them as inadequate and derogatory. The emphasis, with which he asserts the eternal being and absolute sovereignty of Christ, can hardly be explained in any other way. But individual expressions tempt us to conjecture that the same ideas were already floating in the air, which ultimately took form and consistency in the tenets of Cerinthus. Thus, when he reiterates the statement that the whole pleroma abides permanently in Christ[336], he would appear to be tacitly refuting some opinion which maintained only mutable and imperfect relations between the two. When again he speaks of the true gospel first taught to the Colossians as the doctrine of ‘the Christ, even Jesus the Lord[337],’ his language might seem to be directed against the tendency to separate the heavenly Christ from the earthly Jesus, as though the connexion were only transient. When lastly he dwells on the work of reconciliation, as wrought ‘through the blood of Christ’s cross,’ ‘in the body of His flesh through death[338],’ we may perhaps infer that he already discerned a disposition to put aside Christ’s passion as a stumbling-block in the way of philosophical religion. Thus regarded, the Apostle’s language gains force and point; though no stress can be laid on explanations which are so largely conjectural.

Footnote 336:

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

Footnote 337:

ii. 6 παρελάβετε τὸν Χριστόν, Ἰησοῦν τὸν Κύριον.

Footnote 338:

i. 20, 22.

[Sidenote: The Gnosticism of the Colossians being vague and undeveloped.]

But if so, the very generality of his language shows that these speculations were still vague and fluctuating. The difference which separates these heretics from Cerinthus may be measured by the greater precision and directness in the Apostolic counter-statement, as we turn from the Epistle to the Colossians to the Gospel of St John. In this interval, extending over nearly a quarter of a century, speculation had taken a definite shape. The elements of Gnostic theory, which were before held in solution, had meanwhile crystallized around the facts of the Gospel. Yet still we seem justified, even at the earlier date, in speaking of these general ideas as Gnostic, guarding ourselves at the same time against misunderstanding with the twofold caution, that we here employ the term to express the simplest and most elementary conceptions of this tendency of thought, and that we do not postulate its use as a distinct designation of any sect or sects at this early date. Thus limited, the view that the writer of this epistle is combating a Gnostic heresy seems free from all objections, while it appears necessary to explain his language; and certainly it does not, as is sometimes imagined, place any weapon in the hands of those who would assail the early date and Apostolic authorship of the epistle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On some points connected with the Essenes.

I. THE NAME ESSENE.

[Sidenote: Various forms of the name in Greek.]

The name is variously written in Greek;

1. Ἐσσηνός: Joseph. Ant. xiii. 5. 9, xiii. 10. 6, xv. 10. 5, xviii. 1. 2, 5, B.J. ii. 8. 2, 13, Vit. 2; Plin. N.H. v. 15. 17 (Essenus); Dion Chrys. in Synes. Dion 3; Hippol. Hær. ix. 18, 28 (MS ἐσηνός); Epiphan. Hær. p. 28 sq, 127 (ed. Pet.).

2. Ἐσσαῖος: Philo II. pp. 457, 471, 632 (ed. Mang.); Hegesippus in Euseb. H.E. iv. 22; Porphyr. de Abstin. iv. 11. So too Joseph. B.J. ii. 7. 3, ii. 20. 4, iii. 2. 1; Ant. xv. 10. 4; though in the immediate context of this last passage he writes Ἐσσηνός, if the common texts may be trusted.

3. Ὀσσαῖος: Epiphan. Hær. pp. 40 sq., 125, 462. The common texts very frequently make him write Ὀσσηνός, but see Dindorf’s notes, Epiphan. Op. 1. pp. 380, 425. With Epiphanius the Essenes are a Samaritan, the Ossæans a Judaic sect. He has evidently got his information from two distinct sources, and does not see that the same persons are intended.

4. Ιἐσσαῖος, Epiphan. Hær. p. 117. From the connexion the same sect again seems to be meant: but owing to the form Epiphanius conjectures (οἶμαι) that the name is derived from Jesse, the father of David.

[Sidenote: All etymologies to be rejected which derive the name.]

If any certain example could be produced where the name occurs in any early Hebrew or Aramaic writing, the question of its derivation would probably be settled; but in the absence of a single decisive instance a wide field is opened for conjecture, and critics have not been backward in availing themselves of the license. In discussing the claims of the different etymologies proposed we may reject:

[Sidenote: (i) From the Greek;]

First: derivations from the Greek. Thus Philo connects the word with ὅσιος ‘holy’: Quod omn. prob. 12, p. 457 Ἐσσαῖοι ... διαλέκτου ἑλληνικῆς παρώνυμοι ὁσιότητος, § 13, p. 459 τῶν Ἐσσαίων ἢ ὁσίων, Fragm. p. 632 καλοῦνται μὲν Ἐσσαῖοι, παρὰ τὴν ὁσιότητα, μοὶ δοκῶ [δοκεῖ;], τῆς προσηγορίας ἀξιωθέντες. It is not quite clear whether Philo is here playing with words after the manner of his master Plato, or whether he holds a pre-established harmony to exist among different languages by which similar sounds represent similar things, or whether lastly he seriously means that the name was directly derived from the Greek word ὅσιος. The last supposition is the least probable; but he certainly does not reject this derivation ‘as incorrect’ (Ginsburg Essenes p. 27), nor can παρώνυμοι ὁσιότητος be rendered ‘from an incorrect derivation from the Greek homonym hosiotes’ (ib. p. 32), since the word παρώνυμος never involves the notion of false etymology. The amount of truth which probably underlies Philo’s statement will be considered hereafter. Another Greek derivation is ἴσος, ‘companion, associate,’ suggested by Rapoport, Erech Millin p. 41. Several others again are suggested by Löwy, s.v. Essäer, e.g. ἔσω from their esoteric doctrine, or αἶσα from their fatalism. All such may be rejected as instances of ingenious trifling, if indeed they deserve to be called ingenious.

[Sidenote: (ii) From names of persons or places;]

Secondly: derivations from proper names whether of persons or of places. Thus the word has been derived from Jesse the father of David (Epiphan. l.c.), or from one ישי Isai, the disciple of R. Joshua ben Perachia who migrated to Egypt in the time of Alexander Jannæus (Löw in Ben Chananja i. p. 352). Again it has been referred to the town Essa (a doubtful reading in Joseph. Ant. xiii. 15. 3) beyond the Jordan. And other similar derivations have been suggested.

[Sidenote: From Hebrew roots not supplying the right consonants,]

Thirdly: etymologies from the Hebrew or Aramaic, which do not supply the right consonants, or do not supply them in the right order. Under this head several must be rejected;

אסר āsar ‘to bind,’ Adler Volkslehrer VI. p. 50, referred to by Ginsburg Essenes p. 29.

חסיד chāsīd ‘pious,’ which is represented by Ἀσιδαῖος (1 Macc. ii. 42 (v. l.), vii. 13, 2 Macc. xiv. 6), and could not possibly assume the form Ἐσσαῖος or Ἐσσηνός. Yet this derivation appears in Josippon ben Gorion (iv. 6, 7, v. 24, pp. 274, 278, 451), who substitutes Chasidim in narratives where the Essenes are mentioned in the original of Josephus; and it has been adopted by many more recent writers.

סחא s’āch ‘to bathe,’ from which with an Aleph prefixed we might get אסהאי as’chai ‘bathers’ (a word however which does not occur): Grätz Gesch. der Juden iii. pp. 82, 468.

צנוע tsanūaع ‘retired, modest,’ adopted by Frankel (Zeitschrift 1846, p. 449, Monatschrift II[. p. 32) after a suggestion by Löw.

[Sidenote: such as those which make n part of the root.]

To this category must be assigned those etymologies which contain a ו as the third consonant of the root; since the comparison of the parallel forms Ἐσσαῖος and Ἐσσηνός shows that in the latter word the ν is only formative. On this ground we must reject:

חסין chāsīn; see below under עשין.

חצן chōtsen ‘a fold’ of a garment, and so supposed to signify the περίζωμα or ‘apron’, which was given to every neophyte among the Essenes (Joseph. B.J. ii. 8. 5, 7): suggested by Jellinek Ben Chananja IV. p. 374.

עשין عāshīn ‘strong’: see Cohn in Frankel’s Monatschrift VII. p. 271. This etymology is suggested to explain Epiphanius Hær. p. 40 τοῦτο δὲ τὸ γένος τῶν Ὀσσηνῶν ἑρμηνεύεται διὰ τῆς ἐκδόσεως τοῦ ὀνόματος στιβαρὸν γένος (‘a sturdy race’). The name ‘Essene’ is so interpreted also in Makrisi (de Sacy, Chrestom. Arab. I. p. 114, 306); but, as he himself writes it with Elif and not Ain, it is plain that he got this interpretation from some one else, probably from Epiphanius. The correct reading however in Epiphanius is Ὀσσαίων, not Ὀσσηνῶν; and it would therefore appear that this father or his informant derived the word from the Hebrew root עןו rather than from the Aramaic עשן. The Ὀσσαῖοι would then be the עויס, and this is so far a possible derivation, that the n does not enter into the root. Another word suggested to explain the etymology of Epiphanius is the Aramaic חסין chāsīn ‘powerful, strong’ (from הסן); but this is open to the same objections as עשין.

[Sidenote: Other derivations considered:]

When all such derivations are eliminated as untenable or improbable, considerable uncertainty still remains. The 1st and 3rd radicals might be any of the gutturals א,ה,ח,ע; and the Greek ς, as the 2nd radical, might represent any one of several Shemitic sibilants.

Thus we have the choice of the following etymologies, which have found more or less favour.

[Sidenote: (1) אסיא ‘a physician’;]

(1) אסא ăsā ‘to heal,’ whence אסיא asyā, ‘a physician.’ The Essenes are supposed to be so called because Josephus states (B.J. ii. 8. 6) that they paid great attention to the qualities of herbs and minerals with a view to the healing of diseases (πρὸς θεραπείαν παθῶν). This etymology is supported likewise by an appeal to the name θεραπευταί, which Philo gives to an allied sect in Egypt (de Vit. Cont. § 1, II. p. 471). It seems highly improbable however, that the ordinary name of the Essenes should have been derived from a pursuit which was merely secondary and incidental; while the supposed analogy of the Therapeutæ rests on a wrong interpretation of the word. Philo indeed (l.c.), bent upon extracting from it as much moral significance as possible, says, θεραπευταὶ καὶ θεραπευτρίδες καλοῦνται, ἤτοι παρ’ ὅσον ἰατρικὴν ἐπαγγέλλονται κρείσσονα τῆς κατὰ πόλεις ἡ μὲν γὰρ σώματα θεραπεύει μόνον, ἐκείνη δὲ καὶ ψυχὰς κ.τ.λ.) ἢ παρ’ ὅσον ἐκ φύσεως καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν νόμων ἐπαιδεύθησαν θεραπεύειν τὸ ὃν κ.τ.λ.: but the latter meaning alone accords with the usage of the word; for θεραπευτής, used absolutely, signifies ‘a worshipper, devotee,’ not ‘a physician, healer.’ This etymology of Ἐσσαῖος is ascribed, though wrongly, to Philo by Asaria di Rossi (Meor Enayim 3, fol. 33 a) and has been very widely received. Among more recent writers, who have adopted or favoured it, are Bellermann (Ueber Essäer u. Therapeuten p. 7), Gfrörer (Philo II. p. 341), Dähne (Ersch u. Gruber, s.v.), Baur (Christl. Kirche der drei erst. Jahrh. p. 20), Herzfeld (Gesch. des Judenthums II. p. 371, 395, 397 sq.), Geiger (Urschrift p. 126), Derenbourg (L’Histoire et la Géographie de la Palestine pp. 170, 175, notes), Keim (Jesus von Nazara I. p. 284 sq.), and Hamburger (Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel u. Talmud, s.v.). Several of these writers identify the Essenes with the Baithusians (ביהוסין) of the Talmud, though in the Talmud the Baithusians are connected with the Sadducees. This identification was suggested by di Rossi (l.c. fol. 33 b), who interprets ‘Baithusians’ as ‘the school of the Essenes’ (ביח איסיא): while subsequent writers, going a step further, have explained it ‘the school of the physicians’ (ביח איסיא).

[Sidenote: (2) חזיא ‘a seer’;]

(2) חזא chăzā ‘to see’, whence חזיא chazyā ‘a seer’, in reference to the prophetic powers which the Essenes claimed, as the result of ascetic contemplation: Joseph. B.J. ii. 8. 12 εἰσὶ δὲ ἐν αὐτοῖς ὃι καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα προγινώσκειν ὑπισχνοῦνται κ.τ.λ. For instances of such Essene prophets see Ant. xiii. II. 2, xv. 10. 5, B.J. I. 3. 5, ii. 7. 3. Suidas, s.v. Ἐσσαῖοι, says: θεωρίᾳ τὰ πολλὰ παραμένουσιν, ἔνθεν καὶ Ἐσσαῖοι καλοῦνται, τοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ ὀνόματος, τουτέστι, θεωρητικοί. For this derivation, which was suggested by Baumgarten (see Bellermann p. 10) and is adopted by Hilgenfeld (Jüd. Apocal. p. 278), there is something to be said: but חזא is rather ὁρᾶν than θεωρεῖν; and thus it must denote the result rather than the process, the vision which was the privilege of the few rather than the contemplation which was the duty of all. Indeed in a later paper (Zeitschr. XI. p. 346, 1868) Hilgenfeld expresses himself doubtfully about this derivation, feeling the difficulty of explaining the σς from the ז. This is a real objection. In the transliteration of the LXX the ז is persistently represented by ζ, and the צ by ς. The exceptions to this rule, where the manuscript authority is beyond question, are very few, and in every case they seem capable of explanation by peculiar circumstances.

[Sidenote: (3) עשה ‘to do’;]

(3) عāsāh ‘to do,’ so that Ἐσσαῖοι would signify ‘the doers, the observers of the law,’ thus referring to the strictness of Essene practices: see Oppenheim in Frankel’s Monatschrift VII. p. 272 sq. It has been suggested also that, as the Pharisees were especially designated the teachers, the Essenes were called the ‘doers’ by a sort of antithesis: see an article in Jost’s Annalen 1839, p. 145. Thus the talmudic phrase אנשי מעשה, interpreted ‘men of practice, of good deeds,’ is supposed to refer to the Essenes (see Frankel’s Zeitschrift III. p. 458, Monatschrift II. p. 70). In some passages indeed (see Surenhuis Mishna III. p. 313) it may possibly mean ‘workers of miracles’ (as ἔργον Joh. v. 20, vii. 21, x. 25, etc.); but in this sense also it might be explained of the thaumaturgic powers claimed by the Essenes. (See below, p. 126.) On the use which has been made of a passage in the Aboth of R. Nathan c. 37, as supporting this derivation, I shall have to speak hereafter. Altogether this etymology has little or nothing to recommend it.

I have reserved to the last the two derivations which seem to deserve most consideration.

[Sidenote: (4) chasyo ‘pious’;]

(4) ܚܤܝ chasi (ܚܣܐ ch’sē) or ܚܣܝܐ chasyo, ‘pious,’ in Syriac. This derivation, which is also given by de Sacy (Chrestom. Arab. I. p. 347), is adopted by Ewald (Gesch. des V. Isr. IV. p. 484, ed. 3, 1864, VII. pp. 154, 477, ed. 2, 1859), who abandons in its favour another etymology (הזן chazzan ‘watcher, worshipper’ = θεραπευτής) which he had suggested in an earlier edition of his fourth volume (p. 420). It is recommended by the fact that it resembles not only in sound, but in meaning, the Greek ὅσιος, of which it is a common rendering in the Peshito (Acts ii. 27, xiii. 35, Tit. i. 8). Thus it explains the derivation given by Philo (see above, p. 115), and it also accounts for the tendency to write Ὀσσαῖος for Ἐσσαῖος in Greek. Ewald moreover points out how an Essenizing Sibylline poem (Orac. Sib. iv; see above, p. 96) dwells on the Greek equivalents, εὐσεβής, εὐσεβίη, etc. (vv. 26, 35, 42 sq., 148 sq., 162, 165 sq., 178 sq., ed. Alexandre), as if they had a special value for the writer: see Gesch. VII. p. 154, Sibyll. Bücher p. 46. Lipsius (Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexikon, s.v.) also considers this the most probable etymology.

[Sidenote: (5) חשאים ‘silent ones.’]

(5) חשא chāshā (also חשה) Heb., ‘to be silent’; whence חשאים chashshāīm ‘the silent ones,’ who meditate on mysteries. Jost (Gesch. d. Judenth. I. p. 207) believes that this was the derivation accepted by Josephus, since he elsewhere (Ant. iii. 7. 5, iii. 8. 9) writes out חשן, chōshen ‘the high-priest’s breast-plate’ (Exod. xxviii. 15 sq), ἐσσήν or ἐσσήνης in Greek, and explains it σημαίνει, τοῦτο κατὰ τὴν Ἑλλήνων γλῶτταν λογεῖον (i.e. the ‘place of oracles’ or ‘of reason’: comp. Philo de Mon. ii. § 5, II. p. 226 καλεῖται λογεῖον ἐτύμως, ἐπειδὴ τὰ ἐν οὐρανῷ πάντα λόγοις καὶ ἀναλογίαις δεδημιούργηται κ.τ.λ.), as it is translated in the LXX. Even though modern critics should be right in connecting חשן with the Arab. ﺣسن ‘pulcher fuit, ornavit’ (see Gesen. Thes. p. 535, s.v.), the other derivation may have prevailed in Josephus’ time. We may illustrate this derivation by Josephus’ description of the Essenes, B.J. ii. 8. 5 τοῖς ἔξωθεν ὡς μυστήριόν τι φρικτὸν ἡ τῶν ἔνδον σιωπὴ καταφαίνεται; and perhaps this will also explain the Greek equivalent θεωρητικοί, which Suidas gives for Ἐσσαῖοι. The use of the Hebrew word חשאים in Mishna Shekalim v. 6, though we need not suppose that the Essenes are there meant, will serve to show how it might be adopted as the name of the sect. On this word see Levy Chaldäisches Wörterbuch p. 287. On the whole this seems the most probable etymology of any, though it has not found so much favour as the last. At all events the rules of transliteration are entirely satisfied, and this can hardly be said of the other derivations which come into competition with it.

2. ORIGIN AND AFFINITIES OF THE ESSENES.

[Sidenote: The principle of the restoration.]

The ruling principle of the Restoration under Ezra was the isolation of the Jewish people from all influences of the surrounding nations. Only by the rigorous application of this principle was it possible to guard the nationality of the Hebrews, and thus to preserve the sacred deposit of religious truth of which this nationality was the husk. Hence the strictest attention was paid to the Levitical ordinances, and more especially to those which aimed at ceremonial purity. The principle, which was thus distinctly asserted at the period of the national revival, gained force and concentration at a later date from the active antagonism to which the patriotic Jews were driven by the religious and political aggressions of the Syrian kings. During the Maccabæan wars we read of a party or sect [Sidenote: Rise of the Asidæans.] called the Chasidim or Asidæans (Ἀσιδαῖοι), the ‘pious’ or ‘devout,’ who zealous in their observance of the ceremonial law stoutly resisted any concession to the practices of Hellenism, and took their place in the van of the struggle with their national enemies, the Antiochene monarchs (1 Macc. ii. 42, vii. 13, 2 Macc. xiv. 6). But, though their names appear now for the first time, they are not mentioned as a newly formed party; and it is probable that they had their origin at a much earlier date.

The subsequent history of this tendency to exclusiveness and isolation is wrapt in the same obscurity. At a somewhat later date [Sidenote: Pharisaism and Essenism traced to the same principle.] it is exhibited in the Pharisees and the Essenes; but whether these were historically connected with the Chasidim as divergent offshoots of the original sect, or whether they represent independent developments of the same principle, we are without the proper data for deciding. The principle itself appears in the name of the Pharisees, which, as denoting ‘separation,’ points to the avoidance of all foreign and contaminating influences. On the other hand the meaning of the name Essene is uncertain, for the attempt to derive it directly from Chasidim must be abandoned; but the tendency of the sect is unmistakeable. If with the Pharisees ceremonial purity was a principal aim, with the Essenes it was an absorbing passion. It was enforced and guarded moreover by a special organization. While the Pharisees were a sect, the Essenes were an order. Like the Pythagoreans in Magna Græcia and the Buddhists in India before them, like the Christian monks of the Egyptian and Syrian deserts after them, they were formed into a religious brotherhood, fenced about by minute and rigid rules, and carefully guarded from any contamination with the outer world.

[Sidenote: Foreign elements in Essenism.]

Thus the sect may have arisen in the heart of Judaism. The idea of ceremonial purity was essentially Judaic. But still, when we turn to the representations of Philo and Josephus, it is impossible to overlook other traits which betoken foreign affinities. Whatever the Essenes may have been in their origin, at the Christian era at least and in the Apostolic age they no longer represented the current type of religious thought and practice among the Jews. This foreign element has been derived by some from the Pythagoreans, by others from the Syrians or Persians or even from the farther East; but, whether Greek or Oriental, its existence has until lately been almost universally allowed.

[Sidenote: Frankel’s theory well received,]

The investigations of Frankel, published first in 1846 in his Zeitschrift, and continued in 1853 in his Monatschrift, have given a different direction to current opinion. Frankel maintains that Essenism was a purely indigenous growth, that it is only Pharisaism in an exaggerated form, and that it has nothing distinctive and owes nothing, or next to nothing, to foreign influences. To establish this point, he disparages the representations of Philo and Josephus as coloured to suit the tastes of their heathen readers, while in their place he brings forward as authorities a number of passages from talmudical and rabbinical writings, in which he discovers references to this sect. In this view he is followed implicitly by some later writers, and has largely influenced the opinions of others; while nearly all speak of his investigations as throwing great light on the subject.

[Sidenote: but groundless and misleading.]

It is perhaps dangerous to dissent from a view which has found so much favour; but nevertheless I am obliged to confess my belief that, whatever value Frankel’s investigations may have as contributions to our knowledge of Jewish religious thought and practice, they throw little or no light on the Essenes specially; and that the blind acceptance of his results by later writers has greatly obscured the distinctive features of this sect. I cannot but think that any one, who will investigate Frankel’s references and test his results step by step, will arrive at the conclusion to which I myself have been led, that his talmudical researches have left our knowledge of this sect where it was before, and that we must still refer to Josephus and Philo for any precise information respecting them.

[Sidenote: His double derivation of the name.]

Frankel starts from the etymology of the name. He supposes that Ἐσσαῖος, Ἐσσηνός, represent two different Hebrew words, the former חסיד chāsīd, the latter צנוע tsanūaع, both clothed in suitable Greek dresses[339]. Wherever therefore either of these words occurs, there is, or there may be, a direct reference to the Essenes.

Footnote 339:

Zeitschrift p. 449 ‘Für Essäer liegt, wie schon von anderen Seiten bemerkt wurde, das Hebr. חסיד, für Essener, nach einer Bemerkung des Herrn L. Löw im Orient, das Hebr. צנוע nahe’; see also pp. 454, 455; Monatschrift p. 32.

