Chapter III: Preface (2)

The Epistle to the Colossians supposes a powerful Jewish colony in Laodicea and the neighbourhood. We are not however left to draw this inference from the epistle alone, but the fact is established by ample independent testimony. When, with the insolent licence characteristic of Oriental kings, Antiochus the Great transplanted two thousand Jewish families from Babylonia and Mesopotamia into Lydia and Phrygia[64],[Sidenote: Colony of Antiochus the Great.] we can hardly doubt that among the principal stations of these new colonists would be the two most thriving cities of Phrygia, which were also the two most important settlements of the Syrian kings, Apamea and Laodicea, the one founded by his grandfather Antiochus the First, the other by his father Antiochus the Second. If the commercial importance of Apamea at this time was greater (for somewhat later it was reckoned second only to Ephesus among the cities of Asia Minor as a centre of trade), the political rank of Laodicea stood higher[65]. When mention is made of Lydia and Phrygia[66], this latter city especially is pointed out by its position, for it stood near the frontier of the two countries. A Jewish settlement once established, the influx of their fellow-countrymen would be rapid and continuous. Accordingly under the Roman domination we find them gathered here in very large numbers.[Sidenote: Confiscations of Flaccus.] When Flaccus the proprætor of Asia (B.C. 62), who was afterwards accused of maladministration in his province and defended by Cicero, forbade the contributions of the Jews to the temple-worship and the consequent exportation of money to Palestine, he seized as contraband not less than twenty pounds weight in gold in the single district of which Laodicea was the capital[67]. Calculated at the rate of a half-shekel for each man, this sum represents a population of more than eleven thousand adult freemen[68]; for women, children, and slaves were exempted. It must be remembered however, that this is only the sum which the Roman officers succeeded in detecting and confiscating; and that therefore the whole Jewish population would probably be much larger than this partial estimate implies. The amount seized at Apamea, the other great Phrygian centre, was five times as large as this[69]. [Sidenote: Other evidence.]Somewhat later we have a document purporting to be a decree of the Laodiceans, in which they thank the Roman Consul for a measure granting to Jews the liberty of observing their sabbaths and practising other rites of their religion[70]; and though this decree is probably spurious, yet it serves equally well to show that at this time Laodicea was regarded as an important centre of the dispersion in Asia Minor. To the same effect may be quoted the extravagant hyperbole in the Talmud, that when on a certain occasion an insurrection of the Jews broke out in Cæsarea the metropolis of Cappadocia, which brought down upon their heads the cruel vengeance of king Sapor and led to a massacre of 12,000, ‘the wall of Laodicea was cloven with the sound of the harpstrings’ in the fatal and premature merriment of the insurgents[71]. This place was doubtless singled out, because it had a peculiar interest for the Jews, as one of their chief settlements[72]. It will be remembered also, that Phrygia is especially mentioned among those countries which furnished their quota of worshippers at Jerusalem, and were thus represented at the baptism of the Christian Church on the great day of Pentecost[73].

Footnote 64:

Joseph. _Antiq._ xii. 3, 4.

Footnote 65:

Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p. 576) εἶτα Ἀπάμεια ἡ Κιβωτὸς λεγομένη καὶ
Λαοδὶκεια αἵπερ εἰσὶ μέγισται τῶν κατὰ τὴν Φρυγίαν πόλεων. Below § 15
(p. 577) he says Ἀπάμεια δ’ ἐστὶν ἐμπόριον μέγα τῆς ἰδίως λεγομένης
Ἀσίας δευτερεῦον μετὰ τὴν Ἔφεσον. The relative importance of Apamea
and Laodicea two or three generations earlier than St Paul may be
inferred from the notices in Cicero; but there is reason for thinking
that Laodicea afterwards grew more rapidly than Apamea.

Footnote 66:

In Josephus l.c. the words are τὰ κατὰ τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Λυδίαν, the two
names being under the vinculum of the one article: while immediately
afterwards Lydia is dropped and Phrygia alone named, πέμψαι τινὰς ...
εἰς Φρυγίαν.

Footnote 67:

Cic. _pro Flacc._ 28 ‘Sequitur auri illa invidia Judaici.... Quum
aurum Judæorum nomine quotannis ex Italia et ex omnibus provinciis
Hierosolyma exportari soleret, Flaccus sanxit edicto ne ex Asia
exportari liceret ... multitudinem Judæorum, flagrantem nonnumquam in
concionibus, pro republica contemnere gravitatis summæ fuit.... Apameæ
manifesto comprehensum ante pedes prætoris in foro expensum est auri
pondo centum paullo minus ... Laodiceæ viginti pondo paullo amplius.’

Josephus (_Antiq._ xiv. 7. 2), quoting the words of Strabo, πέμψας δὲ
Μιθριδάτης εἰς Κῶ ἔλαβε ... τὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ὀκτακόσια τάλαντα,
explains this enormous sum as composed of the temple-offerings of the
Jews which they sent to Cos for safety out of the way of Mithridates.

Footnote 68:

This calculation supposes (1) That the half-shekel weighs 110 gr; (2)
That the Roman pound is 5050 gr; (3) That the relation of gold to
silver was at this time as 12 : 1. This last estimate is possibly
somewhat too high.

Footnote 69:

The coinage of Apamea affords a striking example of Judaic influence
at a later date. On coins struck at this place in the reigns of
Severus, Macrinus, and the elder Philip, an ark is represented
floating on the waters. Within are a man and a woman: on the roof a
bird is perched; while in the air another bird approaches bearing an
olive-branch in its claws. The ark bears the inscription νωε. Outside
are two standing figures, a man and a woman (apparently the same two
who have been represented within the ark), with their hands raised as
in the attitude of prayer. The connexion of the ark of Noah with
Apamea is explained by a passage in one of the Sibylline Oracles (i.
261 sq.), where the mountain overhanging Apamea is identified with
Ararat, and the ark (κιβωτός) is stated to have rested there. Whether
this Apamea obtained its distinctive surname of Cibotus, the Ark or
Chest, from its physical features, or from its position as the centre
of taxation and finance for the district, or from some other cause, it
is difficult to say. In any case this surname might naturally suggest
to those acquainted with the Old Testament a connexion with the deluge
of Noah; but the idea would not have been adopted in the coinage of
the place without the pressure of strong Jewish influences. On these
coins see Eckhel _Doctr. Num. Vet._ III. p. 132 sq., and the paper of
Sir F. Madden in the _Numismatic Chronicle_ N. S. VI. p. 173 sq.
(1866), where they are figured.

