Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

cord which (iv. 1, seq.) are annexed to them, it surely cannot be denied that Paul must have entertained the apprehension that Jewish Christians might at some future time distract the minds of the converts in the neighbourhood of Ephesus, just as had already happened in the neighbouring Galatia. That is to say, there is no certain trace in the Epistle to the Ephesians (see the Comm. on Eph. iv. 14) that false teachers of this bias had already gained influence; Paul's intention seems to have been merely to counteract betimes their possible and probable future influence. But the matter has quite another aspect in Colossæ, where the apostle's arguments combat with all their force a false doctrine which had already obtained circulation. When Mayerhoff (on Col. p. 143, seq.) finds also a controversy in the Epistle to the Ephesians, he confounds a positive statement of truth with an antagonistic. True, every proposition contains a reference to its opposite, but, if that opposite is nowhere openly prominent, a polemical tendency is out of the question. Had Paul in the Epistle to the Ephesians combatted an actually existing error, he would have been obliged not merely to set forth the truth in addresses to the Gentile Christians, but also to describe their errors with a clear reference to the mistaken Jewish Christians; but of that not a trace is found. Even supposing, therefore, that, in passages like Eph. i., 20-23, just as in Col. i. 15, seq., there floated before his mind a reply to false teachers, who, like those of Colossæ, denied the Divine dignity of Christ and put angel-princes on a level with him, we should not be justified in supposing such a reply to exist in the Epistle to the Ephesians, except with a view to the possibility that such false teachers might come from the neighbouring Colossæ to Ephesus also, it would by no means follow that such views had already been disseminated there when Paul wrote to Ephesus. Paul's melancholy prophecies as to the false teachers to be expected in Ephesus (Acts xx. 29, seq.) were not realized until the time of the composition of the Epistles to Timothy and of the first Epistle of John. But, besides this, the remaining entirely general contents of our epistle are communicated so completely in Paul's language and manner, that, were the epistle not genuine, the author must be supposed not merely to have formed his style on Paul's, but to have copied Paul exactly word for word. But, had any one undertaken anything of the sort, he would, in all probability, have introduced above all into the epistle open polemical tendencies, and not have obliterated those which are manifest in the epistle to the Colossians; since the attempts at forgery were usually required to serve the purpose of adding apostolical authority to the personal bias that was to be rendered current. What we are to think of such hypotheses, derived from intrinsic reasons, and set up without any support from extrinsic arguments, is especially shewn in this

case by the fact that Mayerhoff asserts the originality of the Epistle to the Ephesians and spuriousness of that to the Colossians with the same confidence and decision with which De Wette conversely maintains the originality of the Epistle to the Colossians, and the derivation therefrom of that to the Ephesians. (See Mayerhoff's work, "The Epistle to the Colossians examined, with especial regard to the three pastoral epistles," Berlin 1838, p. 105, seq.) And, in fact, if this assertion of Mayerhoff's was not just as arbitrary, in the absence of all other decisive reasons, it would have, at least, this advantage over the totally untenable and in itself empty one of De Wette's, that there would be a reasonable foundation for the fiction, viz., the insertion of the polemical element in the epistle, whereas, according to De Wette's view, that element must have been even purposely left out, by which omission the work seems wholly aimless. Accordingly, we are justified in saying, that nothing at all can be discovered in our epistle which affords reasonable ground for a suspicion of its genuineness.

§ 3. TIME AND PLACE OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE EPISTLE.

This enquiry cannot be carried on with reference to the Epistle to the Ephesians alone, as Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, which are closely connected with each other, must necessarily be referred to the same time as our epistle, on account of the near affinity of the former of them with our epistle, and of the very similar circumstances under which they were composed. Nay, the very same thing holds good of the Epistle to the Philippians also, as Böttger (Beitr. part 2d, p. 60) has already correctly remarked : "It will ever be a fruitless labour to attempt to separate the Epistle to the Philippians by any considerable space of time from those to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon," which Schulz, Schott, De Wette, and Schneckenburger have attempted, more or less decidedly, to do. (See the passages in point in Böttger, ubi sup.) Thus two questions arise for us to solve, first, when these four epistles were composed, i. e., during what imprisonment, whether during the one at Rome, or that at Cæsarea (for these two alone can, with any appearance of truth, be named as the dates of their composition); and secondly, in what order they stand with regard to each other ?