[Sidenote: Fatal objections to it.]

It is not too much to say that these etymologies are impossible; and this for several reasons. (1) The two words Ἐσσαῖος, Ἐσσηνός, are plainly duplicate forms of the same Hebrew or Aramaic original, like Σαμψαῖος and Σαμψηνός (Epiphan. Hær. pp. 40, 47, 127; and even Σαμψίτης p. 46), Ναζωραῖος and Ναζαρηνός, Γιτταῖος and Γιττηνός (Steph. Byz. s.v., Hippol. Hær. vi. 7), with which we may compare Βοστραῖος and Βοστρηνός, Μελιταῖος and Μελιτηνός, and numberless other examples. (2) Again; when we consider either word singly, the derivation offered is attended with the most serious difficulties. There is no reason why in Ἐσσαῖος the d should have disappeared from chasid, while it is hardly possible to conceive that tsanuaع should have taken such an incongruous form as Ἐσσηνός. (3) And lastly; the more important of the two words, chasid, had already a recognised Greek equivalent in Ἀσιδαῖος; and it seems highly improbable that a form so divergent as Ἐσσαῖος should have taken its place.

[Sidenote: Dependence of the theory on the derivation.]

Indeed Frankel’s derivations are generally, if not universally, abandoned by later writers; and yet these same writers repeat his quotations and accept his results, as if the references were equally valid, though the name of the sect has disappeared. They seem to be satisfied with the stability of the edifice, even when the foundation is undermined. Thus for instance Grätz not only maintains after Frankel that the Essenes ‘were properly nothing more than stationary or, more strictly speaking, consistently logical (consequente) Chasidim,’ and ‘that therefore they were not so far removed from the Pharisees that they can be regarded as a separate sect,’ and ‘accepts entirely these results’ which, as he says, ‘rest on critical investigation’ (III. p. 463), but even boldly translates chasiduth ‘the Essene mode of life’ (ib. 84), though he himself gives a wholly different derivation of the word ‘Essene,’ making it signify ‘washers’ or ‘baptists’ (see above, p. 116). And even those who do not go to this length of inconsistency, yet avail themselves freely of the passages where chasid occurs, and interpret it of the Essenes, while distinctly repudiating the etymology[340].

Footnote 340:

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

[Sidenote: The term chasid not applied specially to the Essenes.]

But, although Ἐσσαῖος or Ἐσσηνός is not a Greek form of chasid, it might still happen that this word was applied to them as an epithet, though not as a proper name. Only in this case the reference ought to be unmistakeable, before any conclusions are based upon it. But in fact, after going through all the passages which Frankel gives, it is impossible to feel satisfied that in a single instance there is a direct allusion to the Essenes. Sometimes the word seems to refer to the old sect of the Chasidim or Asidæans, as for instance when Jose ben Joezer, who lived during the Maccabæan war, is called a chasid[341]. At all events this R. Jose is known to have been a married man, for he is stated to have disinherited his children (Baba Bathra 133 b); and therefore he cannot have belonged to the stricter order of Essenes. Sometimes it is employed quite generally to denote pious observers of the ceremonial law, as for instance when it is said that with the death of certain famous teachers the Chasidim ceased[342]. In this latter sense the expression חסידים הראשונים, ‘the ancient or primitive Chasidim’ (Monatschr. pp. 31, 62), is perhaps used; for these primitive Chasidim again are mentioned as having wives and children[343], and it appears also that they were scrupulously exact in bringing their sacrificial offerings[344]. Thus it is impossible to identify them with the Essenes, as described by Josephus and Philo. Even in those passages of which most has been made, the reference is more than doubtful. Thus great stress is laid on the saying of R. Joshua ben Chananiah in Mishna Sotah iii. 4, ‘The foolish chasid and the clever villain (חסיד שוטה ורשע ערום), etc., are the ruin of the world.’ But the connexion points to a much more general meaning of chasid, and the rendering in Surenhuis, ‘Homo pius qui insipiens, improbus qui astutus,’ gives the correct antithesis. So we might say that there is no one more mischievous than the wrong-headed conscientious man. It is true that the Gemaras illustrate the expression by examples of those who allow an over-punctilious regard for external forms to stand in the way of deeds of mercy. And perhaps rightly. But there is no reference to any distinctive Essene practices in the illustrations given. Again; the saying in Mishna Pirke Aboth v. 10, ‘He who says Mine is thine and thine is thine is [a] chasid (שלי שלך ושלך שלך הסיד),’ is quoted by several writers as though it referred to the Essene community of goods[345]. But in the first place the idea of community of goods would require ‘Mine is thine and thine is mine’: and in the second place, the whole context, and especially the clause which immediately follows (and which these writers do not give), ‘He who says Thine is mine and mine is mine is wicked (רשע),’ show plainly that חסיד must be taken in its general sense ‘pious,’ and the whole expression implies not reciprocal interchange but individual self-denial.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 342:

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

Footnote 343:

Niddah 38 a; see Löwy s.v. Essäer.

Footnote 344:

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

Footnote 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 (שלי שלך שלך שלי חסיד).’ 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.

[Sidenote: Possible connexion of chasid and chasyo discussed.]

It might indeed be urged, though this is not Frankel’s plea, that supposing the true etymology of the word Ἐσσαῖος, Ἐσσηνός, to be the Syriac ܚܣܐ, ܚܣܝܐ, ch’sē, chasyo (a possible derivation), chasid might have been its Hebrew equivalent as being similar in sound and meaning, and perhaps ultimately connected in derivation, the exactly corresponding triliteral root חסא (comp. חום) not being in use in Hebrew[346]. But before we accept this explanation we have a right to demand some evidence which, if not demonstrative, is at least circumstantial, that chasid is used of the Essenes: and this we have seen is not forthcoming. Moreover, if the Essenes had thus inherited the name of the Chasidim, we should have expected that its old Greek equivalent Ἀσιδαῖοι, which is still used later than the Maccabæan era, would also have gone with it; rather than that a new Greek word Ἐσσαῖος (or Ἐσσηνός) should have been invented to take its place. But indeed the Syriac Version of the Old Testament furnishes an argument against this convertibility of the Hebrew chasid and the Syriac chasyo, which must be regarded as [Sidenote: Usage is unfavourable to this view.] almost decisive. The numerous passages in the Psalms, where the expressions ‘My chasidim,’ ‘His chasidim,’ occur (xxx. 5, xxxi. 24, xxxvii. 28, lii. 11, lxxix. 2, lxxxv. 9, xcvii. 10, cxvi. 15, cxxxii. 9, cxlix. 9: comp. xxxii. 6, cxlix. 1, 5) seem to have suggested the assumption of the name to the original Asidæans. But in such passages חסיד is commonly, if not universally, rendered in the Peshito not by ܚܣܐ, ܚܣܝܐ, but by a wholly different word ܙܕܝܩ zadīk. And again, in the Books of Maccabees the Syriac rendering for the name Ἀσιδαῖοι, Chasidim, is a word derived from another quite distinct root. These facts show that the Hebrew chasid and the Syriac chasyo were not practically equivalents, so that the one would suggest the other; and thus all presumption in favour of a connexion between Ἀσιδαῖος and Ἐσσαῖος is removed.

Footnote 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.’"

[Sidenote: Frankel’s second derivation]

Frankel’s other derivation צנוע, tsanūaع, suggested as an equivalent to Ἐσσηνός, has found no favour with later writers, and indeed is too far removed from the Greek form to be tenable. [Sidenote: tsanuaع considered.]

Nor do the passages quoted by him[347] require or suggest any allusion to this sect. Thus in Mishna Demai, vi. 6, we are told that the school of Hillel permits a certain license in a particular matter, but it is added, ‘The צנועי of the school of Hillel followed the precept of the school of Shammai.’ Here, as Frankel himself confesses, the Jerusalem Talmud knows nothing about Essenes, but explains the word by בשדי, i.e. ‘upright, worthy[348]’; while elsewhere, as he allows[349], it must have this general sense. Indeed the mention of the ‘school of Hillel’ here seems to exclude the Essenes. In its comprehensive meaning it will most naturally be taken also in the other passage quoted by Frankel, Kiddushin 71 a, where it is stated that the pronunciation of the sacred name, which formerly was known to all, is now only to be divulged to the צנועים, i.e. the discreet, among the priests; and in fact it occurs in reference to the communication of the same mystery in the immediate context also, where it could not possibly be treated as a proper name; שצנוע ועניו ועומד בחצי ימיו, ‘who is discreet and meek and has reached middle age,’ etc.

Footnote 347:

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

Footnote 348:

Monatschr. p. 32.

Footnote 349:

Zeitschr. p. 455.

[Sidenote: Other supposed etymologies in the Talmud. (1) Asya ‘a physician,’]

Of other etymologies, which have been suggested, and through which it might be supposed the Essenes are mentioned by name in the Talmud, איסא, asya, ‘a physician,’ is the one which has found most favour. For the reasons given above (p. 117) this derivation seems highly improbable, and the passages quoted are quite insufficient to overcome the objections. Of these the strongest is in the Talm. Jerus. Yoma iii. 7, where we are told that a certain physician

[Sidenote: not supported by the passages quoted in its behalf.]

(אסי) offered to communicate the sacred name to R. Pinchas the son of Chama, and the latter refused on the ground that he ate of the tithes—this being regarded as a disqualification, apparently because it was inconsistent with the highest degree of ceremonial purity[350]. The same story is told with some modifications in Midrash Qoheleth iii. 11[351]. Here Frankel, though himself (as we have seen) adopting a different derivation of the word ‘Essene,’ yet supposes that this particular physician belonged to the sect, on the sole ground that ceremonial purity is represented as a qualification for the initiation into the mystery of the Sacred Name. Löwy (l.c.) denies that the allusion to the tithes is rightly interpreted: but even supposing it to be correct, the passage is quite an inadequate basis either for Frankel’s conclusion that this particular physician was an Essene, or for the derivation of the word Essene which others maintain. Again, in the statement of Talm. Jerus. Kethuboth ii. 3, that correct manuscripts were called books of אסי[352], the word Asi is generally taken as a proper name. But even if this interpretation be false, there is absolutely nothing in the context which suggests any allusion to the Essenes[353]. In like manner the passage from Sanhedrin 99 b, where a physician is mentioned[354], supports no such inference. Indeed, as this last passage relates to the family of the Asi, he obviously can have had no connexion with the celibate Essenes.

Footnote 350:

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

Footnote 351:

See Löwy Krit.-Talm. Lex. s.v. Essäer.

Footnote 352:

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

Footnote 353:

The oath taken by the Essenes (Joseph. B.J. ii. 8. 7) συντηρήσειν ... τὰ τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν βιβλία can have nothing to do with accuracy in transcribing copies, as Herzfeld (II. pp. 398, 407) seems to think. The natural meaning of συντηρεῖν, ‘to keep safe or close’ and so ‘not to divulge’ (e.g. Polyb. xxxi. 6. 5 οὐκ ἐξέφαινε τὴν ἑαυτῆς γνώμην ἀλλὰ συνετήρει παρ’ ἑαυτῇ), is also the meaning suggested here by the context.

Footnote 354:

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

[Sidenote: (2) عasah ‘to do.’]

Hitherto our search for the name in the Talmud has been unsuccessful. One possibility however still remains. The talmudical writers speak of certain אנשי מעשה ‘men of deeds’; and if (as some suppose) the name Essene is derived from עשה, have we not here the mention which we are seeking? Frankel rejects the etymology, but presses the identification[355]. The expression, he urges, is often used in connexion with chasidim. It signifies ‘miracle workers,’ and therefore aptly describes the supernatural powers supposed to be exercised by the Essenes[356]. Thus we are informed in Mishna Sotah ix. 15, that ‘When R. Chaninah ben Dosa died, the men of deeds ceased; when R. Jose Ketinta died, the chasidim ceased.’ In the Jerusalem Talmud however this mishna is read, ‘With the death of R. Chaninah ben Dosa and R. Jose Ketinta the chasidim ceased’; while the Gemara there explains R. Chaninah to have been one of the מעשה אנשי. Thus, Frankel concludes, ‘the identity of these with הסידים becomes still more plain.’ Now it seems clear that this expression אנשי מעשה in some places cannot refer to miraculous powers, but must mean ‘men of practical goodness,’ as for instance in Succah 51_a_, 53_a_; and being a general term expressive of moral excellence, it is naturally connected with chasidim, which is likewise a general term expressive of piety and goodness. Nor is there any reason why it should not always be taken in this sense. It is true that stories are told elsewhere of this R. Chaninah, which ascribe miraculous powers to him[357], and hence there is a temptation to translate it ‘wonder-worker,’ as applied to him. But the reason is quite insufficient. Moreover it must be observed that R. Chaninah’s wife is a prominent person in the legends of his miracles reported in Taanith 24 b; and thus we need hardly stop to discuss the possible meanings of אנשי מעשה, since his claims to being considered an Essene are barred at the outset by this fact[358].

Footnote 355:

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

Footnote 356:

See above, p. 118.

Footnote 357:

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

Footnote 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.

It has been asserted indeed by a recent author, that one very ancient Jewish writer distinctly adopts this derivation, and as distinctly states that the Essenes were a class of Pharisees[359]. If this were the case, Frankel’s theory, though not his etymology, would receive a striking confirmation: and it is therefore important to enquire on what foundation the assertion rests.

Footnote 359:

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

[Sidenote: The authority for this derivation traced to an error.]

Dr Ginsburg’s authority for this statement is a passage from the Aboth of Rabbi Nathan, c. 37, which, as he gives it, appears conclusive; ‘There are eight kinds of Pharisees ... and those Pharisees who live in celibacy are Essenes.’ But what are the facts of the case? First; This book was certainly not written by its reputed author, the R. Nathan who was vice-president under the younger Gamaliel about A. D. 140. It may possibly have been founded on an earlier treatise by that famous teacher, though even this is very doubtful: but in its present form it is a comparatively modern work. On this point all or almost all recent writers on Hebrew literature are agreed[360]. Secondly; Dr Ginsburg has taken the reading מחופתו עשאני, without even mentioning any alternative. Whether the words so read are capable of the meaning which he has assigned to them, may be highly questionable; but at all events this cannot have been the original reading, as the parallel passages, Babl. Sotah fol. 22_b_, Jerus. Sotah v. 5, Jerus. Berakhoth ix. 5, (quoted by Buxtorf and Levy, s.v. פריש), distinctly prove. In Babl. Sotah l.c., the corresponding expression is מה הובתי ואעשנה ‘What is my duty, and I will do it,’ and the passage in Jerus. Berakhoth l.c. is to the same effect. These parallels show that the reading מה הובתי ואעשנה must be taken also in Aboth c. 37, so that the passage will be rendered, ‘The Pharisee who says, What is my duty, and I will do it.’ Thus the Essenes and celibacy disappear together. Lastly; Inasmuch as Dr Ginsburg himself takes a wholly different view of the name Essene, connecting it either with חצן ‘an apron,’ or with הסים ‘pious[361],’ it is difficult to see how he could translate עשאני ‘Essene’ (from עשא ‘to do’) in this passage, except on the supposition that R. Nathan was entirely ignorant of the orthography and derivation of the word Essene. Yet, if such ignorance were conceivable in so ancient a writer, his authority on this question would be absolutely worthless. But indeed Dr Ginsburg would appear to have adopted this reference to R. Nathan, with the reading of the passage and the interpretation of the name, from some other writer[362]. At all events it is quite inconsistent with his own opinion as expressed previously.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 361:

Essenes p. 30; comp. Kitto’s Cyclopædia, s.v. Essenes.

Footnote 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.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Are the Essenes alluded to, though not named, in the Talmud?]

But, though we have not succeeded in finding any direct mention of this sect by name in the Talmud, and all the identifications of the word Essene with diverse expressions occurring there have failed us on examination, it might still happen that allusions to them were so frequent as to leave no doubt about the persons meant. Their organisation or their practices or their tenets might be precisely described, though their name was suppressed. Such allusions Frankel finds scattered up and down the Talmud in great profusion.

[Sidenote: (1) The chaber or Associate.]

(1) He sees a reference to the Essenes in the חבורא chăbūra or ‘Society,’ which is mentioned several times in talmudical writers[363]. The chāber (הבר) or ‘Associate’ is, he supposes, a member of this brotherhood. He is obliged to confess that the word cannot always have this sense, but still he considers this to be a common designation of the Essenes. The chaber was bound to observe certain rules of ceremonial purity, and a period of probation was imposed upon him before he was admitted. With this fact Frankel connects the passage in Mishna Chagigah ii. 5, 6, where several degrees of ceremonial purity are specified. Having done this, he considers that he has the explanation of the statement in Josephus (B.J. ii. 8. 7, 10), that the Essenes were divided into four different grades or orders according to the time of their continuance in the ascetic practices demanded by the sect.

Footnote 363:

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

[Sidenote: A passage in Chagigah considered.]

But in the first place there is no reference direct or indirect to the chaber, or indeed to any organisation of any kind, in the passage of Chagigah. It simply contemplates different degrees of purification as qualifying for the performance of certain Levitical rites in an ascending scale. There is no indication that these lustrations are more than temporary and immediate in their application; and not the faintest hint is given of distinct orders of men, each separated from the other by formal barriers and each demanding a period of probation before admission from the order below, as was the case with the grades of the Essene brotherhood described by Josephus. Moreover the orders in Josephus are four in number[364], while the degrees of ceremonial purity in Chagigah are five. Frankel indeed is inclined to maintain that only four degrees are intended in Chagigah, though this interpretation is opposed to the plain sense of the passage. But, even if he should be obliged to grant that the number of degrees is five[365], he will not surrender the allusion to the Essenes, but meets the difficulty by supposing (it is a pure hypothesis) that there was a fifth and highest degree of purity among the Essenes, to which very few attained, and which, as I understand him, is not mentioned by Josephus on this account. But enough has already been said to show, that this passage in Chagigah can have no connexion with the Essenes and gives no countenance to Frankel’s views.

Footnote 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’ (διῄρηνται κατὰ χρόνον τῆς ἀσκήσεως εἰς μοίρας τέσσαρας), 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 (μετὰ τὴν τῆς καρτερίας ἐπίδειξιν), 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.

Footnote 365:

Zeitschr. p. 452, note.

[Sidenote: Difference between]

As this artificial combination has failed, we are compelled to fall back on the notices relating to the chaber, and to ask whether [Sidenote: the chaber and the Essene.] these suggest any connexion with the account of the Essenes in Josephus. And the facts oblige us to answer this question in the negative. Not only do they not suggest such a connexion, but they are wholly irreconcilable with the account in the Jewish historian. This association or confraternity (if indeed the term is applicable to an organisation so loose and so comprehensive) was maintained for the sake of securing a more accurate study and a better observance of the ceremonial law. Two grades of purity are mentioned in connexion with it, designated by different names and presenting some difficulties[366], into which it is not necessary to enter here. A chaber, it would appear, was one who had entered upon the second or higher stage. For this a period of a year’s probation was necessary. The chaber enrolled himself in the presence of three others who were already members of the association. This apparently was all the formality necessary: and in the case of a teacher even this was dispensed with, for being presumably acquainted with the law of things clean and unclean he was regarded as ex officio a chaber. The chaber was bound to keep himself from ceremonial defilements, and was thus distinguished from the [عam haarets or common people[367]; but he was under no external surveillance and decided for himself as to his own purity. Moreover he was, or might be a married man: for the doctors disputed whether the wives and children of an associate were not themselves to be regarded as associates[368]. In one passage, Sanhedrin 41_a_, it is even assumed, as a matter of course, that a woman may be an associate (חברה). In another (Niddah 33_b_)[369] there is mention of a Sadducee and even of a Samaritan as a chaber. An organisation so flexible as this has obviously only the most superficial resemblances with the rigid rules of the Essene order; and in many points it presents a direct contrast to the characteristic tenets of that sect.

Footnote 366:

The entrance into lower grade was described as ‘taking בנפים’ 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.

Footnote 367:

The contempt with which a chaber would look down upon the vulgar herd, the عam haarets, finds expression in the language of the Pharisees, Joh. vii. 49 ὁ ὄχλος οὗτος ὁ μὴ γινώσκων τὸν νόμον ἐπάρατοί εἰσιν. Again in Acts iv. 13, where the Apostles are described as ἰδιῶται, the expression is equivalent to عam haarets. See the passages quoted in Buxtorf, Lex. p. 1626.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 369:

See Herzfeld II. p. 386.

[Sidenote: (2) The Bene hakkeneseth.]

(2) Having discussed Frankel’s hypothesis respecting the chaber, I need hardly follow his speculations on the Bĕnē-hakkĕneseth, בני הכנסח, ‘sons of the congregation’ (Zabim iii. 2), in which expression probably few would discover the reference, which he finds, to the lowest of the Essene orders[370].

Footnote 370:

Monatschr. p. 35.

[Sidenote: (3) The ‘holy congregation at Jerusalem’]

(3) But mention is also made of a ‘holy congregation’ or ‘assembly’ (עדה קדישה קהלא קדישא) ‘in Jerusalem’; and, following Rapoport, Frankel sees in this expression also an allusion to the Essenes[371]. The grounds for this identification are, that in one passage (Berakhoth 9_b_) they are mentioned in connexion with prayer at day break, and in another (Midrash Qoheleth ix. 9) two persons are stated to belong to this ‘holy congregation,’ because they divided their day into three parts, devoting one-third to learning, another to prayer, and another to work. The first notice would suit the Essenes very well, though the practice mentioned was not so distinctively Essene as to afford any safe ground for this hypothesis. Of the second it should be observed, that no such division of the day is recorded of the Essenes, and indeed both Josephus (B.J. ii. 8. 5) and Philo (Fragm. p. 633) describe them as working from morning till night with the single interruption of their mid-day meal[372]. But in fact the identification is beset with other and more serious difficulties. For this ‘holy congregation’ at Jerusalem is mentioned long [Sidenote: not an Essene community.] after the second destruction of the city under Hadrian[373], when on Frankel’s own showing[374] the Essene society had in all probability ceased to exist. And again certain members of it, e.g. Jose ben Meshullam (Mishna Bekhoroth iii. 3, vi. 1), are represented as uttering precepts respecting animals fit for sacrifice, though we have it on the authority of Josephus and Philo that the Essenes avoided the temple sacrifices altogether. The probability therefore seems to be that this ‘holy congregation’ was an assemblage of devout Jews who were drawn to the neighbourhood of the sanctuary after the destruction of the nation, and whose practices were regarded with peculiar reverence by the later Jews[375].

Footnote 371:

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

Footnote 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.’

Footnote 373:

Monatschr. p. 32.

Footnote 374:

Ib. p. 70.

Footnote 375:

See Derenbourg p. 175.

[Sidenote: (4) The Vethikin.]

