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

[Sidenote: Important Jewish settlement in this neighbourhood.]

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.

The following earthquakes also are mentioned as happening in the

neighbouring towns or in the district generally: the date uncertain,

_Carura_ (Strabo xii. 8, p. 578); A.D. 17 the _twelve cities_,

_Sardis_ being the worst sufferer (Tac. _Ann._ ii. 7, Plin. _N.H._ ii.

86, Dion Cass. lvii. 17, Strabo xii. 8, p. 579); A.D. 23 _Cibyra_

(Tac. _Ann._ iv. 13); A.D. 53 _Apamea_ (Tac. _Ann._ xii. 58): about

A.D. 155, under Antoninus Pius, ‘Rhodiorum et _Asiæ_ oppida’ (Capitol.

_Anton. Pius_ 9); A.D. 178, under M. Aurelius, _Smyrna_ and other

cities (_Chron. Pasch._ I. p. 489, ed. Dind., Aristid. _Or._ xx, xxi,

xli; see Clinton _Fast. Rom._ I. p. 176 sq., Hertzberg _Griechenland_

etc. II. pp. 371, 410); A.D. 262, under Gallienus II (Trebell.

_Gallien._ 5 ‘Malum tristius in _Asiæ_ urbibus fuit ... hiatus terræ

plurimis in locis fuerunt, cum aqua salsa in fossis appareret,’ ib. 6

‘vastatam _Asiam_ ... elementorum concussionibus’). Strabo says (p.

579) that _Philadelphia_ is more or less shaken daily (καθ’ ἡμέραν),

and that _Apamea_ has suffered from numerous earthquakes.

Footnote 126:

Tac. _Ann._ xiv. 27 ‘Eodem anno ex inlustribus Asiæ urbibus Laodicea,

tremore terræ prolapsa, nullo a nobis remedio propriis opibus

revaluit.’ The year is given ‘Nerone iv, Corn. Cosso consulibus’ (xiv.

20). Two different writers, in _Smith’s Dictionary of Geography_ and

_Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible_, s.v. Laodicea, place the

destruction of Laodicea in the reign of Tiberius, confusing this

earthquake with an earlier one (_Ann._ ii. 47). By this earlier

earthquake ‘duodecim celebres Asiæ urbes conlapsæ,’ but their names

are given, and not one is situated in the valley of the Lycus.

Footnote 127:

Euseb. _Chron._ Ol. 210 (II. p. 154 sq., ed. Schöne) ‘In Asia tres

urbes terræ motu conciderunt Laodicea Hierapolis Colossæ.’ The

Armenian version and Jerome agree in placing it the next event in

order after the fire at Rome (A.D. 64), though there is a difference

of a year in the two texts. If the Sibylline Oracle, v. 317, refers to

this earthquake, as seems probable, we have independent testimony that

Hierapolis was involved in the catastrophe; comp. _ib._ v. 289.

Footnote 128:

This is evidently the idea of Orosius, vii. 7.

Footnote 129:

I draw this inference from his account of the earthquake in the reign

of Tiberius. Tacitus (_Ann._ ii. 47) states that _twelve_ cities were

ruined in one night, and records their names. Pliny also, who mentions

this earthquake as ‘the greatest within the memory of man’ (_N.H._ ii.

86), gives the same number. Eusebius however, _Chron._ Ol. 198 (II. p.

146 sq., ed. Schöne), names _thirteen_ cities, coinciding with Tacitus

as far as he goes, but including Ephesus also. Now a monument was

found at Puteoli (see Gronov. _Thes._ _Græc. Ant._ VII. p. 433 sq.),

and is now in the Museum at Naples (_Museo Borbonico_ XV, Tav. iv, v),

dedicated to Tiberius and representing _fourteen_ female figures with

the names of fourteen Asiatic cities underneath; these names being the

same as those mentioned by Tacitus with the addition of Ephesus and

Cibyra. There can be no doubt that this was one of those monuments

mentioned by Apollonius quoted in Phlegon (_Fragm._ 42, Müller’s

_Fragm. Hist. Græc._ III. p. 621) as erected to commemorate the

liberality of Tiberius in contributing to the restoration of the

ruined cities (see Eckhel _Doct. Num. Vet._ VI. 192 sq.). But no

earthquake at Ephesus is mentioned by Tacitus. He does indeed speak of

such a catastrophe as happening at Cibyra (_Ann._ iv. 13) six years

later than the one which ruined the twelve cities, and of the relief

which Tiberius afforded on this latter occasion as on the former. But

we owe to Eusebius alone the fact that Ephesus also was seriously

injured by an earthquake in the same year—perhaps not on the same

night—with the twelve cities: and this fact is necessary to explain

the monument. It should be added that Nipperdey (on Tac. _Ann._ ii.

47) supposes the earthquake at Ephesus to have been recorded in the

lost portion of the fifth book of the _Annals_ which comprised the

years A.D. 29–31; but this bare hypothesis cannot outweigh the direct

testimony of Eusebius.

Footnote 130:

Hertzberg (_Geschichte Griechenlands unter der Herrschaft der Römer_,

II. p. 96) supposes that Tacitus and Eusebius refer to two different

events, and that Laodicea was visited by earthquakes twice within a

few years, A.D. 60 and A.D. 65.

Footnote 131:

Tac. _Ann._ xiv. 27, quoted above, p. 38, note 126. To this fact

allusion is made in the feigned prediction of the Sibyllines, iv. 107

Τλῆμον Λαοδίκεια, σὲ δὲ τρώσει ποτὲ σεισμὸς πρηνίξας, στήσει δὲ πάλιν

πόλιν εὐρυάγυιαν, where στήσει must be the 2nd person, ‘Thou wilt

rebuild thy city with its broad streets.’ This Sibylline poem was

written about the year 80. The building of the amphitheatre mentioned

above (p. 6, note 6), would form part of this work of reconstruction.

Footnote 132:

See below, p. 43.

[Sidenote: St Mark’s intended visit.]

It has been seen that, when these letters were written, St Mark was

intending shortly to visit Colossæ, and that the Apostle himself,

looking forward to his release, hoped at length to make a personal

acquaintance with these Churches, which hitherto he knew only through

the report of others. Whether St Mark’s visit was ever paid or not, we

have no means of determining[133]. Of St Paul himself it is reasonable

to assume, [Sidenote: St Paul probably visits Colossæ.] that in the

interval between his first and second Roman captivity he found some

opportunity of carrying out his design. At all events we find him at

Miletus, near to the mouth of the Mæander[134]; and the journey between

this place and Laodicea is neither long nor difficult.

Footnote 133:

Two notices however imply that St Mark had some personal connexion

with Asia Minor in the years immediately succeeding the date of this

reference: (1) St Peter, writing to the Churches of Asia Minor, sends

a salutation from St Mark (1 Pet. v. 13); (2) St Paul gives charge to

Timothy, who appears to be still residing at Ephesus, to take up Mark

and bring him to Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11 Μάρκον ἀναλαβὼν ἄγε μετὰ

σεαυτοῦ). Thus it seems fairly probable that St Mark’s projected visit

to Colossæ was paid.

Footnote 134:

2 Tim. iv. 20. By a strange error Lequien (_Oriens Christ._ I. p. 833)

substitutes Hierapolis for Nicopolis in Tit. iii. 12, and argues from

the passage that the Church of Hierapolis was founded by St Paul.

[Sidenote: St John in Asia Minor.]

