Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians
(Show All Books)
Chapter Commentaries:
Verse Commentaries:
COMMENTARY
ON
THE NEW TESTAMENT
HANDBOOK
TO THE
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS
AND THE
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON
BY
HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, TH.D.,
OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER
TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY
REV. MAURICE J. EVANS, B.A.
THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY
WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW
EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET
MDCCCLXXXIV.
PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR
The present volume has been translated with skill and judgment by Mr. Evans from the fourth edition of the German—the last form, in which this portion of the Commentary had the advantage of Meyer’s own revision. A fifth edition has since appeared (in 1878), under the charge of Professor Woldemar Schmidt of Leipzig, in which he has treated the book in a way similar to that adopted by Dr. Weiss with the Commentary on Mark and Luke, although not altering it to an equal extent. It is difficult to see why he should have followed such a course, for he himself states that he “has never been able to approve the custom of allowing other hands to remodel the works of the departed.” I have already expressed, in the prefatory note to the volume on Mark and Luke, the grounds on which I take exception to the plan so pursued, and I content myself with here referring to them as equally applicable in principle to the less important changes made by Dr. Schmidt. I find a striking corroboration of my remark as to the work manipulated by Dr. Weiss being “to a considerable extent a new book by another author, and from a standpoint in various respects different,” in the judgment pronounced by Dr. Schürer, in a recent review (Theol. Literaturzeitung, 9th October 1880), on the same editor’s treatment of the Commentary on the Gospel of John, when, after mentioning various features of “complete independence” and “thorough remodelling,” he states that the result of the whole is “an essentially new work.” Dr. Schürer indicates approval of the course pursued; but it seems to me alike unfair to the memory of Meyer, and uncalled for under the circumstances. It is quite open to an editor to write a book of his own on the subject, or to append as much as he deems necessary to his author’s text by way of addition and correction; but it is not open to him thus to recast an epoch-making work of exegesis, and to retain for its altered shape the sanction of the author’s name. At any rate, I have thought it right, so far as the English reader is concerned, to present, according to my promise, the work of Meyer, without addition or subtraction, in its latest and presumably best form as it left his hands.
I may add, that whatever care may have been bestowed on the revision of the Commentary by Dr. Schmidt has not apparently extended to the correction of the press, for many errors, which have been discovered and corrected by Mr. Evans and myself in preparing the translation, still disfigure the new edition of the German. It is, of course, extremely difficult to avoid such errors in a work of the kind; and I have no doubt that, notwithstanding the care of the printers, to whose excellent arrangements I am much indebted, the reader may light on not a few mistakes, as concerns references, accents, and the like; but, as Dr. Meyer was not a particularly good corrector of the press, I trust that the English edition may be found in that respect fully more accurate than the original.
In the General Preface prefixed to the first volume issued (ROMANS), I stated the grounds that had induced me to undertake the superintendence of the work, and the revision of the translation, in the interests of technical accuracy and of uniformity of rendering throughout. And in order that the subscribers may be assured that the promise therein implied has been fulfilled to the best of my ability, I think it right, in conclusion, to state for myself (and I believe that the same may be said for my friends Drs. Crombie and Stewart, who lent me their aid at a time when other work was pressing heavily upon me) that I have carefully read and compared every sentence of the translation in the ten volumes which I edited—collating it for the most part in MS., as well as subsequently on its passage through the press; that I have not hesitated freely to make such changes on the work of the translators as seemed to me needful to meet the requirements which I had in view; and that, under these circumstances, I alone am formally and finally responsible for the shape in which the Commentary appears. All concerned in the enterprise have much reason to be gratified by the favour with which it has been received. I have, indeed, seen some exception taken to the style, and to the frequent use of technical terms such as telic, protasis, and the like; but our object was to translate the book into intelligible English, not to recast its literary form (which, as I have formerly explained, has suffered from the mode in which the author inserted his successive alterations and additions); and it is, from its very nature, destined mainly for ministers and students, who ought to be familiar with the import of those convenient technical terms.
At the close of the article by Dr. Schürer, of which I have spoken before, he asks leave to repeat an urgent wish which he had some years ago expressed, that “there might be appended to the introduction of each volume of the German Commentary a list of the exegetical literature.” He does not seem to be aware that in the English edition this want has been supplied with considerable fulness. I shall be glad to place the lists—all of which were prepared by me, except that prefixed to the Gospel of John, for which I am indebted to Dr. Crombie—at the service (a few errors apart) of any future editors of the original.
In order to complete the present series, a supplementary volume accompanies this one, containing Dr. Gloag’s translation of Lünemann’s Commentary on the Epistles to the Thessalonians. And I learn from Messrs. Clark that they have received encouragement to issue also the remaining volumes, for which Dr. Meyer called in the aid of accomplished scholars. These volumes are of much value in themselves, and as serving to supplement the work of Meyer; but as they proceed from different authors, and my main object was to secure uniformity in the rendering of the several portions that issued from Meyer’s own hand, I have not thought it necessary to undertake any similar revision or editorial responsibility in their case; and I can only express my best wishes for the success of the further enterprise in the hands of the experienced translators.