Footnote 70:

Joseph. _Ant._ xiv. 10. 21.

Footnote 71:

Talm. Babl. _Moëd Katon_ 26a, quoted by Neubauer, _La Géographie du
Talmud_ p. 319, though he seems to have misunderstood the expression
quoted in the text, of which he gives the sense, ‘Cette ville
tremblait au bruit des flèches qu’on avait tirées.’

It is probably this same Laodicea which is meant in another Talmudical
passage, Talm. Babl. _Baba Metziah_ 84a (also quoted by Neubauer, p.
311), in which Elijah appearing to R. Ishmael ben R. Jose, says ‘Thy
father fled to Asia; flee thou to Laodicea,’ where Asia is supposed to
mean Sardis.

Footnote 72:

An inscription found at Rome in the Jewish cemetery at the Porta
Portuensis (Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 9916) runs thus; ==ενθα . κιτε .
αμμια . [ε]ιουδεα . απο . λαδικιαϲ.== κ.τ.λ. i.e. ἔνθα κεῖται Ἀμμία
Ἰουδαία ἀπὸ Λαοδικείας. Probably Laodicea on the Lycus is meant.
Perhaps also we may refer another inscription (6478), which mentions
one Trypho from Laodicea on the Lycus, to a Jewish source.

Footnote 73:

Acts ii. 10.

[Sidenote: Special attractions of Hierapolis.]

Mention has already been made of the traffic in dyed wools, which formed the staple of commerce in the valley of the Lycus[74]. It may be inferred from other notices that this branch of trade had a peculiar attraction for the Jews[75]. If so, their commercial instincts would constantly bring fresh recruits to a colony which was already very considerable. But the neighbourhood held out other inducements besides this. Hierapolis, the gay watering place, the pleasant resort of idlers, had charms for them, as well as Laodicea the busy commercial city. At least such was the complaint of stricter patriots at home. ‘The wines and the baths of Phrygia,’ writes a Talmudist bitterly, ‘have separated the ten tribes from Israel[76].’

Footnote 74:

See p. 4.

Footnote 75:

Acts xvi. 14. Is there an allusion to this branch of trade in the
message to the Church of Laodicea, Rev. iii. 17 οὐκ οἶδας ὅτι σύ εἶ ὁ
... γυμνός· συμβουλεύω σοι ἀγοράσαι ... ἱμάτια λευκὰ ἵνα περιβάλῃ,
κ.τ.λ.? The only other of the seven messages, which contains an
allusion to the white garments, is addressed to the Church of Sardis,
where again there might be a reference to the βάμμα Σαρδιανικόν
(Arist. _Pax_ 1174, _Acharn._ 112) and the φοινικίδες Σαρδιανικαί
(Plato Com. in Athen. II. p. 48 E) of the comic poets.

Footnote 76:

Talm. Babl. _Sabbath_ 147 b, quoted by Neubauer _La Géographie du
Talmud_ p. 317: see Wiesner _Schol. zum Babyl. Talm._ p. 259 sq., and
p. 207 sq. On the word translated ‘baths,’ see Rapoport’s _Erech
Millin_ p. 113, col. 1.

[Sidenote: St Paul had not visited the district when he wrote.]

There is no ground for supposing that, when St Paul wrote his Epistle to the Colossians, he had ever visited the church in which he evinces so deep an interest. Whether we examine the narrative in the Acts, or whether we gather up the notices in the epistle itself, we find no hint that he had ever been in this neighbourhood; but on the contrary some expressions indirectly exclude the supposition of a visit to the district.

[Sidenote: What is meant by _Phrygia_ in St Luke?]

It is true that St Luke more than once mentions Phrygia as lying on St Paul’s route or as witnessing his labours. But Phrygia was a vague and comprehensive term; nor can we assume that the valley of the Lycus was intended, unless the direction of his route or the context of the narrative distinctly points to this south-western corner of Phrygia. In neither of the two passages, where St Paul is stated to have travelled through Phrygia, is this the case.

[Sidenote: 1. St Paul’s visit to Phrygia on his second missionary
journey.]

1. On his second missionary journey, after he has revisited and confirmed the churches of Pisidia and Lycaonia founded on his first visit, he passes through ‘the Phrygian and Galatian country[77].’ I have pointed out elsewhere that this expression must be used to denote the region which might be called indifferently Phrygia or Galatia—the land which had originally belonged to the Phrygians and had afterwards been colonised by the Gauls; or the parts of either country which lay in the immediate neighbourhood of this debatable ground[78]. This region lies considerably north and east of the valley of the Lycus. Assuming that the last of the Lycaonian and Pisidian towns at which St Paul halted was Antioch, he would not on any probable supposition approach nearer to Colossæ than Apamea Cibotus on his way to ‘the Phrygian and Galatian country’, nor indeed need he have gone nearly so far westward as this. And again on his departure from this region he journeys by Mysia to Troas, leaving ‘Asia’ on his left hand and Bithynia on his right. Thus the notices of his route conspire to show that his path on this occasion lay far away from the valley of the Lycus.

Footnote 77:

Acts xvi. 6 τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν, the correct reading. For
this use of Φρυγίαν as an adjective comp. Mark i. 5 πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία
χώρα, Joh. iii. 22 εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν γῆν, Luke iii. 1 τῆς Ἰτουραίας καὶ
Τραχωνίτιδος χώρας, Acts xiii. 14 Ἀντιόχειαν τὴν Πισιδίαν (the correct
reading).

Footnote 78:

See _Galatians_, p. 18 sq., 22.

[Sidenote: 2. His visit on his third missionary journey.]