(4) Neither can we with Frankel[376] discern any reference to the Essenes in those ותיקיו Vethikin, ‘pious’ or ‘learned’ men (whatever may be the exact sense of the word), who are mentioned in Berakhoth 9_b_ as praying before sunrise; because the word itself seems quite general, and the practice, though enforced among the Essenes, as we know from Josephus (B.J. ii. 8. 5), would be common to all devout and earnest Jews. If we are not justified in saying that these ותיקיו were not Essenes, we have no sufficient grounds for maintaining that they were.

Footnote 376:

Monatschr. p. 32.

[Sidenote: (5) The ‘primitive elders.’]

(5) Nor again can we find any such reference in the זקנים or ‘primitive elders[377].’ It may readily be granted that this term is used synonymously, or nearly so, with הראשונים הסידים ‘the primitive chasidim’; but, as we failed to see anything more than a general expression in the one, so we are naturally led to take the other in the same sense. The passages where the expression occurs (e.g. Shabbath 64_b_) simply refer to the stricter observances of early times, and do not indicate any reference to a particular society or body of men.

Footnote 377:

Monatschr. pp. 32, 68.

[Sidenote: (6) The ‘morning bathers.’]

(6) Again Frankel finds another reference to this sect in the טבלי שחרית Tōblē-shachărīth, or ‘morning-bathers,’ mentioned in Tosifta Yadayim c. 2[378]. The identity of these with the ἡμεροβαπτισταὶ of Greek writers seems highly probable. The latter however, though they may have had some affinities with Essene practices and tenets, are nevertheless distinguished from this sect wherever they are mentioned[379]. But the point to be observed is that, even though we should identify these Toble-shacharith with the Essenes, the passage in Tosifta Yadayim, so far from favouring, runs directly counter to Frankel’s view which regards the Essenes as only a branch of Pharisees: for the two are here represented as in direct antagonism. The Toble-shacharith say, ‘We grieve over you, Pharisees, because you pronounce the (sacred) Name in the morning without having bathed.’ The Pharisees retort, ‘We grieve over you, Toble-shacharith, because you pronounce the Name from this body in which is impurity.’

Footnote 378:

Ib. p. 67.

Footnote 379:

See below, p. 166.

[Sidenote: (7) The Banaim.]

(7) In connexion with the Toble-shacharith we may consider another name, Banāīm (בנאים), in which also Frankel discovers an allusion to the Essenes[380]. In Mishna Mikvaoth ix. 6 the word is opposed to בור bōr, ‘an ignorant or stupid person’; and this points to its proper meaning ‘the builders,’ i.e. the edifiers or teachers, according to the common metaphor in Biblical language. The word is discussed in Shabbath 114 and explained to mean ‘learned.’ But, because in Mikvaoth it is mentioned in connexion with ceremonial purity, and because in Josephus the Essenes are stated to have carried an ‘axe and shovel’ (B.J. ii. 8. 7, 9), and because moreover the Jewish historian in another place (Vit. 2) mentions having spent some time with one Banus a dweller in the wilderness, who lived on vegetables and fruits and bathed often day and night for the sake of purity, and who is generally considered to have been an Essene; therefore Frankel holds these Banaim to have been Essenes. This is a specimen of the misplaced ingenuity which distinguishes Frankel’s learned speculations on the Essenes. Josephus does [Sidenote: Josephus misinterpreted.] not mention an ‘axe and shovel,’ but an axe only (§ 7 ἀξινάριον), which he afterwards defines more accurately as a spade (§ 9 τῇ σκαλίδι, τοιοῦτον γάρ ἐστι τὸ διδόμενον ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ἀξινίδιον τοῖς νεοσυστάτοις) and which, as he distinctly states, was given them for the purpose of burying impurities out of sight (comp. Deut. xxiii. 12–14). Thus it has no connexion whatever with any ‘building’ implement. And again, it is true that Banus has frequently been regarded as an Essene, but there is absolutely no ground for this supposition. On the contrary the narrative of Josephus in his Life seems to [Sidenote: Another derivation of Banaim.] exclude it, as I shall have occasion to show hereafter[381]. I should add that Sachs interprets Banaim ‘the bathers,’ regarding the explanation in Shabbath l.c. as a ‘later accommodation[382].’ This seems to me very improbable; but, if it were conceded, the Banaim would then apparently be connected not with the Essenes, but with the Hemerobaptists.

Footnote 380:

Zeitschr. p. 455.

Footnote 381:

See below, p. 161.

Footnote 382:

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

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Results of this investigation.]

From the preceding investigation it will have appeared how little Frankel has succeeded in establishing his thesis that ‘the talmudical sources are acquainted with the Essenes and make mention of them constantly[383].’ We have seen not only that no instance of the name Essene has been produced, but that all those passages which are supposed to refer to them under other designations, or to describe their practices or tenets, fail us on closer examination. In no case can we feel sure that there is any direct reference to this sect, while in most cases such reference seems to be excluded by the language or the attendant circumstances[384]. Thus we are [Sidenote: Philo and Josephus our main authorities.] obliged to fall back upon the representations of Philo and Josephus. Their accounts are penned by eye-witnesses. They are direct and explicit, if not so precise or so full as we could have wished. The writers obviously consider that they are describing a distinct and exceptional phenomenon. And it would be a reversal of all established rules of historical criticism to desert the solid standing-ground of contemporary history for the artificial combinations and shadowy hypotheses, which Frankel would substitute in its place.

Footnote 383:

Monatschr. p. 31.

Footnote 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).’

[Sidenote: Frankel’s depreciation of them is unreasonable, and explains nothing.]

But here we are confronted with Frankel’s depreciation of these ancient writers, which has been echoed by several later critics. They were interested, it is argued, in making their accounts attractive to their heathen contemporaries, and they coloured them highly for this purpose[385]. We may readily allow that they would not be uninfluenced by such a motive, but the concession does not touch the main points at issue. This aim might have led Josephus, for example, to throw into bold relief the coincidences between the Essenes and Pythagoreans; it might even have induced him to give a semi-pagan tinge to the Essene doctrine of the future state of the blessed (B.J. ii. 8. 11). But it entirely fails to explain those peculiarities of the sect, which marked them off by a sharp line from orthodox Judaism, and which fully justify the term ‘separatists’ as applied to them by a recent writer. In three main features especially the portrait of the Essenes retains its distinctive character unaffected by this consideration.

Footnote 385:

Monatschr. p. 31.

[Sidenote: (i) The avoidance of sacrifices is not accounted for.]

(i) How, for instance, could this principle of accommodation have led both Philo and Josephus to lay so much stress on their divergence from Judaic orthodoxy in the matter of sacrifices? Yet this is perhaps the most crucial note of heresy which is recorded of the Essenes. What was the law to the orthodox Pharisee without the sacrifices, the temple-worship, the hierarchy? Yet the Essene declined to take any part in the sacrifices; he had priests of his own independently of the Levitical priesthood. On Frankel’s hypothesis that Essenism is merely an exaggeration of pure Pharisaism, no explanation of this abnormal phenomenon can be given. Frankel does indeed attempt to meet the case by some speculations respecting the red-heifer[386], which are so obviously inadequate that they have not been repeated by later writers and may safely be passed over in silence here. On this point indeed the language of Josephus is not [Sidenote: The notices of Josephus and Philo considered.] quite explicit. He says (Ant. xviii. 1. 5) that, though they send offerings (ἀναθῆματα) to the temple, they perform no sacrifices, and he assigns as the reason their greater strictness as regards ceremonial purity (διαφορότητι ἁγνειῶν ἃς νομίζοιεν), adding that ‘for this reason being excluded from the common sanctuary (τεμενίσματος) they perform their sacrifices by themselves (ἐφ’ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσι).’ Frankel therefore supposes that their only reason for abstaining from the temple sacrifices was that according to their severe notions the temple itself was profaned and therefore unfit for sacrificial worship. But if so, why should it not vitiate the offerings, as well as the sacrifices, and make them also unlawful? And indeed, where Josephus is vague, Philo is explicit. Philo (II. p. 457) distinctly states that the Essenes being more scrupulous than any in the worship of God (ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα θεραπευταὶ θεοῦ) do not sacrifice animals (οὐ ζῶα καταθύοντες), but hold it right to dedicate their own hearts as a worthy offering (ἀλλ’ ἱεροπρεπεῖς τὰς ἑαυτῶν διανοίας κατασκευάζειν ἀξιοῦντες). Thus the greater strictness, which Josephus ascribes to them, consists in the abstention from shedding blood, as a pollution in itself. And, when he speaks of their substituting private sacrifices, his own qualifications show that he does not mean the word to be taken literally. Their simple meals are their sacrifices; their refectory is their sanctuary; their president is their priest[387]. It should be added also that, though we once hear of an Essene apparently within the temple precincts (B.J. i. 3. 5, Ant. xiii. II. 2)[388], no mention is ever made of one offering sacrifices. Thus it is clear that with the Essene it was the sacrifices which polluted the temple, and not the [Sidenote: Their statements confirmed by the doctrine of Christian Essenes.] temple which polluted the sacrifices. And this view is further recommended by the fact that it alone will explain the position of their descendants, the Christianized Essenes, who condemned the slaughter of victims on grounds very different from those alleged in the Epistle to the Hebrews, not because they have been superseded by the Atonement, but because they are in their very nature repulsive to God; not because they have ceased to be right, but because they never were right from the beginning.

Footnote 386:

Monatschr. p. 64.

Footnote 387:

B.J. ii. 8. 5 καθάπερ εἰς ἅγιόν τι τέμενος παραγίνονται τὸ δειπνητήριον: see also the passages quoted above p. 89, note 255.

Footnote 388:

See below, p. 142.

It may be said indeed, that such a view could not be maintained without impugning the authority, or at least disputing the integrity, of the Old Testament writings. The sacrificial system is so bound up with the Mosaic law, that it can only be rejected by the most arbitrary excision. This violent process however, uncritical as it is, was very likely to have been adopted by the Essenes[389]. As a matter of fact, it did recommend itself to those Judaizing Christians who reproduced many of the Essene tenets, and who both theologically and historically may be regarded as the lineal [Sidenote: The Clementine Homilies justify this doctrine by arbitrary excision of the Scriptures.] descendants of this Judaic sect[390]. Thus in the Clementine Homilies, an Ebionite work which exhibits many Essene features, the chief spokesman St Peter is represented as laying great stress on the duty of distinguishing the true and the false elements in the current Scriptures (ii. 38, 51, iii. 4, 5, 10, 42, 47, 49, 50, comp. xviii. 19). The saying traditionally ascribed to our Lord, ‘Show yourselves approved money-changers’ (γίνεσθε τραπεζῖται δόκιμοι), is more than once quoted by the Apostle as enforcing this duty (ii. 51, iii. 50, xviii. 20). Among these false elements he places all those passages which represent God as enjoining sacrifices (iii. 45, xviii. 19). It is plain, so he argues, that God did not desire sacrifices, for did He not kill those who lusted after the taste of flesh in the wilderness? and, if the slaughter of animals was thus displeasing to Him, how could He possibly have commanded victims to be offered to Himself (iii. 45)? It is equally clear from other considerations that this was no part of God’s genuine law. For instance, Christ declared that He came to fulfil every tittle of the Law; yet Christ abolished sacrifices (iii. 51). And again, the saying ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice’ is a condemnation of this practice (iii. 56). The true prophet ‘hates sacrifices, bloodshed, libations’; he ‘extinguishes the fire of altars’ (iii. 26). The frenzy of the lying soothsayer is a mere intoxication produced by the reeking fumes of sacrifice (iii. 13). When in the immediate context of these denunciations we find it reckoned among the highest achievements of man ‘to know the names of angels, to drive away demons, to endeavour to heal diseases by charms (φαρμακίαις), [Sidenote: Essene features in this work.] and to find incantations (ἐπαοιδάς) against venomous serpents (iii. 36)’; when again St Peter is made to condemn as false those scriptures which speak of God swearing, and to set against them Christ’s command ‘Let your yea be yea’ (iii. 55); we feel how thoroughly this strange production of Ebionite Christianity is saturated with Essene ideas[391].

Footnote 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.

Footnote 390:

See Galatians, p. 310 sq.

Footnote 391:

Epiphanius (Hær. xviii. I, p. 38) again describes, as the account was handed down to him (ὡς ὁ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλθὼν περιέχει λόγος), the tenets of a Jewish sect which he calls the Nasareans, αὐτὴν δὲ οὐ παρεδέχετο τὴν πεντάτευχον, ἀλλὰ ὡμολόγει, μὲν τὸν Μωϋσέα, καὶ ὅτι ἐδέξατο νομοθεσίαν ἐπίστευεν, οὐ ταύτην δέ φησιν, ἀλλ’ ἑτέραν. ὅθεν τὰ μὲν πάντα φυλάττουσι τῶν Ἰουδαίωv Ἰουδαῖοι ὄντες, θυσίαν δὲ οὐκ ἔθυον οὔτε ἐμψύχων μετεῖχον, ἀλλὰ θέμιτον ἦν παρ’ αὐτοῖς τὸ κρεῶν μεταλαμβάνειν ἢ θυσιάζειν αὐτούς. ἔφασκον γὰρ πεπλάσθαι ταῦτα τὰ βιβλία καὶ μηδὲν τούτων ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων γεγενῆσθαι. 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: οὔτε γὰρ δέχονται τὴν πεντάτευχον Μωϋσέως ὅλην ἀλλά τινα ῥήματα ἀποβάλλουσιν. ὅταν δὲ αὐτοῖς εἴπῃς περὶ ἐμψύχων βρώσεως κ.τ.λ. These parallels will speak for themselves.

[Sidenote: (ii) The Essene worship of the Sun cannot be explained away.]

(ii) Nor again is Frankel successful in explaining the Essene prayers to the sun by rabbinical practices[392]. Following Rapoport, he supposes that Josephus and Philo refer to the beautiful hymn of praise for the creation of light and the return of day, which forms part of the morning-prayer of the Jews to the present time[393], and which seems to be enjoined in the Mishna itself[394]; and this view has been adopted by many subsequent writers. But the language of Josephus is not satisfied by this explanation. For he says plainly (B.J. ii. 8. 5) that they addressed prayers to the sun[395], and it is difficult to suppose that he has wantonly introduced a dash of paganism into his picture; nor indeed was there any adequate motive for his doing so. Similarly Philo relates of the Therapeutes (Vit. Cont. II, II. p. 485), that they ‘stand with their faces and their whole body towards the East, and when they see that the sun is risen, holding out their hands to heaven they pray for a happy day (εὐημερίαν) and for truth and for keen vision of reason (ὀξυωπίαν λογισμοῦ).’ And here again it is impossible to overlook the confirmation which these accounts receive from the history of certain Christian heretics deriving their descent from this Judaic sect. [Sidenote: The Sampsæans are an Essene sect,] Epiphanius (Hær. xix. 2, xx. 3, pp. 40 sq., 47) speaks of a sect called the Sampsæans or ‘Sun-worshippers[396],’ as existing in his own time in Peræa on the borders of Moab and on the shores of the Dead Sea. He describes them as a remnant of the Ossenes (i.e. Essenes), who have accepted a spurious form of Christianity and are neither Jews nor Christians. This debased Christianity which they adopted is embodied, he tells us, in the pretended revelation of the Book of Elchasai, and dates from the time of Trajan[397]. Elsewhere (xxx. 3, p. 127) he seems to use the terms Sampsæan, Ossene, and Elchasaite as synonymous (παρὰ τοῖς Σαμψηνοῖς καὶ Ὀσσηνοῖς καὶ Ἐλκεσσαίοις καλουμένοις). Now we happen to know something of this book of Elchasai, not only from Epiphanius himself (xix. 1 sq., p. 40 sq., xxx. 17, p. 141), but also from Hippolytus [Sidenote: as appears from their sacred book of Elchesai.] (Hær. ix. 13 sq.) who describes it at considerable length. From these accounts it appears that the principal feature in the book was the injunction of frequent bathings for the remission of sins (Hipp. Hær. ix. 13, 15 sq.). We are likewise told that it ‘anathematizes immolations and sacrifices (θυσίας καὶ (ιερουργίας) as being alien to God and certainly not offered to God by tradition from (ἐκ) the fathers and the law,’ while at the same time it ‘says that men ought to pray there at Jerusalem, where the altar was and the sacrifices (were offered), prohibiting the eating of flesh which exists among the Jews, and the rest (of their customs), and the altar and the fire, as being alien to God’ (Epiphan. xix. 3, p. 42). Notwithstanding, [Sidenote: Its Essene peculiarities.] we are informed that the sect retained the rite of circumcision, the observance of the sabbath, and other practices of the Mosaic law (Hipp. Hær. ix. 14; Epiph. Hær. xix. 5, p. 43, comp. xxx. 17, p. 141). This inconsistency is explained by a further notice in Epiphanius (l.c.) that they treated the Scriptures in the same way as the Nasaræans[398]; that is, they submitted them to a process of arbitrary excision, as recommended in the Clementine Homilies, and thus rejected as falsifications all statements which did not square with their own theory. Hippolytus also speaks of the Elchasaites as studying astrology and magic, and as practising charms and incantations on the sick and the demoniacs (§ 14). Moreover in two formularies, one of expiation, another of purification, which this father has extracted from the book, invocation is made to ‘the holy spirits and the angels of prayer’ (§ 15, comp. Epiph. xix. 1). It should be added that the word Elchasai probably signifies the ‘hidden power’[399]; while the book itself directed that its mysteries should be guarded as precious pearls, and should not be communicated to the world at large, but only to the faithful few (Hipp. ix. 15, 17). It is hardly necessary to call attention to the number of Essene features which are here combined[400]. I would only remark that the value of the notice is not at all diminished, but rather enhanced, by the uncritical character of Epiphanius’ work; for this very fact prevents us from ascribing the coincidences, which here reveal themselves, to this father’s own invention.

Footnote 392:

Zeitschr. p. 458.

Footnote 393:

See Ginsburg Essenes p. 69 sq.

Footnote 394:

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

Footnote 395:

See above, p. 87, note 249.

Footnote 396:

See above, p. 83.

Footnote 397:

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

Footnote 398:

See p. 136, note 391.

Footnote 399:

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

Footnote 400:

Celibacy however is not one of these: comp. Epiphan. Hær. xix. 1 (p. 40) ἀπεχθάνεται δὲ τῇ παρθενίᾳ, μισεῖ δὲ τὴν ἐγκράτειαν, ἀναγκάζει δὲ γάμον. In this respect they departed from the original principles of Essenism, alleging, as it would appear, a special revelation (ὡς δῆθεν ἀποκαλύψεως) in justification. In like manner marriage is commended in the Clementine Homilies.

[Sidenote: Doubtful bearing of this Sun-worship.]

In this heresy we have plainly the dregs of Essenism, which has only been corrupted from its earlier and nobler type by the admixture of a spurious Christianity. But how came the Essenes to be called Sampsæans? What was the original meaning of this outward reverence which they paid to the sun? Did they regard it merely as the symbol of Divine illumination, just as Philo frequently treats it as a type of God, the centre of all light (e.g. de Somn. i. 13 sq., I. p. 631 sq.), and even calls the heavenly bodies ‘visible and sensible gods’ (de Mund. Op. 7, I. p. 6)[401]? Or did they honour the light, as the pure ethereal element in contrast to gross terrestrial matter, according to a suggestion of a recent writer[402]? [Sidenote: The practice repugnant to Jewish orthodoxy.]Whatever may have been the motive of this reverence, it is strangely repugnant to the spirit of orthodox Judaism. In Ezek. viii. 16 it is denounced as an abomination, that men shall turn towards the east and worship the sun; and accordingly in Berakhoth 7_a_, a saying of R. Meir is reported to the effect that God is angry when the sun appears and the kings of the East and the West prostrate themselves before this luminary[403]. We cannot fail therefore to recognise the action of some foreign influence in this Essene practice—whether Greek or Syrian or Persian, it will be time to consider hereafter.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 402:

Keim I. p. 289.

Footnote 403:

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

[Sidenote: (iii) The depreciation of marriage not accounted for.]

(iii) On the subject of marriage again, talmudical and rabbinical notices contribute nothing towards elucidating the practices of this sect. Least of all do they point to any affinity between the Essenes and the Pharisees. The nearest resemblance, which Frankel can produce, to any approximation in this respect is an injunction in Mishna Kethuboth v. 8 respecting the duties of the husband in providing for the wife in case of his separating from her, and this he ascribes to Essene influences[404]; but this mishna does not express any approval of such a separation. The direction seems to be framed entirely in the interests of the wife: nor can I see that it is at all inconsistent, as Frankel urges, with Mishna Kethuboth vii. 1 which allows her to claim a divorce under such circumstances. But however this may be, Essene and Pharisaic opinion stand generally in the sharpest contrast to each other with respect to marriage. The talmudic writings teem with passages implying not only the superior sanctity, but even the imperative duty, of marriage. The words ‘Be fruitful and multiply’ (Gen. i. 28) were regarded not merely as a promise, but as a command, which was binding on all. It is a maxim of the Talmud that ‘Any Jew who has not a wife is no man’ (אינו אדם,) Yebamoth 63_a_. The fact indeed is so patent, that any accumulation of examples would be superfluous, and I shall content myself with referring to Pesachim 113_a_, b, as fairly illustrating the doctrine of orthodox Judaism on this point[405]. As this question affects the whole framework not only of religious, but also of social life, the antagonism between the Essene and the Pharisee in a matter so vital could not be overlooked.

Footnote 404:

Monatschr. p. 37.

Footnote 405:

Justin Martyr more than once taunts the Jewish rabbis with their reckless encouragement of polygamy. See Dial. 134, p. 363 D, τοῖς ἀσυνέτοις καὶ τυφλοῖς διδασκάλοις ὑμῶν, ὁίτινες καὶ μέχρι νῦν καὶ τέσσαρας καὶ πέντε ἔχειν ὑμᾶς γυναῖκας ἕκαστον συγχωροῦσι· καὶ ἐὰν εὔμορφόν τις ἰδὼν ἐπιθυμήσῃ αὐτῆς κ.τ.λ., ib. 141, p. 371 A, B, ὁποῖον πράττουσιν οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους ὑμῶν ἄνθρωποι, κατὰ πᾶσαν γῆν ἔνθα ἂν ἐπιδημήσωσιν ἢ προσπεμφθῶσιν ἀγόμενοι ὀνόματι γάμου γυναῖκας κ.τ.λ., with Otto’s note on the first passage.

[Sidenote: (iv) The Essene practice of magic still a difficulty.]

