^{23}ἅτινά ἐστιν λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ
23. ‘All such teaching is worthless. It may bear the semblance of
wisdom; but it wants the reality. It may make an officious parade of
religious service; it may vaunt its humility; it may treat the body with
merciless rigour; but it entirely fails in its chief aim. It is
powerless to check indulgence of the flesh.’
ἅτινα] ‘_which sort of things_’. Not only these particular precepts, μὴ
ἅψῃ κ.τ.λ., but all precepts falling under the same category are
condemned. For this force of ἅτινα as distinguished from ἅ, see the
notes on Gal. iv. 24, v. 19, Phil. iv. 3. The antecedent here is not
ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας κ.τ.λ., but the prohibitions given in ver. 21.
λόγον μὲν κ.τ.λ.] ‘_having a reputation for wisdom_’, but not the
reality. The corresponding member, which should be introduced by δέ, is
suppressed; the oppositive clause being postponed and appearing later in
a new form, οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι κ.τ.λ. Such suppressions are common in
classical writers, more especially in Plato; see Kühner § 531, II. p.
813 sq., Jelf § 766, and comp. Winer § lxiii. p. 719 sq. St Jerome
therefore is not warranted in attributing St Paul’s language here to
‘imperitia artis grammaticæ’ (_Epist._ cxxi, _Op._ II. p. 884). On the
contrary it is just the license which an adept in a language would be
more likely to take than a novice.
In this sentence λόγον ἔχοντα σοφίας is best taken as a single
predicate, so that ἐστιν is disconnected from ἔχοντα. Otherwise the
construction ἐστιν ἔχοντα (for ἔχει) would be supported by many
parallels in the Greek Testament; see Winer § xlv. p. 437.
The phrase λόγον ἔχειν τινος, so far as I have observed, has four
meanings. (A) Two as applied to the _thinking subject_. (i) ‘To take
account of, to hold in account, to pay respect to’: e.g. Æsch. _Prom._
231 βροτῶν δὲ τῶν ταλαιπώρων λόγον οὐκ ἔσχεν οὐδένα, Demosth. _de
Coron._ § 199 )έιπερ ἢ δόξης ἢ προγόνων ἢ τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος εἶχε
λόγον, Plut. _Vit. Philop._ 18 πῶς ἄξιον ἐκέινου λόγον ἔχειν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς
κ.τ.λ. (ii) ‘To possess the reason or account or definition of’, ‘to
have a scientific knowledge of’; Plato _Gorg._ p. 465 A τέχνην δὲ αὐτὴν
οὔ φημι εἶναι ἀλλ’ ἐμπειρίαν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔχει λόγον οὐδένα hῶν προσφέρει,
ὁποῖα ἄττα τὴν φύσιν ἐστίν, and so frequently. These two senses are
recognised by Aristotle, _Eth. Nic._ i. 13 (p. 1102), where he
distinguishes the meaning of the expressions ἔχειν λόγον τοῦ πατρὸς ἢ
τῶν φίλων and ἔχειν λόγον τῶν μαθητικῶν. (B) Two as applied to the
_object of thought_. (iii) ‘To have the credit or reputation of’, as
here. This sense of ἔχειν λόγον, ‘to be reputed’, is more commonly found
with an infinitive: e.g. Plato _Epin._ 987 B αὑτὸς Ἀφροδίτης εἶναι
σχέδον ἔχει λόγον. (iv) ‘To fulfil the definition of, to possess the
characteristics, to have the nature of’; e.g. Philo _Vit. Cont._ 4 (II.