WILLIAM P. DICKSON.
GLASGOW COLLEGE,October 1880.
But while thus, apart from various able discussions of particular passages, I was less directly stimulated by new literary apparatus to subject my work to revision, the labour itself was not thereby rendered the lighter. The dies diem docet could not but, in the case of a task so momentous, have its title fully conceded; and it will be found that I have sought to place much on a better and more complete footing, so as to do fuller justice to the great object of ascertaining thoroughly, clearly, and dispassionately the meaning of the Apostle’s discourse. By this I do not understand the discovery of those fanciful illusions [Phantasmagorieen] that people call profound. For the latter there is assuredly little need in the case of Paul, who, with the true penetration characteristic of his views and ways of unfolding them, knows how to wield his gifts of discourse so that his meaning shall be clear and palpable and apt; and least of all in the case of this very Epistle, where the Christological teaching rises of itself to the utmost height and embraces heaven and earth. This distinctive character cannot be injured by the circumstance that the apostolic writing, as a letter to the Ephesians,—such as, according to the critically-attested address, it is and will remain,—continues to be, at all events, an enigmatical phenomenon, and its historical conceivableness in so far an open question. Its elevation above the changes and controversies of Christological formulae and modes of conception cannot be thereby affected, and its prominent position in the New Testament as at once a testimony and a test of the truth cannot, amid any such change and strife, be prejudicially endangered.
HANNOVER, 10th Nov. 1866.
TO THE
EPHESIANS AND PHILEMON
ATTERSOLL (William), Minister at Infield, Sussex: A commentary upon the Epistle to Philemon. Lond. 1612. Second edition. 2°, Lond. 1633.
BATTUS (Bartholomaeus), [1] 1637, Prof. Theol. at Greifswald: Commentarius in Epistolam ad Ephesios.… 4°, Gryphisw. 1619.
[1] marks the data of the author’s death
BAUMGARTEN (Sigmund Jakob), [2] 1757, Prof. Theol. at Halle. See GALATIANS.
[2] marks the data of the author’s death
BAUMGARTEN-CRUSIUS (Ludwig Friedrich Otto), [3] 1843, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Commentar über den Brief Pauli an die Epheser.… Herausgegeben von Ernst Julius Kimmel.… 8°, Jena, 1847.
[3] marks the data of the author’s death
BAYNE (Paul), [4] 1617, Minister at Cambridge: An entire commentary upon the whole Epistle … to the Ephesians.… 2°, Lond. 1643.
[4] marks the data of the author’s death
BLEEK (Friedrich), [5] 1859, Prof. Theol. at Berlin: Vorlesungen über die Briefe an die Kolosser, den Philemon und die Epheser.… 8°, Berl. 1865.
[5] marks the data of the author’s death
BODIUS. See BOYD.
BOYD (Robert) of Trochrig, [6] 1627, Principal at Glasgow and Edinburgh: In Epistolam ad Ephesios praelectiones supra cc.… 2°, Lond. 1652, al[7]
[6] marks the data of the author’s death
[7] l. appended denotes that the book has been more or less frequently reissued
BRAUNE (Karl), Superintendent in Altenburg: Die Briefe S. Pauli an die Epheser, Kolosser, Philipper. Theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet. [Lange’s Bibelwerk.] 8°, Bielefeld, 1867.
Translated from the German, with additions [Ephesians], by M. B. Riddle, D.D. 8°, New York, 1870.
BUCER (Martin), [8] 1551, Prof. Theol. at Cambridge: Praelectiones in Epistolam ad Ephesios habitae Cantabrigiae … in lucem editae diligentia Im. Tremellii. 2° Basil. 1562.
[8] marks the data of the author’s death
CHANDLER (Samuel), D.D., [9] 1766, Presbyterian Minister in London. [See GALATIANS.]
[9] marks the data of the author’s death
CRAMER (Johann Andreas), [10] 1788, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Neue Uebersetzung des Briefs an die Epheser, nebst einer Auslegung desselben. 4°, Hamb. 1782.
[10] marks the data of the author’s death
CROCIUS (Johann), [11] 1659, Prof. Theol. at Marburg: Commentarius in Epistolam ad Ephesios. 8°, Cassellis, 1642.
[11] marks the data of the author’s death
DANAEUS [DANEAU] (Lambert), [12] 1596, Pastor at Orthes: Commentarius in Epistolam ad Philemonem. 8°, Genev. 1579.
[12] marks the data of the author’s death
DAVIES (John Llewelyn), Rector of Christ Church, Marylebone. See PHILIPPIANS and COLOSSIANS.
DEMME (Jakob Friedrich Ignaz): Erklärung des Briefes an den Phm_1:8°, Breslau, 1844.