(iv) Nor again is it probable that the magical rites and incantations which are so prominent in the practice of the Essenes would, as a rule, have been received with any favour by the Pharisaic Jew. In Mishna Pesachim iv. 9 (comp. Berakhoth 10_b_) it is mentioned with approval that Hezekiah put away a ‘book of healings’; where doubtless the author of the tradition had in view some volume of charms ascribed to Solomon, like those which apparently formed part of the esoteric literature of the Essenes[406]. In the same spirit in Mishna Sanhedrin xi. 1 R. Akiba shuts out from the hope of eternal life any ‘who read profane or foreign (i.e. perhaps, apocryphal) books, and who mutter over a wound’ the words of Exod. xv. 26. On this point of difference however no great stress can be laid. Though the nobler teachers among the orthodox Jews set themselves steadfastly against the introduction of magic, they were unable to resist the inpouring tide of superstition. In the middle of the second century Justin Martyr alludes to exorcists and magicians among the Jews, as though they were neither few nor obscure[407]. Whether these were a remnant of Essene Judaism, or whether such practices had by this time spread throughout the whole body, it is impossible to say; but the fact of their existence prevents us from founding an argument on the use of magic, as an absolutely distinctive feature of Essenism.

Footnote 406:

See above, p. 91, note 261.

Footnote 407:

Dial. 85, p. 311 C, ἤδη μέντοι οἱ ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐπορκισταὶ τῇ τέχνῃ, ὥσπερ καὶ τὰ ἔθνη, χρώμενοι ἐξορκίζουσι καὶ θυμιάμασι καὶ καταδέσμοις χρῶνται.

[Sidenote: General result.]

Other divergences also have been enumerated[408]; but, as these do not for the most part involve any great principles, and refer only to practical details in which much fluctuation was possible, they cannot under any circumstances be taken as crucial tests, and I have not thought it worth while to discuss them. But the antagonisms on which I have dwelt will tell their own tale. In three respects more especially, in the avoidance of marriage, in the abstention from the temple sacrifices, and (if the view which I have adopted be correct) in the outward reverence paid to the sun, we have seen that there is an impassable gulf between the Essenes and the Pharisees. No known influences within the sphere of Judaism proper will serve to account for the position of the Essenes in these respects; and we are obliged to look elsewhere for an explanation.

Footnote 408:

Herzfeld, II. p. 392 sq.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Frankel has failed in establishing his point.]

It was shown above that the investigations of Frankel and others failed to discover in the talmudical writings a single reference to the Essenes, which is at once direct and indisputable. It has now appeared that they have also failed (and this is the really important point) in showing that the ideas and practices generally considered characteristic of the Essenes are recognised and incorporated in these representative books of Jewish orthodoxy; and thus the hypothesis that Essenism was merely a type, though an exaggerated type, of pure Judaism falls to the ground.

[Sidenote: Affinities between Essenes and Pharisees confined to the Judaic side.]

Some affinities indeed have been made out by Frankel and by those who have anticipated or followed him. But these are exactly such as we might have expected. Two distinct features combine to make up the portrait of the Essene. The Judaic element is quite as prominent in this sect as the non-Judaic. It could not be more strongly emphasized than in the description given by Josephus himself. In everything therefore which relates to the strictly Judaic side of their tenets and practices, we should expect to discover not only affinities, but even close affinities, in talmudic and rabbinic authorities. And this is exactly what, as a matter of fact, we do find. The Essene rules respecting the observance of the sabbath, the rites of lustration, and the like, have often very exact parallels in the writings of more orthodox Judaism. But I have not thought it necessary to dwell on these coincidences, because they may well be taken for granted and my immediate purpose did not require me to emphasize them.

[Sidenote: The divergence of the Essenes from the Pharisees gradual.]

And again; it must be remembered that the separation between Pharisee and Essene cannot always have been so great as it appears in the Apostolic age. Both sects apparently arose out of one great movement, of which the motive was the avoidance of pollution[409]. The divergence therefore must have been gradual. At the same time, it does not seem a very profitable task to write a hypothetical history of the growth of Essenism, where the data are wanting; and I shall therefore abstain from the attempt. Frankel indeed has not been deterred by this difficulty; but he has been obliged to assume his data by postulating that such and such a person, of whom notices are preserved, was an Essene, and thence inferring the character of Essenism at the period in question from his recorded sayings or doings. But without attempting any such reconstruction of history, we may fairly allow that there must have been a gradual development; and consequently in the earlier stages of its growth we should not expect to find that sharp antagonism between the two sects, which the principles of the Essenes when fully matured would involve. [Sidenote: Hence the possibility of their appearing in the records of orthodox Judaism.] If therefore it should be shown that the talmudical and rabbinical writings here and there preserve with approval the sayings of certain Essenes, this fact would present no difficulty. At present however no decisive example has been produced; and the discoveries of Jellinek for instance[410], who traces the influence of this sect in almost every page of Pirke Aboth, can only be regarded as another illustration of the extravagance with which the whole subject has been treated by a large section of modern Jewish writers. More to the point is a notice of an earlier Essene preserved in Josephus himself. We learn from this historian that one Judas, a member of the sect, who had prophesied the death of Antigonus, saw this prince ‘passing by through the temple[411],’ when his prophecy was on the point of fulfilment (about B.C. 110). At this moment Judas is represented as sitting in the midst of his disciples, instructing them in the science of prediction. The expression quoted would seem to imply that he was actually teaching within the temple area. Thus he would appear not only as mixing in the ordinary life of the Jews, but also as frequenting the national sanctuary. But even supposing this to be the right explanation of the passage, it will not present any serious difficulty. Even at a later date, when (as we may suppose) the principles of the sect had stiffened, the scruples of the Essene were directed, if I have rightly interpreted the account of Josephus, rather against the sacrifices than against the locality[412]. The temple itself, independently of its accompaniments, would not suggest any offence to his conscience.

Footnote 409:

See above, p. 120.

Footnote 410:

Orient 1849, pp. 489, 537, 553.

Footnote 411:

B.J. i. 3. 5 παριόντα διὰ τοῦ ἱεροῦ. In the parallel narrative, Ant. xiii. II. 2, the expression is παριόντα τὸ ἱερόν, 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.

Footnote 412:

See above, pp. 89, 134 sq.

[Sidenote: The approbation of Philo and Josephus is no evidence of orthodoxy.]

Nor again, is it any obstacle to the view which is here maintained, that the Essenes are regarded with so much sympathy by Philo and Josephus themselves. Even though the purity of Judaism might have been somewhat sullied in this sect by the admixture of foreign elements, this fact would attract rather than repel an eclectic like Philo, and a latitudinarian like Josephus. The former, as an Alexandrian, absorbed into his system many and diverse elements of heathen philosophy, Platonic, Stoic, and Pythagorean. The latter, though professedly a Pharisee, lost no opportunity of ingratiating himself with his heathen conquerors, and would not be unwilling to gratify their curiosity respecting a society with whose fame, as we infer from the notice of Pliny, they were already acquainted.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: What was the foreign element in Essenism?]

But if Essenism owed the features which distinguished it from Pharisaic Judaism to an alien admixture, whence were these foreign influences derived? From the philosophers of Greece or from the religious mystics of the East? On this point recent writers are divided.

[Sidenote: Theory of Neopythagorean influence.]

Those who trace the distinctive characteristics of the sect to Greece, regard it as an offshoot of the Neopythagorean School grafted on the stem of Judaism. This solution is suggested by the statement of Josephus, that ‘they practise the mode of life which among the Greeks was introduced (καταδεδειγμένῃ) by Pythagoras[413].’ It is thought to be confirmed by the strong resemblances which as a matter of fact are found to exist between the institutions and practices of the two.

[Sidenote: Statement of the theory by Zeller.]

This theory, which is maintained also by other writers, as for instance by Baur and Herzfeld, has found its ablest and most persistent advocate in Zeller, who draws out the parallels with great force and precision. ‘The Essenes,’ he writes, ‘like the Pythagoreans, desire to attain a higher sanctity by an ascetic life; and the abstentions, which they impose on themselves for this end, are the same with both. They reject animal food and bloody sacrifices; they avoid wine, warm baths, and oil for anointing; they set a high value on celibate life: or, so far as they allow marriage, they require that it be restricted to the one object of procreating children. Both wear only white garments and consider linen purer than wool. Washings and purifications are prescribed by both, though for the Essenes they have a yet higher significance as religious acts. Both prohibit oaths and (what is more) on the same grounds. Both find their social ideal in those institutions, which indeed the Essenes alone set themselves to realise—in a corporate life with entire community of goods, in sharply defined orders of rank, in the unconditional submission of all the members to their superiors, in a society carefully barred from without, into which new members are received only after a severe probation of several years, and from which the unworthy are inexorably excluded. Both require a strict initiation, both desire [Sidenote: Zeller’s theory.] to maintain a traditional doctrine inviolable; both pay the highest respect to the men from whom it was derived, as instruments of the deity: yet both also love figurative clothing for their doctrines, and treat the old traditions as symbols of deeper truths, which they must extract from them by means of allegorical explanation. In order to prove the later form of teaching original, newly-composed writings were unhesitatingly forged by the one as by the other, and fathered upon illustrious names of the past. Both parties pay honour to divine powers in the elements, both invoke the rising sun, both seek to withdraw everything unclean from his sight, and with this view give special directions, in which they agree as well with each other as with older Greek superstition, in a remarkable way. For both the belief in intermediate beings between God and the world has an importance which is higher in proportion as their own conception of God is purer; both appear not to have disdained magic; yet both regard the gift of prophecy as the highest fruit of wisdom and piety, which they pique themselves on possessing in their most distinguished members. Finally, both agree (along with the dualistic character of their whole conception of the world ...) in their tenets respecting the origin of the soul, its relation to the body, and the life after death[414]....’

Footnote 413:

Ant. xv. 10. 4.

Footnote 414:

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

[Sidenote: Absence of distinctive Pythagorean features in the Essenes.]

This array of coincidences is formidable, and thus skilfully marshalled might appear at first sight invincible. But a closer examination detracts from its value. In the first place the two distinctive characteristics of the Pythagorean philosophy are wanting to the Essenes. The Jewish sect did not believe in the transmigration of souls; and the doctrine of numbers, at least so far as our information goes, had no place in their system. Yet these constitute the very essence of the Pythagorean teaching. In the next place several of the coincidences are more apparent than real. Thus [Sidenote: The coincidences are in some cases only apparent,] for instance the demons who in the Pythagorean system held an intermediate place between the Supreme God and man, and were the result of a compromise between polytheism and philosophy, have no near relation to the angelology of the Essenes, which arose out of a wholly different motive. Nor again can we find distinct traces among the Pythagoreans of any such reverence for the sun as is ascribed to the Essenes, the only notice which is adduced having no prominence whatever in its own context, and referring to a rule which would be dictated by natural decency and certainly was not peculiar to the Pythagoreans[415]. When these imperfect and (for the purpose) valueless resemblances have been subtracted, the only basis on which the theory of a direct affiliation can rest is withdrawn. All the remaining coincidences are unimportant. Thus the respect paid to founders is not confined to any one sect or any one age. The reverence of the Essenes for Moses, and the reverence of the Pythagoreans for Pythagoras, are indications of a common humanity, but not of a common philosophy. And again the forgery of supposititious documents is unhappily not the badge of any one school. The Solomonian books of the Essenes, so far as we can judge from the extant notices, were about as unlike the tracts ascribed to Pythagoras and his disciples by the Neopythagoreans as two such forgeries could well be. All or nearly all that remains in common to the Greek school and the Jewish sect after these deductions is [Sidenote: and in others do not suggest any historical connexion.] a certain similarity in the type of life. But granted that two bodies of men each held an esoteric teaching of their own, they would secure it independently in a similar way, by a recognised process of initiation, by a solemn form of oath, by a rigid distinction of orders. Granted also, that they both maintained the excellence of an ascetic life, their asceticism would naturally take the same form; they would avoid wine and flesh; they would abstain from anointing themselves with oil; they would depreciate, and perhaps altogether prohibit, marriage. Unless therefore the historical conditions are themselves favourable to a direct and immediate connexion between the Pythagoreans and the Essenes, this theory of affiliation has little to recommend it.

Footnote 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.

[Sidenote: Twofold objection to this theory.]

And a closer examination must pronounce them to be most unfavourable. Chronology and geography alike present serious obstacles to any solution which derives the peculiarities of the Essenes from the Pythagoreans.

[Sidenote: (i) Chronological facts are adverse.]

(i) The priority of time, if it can be pleaded on either side, must be urged in favour of the Essenes. The Pythagoreans as a philosophical school entirely disappear from history before the middle of the fourth century before Christ. The last Pythagoreans were scholars of Philolaus and Eurytus, the contemporaries of Socrates and Plato[416]. For nearly two centuries after their extinction we hear [Sidenote: Disappearance of the Pythagoreans.] nothing of them. Here and there persons like Diodorus of Aspendus are satirised by the Attic poets of the middle comedy as ‘pythagorizers,’ in other words, as total abstainers and vegetarians[417]; but the philosophy had wholly died or was fast dying out. This is the universal testimony of ancient writers. It is not till the first century before Christ, that we meet with any distinct traces of a revival. In Alexander Polyhistor[418], a younger contemporary of Sulla, for the first time we find references to certain writings, which would seem to have emanated from this incipient Neopythagoreanism, rather than from the elder school of Pythagoreans. And a little later Cicero commends his friend Nigidius Figulus as one specially raised up to revive the extinct philosophy[419]. But so slow or so chequered was its progress, that a whole century after Seneca can still speak of the [Sidenote: Priority of Essenism to Neopythagoreanism.] school as practically defunct[420]. Yet long before this the Essenes formed a compact, well-organized, numerous society with a peculiar system of doctrine and a definite rule of life. We have seen that Pliny the elder speaks of this celibate society as having existed ‘through thousands of ages[421].’ This is a gross exaggeration, but it must at least be taken to imply that in Pliny’s time the origin of the Essenes was lost in the obscurity of the past, or at least seemed so to those who had not access to special sources of information. If, as I have given reasons for supposing[422], Pliny’s authority in this passage is the same Alexander Polyhistor to whom I have just referred, and if this particular statement, however exaggerated in expression, is derived from him, the fact becomes still more significant. But on any showing the priority in time is distinctly in favour of the Essenes as against the Neopythagoreans.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 417:

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

Footnote 418:

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

Footnote 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.’

Footnote 420:

Sen. N.Q. vii. 32 ‘Pythagorica illa invidiosa turbæ schola præceptorem non invenit.’

Footnote 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.

Footnote 422:

See p. 83, note 240.

[Sidenote: The Essene tenets more developed than the Neopythagorean.]

And accordingly we find that what is only a tendency in the Neopythagoreans is with the Essenes an avowed principle and a definite rule of life. Such for instance is the case with celibacy, of which Pliny says that it has existed as an institution among the Essenes per sæculorum millia, and which is a chief corner-stone of their practical system. The Pythagorean notices (whether truly or not, it is unimportant for my purpose to enquire) speak of Pythagoras as having a wife and a daughter[423]. Only at a late date do we find the attempt to represent their founder in another light; and if virginity is ascribed to Apollonius of Tyana, the great Pythagorean of the first Christian century, in the fictitious biography of Philostratus[424], this representation is plainly due to the general plan of the novelist, whose hero is intended to rival the Founder of Christianity, and whose work is saturated with Christian ideas. In fact virginity can never be said to have been a Pythagorean principle, though it may have been an exalted ideal of some not very early adherents of the school. And the same remark applies to other resemblances between the Essene and Neopythagorean teaching. The clearness of conception and the definiteness of practice are in almost every instance on the side of the Essenes; so that, looking to the comparative chronology of the two, it will appear almost inconceivable that they can have derived their principles from the Neopythagoreans.

Footnote 423:

Diog. Laert. viii. 42.

Footnote 424:

Vit. Apoll. i. 15 sq. At the same time Philostratus informs us that the conduct of his hero in this respect had been differently represented by others.

[Sidenote: (ii) Geographical difficulties in the theory.]

(ii) But the geographical difficulty also, which this theory of affiliation involves, must be added to the chronological. The home of the Essene sect is allowed on all hands to have been on the eastern borders of Palestine, the shores of the Dead Sea, a region least of all exposed to the influences of Greek philosophy. It is true that we find near Alexandria a closely allied school of Jewish recluses, the Therapeutes; and, as Alexandria may have been the home of Neopythagoreanism, a possible link of connexion is here disclosed. But, as Zeller himself has pointed out, it is not among the Therapeutes, but among the Essenes, that the principles in question appear fully developed and consistently carried out[425]; and therefore, if there be a relation of paternity between Essene and Therapeute, the latter must be derived from the former and not conversely. How then can we suppose this influence of Neopythagoreanism brought to bear on a Jewish community in the south-eastern border of Palestine? Zeller’s answer is as follows[426]. Judæa was for more than a hundred and fifty years before the Maccabean period under the sovereignty first of the Egyptian and then of the Syrian Greeks. We know that at this time Hellenizing influences did infuse themselves largely into Judaism: and what more natural than that among these the Pythagorean philosophy and discipline should have recommended itself to a section of the Jewish people? It may be said in reply, that at all events the special locality of the Essenes is the least favourable to such a solution: but, without pressing this fact, Zeller’s hypothesis is open to two serious objections which combined seem fatal to it, unsupported as it is by any historical notice. First, this influence of Pythagoreanism is assumed to have taken place at the very time when the Pythagorean school was practically extinct: and secondly, it is supposed to have acted upon that very section of the Jewish community, which was the most vigorous advocate of national exclusiveness and the most averse to Hellenizing influences.

Footnote 425:

l.c. p. 288 sq.

Footnote 426:

l.c. p. 290 sq.

[Sidenote: The foreign element of Essenism to be sought in the East,]

It is not therefore to Greek but to Oriental influences that considerations of time and place, as well as of internal character, lead us to look for an explanation of the alien elements in Essene Judaism. And have we not here also the account of any real coincidences which may exist between Essenism and Neopythagoreanism? We should perhaps be hardly more justified in tracing Neopythagoreanism directly to Essenism than conversely (though, if we had no other alternative, this would appear to be the more probable solution of the two): but were not both alike due to substantially the same influences acting in different degrees? [Sidenote: to which also Pythagoreanism may have been indebted.]I think it will hardly be denied that the characteristic features of Pythagoreanism, and especially of Neopythagoreanism, which distinguish it from other schools of Greek philosophy, are much more Oriental in type, than Hellenic. The asceticism, the magic, the mysticism, of the sect all point in the same direction. And history moreover contains indications that such was the case. There seems to be sufficient ground for the statement that Pythagoras himself was indebted to intercourse with the Egyptians, if not with more strictly Oriental nations, for some leading ideas of his system. But, however this may be, the fact that in the legendary accounts, which the Neopythagoreans invented to do honour to the founder of the school, he is represented as taking lessons from the Chaldeans, Persians, Brahmins, and others, may be taken as an evidence that their own philosophy at all events was partially derived from eastern sources[427].

Footnote 427:

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

* * * * *

But, if the alien elements of Essenism were borrowed not so much from Greek philosophy as from Oriental mysticism, to what nation or what religion was it chiefly indebted? To this question it is difficult, with our very imperfect knowledge of the East at the Christian era, to reply with any confidence. [Sidenote: Resemblances to Parsism.]Yet there is one system to which we naturally look, as furnishing the most probable answer. The Medo-Persian religion supplies just those elements which distinguish the tenets and practices of the Essenes from the normal type of Judaism. [Sidenote: (i) Dualism.](1) First; we have here a very definite form of dualism, which exercised the greatest influence on subsequent Gnostic sects, and of which Manicheism, the most mature development of dualistic doctrine in connexion with Christianity, was the ultimate fruit. For though dualism may not represent the oldest theology of the Zend-Avesta in its unadulterated form, yet long before the era of which we are speaking it had become the fundamental principle of the Persian religion. [Sidenote: (ii) Sun-worship.](2) Again; the Zoroastrian symbolism of light, and consequent worship of the sun as the fountain of light, will explain those anomalous notices of the Essenes in which they are represented as paying reverence to this luminary[428]. [Sidenote: (iii) Angelolatry.](3) Moreover; the ‘worship of angels’ in the Essene system has a striking parallel in the invocations of spirits, which form a very prominent feature in the ritual of the Zend-Avesta. And altogether their angelology is illustrated, and not improbably was suggested, by the doctrine of intermediate beings concerned in the government of nature and of man, such as the Amshaspands, which is an integral part of the Zoroastrian system[429]. [Sidenote: (iv) Magic.](4) And once more; the magic, which was so attractive to the Essene, may have received its impulse from the priestly caste of Persia, to whose world-wide fame this form of superstition is indebted for its name. [Sidenote: (v) Striving after purity.](5) If to these parallels I venture also to add the intense striving after purity, which is the noblest feature in the Persian religion, I do so, not because the Essenes might not have derived this impulse from a higher source, but because this feature was very likely to recommend the Zoroastrian system to their favourable notice, and because also the particular form which the zeal for purity took among them was at all events congenial to the teaching of the Zend-Avesta, and may not have been altogether free from its influences.

Footnote 428:

Keim (Geschichte Jesu von Nazara I.</sc> 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 ἅμα δὲ ἡλίῳ ἀνίσχοντι ἐφάνη Ἀρτάβανος σὺν μεγίστῳ πλήθει στρατοῦ· ἀσπασάμενοι δὲ τὸν ἤλιον, ὡς ἔθος αὐτοῖς, οἱ βάρβαροι κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 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.

[Sidenote: Other coincidences accidental.]

I have preferred dwelling on these broader resemblances, because they are much more significant than any mere coincidence of details, which may or may not have been accidental. Thus for instance the magi, like the Essenes, wore white garments, and eschewed gold and ornaments; they practised frequent lustrations; they avoided flesh, living on bread and cheese or on herbs and fruits; they had different orders in their society; and the like[430]. All these, as I have already remarked, may be the independent out-growth of the same temper and direction of conduct, and need not imply any direct historical connexion. Nor is there any temptation to press such resemblances; for even without their aid the general connexion seems to be sufficiently established[431].

Footnote 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 ἀξινομαντεία (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.

Footnote 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.

[Sidenote: The destruction of the Persian empire not adverse]

But it is said, that the history of Persia does not favour the hypothesis of such an influence as is here assumed. The destruction of the Persian empire by Alexander, argues Zeller[432], and the subsequent erection of the Parthian domination on its ruins, must have been fatal to the spread of Zoroastrianism. From the middle of the third century before Christ, when the Parthian empire was established, till towards the middle of the third century of our era, when the Persian monarchy and religion were once more restored[433], its influence must have been reduced within the narrowest limits. [Sidenote: but favourable to the spread of Parsism.] But does analogy really suggest such an inference? Does not the history of the Jews themselves show that the religious influence of a people on the world at large may begin just where its national life ends? The very dispersion of Zoroastrianism, consequent on the fall of the empire, would impregnate the atmosphere far and wide; and the germs of new religious developments would thus be implanted in alien soils. For in tracing Essenism to Persian influences I have not wished to imply that this Jewish sect consciously incorporated the Zoroastrian philosophy and religion as such, but only that Zoroastrian ideas were infused into its system by more or less direct contact. And, as a matter of fact, it seems quite certain that Persian ideas were widely spread during this very interval, when the Persian nationality was eclipsed. [Sidenote: Indications of its influence during this period.]It was then that Hermippus gave to the Greeks the most detailed account of this religion which had ever been laid before them[434]. It was then that its tenets suggested or moulded the speculations of the various Gnostic sects. It was then that the worship of the Persian Mithras spread throughout the Roman Empire. It was then, if not earlier, that the magian system took root in Asia Minor, making for itself (as it were) a second home in Cappadocia[435]. It was then, if not earlier, that the Zoroastrian demonology stamped itself so deeply on the apocryphal literature of the Jews themselves, which borrowed even the names of evil spirits[436] from the Persians. There are indeed abundant indications that Palestine was surrounded by Persian influences during this period, when the Persian empire was in abeyance.

