Chapter II: Preface (1)

On the completion of another volume of my commentary, I wish again to renew my thanks for the assistance received from previous labourers in the same field. Such obligations must always be great; but it is not easy in a few words to apportion them fairly, and I shall not make the attempt. I have not consciously neglected any aid which might render this volume more complete; but at the same time I venture to hope that my previous commentaries have established my claim to be regarded as an independent worker, and in the present instance more especially I have found myself obliged to diverge widely from the treatment of my predecessors, and to draw largely from other materials than those which they have collected.

In the preface to a previous volume I expressed an intention of appending to my commentary on the Colossian Epistle an essay on ‘Christianity and Gnosis.’ This intention has not been fulfilled in the letter; but the subject enters largely into the investigation of the Colossian heresy, where it receives as much attention as, at all events for the present, it seems to require. It will necessarily come under discussion again, when the Pastoral Epistles are taken in hand.

The question of the genuineness of the two epistles contained in this volume has been deliberately deferred. It could not be discussed with any advantage apart from the Epistle to the Ephesians, for the three letters are inseparably bound together. Meanwhile however the doctrinal and historical discussions will, if I mistake not, have furnished answers to the main objections which have been urged; while the commentary will have shown how thoroughly natural the language and thoughts are, if conceived as arising out of an immediate emergency. More especially it will have been made apparent that the Epistle to the Colossians hangs together as a whole, and that the phenomena are altogether adverse to any theory of interpolation such as that recently put forward by Professor Holtzmann.

In the commentary, as well as in the introduction, it has been a chief aim to illustrate and develope the theological conception of the Person of Christ, which underlies the Epistle to the Colossians. The Colossian heresy for instance owes its importance mainly to the fact that it throws out this conception into bolder relief. To this portion of the subject therefore I venture to direct special attention.

I cannot conclude without offering my thanks to Mr A. A. VanSittart who, as on former occasions, has given his aid in correcting the proof sheets of this volume; and to the Rev. J. J. Scott, of Trinity College, who has prepared the index. I wish also to express my obligations to Dr Schiller-Szinessy, of whose Talmudical learning I have freely availed myself in verifying Frankel’s quotations and in other ways. I should add however that he is not in any degree responsible for my conclusions and has not even seen what I have written.

TRINITY COLLEGE,
_April 30, 1875_.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTENTS.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

_INTRODUCTION._

PAGE

I. _The Churches of the Lycus_ 1–72

II. _The Colossian Heresy_ 73–113

_On some points connected with the
Essenes._

1. _The name Essene_ 114–119

2. _Origin and Affinities of the 119–157
Essenes_

3. _Essenism and Christianity_ 158–179

III. _Character and Contents of the Epistle_ 180–194

_TEXT AND NOTES_ 197–311

_On some Various Readings in the Epistle_ 312–322

_On the meaning of πλήρωμα_ 323–339

_The Epistle from Laodicea_ 340–366

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

_INTRODUCTION_ 369–395

_TEXT AND NOTES_ 399–412

_INDEX_ 415–424

I.
THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

[Sidenote: Situation of the three cities.]

Lying in, or overhanging, the valley of the Lycus, a tributary of the Mæander, were three neighbouring towns, Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossæ[1]. The river flows, roughly speaking, from east to west; but at this point, which is some few miles above its junction with the Mæander, its direction is more nearly from south-east to north-west[2]. Laodicea and Hierapolis stand face to face, being situated respectively on the southern and northern sides of the valley, at a distance of six miles[3], and within sight of each other, the river lying in the open plain between the two. The site of Colossæ is somewhat higher up the stream, at a distance of perhaps ten or twelve miles[4] from the point where the road between Laodicea and Hierapolis crosses the Lycus. Unlike Laodicea and Hierapolis, which overhang the valley on opposite sides, Colossæ stands immediately on the river-bank, the two parts of the town being divided by the stream. The three cities lie so near to each other, that it would be quite possible to visit them all in the course of a single day.

Footnote 1:

The following are among the most important books of travel relating to
this district; Pococke _Description of the East and Some Other
Countries_, Vol. II, Part II, London 1745; Chandler _Travels in Asia
Minor_ etc., Oxford 1775; Leake _Tour in Asia Minor_, London 1824;
Arundell _Discoveries in Asia Minor_, London 1834; Hamilton
_Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus, and Armenia_, London 1842; Fellows
_Asia Minor_, London 1839, _Discoveries in Lycia_, London 1840; de
Tchihatcheff _Asie Mineure, Description Physique, Statistique et
Archéologique_, Paris 1853 etc., with the accompanying Atlas (1860);
de Laborde _Voyage de l’Asie Mineure_ (the expedition itself took
place in 1826, but the date on the title-page is 1838, and the
introduction was written in 1861); Le Bas _Voyage Archéologique en
Grèce et en Asie Mineure_, continued by Waddington and not yet
completed; Texier _Description de l’Asie Mineure_, Vol. I (1839). It
is hardly necessary to add the smaller works of Texier and Le Bas on
_Asie Mineure_ (Paris 1862, 1863) in Didot’s series _L’Univers_, as
these have only a secondary value. Of the books enumerated, Hamilton’s
work is the most important for the topography, etc.; Tchihatcheff’s
for the physical features; and Le Bas and Waddington’s for the
inscriptions, etc. The best maps are those of Hamilton and
Tchihatcheff; to which should be added the _Karte von Klein-Asien_ by
v. Vincke and others, published by Schropp, Berlin 1844.

Besides books on Asia Minor generally, some works relating especially
to the Seven Churches may be mentioned. Smith’s _Survey of the Seven
Churches of Asia_ (1678) is a work of great merit for the time, and
contains the earliest description of the sites of these Phrygian
cities. It was published in Latin first, and translated by its author
afterwards. Arundell’s _Seven Churches_ (1828) is a well-known book.
Allom and Walsh’s _Constantinople and the Scenery of the Seven
Churches of Asia Minor illustrated_ (1850) gives some views of this
district. Svoboda’s _Seven Churches of Asia_ (1869) contains 20
photographs and an introduction by the Rev. H. B. Tristram. This is a
selection from a larger series of Svoboda’s photographs, published
separately.

Footnote 2:

The maps differ very considerably in this respect, nor do the
statements of travellers always agree. The direction of the river, as
given in the text, accords with the maps of Hamilton and Tchihatcheff,
and with the accounts of the most accurate writers.

Footnote 3:

_Anton. Itin._ p. 337 (Wesseling) gives the distance as 6 miles. See
also Fellows _Asia Minor_ p. 283, Hamilton I. p. 514. The relative
position of the two cities appears in Laborde’s view, pl. xxxix.

Footnote 4:

I do not find any distinct notice of the distance; but, to judge from
the maps and itineraries of modern travellers, this estimate will
probably be found not very far wrong.

[Sidenote: Their neighbourhood and intercourse.]