DINANT (Petrus), [13] 1724, Minister at Rotterdam: De Brief aan die van Efeze verklaart en toegepast. 4°, Rotterd. 1711, al[14]
[13] marks the data of the author’s death
[14] l. appended denotes that the book has been more or less frequently reissued
DYKE (Daniel), [15] c. 1614, Minister at St. Albans: A fruitful exposition upon Phm_1:4°, Lond. 1618.
[15] marks the data of the author’s death
EADIE (John), D.D., [16] 1876, Prof. Bibl. Lit. to the United Presbyterian Church: A commentary on the Greek text of the Epistle to the Ephesians. 8°, Lond. and Glasg. 1854.
[16] marks the data of the author’s death
ELLICOTT (Charles John), D.D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol: A critical and grammatical commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. 8°, Lond. 1855, al[17]
[17] l. appended denotes that the book has been more or less frequently reissued
ESMARCH (Heinrich Peter Christian), [18] 1831, Rector at Schleswig: Brief an die Epheser übersetzt. 8°, Altona, 1785.
[18] marks the data of the author’s death
EWALD (Georg Heinrich August), [19] 1876, Prof. Or. Lang. at Göttingen: Sieben Sendschreiben des Neuen Bundes uebersetzt und erklärt. [Sendschreiben an die Heidenchristen (die Epheser).] 8°, Götting. 1870.
[19] marks the data of the author’s death
FERGUSON (James), [20] c. 1670, Minister of Kilwinning. See GALATIANS.
[20] marks the data of the author’s death
FLATT (Johann Friedrich von), [21] 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tübingen. See GALATIANS.
[21] marks the data of the author’s death
GENTILIS (Scipione), [22] 1616, Prof. of Law at Altdorf: Commentarius in Epistolam ad Philemonem. 4°, Norimb. 1618. [Crit. Sac. vii. 2.]
[22] marks the data of the author’s death
GUDE (Gottlob Friedrich), [23] 1756, Pastor at Lauban: Gründliche Erläuterung des lehrreichen Briefes an die Epheser. 8°, Lauban, 1735.
[23] marks the data of the author’s death
HAGENBACH (Karl Rudolph), [24] 1874, Prof. Theol. at Basel: Pauli Epistolam ad Philemonem interpretatus est C. R. Hagenbach. 4°, Basil. 1829.
[24] marks the data of the author’s death
HARLESS (Gottlieb Christoph Adolf von), [25] 1879, President of the Consistory at Münich: Commentar über den Brief Pauli an die Epheser. 8°, Erlang. 1834, al[26]
[25] marks the data of the author’s death
[26] l. appended denotes that the book has been more or less frequently reissued
HEINRICHS (Johann Heinrich), Superintendent at Burgdorf. See KOPPE (Johann Benjamin).
HODGE (Charles), D.D., [27] 1878, Prof. Theol. at Princeton: A commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians. 8°, New York, 1856, al[28]
[27] marks the data of the author’s death
[28] l. appended denotes that the book has been more or less frequently reissued
HOFMANN (Johann Christian Konrad von), [29] 1877, Prof. Theol. at Erlangen: Die heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zusammenhängend untersucht. Theil iv. 1. Der Brief Pauli an die Epheser. iv. 2. Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Phm_1:8°, Nördlingen, 1870.
[29] marks the data of the author’s death
HOLTZMANN (Heinrich Johann), Prof. Theol. in Strassburg: Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosser-Briefe.… 8°, Leip. 1872.
HOLZHAUSEN (Friedrich August): Der Brief an die Epheser übersetzt und erklärt. 8°, Hannov. 1833.
HUMMEL (Johann Heinrich), [30] 1674, Dean at Berne: Explanatio Epistolae ad Philemonem. 2°, Tiguri, 1670.
[30] marks the data of the author’s death
JONES (William), D.D.: A commentary on the Epistles to Philemon and Hebrews.… 2°, Lond. 1635.
KÄHLER (C. N.): Auslegung der Epistel Pauli an die Epheser. 8°, Kiel, 1854.
KOCH (August): Commentar über den Brief Pauli an den Phm_1:8°, Zürich, 1846.
KOPPE (Johann Benjamin), [31] 1791, Superintendent at Gotha: Novum Testamentum Graece perpetua annotatione illustratum. Voll. i.–iv. 8°, Götting. 1778–83. [Vol. vi. Epp. ad Galatas, Ephesios, Thessalonicenses. Editio tertia emendata et aucta. Curavit H. Chr. Tychsen. Vol. vii. 1. Epp. ad Timotheum, Titum, et Philemonem. Continuavit J. H. Heinrichs, 1798. Editio secunda. 8°, Götting. 1828.]
[31] marks the data of the author’s death
KRAUSE (Friedrich August Wilhelm), [32] 1827, Private Tutor at Vienna: Der Brief an die Epheser übersetzt und mit Anmerkungen begleitet. 8°, Frankf. a. M. 1789.