Footnote 432:

l.c. p. 275.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 434:

See Müller Fragm. Hist. Græc. III. p. 53 sq. for this work of Hermippus περὶ Μάγων. He flourished about B.C. 200. See Max Müller Lectures on the Science of Language 1st ser. p. 86.

Footnote 435:

Strabo xv. 3. 15 (p. 733) Ἐν δὲ τῇ Καππαδοκίᾳ (πολὺ γὰρ ἐκεῖ τὸ τῶν Μάγων φῦλον, οἳ καὶ πύραιθοι καλοῦνται· πολλὰ δὲ καὶ τῶν Περσικῶν θεῶν ἱερά) κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 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.

Thus we seem to have ample ground for the view that certain alien features in Essene Judaism were derived from the Zoroastrian religion. [Sidenote: Are Buddhist influences also perceptible?]But are we justified in going a step further, and attributing other elements in this eclectic system to the more distant East? The monasticism of the Buddhist will naturally occur to our minds, as a precursor of the cenobitic life among the Essenes; and Hilgenfeld accordingly has not hesitated to ascribe this characteristic of Essenism directly to Buddhist influences[437]. But at the outset we are obliged to ask whether history gives any such indication of the presence of Buddhism in the West as this hypothesis requires. Hilgenfeld answers this question in the affirmative. [Sidenote: Supposed Buddhist establishment at Alexandria.]He points triumphantly to the fact that as early as the middle of the second century before Christ the Buddhist records speak of their faith as flourishing in Alasanda the chief city of the land of Yavana. The place intended, he conceives, can be none other than the great Alexandria, the most famous of the many places bearing the name[438]. [Sidenote: The authority misinterpreted] In this opinion however he stands quite alone. Neither Köppen[439], who is his authority for this statement, nor any other Indian scholar[440], so far as I am aware, for a moment contemplates this identification. Yavana, or Yona, was the common Indian name for the Græco-Bactrian kingdom and its dependencies[441]; and to this region we naturally turn. The Alasanda or Alasadda therefore, which is here mentioned, will be one of several Eastern cities bearing the name of the great conqueror, most probably Alexandria ad Caucasum. But indeed I hardly think that, if Hilgenfeld had referred to the original authority for the statement, the great Buddhist history Mahawanso, he would have ventured to lay any stress at all on this notice, as supporting his theory. [Sidenote: and wholly untrustworthy in itself.]The historian, or rather fabulist (for such he is in this earlier part of his chronicle), is relating the foundation of the Mahá thúpo, or great tope, at Ruanwelli by the king Dutthagámini in the year B.C. 157. Beyond the fact that this tope was erected by this king the rest is plainly legendary. All the materials for the construction of the building, we are told, appeared spontaneously as by miracle—the bricks, the metals, the precious stones. The dewos, or demons, lent their aid in the erection. In fact

the fabric huge Rose like an exhalation.

Priests gathered in enormous numbers from all the great Buddhist monasteries to do honour to the festival of the foundation. One place alone sent not less than 96,000. Among the rest it is mentioned that ‘Maha Dhammarakkito, théro (i.e. senior priest) of Yóna, accompanied by 30,000 priests from the vicinity of Alasaddá, the capital of the Yóna country, attended[442].’ It is obvious that no weight can be attached to a statement occurring as part of a story of which the other details are so manifestly false. An establishment of 30,000 Buddhist priests at Alexandria would indeed be a phenomenon of which historians have shown a strange neglect.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 439:

Die Religion des Buddha I. p. 193.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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 Ἑλλην 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.

Footnote 442:

Mahawanso p. 171, Turnour’s translation.

[Sidenote: General ignorance of Buddhism in the West.]

Nor is the presence of any Buddhist establishment even on a much smaller scale in this important centre of western civilization at all reconcilable with the ignorance of this religion, which the Greeks and Romans betray at a much later date[443]. For some centuries after the Christian era we find that the information possessed by western writers was most shadowy and confused; and in almost every instance we are able to trace it to some other cause than the actual presence of Buddhists in the Roman Empire[444]. [Sidenote: Strabo.]Thus Strabo, who wrote under Augustus and Tiberius, apparently mentions the Buddhist priests, the sramanas, under the designation sarmanæ, (Σαρμάνας)[445]; but he avowedly obtains his information from Megasthenes, who travelled in India somewhere about the year 300 B.C. and wrote a book on Indian affairs. [Sidenote: Bardesanes.]Thus too Bardesanes at a much later date gives an account of these Buddhist ascetics, without however naming the founder of the religion; but he was indebted for his knowledge of them to conversations with certain Indian ambassadors who visited Syria on their way westward in the reign of one of the Antonines[446]. [Sidenote: Clement of Alexandria.] Clement of Alexandria, writing in the latest years of the second century or the earliest of the third, for the first time[447] mentions Buddha by name; and even he betrays a strange ignorance of this Eastern religion[448].

Footnote 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?

Footnote 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) ὁρῶ γὰρ ἔγωγε οὐ μόνον Ἕλληνας παρ’ ὑμῖν ... ἀλλὰ καὶ Βακτρίους καὶ Σκύθας καὶ Πέρσας καὶ Ἰνδῶν τινάς. The qualifying τινας 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); καὶ οἱ νῦν δὲ ἐξ Αἰγύπτου πλέοντες ἐμπορικοὶ τῷ Νείλῳ καὶ τῷ Ἀραβίῳ κόλπῳ μέχρι τῆς Ἰνδικῆς σπάνιοι μὲν καὶ περιπεπλεύκασι μέχρι τοῦ Γάγγου, καὶ οὗτοι δ’ ἰδιῶται καὶ οὐδὲν πρὸς ἱστορίαν τῶν τόπων χρῆσιμοι, 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 ἀφ’ ἑνὸς τόπου καὶ παρ’ ἑνὸς βασιλέως.

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.

Footnote 445:

Strabo XV. 1. 59, p. 712. In the MSS it is written Γαρμάνας, 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 Σαρμᾶναι we also find the form Σαμαναῖοι 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 Σαρμάνας. 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 Σαρμᾶναι, 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 Ζάρμανος (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 Βραχμᾶνες and Σαρμᾶναι in Megasthenes or the writers following him corresponds to the distinction of Βραχμᾶνες and Σαμαναῖοι in Bardesanes, Origen, and others; and, as Schwanbeck has shown (l.c.), the account of the Σαρμᾶναι in Megasthenes for the most part is a close parallel to the account of the Σαμαναῖοι 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 Σαρμᾶναι, than that Brahmins are intended by the term.

The Pali form, Σαμαναῖοι, 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 Σαμαναῖοι 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.

Footnote 446:

The narrative of Bardesanes is given by Porphyry de Abst. iv. 17. The Buddhist ascetics are there called Σαμαναῖοι (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 ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας τῆς Ἀντωνίνου τοῦ ἐξ Ἐμισῶν, 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.

Footnote 447:

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

Footnote 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 Σαμαναῖοι Βάκτρων (comp. Cyrill. Alex. l.c.); (2) He distinguishes two classes of Indian gymnosophists, whom he calls Σαρμᾶναι and Βραχμᾶναι. These are Buddhists and Brahmins respectively (see p. 153, note 445); (3) He says afterwards εἰσὶ δὲ τῶν Ἰνδῶν οἱ τοῖς Βοῦττα πειθόμενοι παραγγέλμασιν, ὃν δι’ ὑπερβολὴν σεμνότητος εἰς [ὡς?] θεὸν τετιμήκασι. Schwanbeck indeed maintains that Clement here intends to describe the same persons whom he has just mentioned as Σαρμᾶναι; 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 Σαρμᾶναι 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 Σεμνοί. 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 Σεμνοί is a Grecized form of Σαμαναῖοι; and this modification of the word would occur naturally to Clement, because σεμνοί, σεμνεῖον, were already used of the ascetic life: e.g. Philo de Vit. Cont. 3 (p. 475 M) ἱερὸν ὃ καλεῖται σεμνεῖον καὶ μοναστήριον ἐν ᾧ μονοῦμενοι τὰ τοῦ σεμνοῦ βίου μυστήρια τελοῦνται.

[Sidenote: Hippolytus.]

Still later than this, Hippolytus, while he gives a fairly intelligent, though brief, account of the Brahmins[449], says not a word about the Buddhists, though, if he had been acquainted with their teaching, he would assuredly have seen in them a fresh support to his theory of the affinity between Christian heresies and pre-existing heathen philosophies. [Sidenote: A Buddhist at Athens.]With one doubtful exception—an Indian fanatic attached to an embassy sent by king Porus to Augustus, who astonished the Greeks and Romans by burning himself alive at Athens[450]–there is apparently no notice in either heathen or Christian writers, which points to the presence of a Buddhist within the limits of the Roman Empire, till long after the Essenes had ceased to exist[451].

Footnote 449:

Hær. i. 24.

Footnote 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 Ζαρμανοχηγὰς Ἰνδὸς ἀπὸ Βαργόσης κατὰ τὰ πάτρια Ἰνδῶν ἔθη ἑαυτὸν ἀπαθανατίσας κεῖται. 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, τοῦτο πολλοῖς ἔτεσιν ὕστερον ἄλλος Ἰνδὸς ἐν Ἀθήναις Καίσαρί συνὼν ἐποίησε, καὶ δείκνυται μέχρι νῦν τὸ μνημεῖον Ἰνδοῦ προσαγορευόμενον. Strabo also places the two incidents in conjunction in another passage in which he refers to this person, xv. 1. 4 (p. 686) ὁ κατακαύσας ἑαυτὸν Ἀθήνησι σοφιστὴς Ἰνδός, καθάπερ καὶ ὁ Κάλανος κ.τ.λ.

The reasons for supposing this person to have been a Buddhist, rather than a Brahmin, are: (1) The name Ζαρμανοχηγὰς (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 Ζάρμαρος.

And have we not here an explanation of 1 Cor. xiii. 3, if ἵνα καυθήσωμαι 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 ==αγνωϲτωι θεωι==, was not likely to overlook the sepulchre with the strange inscription ==εαυτον απαθανατιϲαϲ κειται==. 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 καὶ ἐὰν παραδῶ τὸ σῶμά μου ... ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, οὐδὲν ὠφελοῦμαι. Indeed it would furnish an almost equally good illustration of the text, whether we read ἵν καυθήσωμαι or ἵνα καυχήσωμαι. Dion Cassius (l.c.) suggests that the deed was done ὑπὸ φιλοτιμίας or εἰς ἐπίδειζιν. 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), βλέψωμεν εἰς Ἰνδοὺς τοὺς σοφίαν ἀσκέιν ὑπισχνουμένους ... οἱ δὲ ... πυρὶ τὸ σῶμα παραδόντες, ὅπως δὴ καὶ καθαρωτάτην ἀποκρίνωσι τοῦ σώματος τὴν ψυχήν, ὑμνούμενοι τελευτῶσι ... ἆρ’ οὖν οὐκ αἰδούμεθα χεῖρον Ἰνδῶν φρονοῦντες;

Footnote 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.

[Sidenote: The alleged coincidences prove nothing.]

And, if so, the coincidences must be very precise, before we are justified in attributing any peculiarities of Essenism to Buddhist influences. This however is far from being the case. They both exhibit a well-organized monastic society: but the monasticism of the Buddhist priests, with its systematized mendicancy, has little [Sidenote: Monasticism.] in common with the monasticism of the Essene recluse, whose life was largely spent in manual labour. [Sidenote: Asceticism.]They both enjoin celibacy, both prohibit the use of flesh and of wine, both abstain from the slaughter of animals. But, as we have already seen, such resemblances prove nothing, for they may be explained by the independent development of the same religious principles. One coincidence, and one only, is noticed by Hilgenfeld, which at first sight seems more striking and might suggest a historical connexion. [Sidenote: Four orders and four steps.]He observes that the four orders of the Essene community are derived from the four steps of Buddhism. Against this it might fairly be argued that such coincidences of numbers are often purely accidental, and that in the present instance there is no more reason for connecting the four steps of Buddhism with the four orders of Essenism than there would be for connecting the ten precepts of Buddha with the Ten Commandments of Moses. But indeed a nearer examination will show that the two have nothing whatever in common except the number. The four steps or paths of Buddhism are not four grades of an external order, but four degrees of spiritual progress on the way to nirvana or annihilation, the ultimate goal of the Buddhist’s religious aspirations. They are wholly unconnected with the Buddhist monastic system, as an organization. A reference to the Buddhist notices collected in Hardy’s Eastern Monachism (p. 280 sq.) will at once dispel any suspicion of a resemblance. A man may attain to the highest of these four stages of Buddhist illumination instantaneously. He does not need to have passed through the lower grades, but may even be a layman at the time. Some merit obtained in a previous state of existence may raise him per saltum to the elevation of a rahat, when all earthly desires are crushed and no future birth stands between him and nirvana. [Sidenote: Buddhist influences seen first in Manicheism.]There remains therefore no coincidence which would suggest any historical connexion between Essenism and Buddhism. Indeed it is not till some centuries later, when Manicheism starts into being, that we find for the first time any traces of the influence of Buddhism on the religions of the West[452].

Footnote 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).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. ESSENISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

[Sidenote: The theory which explains Christianity as an outgrowth of Essenism,]

It has become a common practice with a certain class of writers to call Essenism to their aid in accounting for any distinctive features of Christianity, which they are unable to explain in any other way. Wherever some external power is needed to solve a perplexity, here is the deus ex machina whose aid they most readily invoke. Constant repetition is sure to produce its effect, and probably not a few persons, who want either the leisure or the opportunity to investigate the subject for themselves, have a lurking suspicion that the Founder of Christianity may have been an Essene, or at all events that Christianity was largely indebted to Essenism for its doctrinal and ethical teaching[453]. Indeed, when very confident and sweeping assertions are made, it is natural to presume that they rest on a substantial basis of fact. Thus for instance we are told by one writer that Christianity is ‘Essenism alloyed with foreign elements’[454]: while another, who however approaches the subject in a different spirit, says; ‘It will hardly be doubted that our Saviour Himself belonged to this holy brotherhood. This will especially be apparent, when we remember that the whole Jewish community at the advent of Christ was divided into three parties, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes, and that every Jew had to belong to one of these sects. Jesus who in all things conformed to the Jewish law, and who was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, would therefore naturally associate Himself with that order of Judaism which was most congenial to his nature’.[455][Sidenote: tested by facts.]I purpose testing these strong assertions by an appeal to facts.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 454:

Grätz III p. 217.

Footnote 455:

Ginsburg Essenes p. 24.

[Sidenote: Our Lord need not have belonged to any sect.]

For the statements involved in those words of the last extract which I have underlined, no authority is given by the writer himself; nor have I been able to find confirmation of them in any quarter. On the contrary the frequent allusions which we find to the vulgar herd, the ιδιῶται, the عam haarets, who are distinguished from the disciples of the schools[456], suggest that a large proportion of the people was unattached to any sect. If it had been otherwise, we might reasonably presume that our Lord, as one who ‘in all things conformed to the Jewish law,’ would have preferred attaching Himself to the Pharisees who ‘sat in Moses’ seat’ and whose precepts He recommended His disciples to obey[457], rather than to the Essenes who in one important respect at least—the repudiation of the temple sacrifices—acted in flagrant violation of the Mosaic ordinances.

Footnote 456:

See above, p. 130.

Footnote 457:

Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.

[Sidenote: The argument from the silence of the New Testament answered.]

This preliminary barrier being removed, we are free to investigate the evidence for their presumed connexion. And here we are met first with a negative argument, which obviously has great weight with many persons. Why, it is asked, does Jesus, who so unsparingly denounces the vices and the falsehoods of Pharisees and Sadducees, never once mention the Essenes by way of condemnation, or indeed mention them by name at all? Why, except that He himself belonged to this sect and looked favourably on their teaching? This question is best answered by another. How can we explain the fact, that throughout the enormous mass of talmudical and early rabbinical literature this sect is not once mentioned by name, and that even the supposed allusions to them, which have been discovered for the first time in the present century, turn out on investigation to be hypothetical and illusory? The difficulty is much greater in this latter instance; but the answer is the same in both cases. The silence is explained by the comparative insignificance of the sect, their small numbers and their retired habits. Their settlements were far removed from the great centres of political and religious life. Their recluse habits, as a rule, prevented them from interfering in the common business of the world. Philo and Josephus have given prominence to them, because their ascetic practices invested them with the character of philosophers and interested the Greeks and Romans in their history; but in the national life of the Jews they bore a very insignificant part[458]. If the Sadducees, who held the highest offices in the hierarchy, are only mentioned directly on three occasions in the Gospels[459], it can be no surprise that the Essenes are not named at all.

Footnote 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).

Footnote 459:

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

[Sidenote: The positive arguments for a connexion may be twofold.]

As no stress therefore can be laid on the argument for silence, any hypothesis of connexion between Essenism and Christianity must make good its claims by establishing one or both of these two points: first, that there is direct historical evidence of close intercourse between the two; and secondly, that the resemblances of doctrine and practice are so striking as to oblige, or at least to warrant, the belief in such a connexion. If both these lines of argument fail, the case must be considered to have broken down.

[Sidenote: 1. Absence of direct historical evidence of a connexion.]

1. On the former point it must be premised that the Gospel narrative does not suggest any hint of a connexion. Indeed its general tenor is directly adverse to such a supposition. From first to last Jesus and his disciples move about freely, taking part in the common business, even in the common recreations, of Jewish life. The recluse ascetic brotherhood, which was gathered about the shores of the Dead Sea, does not once appear above the Evangelists’ horizon. Of this close society, as such, there is not the faintest indication. [Sidenote: Two individual cases alleged.] But two individuals have been singled out, as holding an important place either in the Evangelical narrative or in the Apostolic Church, who, it is contended, form direct and personal links of communication with this sect. These are John the Baptist and James the Lord’s brother. The one is the forerunner of the Gospel, the first herald of the Kingdom; the other is the most prominent figure in the early Church of Jerusalem.

[Sidenote: (i) John the Baptist]

(i) John the Baptist was an ascetic. His abode was the desert; his clothing was rough; his food was spare; he baptized his penitents. Therefore, it is argued, he was an Essene. Between the premisses and the conclusion however there is a broad gulf, which cannot very easily be bridged over. [Sidenote: not an Essene.]The solitary independent life, which John led, presents a type wholly different from the cenobitic establishments of the Essenes, who had common property, common meals, common hours of labour and of prayer. It may even be questioned whether his food of locusts would have been permitted by the Essenes, if they really ate nothing which had life (ἔμψυχον[460]). And again; his baptism as narrated by the Evangelists, and their lustrations as described in Josephus, have nothing in common except the use of water for a religious purpose. When therefore we are told confidently that ‘his manner of life was altogether after the Essene pattern[461],’ and that ‘he without doubt baptized his converts into the Essene order,’ we know what value to attach to this bold assertion. If positive statements are allowable, it would be more true to fact to say that he could not possibly have been an Essene. The rule of his life was isolation; the principle of theirs, community[462].

Footnote 460:

See above p. 86.

Footnote 461:

Grätz III. p. 220.

Footnote 462:

τὸ κοινωνητικόν, Joseph. B.J. ii. 8. 3. See also Philo Fragm. 632 ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινωφελοῦς, and the context.

[Sidenote: External resemblances to John in Banus,]

In this mode of life John was not singular. It would appear that not a few devout Jews at this time retired from the world and buried themselves in the wilderness, that they might devote themselves unmolested to ascetic discipline and religious meditation. One such instance at all events we have in Banus the master of Josephus, with whom the Jewish historian, when a youth, spent three years in the desert. This anchorite was clothed in garments made of bark or of leaves; his food was the natural produce of the earth; he bathed day and night in cold water for purposes of purification. To the careless observer doubtless John and Banus would appear to be men of the same stamp. In their outward mode of life there was perhaps not very much difference[463]. The consciousness of a divine mission, the gift of a prophetic insight, in John was the real and all-important distinction between the two. [Sidenote: who was not an Essene.]But here also the same mistake is made; and we not uncommonly find Banus described as an Essene. It is not too much to say however, that the whole tenor of Josephus’ narrative is opposed to this supposition[464]. He says that when sixteen years old he desired to acquire a knowledge of the three sects of the Jews before making his choice of one; that accordingly he went through (διῆλθον) all the three at the cost of much rough discipline and toil; that he was not satisfied with the experience thus gained, and hearing of this Banus he attached himself to him as his zealous disciple (ζηλωτὴς ἐγενόμην αὐτοῦ); that having remained three years with him he returned to Jerusalem; and that then, being nineteen years old, he gave in his adhesion to the sect of the Pharisees. Thus there is no more reason for connecting this Banus with the Essenes than with the Pharisees. The only natural interpretation of the narrative is that he did not belong to any of the three sects, but represented a distinct type of religious life, of which Josephus was anxious to gain experience. And his hermit life seems to demand this solution, which the sequence of the narrative suggests.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 464:

The passage is so important that I give it in full; Joseph. Vit. 2 περὶ ἑκκαίδεκα δὲ ἔτη γενόμενος ἐβουλήθην τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν αἱρέσεων ἐμπειρίαν λαβεῖν. τρεῖς δ’ εἰσὶν αὗται· Φαρισαίων μὲν ἡ πρώτη, καὶ Σαδδουκαίων ἡ δευτέρα, τρίτη δὲ ἡ Ἐσσηνῶν, καθὼς πολλάκις εἴπαμεν. οὕτως γὰρ ᾠόμην αἱρήσεσθαι τὴν ἀρίστην, εἰ πάσας καταμάθοιμι. σκληραγωγήσας γοῦν ἐμαυτὸν καὶ πολλὰ πονηθεὶς τὰς τρεῖς διῆλθον. καὶ μηδὲ τὴν ἐντεῦθεν ἐμπειρίαν ἱκανὴν ἐμαυτῷ νομίσας εἶναι, πυθόμενός τινα Βανοῦν ὄνομα κατὰ τὴν ἐρημίαν διατρίβειν, ἐσθῆτι μὲν ἀπὸ δένδρων χρώμενον, τροφὴν δὲ τὴν αὐτομάτως φυομένην προσφερόμενον, ψυχρῷ δὲ ὕδατι τὴν ἡμέραν καὶ τὴν νύκτα πολλάκις λουόμενον πρὸς ἁγνείαν, ζηλωτὴς ἐγενόμην αὐτοῦ. καὶ διατρίψας παρ’ αὐτῷ ἐνιαυτοὺς τρεῖς καὶ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν τελειώσας εἰς τὴν πόλιν ὑπέστρεφον. ἐννεακαίδεκα δ’ ἔτη ἔχων ἠρξάμην τε πολιτεύεσθαι τῇ Φαρισαίων αἱρέσει κατακολουθῶν κ.τ.λ.

