Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 8.djvu/479

Rh EPHESIANS 459 have been at once refuted by the opening words. It will be observed that Tertullian does not accuse him of alter ing the text Marcion therefore must have read without &quot; at Ephesus,&quot; and must have urged that he was led to this conclusion by his diligent inquiries. It is difficult to see why, in assigning such a reason for his view, he is not to be believed. He could have no dogmatic interest in adopting the one reading rather than the other. The inferences are (1) that Marcion did not read &quot;at Ephesus;&quot; (2) that even in his time the epistle was generally regarded as addressed to the Ephesians ; (3) that he, as the result of careful investigation, believed it to have been addressed to the Laodiceans. It is more difficult to draw any con clusion from Tertullian s words as to the reading adopted a. by himself. There is no doubt force in the argument of Harless and others that, when determining any disputed point with regard to the New Testament, his principles led him to appeal to the authority of tradition and not to critical considerations. But this was in cases where there was a doubt. Here, with &quot; at Ephesus &quot; in the text, there could be none ; and it is hardly possible to imagine that, if he had these words before him, he should not, even while resting upon the veritas ecclesice as sufficient for his pur pose, have taken occasion from them to pour out upon the heretic all the vials of his indignant scorn. Instead of that he only speaks, however scornfully, of Marcion s great diligence in inquiry, and refers to nothing but the title.&quot; The inferences are (1) that in all probability Tertullian did not read &quot;at Ephesus, and (2) that he knew of but one tradition in the church reaching back to the earliest times, and unhesitatingly accepted by him, that the epistle had been addressed to the Ephesians. n. The evidence of Origen is important. In a catena con taining part of his lost commentary upon the epistle- that eminent father is quoted as saying that &quot; in the Ephesians alone&quot; has he found the words &quot; to the saints that are;&quot; as inquiring into the meaning of the strange expression ; as explaining it by the supposition that of those who are made partakers of the &quot; I am &quot; it may fitly be said &quot; They are ;&quot; and as confirming his interpretation by the words of the same Paul, who speaks in a similar manner elsewhere, when he writes that &quot; God has chosen the things that are iiot to bring to nought the things that are.&quot; The inferences are (1) that Origen did not read &quot;at Ephesus,&quot; or he would not have commented as he does, and (2) that he knew the epistle as one to the Ephesians. Once more, Basil, about the end of the 4th century, reasons in an exactly similar way, quoting without the ex pression in dispute, and adding that he had obtained the reading &quot; from those who had gone before him, and from his own study of ancient MSS.&quot; The inferences in his case are the same as in the case of the others already mentioned, with this difference, that the reading &quot;at Ephesus was now generally accepted in the church. It is unnecessary to refer to Jerome, while the evidence of the Ignatian epistle, if it may be relied on, simply shows that very early in the 2d century a whole epistle, which can hardly be any other than our present one (the longer recension leaves no doubt upon the point), was believed to have been written by St Paul to the Ephesian church. Some slight force may be added to the testimony of Marcion and Basil by the consideration that both belonged to Asia Minor, and that their sphere of labour was con tiguous to the district to one part or another of which the epistle was sent by the apostle. In the light of these considerations, the MS. authority in favour of the omission of &quot; at Ephesus &quot; assumes a very different importance from what it might otherwise possess. It is clear that in the first half of the 2d century there were MSS. in circulation which did not read the words; destiua- and that, during the 4th century, MSS. then considered &quot; ancient,&quot; which also omitted them, were at least regarded as highly authoritative by distinguished men. The internal evidence is even more decisive than the Internal external Without the words the reading in. question is evidence one of the most difficult of the New Testament. It is | s * almost impossible to give a satisfactory explanation of it. It is at variance with the style of language always used by &quot; the apostle on similar occasions. It cannot be explain Dd by the supposition that the dogmatic rendering of which we have spoken was first given to the &quot; are,&quot; and that then, for the sake of this, &quot; at Ephesus &quot; was dropped. With &quot;at Ephesus&quot; in the text, such a dogmatic render ing could hardly have suggested itself, and the name of a place was rather inserted to get rid of it. Finally, except on the supposition that the epistle was addressed directly to Ephesus, a supposition that few will accept, the history of the insertion connects itself with that particular form of the &quot;circular letter&quot; theory which is of all others the most improbable, and most out of keeping with the character of the apostolic age. On the other hand, the insertion of the words was extremely natural They took the place of nothing where something seemed obviously required. There was no other city whose name would so readily suggest itself for insertion as that of Ephesus. It was the metro polis of the province. St Paul had spent there a longer time than in any other city visited by him on his missionary tours. It was to be expected that he should write to it. The letter was 110 doubt read in Ephesus ; and, leaving that city without any designation of its readers, it would, as it spread thence to all parts of the Christian world, be supposed to have been addressed to the church which was the great centre of its circulation. These considerations, too, would no doubt derive additional weight from the notice in 2 Tim. iv. 12, &quot; Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus,&quot; compared with Eph. vi. 21. Everything, in short, was in favour of the insertion, everything against the omission. 1 On all sides the strength of the argument is irresistible ; and we conclude that the words &quot; at Ephesus &quot; form no part of the genuine text of our epistle. With the removal of the words &quot; at Ephesus &quot; from the Theories opening of the epistle, the way is cleared for the considera- of desti - tion of the question of its destination. Three main theories na require to be shortly noticed. (1.) The first is that the recognized designation is correct. The absence of the words we have found it necessary to eliminate does not of itself-prove that the epistle was not sent to Ephesus. It forms a presumption against such a supposition, for St Paul s practice is to name the churches to which he writes. But it does not do more. As we have already seen, even those fathers who did not read &quot; Ephesus &quot; in i. 1 accepted the title &quot; to the Ephesians.&quot; Such had been the tradition of the church, and Marcion alone had questioned its correct ness, Great difficulties, however, oppose the reception of this theory. Little stress can indeed be laid on the want at the end of the epistle of the greetings so commonly sent 1 It is probable that the form of the evidence now given is resisted mainly because of the impression that the insertion of &quot;at Ephesus makes easy a reading otherwise almost inexplicable. But this is not the fact. The rendering is as difficult with the toonls &quot;at Ephesus in the text as without them. The combination of the verb with the place named is then, indeed, easy enough, and it finds a parallel in Rom. i. 7. But the difficulty lies elsewhere. It lies in the combina tion of the simple Kal viarots immediately following with this parti cipial clause; and that difficulty is in no degree touched by taking &quot; at Ephesus &quot; into the text. In fact, the difficulty is thus rather increased, the only translation that can then be given, &quot;To the saints which are in Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus, being ap parently inadmissible. Could one only persuade himself to render KO.L by &quot; also&quot; when &quot;at Ephesus&quot; is dropped, all would be simple, &quot;To the saints who are also faithful in Christ Jesus ;&quot; but surely St Paul could not have spoken thus.