Thus situated, they would necessarily hold constant intercourse with each other. We are not surprised therefore to find them so closely connected in the earliest ages of Christianity. It was the consequence of their position that they owed their knowledge of the Gospel to the same evangelist, that the same phases of thought prevailed in them, and that they were exposed to the same temptations, moral as well as intellectual.

[Sidenote: Physical forces at work.]

The physical features of the neighbourhood are very striking. Two potent forces of nature are actively at work to change the face of the country, the one destroying old land-marks, the other creating fresh ground.

[Sidenote: Frequent earthquakes.]

On the one hand, the valley of the Lycus was and is especially liable to violent earthquakes. The same danger indeed extends over large portions of Asia Minor, but this district is singled out by ancient writers[5] (and the testimony of modern travellers confirms the statement[6]), as the chief theatre of these catastrophes. Not once or twice only in the history of Laodicea do we read of such visitations laying waste the city itself or some flourishing town in the neighbourhood[7]. Though the exterior surface of the earth shows no traces of recent volcanoes, still the cavernous nature of the soil and the hot springs and mephitic vapours abounding here indicate the presence of those subterranean fires, which from time to time have manifested themselves in this work of destruction.

Footnote 5:

See especially Strabo xii. 8. 16 (p. 578) τὸ πολύτρητον τῆς χώρας καὶ
_τὸ εὔσειστον_· εἰ γάρ τις ἄλλη, καὶ ἡ Λαοδίκεια εὔσειστος, καὶ
τῆς πλησιοχώρου δὲ Κάρουρα.

Footnote 6:

Thus Pococke (p. 71) in 1745 writes of Denizli, which is close to
Laodicea, ‘The old town was destroyed about 25 years past by an
earthquake, in which 12,000 people perished.’

Footnote 7:

See below p. 38.

[Sidenote: Deposits of travertine.]

But, while the crust of the earth is constantly broken up by these forces from beneath, another agency is actively employed above ground in laying a new surface. If fire has its fitful outbursts of devastation, water is only less powerful in its gradual work of reconstruction. The lateral streams which swell the waters of the Lycus are thickly impregnated with calcareous matter, which they deposit in their course. The travertine formations of this valley are among the most remarkable in the world, surpassing even the striking phenomena of Tivoli and Clermont[8]. Ancient monuments are buried, fertile lands overlaid, river-beds choked up and streams diverted, fantastic grottos and cascades and archways of stone formed, by this strange capricious power, at once destructive and creative, working silently and relentlessly through long ages. Fatal to vegetation, these incrustations spread like a stony shroud over the ground. Gleaming like glaciers on the hill-side they attract the eye of the traveller at a distance of twenty miles[9], and form a singularly striking feature in scenery of more than common beauty and impressiveness.

Footnote 8:

Tchihatcheff P. I. _Geogr. Phys. Comp._ p. 344 sq., esp. p. 353. See
the references below, pp. 9 sq., 15.

Footnote 9:

Fellows _Asia Minor_ p. 283.

[Sidenote: Produce and manufactures of the district.]

At the same time, along with these destructive agencies, the fertility of the district was and is unusually great. Its rich pastures fed large flocks of sheep, whose fleeces were of a superior quality; and the trade in dyed woollen goods was the chief source of prosperity to these towns. For the bounty of nature was not confined to the production of the material, but extended also to the preparation of the fabric. The mineral streams had chemical qualities, which were highly valued by the dyer[10]. Hence we find that all the three towns, with which we are concerned, were famous in this branch of trade. At Hierapolis, as at Thyatira, the guild of the dyers appears in the inscriptions as an important and influential body[11]. Their colours vied in brilliancy with the richest scarlets and purples of the farther east[12]. Laodicea again was famous for the colour of its fleeces, probably a glossy black, which was much esteemed[13]. Here also we read of a guild of dyers[14]. And lastly, Colossæ gave its name to a peculiar dye, which seems to have been some shade of purple, and from which it derived a considerable revenue[15].

Footnote 10:

See note 13.

Footnote 11:

Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ no. 3924 (at Hierapolis) τοῦτο τὸ ἡρῷον στεφανοῖ
_ἡ ἐργασία τῶν βαφεών_. See Laborde’s view, pl. xxxv. In another
inscription too (Le Bas and Waddington, no. 1687) there is mention of
the purple-dyers, πορφυραβαφεῖς.

Footnote 12:

Strabo xiii. 4. 14 (p. 630) ἔστι δὲ καὶ πρὸς βαφὴν ἐρίων θαυμαστῶς
σύμμετρον τὸ κατὰ τὴν Ἱερὰν πόλιν ὕδωρ, ὤστε τὰ ἐκ τῶν ῥιζῶν βαπτόμενα
ἐνάμιλλα εἴναι τοῖς ἐκ τῆς κόκκου καὶ τοῖς ἁλουργέσιν.

Footnote 13:

Strabo xii. 8. 16 (p. 578) φέρει δ’ ὁ περὶ τὴν Λαοδίκειαν τόπος
προβάτων ἀρετὰς οὐκ εἰς μαλακότητα μόνον τῶν ἐρίων, ᾖ καὶ τῶν Μιλησίων
διαφέρει, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰς τὴν κοραξὴν χρόαν, ὥστε καὶ προσοδεύονται
λαμπρῶς ἀπ’ αὐτῶν, ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ Κολοσσηνοὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁμωνύμου χρώματος,
πλησίον οἰκοῦντες. For this strange adjective κοραξός (which seems to
be derived from κόραξ and to mean ‘raven-black’) see the passages in
Hase and Dindorf’s _Steph. Thes._ In Latin we find the form
_coracinus_, Vitruv. viii. 3 § 14 ‘Aliis coracino colore,’ Laodicea
being mentioned in the context. Vitruvius represents this as the
natural colour of the fleeces, and attributes it to the water drunk by
the sheep. See also Plin. _N. H._ viii. 48 § 73. So too Hieron. _adv.
Jovin._ ii. 21 (II. p. 358) ‘Laodiceæ indumentis ornatus incedis.’ The
ancient accounts of the natural colour of the fleeces in this
neighbourhood are partially confirmed by modern travellers; e.g.
Pococke p. 74, Chandler p. 228.

Footnote 14:

Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3938 [ἡ ἐργασία] τῶν γναφέ[ων καὶ βαφέων τῶν]
(αλουργ[ῶ]ν.

Footnote 15:

See the passage of Strabo quoted p. 4, note 13. The place gives its
name to the colour, and not conversely, as stated in Blakesley’s
Herod. vii. 113. See also Plin. _N. H._ xxi. 9 § 27, ‘In vepribus
nascitur cyclaminum ... flos ejus _colossinus_ in coronas admittitur,’
a passage which assists in determining the colour.

[Sidenote: 1. LAODICEA.]

[Sidenote: Its name and history.]