[Sidenote: General result.]

Of John himself therefore no traits are handed down which suggest that he was a member of the Essene community. He was an ascetic, and the Essenes were ascetics; but this is plainly an inadequate basis for any such inference. Nor indeed is the relation of his asceticism to theirs a question of much moment for the matter in hand; since this was the very point in which Christ’s mode of life was so essentially different from John’s as to provoke criticism and to point a contrast[465]. But the later history of his real or supposed disciples has, or may seem to have, some bearing on this investigation. [Sidenote: The Hemerobaptists.]Towards the close of the first and the beginning of the second century we meet with a body of sectarians called in Greek Hemerobaptists[466], in Hebrew Toble-shacharith[467], ‘day’ or ‘morning bathers.’ What were their relations to John the Baptist on the one hand, and to the Essenes on the other? Owing to the scantiness of our information the whole subject is wrapped in obscurity, and any restoration of their history must be more or less hypothetical; but it will be possible at all events to suggest an account which is not improbable in itself, and which does no violence to the extant notices of the sect.

Footnote 465:

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

Footnote 466:

The word ἡμεροβαπτισταὶ is generally taken to mean ‘daily-bathers,’ and this meaning is suggested by Apost. Const. vi. 6 οἵτινες, καθ’ (εκάστην ἡμέραν ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται, οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, ib. 23 ἀντὶ καθημερινοῦ ἓν μόνον δοῦς βάπτισμα, Epiphan. Hær. xvii. 1 (p. 37) εἰ μή τι ἄπα καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν βαπτίζοιτό τις ἐν ὕδατι. 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 ἡμέρα, as ἡμερόβιος, ἡμεροδρόμος, ἡμεροσκόπος, 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.’

Footnote 467:

See above p. 132.

[Sidenote: (a) Their relation to John the Baptist.]

(a) We must not hastily conclude, when we meet with certain persons at Ephesus about the years A.D. 53, 54, who are described as ‘knowing only the baptism of John,’ or as having been ‘baptized unto John’s baptism[468],’ that we have here some early representatives of the Hemerobaptist sect. [Sidenote: John’s disciples at Ephesus.]These were Christians, though imperfectly informed Christians. Of Apollos, who was more fully instructed by Aquila and Priscilla, this is stated in the most explicit terms[469]. Of the rest, who owed their fuller knowledge of the Gospel to St Paul, the same appears to be implied, though the language is not free from ambiguity[470]. But these notices have an important bearing on our subject; for they show how profoundly the effect of John’s preaching was felt in districts as remote as proconsular Asia, even after a lapse of a quarter of a century. With these disciples it was the initial impulse towards Christianity; but to others it represented a widely different form of belief and practice. [Sidenote: Professed followers at a later date.]The Gospel of St John was written, according to all tradition, at Ephesus in the later years of the first century. Again and again the Evangelist impresses on his readers, either directly by his own comments or indirectly by the course of the narrative, the transient and subordinate character of John’s ministry. He was not the light, says the Evangelist, but came to bear witness of the light[471]. He was not the sun in the heavens: he was only the waning lamp, which shines when kindled from without and burns itself away in shining. His light might well gladden the Jews while it lasted, but this was only ‘for a season[472].’ John himself lost no opportunity of bearing his testimony to the loftier claims of Jesus[473]. From such notices it is plain that in the interval between the preaching of St Paul and the Gospel of St John the memory of the Baptist at Ephesus had assumed a new attitude towards Christianity. His name is no longer the sign of imperfect appreciation, but the watchword of direct antagonism. John had been set up as a rival Messiah to Jesus. In other words, this Gospel indicates the spread of Hemerobaptist principles, if not the presence of a Hemerobaptist community, in proconsular Asia, when it was written. In two respects these Hemerobaptists distorted the facts of history. [Sidenote: The facts of history distorted by them.]They perverted John’s teaching, and they misrepresented his office. His baptism was no more a single rite, once performed and initiating an amendment of life; it was a daily recurrence atoning for sin and sanctifying the person[474]. He himself was no longer the forerunner of the Messiah; he was the very Messiah[475]. [Sidenote: Spread of Hemerobaptist principles.]In the latter half of the first century, it would seem, there was a great movement among large numbers of the Jews in favour of frequent baptism, as the one purificatory rite essential to salvation. Of this superstition we have had an instance already in the anchorite Banus to whom Josephus attached himself as a disciple. Its presence in the western districts of Asia Minor is shown by a Sibylline poem, dating about A.D. 80, which I have already had occasion to quote[476]. Some years earlier these sectarians are mentioned by name as opposing James the Lord’s brother and the Twelve at Jerusalem[477]. Nor is there any reason for questioning their existence as a sect in Palestine during the later years of the Apostolic age, though the source from which our information comes is legendary, and the story itself a fabrication. But when or how they first connected themselves with the name of John the Baptist, and whether this assumption was made by all alike or only by one section of them, we do not know. Such a connexion, however false to history, was obvious and natural; nor would it be difficult to accumulate parallels to this false appropriation of an honoured name. Baptism was the fundamental article of their creed; and John was the Baptist of world-wide fame. [Sidenote: A wrong use made of John’s name.]Nothing more than this was needed for the choice of an eponym. From St John’s Gospel it seems clear that this appropriation was already contemplated, if not completed, at Ephesus before the first century had drawn to a close. In the second century the assumption is recognised as a characteristic of these Hemerobaptists, or Baptists, as they are once called[478], alike by those who allow and those who deny its justice[479]. Even in our age the name of ‘John’s disciples’ has been given, though wrongly given, to an obscure sect in Babylonia, the Mandeans, whose doctrine and practice have some affinities to the older sect, and of whom perhaps they are the collateral, if not the direct, descendants[480].

Footnote 468:

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

Footnote 469:

This appears from the whole narrative, but is distinctly stated in ver. 25, as correctly read, ἐδίδασκεν ἀκριβῶς τὰ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, not τοῦ κυρίου as in the received text.

Footnote 470:

The πιστεῦσαντες in xix. 1 is slightly ambiguous, and some expressions in the passage might suggest the opposite: but μαθητὰς 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.

Footnote 471:

John i. 8.

Footnote 472:

John v. 35 ἐκεῖνος ἧν ὁ λύχνος ὁ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων κ.τ.λ. The word καίειν is not only ‘to burn,’ but not unfrequently also ‘to kindle, to set on fire,’ as e.g. Xen. Anab. iv. 4. 12 οἱ ἄλλοι ἀναστάντες πῦρ ἔκαιον, so that ὁ καιόμενος 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 εἰ ἁμαρτάνοντες καὶ κολαφιζόμενοι ὑπομενεῖτε ... εἰ ἀγαθοποιοῦντες καὶ πάσχοντες ὑπομενεῖτε, 1 Thess. iv. 1 πῶς δεῖ περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν Θεῷ.

Footnote 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 οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ ἅιματι· καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα κ.τ.λ.; comp. Acts i. 5, xi. 16, xix. 4.

Footnote 474:

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

Footnote 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.

Footnote 476:

See above p. 96.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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, מנדייא Mandāyē, contracted from מנדא דחייא Mandā dĕchāyē ‘the word of life.’ This is their own name among themselves, and points to their Gnostic pretentions. (2) Sabeans, Tsabiyun, possibly from the root צבע ‘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, נצורייא Nātsōrāyē. 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.

[Sidenote: (b) Their relation to the Essenes.]

(b) Of the connexion between this sect and John the Baptist we have been able to give a probable, though necessarily hypothetical account. But when we attempt to determine its relation to the Essenes, we find ourselves entangled in a hopeless mesh of perplexities. The notices are so confused, the affinities so subtle, the ramifications so numerous, that it becomes a desperate task to distinguish and classify these abnormal Jewish and Judaizing heresies. [Sidenote: They were at first distinct, if not antagonistic.] One fact however seems clear that, whatever affinities they may have had originally, and whatever relations they may have contracted afterwards with one another, the Hemerobaptists, properly speaking, were not Essenes. The Sibylline poem which may be regarded as in some respects a Hemerobaptist manifesto contains, as we saw, many traits inconsistent with pure Essenism[481]. In two several accounts, the memoirs of Hegesippus and the Apostolic Constitutions, the Hemerobaptists are expressly distinguished from the Essenes[482]. In an early production of Judaic Christianity, whose Judaism has a strong Essene tinge, the Clementine Homilies, they and their eponym are condemned in the strongest language. The system of syzygies, or pairs of opposites, is a favourite doctrine of this work, and in these John stands contrasted to Jesus, as Simon Magus to Simon Peter, as the false to the true; for according to this author’s philosophy of history the manifestation of the false always precedes the manifestation of the true[483]. And again, Epiphanius speaks of them as agreeing substantially in their doctrines, not with the Essenes, but with the Scribes and Pharisees[484]. His authority on such a point may be worth very little; but connected with other notices, it should not be passed over in silence. Yet, whatever may have been their differences, the Hemerobaptists and the Essenes had one point of direct contact, their belief in the moral efficacy of lustrations. When the temple and polity were destroyed, the shock vibrated through the whole fabric of Judaism, loosening and breaking up existing societies, and preparing the way for new combinations. [Sidenote: But after the destruction of the Temple]More especially the cessation of the sacrificial rites must have produced a profound effect equally on those who, like the Essenes, had condemned them already, and on those who, as possibly was the case with the Hemerobaptists, had hitherto remained true to the orthodox ritual. [Sidenote: there may have been a fusion.]One grave obstacle to friendly overtures was thus removed; and a fusion, more or less complete, may have been the consequence. At all events the relations of the Jewish sects must have been materially affected by this great national crisis, as indeed we know to have been the case. In the confusion which follows, it is impossible to attain any clear view of their history. At the beginning of the second century however this pseudo-baptist movement received a fresh impulse from the pretended revelation of Elchesai, which came from the farther East[485]. Henceforth Elchesai is the prominent name in the history of those Jewish and Judaizing sects whose proper home is east of the Jordan[486], and who appear to have reproduced, with various modifications derived from Christian and Heathen sources, the Gnostic theology and the pseudo-baptist ritual of their Essene predecessors. It is still preserved in the records of the only extant people who have any claim to be regarded as the religious heirs of the Essenes. Elchesai is regarded as the founder of the sect of Mandeans[487].

Footnote 481:

See p. 96 sq.

Footnote 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).

Footnote 483:

Clem. Hom. ii. 23 Ἰωάννης τις ἐγένετο ἡμεροβαπτιστής, ὃς καὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ κατὰ τὸν τῆς συζυγίας λόγον ἐγένετο πρόοδος. 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.

Footnote 484:

Hær. xvii. 1 (p. 37) ἴσα τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων φρονοῦσα. 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.’

Footnote 485:

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

Footnote 486:

See above p. 137.

Footnote 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 (الحسيح) 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) δύναμις κεκαλυμμένη (חיל כסי) is different and probably correct (see Galatians p. 312).

[Sidenote: (ii) James the Lord’s Brother]

(ii) But, if great weight has been attached to the supposed connexion of John the Baptist with the Essenes, the case of James the Lord’s brother has been alleged with still more confidence. Here, it is said, we have an indisputable Essene connected by the closest family ties with the Founder of Christianity. [Sidenote: invested with Essene characteristics.]James is reported to have been holy from his birth; to have drunk no wine nor strong drink; to have eaten no flesh; to have allowed no razor to touch his head, no oil to anoint his body; to have abstained from using the bath; and lastly to have worn no wool, but only fine linen[488]. Here we have a description of Nazarite practices at least and (must it not be granted) of Essene tendencies also.

But what is our authority for this description? The writer, from whom the account is immediately taken, is the Jewish-Christian historian Hegesippus, who flourished about A.D. 170. He cannot therefore have been an eye-witness of the facts which he relates. [Sidenote: But the account comes from untrustworthy sources.]And his whole narrative betrays its legendary character. Thus his account of James’s death, which follows immediately on this description, is highly improbable and melodramatic in itself, and directly contradicts the contemporary notice of Josephus in its main facts[489]. From whatever source therefore Hegesippus may have derived his information, it is wholly untrustworthy. Nor can we doubt that he was indebted to one of those romances with which the Judaizing Christians of Essene tendencies loved to gratify the natural curiosity of their disciples respecting the first founders of the Church[490]. In like manner Essene portraits are elsewhere preserved of the Apostles Peter[491] and Matthew[492], which represent them as living on a spare diet of herbs and berries. I believe also that I have elsewhere pointed out the true source of this description in Hegesippus, and that it is taken from the ‘Ascents of James[493],’ a Judæo-Christian work stamped, as we happen to know, with the most distinctive Essene features[494]. But if we turn from these religious novels of Judaic Christianity to earlier and more trustworthy sources of information—to the Gospels or the Acts or the Epistles of St Paul—we fail to discover the faintest traces of Essenism in James. [Sidenote: No Essene features in the true portraits of James or of the earliest disciples.]‘The historical James,’ says a recent writer, ‘shows Pharisaic but not Essene sympathies[495].’ This is true of James, as it is true of the early disciples in the mother Church of Jerusalem generally. The temple-ritual, the daily-sacrifices, suggested no scruples to them. The only distinction of meats, which they recognised, was the distinction of animals clean and unclean as laid down by the Mosaic law. The only sacrificial victims, which they abhorred, were victims offered to idols. They took their part in the religious offices, and mixed freely in the common life, of their fellow-Israelites, distinguished from them only in this, that to their Hebrew inheritance they superadded the knowledge of a higher truth and the joy of a better hope. It was altogether within the sphere of orthodox Judaism that the Jewish element in the Christian brotherhood found its scope. Essene peculiarities are the objects neither of sympathy nor of antipathy. In the history of the infant Church for the first quarter of a century Essenism is as though it were not.

Footnote 488:

Hegesippus in Euseb. H.E. ii. 23.

Footnote 489:

See Galatians p. 348 sq.

Footnote 490:

See Galatians p. 311.

Footnote 491:

Clem. Hom. xii. 6, where St Peter is made to say ἄρτῳ μόνῳ καὶ ἐλαίαις χρῶμαι, καὶ σπανίως λαχάνοις; comp. xv. 7 ὕδατος μόνου καὶ ἄρτου.

Footnote 492:

Clem. Alex. Pædag. ii. 1 (p. 174) σπερμάτων καὶ ἀκροδρύων καὶ λαχάνων ἄνευ κρεῶν μετελα.μβανεν.

Footnote 493:

See Galatians p. 349, note.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 495:

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

[Sidenote: Essene influences visible before the close of the Apostolic age.]

But a time came, when all this was changed. Even as early as the year 58, when St Paul wrote to the Romans, we detect practices in the Christian community of the metropolis, which may possibly have been due to Essene influences[496]. Five or six years later, the heretical teaching which threatened the integrity of the Gospel at Colossæ shows that this type of Judaism was already strong enough within the Church to exert a dangerous influence on its doctrinal purity. Then came the great convulsion—the overthrow of the Jewish polity and nation. This was the turning-point in the relations between Essenism and Christianity, at least in Palestine. [Sidenote: Consequences of the Jewish war.]The Essenes were extreme sufferers in the Roman war of extermination. It seems probable that their organization was entirely broken up. Thus cast adrift, they were free to enter into other combinations, while the shock of the recent catastrophe would naturally turn their thoughts into new channels. At the same time the nearer proximity of the Christians, who had migrated to Peræa during the war, would bring them into close contact with the new faith and subject them to its influences, as they had never been subjected before[497]. But, whatever may be the explanation, the fact seems certain, that after the destruction of Jerusalem the Christian body was largely reinforced from their ranks. The Judaizing tendencies among the Hebrew Christians, which hitherto had been wholly Pharisaic, are henceforth largely Essene.

Footnote 496:

Rom. xiv. 2, 21.

Footnote 497:

See Galatians p. 310 sq.

[Sidenote: 2. Do the resemblances favour the theory of a connexion?]

2. If then history fails to reveal any such external connexion with Essenism in Christ and His Apostles as to justify the opinion that Essene influences contributed largely to the characteristic features of the Gospel, such a view, if tenable at all, must find its support in some striking coincidence between the doctrines and practices of the Essenes and those which its Founder stamped upon Christianity. This indeed is the really important point; for without it the external connexion, even if proved, would be valueless. The question is not whether Christianity arose amid such and such circumstances, but how far it was created and moulded by those circumstances.

[Sidenote: (i) Observance of the sabbath.]

(i) Now one point which especially strikes us in the Jewish historian’s account of the Essenes, is their strict observance of certain points in the Mosaic ceremonial law, more especially the ultra-Pharisaic rigour with which they kept the sabbath. How far their conduct in this respect was consistent with the teaching and practice of Christ may be seen from the passages quoted in the parallel columns which follow:

‘Jesus went on the sabbath-day through the corn fields; and his disciples began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat[498].... But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, ‘Behold, thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath-day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did.... The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is Lord even of the sabbath-day....’

‘It is lawful to do well on the sabbath-days’ (Matt. xii. 1–12; Mark ii. 23.-iii. 6; Luke vi. 1–11, xiv. 1–6. See also a similar incident in Luke xiii. 10–17). ‘The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured; It is the sabbath-day; it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. But he answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed and walk.... Therefore the Jews did persecute Jesus and sought to slay him, because he did these things on the sabbath-day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work, etc. (John v. 10–18; comp. vii. 22, 23).’ ‘And it was the sabbath-day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.... Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath-day (John ix. 14, 16).’

‘And they avoid ... touching any work (ἐφάπτεσθαι ἔργων) on the sabbath-day more scrupulously than any of the Jews (διαφορώτατα Ἰουδαίων ἁπάντων); for they do not venture so much as to move a vessel[499], nor to perform the most necessary offices of life (B.J. ii. 8. 9).’

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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 καὶ οὐκ ἤφιεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἵνα τις διενέγκῃ σκεῦος διὰ τοῦ ἱεροῦ with Josephus B.J. ii. 8. 9 ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ σκεῦός τι μετακινῆσαι θαρροῦσιν οἵ Ἐσσαῖοἰ.’ 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.

[Sidenote: (ii) Lustrations and other ceremonial observances.]

(ii) But there were other points of ceremonial observance, in which the Essenes superadded to the law. Of these the most remarkable was their practice of constant lustrations. In this respect the Pharisee was sufficiently minute and scrupulous in his observances; but with the Essene these ablutions were the predominant feature of his religious ritual. Here again it will be instructive to compare the practice of Christ and His disciples with the practice of the Essenes.

‘And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled (that is to say, unwashen) hands; for the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft (πυγμῇ), eat not...The Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders.... But he answered ... Ye hypocrites, laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men....’

‘Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth the man.... Let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind....’

‘To eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man (Matt. xv. 1–20, Mark vii. 1–23).’

‘So they wash their whole body (ἀπολούονται τὸ σῶμα) in cold water; and after this purification (ἁγνείαν) ... being clean (καθαροὶ) they come to the refectory (to dine).... And when they have returned (from their day’s work) they sup in like manner (B.J. ii. 8. 5).’

‘After a year’s probation (the novice) is admitted to closer intercourse (πρόσεισιν ἔγγιον τῇ διαίτῃ), and the lustral waters in which he participates have a higher degree of purity (καὶ καθαρωτέρων τῶν πρὸς ἁγνείαν ὑδάτων μεταλαμβάνει, § 7).’

‘It is a custom to wash after it, as if polluted by it (§ 9).’

‘And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner (τοῦ ἀρίστου). And the Lord said unto him: Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter.... Ye fools ... behold all things are clean unto you (Luke xi. 38–41).’

‘Racked and dislocated, burnt and crushed, and subjected to every instrument of torture ... to make them eat strange food (τι τῶν ἀσυνήθων) ... they were not induced to submit (§ 10).’

‘Exercising themselves in ... divers lustrations (διαφόροις ἁγνείαις ... ἐμπαιδοτριβούμενοι, § 12).’

[Sidenote: Avoidance of strangers.]

Connected with this idea of external purity is the avoidance of contact with strangers, as persons who would communicate ceremonial defilement. And here too the Essene went much beyond the Pharisee. The Pharisee avoided Gentiles or aliens, or those whose profession or character placed them in the category of ‘sinners’; but the Essene shrunk even from the probationers and inferior grades of his own exclusive community. Here again we may profitably compare the sayings and doings of Christ with the principles of this sect.

‘And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with the publicans and sinners they said unto the disciples, Why eateth your Master with the publicans and the sinners....’ (Mark ii. 15 sq.; Matth. ix. 10 sq., Luke v. 30 sq.)

‘They say ... a friend of publicans and sinners (Matth. xi. 19).’

‘The Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them (Luke xv. 2).’

‘They all murmured saying that he was gone to be a guest with a man that is a sinner (Luke xix. 7).’

‘Behold, a woman in the city that was a sinner ... began to wash his feet with her tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head and kissed his feet.... Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself saying, This man, if he had been a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him; for she is a sinner (Luke vii. 37 sq.).’

‘And after this purification they assemble in a private room, where no person of a different belief (τῶν ἑτεροδόξων, i.e. not an Essene) is permitted to enter; and (so) being by themselves and clean (αὐτοὶ καθαροὶ) they present themselves at the refectory (δειπνητήριον), as if it were a sacred precinct (§ 5).’

‘And they are divided into four grades according to the time passed under the discipline: and the juniors are regarded as so far inferior to the seniors, that, if they touch them, the latter wash their bodies clean (ἀπολούεσθαι), as if they had come in contact with a foreigner (καθάπερ ἀλλοφύλῳ συμφυρέντας, § 10).’

In all these minute scruples relating to ceremonial observances, the denunciations which are hurled against the Pharisees in the Gospels would apply with tenfold force to the Essenes.

[Sidenote: (iii) Asceticism.]

(iii) If the lustrations of the Essenes far outstripped the enactments of the Mosaic law, so also did their asceticism. I have given reasons above for believing that this asceticism was founded on a false principle, which postulates the malignity of matter and is wholly inconsistent with the teaching of the Gospel[500]. But without pressing this point, of which no absolutely demonstrative proof can be given, it will be sufficient to call attention to the trenchant contrast in practice which Essene habits present to the life of Christ. He who ‘came eating and drinking’ and was denounced in consequence as ‘a glutton and a wine-bibber’[501], [Sidenote: Eating and drinking.]He whose first exercise of power is recorded to have been the multiplication of wine at a festive entertainment, and whose last meal was attended with the drinking of wine and the eating of flesh, could only have excited the pity, if not the indignation, of these rigid abstainers. And again, attention should be directed to another kind of abstinence, where the contrast is all the more speaking, because the matter is so trivial and the scruple so minute.

Footnote 500:

See above p. 87.

Footnote 501:

Matt. xi. 19, Luke vii. 34.

‘My head with oil thou didst not anoint (Luke vii. 46).’