2. But if he was not brought into the neighbourhood of Colossæ on his second missionary journey, it is equally improbable that he visited it on his third. So far as regards Asia Minor, he seems to have confined himself to revisiting the churches already founded; the new ground which he broke was in Macedonia and Greece. Thus when we are told that during this third journey St Paul after leaving Antioch ‘passed in order through the Galatian country and Phrygia, confirming all the disciples,’[79] we can hardly doubt that ‘the Galatian country and Phrygia’ in this latter passage denotes essentially the same region as ‘the Phrygian and Galatian country’ in the former. The slight change of expression is explained by the altered direction of his route. In the first instance his course, as determined by its extreme limits—Antioch in Pisidia its starting point, and Alexandria Troas its termination—would be northward for the first part of the way, and thus would lie on the border land of Phrygia and Galatia; whereas on this second occasion, when he was travelling from Antioch in Syria to Ephesus, its direction would be generally from east to west, and the more strictly Galatian district would be traversed before the Phrygian. If we suppose him to leave Galatia at Pessinus on its western border, he would pass along the great highway—formerly a Persian and at this time a Roman road—by Synnada and Sardis to Ephesus, traversing the heart of Phrygia, but following the valleys of the Hermus and Cayster, and separated from the Mæander and Lycus by the high mountain ranges which bound these latter to the north[80].

Footnote 79:

Acts xviii. 23.

Footnote 80:

M. Renan (_Saint Paul_ pp. 51 sq., 126, 313) maintains that the
Galatia of St Paul and St Luke is not the country properly so called,
but that they are speaking of the Churches of Pisidian Antioch,
Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, which lay within the _Roman province_ of
Galatia. This interpretation of Galatia necessarily affects his view
of St Paul’s routes (pp. 126 sq., 331 sq.); and he supposes the
Apostle on his third missionary journey to have passed through the
valley of the Lycus, without however remaining to preach the Gospel
there (pp. 331 sq., 356 sq., 362). As Antioch in Pisidia would on this
hypothesis be the farthest church in ‘Galatia and Phrygia’ which St
Paul visited, his direct route from that city to Ephesus (Acts xviii.
23, xix. 1) would naturally lie by this valley. I have already
(_Galatians_ pp. 18 sq., 22) stated the serious objections to which
this interpretation of ‘Galatia’ is open, and (if I mistake not) have
answered most of M. Renan’s arguments by anticipation. But, as this
interpretation nearly affects an important point in the history of St
Paul’s dealings with the Colossians, it is necessary to subject it to
a closer examination.

Without stopping to enquire whether this view is reconcilable with St
Paul’s assertion (Col. ii. 1) that these churches in the Lycus valley
‘had not seen his face in the flesh,’ it will appear (I think) that M.
Renan’s arguments are in some cases untenable and in others may be
turned against himself. The three heads under which they may be
conveniently considered are: (i) The use of the name ‘Galatia’; (ii)
The itinerary of St Paul’s travels; (iii) The historical notices in
the Epistle to the Galatians.

(i) On the first point, M. Renan states that St Paul was in the habit
of using the _official_ name for each district and therefore called
the country which extends from Antioch in Pisidia to Derbe ‘Galatia,’
supporting this view by the Apostle’s use of Asia, Macedonia, and
Achaia (p. 51). The answer is that the names of these elder provinces
had very generally superseded the local names, but this was not the
case with the other districts of Asia Minor where the provinces had
been formed at a comparatively late date. The usage of St Luke is a
good criterion. He also speaks of Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia; but at
the same time his narrative abounds in historical or ethnographical
names which have no official import; e.g. Lycaonia, Mysia, Pamphylia,
Pisidia, Phrygia. Where we have no evidence, it is reasonable to
assume that St Paul’s usage was conformable to St Luke’s. And again,
if we consider St Luke’s account alone, how insuperable are the
difficulties which this view of Galatia creates. The part of Asia
Minor, with which we are immediately concerned, was comprised
officially in the provinces of Asia and Galatia. On M. Renan’s
showing, St Luke, after calling Antioch a city of Pisidia (xiii. 14)
and Lystra and Derbe cities of Lycaonia (xiv. 6), treats all the
three, together with the intermediate Iconium, as belonging to Galatia
(xvi. 6, xviii. 23). He explains the inconsistency by saying that in
the former case the narrative proceeds in detail, in the latter in
masses. But if so, why should he combine a historical and ethnological
name Phrygia with an official name Galatia in the same breath, when
the two are different in kind and cannot be mutually exclusive?
‘Galatia and Asia,’ would be intelligible on this supposition, but not
‘Galatia and Phrygia.’ Moreover the very form of the expression in
xvi. 6, ‘the Phrygian and Galatian country’ (according to the correct
reading which M. Renan neglects) appears in its studied vagueness to
exclude the idea that St Luke means the province of Galatia, whose
boundaries were precisely marked. And even granting that the Christian
communities of Lycaonia and Pisidia could by a straining of language
be called Churches of Galatia, is it possible that St Paul would
address them personally as ‘ye foolish Galatians’ (Gal. iii. 1)? Such
language would be no more appropriate than if a modern preacher in a
familiar address were to appeal to the Poles of Warsaw as ‘ye
Russians,’ or the Hungarians of Pesth as ‘ye Austrians,’ or the Irish
of Cork as ‘ye Englishmen.’