p. 477) ἑκάτερον δὲ πηγῆς λόγον ἔχον, Plut. _Mor._ p. 637 D τὸ δὲ ὢον
οὔτε ἀρχῆς ἔχει λόγον, οὐ γὰρ ὑφίσταται πρῶτον, οὔτε ὅλου φύσιν, ἀτελὲς
γάρ ἐστιν, ib. 640 F δεῖ πρὸς τὸ ἐμφυτεύομενον χώρας λόγον ἔχειν τὸ
δεξόμενον. The senses of λόγον ἔχειν with other constructions, or as
used absolutely, are very various, e.g. ‘to be reasonable’, ‘to hold
discourse’, ‘to bear a ratio’, etc., but do not come under consideration
here. Nor again does such an expression as Plut. _Mor._ p. 550 C μήτε
τὸν λόγον ἔχων τοῦ νομοθέτου, ‘not being in possession of, not knowing,
the intention of the legislator’; for the definite article removes it
from the category of the cases considered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ [καὶ] ἀφειδείᾳ σώματος, οὐκ
ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ] ‘_in volunteered_, self-imposed, officious,
supererogatory _service_’. One or both of these two ideas, (i)
‘excessive readiness, officious zeal,’ (ii) ‘affectation, unreality,’
are involved in this and similar compounds; e.g. ἐθελοδουλεία,
ἐθελοκάκησις, ἐθελοκίνδυνος, ἐθελοκωφέιν, ἐθελορήτωρ, ἐθελοπρόξενος:
these compounds being used most frequently, though not always (as this
last word shows), in a bad sense. This mode of expression was
naturalised in Latin, as appears from Augustine _Epist._ cxlix. 27 (II.
p. 514) ‘Sic enim et vulgo dicitur qui divitem affectat thelodives, et
qui sapientem thelosapiens, et cetera hujusmodi’. Epiphanius, when
writing of the Pharisees, not content with the word here supplied by St
Paul, coins a double compound ἐθελοπερισσοθρησκεία, _Hær._ i. 16 (p.
34).
ταπεινοφροσύνῃ] The word is here disparaged by its connexion, as in ver.
18 (see the note there). The force of ἐθελο- may be regarded as carried
on to it. Real genuine ταπεινοφροσύνη is commended below; iii. 12.
ἀφειδείᾳ σώματος] ‘_hard treatment of the body_’. The expression
ἀφειδεῖν τοῦ σώματος is not uncommon, being used most frequently, not as
here of ascetic discipline, but rather of courageous exposure to
hardship and danger in war, e.g. Lysias _Or. Fun._ 25, Joseph. _B.J._
iii. 7. 18, Lucian _Anach._ 24, Plut. _Vit. Pericl._ 10; in Plut. _Mor._
p. 137 C however of a student’s toil, and _ib._ p. 135 E, more generally
of the rigorous demands made by the soul on the body. The substantive
ἀφέιδεια or ἀφειδία does not often occur. On the forms in -εια and -ία
derived from adjectives in -ης see Buttmann _Ausf. Gramm._ § 119, II. p.
416 sq. The great preponderance of manuscript authority favours the form
ἀφειδείᾳ here: but in such questions of orthography the fact carries
less weight than in other matters. The καὶ before ἀφειδείᾳ should
probably be omitted; in which case ἀφειδείᾳ becomes an instrumental
dative, explaining λόγον ἔχοντα σοφίας. While the insertion would
naturally occur to scribes, the omission gives more point to the
sentence. The ἐθελοθρησκεία καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνη as the religious elements
are thus separated from the ἀφείδεια σώματος as the practical rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός.
οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ κ.τ.λ.] ‘yet _not_ really _of any value to remedy indulgence
of the flesh_.’ So interpreted the words supply the oppositive clause to
λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας, as the presence of the negative οὐκ naturally
suggests. If the sentence had been undisturbed, this oppositive clause
would naturally have been introduced by δέ, but the interposition of ἐν
ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ κ.τ.λ. has changed its form by a sort of attraction. For
this sense of ἐν τιμῇ comp. Lucian _Merc. cond._ 17 τὰ καινὰ τῶν
ὑποδημάτων ἐν τιμῇ τινι καὶ ἐπιμελείᾳ ἐστίν: similarly Hom. _Il._ ix.