At the time of this visit—the first and last, we may suppose, which he

paid to the valley of the Lycus—St Paul’s direction of the Asiatic

Churches is drawing to a close. With his death they pass into the hands

of St John[135], who takes up his abode in Asia Minor. Of Colossæ and

Hierapolis we hear nothing more in the New Testament: but from his exile

in[Sidenote: The message to Laodicea.] Patmos the beloved disciple

delivers his Lord’s message to the Church of Laodicea[136]; a message

doubtless intended to be communicated also to the two subordinate

Churches, to which it would apply almost equally well.

Footnote 135:

It was apparently during the interval between St Paul’s first

captivity at Rome and his death, that St Peter wrote to the Churches

of Asia Minor (1 Pet. i. 1). Whether in this interval he also visited

personally the districts evangelized directly or indirectly by St

Paul, we have no means of deciding. Such a visit is far from unlikely,

but it can hardly have been of long duration. A copy of his letters

would probably be sent to Laodicea, as a principal centre of

Christianity in Proconsular Asia, which is among the provinces

mentioned in the address of the First Epistle.

Footnote 136:

Rev. iii. 14–21.

[Sidenote: Correspondences between the Apocalypse and St Paul’s

Epistles.]

The message communicated by St John to Laodicea prolongs the note which

was struck by St Paul in the letter to Colossæ. An interval of a very

few years has not materially altered the character of these Churches.

Obviously the same temper prevails, the same errors are rife, the same

correction must be applied.

[Sidenote: 1. The doctrine of the Person of Christ,]

1. Thus, while St Paul finds it necessary to enforce the truth that

Christ is the image of the invisible God, that in Him all the divine

fulness dwells, that He existed before all things, that through Him all

things were created and in Him all things are sustained, that He is the

primary source (ἀρχή) and has the pre-eminence in all things[137]; so in

almost identical language St John, speaking in the person of our Lord,

declares that He is the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the primary

source (ἀρχή) of the creation of God[138]. Some lingering shreds of the

old heresy, we may suppose, still hung about these Churches, and instead

of ‘holding fast the Head’ they were even yet prone to substitute

intermediate agencies, angelic mediators, as links in the chain which

should bind man to God. They still failed to realise the majesty and

significance, the _completeness_, of the Person of Christ.

Footnote 137:

Col. i. 15–18.

Footnote 138:

Rev. iii. 14. It should be observed that this designation of our Lord

(ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ), which so closely resembles the language

of the Colossian Epistle, does not occur in the messages to the other

six Churches, nor do we there find anything resembling it.

[Sidenote: and practical duties which follow upon it.]

And the practical duty also, which follows from the recognition of the

theological truth, is enforced by both Apostles in very similar

language. If St Paul entreats the Colossians to seek those things which

are above, where Christ is seated on the right hand of God[139], and in

the companion epistle, which also he directs them to read, reminds the

Churches that God raised them with Christ and seated them with him in

heavenly places in Christ Jesus[140]; in like manner St John gives this

promise to the Laodiceans in the name of his Lord: ‘He that overcometh,

I will grant to him to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame

and did sit with my Father in His throne[141]’.

Footnote 139:

Col. iii. 1.

Footnote 140:

Ephes. ii. 6 συνήγειρεν καὶ συνεκάθισεν κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 141:

Rev. iii. 21 δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι μετ’ ἐμοῦ, κ.τ.λ. Here again it must be

noticed that there is no such resemblance in the language of the

promises to the faithful in the other six Churches. This double

coincidence, affecting the two ideas which may be said to cover the

whole ground in the Epistle to the Colossians, can hardly, I think, be

fortuitous, and suggests an acquaintance with and recognition of the

earlier Apostle’s teaching on the part of St John.

[Sidenote: 2. Warning against lukewarmness.]

2. But again; after a parting salutation to the Church of Laodicea St

Paul closes with a warning to Archippus, apparently its chief pastor, to

take heed to his ministry[142]. Some signs of slackened zeal seem to

have called forth this rebuke. It may be an accidental coincidence, but

it is at least worthy of notice, that lukewarmness is the special sin

denounced in the angel of the Laodiceans, and that the necessity of

greater earnestness is the burden of the message to that Church[143]. As

with the people, so is it with the priest. The community takes its

colour from and communicates its colour to its spiritual rulers. The ‘be

zealous’ of St John is the counterpart to the ‘take heed’ of St Paul.

Footnote 142:

Col. iv. 17.

Footnote 143:

Rev. iii. 19. If the common view, that by the angel of the Church its

chief pastor is meant, were correct, and if Archippus (as is very

probable) had been living when St John wrote, the coincidence would be

still more striking; see Trench’s _Epistles to the Seven Churches in

Asia_, p. 180. But for reasons given elsewhere (Philippians p. 197

sq.), this interpretation of the angels seems to me incorrect.

[Sidenote: 3. The pride of wealth denounced.]

3. Lastly; in the Apocalyptic message the pride of wealth is sternly

condemned in the Laodicean Church: ‘For that thou sayest I am rich and

have gotten me riches and have need of nothing, and knowest not that

thou art utterly wretched and miserable and beggarly and blind and

naked, I counsel thee to buy gold of me refined with fire, that thou

mayest have riches[144].’ This proud vaunt receives its best

illustration from a recent occurrence at Laodicea, to which allusion has

already been made. Only a very few years before this date an earthquake

had laid the city in ruins. Yet from this catastrophe she rose again

with more than her former splendour. [Sidenote: The vaunt of

Laodicea.]This however was not her chief title to respect. While other

cities, prostrated by a like visitation, had sought relief from the

concessions of the Roman senate or the liberality of the emperor’s

purse, it was the glory of Laodicea that she alone neither courted nor

obtained assistance, but recovered by her own resources. ‘Nullo a nobis

remedio,’ says the Roman historian, ‘propriis opibus revaluit[145].’

Thus she had asserted a proud independence, to which neither far-famed

metropolitan Ephesus, nor old imperial Sardis, nor her prosperous

commercial neighbours, Apamea and Cibyra, could lay claim[146]. No one

would dispute her boast that she ‘had gotten riches and had need of

nothing.’

Footnote 144:

Rev. iii. 17, 18, where the correct reading with the repetition of the

definite articles, ὁ ταλαίπωρος καὶ ὁ ἐλεινός, signifies the type, the

embodiment of wretchedness, etc.

Footnote 145:

Tac. Ann. xiv. 27.

Footnote 146:

In all the other cases of earthquake which Tacitus records as

happening in these Asiatic cities, Ann. ii. 47 (the twelve cities),

iv. 13 (Cibyra), xii. 58 (Apamea), he mentions the fact of their

obtaining relief from the Senate or the Emperor. On an earlier

occasion Laodicea herself had not disdained under similar

circumstances to receive assistance from Augustus: Strabo, xii. p.

579.

[Sidenote: Pride of intellectual wealth.]

But is there not a second and subsidiary idea underlying the Apocalyptic

rebuke? The pride of intellectual wealth, we may well suspect, was a

temptation at Laodicea hardly less strong than the pride of material

resources. When St Paul wrote, the theology of the Gospel and the

comprehension of the Church were alike endangered by a spirit of

intellectual exclusiveness[147] in these cities. He warned them against

a vain philosophy, against a show of wisdom, against an intrusive mystic

speculation, which vainly puffed up the fleshly mind[148]. He tacitly

contrasted with this false intellectual wealth ‘the riches of the glory

of God’s mystery revealed in Christ[149],’ the riches of the full

assurance of understanding, the genuine treasures of wisdom and

knowledge[150]. May not the same contrast be discerned in the language

of St John? The Laodiceans boast of their enlightenment, but they are

blind, and to cure their blindness they must seek eye-salve from the

hands of the great Physician. They vaunt their wealth of knowledge, but

they are wretched paupers, and must beg the refined gold of the Gospel

to relieve their wants[151].