1. Of these three towns LAODICEA, as the most important, deserves to be considered first. Laodice was a common name among the ladies of the royal house of the Seleucidæ, as Antiochus was among the princes. Hence Antiochia and Laodicea occur frequently as the designations of cities within the dominions of the Syrian kings. Laodicea on the Lycus[16], as it was surnamed to distinguish it from other towns so called, and more especially perhaps from its near neighbour Laodicea Catacecaumene, had borne in succession the names of Diospolis and Rhoas[17]; but when refounded by Antiochus Theos (B.C. 261–246), it was newly designated after his wife Laodice[18]. It is situated[19] on an undulating hill, or group of hills, which overhangs the valley on the south, being washed on either side by the streams of the Asopus and the Caprus, tributaries of the Lycus[20]. Behind it rise the snow-capped heights of Cadmus, the lofty mountain barrier which shuts in the south side of the main valley[21]. [Sidenote: Its growing prosperity.] A place of no great importance at first, it made rapid strides in the last days of the republic and under the earliest Cæsars, and had become, two or three generations before St Paul wrote, a populous and thriving city[22]. Among its famous inhabitants are mentioned the names of some philosophers, sophists, and rhetoricians, men renowned in their day but forgotten or almost forgotten now[23]. More to our purpose, as illustrating the boasted wealth and prosperity of the city, which appeared as a reproach and a stumblingblock in an Apostle’s eyes[24], are the facts, that one of its citizens, Polemo, became a king and a father of kings, and that another, Hiero, having accumulated enormous wealth, bequeathed all his property to the people and adorned the city with costly gifts[25]. To the good fortune of her principal sons, as well as to the fertility of the country around, the geographer Strabo ascribes the increase and prosperity of Laodicea. The ruins of public buildings still bear testimony by their number and magnificence to the past greatness of the city[26].

Footnote 16:

ἐπὶ Λύκῳ, Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ no. 3938, Ptol. _Geogr._ v. 2, Tab.
Peut. ‘laudicium pilycum’; πρὸς [τῷ] Λύκῳ, Eckhel _Num. Vet._ III. p.
166, Strabo l.c., Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 5881, 5893; πρὸς Λύκον, Boeckh
_Corp. Inscr._ 6478. A citizen was styled Λαοδικεὺς ἀπὸ Λύκου, Diog.
Laert. ix. 12 § 116.

Footnote 17:

Plin. _N. H._ v. 29.

Footnote 18:

Steph. Byz. s.v., who quotes the oracle in obedience to which (ὡς
ἐκέλευσε Ζεὺς ὑψιβρεμέτης) it was founded.

Footnote 19:

For descriptions of Laodicea see Smith p. 250 sq., Pococke p. 71 sq.,
Chandler p. 224 sq., Arundell _Seven Churches_ p. 84 sq., _Asia Minor_
II. p. 180 sq., Fellows _Asia Minor_ 280 sq., Hamilton I. p. 514 sq.,
Tchihatcheff P. I. p. 252 sq., 258 sq. See also the views in Laborde,
pl. xxxix, Allom and Walsh II. p. 86, and Svoboda phot. 36–38.

The modern Turkish name is Eskihissar, ‘the Old Castle,’ corresponding
to the modern Greek, Paleókastro, a common name for the sites of
ancient cities; Leake p. 251. On the ancient site itself there is no
town or village; the modern city Denizli is a few miles off.

Footnote 20:

The position of Laodicea with respect to the neighbouring streams is
accurately described by Pliny _N.H._ v. 29 ‘Imposita est Lyco flumini,
latera affluentibus Asopo et Capro’; see Tchihatcheff P. I. p. 258.
Strabo xii. (l.c.) is more careless in his description (for it can
hardly be, as Tchihatcheff assumes, that he has mistaken one of these
two tributaries for the Lycus itself), ἐνταῦθα δὲ καὶ ὁ Κάπρος καὶ ὁ
Λύκος συμβάλλε τῷ Μαιάνδρῳ ποταμῷ ποταμὸς εὐμεγέθης, where ἐνταῦθα
refers to ὁ περὶ τὴν Λαοδίκειαν τόπος, and where by the junction of
the stream with the Mæander must be intended the junction of the
_combined_ stream of the Lycus and Caprus. On the coins of Laodicea
(Eckhel III. p. 166, Mionnet IV. p. 330, ib. Suppl. VII. p. 587, 589)
the Lycus and Caprus appear together, being sometimes represented as a
wolf and a wild-boar. The Asopus is omitted, either as being a less
important stream or as being less capable of symbolical
representation. Of modern travellers, Smith (p. 250), and after him
Pococke (p. 72), have correctly described the position of the streams.
Chandler (p. 227), misled by Strabo, mistakes the Caprus for the Lycus
and the Lycus for the Mæander. The modern name of the Lycus is Tchoruk
Sú.

Footnote 21:

The modern name of Cadmus is Baba-Dagh, ‘The father of mountains.’

Footnote 22:

Strabo xii. l.c. ἡ δὲ Λαοδίκεια μικρὰ πρότερον ὀῦσα ἀύξησιν ἔλαβεν ἐφ’
ἡμῶν καὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων πατέρων, καίτοι κακωθεῖσα ἐκ πολιορκίας ἐπὶ
Μιθριδάτου τοῦ Ἐυπάτορος. Strabo flourished in the time of Augustus
and the earlier years of Tiberius. The growing importance of Laodicea
dates from before the age of Cicero: see p. 7.

Footnote 23:

Strabo l.c.; Diog. Laert. ix. 11 § 106, 12 § 116; Philostr. _Vit.
Soph._ i. 25; Eckhel _Doctr. Num. Vet._ III. p. 162, 163 sq.

Footnote 24:

Rev. iii. 17; see below p. 43.

Footnote 25:

Strabo l.c.

Footnote 26:

The ruins of Laodicea have formed the quarry out of which the modern
town of Denizli is built. Yet notwithstanding these depredations they
are still very extensive, comprising an amphitheatre, two or three
theatres, an aqueduct, etc. The amphitheatre was built by the
munificence of a citizen of Laodicea only a few years after St Paul
wrote, as the inscription testifies; Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ no. 3935.
See especially Hamilton I. p. 515 sq., who describes these ruins as
‘bearing the stamp of Roman extravagance and luxury, rather than of
the stern and massive solidity of the Greeks.’

[Sidenote: Its political rank, as the capital of a _conventus_.]

Not less important, as throwing light on the Apostolic history, is the political status of Laodicea. Asia Minor under the Romans was divided into districts, each comprising several towns and having its chief city, in which the courts were held from time to time by the proconsul or legate of the province, and where the taxes from the subordinate towns were collected[27]. Each of these political aggregates was styled in Latin _conventus_, in Greek διοίκησις—a term afterwards borrowed by the Christian Church, being applied to a similar ecclesiastical aggregate, and thus naturalised in the languages of Christendom as _diocese_. At the head of the most important of these political dioceses, the ‘Cibyratic convention’ or ‘jurisdiction,’ as it was called, comprising not less than twenty-five towns, stood Laodicea[28]. Here in times past Cicero, as proconsul of Cilicia, had held his court[29]; hither at stated seasons flocked suitors, advocates, clerks, sheriffs’-officers, tax-collectors, pleasure-seekers, courtiers—all those crowds whom business or leisure or policy or curiosity would draw together from a wealthy and populous district, when the representative of the laws and the majesty of Rome appeared to receive homage and to hold his assize[30]. To this position as the chief city of the Cibyratic union the inscriptions probably refer, when they style Laodicea the ‘metropolis[31].’ And in its metropolitan rank we see an explanation of the fact, that to Laodicea, as to the centre of a Christian diocese also, whence their letters would readily be circulated among the neighbouring brotherhoods, two Apostles address themselves in succession, the one writing from his captivity in Rome[32], the other from his exile at Patmos[33].