In relation to the first question, there had been a unanimous decision in favour of the imprisonment at Rome, which Luke reports at the end of Acts, until Schulz (Stud. for 1829, part 3d p. 612, seq.), Schott (Isag. in N. T. p. 272, seq.), De Wette (Introd. p. 254), Schneckenburger (Beitr. p. 143, seq.), and especially Böttger

(Beitr. part 2), recommended with great acumen the other view, viz., that of their composition in Cæsarea. For that these epistles were all written during one imprisonment is clear from their open declarations (Eph. iii. 1, 13, iv. 1, vi. 19, seq.; Phil. i. 7, 12, 14, seq., ii. 17, seq.; Col. i. 24, iv. 3, 7; Philem. ver. 9). But we know of only the two chief imprisonments of Paul in Rome and Cæsarea; to one of these, therefore, the composition of the four epistles must be referred. For the circumstance, that we find the same persons mentioned as companions of Paul in all four of them, which cannot possibly be supposed of both imprisonments, does not permit a partition of the epistles between the two. These persons are Timothy (Phil. i. 1; Col. i. 1; Philem. ver. 1), Epaphras (Col. i. 7, iv. 12; Philem. ver. 23), Aristarchus, Marcus, Jesus Justus, Demas, Lucas (Col. iv. 10, 11, 14; Philem, ver. 24), Tychicus (Eph. vi. 21, seq.; Col. iv. 7), Onesimus (Col. iv. 9; Philem. ver. 10). The only thing which strikes us here is, that in the Epistle to the Ephesians no mention is made of Timothy. The supposition that he is not named because he was a stranger to the readers (see Harless, p lxi.), seems to me improbable, because Timothy, according to Acts xx. 4, was with Paul in Asia, and on this visit no doubt also visited the churches to which our epistle is addressed. But if we consider that the Epistle to the Ephesians contains, on the whole, but few personal references, and, besides, that Paul often sent off one or the other of his companions on this or that business, it may be supposed that the composition of the Epistle to the Ephesians happened during precisely such an absence of Timothy. In no case can the non-mention of Timothy in Ephesians become an argument which would justify us in referring this epistle to another time than the three others, as all arguments e silentio are of so precarious a

nature.

But now, whether we shall decide for the imprisonment at Rome, as the date of the composition of these four Epistles of Paul, or for that at Cæsarea, of which mention is made Acts xxiii. 23-26, 32, is certainly a difficult question, especially after Böttger (ubi sup. p. 48, seq.) has tried to prove that the οἰκία Καίσαρος and the πραιτώριον (Phil. i. 13, iv. 22), from which it was formerly thought that the composition of the epistles could be safely referred to Rome, can also be understood of the Palace of Herod in Cæsarea (Acts xxiii. 35), in which Paul was a prisoner, and of the domestics in it. To me, indeed, this view seems improbable, as Paul would scarcely have called this palace of the king Herod oixía Kaíoapos; but we pass over this argument, since we cannot make out for certain which building Paul means in the Epistle to the Philippians, because there were imperial palaces in many places. Among all * See the details in the Comm. on the passages Phil. i. 13, iv. 22.

which is adduced by Böttger for Cæsarea on the one side, and on the other side by Graul for Rome, we find so little that is really decisive, that it is difficult to declare with entire confidence for the one or the other view. Böttger's chief reason against Rome is, that Paul was there but a few days in imprisonment. But this rests on an erroneous interpretation of the conclusion of the Acts, on which see the Comm. The epistles contain, collectively, no historical points sufficiently definite to justify us in drawing from them any conclusions as to the time and place of their composition. What may be gathered from any notices of frames of mind, and similar uncertain, because purely subjective, circumstances, can of course make no claim at all to the force of demonstration, I find but this one decisive circumstance in favour of the imprisonment at Rome, viz., that Paul writes, Eph. vi. 19, 20, that he had, though a prisoner, still the opportunity of proclaiming the gospel. -This is imaginable from the nature of his imprisonment in Rome (see on Acts xxviii. 16, 30), but not in the case of that in Cæsarea, where he was formally shut up in prison.