Footnote 147:

See the next chapter of this introduction.

Footnote 148:

Col. ii. 8, 18, 23.

Footnote 149:

i. 27.

Footnote 150:

ii. 2, 3.

Footnote 151:

Comp. Eph. i. 18 ‘The _eyes of your understanding being enlightened_,

that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, what the _riches of

the glory of his inheritance_ in the saints.’

This is the last notice in the Apostolic records relating to the

Churches in the valley of the Lycus; but during the succeeding ages the

Christian communities of this district play a conspicuous part in the

struggles and the development of the Church. [Sidenote: The early

disciples settle in proconsular Asia]When after the destruction of

Jerusalem St John fixed his abode at Ephesus, it would appear that not a

few of the oldest surviving members of the Palestinian Church

accompanied him into ‘Asia,’ which henceforward became the head-quarters

of Apostolic authority. In this body of emigrants Andrew[152] and Philip

among the Twelve, Aristion and John the presbyter[153] among other

personal disciples of the Lord, are especially mentioned.

Footnote 152:

_Canon Murator._ fol. 1, l. 14 (p. 17, ed. Tregelles), Cureton’s

_Ancient Syriac Documents_ pp. 32, 34. Comp. Papias in Euseb. _H.E._

iii. 39.

Footnote 153:

Papias in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39.

[Sidenote: and especially at Hierapolis.]

Among the chief settlements of this Christian dispersion was Hierapolis.

This fact explains how these Phrygian Churches assumed a prominence in

the ecclesiastical history of the second century, for which we are

hardly prepared by their antecedents as they appear in connexion with St

Paul, and which they failed to maintain in the history of the later

Church.

Here at all events was settled Philip of Bethsaida[154], the [Sidenote:

Philip the Apostle with his daughters.] early friend and fellow-townsman

of St John, and the first Apostle who is recorded to have held

communication with the Gentiles[155]. Here he died and was buried; and

here after his decease lived his two virgin daughters, who survived to a

very advanced age and thus handed down to the second century the

traditions of the earliest days of the Church. A third daughter, who was

married, had settled in Ephesus, where her body rested[156]. [Sidenote:

Their traditions collected by Papias.]It was from the two daughters who

resided at Hierapolis, that Papias heard several stories of the first

preachers of the Gospel, which he transmitted to posterity in his

work[157].

Footnote 154:

Polycrates in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 31, v. 24 Φίλιππον [τὸν] _τῶν

δώδεκα ἀποστόλων_, ὃς κεκοίμηται ἐν Ἱεραπόλει, καὶ δύο θυγατέρες

αὐτοῦ γεγηρακυῖαι παρθένοι, καὶ ἠ ἑτέρα αὐτοῦ θυγάτηρ ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι

πολιτευσαμένη, ἣ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ἀναπαύεται. To this third daughter the

statement of Clement of Alexandria must refer, though by a common

looseness of expression he uses the plural number (Euseb. _H.E._ iii.

30), ἣ καὶ _τοὺς ἀποστόλους_ ἀποδοκιμάσουσι· Πέτρος μὲν γὰρ καὶ

Φίλιππος ἐπαιδοποιήσαντο, Φίλιππος δὲ καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας ἀνδράσιν

ἐξέδωκε. On the other hand in the _Dialogue between Caius and

Proclus_, Philip the Evangelist was represented as residing at

Hierapolis (Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 31) μετὰ τοῦτον δὲ προφήτιδες τέσσαρες

αἱ Φίλιππου γεγένηνται ἐν Ἱεραπόλει τῇ κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν· ὁ τάφος αὐτῶν

ἐστὶν ἐκεῖ, καὶ ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῶν, where the mention of the _four_

daughters _prophesying_ identifies the person meant (see Acts xxi. 8).

Nothing can be clearer than that St Luke distinguishes Philip the

Evangelist from Philip the Apostle; for (1) When the Seven are

appointed, he distinctly states that this new office is created to

relieve the Twelve of some onerous duties (Acts vi. 2–5). (2) After

Philip the Evangelist has preached in Samaria, two of the Twelve are

sent thither to convey the gifts of the Spirit, which required the

presence of an Apostle (viii. 14–17). (3) When St Paul and his

companions visit Philip at Cæsarea, he is carefully described as ‘the

Evangelist, being one of the Seven’ (xxi. 8). As St Luke was a member

of the Apostle’s company when this visit was paid, and stayed ‘many

days’ in Philip’s house, the accuracy of his information cannot be

questioned. Yet Eusebius (_H.E._ iii. 31) assumes the identity of the

Apostle with the Evangelist, and describes the notice in the _Dialogue

of Caius and Proclus_ as being ‘in harmony with (συνᾴδων)’ the

language of Polycrates. And accordingly in another passage (_H.E._

iii. 39), when he has occasion to mention the conversations of Papias

with Philip’s daughters at Hierapolis, he again supposes them to be

the same who are mentioned in the Acts.

My reasons for believing that the Philip who lived at Hierapolis was

not the Evangelist, but the Apostle, are as follows. (1) This is

distinctly stated by the earliest witness, Polycrates, who was bishop

of Ephesus at the close of the second century, and who besides claimed

to have and probably had special opportunities of knowing early

traditions. It is confirmed moreover by the notice in Clement of

Alexandria, who is the next in order of time, and whose means of

information also were good, for one of his earliest teachers was an

Ionian Greek (_Strom._ I. 1, p. 322). (2) The other view depends

solely on the authority of the _Dialogue of Caius and Proclus_. I have

given reasons elsewhere for questioning the separate existence of the

Roman presbyter Caius, and for supposing that this dialogue was

written by Hippolytus bishop of Portus (_Journal of Philology_ I. p.

98 sq., Cambridge, 1868). But however this may be, its author was a

Roman ecclesiastic, and probably wrote some quarter of a century at

least after Polycrates. In all respects therefore his authority is

inferior. Moreover it is suspicious in form. It mentions four

daughters instead of three, makes them all virgins, and represents

them as prophetesses, thus showing a distinct aim of reproducing the

particulars as given in Acts xxi. 9; whereas the account of Polycrates

is divergent in all three respects. (3) A life-long friendship would

naturally draw Philip the Apostle of Bethsaida after John, as it also

drew Andrew. And, when we turn to St John’s Gospel, we can hardly

resist the impression that incidents relating to Andrew and Philip had

a special interest, not only for the writer of the Gospel, but also

for his hearers (John i. 40, 43–46, vi. 5–8, xii. 20–22, xiv. 8, 9).

Moreover the Apostles Andrew and Philip appear in this Gospel as

inseparable companions. (4) Lastly; when Papias mentions collecting

the sayings of the Twelve and of other early disciples from those who

heard them, he gives a prominent place to these two Apostles τί

Ἀνδρέας ... εἶπεν ἢ τί Φίλιππος, but there is no reference to Philip

the Evangelist. When therefore we read later that he conversed with

the daughters of Philip, it seems natural to infer that the Philip

intended is the same person whom he has mentioned previously. It

should be added, though no great value can be assigned to such

channels of information, that the Acts of Philip place the Apostle at

Hierapolis; Tischendorf, _Act. Apost. Apocr._ p. 75 sq.

On the other hand, those who suppose that the Evangelist, and not the

Apostle, resided at Hierapolis, account for the other form of the

tradition by the natural desire of the Asiatic Churches to trace their

spiritual descent directly from the Twelve. This solution of the

phenomenon might have been accepted, if the authorities in favour of

Philip the Evangelist had been prior in time and superior in quality.