Footnote 27:

See Becker and Marquardt _Röm. Alterth._ III. 1. p. 136 sq.

Footnote 28:

See Cic. _ad Att._ v. 21,‘Idibus Februariis ... forum institueram
agere Laodiceæ Cibyraticum,’with the references in the next note:
comp. also Plin. _N.H._ v. 29 ‘Una (jurisdictio) appellatur
Cibyratica. Ipsum (i.e. Cibyra) oppidum Phrygiæ est. Conveniunt eo xxv
civitates, celeberrima urbe Laodicea.’

Besides these passages, testimony is borne to the importance of the
Cibyratic ‘conventus’ by Strabo, xiii. 4 § 17 (p. 631), ἐν ταῖς
μεγίσταις ἐξετάζεται διοικήσεσι τῆς Ἀσίας ἡ Κιβυρατική. It will be
remembered also that Horace singles out the _Cibyratica negotia_
(_Epist._ i. 6. 33) to represent Oriental trade generally. The
importance of Laodicea may be inferred from the fact that, though the
union was named after Cibyra, its head-quarters were from the first
fixed at or soon afterwards transferred to Laodicea.

Footnote 29:

See _ad Fam._ ii. 17, iii. 5, 7, 8, ix. 25, xiii. 54, 67, xv. 4; _ad
Att._ v. 16, 17, 20, 21, vi. 1, 2, 3, 7. He visited Laodicea on
several occasions, sometimes making a long stay there, and not a few
of his letters are written thence. See especially his account of his
work there, _ad Att._ vi. 2, ‘Hoc foro quod egi ex Idibus Februariis
Laodiceæ ad Kalendas Maias omnium dioecesium, præter Ciliciæ,
mirabilia quædam efficimus; ita multæ civitates, etc.’ Altogether
Laodicea seems to have been second in importance to none of the cities
in his province, except perhaps Tarsus. See also the notice, _in
Verr._ Act. ii. I. c. 30.

Footnote 30:

The description which Dion Chrysostom gives in his eulogy of Celænæ
(Apamea Cibotus), the metropolis of a neighbouring ‘dioecesis,’
enables us to realise the concourse which gathered together on these
occasions: _Orat._ XXXV (II. p. 69) ξυνάγεται πλῆθος ἀνθρώπων
δικαζομένων, δικαζόντων, ἡγεμόνων, ὑπηρετῶν, οἰκετῶν, κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 31:

On this word see Becker and Marquardt l.c. p. 138 sq. It had lost its
original sense, as the mother city of a colony. Laodicea is styled
‘metropolis’ on the coins, Mionnet IV. p. 321.

Footnote 32:

Col. iv. 16 with the notes. See also below p. 37, and the introduction
to the Epistle to the Ephesians.

Footnote 33:

Rev. iii. 14.

[Sidenote: Its religious
worship.]

On the religious worship of Laodicea very little special information exists. Its tutelary deity was Zeus, whose guardianship had been recognised in Diospolis, the older name of the city, and who, having (according to the legend) commanded its rebuilding, was commemorated on its coins with the surname Laodicenus[34]. Occasionally he is also called Aseis, a title which perhaps reproduces a Syrian epithet of this deity, ‘the mighty.’ If this interpretation be correct, we have a link of connexion between Laodicea and the religions of the farther East—a connexion far from improbable, considering that Laodicea was refounded by a Syrian king and is not unlikely to have adopted some features of Syrian worship[35].

Footnote 34:

See Eckhel III. p. 159 sq. (passim), Mionnet IV. p. 315 sq., ib.
Suppl. VII. p. 578 sq. (passim). In the coins commemorating an
alliance with some other city Laodicea is represented by Zeus; e.g.
Mionnet IV. pp. 320, 324, 331 sq., Suppl. VII. pp. 586, 589.

Footnote 35:

==αϲειϲ== or ==αϲειϲ λαοδικεων==. See Waddington _Voyage en Asie
Mineure au point de vue Numismatique_ (Paris 1853) pp. 25, 26 sq. Mr
Waddington adopts a suggestion communicated to him by M. de Longpérier
that this word represents the Aramaic עזיזא ‘the strong, mighty,’
which appears also in the Arabic ‘Aziz.’ This view gains some
confirmation from the fact, not mentioned by Mr Waddington, that
Ἄζιζος was an epithet of the Ares of Edessa: Julian _Orat._ iv; comp.
Cureton _Spic. Syr._ p. 80, and see de Lagarde _Gesamm. Abhandl._ p.
16. On the other hand this Shemitic word elsewhere, when adopted into
Greek or Latin, is written Ἄζιζος or Azizus: see Garrucci in the
_Archæologia_ XLIII. p. 45 ‘Tyrio Septimio Azizo,’ and Boeckh _Corp.
Inscr._ 9893 Ἄζιζος Ἀγρίπα Σύρος. M. de Longpérier offers the
alternative that ασειϲ, _i.e._ Ἀσίς, is equivalent to Ἀσιατικός. An
objection to this view, stronger than those urged by Mr Waddington, is
the fact that Ἀσίς seems only to be used as a feminine adjective. M.
Renan points to the fact that this ζευς ασεις is represented with his
hand on the horns of a goat, and on the strength of this coincidence
would identify him with ‘the Azazel of the Semites’ (_Saint Paul_, p.
359), though tradition and orthography alike point to some other
derivation of Azazel (עזאזל).

[Sidenote: 2. HIERAPOLIS.]

[Sidenote: Its situation.]

2. On the north of the valley, opposite to the sloping hills which mark the site of Laodicea, is a broad level terrace jutting out from the mountain side and overhanging the plain with almost precipitous sides. On this plateau are scattered the vast ruins of HIERAPOLIS[36]. The mountains upon which it abuts occupy the wedge of ground between the Mæander and the Lycus; but, as the Mæander above its junction with the Lycus passes through a narrow ravine, they blend, when seen from a distance, with the loftier range of the Mesogis which overhangs the right bank of the Mæander almost from its source to its embouchure, and form with it the northern barrier to the view, as the Cadmus range does the southern, the broad valley stretching between. Thus Hierapolis may be said to lie over against Mesogis, as Laodicea lies over against Cadmus[37].