[32] marks the data of the author’s death
KÜHNE (Franz Robert): Die Epistel Pauli an Philemon in Bibelstunden … ausgelegt. 2 Bändchen. 8°, Leipz. 1856.
LAGUS (Daniel), [33] 1678, Prof. Math. at Greifswald: Commentatio quadripartita super Epistolam ad Ephesios. 4°, Gryphisw. 1664.
[33] marks the data of the author’s death
LIGHTFOOT (Joseph Barber), D.D., Bishop of Durham. See PHILIPPIANS and Colossians.
LOCKE (John), [34] 1704. See GALATIANS.
[34] marks the data of the author’s death
LUTHER (Martin), [35] 1546, Reformer: Die Epistel an die Epheser ausgelegt, aus seinen Schriften herausgegeben von Chr. G. Eberle. 8°, Stuttg. 1878.
[35] marks the data of the author’s death
MAJOR [MAYER] (Georg), [36] 1574, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Enarratio Epistolae Paulli scriptae ad Ephesios. 8°, Vitemb. 1552.
[36] marks the data of the author’s death
MATTHIES (Conrad Stephan), Prof. Theol. at Greifswald: Erklärung des Briefes Pauli an die Epheser.… 8°, Greifsw. 1834.
MEIER (Friedrich Karl), [37] 1841, Prof. Theol. at Giessen: Commentar über den Brief Pauli an die Epheser. 8°, Berl. 1834.
[37] marks the data of the author’s death
MORUS (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), [38] 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig. See GALATIANS.
[38] marks the data of the author’s death
MUSCULUS [MEUSSLIN] (Wolfgang), [39] 1573, Prof. Theol. at Berne. See GALATIANS.
[39] marks the data of the author’s death
OOSTERZEE (Johannes Jakob van), Prof. Theol. at Utrecht: Die Pastoralbriefe und der Brief an Philemon. Theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet. [Lange’s Bibelwerk, XI.] 8°, Bielefeld, 1861.
Translated from the German, with additions, by Horatio B. Hackett, D.D. 8°, New York, 1869.
PASSAVANT (Theophilus): Versuch einer praktischen Auslegung des Briefes Pauli an die Epheser. 8°, Basel, 1836.
POPP (G. C.): Uebersetzung und Erklärung der drei ersten Kapitel des Briefs an die Epheser, nebst einer kurzen Einleitung.… 4°, Rostock, 1799.
ROELL (Herman Alexander), [40] 1718, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht: Commentarius in principium Epistolae ad Ephesios. 4°, Traj. ad Rhen. 1715.
[40] marks the data of the author’s death
Et commentarii … pars altera, cum brevi Epistolae ad Colossenses exegesi. Ed. Dion. And. Roell. 4°, Traj. ad Rhen. 1731.
ROLLOCK (Robert), [41] 1598, Principal of the University of Edinburgh: In Epistolam Pauli ad Ephesios commentarius. 4°, Edin. 1590, al[42]
[41] marks the data of the author’s death
[42] l. appended denotes that the book has been more or less frequently reissued
Et in Epistolam ad Philemonem.… 8°, Genev. 1602.
ROTHE (Moritz): Pauli ad Philemonem epistolae interpretatio historico-exegetica. 8°, Bremae, 1844.
ROYAARDS (Albertus): … Paullus’ Brief aan de Ephesers schriftmatig verklaart. 3 deelen. 4°, Amsterd. 1735–38.
RÜCKERT (Leopold Immanuel), [43] c. 1845, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Der Brief Pauli an die Epheser erläutert und vertheidigt. 8°, Leip. 1834.
[43] marks the data of the author’s death
SCHENKEL (Daniel), Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg: Die Briefe an die Epheser, Philipper, Colosser. Theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet. [Lange’s Bibelwerk, IX.] 8°, Bielefeld, 1862.
SCHMID (Leberecht Christian Gottlieb), [44] 1836, Pastor at Glösa: Pauli ad Philemonem Epistola, Graece et Latine illustrata.… 8°, Lips. 1786.
[44] marks the data of the author’s death
SCHMID (Sebastian), [45] 1696, Prof. Theol. at Strassburg: Paraphrasis super Epistolam ad Ephesios. 4°, Strassb. 1684, al[46]
[45] marks the data of the author’s death
[46] l. appended denotes that the book has been more or less frequently reissued
SCHNAPPINGER (Bonifacius Martin Wunibald), [47] c. 1825. Prof, at Heidelberg: Brief an die Epheser erklärt und erläutert von Bonifaz vom heil. Wunibald. 4°, Heidelb. 1793.
[47] marks the data of the author’s death
SCHÜTZE (Theodor Johann Abraham), [48] 1830, Director of the Gymnasium at Gera: Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Ephesios. 8°, Leip. 1778.
