^{18}Ὁ ἀσπασμὸς τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου. Μνημονεύετέ μου τῶν δεσμῶν. Ἡ χάρις
μεθ’ ὑμῶν.
18. ‘I add this salutation with my own hand, signing it with my name
Paul. Be mindful of my bonds. God’s grace be with you.’
Ὁ ἀσπασμὸς κ.τ.λ.] The letter was evidently written by an amanuensis
(comp. Rom. xvi. 22). The final salutation alone, with the accompanying
sentence μνημονεύετε κ.τ.λ., was in the Apostle’s own handwriting. This
seems to have been the Apostle’s general practice, even where he does
not call attention to his own signature. In 2 Thess. iii. 17 sq., 1 Cor.
xvi. 21, as here, he directs his readers’ notice to the fact, but in
other epistles he is silent. In some cases however he writes much more
than the final sentence. Thus the whole letter to Philemon is apparently
in his own handwriting (see ver. 19), and in the Epistle to the
Galatians he writes a long paragraph at the close (see the note on vi.
11).
τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου] The same phrase occurs in 2 Thess. iii. 17, 1 Cor.
xvi. 21. For the construction comp. e.g. Philo _Leg. ad Cai._ 8 (II. p.
554) ἐμόν ἐστι τοῦ Μάκρωνος ἐργον Γάϊος, and see Kühner § 406 (II. p.
242), Jelf § 467.
τῶν δεσμῶν] His bonds establish an additional claim to a hearing. He who
is suffering for Christ has a right to speak on behalf of Christ. The
appeal is similar in Ephes. iii. 1 τούτου χάριν ἐγὼ Παῦλος ὁ δέσμιος τοῦ
Χ. Ἰ., which is resumed again (after a long digression) in iv. 1
παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ ὁ δέσμιος ἐν Κυρίῳ ἀξίως περιπατῆσαι κ.τ.λ. (comp.
vi. 20 ὑπὲρ ὁῦ πρεσβεύω ἐν ἁλύσει). So too Philem. 9 τοιοῦτος ὢν ὡς
Παῦλος ... δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. These passages seem to show that the
appeal here is not for himself, but for his teaching—not for sympathy
with his sufferings but for obedience to the Gospel. His bonds were not
his own; they were τὰ δεσμὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (Philem. 13). In Heb. x. 34
the right reading is not τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου, but τοῖς δεσμίοις
συνεπαθήσατε (comp. xiii. 3). Somewhat similar is the appeal to his
στίγματα in Gal. vi. 17, ‘Henceforth let no man trouble me.’ See the
notes on Philem. 10, 13.
Ἡ χάρις κ.τ.λ.] This very short form of the final benediction appears
only here and in 1 Tim. vi. 21, 2 Tim. iv. 22. In Tit. iii. 15 πάντων is
inserted, and so in Heb. xiii. 25. In Ephes. vi. 24 the form so far
agrees with the examples quoted, that ἡ χάρις is used absolutely, though
the end is lengthened out. In all the earlier epistles ἡ χάρις is
defined by the addition of τοῦ Κυρίου [ἡμῶν] Ἰησοῦ [Χριστοῦ]; 1 Thess.
v. 28, 2 Thess. iii. 18, 1 Cor. xvi. 23, 2 Cor. xiii. 13, Gal. vi. 18,
Rom. xvi. 20, [24], Phil. iv. 23. Thus the absolute ἡ χάρις in the final
benediction may be taken as a chronological note. A similar phenomenon
has been already observed (τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις) in the opening
addresses: see the note on i. 2.
_On some Various Readings in the Epistle[535]._
[Sidenote: Harmonistic readings.]
In one respect the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians hold a unique
position among the Epistles of St Paul, as regards textual criticism.
They alone have been exposed, or exposed in any considerable degree, to
those harmonizing tendencies in transcribers, which have had so great an
influence on the text of the Synoptic Gospels.
[Sidenote: Preponderant evidence (1) for the correct reading;]
In such cases there is sometimes no difficulty in ascertaining the
correct reading. The harmonistic change is condemned by the majority of
the oldest and best authorities; or there is at least a nearly even
balance of external testimony, and the suspicious character of the
reading is quite sufficient to turn the scale. Thus we cannot hesitate
for a moment about such readings as i. 14 διὰ τοῦ ἅιματος αὐτοῦ (from
Ephes. i. 7), or iii. 16 ψαλμοῖς _καὶ_ ὕμνοις _καὶ_ ᾠδαῖς
πνευματικαῖς, and τῷ _Κυρίῳ_ (for τῷ Θεῷ) in the same verse (both
from Ephes. v. 19).
[Sidenote: (2) against the correct reading.]