319 ἐν δὲ ἰῇ τιμῇ κ.τ.λ. The preposition πρός, like our English ‘_for_’,
when used after words denoting utility, value, sufficiency, etc., not
uncommonly introduces the object to _check_ or _prevent_ or _cure_ which
the thing is to be employed. And even though utility may not be directly
expressed in words, yet if the idea of a something to be _remedied_ is
present, this preposition is freely used notwithstanding. See Isocr.
_Phil._ 16 (p. 85) πρὸς τοὺς βαρβάρους χρήσιμον, Arist. _H. A._ iii. 21
(p. 522) συμφέρει πρὸς τὰς διαρῥοίας ἡ τοιάυτη μάλιστα, _de Respir._ 8
(p. 474) ἀνάγκη γίνεσθαι κατάψυξιν, εἰ μέλλει τεύξεσθαι σωτηρίας· τοῦτο
γὰρ βοηθεῖ πρὸς τάυτην τὴν φθοράν, Lucian _Pisc._ 27 χρήσιμον γοῦν καὶ
πρὸς ἐκέινους τὸ τοιοῦτον, Galen _Op._ XII. p. 399 χρωμένῳ γε τίνι πρὸς
τὸ πάθος ἀρκτέιῳ στέατι, π. 420 [Γρεεκ: τοῦ δόντος αὐτὰ πρὸς ἀλωπεκίας
φαλακρώσεις κ.τ.λ., p. 430 συνέθηκαν ... φάρμακα πρὸς ῥεούσας τρίχας, p.
476 βραχυτάτην ἔχοντι δύναμιν ὡς πρὸς τὸ προκέιμενον σύμπτωμα, p. 482
τοῦτο δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὰ ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ σώματι ἐξανθήματα σφόδρα χρήσιμόν ἐστιν,
p. 514 χρηστέον δὲ πᾶσι τοῖς ἀναγεγραμμένοις βοηθήμασι πρὸς τὰς
γινομένας δι’ ἕγκαυσιν κεφαλαλγίας, p. 601 κάλλιστον πρὸς αὐτὴν φάρμακον
ἐγχέομενον νάρδινον μύρον. These examples from Galen are only a few out
of probably some hundreds, which might be collected from the treatise in
which they occur, the _de Compositione Medicamentorum_.
The language, which the Colossian false teachers would use, may be
inferred from the account given by Philo of a Judaic sect of mystic
ascetics, who may be regarded, not indeed as their direct, but as their
collateral ancestors (see p. 86, note 246, p. 94), the Therapeutes of
Egypt; _de Vit. Cont._ § 4 (II. p. 476 sq.) τρυφῶσιν ὑπὸ _σοφίας_
ἑστίωμενοι πλουσίως καὶ ἀφθόνως _τὰ δόγματα_ χορηγούσης, ὡς καὶ ...
_μόλις_ δι’ ἓξ ἡμερῶν _ἀπογεύεσθαι_ τροφῆς ἀναγκαίας ...
σιτοῦνται δὲ ... ἄρτον εὐτελῆ, καὶ ὄψον ἅλες ... πότον ὕδωρ ναματιαῖον
αὐτοῖς ἐστίν ... _πλησμονὴν_ ὡς ἐχθρόν τε καὶ ἐπίβουλον
ἐκτρεπόμενοι ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος. St Paul apparently has before him some
similar exposition of the views of the Colossian heretics, either in
writing or (more probably) by report from Epaphras. In reply he
altogether denies the claims of this system to the title of σοφία; he
disputes the value of these δόγματα; he allows that this πλησμονή is the
great evil to be checked, the fatal disease to be cured; but he will not
admit that the remedies prescribed have any substantial and lasting
efficacy.