‘Thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy head (Matt. vi. 17).’

‘And they consider oil a pollution (κηλῖδα), and though one is smeared involuntarily, he rubs his body clean (σμήχεται τὸ σῶμα, § 3).’

And yet it has been stated that ‘the Saviour of the world ... showed what is required for a holy life in the Sermon on the Mount by a description of the Essenes[502].’

Footnote 502:

Ginsburg Essenes p. 14.

[Sidenote: Celibacy.]

But much stress has been laid on the celibacy of the Essenes; and our Lord’s saying in Matt. xix. 12 is quoted to establish an identity of doctrine. Yet there is nothing special in the language there used. Nor is there any close affinity between the stern invectives against marriage which Josephus and Philo attribute to the Essene, and the gentle concession ‘He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.’ The best comment on our Lord’s meaning here is the advice of St Paul[503], who was educated not in the Essene, but in the Pharisaic school. Moreover this saying must be balanced by the general tenour of the Gospel narrative. When we find Christ discussing the relations of man and wife, gracing the marriage festival by His presence, again and again employing wedding banquets and wedded life as apt symbols of the highest theological truths, without a word of disparagement or rebuke, we see plainly that we are confronted with a spirit very different from the narrow rigour of the Essenes.

Footnote 503:

1 Cor. vii. 26–31.

[Sidenote: (iv) Avoidance of the Temple sacrifices.]

(iv) But not only where the Essenes superadded to the ceremonial law, does their teaching present a direct contrast to the phenomena of the Gospel narrative. The same is true also of those points in which they fell short of the Mosaic enactments. I have already discussed at some length the Essene abstention from the temple sacrifices[504]. There can, I think, be little doubt that they objected to the slaughter of sacrificial victims altogether. But for my present purpose it matters nothing whether they avoided the temple on account of the sacrifices, or the sacrifices on account of the temple. Christ did neither. Certainly He could not have regarded the temple as unholy; for his whole time during his sojourns at Jerusalem was spent within its precincts. It was the scene of His miracles, of His ministrations, of His daily teaching[505]. And in like manner it is the common rendezvous of His disciples after Him[506]. Nor again does He evince any abhorrence of the sacrifices. On the contrary He says that the altar consecrates the gifts[507]; He charges the cleansed lepers to go and fulfil the Mosaic ordinance and offer the sacrificial offerings to the priests[508]. [Sidenote: Practice of Christ and His disciples.]And His practice also is conformable to His teaching. He comes to Jerusalem regularly to attend the great festivals, where sacrifices formed the most striking part of the ceremonial, and He himself enjoins preparation to be made for the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb. If He repeats the inspired warning of the older prophets, that mercy is better than sacrifice[509], this very qualification shows approval of the practice in itself. Nor is His silence less eloquent than His utterances or His actions. Throughout the Gospels there is not one word which can be construed as condemning the sacrificial system or as implying a desire for its cessation until everything is fulfilled.

Footnote 504:

See p. 134 sq.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 506:

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

Footnote 507:

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

Footnote 508:

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

Footnote 509:

Matt. ix. 13, xii. 7.

[Sidenote: (v) Denial of the resurrection of the body.]

(v) This last contrast refers to the ceremonial law. But not wide is the divergence on an important point of doctrine. The resurrection of the body is a fundamental article in the belief of the early disciples. This was distinctly denied by the Essenes[510]. However gross and sensuous may have been the conceptions of the Pharisees on this point, still they so far agreed with the teaching of Christianity, as against the Essenes, in that the risen man could not, as they held, be pure soul or spirit, but must necessarily be body and soul conjoint.

Footnote 510:

See above p. 88.

[Sidenote: Some supposed coincidences considered.]

Thus at whatever point we test the teaching and practice of our Lord by the characteristic tenets of Essenism, the theory of affinity fails. There are indeed several coincidences on which much stress has been laid, but they cannot be placed in the category of distinctive features. They are either exemplifications of a higher morality, which may indeed have been honourably illustrated in the Essenes, but is in no sense confined to them, being the natural outgrowth of the moral sense of mankind whenever circumstances are favourable. Or they are more special, but still independent developments, which owe their similarity to the same influences of climate and soil, though they do not spring from the same root. To this latter class belong such manifestations as are due to the social conditions of the age or nation, whether they result from sympathy with, or from repulsion to, those conditions.

[Sidenote: Simplicity and brotherly love.]

Thus, for instance, much stress has been laid on the aversion to war and warlike pursuits, on the simplicity of living, and on the feeling of brotherhood which distinguished Christians and Essenes alike. But what is gained by all this? It is quite plain that Christ would have approved whatever was pure and lovely in the morality of the Essenes, just as He approved whatever was true in the doctrine of the Pharisees, if any occasion had presented itself when His approval was called for. But it is the merest assumption to postulate direct obligation on such grounds. It is said however, that the moral resemblances are more particular than this. [Sidenote: Prohibition of oaths.]There is for instance Christ’s precept ‘Swear not at all ... but let your communication be Yea, yea, Nay, nay.’ Have we not here, it is urged, the very counterpart to the Essene prohibition of oaths[511]? Yet it would surely be quite as reasonable to say that both alike enforce that simplicity and truthfulness in conversation which is its own credential and does not require the support of adjuration, both having the same reason for laying stress on this duty, because the leaders of religious opinion made artificial distinctions between oath and oath, as regards their binding force, and thus sapped the foundations of public and private honesty[512]. And indeed this avoidance of oaths is anything but a special badge of the Essenes. It was inculcated by Pythagoreans, by Stoics, by philosophers and moralists of all schools[513]. When Josephus and Philo called the attention of Greeks and Romans to this feature in the Essenes, they were simply asking them to admire in these practical philosophers among the ‘barbarians’ the realisation of an ideal which their own great men had laid down. Even within the circles of Pharisaism language is occasionally heard, which meets the Essene principle half-way[514].

Footnote 511:

Jos. B.J. ii. 8. 6 πᾶν τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ἰσχυρότερον ὅρκου· τὸ δὲ ὀμνύειν αὐτοῖς περιΐσταται, χεῖρόν τι τῆς ἐπιορκίας ὑπολαμβάνοντες· ἤδη γὰρ κατεγνῶσθαί φασι τὸν ἀπιστούμενον δίχα θεοῦ, Philo Omn. prob. lib. 12 (II. p. 458) τοῦ φιλοθέου δείγματα παρέχονται μυρία ... τὸ ἀνώμοτον κ.τ.λ. 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 (ὅρκους φρικώδεις) to fulfil certain conditions; and he twice again in the same passage mentions oaths (ὀμνύουσι, τοιούτοις ὅρκοις) in this connexion.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 513:

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

Footnote 514:

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

[Sidenote: Community of goods.]

And again; attention has been called to the community of goods in the infant Church of Christ, as though this were a legacy of Essenism. But here too the reasonable explanation is, that we have an independent attempt to realise the idea of brotherhood—an attempt which naturally suggested itself without any direct imitation, but which was soon abandoned under the pressure of circumstances. Indeed the communism of the Christians was from the first wholly unlike the communism of the Essenes. The surrender of property with the Christians was not a necessary condition of entrance into an order; it was a purely voluntary act, which might be withheld without foregoing the privileges of the brotherhood[515]. And the common life too was obviously different in kind, at once more free and more sociable, unfettered by rigid ordinances, respecting individual liberty, and altogether unlike a monastic rule.

Footnote 515:

514: Acts v. 4.

Not less irrelevant is the stress, which has been laid on another point of supposed coincidence in the social doctrines of the two communities. [Sidenote: Prohibition of slavery.]The prohibition of slavery was indeed a highly honourable feature in the Essene order[516], but it affords no indication of a direct connexion with Christianity. It is true that this social institution of antiquity was not less antagonistic to the spirit of the Gospel, than it was abhorrent to the feelings of the Essene; and ultimately the influence of Christianity has triumphed over it. But the immediate treatment of the question was altogether different in the two cases. The Essene brothers proscribed slavery wholly; they produced no appreciable results by the proscription. The Christian Apostles, without attempting an immediate and violent revolution in society, proclaimed the great principle that all men are equal in Christ, and left it to work. It did work, like leaven, silently but surely, till the whole lump was leavened. In the matter of slavery the resemblance to the Stoic is much closer than to the Essene[517]. The Stoic however began and ended in barren declamation, and no practical fruits were reaped from his doctrine.

Footnote 516:

Philo Omn. prob. lib. § 12 (II. p. 458) δοῦλός τε παρ’ αὐτοῖς οἰδὲ εἶς ἐστιν ἀλλ’ ἐλεύθεροι πάντες κ.τ.λ., Fragm. II. p. 632 οὐκ ἀνδράποδον, Jos. Ant. xviii. I. 5 οὔτε δούλων ἐπιτηδεύουσι κτῆσιν.

Footnote 517:

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

[Sidenote: Respect paid to poverty.]

Moreover prominence has been given to the fact, that riches are decried, and a preference is given to the poor, in the teaching of our Lord and His Apostles. Here again, it is urged, we have a distinctly Essene feature. We need not stop to enquire with what limitations this prerogative of poverty, which appears in the Gospels, must be interpreted; but, quite independently of this question, we may fairly decline to lay any stress on such a coincidence, where all other indications of a direct connexion have failed. The Essenes, pursuing a simple and ascetic life, made it their chief aim to reduce their material wants as far as possible, and in doing so they necessarily exalted poverty. Ascetic philosophers in Greece and Rome had done the same. Christianity was entrusted with the mission of proclaiming the equal rights of all men before God, of setting a truer standard of human worth than the outward conventions of the world, of protesting against the tyranny of the strong and the luxury of the rich, of redressing social inequalities, if not always by a present compensation, at least by a future hope. The needy and oppressed were the special charge of its preachers. It was the characteristic feature of the ‘Kingdom of Heaven,’ as described by the prophet whose words gave the keynote to the Messianic hopes of the nation, that the glad-tidings should be preached to the poor[518]. The exaltation of poverty therefore was an absolute condition of the Gospel.

Footnote 518:

Is. lxi. I. εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς, 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 μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοί κ.τ.λ., Matt. v. 3, Luke vi. 20.

[Sidenote: The preaching of the Kingdom wrongly ascribed to the Essenes.]

The mention of the kingdom of heaven leads to the last point on which it will be necessary to touch before leaving this subject. ‘The whole ascetic life of the Essenes,’ it has been said, ‘aimed only at furthering the Kingdom of Heaven and the Coming Age.’ Thus John the Baptist was the proper representative of this sect. ‘From the Essenes went forth the first call that the Messiah must shortly appear, The kingdom of heaven is at hand’[519]. ‘The announcement of the kingdom of heaven unquestionably went forth from the Essenes’[520]. For this confident assertion there is absolutely no foundation in fact; and, as a conjectural hypothesis, the assumption is highly improbable.

Footnote 519:

Grätz Gesch. III. p. 219.

Footnote 520:

ib. p. 470.

[Sidenote: The Essenes not prophets, but fortune-tellers.]

As fortune-tellers or soothsayers, the Essenes might be called prophets; but as preachers of righteousness, as heralds of the kingdom, they had no claim to the title. Throughout the notices in Josephus and Philo we cannot trace the faintest indication of Messianic hopes. Nor indeed was their position at all likely to foster such hopes[521]. The Messianic idea was built on a belief in the resurrection of the body. The Essenes entirely denied this doctrine. The Messianic idea was intimately bound up with the national hopes and sufferings, with the national life, of the Jews. The Essenes had no interest in the Jewish polity; they separated themselves almost entirely from public affairs. [Sidenote: They had no vivid Messianic expectations.]The deliverance of the individual is the shipwreck of the whole, it has been well said, was the plain watchword of Essenism[522]. How entirely the conception of a Messiah might be obliterated, where Judaism was regarded only from the side of a mystic philosophy, we see from the case of Philo. Throughout the works of this voluminous writer only one or two faint and doubtful allusions to a personal Messiah are found[523]. The philosophical tenets of the Essenes no doubt differed widely from those of Philo; but in the substitution of the individual and contemplative aspect of religion for the national and practical they were united; and the effect in obscuring the Messianic idea would be the same. When therefore it is said that the prominence given to the proclamation of the Messiah’s kingdom is a main link which connects Essenism and Christianity, we may dismiss the statement as a mere hypothesis, unsupported by evidence and improbable in itself.

Footnote 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.’

Footnote 522:

Keim l.c.

Footnote 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 Pœnis (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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.

[Sidenote: The understanding of the heresy necessary.]

Without the preceding investigation the teaching of this epistle would be very imperfectly understood; for its direction was necessarily determined by the occasion which gave rise to it. Only when we have once grasped the nature of the doctrine which St Paul is combating, do we perceive that every sentence is instinct with life and meaning.

[Sidenote: The errors though twofold sprang from one root.]

We have seen that the error of the heretical teachers was twofold. They had a false conception in theology, and they had a false basis of morals. It has been pointed out also, that these two were closely connected together, and had their root in the same fundamental error, the idea of matter as the abode of evil and thus antagonistic to God.

[Sidenote: So the answer to both is in the same truth.]

As the two elements of the heretical doctrine were derived from the same source, so the reply to both was sought by the Apostle in the same idea, the conception of the Person of Christ as the one absolute mediator between God and man, the true and only reconciler of heaven and earth.

But though they are thus ultimately connected, yet it will be necessary for the fuller understanding of St Paul’s position to take them apart, and to consider first the theological and then the ethical teaching of the epistle.

[Sidenote: 1. The theological teaching of the heretics.]

1. This Colossian heresy was no coarse and vulgar development of falsehood. It soared far above the Pharisaic Judaism which St Paul refutes in the Epistle to the Galatians. The questions in which it was interested lie at the very root of our religious consciousness. [Sidenote: Its lofty motive,]The impulse was given to its speculations by an overwhelming sense of the unapproachable majesty of God, by an instinctive recognition of the chasm which separates God from man, from the world, from matter. Its energy was sustained by the intense yearning after some mediation which might bridge over this chasm, might establish inter-communion between the finite and the Infinite. Up to this point it was deeply religious in the best sense of the term.

[Sidenote: but complete failure.]

The answer which it gave to these questions we have already seen. In two respects this answer failed signally. On the one hand it was drawn from the atmosphere of mystical speculation. It had no foundation in history, and made no appeal to experience. On the other hand, notwithstanding its complexity, it was unsatisfactory in its results; for in this plurality of mediators none was competent to meet the requirements of the case. God here and man there—no angel or spirit, whether one or more, being neither God nor man, could truly reconcile the two. Thus as regards credentials it was without a guarantee; while as regards efficiency it was wholly inadequate.

[Sidenote: The Apostle’s answer is in the Person of Christ.]

The Apostle pointed out to the Colossians a more excellent way. It was the one purpose of Christianity to satisfy those very yearnings which were working in their hearts, to solve that very problem which had exercised their minds. In Christ they would find the answer which they sought. His life—His cross and resurrection—was the guarantee; [Sidenote: The mediator in the world and in the Church.]His Person—the Word Incarnate—was the solution. He alone filled up, He alone could fill up, the void which lay between God and man, could span the gulf which separated the Creator and creation. This solution offered by the Gospel is as simple as it is adequate. To their cosmical speculations, and to their religious yearnings alike, Jesus Christ is the true answer. In the World, as in the Church, He is the one only mediator, the one only reconciler. This two-fold idea runs like a double thread through the fabric of the Apostle’s teaching in those passages of the epistle where he is describing the Person of Christ.

It will be convenient for the better understanding of St Paul’s teaching to consider these two aspects of Christ’s mediation apart—its function in the natural and in the spiritual order respectively.

[Sidenote: (i) In the Universe.]

(i) The heresy of the Colossian teachers took its rise, as we saw, in their cosmical speculations. It was therefore natural that the Apostle in replying should lay stress on the function of the Word in the creation and government of the world. This is the aspect of His work most prominent in the first of the two distinctly Christological passages. The Apostle there predicates of the Word, not only prior, but absolute existence. All things were created through Him, are sustained in Him, are tending towards Him. Thus He is the beginning, middle, and end, of creation. This He is, because He is the very image of the Invisible God, because in Him dwells the plenitude of Deity.

[Sidenote: Importance of this aspect of the Person of Christ,]

This creative and administrative work of Christ the Word in the natural order of things is always emphasized in the writings of the Apostles, when they touch upon the doctrine of His Person. It stands in the forefront of the prologue to St John’s Gospel: it is hardly less prominent in the opening of the Epistle to the Hebrews. His mediatorial function in the Church is represented as flowing from His mediatorial function in the world. With ourselves this idea has retired very much into the background. Though in the creed common to all the Churches we profess our belief in Him, as the Being ‘through whom all things were created,’ yet in reality this confession seems to exercise very little influence on our thoughts. And the loss is serious. How much our theological conceptions suffer in breadth and fulness by the neglect, a moment’s reflexion will show. How much more hearty would be the sympathy of theologians with the revelations of science and the developments of history, if they habitually connected them with the operation of the same Divine Word who is the centre of all their religious aspirations, it is needless to say. Through the recognition of this idea with all the consequences which flow from it, as a living influence, more than in any other way, may we hope to strike the chords of that ‘vaster music,’ which results only from the harmony of knowledge and faith, of reverence and research.

[Sidenote: notwithstanding difficulties yet unsolved.]

It will be said indeed, that this conception leaves untouched the philosophical difficulties which beset the subject; that creation still remains as much a mystery as before. This may be allowed. But is there any reason to think that with our present limited capacities the veil which shrouds it ever will be or can be removed? The metaphysical speculations of twenty-five centuries have done nothing to raise it. The physical investigations of our own age from their very nature can do nothing; for, busied with the evolution of phenomena, they lie wholly outside this question, and do not even touch the fringe of the difficulty. But meanwhile revelation has interposed and thrown out the idea, which, if it leaves many questions unsolved, gives a breadth and unity to our conceptions, at once satisfying our religious needs and linking our scientific instincts with our theological beliefs.

[Sidenote: (ii) In the Church.]

(ii) But, if Christ’s mediatorial office in the physical creation was the starting point of the Apostle’s teaching, His mediatorial office in the spiritual creation is its principal theme. The cosmogonies of the false teachers were framed not so much in the interests of philosophy as in the interests of religion; and the Apostle replies to them in the same spirit and with the same motive. If the function of Christ is unique in the Universe, so is it also in the Church. [Sidenote: Its absolute character.]He is the sole and absolute link between God and humanity. Nothing short of His personality would suffice as a medium of reconciliation between the two. Nothing short of His life and work in the flesh, as consummated in His passion, would serve as an assurance of God’s love and pardon. His cross is the atonement of mankind with God. He is the Head with whom all the living members of the body are in direct and immediate communication, who suggests their manifold activities to each, who directs their several functions in subordination to the healthy working of the whole, from whom they individually receive their inspiration and their strength.

[Sidenote: Hence angelic mediations are fundamentally wrong.]

And being all this He cannot consent to share His prerogative with others. He absorbs in Himself the whole function of mediation. Through Him alone, without any interposing link of communication, the human soul has access to the Father. Here was the true answer to those deep yearnings after spiritual communion with God, which sought, and could not find, satisfaction in the manifold and fantastic creations of a dreamy mysticism. The worship of angels might have the semblance of humility; but it was in fact a contemptuous defiance of the fundamental idea of the Gospel, a flat denial of the absolute character of Christ’s Person and office. It was a severance of the proper connexion with the Head, an amputation of the disordered limb, which was thus disjoined from the source of life and left to perish for want of spiritual nourishment.

[Sidenote: Christ’s mediation in the Church justified by His mediation in the World.]

The language of the New Testament writers is beset with difficulties, so long as we conceive of our Lord only in connexion with the Gospel revelation: but, when with the Apostles we realise in Him the same Divine Lord who is and ever has been the light of the whole world, who before Christianity wrought first in mankind at large through the avenues of the conscience, and afterwards more particularly in the Jews through a special though still imperfect revelation, then all these difficulties fall away. Then we understand the significance, and we recognise the truth, of such passages as these: ‘No man cometh unto the Father, but by me’: ‘There is no salvation in any other’; ‘He that disbelieveth the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth upon him[524].’ The exclusive claims advanced in Christ’s name have their full and perfect justification in the doctrine of the Eternal Word.

Footnote 524:

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

[Sidenote: Relation of the doctrine of the Word]

The old dispensation is primarily the revelation of the absolute sovereignty of God. It vindicates this truth against two opposing forms of error, which in their extreme types are represented by Pantheism and Manicheism respectively. [Sidenote: to the monotheism of the Old Testament.]The Pantheist identifies God with the world: the Manichee attributes to the world an absolute existence, independent of God. With the Pantheist sin ceases to have any existence: for it is only one form of God’s working. With the Manichee sin is inherent in matter, which is antagonistic to God. The teaching of the Old Testament, of which the key-note is struck in the opening chapters of Genesis, is a refutation of both these errors. God is distinct from the world, and He is the Creator of the world. Evil is not inherent in God, but neither is it inherent in the material world. Sin is the disobedience of intelligent beings whom He has created, and whom He has endowed with a free-will, which they can use or misuse.

[Sidenote: The New Testament is complementary to the Old.]

The revelation of the New Testament is the proper complement to the revelation of the Old. It holds this position in two main respects. If the Old Testament sets forth the absolute unity of God—His distinctness from and sovereignty over His creatures—the New Testament points out how He holds communion with the world and with humanity, how man becomes one with Him. And again, if the Old Testament shows the true character of sin, the New Testament teaches the appointed means of redemption. On the one hand the monotheism of the Old Testament is supplemented by the theanthropism[525] of the New. Thus the theology of revelation is completed. On the other hand, the hamartiology of the Old Testament has its counterpart in the soteriology of the New. Thus the economy of revelation is perfected.

Footnote 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.

[Sidenote: 2. The ethical error of the heretics.]

2. When we turn from the theology of these Colossian heretics to their ethical teaching, we find it characterised by the same earnestness. Of them it might indeed be said that they did ‘hunger and thirst after righteousness.’ [Sidenote: Their practical earnestness,]Escape from impurity, immunity from evil, was a passion with them. But it was no less true that notwithstanding all their sincerity they ‘went astray in the wilderness’; ‘hungry and thirsty, their soul fainted within them.’ By their fatal transference of the abode of sin from the human heart within to the material world without, they had incapacitated themselves from finding the true antidote. [Sidenote: but fundamental misconception and consequent failure.] Where they placed the evil, there they necessarily sought the remedy. Hence they attempted to fence themselves about, and to purify their lives by a code of rigorous prohibitions. Their energy was expended on battling with the physical conditions of human life. Their whole mind was absorbed in the struggle with imaginary forms of evil. Necessarily their character was moulded by the thoughts which habitually engaged them. Where the ‘elements of the world,’ the ‘things which perish in the using[526],’ engrossed all their attention, it could not fail but that they should be dragged down from the serene heights of the spiritual life into the cloudy atmosphere which shrouds this lower earth.

Footnote 526:

ii. 20, 22.

[Sidenote: St Paul substitutes a principle for ordinances.]