Footnote 36:

For descriptions of Hierapolis, see Smith p. 245 sq., Pococke p. 75
sq., Chandler 229 sq., Arundell _Seven Churches_ p. 79 sq., Hamilton
p. 517 sq., Fellows _Asia Minor_ p. 283 sq. For the travertine
deposits see especially the description and plates in Tchihatcheff P.
I. p. 345, together with the views in Laborde (pl. xxxii-xxxviii), and
Svoboda (photogr. 41–47). Tchihatcheff repeatedly calls the place
Hieropolis; but this form, though commonly used of other towns (see
Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἱεραπόλις, Leake _Num. Hell._ p. 67), appears not to
occur as a designation of the Phrygian city, which seems always to be
written Hierapolis. The citizens however are sometimes called
Ἱεροπολῖται on the coins.

The modern name is given differently by travellers. It is generally
called Pambouk-Kalessi, i.e. ‘cotton-castle,’ supposed to allude to
the appearance of the petrifactions, though cotton is grown in the
neighbourhood (Hamilton I. p. 517). So Smith, Pococke, Chandler,
Arundell, Tchihatcheff, Waddington, and others. M. Renan says
‘_Tambouk_, et non _Pambouk, Kalessi_’ (_S. Paul_ p. 357). Laborde
gives the word _Tambouk_ in some places and _Pambouk_ in others; and
Leake says ‘Hierapolis, now called _Tabúk-Kale_ or _Pambuk-Kale_’ (p.
252).

Footnote 37:

Strabo xiii. 4. 14 (p. 629) says ὑπερβαλοῦσι δὲ τὴν Μεσωγίδα ...
πόλεις εἰσὶ πρὸς μὲν τῇ Μεσωγὶδι καταντικρὺ Λαοδικείας Ἱερὰ πόλις,
κ.τ.λ. He cannot mean that Hierapolis was situated immediately in or
by the Mesogis (for the name does not seem ever to be applied to the
mountains between the Lycus and Mæander), but that with respect to
Laodicea it stood over against the Mesogis, as I have explained it in
the text. The view in Laborde (pl. xxxix) shows the appearance of
Hierapolis from Laodicea. Strabo had himself visited the place and
must have known how it was situated. Some modern travellers however
(e.g. Chandler and Arundell) speak of the plateau of Hierapolis as
part of the Mesogis. Steiger (_Kolosser_ p. 33) gets over the
difficulty by translating Strabo’s words, ‘near the Mesogis but on the
opposite side (i.e. of the Mæander) is the Laodicean Hierapolis’ (to
distinguish it from others of the name); but καταντικρὺ cannot be
separated from Λαοδικείας without violence.

[Sidenote: Remarkable physical features.]

It is at Hierapolis that the remarkable physical features which distinguish the valley of the Lycus display themselves in the fullest perfection. Over the steep cliffs which support the plateau of the city, tumble cascades of pure white stone, the deposit of calcareous matter from the streams which, after traversing this upper level, are precipitated over the ledge into the plain beneath and assume the most fantastic shapes in their descent. At one time overhanging in cornices fringed with stalactites, at another hollowed out into basins or broken up with ridges, they mark the site of the city at a distance, glistening on the mountain-side like foaming cataracts frozen in the fall.

[Sidenote: Their relation to the Apostolic history.]

But for the immediate history of St Paul’s Epistles the striking beauty of the scenery has no value. It is not probable that he had visited this district when the letters to the Colossians and Laodiceans were written. Were it otherwise, we can hardly suppose, that educated under widely different influences and occupied with deeper and more absorbing thoughts, he would have shared the enthusiasm which this scenery inspires in the modern traveller. Still it will give a reality to our conceptions, if we try to picture to ourselves the external features of that city, which was destined before long to become the adopted home of Apostles and other personal disciples of the Lord, and to play a conspicuous part—second perhaps only to Ephesus—in the history of the Church during the ages immediately succeeding the Apostles.

[Sidenote: Hierapolis a famous watering-place.]

Like Laodicea, Hierapolis was at this time an important and a growing city, though not like Laodicea holding metropolitan rank[38]. Besides the trade in dyed wools, which it shared in common with the neighbouring towns, it had another source of wealth and prosperity peculiar to itself. The streams to which the scenery owes the remarkable features already described, are endowed with valuable medicinal qualities, while at the same time they are so copious that the ancient city is described as full of self-made baths[39]. An inscription, still legible among the ruins, celebrates their virtues in heroic verse, thus apostrophizing the city:

Hail, fairest soil in all broad Asia’s realm;
Hail, golden city, nymph divine, bedeck’d
With flowing rills, thy jewels[40].

Coins of Hierapolis too are extant of various types, on which Æsculapius and Hygeia appear either singly or together[41]. To this fashionable watering-place, thus favoured by nature, seekers of pleasure and seekers of health alike were drawn.

Footnote 38:

On its _ecclesiastical_ title of metropolis, see below, p. 70, note
277.

Footnote 39:

Strabo l.c. οὕτω δ’ ἐστὶν ἄφθονον τὸ πλῆθος τοῦ ὕδατος ὥστε ἡ πόλις
μεστὴ τῶν αὐτομάτων βαλανείων ἐστί.

Footnote 40:

Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3909, Ἀσίδος εὐρείης προφερέστατον οὖδας
ἁπάντων, χαίροις, χρυσόπολι Ἱεράπολι, πότνια Νυμφῶν, νάμασιν,
ἀγλαΐῃσι, κεκασμένη.

Footnote 41:

Mionnet IV. p. 297, 306, 307, ib. Suppl. VII. p. 567; Waddington
_Voyage_ etc. p. 24.

[Sidenote: The magnificence of its ruins.]

To the ancient magnificence of Hierapolis its extant ruins bear ample testimony. More favoured than Laodicea, it has not in its immediate neighbourhood any modern town or village of importance, whose inhabitants have been tempted to quarry materials for their houses out of the memorials of its former greatness. Hence the whole plateau is covered with ruins, of which the extent and the good taste are equally remarkable; and of these the palæstra and the thermæ, as might be expected, are among the more prominent.

[Sidenote: Its religious worship.]

A city, which combined the pursuit of health and of gaiety, had fitly chosen as its patron deity Apollo, the god alike of medicine and of festivity, here worshipped especially as ‘Archegetes,’ the Founder[42]. But more important, as illustrating the religious temper of this Phrygian city, is another fact connected with it. [Sidenote: The Plutonium.]In Hierapolis was a spot called the Plutonium, a hot well or spring, from whose narrow mouth issued a mephitic vapour immediately fatal to those who stood over the opening and inhaled its fumes. To the mutilated priests of Cybele alone (so it was believed) an immunity was given from heaven, which freed them from its deadly effects[43]. Indeed this city appears to have been a chief centre of the passionate mystical devotion of ancient Phrygia. But indications are not wanting, that in addition to this older worship religious rites were borrowed also from other parts of the East, more especially from Egypt[44]. By the multitude of her temples Hierapolis established her right to the title of the ‘sacred city,’ which she bore[45].