(ii) In the itinerary of St Paul several points require consideration.
(_a_) M. Renan lays stress on the fact that in Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23,
the order in which the names of Phrygia and Galatia occur is inverted.
I seem to myself to have explained this satisfactorily in the text. He
appears to be unaware of the correct reading in xvi. 6, τὴν Φρυγίαν
καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν (see _Galatians_ p. 22), though it has an
important bearing on St Paul’s probable route. (_b_) He states that
Troas was St Paul’s aim (‘l’objectif de Saint Paul’) in the one case
(xvi. 6), and Ephesus in the other (xviii. 23): consequently he argues
that Galatia, properly so called, is inconceivable, as there was no
reason why he should have made ‘this strange detour towards the
north.’ The answer is that Troas was not his ‘objectif’ in the first
instance, nor Ephesus in the second. On the first occasion St Luke
states that the Apostle set out on his journey with quite different
intentions, but that after he had got well to the north of Asia Minor
he was driven by a series of divine intimations to proceed first to
Troas and thence to cross over into Europe (see _Philippians_ p. 48).
This narrative seems to me to imply that he starts for his further
travels from some point in the western part of Galatia proper. When he
comes to the borders of Mysia, he designs bearing to the left and
preaching in Asia; but a divine voice forbids him. He then purposes
diverging to the right and delivering his message in Bithynia; but the
same unseen power checks him again. Thus he is driven forward, and
passes by Mysia to the coast at Troas (Acts xvi. 6–8). Here all is
plain. But if we suppose him to start, not from some town in Galatia
proper such as Pessinus, but from Antioch in Pisidia, why should
Bithynia, which would be far out of the way, be mentioned at all? On
the second occasion, St Paul’s primary object is to revisit the
Galatian Churches which he had planted on the former journey (xviii.
23), and it is not till after he has fulfilled this intention that he
goes to Ephesus. (_c_) M. Renan also calls attention to the difficulty
of traversing ‘the central steppe’ of Asia Minor. ‘There was
probably,’ he says, ‘at this epoch no route from Iconium to Ancyra,’
and in justification of this statement he refers to Perrot, _de Gal.
Rom. prov._ p. 102, 103. Even so, there were regular roads from either
Iconium or Antioch to Pessinus; and this route would serve equally
well. Moreover the Apostle, who was accustomed to ‘perils of rivers,
perils of robbers, perils in the wilderness’ (2 Cor. xi. 26), and who
preferred walking from Troas to Assos (Acts xx. 13) while his
companions sailed, would not be deterred by any rough or unfrequented
paths. But the facts adduced by Perrot do not lend themselves to any
such inference, nor does he himself draw it. He cites an inscription
of the year A.D. 82 which speaks of A. Cæsennius Gallus, the legate of
Domitian, as a great road-maker throughout the Eastern provinces of
Asia Minor, and he suggests that the existing remains of a road
between Ancyra and Iconium may be part of this governor’s work. Even
if the suggestion be adopted, it is highly improbable that no road
should have existed previously, when we consider the comparative
facility of constructing a way along this line of country (Perrot p.
103) and the importance of such a direct route. (_d_) ‘In the
conception of the author of the Acts,’ writes M. Renan, ‘the two
journeys across Asia Minor are journeys of confirmation and not of
conversion (Acts xv. 36, 41, xvi. 5, 6, xviii. 23).’ This statement
seems to me to be only partially true. In both cases St Paul _begins_
his tour by confirming churches already established, but in both he
advances beyond this and breaks new ground. In the former he starts
with the existing churches of Lycaonia and Pisidia and extends his
labours to Galatia: in the latter he starts with the then existing
churches of Galatia, and carries the Gospel into Macedonia and Achaia.
This, so far as I can discover, was his general rule.

(iii) The notices in the Galatian Epistle, which appear to M. Renan to
favour his view, are these: (_a_) St Paul appears to have ‘had
intimate relations with the Galatian Church, at least as intimate as
with the Corinthians and Thessalonians,’ whereas St Luke disposes of
the Apostle’s preaching in Galatia very summarily, unless the
communities of Lycaonia and Pisidia be included. But the Galatian
Epistle by no means evinces the same close and varied personal
relations which we find in the letters to these other churches, more
especially to the Corinthians. And again; St Luke’s history is more or
less fragmentary. Whole years are sometimes dismissed in a few verses.
The stay in Arabia which made so deep an impression on St Paul himself
is not even mentioned: the three months’ sojourn in Greece, though
doubtless full of stirring events, only occupies a single verse in the
narrative (Acts xx. 3). St Luke appears to have joined St Paul after
his visit to Galatia (xvi. 10); and there is no reason why he should
have dwelt on incidents with which he had no direct acquaintance.
(_b_) M. Renan sees in the presence of emissaries from Jerusalem in
the Galatian Churches an indication that Galatia proper is not meant.
‘It is improbable that they would have made such a journey.’ But why
so? There were important Jewish settlements in Galatia proper
(_Galatians_ p. 9 sq.); there was a good road through Syria and
Cilicia to Ancyra (_Itin. Anton._ p. 205 sq., _Itin. Hierosol._ p. 575
sq. ed. Wessel.); and if we find such emissaries as far away from
Jerusalem as Corinth (2 Cor. xi. 13, etc.), there is at least no
improbability that they should have reached Galatia. (_c_) Lastly; M.
Renan thinks that the mention of Barnabas (Gal. ii. 1, 9, 13) implies
that he was personally known to the churches addressed, and therefore
points to Lycaonia and Pisidia. But are we to infer on the same
grounds that he was personally known to the Corinthians (1 Cor. ix.
6), and to the Colossians (Col. iv. 10)? In fact the name of Barnabas,
as a famous Apostle and an older disciple even than St Paul himself,
would not fail to be well known in all the churches. On the other hand
one or two notices in the Galatian Epistle present serious obstacles
to M. Renan’s view. What are we to say for instance to St Paul’s
statement, that he preached the Gospel in Galatia δι’ ἀσθένειαν τῆς
σαρκός (iv. 13), i.e. because he was detained by sickness (see
_Galatians_ pp. 23 sq., 172), whereas his journey to Lycaonia and
Pisidia is distinctly planned with a view to missionary work? Why
again is there no mention of Timothy, who was much in St Paul’s
company about this time, and who on this showing was himself a
Galatian? Some mention would seem to be especially suggested where St
Paul is justifying his conduct respecting the attempt to compel Titus
to be circumcised.

[Sidenote: The inference from]

Thus St Luke’s narrative seems to exclude any visit of the Apostle to the Churches of the Lycus before his first [Sidenote: St Luke’s narrative]Roman captivity. And this inference is confirmed by St Paul’s own language to the Colossians.

[Sidenote: borne out by St Paul’s own language.]