St Paul sets himself to combat this false tendency. For negative prohibitions he substitutes a positive principle; for special enactments, a comprehensive motive. He tells them that all their scrupulous restrictions are vain, because they fail to touch the springs of action. If they would overcome the evil, they must strike at the root of the evil. Their point of view must be entirely changed. They must transfer themselves into a wholly new sphere of energy. This transference is nothing less than a migration from earth to heaven—from the region of the external and transitory to the region of the spiritual and eternal[527]. For a code of rules they must substitute a principle of life, which is one in its essence but infinite in its application, which will meet every emergency, will control every action, will resist every form of evil.

Footnote 527:

iii. 1 sq.

[Sidenote: This principle is the heavenly life in Christ.]

This principle they have in Christ. With Him they have died to the world; with Him they have risen to God. Christ, the revelation of God’s holiness, of God’s righteousness, of God’s love, is light, is life, is heaven. With Him they have been translated into a higher sphere, have been brought face to face with the Eternal Presence. Let them only realise this translation. It involves new insight, new motives, new energies. They will no more waste themselves upon vexatious special restrictions: for they will be furnished with a higher inspiration which will cover all the minute details of action. They will not exhaust their energies in crushing this or that rising desire but they will kill the whole body[528] of their earthly passions through the strong arm of this personal communion with God in Christ.

Footnote 528:

ii. 11 ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός, iii. 5 νεκρώσατε οὖν τὰ μέλη with ver. 8 νυνὶ δὲ ἀπόθεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ πάντα, and ver. 9 ἀπεκδυσάμενοι τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον. See the notes on the several passages.

[Sidenote: St Paul’s doctrine of faith and works considered in the light of this principle.]

When we once grasp this idea, which lies at the root of St Paul’s ethical teaching, the moral difficulty which is supposed to attach to his doctrine of faith and works has vanished. It is simply an impossibility that faith should exist without works. Though in form he states his doctrine as a relation of contrast between the two, in substance it resolves itself into a question of precedence. Faith and works are related as principle and practice. Faith—the repose in the unseen, the recognition of eternal principles of truth and right, the sense of personal obligations to an Eternal Being who vindicates these principles—must come first. Faith is not an intellectual assent, nor a sympathetic sentiment merely. It is the absolute surrender of self to the will of a Being who has a right to command this surrender. It is this which places men in personal relation to God, which (in St Paul’s language) justifies them before God. For it touches the springs of their actions; it fastens not on this or that detail of conduct, but extends throughout the whole sphere of moral activity; and thus it determines their character as responsible beings in the sight of God.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: The Christology of this epistle]

From the above account it will have appeared that the distinctive feature of this epistle is its Christology. The doctrine of the Person of Christ is here stated with greater precision and fulness than in any other of St Paul’s epistles. It is therefore pertinent to ask (even though the answer must necessarily be brief) what relation this statement bears to certain other enunciations of the same doctrine; [Sidenote: considered in relation to]to those for instance which occur elsewhere in St Paul’s own letters, to those which are found in other Apostolic writings, and to those which appear in the fathers of the succeeding generations.

[Sidenote: 1. The Christology of St Paul’s earlier epistles]

1. The Christology of the Colossian Epistle is in no way different from that of the Apostle’s earlier letters. It may indeed be called a development of his former teaching, but only as exhibiting the doctrine in fresh relations, as drawing new deductions from it, as defining what had hitherto been left undefined, not as superadding any foreign element to it. The doctrine is practically involved in the opening and closing words of his earliest extant epistle: ‘The Church which is in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’; ‘The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you[529].’ The main conception of the Person of Christ, as enforced in the Colossian Epistle, alone justifies and explains this language, which otherwise would be emptied of all significance. And again; it had been enunciated by the Apostle explicitly, though briefly, in the earliest directly doctrinal passage which bears on the subject; ‘One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through Him[530].’ [Sidenote: the same in substance but]The absolute universal mediation of the Son is declared as unreservedly in this passage from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, as in any later statement of the Apostle: and, [Sidenote: less fully developed]if all the doctrinal and practical inferences which it implicitly involves were not directly emphasized at this early date, it was because the circumstances did not yet require explicitness on these points. New forms of error bring into prominence new aspects of the truth. The heresies of Laodicea and Colossæ have been invaluable to the later Church in this respect. The Apostle himself, it is not too much to say, realised with ever increasing force the manifoldness, the adaptability, the completeness of the Christian idea, notwithstanding its simplicity, as he opposed it to each successive development of error. The Person of Christ proved the complete answer to false speculations at Colossæ, as it had been found the sovereign antidote to false practices at Corinth. All these unforeseen harmonies must have appeared to him, as they will appear to us, fresh evidences of its truth.

Footnote 529:

1 Thess. i. 1, v. 28.

Footnote 530:

1 Cor. viii. 6 δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ. The expression δι’ οὗ 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.

[Sidenote: 2. The Christology of other Apostolic writings.]

[Sidenote: Their fundamental identity.]

2. And when we turn from St Paul to the other Apostolic writings which dwell on the Person of Christ from a doctrinal point of view, we find them enunciating it in language which implies the same fundamental conception, though they may not always present it in exactly the same aspect. More especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews first, and in the Gospel of St John afterwards, the form of expression is identical with the statement of St Paul. In both these writings the universe is said to have been created or to exist by or through Him. This is the crucial expression, which involves in itself all the higher conceptions of the Person of Christ[531]. The Epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been written by a disciple of St Paul immediately after the Apostle’s death, and therefore within some five or six years from the date which has been assigned to the Colossian letter. The Gospel of St John, if the traditional report may be accepted, dates about a quarter of a century later; but it is linked with our epistle by the fact that the readers for whom it was primarily intended belonged to the neighbouring districts of Proconsular Asia. Thus it illustrates, and is illustrated by, the teaching of St Paul in this letter. More especially by the emphatic use of the term Logos, which St Paul for some reason has suppressed, it supplies the centre round which the ideas gather, and thus gives unity and directness to the conception.

Footnote 531:

Joh. i. 3 πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο κ.τ.λ., Heb. i. 2 δι’ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας.

[Sidenote: Firmness of the apostolic idea.]

In the Christology of these Apostolic writings there is a firmness and precision which leaves no doubt about the main conception present to the mind of the writers. The idea of Christ as an intermediate being, neither God nor man, is absolutely and expressly excluded. On the one hand His humanity is distinctly emphasized. On the other He is represented as existing from eternity, as the perfect manifestation of the Father, as the absolute mediator in the creation and government of the world.

[Sidenote: 3. The Christology of the succeeding ages.]

3. But, when we turn from these Apostolic statements to the writings of succeeding generations, we are struck with the contrast[532]. A vagueness, a flaccidity, of conception betrays itself in their language.

Footnote 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.

[Sidenote: Its looseness of conception.]

In the Apostolic Fathers and in the earlier Apologists we find indeed for the most part a practical appreciation of the Person of Christ, which leaves nothing to be desired; but as soon as they venture upon any directly dogmatic statement, we miss at once the firmness of grasp and clearness of conception which mark the writings of the Apostles. If they desire to emphasize the majesty of His Person, they not unfrequently fall into language which savours of patripassianism[533]. If on the other hand they wish to present Him in His mediatorial capacity, they use words which seem to imply some divine being, who is God and yet not quite God, neither Creator nor creature[534].

Footnote 533:

See for instance the passages quoted in the note on Clem. Rom. 2 τὰ παθήματα αὐτοῦ.

Footnote 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.

[Sidenote: The Apostolic idea applied in later ages.]

The Church needed a long education, before she was fitted to be the expositor of the true Apostolic doctrine. A conflict of more than two centuries with Gnostics, Ebionites, Sabellians, Arians, supplied the necessary discipline. The true successors of the Apostles in this respect are not the fathers of the second century, but the fathers of the third and fourth centuries. In the expositors of the Nicene age we find indeed technical terms and systematic definitions, which we do not find in the Apostles themselves; but, unless I have wholly misconceived the nature of the heretical teaching at Colossæ and the purport of St Paul’s reply, the main idea of Christ’s Person, with which he here confronts this Gnostic Judaism, is essentially the same as that which the fathers of these later centuries opposed to the Sabellianism and the Arianism of their own age. If I mistake not, the more distinctly we realise the nature of the heresy, the more evident will it become that any conception short of the perfect deity and perfect humanity of Christ would not have furnished a satisfactory answer; and this is the reason why I have dwelt at such length on the character of the Colossian false teaching, and why I venture to call especial attention to this part of my subject.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Style of this epistle.]

Of the style of the letter to the Colossians I shall have occasion to speak hereafter, when I come to discuss its genuineness. It is sufficient to say here, that while the hand of St Paul is unmistakable throughout this epistle, we miss the flow and the versatility of the Apostle’s earlier letters.

[Sidenote: Its ruggedness and compression,]

A comparison with the Epistles to the Corinthians and to the Philippians will show the difference. It is distinguished from them by a certain ruggedness of expression, a ‘want of finish’ often bordering on obscurity. What account should be given of this characteristic, it is impossible to say. The divergence of style is not greater than will appear in the letters of any active-minded man, written at different times and under different circumstances. The epistles which I have selected for contrast suggest that the absence of all personal connexion with the Colossian Church will partially, if not wholly, explain the diminished fluency of this letter. [Sidenote: but essential vigour.]At the same time no epistle of St Paul is more vigorous in conception or more instinct with meaning. It is the very compression of the thoughts which creates the difficulty. If there is a want of fluency, there is no want of force. Feebleness is the last charge which can be brought against this epistle.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Analysis.]

The following is an analysis of the epistle:

I. INTRODUCTORY (i. 1–13).

(1) i. 1, 2. Opening salutation.

(2) i. 3–8. Thanksgiving for the progress of the Colossians hitherto.

(3) i. 9–13. Prayer for their future advance in knowledge and well-doing through Christ.

[This leads the Apostle to speak of Christ as the only path of progress.]

II. DOCTRINAL (i. 13-ii. 3).

The Person and Office of Christ.

(1) i. 13, 14. Through the Son we have our deliverance, our redemption.

(2) i. 15–19. The Preeminence of the Son;

(i) As the Head of the natural Creation, the Universe (i. 15–17);

(ii) As the Head of the new moral Creation, the Church (i. 18).

Thus He is first in all things; and this, because the pleroma has its abode in Him (i. 19).

(3) i. 20-ii. 3. The Work of the Son—a work of reconciliation;

(i) Described generally (i. 20).

(ii) Applied specially to the Colossians (i. 21–23).

(iii) St Paul’s own part in carrying out this work. His sufferings and preaching. The ‘mystery’ with which he is charged (i. 24–27).

His anxiety on behalf of all (i. 28, 29): and more especially of the Colossian and neighbouring Churches (ii. 1–3).

[This expression of anxiety leads him by a direct path to the next division of the epistle.]

III. POLEMICAL (ii. 4-iii. 4).

Warning against errors.

(1) ii. 4–8. The Colossians charged to abide in the truth of the Gospel as they received it at first, and not to be led astray by a strange philosophy which the new teachers offer.

(2) ii. 9–15. The truth stated first positively and then negatively.

[In the passage which follows (ii. 9–23) it will be observed how St Paul vibrates between the theological and practical bearings of the truth, marked α, β, respectively.]

(i) Positively.

(α) The pleroma dwells wholly in Christ and is communicated through Him (ii. 9, 10).

(β) The true circumcision is a spiritual circumcision (ii. 11, 12).

(ii) Negatively. Christ has

(β) annulled the law of ordinances (ii. 14);

(α) triumphed over all spiritual agencies, however powerful (ii. 15).

(3) ii. 16-iii. 4. Obligations following thereupon.

(i) Consequently the Colossians must not

(β) either submit to ritual prohibitions (ii. 16, 17),

(α) or substitute the worship of inferior beings for allegiance to the Head (ii. 18, 19).

(ii) On the contrary this must henceforth be their rule:

1. They have died with Christ; and with Him they have died to their old life, to earthly ordinances (ii. 20–23).

2. They have risen with Christ; and with Him they have risen to a new life, to heavenly principles (iii. 1–4).

IV. HORTATORY (iii. 5-iv. 6).

Practical application of this death and this resurrection.

(1) iii. 5–12. Comprehensive rules.

(i) What vices are to be put off, being mortified in this death (iii. 5–11).

(ii) What graces are to be put on, being quickened through this resurrection (iii. 12–17).

(2) iii. 13-iv. 6. Special precepts.

(a) The obligations

Of wives and husbands (iii. 18, 19);

Of children and parents (iii. 20, 21);

Of slaves and masters (iii. 22-iv. 1).

(b) The duty of prayer and thanksgiving; with special intercession on the Apostle’s behalf (iv. 2–4).

(c) The duty of propriety in behaviour towards the unconverted (iv. 5, 6).

V. PERSONAL (iv. 7–18).

(1) iv. 7–9. Explanations relating to the letter itself.

(2) iv. 10–14. Salutations from divers persons.

(3) iv. 15–17. Salutations to divers persons. A message relating to Laodicea.

(4) iv. 18. Farewell.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΑΣΣΑΕΙΣ.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

WE SPEAK WISDOM AMONG THEM THAT ARE PERFECT.

YET NOT THE WISDOM OF THIS WORLD.

BUT WE SPEAK THE WISDOM OF GOD IN A MYSTERY.

--------------

_Iste vas electionis Vires omnes rationis Humanæ transgreditur: Super choros angelorum Raptus, cœli secretorum Doctrinis imbuitur._

_De hoc vase tam fecundo, Tam electo et tam mundo, Tu nos, Christe, complue; Nos de luto, nos de fæce, Tua sancta purga prece, Regno tuo statue._

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΑΣΣΑΕΙΣ.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. 1, 2]

ΠΑΥΛΟΣ ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ, καὶ Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδελφός, ^2τοῖς ἐν Κολοσσαῖς >

1, 2. ‘PAUL, an apostle of Christ Jesus by no personal merit but by God’s gracious will alone, and TIMOTHY, our brother in the faith, to the consecrated people of God in Colossæ, the brethren who are stedfast in their allegiance and faithful in Christ. May grace the well-spring of all mercies, and peace the crown of all blessings, be bestowed upon you from God our Father.’

1. ἀπόστολος] On the exceptional omission of this title in some of St Paul’s epistles see Phil. i. 1. Though there is no reason for supposing that his authority was directly impugned in the Colossian Church, yet he interposes by virtue of his Apostolic commission and therefore uses his authoritative title.

διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ] As in 1 Cor. i. 1, 2 Cor. i. 1, Ephes. i. 1, 2 Tim. i. 1. These passages show that the words cannot have a polemical bearing. If they had been directed against those who questioned his Apostleship, they would probably have taken a stronger form. The expression must therefore be regarded as a renunciation of all personal worth, and a declaration of God’s unmerited grace; comp. Rom. ix. 16 ἄρα οὖν οὐ τοῦ θέλοντος οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐλεῶντος θεοῦ. The same words διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ are used in other connexions in Rom. xv. 32, 2 Cor. viii. 5, where no polemical reference is possible.

Τιμόθεος] The name of this disciple is attached to the Apostle’s own in the heading of the Philippian letter, which was probably written at an earlier stage in his Roman captivity. It appears also in the same connexion in the Epistle to Philemon, but not in the Epistle to the Ephesians, though these two letters were contemporaneous with one another and with the Colossian letter. For an explanation of the omission, see the introduction to that epistle.

In the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon the presence of Timothy is forgotten at once (see Phil. i. 1). In this epistle the plural is maintained throughout the thanksgiving (vv. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9), but afterwards dropped, when the Apostle begins to speak in his own person (i. 23, 24), and so he continues to the end. The exceptions (i. 28, iv. 3) are rather apparent than real.

ὁ ἀδελφός] Timothy is again designated simply ‘the brother’ in 2 Cor. i. 1, Philem. 1, but not in Heb. xiii. 23, where the right reading is τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν. The same designation is used of Quartus (Rom. xvi. 23), of Sosthenes (1 Cor. i. 1), of Apollos (1 Cor. xvi. 12); comp. 2 Cor. viii. 18, ix. 3, 5, xii. 18. As some designation seemed to be required, and as Timothy could not be called an Apostle (see Galatians, p. 96, note 2), this, as the simplest title, would naturally suggest itself.

2. Κολοσσαῖς] For the reasons why this form is preferred here, while Κολασσαεῖς is adopted in the heading of the epistle, see above, p. 16 sq.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. 3]

ἁγίοις καὶ πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ· χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν.

^3Εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ Θεῷ [καὶ] πατρὶ τοῦ Κυρίου

ἁγίοις] ‘saints,’ i.e. the people consecrated to God, the Israel of the new covenant; see the note on Phil. i. 1. This mode of address marks the later epistles of St Paul. In his earlier letters (1, 2 Thess., 1, 2 Cor., Gal.) he writes τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. The change begins with the Epistle to the Romans, and from that time forward the Apostle always uses ἁγίοις in various combinations in addressing Churches (Rom., Phil., Col., Ephes.). For a similar phenomenon, serving as a chronological mark, see the note on ἡ χάρις, iv. 18. The word ἁγίοις must here be treated as a substantive in accordance with its usage in parallel passages, and not as an adjective connected with ἀδελφοῖς. See the next note.

καὶ πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς] This unusual addition is full of meaning. Some members of the Colossian Church were shaken in their allegiance, even if they had not fallen from it. The Apostle therefore wishes it to be understood that, when he speaks of the saints, he means the true and stedfast members of the brotherhood. In this way he obliquely hints at the defection. Thus the words καὶ πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς are a supplementary explanation of τοῖς ἁγίοις. He does not directly exclude any, but he indirectly warns all. The epithet πιστὸς cannot mean simply ‘believing’; for then it would add nothing which is not already contained in ἁγίοις and ἀδελφοῖς. Its passive sense, ‘trustworthy, stedfast, unswerving,’ must be prominent here, as in Acts xvi. 15 εἰ κεκρίκατέ με πιστὴν τῷ Κυρίῳ εἶναι. See Galatians p. 155.

ἐν Χριστῷ] most naturally connected with both words πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, though referring chiefly to πιστοῖς; comp. Ephes. vi. 21 πιστὸς δίακονος ἐν Κυρίῳ, 1 Tim. i. 2 γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει. For the expression πιστὸς ἐν Χριστῷ, ἐν Κυρίῳ, see also 1 Cor. iv. 17, Ephes. i. 1. The Apostle assumes that the Colossian brethren are ‘stedfast in Christ.’ Their state thus contrasts with the description of the heretical teacher, who (ii. 19) οὐ κρατεῖ τὴν κεφαλήν.

χάρις κ.τ.λ.] On this form of salutation see the note to 1 Thess. i. 1.

πατρὸς ἡμῶν] The only instance in St Paul’s epistles, where the name of the Father stands alone in the opening benediction without the addition of Jesus Christ. The omission was noticed by Origen (Rom. 1. § 8, IV. p. 467), and by Chrysostom (ad loc. XI. p. 324, Hom. in 2 Cor. XXX, x. p. 651). But transcribers naturally aimed at uniformity, and so in many copies we find the addition καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The only other exception to the Apostle’s usual form is in 1 Thessalonians, where the benediction is shorter still, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη, and where likewise the copyists have supplied words to lengthen it out in accordance with St Paul’s common practice.

3–8. ‘We never cease to pour forth our thanksgiving to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ on your account, whensoever we pray to Him. We are full of thankfulness for the tidings of the faith which ye have in Christ Jesus, and the love which ye show towards all the people of God, while ye look forward to the hope which is stored up for you in heaven as a treasure for the life to come. This hope was communicated to you in those earlier lessons, when the Gospel was preached to you in its purity and integrity—the one universal unchangeable Gospel, which was made known to you, even as it was carried throughout the world, approving itself by its fruits wheresoever it is planted. For, as elsewhere, so also in you, these fruits were manifested from the first day when ye received your lessons in, and apprehended the power of, the genuine Gospel, which is not a law of ordinances but a dispensation of grace, not a device of men but a truth of God. Such was the word preached to you by Epaphras, our beloved fellow-servant in our Master’s household, who in our absence and on our behalf has ministered to you the Gospel of Christ, and who now brings back to us the welcome tidings of the love which ye show in the Spirit.’

3. εὐχαριστοῦμεν] See the notes on 1 Thess. i. 2.

πατρὶ] If the καὶ be omitted, as the balance of authorities appears to suggest, the form of words here is quite exceptional. Elsewhere it runs ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ Κυρίου, Rom. XV. 6, 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31, Ephes. i. 3 (v.l.), 1 Pet. i. 3; comp. Rev. i. 6: and in analogous cases, such as ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν, the rule is the same. See the note on Clem. Rom. § 7. In iii. 17 however we have τῷ θεῷ πατρί, where the evidence is more decisive and the expression quite as unusual. On the authorities for the various readings here see the detached note.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. 4, 5]

ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν προσευχόμενοι· ^4 ἀκούσαντες τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην [ἣν ἔχετε] εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, ^5 διὰ τὴν

πάντοτε κ.τ.λ.] We here meet the same difficulty about the connexion of the clauses, which confronts us in several of St Paul’s opening thanksgivings. The words πάντοτε and περὶ ὑμῶν must clearly be taken together, because the emphasis of περὶ ὑμῶν would be inexplicable, if it stood at the beginning of a clause. But are they to be attached to the preceding or to the following sentence? The connexion with the previous words is favoured by St Paul’s usual conjunction of εὐχαριστεῖν πάντοτε (see the note on Phil. i. 3), and by the parallel passage οὐ παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν in Ephes. i. 16. Thus the words will mean ‘We give thanks for you always in our prayers.’ For this absolute use of προσευχόμενοι see Matt. vi. 7, Acts xvi. 25.

4. ἀκούσαντες] ‘having heard’ from Epaphras (ver. 8); for the Apostle had no direct personal knowledge of the Colossian Church: see the introduction, p. 27 sq.

ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] to be connected with τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν. The strict classical language would require τὴν ἐν Χ. Ἰ., but the omission of the article is common to the New Testament (e.g. ver. 8); see the note on 1 Thess. i. 1, and Winer § xx. p. 169 (ed. Moulton). The preposition ἐν here and in the parallel passage, Ephes. i. 15, denotes the sphere in which their faith moves, rather than the object to which it is directed (comp. 1 Cor. iii. 5); for, if the object had been meant, the natural preposition would have been ἐπὶ or εἰς (e.g. ii. 5). This is probably the case also in the passages where at first sight it might seem otherwise, e.g. 1 Tim. iii. 13, 2 Tim. iii. 15; for compare 2 Tim. i. 13 ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, where the meaning is unambiguous. There is however authority in the LXX for the use of ἐν with πίστις, πιστεύειν, to denote the object, in Jer. xii. 6, Ps. lxxviii. 22, and perhaps in Mark i. 15, Rom. iii. 25, and (more doubtfully still) in Joh. iii. 15.

ἣν ἔχετε] See the detached note on the various readings.