[48] marks the data of the author’s death
SPENER (Philip Jakob), [49] 1705, Consistorial-Rath at Berlin: Erklärung der Episteln an die Epheser und Colosser.… 4°, Halae, 1706, al[50]
[49] marks the data of the author’s death
[50] l. appended denotes that the book has been more or less frequently reissued
STEVART (Peter), [51] 1621, Prof. Theol. at Ingolstadt: Commentarius in Epistolam ad Ephesios. 4°, Ingolstad. 1593.
[51] marks the data of the author’s death
STIER (Rudolph Ewald), [52] 1862, Superintendent in Eisleben: Die Gemeinde in Christo. Auslegung des Briefes an die Epheser. 8°, Berl. 1848–49.
[52] marks the data of the author’s death
TAYLOR (Thomas), [53] 1632, Minister in London: Commentarius in Epistolam ad Philemonem. 2°, Lond. 1659.
[53] marks the data of the author’s death
TIL (Salomon von), [54] 1713, Prof. Theol. at Leyden. See ROMANS.
[54] marks the data of the author’s death
TURNER (Samuel Hulbeart), D.D., [55] 1861, Prof. of Bibl. Interpretation at New York: The Epistle to the Ephesians in Greek and English, with an analysis and exegetical commentary. 8°, New York, 1856.
[55] marks the data of the author’s death
TYCHSEN (Thomas Christian), [56] 1834. See KOPPE (Johann Benjamin).
[56] marks the data of the author’s death
VATABLUS [VASTEBLED] (Francois), [57] 1547, Prof. Heb. at Paris: Annotationes in Novum Testamentum. [Critici Sacri.]
[57] marks the data of the author’s death
VINCENT (Jean): Explicatio familiaris in Epistolam D. Pauli ad Philemonem. 2°, Paris, 1647.
WELLER (Hieronymus), [58] 1572, Superintendent at Freiberg: Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Ephesios. 8°, Noriberg, 1559.
[58] marks the data of the author’s death
WIESINGER (J. C. August). See PHILIPPIANS.
ZACHARIAE (Gotthilf Traugott), [59] 1777, Prof. Theol. at Kiel. See GALATIANS.
[59] marks the data of the author’s death
ZANCHIUS (Hieronymus), [60] 1590, Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg: Commentarius in Epistolam ad Ephesios. 2°, Neostadii, 1594.
[60] marks the data of the author’s death
INTRODUCTION
SEC. 1.—READERS TO WHOM THE EPISTLE IS ADDRESSED
Paul planted Christianity (Act_18:19; Act_19:1, etc.); and his successful labours there, during a period of nearly three years, placed him in the close confidential relations to the church, of which his touching farewell to the elders (Act_20:17 ff.) is an imperishable memorial. The church was on its foundation a mixed one, composed of Jewish and Gentile Christians (Act_19:1-10; Act_20:21); but at the later date, when our Epistle was composed, the Gentile-Christian element, which already appears from Act_19:26 extensively diffused, so greatly preponderated, that Paul could address the church a potiori as a Gentile-Christian one; see Eph_1:12 f., Eph_2:1 ff., Eph_2:11; Eph_2:19, Eph_4:17, Eph_3:1. Hence it must not be inferred from this, that the Epistle could not have been addressed to the Ephesian church (Reiche, Bleek, and others).
Our Epistle is expressly addressed, in Eph_1:1, to the Christians at Ephesus.[61] For the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are so decisively attested, that they cannot be deprived of their right to a place in the text, either by isolated counter-witnesses, or by the internal grounds of doubt as to the Ephesian destination of the Epistle. Among the manuscripts, à has ἘΝ ἘΦΈΣῼ only from the hand of a later corrector; B has the words only in the margin, and (in opposition to Hug, de antiq. Cod. Vat. p. 26) not from the first hand (see Tischendorf in the allg. K.-Zeit. 1843, No. 116, and in the Stud. und Krit. 1847, p. 133); while in the Cod. 67, proceeding from the twelfth century,[62] it was placed certainly in the text by the first hand, but was deleted by a second hand (which betrays generally an affinity with B). The evidence of the versions is unanimous for ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ; but in the Fathers we find undeniable indications that the omission in B à *, and the deletion in Cod. 67, are founded upon older codices, and have arisen out of critical grounds. For Basil the Great, contra Eunom. ii. 19 (Opp. ed. Garnier, I. p. 254), says: ΤΟῖς ἘΦΕΣΊΟΙς ἘΠΙΣΤΈΛΛΩΝ Ὡς ΓΝΗΣΊΩς ἩΝΩΜΈΝΟΙς Τῷ ὌΝΤΙ (that is, to Him who is existent, in the absolute sense) διʼ ἐπιγνώσεως , ὄντας αὐτοὺς ἰδιαζόντως ὠνόμασεν εἰπὼν · τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ . Οὕτω γὰρ καὶ οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν παραδεδώκασι , καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς παλαίοις τῶν ἀντιγραφῶν εὑρήκαμεν . From this passage it is clear that Basil considered it indeed certain that the Epistle was written to the Ephesians, but looked upon the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ as non-genuine, to which conclusion he had been led not merely by way of tradition, but also through the old MSS. existing in his time, which he had himself looked into, and which had not ἐν Ἐφέσῳ .[63] It has, however, been incorrectly asserted that Jerome also did not find ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in MSS., but knew it merely as a conjecture (Böttger, Beitr. 3, p. 37; Olshausen). He says, namely, on Eph_1:1 (Opp. ed. Vallars. VII. p. 545): Quidam curiosius, quam necesse est, putant ex eo, quod Moysidictum sit [Exo_3:14]: haec dices filiis Israel: qui est misit me, etiam eos, qui Ephesi sunt sancti et fideles, essentiae vocabulo nuncupatos.