St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon A...

In one respect the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians hold a unique position among the Epistles of St Paul, as regards textual criticism. They alone have been exposed, or exposed in any considerable degree, to those harmonizing tendencies in transcribers, which have had so great an influence on the text of the Synoptic Gospels.

In such cases there is sometimes no difficulty in ascertaining the correct reading. The harmonistic change is condemned by the majority of the oldest and best authorities; or there is at least a nearly even balance of external testimony, and the suspicious character of the reading is quite sufficient to turn the scale. Thus we cannot hesitate for a moment about such readings as i. 14 διὰ τοῦ ἅιματος αὐτοῦ (from Ephes. i. 7), or iii. 16 ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς, and τῷ Κυρίῳ (for τῷ Θεῷ) in the same verse (both from Ephes. v. 19).

In other instances again there can hardly be any doubt about the text, even though the vast preponderance of authority is in favour of the harmonistic reading; and these are especially valuable because they enable us to test the worth of our authorities. Such examples are:

|iii. 6, words inserted.|iii. 6. The omission of the words ἐπὶ τοὺς ὑιὸυς τῆς ἀπειθείας (taken from Ephes. v. 6). Apparently the only extant MS in favour of the omission is B. In D however they are written (though by the first hand) in smaller letters and extend beyond the line (in both Greek and Latin), whence we may infer that they were not found in a copy which was before the transcriber. They are wanting also in the Thebaic Version and in one form of the Æthiopic (Polyglott). They were also absent from copies used by Clement of Alexandria (Pæd. iii. 11, p. 295, where however they are inserted in the printed texts; Strom. iii. 5, p. 531), by Cyprian (Epist. lv. 27, p. 645 ed. Hartel), by an unknown writer (de Sing. Cler.> 39, in Cypr. Op. III. p. 215), by the Ambrosian Hilary (ad loc.), and by Jerome (Epist. xiv. 5, I. p. 32), though now found apparently in all the Latin MSS.

iii. 21. ἐρεθίζετε is only found in B K and in later hands of D (with its transcript E) among the uncial MSS. All the other uncials read παροργίζετε, which is taken from Ephes. vi. 4. In this case however the reading of B is supported by the greater number of cursives, and it accordingly has a place in the received text. The versions (so far as we can safely infer their readings) go almost entirely with the majority of uncials. |Syriac version misrepresented.|The true readings of the Syriac Versions are just the reverse of those assigned to them even by the chief critical editors, Tregelles and Tischendorf. Thus in the Peshito the word used is the Aphel of ܪܓܙ, the same mood of the same verb being employed to translate παροργίζειν, not only in Rom. x. 19, but even in the parallel passage Ephes. vi. 4. The word in the text of the Harclean is the same, ܬܪܓܛܙܘܢܢ, but in the margin the alternative ܬܓܪܓܘܢ is given. White interprets this as saying that the text is ἐρεθίζετε and the margin παροργίζετε, and he is followed by Tregelles and Tischendorf. But in this version, as in the Peshito, the former word translates παροργίζειν in Rom. x. 19, Ephes. vi. 4; while in the Peshito the latter word is adopted to render ἐρεθίζειν in 2 Cor. ix. 2 (the only other passage in the N. T. where ἐρεθίζειν occurs). In the Harclean of 2 Cor. ix. 2 a different word from either, ܚܬܚܬ, is used.

It seems tolerably clear therefore that παροργίζετε was read in the text of both Peshito and Harclean here, while ἐρεθίζετε was given in the margin of the latter. |Latin versions.|The Latin Versions seem also to have read παροργίζετε; for the Old Latin has ‘ad iram (or in iram or ad iracundiam) provocare, and the Vulgate ad indignationem provocare’ here, while both have ad iracundiam provocare in Ephes. vi. 4. The Memphitic too has the same rendering ϯϫωⲛτ in both passages. Of the earlier Greek fathers Clement, Strom. iv. 8 (p. 593), reads ἐρεθίζετε: and it is found in Chrysostom and some later writers.

|Alterations for the sake of harmonizing.| Here are seven divergences from the received text. (1) The insertion of ἐν before ψαλμοῖς in Ephes.; (2) The omission of καί, καί, attaching ψαλμοῖς, ὕμνοις, ᾠδαῖς in Col.; (3) The omission of πνευματικαῖς in Ephes.; (4) The insertion of τῇ before χάριτι in Col.; (5) The omission of ἐν before τῇ καρδίᾳ in Ephes.; (6) The substitution of ταῖς καρδίαις for τῇ καρδίᾳ in Col.; (7) The substitution of τῷ Θεῷ for τῷ Κυρίῳ in Col.