Footnote 42:

Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3905, 3906; Mionnet iv. pp. 297, 301, 307, ib.
Suppl. vii. p. 568, 569, 570. In coins struck to commemorate alliances
with other cities, Hierapolis is represented by Apollo Archegetes:
Mionnet IV. p. 303, ib. Suppl. VII. 572, 573, 574; Waddington _Voyage_
etc. p. 25; and see Eckhel III. p. 156. On the meaning of
_Archegetes_, under which name Apollo was worshipped by other cities
also, who regarded him as their founder, see Spanheim on Callim.
_Hymn. Apoll._ 57.

Footnote 43:

Strabo l.c. He himself had seen the phenomenon and was doubtful how to
account for the immunity of these priests, εἴτε θείᾳ προνοίᾳ ... εἴτε
ἀντιδότοις τισὶ δυνάμεσι τούτου συμβαίνοντος. See also Plin. _N. H._
ii. 93 § 95 ‘locum ... matris tantum magnæ sacerdoti innoxium.’ Dion
Cass. (Xiphil.) lxviii. 27, who also witnessed the phenomenon, adds οὐ
μὴν καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν αὐτοῦ συννοῆσαι ἔχω, λέγω δὲ ἅ τε εἶδον ὡς εἶδον
καὶ ἃ ἤκουσα ὡς ἤκουσα. Ammian. Marc. xxiii. 6. 18 also mentions this
marvel, but speaks cautiously, ‘ut asserunt quidam,’ and adds ‘quod
qua causa eveniat, rationibus physicis permittatur.’ Comp. Anthol.
VII. p. 190 Εἴ τις ἀπάγξασθαι μὲν ὀκνεῖ θανάτου δ’ ἐπιθυμεῖ, ἐξ Ἱερᾶς
πόλεως ψυχρὸν ὕδωρ πιέτω; Stobæus _Ecl._ i. 34, p. 680. Laborde states
(p. 83) that he discovered by experiment that the waters are sometimes
fatal to animal life and sometimes perfectly harmless; and if this be
substantiated, we have a solution of the marvel. Other modern
travellers, who have visited the Plutonium, are Cockerell (Leake p.
342), and Svoboda. In Svoboda’s work a chemical analysis of the waters
is given.

Footnote 44:

On a coin of Hierapolis, Pluto-Serapis appears seated, while before
him stands Isis with a sistrum in her hand; Waddington _Voyage_ etc.
p. 24. See also Mionnet IV. pp. 296, 305; Leake _Num. Hell._ p. 66.

The worship of Serapis appears elsewhere in this neighbourhood. At
Chonæ (Colossæ) is an inscription recording a vow to this deity; Le
Bas _Asie Mineure_ inscr. 1693 b.

Footnote 45:

Steph. Byz. s.v. ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱερὰ πολλὰ ἔχειν.

[Sidenote: The birth-place of Epictetus.]

Though at this time we have no record of famous citizens at Hierapolis, such as graced the annals of Laodicea, yet a generation or two later she numbered among her sons one nobler far than the rhetoricians and sophists, the millionaires and princes, of whom her neighbour could boast. The lame slave Epictetus, the loftiest of heathen moralists, must have been growing up to manhood when the first rumours of the Gospel reached his native city. Did any chance throw him across the path of Epaphras, who first announced the glad-tidings there? [Sidenote: Epictetus and Christianity.]Did he ever meet the great Apostle himself, while dragging out his long captivity at Rome, or when after his release he paid his long-promised visit to the valley of the Lycus? We should be glad to think that these two men met together face to face—the greatest of Christian, and the greatest of heathen preachers. Such a meeting would solve more than one riddle. A Christian Epictetus certainly was not; his Stoic doctrine and his Stoic morality are alike apparent: but nevertheless his language presents some strange coincidences with the Apostolic writings, which would thus receive an explanation[46]. It must be confessed however, that of any outward intercourse between the Apostle and the philosopher history furnishes no hint.

Footnote 46:

See _Philippians_, pp. 312, 313.

[Sidenote: 3. COLOSSÆ.]

3. While the sites of Laodicea and Hierapolis are conspicuous, so that they were early identified by their ruins, the same is not the case with COLOSSÆ. [Sidenote: Difficulty of determining its site.]Only within the present generation has the position of this once famous city been ascertained, and even now it lacks the confirmation of any inscription found _in situ_ and giving the name[47]. [Sidenote: Subterranean channel of the Lycus.]Herodotus states that in Colossæ the river Lycus disappears in a subterranean cave, emerging again at a distance of about five stades[48]; and this very singular landmark--the underground passage of a stream for half a mile—might be thought to have placed the site of the city beyond the reach of controversy. But this is not the case. In the immediate neighbourhood of the only ruins which can possibly be identified with Colossæ, no such subterranean channel has been discovered. But on the other hand the appearance of the river at this point suggests that at one time the narrow gorge through which it runs, as it traverses the ruins, was overarched for some distance with incrustations of travertine, and that this natural bridge was broken up afterwards by an earthquake, so as to expose the channel of the stream[49]. This explanation seems satisfactory. If it be rejected, we must look for the underground channel, not within the city itself, as the words of Herodotus strictly interpreted require, but at some point higher up the stream. In either case there can be little doubt that these are the ruins of Colossæ. [Sidenote: Petrifying stream.]The fact mentioned by Pliny[50], that there is in this city a river which turns brick into stone, is satisfied by a side stream flowing into the Lycus from the north, and laying large deposits of calcareous matter; though in this region, as we have seen, such a phenomenon is very far from rare. The site of Colossæ then, as determined by these considerations, lies two or three miles north of the present town of Chonos, the mediæval Chonæ, and some twelve miles east of Laodicea. The Lycus traverses the site of the ruins, dividing the city into two parts, the necropolis standing on the right or northern bank, and the town itself on the left.

Footnote 47:

See however a mutilated inscription (Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3956) with
the letters ...==ηνων==, found near Chonæ.

Footnote 48:

Herod. vii. 30 ἀπίκετο ἐς Κολοσσάς, πόλιν μεγάλην Φρυγίης, ἐν τῇ Λύκος
ποταμὸς ἐς χάσμα γῆς ἐσβάλλων ἀφανίζεται, ἔπειτα διὰ σταδίων ὡς πέντε
μάλιστά κῃ ἀναφαινόμενος ἐκδιδοῖ καὶ οὖτος ἐς τὸν Μαίανδρον.

Footnote 49:

This is the explanation of Hamilton (I. p. 509 sq.), who (with the
doubtful exception of Laborde) has the merit of having first
identified and described the site of Colossæ. It stands on the Tchoruk
Sú (Lycus) at the point where it is joined by two other streams, the
Bounar Bashi Sú and the Ak-Sú. In confirmation of his opinion,
Hamilton found a tradition in the neighbourhood that the river had
once been covered over at this spot (p. 522). He followed the course
of the Lycus for some distance without finding any subterranean
channel (p. 521 sq.).