In other instances again there can hardly be any doubt about the text,
even though the vast preponderance of authority is in favour of the
harmonistic reading; and these are especially valuable because they
enable us to test the worth of our authorities. Such examples are:
Footnote 535:
The references to the patristic quotations in the following pages have
all been verified. I have also consulted the Egyptian and Syriac
Versions in every case, and the Armenian and Latin in some instances,
before giving the readings. As regards the MSS, I have contented
myself with the collations as given in Tregelles and Tischendorf, not
verifying them unless I had reason to suspect an error.
The readings of the Memphitic Version are very incorrectly given even
by the principal editors, such as Tregelles and Tischendorf; the
translation of Wilkins being commonly adopted, though full of errors,
and no attention being paid to the various readings of Boetticher’s
text. Besides the errors corrected in the following pages, I have also
observed these places where the text of this version is incorrectly
reported; ii. 7 ἐν αὐτῇ not omitted; ii. 13 the second ὑμᾶς not
omitted; ii. 17 the singular (ὅ), not the plural (ἅ); iii. 4 ὑμῶν, not
ἡμῶν; iii. 16 τῷ Θεῷ, not τῷ Κυρίῳ; iii. 22 τὸν Κύριον, not τὸν Θεόν;
iv. 3 doubtful whether δι’ ὅ or δι’ ὅν; and probably there are others.
[Sidenote: Examples.]
[Sidenote: iii. 6, words inserted.]iii. 6. The omission of the words ἐπὶ
τοὺς ὑιὸυς τῆς ἀπειθείας (taken from Ephes. v. 6). Apparently the only
extant MS in favour of the omission is B. In D however they are written
(though by the first hand) in smaller letters and extend beyond the line
(in both Greek and Latin), whence we may infer that they were not found
in a copy which was before the transcriber. They are wanting also in the
Thebaic Version and in one form of the Æthiopic (Polyglott). They were
also absent from copies used by Clement of Alexandria (_Pæd._ iii. 11,
p. 295, where however they are inserted in the printed texts; _Strom._
iii. 5, p. 531), by Cyprian (_Epist._ lv. 27, p. 645 ed. Hartel), by an
unknown writer (_de Sing. Cler._> 39, in Cypr. _Op._ III. p. 215), by
the Ambrosian Hilary (_ad loc._), and by Jerome (_Epist._ xiv. 5, I. p.
32), though now found apparently in all the Latin MSS.
[Sidenote: iii. 21. ἐρεθίζετε.]
iii. 21. ἐρεθίζετε is only found in B K and in later hands of D (with
its transcript E) among the uncial MSS. All the other uncials read
παροργίζετε, which is taken from Ephes. vi. 4. In this case however the
reading of B is supported by the greater number of cursives, and it
accordingly has a place in the received text. The versions (so far as we
can safely infer their readings) go almost entirely with the majority of
uncials. [Sidenote: Syriac version misrepresented.]The true readings of
the Syriac Versions are just the reverse of those assigned to them even
by the chief critical editors, Tregelles and Tischendorf. Thus in the
Peshito the word used is the Aphel of ܪܓܙ, the same mood of the same
verb being employed to translate παροργίζειν, not only in Rom. x. 19,
but even in the parallel passage Ephes. vi. 4. The word in the text of
the Harclean is the same, ܬܪܓܛܙܘܢܢ, but in the margin the alternative
ܬܓܪܓܘܢ is given. White interprets this as saying that the text is
ἐρεθίζετε and the margin παροργίζετε, and he is followed by Tregelles
and Tischendorf. But in this version, as in the Peshito, the former word
translates παροργίζειν in Rom. x. 19, Ephes. vi. 4; while in the Peshito
the latter word is adopted to render ἐρεθίζειν in 2 Cor. ix. 2 (the only
other passage in the N. T. where ἐρεθίζειν occurs). In the Harclean of 2
Cor. ix. 2 a different word from either, ܚܬܚܬ, is used. It seems
tolerably clear therefore that παροργίζετε was read in the text of both
Peshito and Harclean here, while ἐρεθίζετε was given in the margin of
the latter. [Sidenote: Latin versions.]The Latin Versions seem also to
have read παροργίζετε; for the Old Latin has ‘_ad iram_ (or _in iram_ or
_ad iracundiam_) _provocare_, and the Vulgate _ad indignationem
provocare_’ here, while both have _ad iracundiam provocare_ in Ephes.
vi. 4. The Memphitic too has the same rendering ϯϫωⲛτ in both passages.
Of the earlier Greek fathers Clement, _Strom._ iv. 8 (p. 593), reads
ἐρεθίζετε: and it is found in Chrysostom and some later writers.
[Sidenote: Great value of B.]
These examples show how singularly free B is from this passion for
harmonizing, and may even embolden us to place reliance on its authority
in extreme cases.
[Sidenote: Parallel passages.]
[Sidenote: Col. iii. 16, Eph. v. 19.]
For instance, the parallel passages Ephes. v. 19 and Col. iii. 16 stand
thus in the received text: