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

501. Matt. xi. 19, Luke vii. 34.

502. Ginsburg Essenes p. 14.

503. 1 Cor. vii. 26–31.

504. See p. 134 sq.

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.

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

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

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

509. Matt. ix. 13, xii. 7.

510. See above p. 88.

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.

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.

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

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

515. 514: Acts v. 4.

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.

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

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.

519. Grätz Gesch. III. p. 219.

520. ib. p. 470.

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.’

522. Keim l.c.

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.

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

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 ReviewIV. 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.

526. ii. 20, 22.

527. iii. 1 sq.

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.

529. 1 Thess. i. 1, v. 28.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

535. The references to the patristic quotations in the following pages have all been verified. I have also consulted the Egyptian and Syriac Versions in every case, and the Armenian and Latin in some instances, before giving the readings. As regards the MSS, I have contented myself with the collations as given in Tregelles and Tischendorf, not verifying them unless I had reason to suspect an error.

The readings of the Memphitic Version are very incorrectly given even by the principal editors, such as Tregelles and Tischendorf; the translation of Wilkins being commonly adopted, though full of errors, and no attention being paid to the various readings of Boetticher’s text. Besides the errors corrected in the following pages, I have also observed these places where the text of this version is incorrectly reported; ii. 7 ἐν αὐτῇ not omitted; ii. 13 the second ὑμᾶς not omitted; ii. 17 the singular (ὅ), not the plural (ἅ); iii. 4 ὑμῶν, not ἡμῶν; iii. 16 τῷ Θεῷ, not τῷ Κυρίῳ; iii. 22 τὸν Κύριον, not τὸν Θεόν; iv. 3 doubtful whether δι’ ὅ or δι’ ὅν; and probably there are others.

536. In this passage B (with some few other authorities) has τοῦ Θεοῦ for τοῦ Χριστοῦ, thus substituting a commoner expression (ii. 2, 1 Cor. iv. 1, Rev. x. 7; comp. 1 Cor. ii. 1, v.l.) for a less common (Ephes. iii. 4).

537. It is true that in the text (Spicil. Solesm.I. p. 123, Rab. Maur. Op. VII. p. 539, Migne) he is credited with the later Latin reading ut cognoscat quæ circa vos sunt, but his comment implies the other; ‘Quoniam omnia vobis nota faciet Tychicus illa quæ erga me sunt, propterea a me directus est cum Onesimo fratre qui a vobis venerat, ut nota vobis faciant quæ erga nos sunt [= γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν] et oblectent vos per suum adventum [= καὶ παρακαλέσῃ τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν], omnia quæ hic aguntur manifesta facientes vobis.’ See Spicil. Solesm. l.c.; the comment is mutilated in Rab. Maur. Op. l.c.

538. In the text; but in the commentary he is made to write ἵνα γνῷ γάρ, φησί, τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν, an impossible reading.