He represents his knowledge of their continued progress, and even of their first initiation, in the truths of the Gospel, as derived from the report of others. He describes himself as _hearing_ of their faith in Christ and their love to the saints[81]. He recalls the day when he first _heard_ of their Christian profession and zeal[82]. .[Sidenote: Silence of St Paul.]Though opportunities occur again and again where he would naturally have referred to his direct personal relations with them, if he had been their evangelist, he abstains from any such reference. He speaks of their being instructed in the Gospel, of his own preaching the Gospel, several times in the course of the letter, but he never places the two in any direct connexion, though the one reference stands in the immediate neighbourhood of the other[83]. Moreover, if he had actually visited Colossæ, it must appear strange that he should not once allude to any incident occurring during his sojourn there, for this epistle would then be the single exception to his ordinary practice. And lastly; in one passage at least, if interpreted in its natural sense, he declares that the Colossians were personally unknown to him: ‘I would have you know,’ he writes, ‘how great a conflict I have for you and them that are in Laodicea and as many as have not seen my face in the flesh’[84].

Footnote 81:

Col. i. 4.

Footnote 82:

i. 9 διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς, ἀφ’ ἥς ἡμέρας ἠκούσαμεν, οὐ παυόμεθα, κ.τ.λ.
This corresponds to ver. 6 καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, ἀφ’ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσατε
καὶ ἐπέγνωτε τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. The day when they first
heard the preaching of the Gospel, and the day when he first heard the
tidings of this fact, are set against each other.

Footnote 83:

e.g. i. 5–8, 21–23, 25, 28, 29. ii. 5, 6.

Footnote 84:

ii. 1 θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα ἔχω ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν
Λαοδικείᾳ καὶ ὅσοι οὐχ ἑώρακαν τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐν σαρκί, ἵνα
παρακληθῶσιν αἱ καρδίαι αὐτῶν, συμβιβασθέντες κ.τ.λ. The question of
interpretation is whether the people of Colossæ and Laodicea belong to
the same category with the ὅσοι, or not. The latter view is taken by
one or two ancient interpreters (e.g. Theodoret in his introduction to
the epistle), and has been adopted by several modern critics. Yet it
is opposed alike to grammatical and logical considerations. (1) The
grammatical form is unfavourable; for the preposition ὑπὲρ is not
repeated, so that all the persons mentioned are included under a
vinculum. (2) No adequate sense can be extracted from the passage, so
interpreted. For in this case what is the drift of the enumeration? If
intended to be exhaustive, it does not fulfil the purpose; for nothing
is said of others whom he had seen beside the Colossians and
Laodiceans. If not intended to be exhaustive, it is meaningless; for
there is no reason why the Colossians and Laodiceans especially should
be set off against those whom he had not seen, or indeed why in this
connexion those whom he had not seen should be mentioned at all. The
whole context shows that the Apostle is dwelling on his spiritual
communion with and interest in those with whom he has had no personal
communications. St Jerome (_Ep._ cxxx. ad Demetr. § 2) has rightly
caught the spirit of the passage; ‘Ignoti ad ignotam scribimus,
dumtaxat juxta faciem corporalem. Alioquin interior homo pulcre sibi
cognitus est illa notitia qua et Paulus apostolus Colossenses
multosque credentium noverat quos ante non viderat.’ For parallels to
this use of καὶ ὅσοι, see the note on the passage.

[Sidenote: Epaphras was the evangelist of this district.]

But, if he was not directly their evangelist, yet to him they were indirectly indebted for their knowledge of the truth. Epaphras had been his delegate to them, his representative in Christ. By Epaphras they had been converted to the Gospel. This is the evident meaning of a passage in the opening of the epistle, which has been much obscured by misreading and mistranslation, and which may be paraphrased thus: ‘The Gospel, which has spread and borne fruit throughout the rest of the world, has been equally successful among yourselves. This fertile growth has been manifested in you from the first day when the message of God’s grace was preached to you, and accepted by you—preached not as now with adulterations by these false teachers, but in its genuine simplicity by Epaphras our beloved fellowservant; he has been a faithful minister of Christ and a faithful representative of us, and from him we have received tidings of your love in the Spirit’[85].

Footnote 85:

i. 6 ἐν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ ἔστιν καρποφορούμενον καὶ αὐξανόμενον, καθὼς
καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, ἀφ’ ἤς ἡμέρας ἠκούσατε καὶ ἐπέγνωτε τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν
ἀληθείᾳ, καθὼς ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ Ἐπαφρᾶ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ συνδούλου ἡμῶν, ὅς
ἐστιν πιστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν διάκονος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ καὶ δηλώσας ἡμῖν τὴν
ὑμῶν ἀγάπην ἐν πνεύματι.

The various readings which obscure the meaning are these. (i) The
received text for καθὼς ἐμάθετε has καθὼς καὶ ἐμάθετε. With this
reading the passage suggests that the instructions of Epaphras were
_superadded to_, and so distinct from, the original evangelization of
Colossæ; whereas the correct text identifies them. (ii) For ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν
the received reading is ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν. Thus the fact that St Paul did not
preach at Colossæ in person, but _through his representative_, is
obliterated. In both cases the authority for the readings which I have
adopted against the received text is overwhelming.

The obscurity of rendering is in καθὼς [καὶ] ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ Ἐπαφρᾶ,
translated in our English Version by the ambiguous expression, ‘as ye
also learned of Epaphras.’ The true force of the words is, ‘according
as ye were taught by Epaphras,’ being an explanation of ἐν ἀληθείᾳ.
See the notes on the passage.]

[Sidenote: St Paul’s residence at Ephesus instrumental in their
conversion.]

How or when the conversion of the Colossians took place, we have no direct information. Yet it can hardly be wrong to connect the event with St Paul’s long sojourn at Ephesus. Here he remained preaching for three whole years. It is possible indeed that during this period he paid short visits to other neighbouring cities of Asia: [Sidenote: A.D. 54–57.] but if so, the notices in the Acts oblige us to suppose these interruptions to his residence in Ephesus to have been slight and infrequent[86]. Yet, though the Apostle himself was stationary in the capital, the Apostle’s influence and teaching spread far beyond the limits of the city and its immediate neighbourhood. It was hardly an exaggeration when Demetrius declared that ‘almost throughout all Asia this Paul had persuaded and turned away much people’[87]. The sacred historian himself uses equally strong language in describing the effects of the Apostle’s preaching; ‘All they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks’[88]. In accordance with these notices, the Apostle himself in an epistle written during this sojourn sends salutations to Corinth, not from the Church of Ephesus specially, as might have been anticipated, but from the ‘Churches of Asia’ generally[89]. St Luke, it should be observed, ascribes this dissemination of the Gospel, not to journeys undertaken by the Apostle, but to his preaching at Ephesus itself[90]. Thither, as to the metropolis of Western Asia, would flock crowds from all the towns and villages far and near. Thence they would carry away, each to his own neighbourhood, the spiritual treasure which they had so unexpectedly found.