It is difficult to say whether the following account in Strabo xii. 8
§ 16 (p. 578) refers to the Lycus or not; ὄρος Κάδμος ἐξ οὓ καὶ ὁ
Λύκος ῥεῖ καὶ ἄλλος ὁμώνυμος τῷ ὄρει· τὸ πλέον δ’ οὗτος ὑπὸ γῆς ῥυὲις
εἶτ’ ἀνακύψας συνέπεσεν εἰς ταὐτὸ τοῖς ἄλλοις ποταμοῖς, ἐμφαίνων ἅμα
καὶ τὸ πολύτρητον τῆς χώρας καὶ τὸ εὔσειστον. If the Lycus is meant,
may not συνέπεσεν imply that this remarkable feature had changed
before Strabo wrote?

Laborde (p. 103), who visited the place before Hamilton, though his
account was apparently not published till later, fixes on the same
site for Colossæ, but thinks that he has discovered the subterranean
course of the Lycus, to which Herodotus refers, much higher up a
stream, close to its source (‘à dix pas de cette source’), which he
describes as ‘à deux lieues au nord de Colossæ.’ Yet in the same
paragraph he says ‘Or il [Hérodote, exact cicerone] savait que _le
Lycus disparaît près de Colossæ, ville considérable de la Phrygie_’
(the italics are his own). He apparently does not see the vast
difference between his _près de Colossæ_ thus widely interpreted and
the precise ἐν τῇ of Herodotus himself. Obviously no great reliance
can be placed on the accuracy of a writer, who treats his authorities
thus. The subterranean stream which Laborde saw, and of which he gives
a view (pl. xl), may possibly be the phenomenon to which Herodotus
alludes; but if so, Herodotus has expressed himself very carelessly.
On the whole Hamilton’s solution seems much more probable.

Arundell’s account (_Seven Churches_ p. 98 sq., _Asia Minor_ p. 160
sq.) is very confused, and it is not clear whether he has fixed on the
right site for Colossæ; but it bears testimony to the existence of two
subterranean courses of rivers, though neither of them is close enough
to the city to satisfy Herodotus’ description.

Footnote 50:

Plin. _N.H._ xxxi. 2 § 20. This is the Ak-Sú, which has strongly
petrifying qualities.

[Sidenote: Its ancient greatness]

Commanding the approaches to a pass in the Cadmus range, and standing on a great high-way communicating between Eastern and Western Asia, Colossæ at an early date appears as a very important place. Here the mighty host of Xerxes halted on its march against Greece; it is mentioned on this occasion as ‘a great city of Phrygia[51].’ Here too Cyrus remained seven days on his daring enterprise which terminated so fatally; the Greek captain, who records the expedition, speaks of it as ‘a populous city, prosperous and great[52].’ But after this time its glory seems to wane. The political supremacy [Sidenote: and later decline.]of Laodicea and the growing popularity of Hierapolis gradually drain its strength; and Strabo, writing about two generations before St Paul, describes it as a ‘small town[53]’ in the district of which Laodicea was the capital. We shall therefore be prepared to find that, while Laodicea and Hierapolis both hold important places in the early records of the Church, Colossæ disappears wholly from the pages of history. Its comparative insignificance is still attested by its ruins, which are few and meagre[54], while the vast remains of temples, baths, theatres, aqueducts, gymnasia, and sepulchres, strewing the extensive sites of its more fortunate neighbours, still bear witness to their ancient prosperity and magnificence. It is not even mentioned by Ptolemy, though his enumeration of towns includes several inconsiderable places[55]. Without doubt Colossæ was the least important Church, to which any epistle of St Paul was addressed.

Footnote 51:

Herod. vii. 30. See p. 14, note 48.

Footnote 52:

Xen. _Anab._ i. 2. 6 ἐξελαύνει διὰ Φρυγίας ... εἰς Κολοσσάς, πόλιν
οἰκουμένην, εὐδαίμονα καὶ μεγάλην.

Footnote 53:

πόλισμα, Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p. 576). Plin. _N. H._ v. 32 § 41 writes
‘Phrygia ... oppida ibi celeberrima præter jam dicta, Ancyra, Andria,
Celænæ, Colossæ,’ etc. The commentators, referring to this passage,
overlook the words ’præter jam dicta,’ and represent Pliny as calling
Colossæ ‘oppidum celeberrimum.’ Not unnaturally they find it difficult
to reconcile this expression with Strabo’s statement. But in fact
Pliny has already exhausted all the considerable towns, Hierapolis,
Laodicea, Apamea, etc., and even much less important places than these
(see v. 28, 29 § 29), so that only decayed and third-rate towns
remain. The Ancyra here mentioned is not the capital of Galatia, but a
much smaller Phrygian town.

Footnote 54:

Laborde p. 102 ‘De cette grande célébrité de Colossæ il ne reste
presque rien: ce sont des substructions sans suite, des fragments sans
grandeur; les restes d’un théâtre de médiocre dimension, une acropole
sans hardiesse,’ etc.

Footnote 55:

_Geogr._ v. 2.

[Sidenote: Uncertain orthography of the name.]

And perhaps also we may regard the variation in the orthography of the name as another indication of its comparative obscurity and its early extinction. Are we to write _Colossæ_ or _Colassæ_? So far as the evidence goes, the conclusion would seem to be that, while Colossæ alone occurs during the classical period and in St Paul’s time, it was afterwards supplanted by Colassæ, when the town itself had either disappeared altogether or was already passing out of notice[56].

Footnote 56:

All Greek writers till some centuries after the Christian era write it
Κολοσσαί: so Herod. vii. 30, Xen. _Anab._ i. 2. 6, Strabo xii. 8. 13,
Diod. xiv. 80, Polyæn. _Strat._ vii. 16. 1; though in one or more MSS
of some of these authors it is written Κολασσαί, showing the tendency
of later scribes. _Colossæ_ is also the universal form in Latin
writers. The coins moreover, even as late as the reign of Gordian
(A.D. 238–244) when they ceased to be struck, universally have
==κολοϲϲηνοι== (or ==κολοϲηνοι==); Mionnet IV. p. 267 sq.: see
Babington _Numismatic Chronicle_ New series III. p. 1 sq., 6. In
Hierocles (_Synecd._ p. 666, Wessel.) and in the _Apostolic
Constitutions_ (vii. 46) Κολασσαί seems to be the original reading of
the text, and in later Byzantine writers this form is common. If Prof.
Babington (p. 3) were right in supposing that it is connected with
κολοσσός, the question of the correct spelling might be regarded as
settled; but in a Phrygian city over which so many Eastern nations
swept in succession, who shall say to what language the name belonged,
or what are its affinities?

Thus, judging from classical usage, we should say that Κολοσσαί was
the old form and that Κολασσαί did not supplant it till some time
after St Paul’s age. This view is confirmed by a review of the
authorities for the different readings in the New Testament.

In the opening of the epistle (i. 1) the authorities for ἐν Κολοσσαῖς
are overwhelming. It is read by אBDFGL (A is obliterated here and C is
wanting); and in the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Armenian Versions. On the
other hand ἐν Κολασσαῖς is read by KP. 17. 37. 47, and among the
versions by the Memphitic and the Philoxenian Syriac (ܩܘܠܐܣܘܤ, though
the marg. gives ==κολϲϲαιϲ==). In the Peshito also the present
reading represents Κολασσαῖς, but as the vowel was not expressed
originally and depends on the later pointing, its authority can hardly
be quoted. The Thebaic is wanting here.