The interpretation here offered is not new, but it has been strangely
overlooked or despised. The passages adduced will I trust show the
groundlessness of objections which have been brought against it owing to
the use of the preposition; and in all other respects it seems to be far
preferable to any rival explanation which has been suggested. The
favourite interpretations in ancient or modern times divide themselves
into two classes, according to the meaning assigned to πρὸς πλησμονὴν
τῆς σαρκός. (1) It is explained in a good sense: ‘to satisfy the
reasonable wants of the body’. In this case οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί is
generally interpreted, ‘_not_ holding it (the body) _in any honour_’. So
the majority of the fathers, Greek and Latin. This has the advantage of
preserving the continuity of the words οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι πρὸς πλησμονὴν
κ.τ.λ.: but it assigns an impossible sense to πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός. For
πλησμονή always denotes ‘repletion’, ‘surfeiting’, ‘excessive
indulgence’, and cannot be used of a reasonable attention to the
physical cravings of nature; as Galen says, _Op._ XV. p. 113 πάντων
εἰωθότων οὐ μόνον ἰατρῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων Ἑλλήνων τὸ τῆς πλησμονῆς
ὄνομα μᾶλλόν πως ἐπιφέρειν _ταῖς ὑπερβολαῖς τῆς συμμέτρου
ποσότητος_: and certainly neither the Apostle nor the Colossian
ascetics were likely to depart from this universal rule. To the long
list of passages quoted in Wetstein may be added such references as
Philo _Leg. ad. Cai._ § 1 (II. p. 546), _Clem. Hom._ viii. 15, Justin
_Dial._ 126, Dion. Alex. in Euseb. _H.E._ vii. 25; but they might be
increased to any extent. (2) A bad sense is attached to πλησμονή, as
usage demands. And here two divergent interpretations have been put
forward. (i) The proper continuity of the sentence is preserved, and the
words οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός are regarded as an
exposition of the doctrine of the false teachers from _their own point
of view_. So Theodore of Mopsuestia, οὐ τίμιον νομίζοντας τὸ διὰ πάντων
πληροῦν τὴν σάρκα, ἀλλὰ γὰρ μᾶλλον αἱρουμένους ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν πολλῶν διὰ
τὴν τοῦ νόμου παράδοσιν. This able expositor however is evidently
dissatisfied, for he introduces his explanation with the words ἀσαφὲς
μέν ἐστι, βούλεται δὲ εἰπεῖν κ.τ.λ.; and his explanation has not been
adopted by others. Either the sentence, so interpreted, becomes flat and
unmeaning, though it is obviously intended to clinch the whole matter;
or the Apostle is made to confirm the value of the very doctrines which
he is combating. (ii) The sentence is regarded as discontinuous; and it
is interpreted, ‘_not of any real value_’ (or ‘_not_ consisting _in
anything commendable_’, or ‘_not_ holding the body _in any honour_’) but
‘_tending to gratify the carnal_ desires’ (or ‘mind’). This in some form
or other is almost universally adopted by modern interpreters, and among
the ancients is found in the commentator Hilary. The objections to it
are serious. (α) The dislocation of the sentence is inexplicable. There
is no indication either in the grammar or in the vocabulary that a
separate and oppositive clause begins with πρὸς πλησμονὴν κ.τ.λ., but on
the contrary everything points to an unbroken continuity. (β) The sense
which it attaches to πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός is either forced and unnatural,
or it makes the Apostle say what he could not have said. If πλησμονὴ τῆς
σαρκός could have the sense which Hilary assigns to it, ‘sagina carnalis
sensus traditio humana est’, or indeed if it could mean ‘the _mind_ of
the flesh’ in any sense (as it is generally taken by modern
commentators), this is what St Paul might well have said. But obviously
πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός conveys a very different idea from such expressions
as τὸ φυσιοῦσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκός (ver. 18) or τὸ φρόνημα τῆς
σαρκός (Rom. viii. 6, 7), which include pride, self-sufficiency, strife,
hatred, bigotry, and generally everything that is earth-bound and
selfish. On the other hand, if πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός be taken in its
natural meaning, as applying to coarse sensual indulgences, then St Paul
could not have said without qualification, that this rigorous asceticism
conduced πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός. Such language would defeat its own
object by its extravagance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------