Footnote 86:

See especially xx. 18 ‘Ye know, from the first day when I set foot on
Asia, how I was with you _all the time_’, and ver. 31 ‘For three years
_night and day I ceased not_ warning every one with tears.’ As it
seems necessary to allow for a brief visit to Corinth (2 Cor. xii. 14,
xiii. 1) during this period, other interruptions of long duration
should not be postulated.

Footnote 87:

Acts xix. 26.

Footnote 88:

Acts xix. 10.

Footnote 89:

1 Cor. xvi. 19 ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τῆς Ἀσίας. In accordance
with these facts it should be noticed that St Paul himself alluding to
this period speaks of ‘Asia’, as the scene of his ministry (2 Cor. i.
8, Rom. xvi. 5).

Footnote 90:

Acts xix. 10 ‘disputing daily in the School of Tyrannus; and this
continued for two years, so that all they which dwelt in Asia, etc.’

[Sidenote: Close alliance of these cities with Ephesus.]

Among the places thus represented at the Asiatic metropolis would doubtless be the cities lying in the valley of the Lycus. The bonds of amity between these places and Ephesus appear to have been unusually strong. The _Concord of the Laodiceans and Ephesians_, the _Concord of the Hierapolitans and Ephesians_, are repeatedly commemorated on medals struck for the purpose[91]. [Sidenote: The work of Philemon and Nymphas,] Thus the Colossians, Epaphras and Philemon, the latter with his household[92], and perhaps also the Laodicean Nymphas[93], would fall in with the Apostle of the Gentiles and hear from his lips the first tidings of a heavenly life.

Footnote 91:

λαοδικεων . εφεϲιων . ομονοια, Eckhel III. p. 165, Mionnet IV. p. 324,
325, 331, 332, _Suppl._ VII. p. 583, 586, 589; ιεραπολειτων . εφεσιων
. ομονοια, Eckhel III. p. 155, 157, Mionnet IV. p. 299, 300, 307,
_Suppl._ VII. p. 569, 571, 572, 574, 575. See Steiger _Kolosser_ p.
50, and comp. Krause _Civitat. Neocor._ § 20.

Footnote 92:

Philem. 1, 2, 19.

Footnote 93:

Col. iv. 15. On the question whether the name is _Nymphas_ or
_Nympha_, see the notes there.

[Sidenote: but especially Epaphras.]

But, whatever service may have been rendered by Philemon at Colossæ, or by Nymphas at Laodicea, it was to Epaphras especially that all the three cities were indebted for their knowledge of the Gospel. Though he was a Colossian by birth, the fervency of his prayers and the energy of his love are represented as extending equally to Laodicea and Hierapolis[94]. It is obvious that he looked upon himself as responsible for the spiritual well-being of all alike.

Footnote 94:

iv. 12, 13.

[Sidenote: St Paul still a stranger to this district.]

We pass over a period of five or six years. St Paul’s first captivity in Rome is now drawing to a close. During this interval he has not once visited the valley of the Lycus. He has, it is true, skirted the coast and called at Miletus, which lies near the mouth of the Mæander; but, though the elders of Ephesus were summoned to meet him there[95], no mention is made of any representatives from these more distant towns.

Footnote 95:

Acts xx. 16, 17.

[Sidenote: His imprisonment at Rome.]

I have elsewhere described the Apostle’s circumstances during his residence in Rome, so far as they are known to us[96]. It is sufficient to say here, that though he is still a prisoner, friends new and old minister freely to his wants. Meanwhile the alienation of the Judaic Christians is complete. Three only, remaining faithful to him, are commemorated as honourable exceptions in the general desertion[97].

Footnote 96:

See _Philippians_ p. 6 sq.

Footnote 97:

Col. iv. 10, 11. See _Philippians_ p. 17 sq.

[Sidenote: Colossæ brought before his notice by two incidents.]

We have seen that Colossæ was an unimportant place, and that it had no direct personal claims on the Apostle. We might therefore feel surprise that, thus doubly disqualified, it should nevertheless attract his special attention at a critical moment, when severe personal trials were superadded to ‘the care of all the churches.’ But two circumstances, the one affecting his public duties, the other private and personal, happening at this time, conspired to bring Colossæ prominently before his notice.

[Sidenote: 1. The mission of EPAPHRAS.]

1. He had received a visit from EPAPHRAS. The dangerous condition of the Colossian and neighbouring churches had filled the mind of their evangelist with alarm. A strange form of heresy had broken out in these brotherhoods—a combination of Judaic formalism with Oriental mystic speculation—and was already spreading rapidly. His distress was extreme. He gratefully acknowledged and reported their faith in Christ and their works of love[98]. But this only quickened his anxiety. He had ‘much toil for them’; he was ‘ever wrestling in his prayers on their behalf,’ that they might stand fast and not abandon the simplicity of their earlier faith[99]. He came to Rome, we may suppose, for the express purpose of laying this state of things before the Apostle and seeking his counsel and assistance.

Footnote 98:

i. 4, 8.

Footnote 99:

iv. 12, 13.

[Sidenote: 2. ONESIMUS a fugitive in Rome.]

2. But at the time when Epaphras paid this visit, St Paul was also in communication with another Colossian, who had visited Rome under very different circumstances. ONESIMUS, the runaway slave, had sought the metropolis, the common sink of all nations[100], probably as a convenient hiding place, where he might escape detection among its crowds and make a livelihood as best he could. Here, perhaps accidentally, perhaps through the intervention of Epaphras, he fell in with his master’s old friend. The Apostle interested himself in his case, instructed him in the Gospel, and transformed him from a good-for-nothing slave[101] into a ‘faithful and beloved brother[102].’

Footnote 100:

Tac. _An._ xv. 44.

Footnote 101:

Philem. 11 τόν ποτέ σοι ἄχρηστον κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 102:

Col. iv. 9; comp. Philem. 16.