[64] … Alii vero simpliciter non ad eos, qui sint, sed qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sint, scriptam arbitrantur. But this “scriptam arbitrantur” does not refer to the fact that these “alii” had thought that the readers of the Epistle were the Ephesians; to Jerome, on the contrary, ἐν Ἐφέσῳ is quite an undoubted part of the text (sanctis omnibus, qui sunt Ephesi, is his reading), and he only adduces two different explanations of τοῖς οὖσιν , by which, however, ἐν Ἐφέσῳ is not affected. According to the one interpretation, the Christians at Ephesus were designated as existing in the metaphysical sense; according to the other, τοῖς οὖσιν was taken in the usual simple sense, and consequently the Epistle was regarded as directed not to the existent Ephesian Christians, but to the Christians who were to be found at Ephesus. Thus Jerome has not mentioned the omission of ἐν Ἐφέσῳ , and therefore probably was not aware that the opinion of those “quidam” had originated from the very reading without ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ; on which account he looked upon this opinion as a curiosity. Hence he furnishes, almost contemporaneously with Basil, an important counterpoise to his testimony. But if Basil in his time stands alone, he has a precursor, whose testimony points back to a considerably greater antiquity, in Tertullian, who says, contra Marc. v. 11: “Praetereo hic et de alia epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios praescriptam[65] habemus, haeretici vero ad Laodicenos;” and at v. 17: “Ecclesiae quidem veritate epistolam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos, sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare (i.e. to make it otherwise, alter it) gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator; nihil autem de titulis interest, cum ad omnes apostolus scripserit, dum ad quosdam.” According to this, in Tertullian’s time the Epistle was acknowledged by the orthodox church, and by Tertullian himself (comp. cont. Marc. iv. 5, de praescrip. haer. 36), as an Epistle to the Ephesians, and only heretics like Marcion regarded it as addressed to the Laodiceans; but Tertullian cannot have read or known of ἐν Ἐφέσῳ , Eph_1:1, because otherwise he would not have spoken merely of a change in the superscription (praescriptam, titulum; comp. on this last, de pudic. 20, al.), and would not have appealed to the “veritas ecclesiae,” but to the text. It has been objected, indeed (see especially, Harless and Wiggers, and compare also Lünemann), that this is an inference from the critical standpoint of our time, and that it would have been quite natural in Tertullian summarily to bring in the “veritas ecclesiae.” But this, would only have been natural for him in the event of the question relating to a falsification of the text by Marcion. The question here concerns a falsification of the titulus, which, if the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ had stood in the text, would have been at variance with the text; and what would have been in that case more natural than to appeal to the apostolic ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ? The invocation of the “veritas ecclesiae” serves precisely to prove that an apostolic ἐν Ἐφέσῳ was not known to Tertullian. This at the same time applies in opposition to the remark of Wiggers, I. 1, p. 429, that Marcion could not have read anything else than ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in the address, if he had discovered anything to be changed in the superscription, which was naturally (?) of the same tenor ( ἡ πρὸς Ἐφεσίους ἐπιστολή ). No, he not merely may, but must have read in the address nothing at all of the place for which the Epistle was destined; otherwise he must have falsified the address also, and not merely the traditional superscription—which is not to be assumed, since Tertullian brings a charge against him merely as concerns the titulus, and, on his own part, betrays no knowledge whatever of an ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in the address. How, then, could Tertullian dismiss the falsification of Marcion with the evasive nihil autem de titulis interest, cum ad omnes, etc., if he had before him in the apostolic text ἐν Ἐφέσῳ , before which the title πρὸς Λαοδικέας would at once have broken down? Little as it fell in with Tertullian’s purpose to assail Marcion at length on account of his falsification of the title, since he was occupied in confuting his dogmatic errors, surely it would have required no more words to dispose of the falsifier of the title by an appeal to the text, than to get rid of the matter with the superficial nihil autem de titulis, etc. And how could Marcion himself (evidently on the ground of Col_4:16) have hit upon the idea of changing the title of the Epistle, if he himself had read ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in Eph_1:1? Dogmatic reasons, which at other times determined the heretic in his critical proceedings, did not exist here at all. If, in accordance with all this, the testimony of Tertullian, as well as the procedure of Marcion, to which he bears witness, is adverse to the ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ; that, on the other hand, of Ignatius, ad Eph. 12, is not to be used either for or against, whether we look at his words in the shorter or the longer recension.[66]
[61] See Lünemann, de ep. ad Eph. authentiâ, etc., 1842; Anger, über d. Laodicenerbrief (Beitr. z. Einl. in’s N.T. I.), 1843. Reiche, in his Comment. crit. in N.T. II. 1859, has the most fully and thoroughly controverted the view of the Epistle being destined for Ephesus, and the genuineness of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ . Comp. also Weiss in Herzog’s Encykl. XIX. s.v. “Epheserbrief.”