In the _heading_ of the epistle however there is considerably more
authority for the form in α. Κολασσαεις is the reading of AB^* KP. 37
(Κολασαεις). 47. C is wanting here, but has Κολασσαεις in the
subscription. On the other hand Κολοσσαεις (or Κολοσσαις) appears in
אB^1 (according to Tregelles, but B^3 Tisch.; see his introd. p.
xxxxviii) DFG (but G has left Κολασσαεις in the heading of one page,
and Κολαοσαεις in another) L. 17 (Κολοσαεις), in the Latin Version,
and in the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac. The readings of both
Peshito and Philoxenian (text) here depend on the vocalisation; and
those of other versions are not recorded. In the _subscription_ the
preponderance of authority is even more favourable to Κολασσαεις.

Taking into account the obvious tendency which there would be in
scribes to make the title πρὸς Κολοσσαεῖς or πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς conform
to the opening ἐν Κολοσσαῖς or ἐν Κολασσαῖς, as shown in G, we seem to
arrive at the conclusion that, while ἐν Κολοσσαῖς was indisputably the
original reading in the opening, πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς was probably the
earlier reading in the title. If so, the title must have been added at
a somewhat later date; which is not improbable.

Connected with this question is the variation in the adjectival form,
-ηνός or -αεύς. Parallels to this double termination occur in other
words; e.g. Δοκιμηνός, Δοκιμεύς; Λαοδικηνός, Λαοδικεύς; Νικαηνός,
Νικαεύς; Σαγαλασσηνός, Σαγαλασσεύς, etc. The coins, while they
universally exhibit the form in ο, are equally persistent in the
termination -ηνός, ==κολοϲϲηνων==; and it is curious that to the
form Κολοσσηνοί in Strabo xii. 8 § 16 (p. 578) there is a various
reading Κολασσαεῖς. Thus, though there is no necessary connexion
between the two, the termination -ηνός seems to go with the ο form,
and the termination -αεύς with the α form.

For the above reasons I have written confidently ἐν Κολοσσαῖς in the
text, and with more hesitation πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς in the superscription.

[Sidenote: Ethnological relations of the three cities.]

Considered ethnologically, these three cities are generally regarded as belonging to Phrygia. But as they are situated on the western border of Phrygia, and as the frontier line separating Phrygia from Lydia and Caria was not distinctly traced, this designation is not persistent[57]. Thus Laodicea is sometimes assigned to Caria, more rarely to Lydia[58]; and again, Hierapolis is described as half Lydian, half Phrygian[59]. On the other hand I have not observed that Colossæ is ever regarded as other than Phrygian[60], partly perhaps because the notices relating to it belong to an earlier date when these several names denoted political as well as ethnological divisions, and their limits were definitely marked in consequence, but chiefly because it lies some miles to the east of the other cities, and therefore farther from the doubtful border land.

Footnote 57:

Strabo, xiii. 4. 12 (p. 628) τὰ δ’ ἑξῆς ἐπὶ τὰ νότια μέρη τοῖς τόποις
τούτοις ἐμπλοκὰς ἔχει μέχρι πρὸς τὸν Ταῦρον, ὥστε καὶ τὰ Φρύγια καὶ τὰ
Καρικὰ καὶ τὰ Λύδια καὶ ἔτι τὰ τῶν Μυσῶν δυσδιάκριτα εἶναι
παραπίπτοντα εἰς ἄλληλα· εἰς δὲ τὴν σύγχυσιν ταύτην οὐ μικρὰ
συλλαμβάνει τὸ τοὺς Ῥωμαίους μὴ κατὰ φῦλα διελεῖν αὐτούς κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 58:

To _Phrygia_, Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p. 576), Polyb. v. 57, and so
generally; to _Caria, Orac. Sibyll._ iii. 472 Καρῶν ἀγλαὸν ἄστυ, Ptol.
v. 2, Philostr. _Vit. Soph._ i. 25 (though in the context Philostratus
adds that at one time τῇ Φρυγίᾳ ξυνετάττετο); to _Lydia_, Steph. Byz.
s.v. On the coins the city is sometimes represented as seated between
two female figures ==φρυγια== and ==καρια==; Eckhel III. p. 160,
comp. Mionnet IV. p. 329. From its situation on the confines of the
three countries Laodicea seems to have obtained the surname
_Trimitaria_ or _Trimetaria_, by which it is sometimes designated in
later times: see below, p. 65, note 205, and comp. Wesseling, _Itin._
p. 665.

Footnote 59:

Steph. Byz. s.v. says μεταξὺ Φρυγίας καὶ Λυδίας πόλις. But generally
Hierapolis is assigned to Phrygia: e.g. Ptol. v. 2, Vitruv. viii. 3 §
10.

Footnote 60:

Colossæ is assigned to Phrygia in Herod. vii. 30, Xen. _Anab._ i. 2.
6, Strabo xii. 8. 13, Diod. xiv. 80, Plin. _N. H._ v. 32 § 41, Polyæn.
_Strat._ vii. 16. 1.

[Sidenote: Their political relations.]

Phrygia however ceased to have any political significance, when this country came under the dominion of the Romans. Politically speaking, the three cities with the rest of the Cibyratic union belonged at this time to Asia, the proconsular province[61]. As an _Asiatic_ Church accordingly Laodicea is addressed in the Apocalyptic letter. To this province they had been assigned in the first instance; then they were handed over to Cilicia[62]; afterwards they were transferred and re-transferred from the one to the other; till finally, before the Christian era, they became a permanent part of Asia, their original province. Here they remained, until the close of the fourth century, when a new distribution of the Roman empire was made, and the province of Phrygia Pacatiana created with Laodicea as its capital[63].

Footnote 61:

After the year B.C. 49 they seem to have been permanently attached to
‘Asia’: before that time they are bandied about between Asia and
Cilicia. These alternations are traced by Bergmann _de Asia provincia_
(Berlin, 1846) and in _Philologus_ II. 4 (1847) p. 641 sq. See Becker
and Marquardt _Röm. Alterth._ III. I. p. 130 sq. Laodicea is assigned
to ‘Asia’ in Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 6512, 6541, 6626.

The name ‘Asia’ will be used throughout this chapter in its political
sense, as applying to the Roman province.

Footnote 62:

Cic. _ad Fam._ xiii. 67 ‘ex provincia mea Ciliciensi, cui scis τρεῖς
διοικήσεις Asiaticas [i.e. Cibyraticam, Apamensem, Synnadensem]
attributas fuisse’; _ad Att._ v. 21 ‘mea expectatio Asiæ nostrarum
diœcesium’ and ‘in hac mea Asia.’ See also above p. 7, notes 2, 3.

Footnote 63:

3 Hierocles _Synecd._ p. 664 sq. (Wessel.): see below p. 69.

[Sidenote: Important Jewish settlement in this neighbourhood.]