Of these seven divergences the fourth alone does not affect the question: of the remaining six, the readings of B in (2), (6), (7) are supported by the great preponderance of the best authorities, and are unquestionably right. In (1), (3), (5) however the case stands thus:

(1) ἐν ψαλμοῖς B, P, with the cursives 17, 67**, 73, 116, 118, and in Latin, d, e, vulg., with the Latin commentators Victorinus, Hilary and Jerome. Of these however it is clear that the Latin authorities can have little weight in such a case, as the preposition might have been introduced by the translator. All the other Greek MSS with several Greek fathers omit ἐν.

(3) πνευματικαῖς omitted in B, d, e. Of the Ambrosian Hilary Tischendorf says ‘fluct. lectio’; but his comment ‘In quo enim est spiritus, semper spiritualia meditatur’ seems certainly to recognise the word. It appears to be found in every other authority.

ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ K L, and the vast majority of later MSS, the Armenian and Æthiopic Versions, Euthalius (Tischendorf’s MS), Theodoret, and others. The Harclean Syriac (text) is quoted by Tischendorf and Tregelles in favour of ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ, but it is impossible to say whether the translator had or had not the preposition.

ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις אc A D F G P, 47, 8pe; the Old Latin, Vulgate, Memphitic, Peshito Syriac, and Gothic Versions, together with the margin of the Harclean Syriac; the fathers Basil (II. p. 464), Victorinus (probably), Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Ambrosian Hilary, Jerome, and others. Chrysostom (as read in the existing texts) wavers between ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ and ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις. This form of the reading is an attempt to bring Ephes. into harmony with Col., just as (6) is an attempt to bring Col. into harmony with Ephes.

It will be seen how slenderly B is supported; and yet we can hardly resist the impression that it has the right reading in all three cases. In the omission of πνευματικαῖς more especially, where the support is weakest, this impression must, I think, be very strong.

This highly favourable estimate of B is our starting-point; and on the whole it will be enhanced as we proceed. Thus for instance in i. 22 and ii. 2 we shall find this MS alone (with one important Latin father) retaining the correct text; in the latter case amidst a great complication of various readings. And when again, as in iv. 8, we find B for once on the side of a reading which might otherwise be suspected as a harmonistic change, this support alone will weigh heavily in its favour. Other cases in which B (with more or less support) preserves the correct reading against the mass of authorities are ii. 2 πᾶν πλοῦτος, ii. 7 τῇ πίστει, ii. 13 τοῖς παραπτώμασιν (omitting ἐν), v. 12 σταθῆτε, together with several instances which will appear in the course of the following investigation. On the other hand its value must not be overestimated. |False readings in B.|Thus in iv. 3 τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ δι’ ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι[536] there can be little doubt that the great majority of ancient authorities correctly read δι’ ὅ, though B F G have δι’ ὅν: but the variation is easily explained. A single stroke, whether accidental or deliberate, alone would be necessary to turn the neuter into a masculine and make the relative agree with the substantive nearest to it in position. Again in ii. 10 ὅς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλή, the reading of B which substitutes ὅ for ὅς is plainly wrong, though supported in this instance by D F G 47*, by the Latin text d, and by Hilary in one passage (de Trin. ix. 8, II. p. 263), though elsewhere (ib. i. 13, I. p. 10) he reads ὅ.

But here again we have only an instance of a very common interchange. Whether for grammatical reasons or from diplomatic confusion or from some other cause, five other instances of this interchange occur in this short epistle alone; i. 15 ὅ for ὅς F G; i. 18 ὅ for ὅς F G; i. 24 ὅς for ὅ C D* etc.; i. 27 ὅς for ὅ א C D K L etc.; iii. 14 ὅς for ὅ א* D. Such readings again as the omission of καὶ αἰτούμενοι i. 9 by B K, or of δι’ αὐτοῦ in i. 20 by B D* F G etc., or of ἡ ἐπιστολή in iv. 16 by B alone, need not be considered, since the motive for the omission is obvious, and the authority of B will not carry as great weight as it would in other cases. Similarly the insertion of ἡ in i. 18, ἡ ἀρχή, by B, 47, 67**, bscr, and of καί in ii. 15, καὶ ἐδειγμάτισεν, by B alone, do not appear to deserve consideration, because in both instances these readings would suggest themselves as obvious improvements. In other cases, as in the omission of τῆς before γῆς (i. 20), and of ἑνί in ἐν ἑνί σώματι (iii. 15), the scribe of B has erred as any scribe might err.