[Sidenote: The Apostle despatches three letters simultaneously.]

This combination of circumstances called the Apostle’s attention to the Churches of the Lycus, and more especially to Colossæ. His letters, which had been found ‘weighty and powerful’ in other cases, might not be unavailing now; and in this hope he took up his pen. Three epistles were written and despatched at the same time to this district.

[Sidenote: 1. The EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.]

1. He addresses a special letter to the COLOSSIANS, written in the joint names of himself and Timothy, warning them against the errors of the false teachers. He gratefully acknowledges the report which he has received of their love and zeal[103]. He assures them of the conflict which agitates him on their behalf[104]. He warns them to be on their guard against the delusive logic of enticing words, against the vain deceit of a false philosophy[105]. [Sidenote: The theological and the practical error of the Colossians.]The purity of their Christianity is endangered by two errors, recommended to them by their heretical leaders—the one theological, the other practical—but both alike springing from the same source, the conception of matter as the origin and abode of evil. Thus, regarding God and matter as directly antagonistic and therefore apart from and having no communication with each other, they sought to explain the creation and government of the world by interposing a series of intermediate beings, emanations or angels, to whom accordingly they offered worship. At the same time, since they held that evil resided, not in the rebellious spirit of man, but in the innate properties of matter, they sought to overcome it by a rigid ascetic discipline, which failed after all to touch the springs of action. [Sidenote: The proper corrective to both lies in the Christ of the Gospel.]As both errors flowed from the same source, they must be corrected by the application of the same remedy, the Christ of the Gospel. In the Person of Christ, the one mediator between heaven and earth, is the true solution of the theological difficulty. Through the Life in Christ, the purification of the heart through faith and love, is the effectual triumph over moral evil[106]. [Sidenote: References to Epaphras.]St Paul therefore prescribes to the Colossians the true teaching of the Gospel, as the best antidote to the twofold danger which threatens at once their theological creed and their moral principles; while at the same time he enforces his lesson by the claims of personal affection, appealing to the devotion of their evangelist Epaphras on their behalf[107].

Footnote 103:

i. 3–9, 21 sq.

Footnote 104:

ii. 1 sq.

Footnote 105:

ii. 4, 8, 18.

Footnote 106:

i. 1–20, ii. 9, iii. 4. The two threads are closely interwoven in St
Paul’s refutation, as these references will show. The connexion of the
two errors, as arising from the same false principle, will be
considered more in detail in the next chapter.

Footnote 107:

i. 7, iv. 12.

Of Epaphras himself we know nothing beyond the few but significant notices which connect him with Colossæ[108]. He did not return to Colossæ as the bearer of the letter, but remained behind with St Paul[109]. As St Paul in a contemporary epistle designates him his fellow-prisoner[110], it may be inferred that his zeal and affection had involved him in the Apostle’s captivity, and that his continuance in Rome was enforced. But however this may be, the letter was placed in the hands of Tychicus, a native of proconsular Asia, probably of Ephesus[111],[Sidenote: Tychicus and Onesimus accompany the letter.] who was entrusted with a wider mission at this time, and in its discharge would be obliged to visit the valley of the Lycus[112]. At the same time he was accompanied by Onesimus, whom the Colossians had only known hitherto as a worthless slave, but who now returns to them with the stamp of the Apostle’s warm approval. St Paul says very little about himself, because Tychicus and Onesimus would be able by word of mouth to communicate all information to the Colossians[113]. [Sidenote: The salutations.]But he sends one or two salutations which deserve a few words of explanation. Epaphras of course greets his fellow-townsmen and children in the faith. Other names are those of Aristarchus the Thessalonian, who had been with the Apostle at Ephesus[114] and may possibly have formed some personal connexion with the Colossians at that time: Mark, against whom apparently the Apostle fears that a prejudice may be entertained (perhaps the fact of his earlier desertion, and of St Paul’s dissatisfaction in consequence[115], may have been widely known), and for whom therefore he asks a favourable reception at his approaching visit to Colossæ, according to instructions which they had already received; and Jesus the Just, of whose relations with the Colossians we know nothing, and whose only claim to a mention may have been his singular fidelity to the Apostle at a critical juncture. Salutations moreover are added from Luke and from Demas; and here again their close companionship with the Apostle is, so far as we know, the sole cause of their names appearing[116].

Footnote 108:

For the reasons why Epaphras cannot be identified with Epaphroditus,
who is mentioned in the Philippian letter, see _Philippians_ p. 60,
note 4. The later tradition, which makes him bishop of Colossæ, is
doubtless an inference from St Paul’s language and has no independent
value. The further statement of the martyrologies, that he suffered
martyrdom for his flock, can hardly be held to deserve any higher
credit. His day is the 19th of July in the Western Calendar. His body
is said to lie in the Church of S. Maria Maggiore at Rome.

Footnote 109:

Col. iv. 12.

Footnote 110:

Philem. 23 ὁ συναιχμάλωτός μου. The word may possibly have a
metaphorical sense (see _Philippians_ p. 11); but the literal meaning
is more probable. St Jerome on Philem. 23 (VII. p. 762) gives the
story that St Paul’s parents were natives of Giscala and, when the
Romans invaded and wasted Judæa, were banished thence with their son
to Tarsus. He adds that Epaphras may have been St Paul’s
fellow-prisoner at this time, and have been removed with his parents
to Colossæ. It is not quite clear whether this statement respecting
Epaphras is part of the tradition, or Jerome’s own conjecture appended
to it.

Footnote 111:

Acts xx. 4, 2 Tim. iv. 12.

Footnote 112:

See below, p. 37.

Footnote 113:

Col. iv. 7–9.

Footnote 114:

Acts xix. 29.

Footnote 115:

Acts xiii. 13, xv. 37–39.

Footnote 116:

Col. iv. 10–14.

[Sidenote: Charge respecting Laodicea.]

Lastly, the Laodiceans were closely connected with the Colossians by local and spiritual ties. To the Church of Laodicea therefore, and to the household of one Nymphas who was a prominent member of it, he sends greeting. At the same time he directs them to interchange letters with the Laodiceans; for to Laodicea also he had written. And he closes his salutations with a message to Archippus, a resident either at Colossæ or at Laodicea (for on this point we are left to conjecture), who held some important office in the Church, and respecting whose zeal he seems to have entertained a misgiving[117].