[62] According to others, including Reiche (Comm. crit. p. 102), even from the ninth or tenth century; but not from the year 1331, as Credner, Einl. I. 2, p. 397, states. This year belongs to the Codex 67, which contains the Acts and Catholic Epistles. See Griesbach, II. p. xv.; Scholz, II. p. x.
[63] We must candidly recognise this as the result of the words of Basil. It is a partisan and mistaken view to assert that, in making the above quotation of the address of our Epistle, he had not included ἐν Ἐφέσῳ , because he had previously said τοῖς Ἐφεσίοις ἐπιστέλλων , and that his appeal to tradition and the old MSS. applied only to the article τοῖς before οὖσιν (l’Enfant, Wolf), or to οὖσιν (Wiggers in the Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 423 f.). In opposition to l’Enfant, it may be urged that Basil must necessarily have written τοὺς ὄντας previously, because the genuineness and the stress of the article (which is still wanting in Cod. 46) would have been in question; in opposition to Wiggers, that not the slightest critical trace of a previous omission of οὖσιν is to be found; while, in opposition to both, we may urge the decisive consideration, that it is in the highest degree arbitrary to assume that in the case of a verbal critical citation, such as Basil here gives with so earnest and emphatic a statement of his reason for doing so ( οὕτω γὰρ κ . τ . λ .), words were passed over, because they would be obvious of themselves, and words, too, which were so far from being unimportant, that in fact it was only their absence that could warrant the metaphysical explanation of τοῖς οὖσιν , and did beyond doubt give rise to it. And if Basil were concerned only with τοῖς or οὖσιν , why, then, has he not merely cited the passage as far as οὖσιν , but also added the καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χ . Ἰ ., so unimportant for that metaphysical conception of τοῖς οὖσιν , and—strangest of all—omitted just the ἐν Ἐφέσῳ which stood between? An inconceivable parsimony! No; no reader could understand the οὕτω γὰρ κ . τ . λ . otherwise than of the form of address just literally cited in the τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν καὶ πιστεῖς ἐν Χ . Ἰ ., from which the recension which was then current differed, in that it contained ἐν Ἐφέσῳ .
[64] Probably (see the scholion from Origen in Tischendorf) this explanation proceeded from Origen, since it looks quite like him, and he wrote a commentary on the Epistle, which was used by Jerome.
[65] That is, superscribed. Comp. for example, Gellius, v. 21, “epistola … cui titulus praescriptus est.” The words “ad Ephesios” and “ad Laodicenos” are the “ipsissima verba” of the titulus praescriptus. Hence titulus and praescribere are not to be referred to the address and salutation, which are, in fact, an integral part of the epistolary text itself (in opposition to Harless, Lünemann, and others, and Laurent in the Jahrb. für Deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 131). See also Reiche, Comment, crit. p. 109. The reading perscriptam in the above passage of Tertullian has evidently arisen from praescriptam (which is contained in the editions of Pamelius and Rigaltius) not having been understood.
[66] According to the longer recension (in Dressel, p. 332): Ὑμεῖς δὲ Παύλου συμμύσται ἐστέ ἡγιασμένου , μεμαρτυρημένου … ὃς πάντοτε ἐν ταῖς δεήσεσιν αὐτοῦ μνημονεύει ὑμῶν (vulg. ἡμῶν ). Following the reading ἡμῶν , Credner here concludes that our Epistle was not directed to the Ephesians alone. But it would apply to “the Pauline Christians in general,” so that it would not at all contain a reference to the individual Epistle. According to the shorter recension, the passage runs thus: Παύλου κ . τ . λ ., ὃς ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιστολῇ μνημονεύει ὑμῶν . Here ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιστολῇ does not mean, in the whole Epistle,—a linguistically erroneous interpretation which, though still defended by Harless and repeated by Dressel, would yield a quite irrelevant meaning; for how strange to say to A, who has received a letter from B: B makes mention of you in his whole letter! This is surely obvious of itself, and is not at all a point appropriate to be dwelt upon! On the contrary, ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιστολῇ means: in every Epistle; so that Ignatius does not mean our Epistle alone, nor yet by ὑμῶν specially the Ephesians as such, but the Ephesians as Pauline Christians generally (as regards category), and hence could say: he makes mention of you in every Epistle. It is not difficult to see how, in the words under consideration, the longer recension is related as explanatory to the shorter.