There is no improbability in supposing that both the Philips were

married and had daughters.

Footnote 155:

John xii. 20.

Footnote 156:

See above p. 45, note 154.

Footnote 157:

Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39. This is the general reference for all those

particulars respecting Papias which are derived from Eusebius.

This Papias had conversed not only with the daughters of Philip, but

also with at least two personal disciples of the Lord, Aristion and John

the presbyter. He made it his business to gather traditions respecting

the sayings of the Saviour and His Apostles; and he published a work in

five books, entitled _An Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord_, using

the information thus collected to illustrate the discourses, and perhaps

the doings, of Christ as recorded in the Gospels[158]. Among other

stories he related, apparently on the authority of these daughters of

Philip, how a certain dead man had been restored to life in his own day,

and how Justus Barsabas, who is mentioned in the Acts, had drunk a

deadly poison and miraculously escaped from any evil effects[159].

Footnote 158:

See Westcott, _Canon_ p. 63. On the opinions of Papias and on the

nature of his work, I may perhaps be allowed to refer to an article in

the _Contemporary Review_ Aug. 1867, where I have collected and

investigated all the notices of this father. The object of Papias’

work was not to construct a Gospel narrative, but to interpret and

illustrate those already existing. I ought to add that on two minor

points, the martyrdom of Papias and the identity of Philip with the

Evangelist, I have been led to modify my views since the article was

written.

Footnote 159:

Euseb. l.c. ὡς δὲ κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ὁ Παπίας γενόμενος διήγησιν

παρειληφέναι θαυμασίαν ὑπὸ [ἀπο]; τῶν τοῦ Φιλίππου θυγατέρων

μνημονεύει, τὰ νῦν σημειωτέον· νεκροῦ γὰρ ἀνάστασιν κατ’ αὐτὸν

γεγονυῖαν ἱστορεῖ, καὶ αὖ πάλιν ἕτερον παράδοξον περὶ Ἰοῦστον τὸν

ἐπικληθέντα Βαρσαβᾶν γεγονός κ.τ.λ. The information respecting the

raising of the dead man might have come from the daughters of Philip,

as the context seems certainly to imply, while yet the event happened

in Papias’ own time (κατ’ αὐτόν). It will be remembered that even

Irenæus mentions similar miracles as occurring in his own age (_Hær._

ii. 32. 4). Eusebius does not say that the miraculous preservation of

Justus Barsabas also occurred in the time of Papias.

[Sidenote: Life and teaching of PAPIAS.]

If we may judge by his name, PAPIAS was a native of Phrygia, probably of

Hierapolis[160], of which he afterwards became bishop, and must have

grown up to youth or early manhood before the close of the first

century. He is said to have suffered martyrdom at Pergamum about the

year 165; but there is good reason for distrusting this statement,

independently of any chronological difficulty which it involves[161].

Otherwise [Sidenote: Account of Eusebius.]he must have lived to a very

advanced age. Eusebius, to whom chiefly we owe our information

respecting him, was repelled by his millennarian views, and describes

him as a man of mean intelligence[162], accusing him of misunderstanding

the Apostolic sayings respecting the kingdom of Christ and thus

interpreting in a material sense expressions which were intended to be

mystical and symbolical. This disparaging account, though one-sided, was

indeed not altogether undeserved, for his love of the marvellous seems

to have overpowered his faculty of discrimination. But the adverse

verdict of Eusebius must be corrected by the more sympathetic language

of Irenæus[163], who possibly may have known him personally, and who

certainly must have been well acquainted with his reputation and

character.

Footnote 160:

Papias, or (as it is very frequently written in inscriptions) Pappias,

is a common Phrygian name. It is found several times at Hierapolis,

not only in inscriptions (Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ no. 3930, 3912 a add.)

but even on coins (Mionnet IV. p. 301). This is explained by the fact

that it was an epithet of the Hierapolitan Zeus (Boeckh 3817 Παπίᾳ Διῒ

σωτῆρι), just as in Bithynia this same god was called Πάπας (Lobeck

_Aglaoph._ p. 1048; see Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ III. p. 1051). Hence as

the name of a mortal it is equivalent to the Greek Diogenes; e.g.

Boeckh no. 3912 a add., Παπίας τοῦ Στράτωνος ὁ καλούμενος Διογένης. In

an inscription at Trajanopolis we meet with it in a curious

conjunction with other familiar names (Boeckh no. 3865 i add.) Παππίας

Τροφίμου καὶ Τυχικῆς κ.τ.λ. (see Waddington on Le Bas, Inscr. no.

718). This last belongs to the year A.D. 199. Other analogous Phrygian

names are Ammias, Tatias (with the corresponding feminines), which

with Latin terminations become Ammianus, Tatianus.

Thus at Hierapolis the name Papias is derived from heathen mythology,

and accordingly the persons bearing it on the inscriptions and coins

are all heathens. It may therefore be presumed that our Papias was of

Gentile origin. The inference however is not absolutely certain, since

elsewhere it is found borne by Jews; see the Talmudical references in

Zunz _Namen der Juden_ p. 16.

Footnote 161:

_Chron. Pasch._ sub ann. 163 σὺν τῷ ἁγίῳ δὲ Πολυκάρπῳ καὶ ἄλλοι θ’ ἀπὸ

Φιλαδελφείας μαρτυροῦσιν ἐν Σμύρνῃ· καὶ ἐν Περγάμῳ δὲ ἕτεροι, ἐν οἷς

ἧν καὶ Παπίας καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοί, ὧν καὶ ἔγγραφα φέρονται τὰ μαρτύρια.

See also the Syrian epitome of Euseb. _Chron._ (II. p. 216 ed. Schöne)

‘Cum persecutio in Asia esset, Polycarpos martyrium subiit et Papias,

quorum martyria in libro (scripta) extant,’ but the Armenian version

of the _Chronicon_ mentions only Polycarp, while Jerome says

‘Polycarpus et Pionius fecere martyrium.’ In his history (iv. 15)

Eusebius, after quoting the _Martyrdom of Polycarp_ at length, adds ἐν

τῇ αὐτῇ δὲ περὶ αὐτοῦ γραφῇ καὶ _ἄλλα μαρτύρια συνῆπτο_ ... μεθ’

ὧν καὶ Μητρόδωρος ... ἀνήρηται· τῶν γε μὴν τὸτε περιβοήτων μαρτύρων

εἷς τις ἐγνωρίζετο _Πιόνιος_ ... ἑξῆς δὲ καὶ ἄλλων ἐν Περγάμῳ

πόλει τῆς Ἀσίας ὑπομνήματα μεμαρτυρηκότων φέρεται, Κάρπου καὶ

_Παπύλου_ καὶ γυναικὸς Ἀγαθονίκης κ.τ.λ. He here falls into the

serious error of imagining that Metrodorus, Pionius, Carpus, Papylus,

and the others were martyred under M. Aurelius, whereas we know from

their extant Acts that they suffered in the Decian persecution. For

the martyrdoms of Pionius and Metrodorus see _Act. SS. Bolland._ Feb.

1; for those of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonica, _ib._ April 13. The

Acts of the former, which are included in Ruinart (_Act. Sinc. Mart._

p. 120 sq., 1689) are apparently the same which were seen by Eusebius.