Footnote 117:

iv. 15–17.

[Sidenote: 2. The LETTER TO PHILEMON.]

2. But, while providing for the spiritual welfare of the whole Colossian Church, he did not forget the temporal interests of its humblest member. Having attended to the solicitations of the evangelist Epaphras, he addressed himself to the troubles of the runaway slave Onesimus. The mission of Tychicus to Colossæ was a favourable opportunity of restoring him to Philemon; for Tychicus, well known as the Apostle’s friend and fellow-labourer, might throw the shield of his protection over him and avert the worst consequences of Philemon’s anger. But, not content with this measure of precaution, the Apostle himself writes to PHILEMON on the offender’s behalf, recommending him as a changed man[118], and claiming forgiveness for him as a return due from Philemon to himself as to his spiritual father[119].

Footnote 118:

Philem. 11, 16.

Footnote 119:

ver. 19.

The salutations in this letter are the same as those in the Epistle to the Colossians with the exception of Jesus Justus, whose name is omitted[120]. Towards the close St Paul declares his hope of release and intention of visiting Colossæ, and asks Philemon to ‘prepare a lodging’ for him[121].

Footnote 120:

vv. 23, 24.

Footnote 121:

ver. 22.

[Sidenote: 3. The CIRCULAR LETTER, of which a copy is sent to LAODICEA.]

3. But at the same time with the two letters destined especially for Colossæ, the Apostle despatched a third, which had a wider scope. It has been already mentioned that Tychicus was charged with a mission to the Asiatic Churches. It has been noticed also that the Colossians were directed to procure and read a letter in the possession of the Laodiceans. These two facts are closely connected. The Apostle wrote at this time a circular letter to the Asiatic Churches, which got its ultimate designation from the metropolitan city and is consequently known to us as the Epistle to the EPHESIANS[122]. It was the immediate object of Tychicus’ journey to deliver copies of this letter at all the principal centres of Christianity in the district, and at the same time to communicate by word of mouth the Apostle’s special messages to each[123]. Among these centres was Laodicea. Thus his mission brought him into the immediate neighbourhood of Colossæ. But he was not charged to deliver another copy of the circular letter at Colossæ itself, for this Church would be regarded only as a dependency of Laodicea; and besides he was the bearer of a special letter from the Apostle to them. It was sufficient therefore to provide that the Laodicean copy should be circulated and read at Colossæ.

Footnote 122:

See the introduction to the epistle.

Footnote 123:

Ephes. vi. 21, 22.

[Sidenote: Personal links connecting the three letters.]

Thus the three letters are closely related. Tychicus is the personal link of connexion between the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians; Onesimus between those to the Colossians and to Philemon.

For reasons given elsewhere[124], it would appear that these three letters were written and despatched towards the close of [Sidenote: Earthquake in the Lycus Valley.]the Apostle’s captivity, about the year 63. At some time not very distant from this date, a great catastrophe overtook the cities of the Lycus valley. An earthquake was no uncommon occurrence in this region[125]. But on this occasion the shock had been unusually violent, and Laodicea, the flourishing and populous, was laid in ruins. Tacitus, who is our earliest authority for this fact, places it in the year 60 and is silent about the neighbouring towns[126]. Eusebius however makes it subsequent [Sidenote: Its probable date.]to the burning of Rome (A.D. 64), and mentions Hierapolis and Colossæ also as involved in the disaster[127]; while later writers, adopting the date of Eusebius and including the three cities with him, represent it as one of a series of divine judgments on the heathen world for the persecution of the Christians which followed on the fire[128]. Having no direct knowledge of the source from which Eusebius derived his information, we should naturally be disposed to accept the authority of Tacitus for the date, as more trustworthy. But, as indications occur elsewhere that Eusebius followed unusually good authorities in recording these earthquakes[129], it is far from improbable that he [Sidenote: Bearing on the chronology of these letters.] gives the correct date[130]. In this case the catastrophe was subsequent to the writing of these letters. If on the other hand the year named by Tacitus be adopted, we gain a subsidiary confirmation of the comparatively late date which I have ventured to assign to these epistles on independent grounds; for, if they had been written two years earlier, when the blow was recent, we might reasonably have expected to find some reference to a disaster which had devastated Laodicea and from which Colossæ cannot have escaped altogether without injury. The additional fact mentioned by the Roman historian, that Laodicea was rebuilt from her own resources without the usual assistance from Rome[131], is valuable as illustrating a later notice in the Apostolic writings[132].

Footnote 124:

See _Philippians_ p. 29 sq.; where reasons are given for placing the
Philippian Epistle at an earlier, and the others at a later stage in
the Apostle’s captivity.

Footnote 125:

See above, p. 3. Laodicea was visited by the following earthquakes in
the ages preceding and subsequent to the Christian era.

(1) Before about B.C. 125, _Orac. Sibyll._ iii. 471, if the date now
commonly assigned to this Sibylline Oracle be correct, and if the
passage is to be regarded as a prophecy after the event. In iii. 347
Hierapolis is also mentioned as suffering in the same way; but it may
be questioned whether the Phrygian city is meant.

(2) About B.C. 12, Strabo xii. 8, p. 579, Dion Cass. liv. 30. Strabo
names only Laodicea and Tralles, but Dion Cassius says ἡ Ἀσία τὸ ἔθνος
ἐπικουρίας τινὸς διὰ σεισμοὺς μάλιστα ἐδεῖτο.

(3) A.D. 60 according to Tacitus (_Ann._ xiv. 27); A.D. 64 or 65
according to Eusebius (_Chron._ s.a.), who includes also Hierapolis
and Colossæ. To this earthquake allusion is made in a Sibylline Oracle
written not many years after the event; _Orac. Sibyll._ iv. 107 (see
also v. 289, vii. 23).

(4) Between A.D. 222 and A.D. 235, in the reign of Alexander Severus,
as we learn from another Sibylline Oracle (xii. 280). On this occasion
Hierapolis also suffered.

This list will probably be found not to have exhausted all these
catastrophes on record.