But although, when the matter is thus cleared up, Basil on the ground of older MSS. rejected ἐν Ἐφέσῳ , and Marcion and Tertullian did not read the words, they are yet to be most decidedly retained as original, for the following external and internal reasons (in addition to the attestation, upon which we have already remarked, of all other still extant witnesses, and especially of the versions):—(1) The entire ancient church has designated our Epistle expressly as Epistle to the Ephesians (Irenaeus, Haer. v. 23; Clemens Alex. Strom, iv. 8, p. 592, ed. Potter; Tertullian, Origen, and others, even as early as the Canon Murat., and Valentinus in the Philosoph. Or. vi. 34), without even a single voice, with the exception of Marcion’s, being raised against this view. But if the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ had been wanting from the outset, and the Epistle had thus borne on the face of it no place of destination, such a consensus would have been quite as inexplicable in itself as at variance with the analogy of the other Epistles, in which throughout the judgment of the church as to the first readers coincides with the superscription, where there is one, and beyond doubt depends upon it. (2) In all his Epistles Paul designates in the address the recipients most definitely, even when he does not write to the Christians of a single town (1Co_1:2; 2Co_1:1), or to a single church (Gal_1:2). Accordingly our Epistle, if fairly regarded in accordance with the address, should ἐν Ἐφέσῳ not be genuine, would be marked out as a catholic one, without any limitation whatever of locality or nationality of the readers,—a view with which the contents (Eph_1:15, Eph_2:11, Eph_3:1, Eph_4:17, etc.) as well as the mission of Tychicus (Eph_6:21) would be decidedly at variance. (3) On each occasion, when St. Paul in the address has used τοῖς οὖσιν , it serves to specify the locality of the readers. See Rom_1:7 : τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ ; Php_1:1 : τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις ; 1Co_1:2 : τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ , and even so 2Co_1:1. Compare the addresses in the Ignatian Epistles. (4) If Paul had written τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν καὶ πιστοῖς , we should have a form of address, which does not even admit of any tolerable explanation. It would yield the meaning: to the saints, who are also (not merely saints, but also) believing.[67] But what a diffuse and inappropriate severance of the ideas “saints and believing,” which should rather be conjoined into unity (comp. Col_1:2)! With the apostle there are no saints, who are not also believers. The explanation of Meier is chargeable with the same inappropriateness: to the saints, who are also faithful (since the unfaithful have ceased to be saints); and, moreover, it is to be taken into consideration that πιστοῖς is not defined to have the sense of faithful by the context, but rather, when used in the address, and connected with ἐν Χ . Ἰ ., most naturally presents the sense of believing, as in Col_1:2.[68] Credner, Einl. I. 2, p. 400, translates: to the saints, who are in fact also believers, and this is held to mean: to the saints, who are true believers; in the mouth of Paul equivalent to Pauline Christians. But, in this case, τοῖς οὖσιν could not, without risk of being misapprehended, dispense with a defining addition (in fact), or Paul at least must have written τοῖς καὶ οὖσιν πιστοῖς , in which case by means of ΚΑΊ the special emphasis of ΟὖΣΙΝ might be indicated (who are not merely called believers, but also are so). Yet even thus the expression would not be clear, and the meaning: to the Pauline Christians, would be purely imported. In a context, where Pauline and anti-Pauline Christians were spoken of, the reader might without further indication understand under true believers the former; but not in the address, where this reference is not suggested by anything, and the less so, seeing that this contrast does not come once under discussion in the Epistle itself. Schneckenburger and Matthies attach τοῖς οὖσιν to ΤΟῖς ἉΓΊΟΙς . The latter (comp. Bengel) explains: ΤΟῖς ΟὖΣΙΝ , who are there (namely, in Asia Minor, whither Tychicus was journeying to visit them), which imputes to Paul a strange clumsiness. But Schneckenburger (Beitrage, p. 133) renders: to the saints, who are in fact such. But even thus Paul, in order to obviate misunderstanding (and in the address of an official writing at any rate people express themselves definitely and clearly), could not have dispensed with some defining adjunct (in fact) to τοῖς οὖσιν ; and, even apart from this, how unsuitable would the address be, whether we explain the true saints as standing in contrast to the nominal Christians or to the Jews! The former would yield an indefinite designation of the readers, and would contain an exclusion and separation unsuited to the apostolic spirit and working. And the latter would be quite out of place, since the Epistle has nothing at all to do with the contrast to Judaism. All explanations without ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are fanciful impossibilities, unless we keep to the first-given simple translation of the words. Weiss does this in Herzog’s Encykl. XIX. p. 480; rejecting ἐν Ἐφέσῳ , he make