Those of the latter are a late compilation of the Metaphrast, but were

probably founded on the earlier document. At all events the tradition

of the persecution in which they suffered could hardly have been

perverted or lost. Eusebius seems to have found their Acts bound up in

the same volume with those of Polycarp, and without reading them

through, to have drawn the hasty inference that they suffered at the

same time. But notwithstanding the error, or perhaps owing to it, this

passage in the Ecclesiastical History, by a confusion of the names

Papias and Papylus, seems to have given rise to the statement

respecting Papias in the Chronicon Paschale and in the Syrian epitome,

as it obviously has misled Jerome respecting Pionius. If so, the

martyrdom of Papias is a fiction, and he may have died a natural death

at an earlier date; so that the not very serious difficulty of his

longevity will disappear. The time of Polycarp’s martyrdom is fixed by

various data as Easter A.D. 166 (see Clinton’s _Fast. Rom._ I. p.

157).

Footnote 162:

_H E._ iii. 39 σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν. In another passage (iii. 36),

as commonly read, Eusebius makes partial amends to Papias by calling

him ἀνὴρ τὰ πάντα ὅτι μάλιστα λογιώτατος καὶ τῆς γραφῆς εἰδήμων, but

this passage is found to be a spurious interpolation (see

_Contemporary Review_ l.c. p. 12), and was probably added by some one

who was acquainted with the work of Papias and desired to do him

justice.

Footnote 163:

Iren. v. 33. 3, 4.

Much has been written respecting the relation of this writer to the

Canonical Gospels, but the discussion has no very direct bearing on our

special subject, and may be dismissed here[164]. One question however,

which has a real importance as affecting the progress of the Gospel in

these parts, has been raised by modern criticism and must not be passed

over in silence.

Footnote 164:

See on this subject Westcott _Canon_ p. 64 sq.; _Contemporary Review_

l.c. p. 12 sq.

[Sidenote: A modern hypothesis respecting Christianity in Asia Minor

stated and discussed.]

It has been supposed that there was an entire dislocation and

discontinuity in the history of Christianity in Asia Minor at a certain

epoch; that the Apostle of the Gentiles was ignored and his teaching

repudiated, if not anathematized; and that on its ruins was erected the

standard of Judaism, around which with a marvellous unanimity deserters

from the Pauline Gospel rallied. Of this retrograde faith St John is

supposed to have been the great champion, and Papias a typical and

important representative[165].

Footnote 165:

The theory of the Tübingen school may be studied in Baur’s

_Christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte_ or in Schwegler’s

_Nachapostolisches Zeitalter_. It has been reproduced (at least as far

as regards the Asiatic Churches) by Renan _Saint Paul_ p. 366 sq.

The subject, as a whole, is too wide for a full investigation here. I

must content myself with occupying a limited area, showing not only the

historical baselessness, but the strong inherent improbability of the

theory, as applied to Hierapolis and the neighbouring churches. As this

district is its chief strong-hold, a repulse at this point must involve

its ultimate defeat along the whole line.

[Sidenote: The position of St John]

Of St John himself I have already spoken[166]. It has been shown that

his language addressed to these Churches is not only not opposed to St

Paul’s teaching, but presents remarkable coincidences with it. So far at

least the theory finds no support; and, when from St John we turn to

Papias, the case is not different. [Sidenote: and of Papias.]The

advocates of the hypothesis in question lay the chief stress of their

argument on the silence of Papias, or rather of Eusebius. Eusebius

quotes a passage from Papias, in which the bishop of Hierapolis mentions

collecting from trustworthy sources the sayings of certain Apostles and

early disciples; but St Paul is not named among them. He also gives

short extracts from Papias referring to the Gospels of St Matthew and St

Mark, and mentions that this writer made use of the first Epistle of St

John and the first Epistle of St Peter; but here again there is no

allusion to St Paul’s writings. Whether referring to the personal

testimony or to the Canonical writings of the Apostles, Papias, we are

reminded, is equally silent about St Paul.

Footnote 166:

See above p. 41 sq.

On both these points a satisfactory answer can be given; but the two

cases are essentially different, and must be considered apart.

[Sidenote: 1. The traditions collected by Papias.]

(1) The range of _personal testimony_ which Papias would be able to

collect depended on his opportunities. Before he had grown up to

manhood, the personal reminiscences of St Paul would have almost died

out. The Apostle of the Gentiles had not resided more than three years

even at Ephesus, and seems to have paid only one brief visit to the

valley of the Lycus, even if he visited it at all. Such recollections of

St Paul as might once have lingered here would certainly be overshadowed

by and forgotten in the later sojourn of St John, which, beginning where

they ceased, extended over more than a quarter of a century. To St John,

and to those personal disciples of Christ who surrounded him, Papias and

his contemporaries would naturally and almost inevitably look for the

traditions which they so eagerly collected. This is the case with the

leading representative of the Asiatic school in the next generation,

Irenæus, whose traditions are almost wholly derived from St John and his

companions, while at the same time he evinces an entire sympathy with

the work and teaching of St Paul. But indeed, even if it had been

otherwise, the object which Papias had directly in view did not suggest

any appeal to St Paul’s authority. He was writing an ‘Exposition of the

Oracles of the Lord,’ and he sought to supplement and interpret these by

traditions of our Lord’s life, such as eyewitnesses only could give. St

Paul could have no place among those personal disciples of Christ, of

whom alone he is speaking in this preface to his work, which Eusebius

quotes.

[Sidenote: 2. His references to the Canonical writings.]

(2) But, though we have no right to expect any mention of St Paul where

the appeal is to personal testimony, yet with quotations from or

references to the _Canonical writings_ the case, it may be argued, is

different. Here at all events we might look for some recognition of St

Paul. To this argument it would perhaps be a sufficient reply, that St

Paul’s Epistles do not furnish any matter which must necessarily have

been introduced into a work such as Papias composed. But the complete

and decisive answer is this; that the silence of Eusebius, so far from

carrying with it the silence of Papias, does not [Sidenote: No weight to

be attached to the silence of Eusebius.] even afford a presumption in

this direction. Papias may have quoted St Paul again and again, and yet

Eusebius would see no reason to chronicle the fact. His usage in other

cases is decisive on this point. The Epistle of Polycarp which was read

by Eusebius is the same which we still possess. Not only does it teem

with the most obvious quotations from St Paul, but in one passage it

directly mentions his writing to the Philippians[167]. Yet the

historian, describing its relation to the Canonical Scriptures, contents

himself with saying that it ‘employs some testimonies from the former

Epistle of Peter[168].’ Exactly similar is his language respecting

Irenæus also. Irenæus, as is well known, cites by name almost every one

of St Paul’s Epistles; yet the description which Eusebius gives under

this same head, after quoting this writer’s notices respecting the

history of the Gospels and the Apocalypse, is that ‘he mentions also the

first Epistle of John, alleging very many testimonies from it, and in

like manner also the former Epistle of Peter[169].’ There is every

reason therefore to suppose that Eusebius would deal with Papias as he

has dealt with Polycarp and Irenæus, and that, unless Papias had

introduced some curious fact relating to St Paul, it would not have

occurred to him to record mere quotations from or references to this

Apostle’s letters. It may be supposed that Eusebius records with a fair

amount of attention references to the Catholic Epistles in early

writers, because the limits of the Canon in this part were not

accurately fixed. On the other hand the Epistles of St Paul were

universally received and therefore did not need to be accredited by any

such testimony. But whatever may be the explanation, the fact is patent,

and it furnishes a complete answer to the argument drawn from his

silence in the case of Papias[170].

Footnote 167:

§ 3.

Footnote 168:

_H.E._ iv. 14 ὁ γέ τοι Πολύκαρπος ἐν τῇ δηλωθείσῃ πρὸς Φιλιππησίους

αὐτοῦ γραφῇ φερομένῃ εἰς δεῦρο κέχρηταί τισι μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου

προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς. This is all that Eusebius says with reference to

Polycarp’s knowledge of the Canonical writings. It so happens that in

an earlier passage (iii. 36) he has given an extract from Polycarp, in

which St Paul’s name is mentioned; but the quotation is brought to

illustrate the life of Ignatius, and the mention of the Apostle there

is purely accidental.