According to Acts xxvii. 2, Aristarchus, as well as Lucas, was also with Paul in Rome; we find both again Col. iv. 10, Philem. ver. 24, whereas it is not known to us that they were his companions in Cæsarea. For these reasons, therefore, in conjunction with the circumstance that the phrase oikia Kaíoapoç directs our thoughts primarily, at least, to the imperial palace at Rome, I decide, with the majority of the later critics and commentators, for the composition of the Epistles to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, and to Philemon, in that first imprisonment of Paul at Rome, with the mention of which Luke closes the Acts.

But now in what order were the four epistles themselves composed? The mild captivity in which Paul was held in Rome (Acts xxviii. 30), lasted at least two years; which epistles did he write first in this space of time, and which last? In the first place, as regards the Epistle to Philemon, which Onesimus conveyed, it is to be supposed from Col. iv. 7-9, that it was written and sent off at the same time with the Epistle to the Colossians, which Tychicus brought. For both Tychicus and Onesimus, according to the passage cited, begin their journey from Rome to Colossæ together, and at the same time. But Harless (p. lix.) has decided the question, whether the Epistle to the Ephesians was composed before or after these two, by the correct interpretation of Eph. vi. 21, compared with Col. iv. 7. That is to say, in the former passage the words: ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ κατ' ἐμέ are explained only by assuming a reference to the similar declaration, Col. iv. 7; accord

* Graul Dissertatio de Schulzii et Schottii sententiâ cet. Lips. 1836-8.

ing to that, the Epistle to the Ephesians was written after those to the Colossians and Philemon. The space of time, however, between the composition of those two and that of the Epistle to the Ephesians, can scarcely have amounted to more than a few days or weeks at most, as Tychicus brought the Epistle to the Ephesians as well as that to the Colossians. For the repetition of so long a journey as that from Rome to Asia Minor, was, in the first place, in itself improbable; and, secondly, the near affinity of the epistles to each other requires the composition of them to be placed at the same time. The only remaining question therefore is, how the Epistle to the Philippians stands related in the date of its composition, to the other three, which, alike with regard to the places of their destination and the time of their composition, fall very nearly together. There are no open and clear declarations in the Epistle to the Philippians to enable us to answer this question satisfactorily; we shall be obliged to confine ourselves to mere probability. However, from Phil. i. 12, seq., ii. 26, seq., this epistle seems to belong to the latter part of Paul's imprisonment at Rome, whereas the three other epistles might belong to its earlier period. For the passages cited presuppose that Paul had passed a long time in Rome, and could already remark the effects of his preaching. (See De Wette's Introd., p. 232.) Further, the announcement, Phil. ii. 24, that he will come to them τaxéws, quickly, seems to intimate a prospect of his imprisonment soon coming to an end, while Philem. ver. 22 certainly expresses only a more distant hope of such an

event.

§ 4. THE COURSE OF THOUGHT IN THE EPISTLE.

The Epistle to the Ephesians rejects all specialities, which lies in the very nature of an encyclical epistle. It treats only of general Christian ideas and relations in a dogmatical and ethical point of view. Accordingly, this epistle may be divided into two parts; in the former (i. 1—iii. 21) the dogmatical element prevails; in the latter (iv. 1—vi. 24) the ethical. The former part contains three sections, the first of which (i. 1-14), after the salutation, contains a thanksgiving to God for the work of redemption wrought in Christ, and the eternal election of man for salvation in him; the second (i. 15-ii. 10) contains Paul's special thanks for the faith of the readers, and the prayer that God would, by his Holy Spirit, advance them in this their state, and make them, who were dead in sin, alive with Christ, that they may, as created anew in Christ Jesus, bring forth fruit in good works. Finally, the third section (ii. 11—iii. 21) contrasts the former state of the readers (before their conversion) in

« ÖncekiDevam »