Footnote 169:

_H.E._ v. 8 μέμνηται δὲ καὶ τῆς Ἰωάννου πρώτης ἐπιστολῆς, μαρτύρια ἐξ

αὐτῆς πλεῖστα εἰσφέρων, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῆς Πέτρου προτέρας.

Footnote 170:

It is necessary to press this argument, because though it has never

been answered and (so far as I can see) is quite unanswerable, yet

thoughtful men, who have no sympathy with the Tübingen views of early

Christian history, still continue to argue from the silence of

Eusebius, as though it had some real significance. To illustrate the

omissions of Eusebius I have given only the instances of Polycarp and

Irenæus, because they are historically connected with Papias; but his

silence is even more remarkable in other cases. Thus, when speaking of

the epistle of the Roman Clement (_H.E._ iii. 38), he alludes to the

coincidences with the Epistle to the Hebrews, but omits to mention the

direct references to St Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians which

is referred to by name, and is even silent about the numerous and

patent quotations from the Epistle of St James.

[Sidenote: The views of Papias inferred from his associates.]

But, if the assumption has been proved to be baseless, have we any

grounds for saying that it is also highly improbable? Here it seems fair

to argue from the well-known to the unknown. Of the opinions of Papias

respecting St Paul we know absolutely nothing; of the opinions of

Polycarp and Irenæus ample evidence lies before us. _Noscitur a sociis_

is a sound maxim to apply in such a case. Papias was a companion of

Polycarp, and he is quoted with deference by Irenæus[171]. Is it

probable that his opinions should be diametrically opposed to those of

his friend and contemporary on a cardinal point affecting the very

conception of Christianity (for the rejection of St Paul must be

considered in this light)? or that this vital heterodoxy, if it existed,

should have escaped an intelligent critic of the next generation who had

the five books of his work before him, who himself had passed his early

life in Asia Minor, and who yet appeals to Papias as preserving the

doctrinal tradition which had been handed down from the Apostles

themselves to his own time? I say nothing of Eusebius himself, who, with

a distinct prejudice against Papias, accuses him of no worse heresy in

his writings than entertaining millennarian views.

Footnote 171:

Iren. _Hær._ v. 33. 4.

[Sidenote: Millennarian views consistent with the recognition of St

Paul.]

It may indeed be confessed that a man like Papias, whose natural bent,

assisted by his Phrygian education, was towards sensuous views of

religion, would not be likely to appreciate the essentially spiritual

teaching of St Paul; but this proves nothing. The difference between

unconscious want of sympathy and conscious rejection is all important

for the matter in hand. The same charge might be brought against

numberless theologians, whether in the middle ages or in more modern

times, into whose minds it never entered to question the authority of

the Apostle and who quote his writings with the utmost reverence.

Neither in the primitive days of Christianity nor in its later stages

has the profession of Chiliastic views been found inconsistent with the

fullest recognition of St Paul’s Apostolic claims. In the early Church

Irenæus and Tertullian are notable instances of this combination; and in

our own age and country a tendency to millennarian speculations has been

commonly associated with the staunchest adherence to the fundamental

doctrines of St Paul.

[Sidenote: ABERCIUS probably his successor.]

As the successor of Papias and the predecessor of Claudius Apollinaris

in the see of Hierapolis, we may perhaps name ABERCIUS or AVIRCIUS[172].

His legendary Acts assign his episcopate to the reign of Marcus

Aurelius; and, though they are disfigured by extravagant fictions, yet

the date may perhaps be accepted, as it seems to be confirmed by other

evidence. An inscription on his tombstone recorded how he had paid one

[Sidenote: His journeys.] visit to the city of Rome, and another to the

banks of the Euphrates. These long journeys are not without parallels in

the lives of contemporary bishops. Polycarp of Smyrna visited Rome,

hoping to adjust the Paschal controversy; Melito of Sardis went as far

as Palestine, desiring to ascertain on the spot the facts relating to

the Canon of the Old Testament Scriptures. These or similar motives may

have influenced Abercius to undertake his distant journeys. If we may

assume the identification of this bishop with one Avircius Marcellus who

is mentioned in a contemporary document, he took an active interest in

the Montanist controversy, as from his position he was likely to do.

Footnote 172:

The life of this Abercius is printed in the Bollandist _Acta

Sanctorum_ Oct. 22. It may safely be pronounced spurious. Among other

incidents, the saint goes to Rome and casts out a demon from Lucilla,

the daughter of M. Aurelius and Faustina, at the same time compelling

the demon to take up an altar from Rome and transport it through the

air to Hierapolis. But these Acts, though legendary themselves,

contain an epitaph which has the ring of genuineness and which seems

to have suggested the story to the pious forger who invented the Acts.

This very interesting memorial is given and discussed at length by

Pitra, _Spicil. Solesm._ III. p. 532 sq. It is inscribed by one

Abercius of Hierapolis on his tomb, which he erected during his

life-time. He declares himself a disciple of the good shepherd, who

taught him trustworthy writings (γράμματα πιστά) and sent him to visit

queenly Rome, where he saw a people sealed with the bright seal [of

baptism]. He recounts also a journey to Syria and the East, when he

crossed the Euphrates. He says that faith served up to him as a

banquet the ιχθυς from the fountain, giving him bread and wine. He

states that he has reached his 72nd year. And he closes by threatening

with severe penalties those who disturb his tomb. The resemblance of

this inscription to others found _in situ_ in the cemetery at

Hierapolis, after allowance made for the Christian element, is very

striking. The commencement Ἐκλεκτῆς πόλεως closely resembles the form

of another Hierapolitan inscription, Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3906; the

enumeration of foreign tours has a counterpart in the monument of one

Flavius Zeuxis which states that the deceased had made 72 voyages

round the promontory of Malea to Italy (_ib._ 3920); and lastly, the

prohibition against putting another grave upon his, and the imposition

of fines to be paid to the treasury and the city if this injunction is

violated, are echos of language which occurs again and again on

tombstones in this city (_ib._ 3915, 3916, 3922, 3923, etc.). Out of

this epitaph, which he found probably at Hierapolis, and which, as he

himself tells us (§ 41), was in a much mutilated condition, the

legend-writer apparently created his story, interpreting the queen, by

which Abercius himself probably meant the city of Rome, to be the

empress Faustina, with whom the saint is represented as having an

interview, M. Aurelius himself being absent at the time on his German

campaign. This view, that the epitaph is genuine and gave rise to the

Acts, is also maintained by Garrucci (_Civiltà Cattolica_ 1856, I. p.

683, II. p. 84, quoted in the _Acta Sanct._ l.c.), whose criticisms

however are not always sound; and indeed as a whole it bears every

mark of authenticity, though possibly it may contain some

interpolations, which its mutilated condition would encourage.

The inscription itself however does not tell us what office Abercius

held or when he lived. There was a person of this name bishop of

Hierapolis present at the Council of Chalcedon A.D. 451 (Labb. _Conc._

IV. 862, 1204, 1341, 1392, 1496, 1744, ed. Coleti). But a chief pastor

of the Church at this late date would have declared his office

plainly; and the inscription points to a more primitive age, for the

expressions are archaic and the writer seems to veil his profession of

Christianity under language studiously obscure. The open profession of

Christianity on inscriptions occurs at an earlier date in these parts

than elsewhere. Already the word χριϲτιανοϲ or χρηϲτιανοϲ is found on

tombstones of the third century; Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3857 g, 3857 p,

3865 l; see Renan _Saint Paul_ p. 363. Thus we are entirely at fault

unless we accept the statement in the Acts.

And it is not unreasonable to suppose that, so far as regards the date

and office of Abercius, the writer of these Acts followed some

adequate historical tradition. Nor indeed is his statement altogether

without confirmation. We have evidence that a person bearing this name

lived in these parts of Asia Minor, somewhere about this time. An

unknown writer of a polemical tract against Montanism dedicates his

work to one Avircius Marcellus, at whose instigation it was written.

Eusebius (_H.E._ v. 16), who is our authority for this fact, relates

that Montanism found a determined and formidable opponent in

Apollinaris at Hierapolis and ‘several other learned men of that day

with him,’ who left large materials for a history of the movement. He

then goes on to say; ἀρχόμενος γοῦν τῆς κατ’ αὐτῶν γραφῆς _τῶν

εἰρημένων δή τις_ ... προοιμιάζεται ... τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον· Ἐκ

πλείστου ὅσου καὶ ἱκανωτάτου χρόνου, ἀγαπητὲ Ἀουίρκιε Μάρκελλε,

ἐπιταχθεὶς ὑπὸ σοῦ συγγράψαι τινὰ λόγον κ.τ.λ., i.e. ‘One of the

aforesaid writers at the commencement of his treatise against them

(the Montanists) etc.’ May not the person here addressed be the

Abercius of the epitaph?

But if so, who is the writer that addresses him, and when did he live?

Some MSS omit δή τις, and others substitute ἤδη, thus making

Apollinaris himself the writer. But the words seem certainly to have

been part of the original text, as the sense requires them; for if

they are omitted, τῶν εἰρημένων must be connected with κατ’ αὐτῶν,

where it is not wanted. Thus Eusebius quotes the writer anonymously;

and those who assign the treatise to Apollinaris cannot plead the

authority of the original text of the historian himself.

But after all may it not have been written by Apollinaris, though

Eusebius was uncertain about the authorship? He quotes in succession

three συγγράμματα or treatises, speaking of them as though they

emanated from the same author. The first of these, from which the

address to Avircius Marcellus is quoted, might very well have been

composed soon after the Montanist controversy broke out (as Eusebius

himself elsewhere states was the case with the work of Apollinaris,

iv. 27 κατὰ τῆς τῶν Φρυγῶν αἱρέσεως ... ὥσπερ ἐκφύειν ἀρχομένης); but

the second and third distinctly state that they were written some time

after the death of Montanus. May not Eusebius have had before him a

volume containing a collection of tracts against Montanism ‘by

Claudius Apollinaris and others,’ in which the authorship of the

several tracts was not distinctly marked? This hypothesis would

explain the words with which he prefaces his extracts, and would also

account for his vague manner of quotation. It would also explain the

omission of δή τις in some texts (the ancient Syriac version boldly

substitutes the name of Apollinaris), and would explain how Rufinus,

Nicephorus, and others, who might have had independent information,

ascribed the treatise to this father. I have already pointed out how

Eusebius was led into a similar error of connecting together several

martyrologies and treating them as contemporaneous, because they were

collected in the same volume (p. 48, note 161). Elsewhere too I have

endeavoured to show that he mistook the authorship of a tract which

was bound up with others, owing to the absence of a title (_Caius or

Hippolytus?_ in the _Journal of Philology_ I. p. 98 sq.).

On this hypothesis, Claudius Apollinaris would very probably be the

author of the first of these treatises. If so, it would appear to have

been written while he was still a presbyter, at the instigation of his

bishop Avircius Marcellus whom he succeeded not long after in the see

of Hierapolis.

If on the other hand Eusebius has correctly assigned the first

treatise to the same writer as the second and third, who must have

written after the beginning of the third century, Avircius Marcellus

to whom it is addressed cannot have held the see of Hierapolis during

the reign of M. Aurelius (A.D. 161–180); and, if he was ever bishop of

this city, must have been a successor, not a predecessor, of Claudius

Apollinaris. In this case we have the alternative of abandoning the

identification of this Avircius with the Hierapolitan bishop of the

same name, or of rejecting the statement of the Acts which places his

episcopate in this reign.

The occurrence of the name Abercius in the later history of the see of

Hierapolis (see p. 55) is no argument against the existence of this

earlier bishop. It was no uncommon practice for the later occupants of

sees to assume the name of some famous predecessor who lived in

primitive or early times. The case of Ignatius at Antioch is only one

of several examples which might be produced.

There is some ground for supposing that, like Papias and Apollinaris,

Abercius earned a place in literary history. Baronio had in his hands

an epistle to M. Aurelius, purporting to have been written by this

Abercius, which he obviously considered genuine and which he describes

as ‘apostolicum redolens spiritum,’ promising to publish it in his

Annals (_Martyr. Rom._ Oct. 22). To his great grief however he

afterwards lost it (‘doluimus vehementer e manibus nostris elapsam

nescio quomodo’), and was therefore unable to fulfil his promise

(_Annal._ s. a. 163, n. 15). A βίβλος διδασκαλίας by Abercius is

mentioned in the Acts (§ 39); but this, if it ever existed, was

doubtless spurious.

[Sidenote: CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS bishop of Hierapolis.]

The literary character of the see of Hierapolis, which had been

inaugurated by Papias, was ably sustained by CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS. His

surname, which seems to have been common in these parts[173], may have

been derived from the patron deity of Hierapolis[174] and suggests a

Gentile origin. His intimate acquaintance with heathen literature, which

is mentioned by more than one ancient writer, points in the same

direction. During the reign of M. Aurelius he had already made himself a

name by his writings, and seems to have been promoted to the see of

Hierapolis before the death of that emperor[175].

Footnote 173:

Some of the family, as we may infer from the monuments, held a high

position in another Phrygian town. On a tablet at Æzani, on which is

inscribed a letter from the emperor Septimius Severus in reply to the

congratulations of the people at the elevation of Caracalla to the

rank of Augustus (A.D. 198), we find the name of ==κλαυδιοϲ .

απολλιναριοϲ . αυρηλιανοϲ==, Boeckh 3837 (see III. p. 1066 add.). In

another inscription at the same place, the same or another member of

the family is commemorated as holding the office of prætor for the

second time, ==ϲτρατηγουντοϲ . το . β . κλ . απολλιναριου==; Boeckh

3840, _ib._ p. 1067. See also the inscriptions 3842 c, 3846 z (_ib._

pp. 1069, 1078) at the same place, where again the name Apollinarius

occurs. It is found also at Appia no. 3857 b (_ib._ p. 1086). At an

earlier date one Claudius Apollinaris appears in command of the Roman

fleet at Misenum (Tac. _Hist._ iii. 57, 76, 77). The name occurs also

at Hierapolis itself, Boeckh, no. 3915. ==π . αιλιοϲ . π . αιλιου .

απολλιναριου . ιουλιανο[υ] . υιοϲ . ϲε[...] . απολλιναριϲ . μακεδων

.== κ.τ.λ., which shows that both the forms, _Apollinaris_ and

_Apollinarius_, by which the bishop of Hierapolis is designated, are

legitimate. The former however is the correct Latin form, the latter

being the Greek adaptation.

More than a generation later than our Apollinaris, Origen in his

letter to Africanus (_Op._ I. 30, Delarue) sends greeting to a bishop

bearing this name (τὸν καλὸν ἡμῶν πάπαν Ἀπολινάριον), of whom nothing

more is known.

Footnote 174:

Apollo Archegetes; see above p. 12, note 42.

Footnote 175:

Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26, _Chron._ s. a. 171, 172, ‘Apollinaris Asianus,

Hierapolitanus episcopus, insignis habetur.’

[Sidenote: His literary works.]

Of his works, which were very numerous, only a few scanty fragments have

survived[176]. The imperfect lists however, which have reached us, bear

ample testimony both to the literary activity of the man, and to the

prominence of the Church, over which he presided, in the great

theological and ecclesiastical controversies of the age.

Footnote 176:

Collected in Routh’s _Reliquiæ Sacræ_ I. p. 159 sq., and quite

recently in Otto’s _Corp. Apol. Christ._ IX. p. 479 sq.

[Sidenote: He takes part in the two chief controversies of the day.]

The two questions, which especially agitated the Churches of Asia Minor

during the last thirty years of the first century, were the celebration

of the Easter festival and the pretensions of the Montanist prophets. In

both disputes Claudius Apollinaris took an active and conspicuous part.

[Sidenote: 1. The Paschal question.]

1. The Paschal controversy, after smouldering long both here and

elsewhere, first burst into flames in the neighbouring Church of

Laodicea[178]. An able bishop of Hierapolis therefore must necessarily

have been involved in the dispute, even if he had been desirous of

avoiding it. What side Apollinaris took in the controversy the extant

fragments of his work do not by themselves enable us to decide; for they

deal merely with a subsidiary question which does not seriously affect

the main issue[179]. But we can hardly doubt that with Polycarp of

Smyrna and Melito of Sardis and Polycrates of Ephesus he defended the

practice which was universal in Asia[180], observing the Paschal

anniversary on the 14th Nisan whether it fell on a Friday or not, and

invoking the authority of St John at Ephesus, and of St Philip at his

own Hierapolis[181], against the divergent usage of Alexandria and

Palestine and the West.

Footnote 178:

See below, p. 63.

Footnote 179:

The main point at issue was whether the exact day of the month should

be observed, as the Quartodecimans maintained, irrespective of the day

of the week. The fragment of Apollinaris (preserved in the _Chron.

Pasch._ p. 13) relates to a discrepancy which some had found in the

accounts of St Matthew and St John.

Footnote 180:

Eusebius represents the dioceses of ‘Asia’ and the neighbourhood, as

absolutely unanimous; _H.E._ v. 23 τῆς Ασίας ἁπάσης αἱ παροικίαι, v.

24 τῆς Ασίας πάσης ἅμα ταῖς ὁμόροις ἐκκλησίαις τὰς παροικίας. ‘Asia’

includes all this district, as appears from Polycrates, _ib._

Footnote 181:

See Polycrates of Ephesus in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.

[Sidenote: 2. Montanism.]

2. His writings on the Montanist controversy were still more famous, and

are recommended as an authority on the subject by Serapion of Antioch a

few years after the author’s death[182]. Though later than many of his

works[183], they were written soon after Montanus had divulged the

extravagance of his pretensions and before Montanism had attained its

complete development. If a later notice may be trusted, Apollinaris was

not satisfied with attacking Montanism in writing, but summoned at

Hierapolis a council of twenty-six bishops besides himself, where this

heresy was condemned and sentence of excommunication pronounced against

Montanus together with his adherent the pretended prophetess

Maximilla[184].

Footnote 182:

In Euseb. _H.E._ v. 19.

Footnote 183:

Eusebius (_H.E._ iv. 27) at the close of his list of the works of

Apollinarius gives καὶ _ἃ μετὰ ταῦτα_ συνέγραψε κατὰ τῆς [τῶν]

Φρυγῶν αἱρέσεως μετ’ οὐ πολὺν καινοτομηθείσης χρόνον, τότε γε μὴν

ὥσπερ ἐκφύειν ἀρχομένης, ἔτι τοῦ Μοντανοῦ ἅμα ταῖς αὐτοῦ

ψευδοπροφήτισιν ἀρχὰς τῆς παρεκτροπῆς ποιουμένου, _i.e._ the vagaries

of Montanus and his followers had already begun when Apollinaris

wrote, but Montanism assumed a new phase shortly after.

Footnote 184:

Included in the _Libellus Synodicus_ published by Pappus; see Labb.

_Conc._ I. 615, ed. Coleti. Though this council is not mentioned

elsewhere, there is no sufficient ground for questioning its

authenticity. The important part taken by Apollinaris against the

Montanists is recognised by Eusebius _H.E._ v. 16, πρὸς τὴν λεγομένην

κατὰ Φρύγας ἅιρεσιν ὅπλον ἰσχυρὸν καὶ ἀκαταγώνιστον ἐπὶ τῆς Ἱεραπόλεως

τὸν Ἀπολινάριον.

After mentioning the council the compiler of this Synodicon speaks

thus of the false prophets; οἳ καὶ βλασφήμως, ἤτοι δαιμονῶντες, καθώς

φησιν ὁ αὐτὸς πατήρ [_i.e._ Ἀπολινάριος], τὸν βίον κατέστρεψαν, σὺν

αὐτοῖς δὲ κατέκρινε καὶ Θεόδοτον τὸν σκυτέα. He evidently has before

him the fragments of the anonymous treatises quoted by Eusebius

(_H.E._ v. 16), as the following parallels taken from these fragments

shew: ὡς ἐπὶ ἐνεργουμένῳ καὶ _δαιμονῶντι_ ... _βλασφημεῖν_

διδάσκοντος τοῦ ἀπηυθαδισμένου πνεύματος ... _τὸν βιὸν

καταστρέψαι_ Ἰούδα προδότου δίκην ... οἶον ἐπίτροπόν τινα

_Θεόδοτον_ πολὺς αἱρεῖ λόγος ... τετελευτήκασι Μοντανός τε καὶ

_Θεόδοτος_ και ἡ προειρημένη γυνή. Thus he must have had before

him a text of Eusebius which omitted the words δή τις at the

commencement, as they are omitted in some existing MSS (see above, p.

56, note); and accordingly he ascribed all the treatises to

Apollinaris. The parallels are taken from the first and second

treatises; the first might have been written by Apollinaris, but the

second was certainly not by his hand, as it refers to much later

events (see above, p. 56).

Hefele (_Conciliengeschichte_ I. p. 71) places the date of this

council before A.D. 150. But if the testimony of Eusebius is worth

anything, this is impossible; for he states that the writings of

Claudius Apollinaris against the Montanists were later than his

Apology to M. Aurelius (see p. 59, note 183), and this Apology was not

written till after A.D. 174 (see p. 61, note 187). The chronology of

Montanism is very perplexing, but Hefele’s dates appear to be much too

early. The _Chronicon_ of Eusebius gives the rise of Montanism under

A.D. 172 or 173, and this statement is consistent with the notices in

his History. But if this date be correct, it most probably refers to

Montanism as a distinct system; and the fires had probably been

smouldering within the Church for some time before they broke out.

It will be observed that the writer of the Synodicon identifies

Theodotus the Montanist (see Euseb. _H.E._ v. 3) with Theodotus the

leather-seller who was a Monarchian. There is no authority for this

identification in Eusebius.

[Sidenote: His other hæresiological writings.]

Nor were his controversial writings confined to these two topics. In one

place he refuted the Encratites[185]; in another he upheld the orthodox

teaching respecting the true humanity of Christ[186]. It is plain that

he did not confine himself to questions especially affecting Asia Minor;

but that the doctrine and the practice of the Church generally found in

him a vigorous advocate, who was equally opposed to the novelties of

heretical teaching and the rigours of overstrained asceticism.

Footnote 185:

Theodoret. _H.E._ i. 21.

Footnote 186:

Socr. _H.E._ iii. 7.