COLOSSIANS.

διδάσκοντες καὶ νουθετοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ᾠδαῖς

πνευματικαῖς ἐν χάριτι ᾄδοντες ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ.

And A carries the harmonizing tendency still further by inserting ἐν

χάριτι before ᾄδοντες in Ephes. from the parallel passage.

In B they are read as follows:

λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς ἐν ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ᾠδαῖς ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες

τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ.

διδάσκοντες καὶ νουθετοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς ψαλμοῖς ὕμνοις ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς

ἐν τῇ χάριτι ᾄδοντες ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν τῷ Θεῷ.

[Sidenote: Alterations for the sake of harmonizing.] Here are seven

divergences from the received text. (1) The insertion of ἐν before

ψαλμοῖς in Ephes.; (2) The omission of καί, καί, attaching ψαλμοῖς,

ὕμνοις, ᾠδαῖς in Col.; (3) The omission of πνευματικαῖς in Ephes.; (4)

The insertion of τῇ before χάριτι in Col.; (5) The omission of ἐν before

τῇ καρδίᾳ in Ephes.; (6) The substitution of ταῖς καρδίαις for τῇ καρδίᾳ

in Col.; (7) The substitution of τῷ Θεῷ for τῷ Κυρίῳ in Col.

Of these seven divergences the fourth alone does not affect the

question: of the remaining six, the readings of B in (2), (6), (7) are

supported by the great preponderance of the best authorities, and are

unquestionably right. In (1), (3), (5) however the case stands thus:

[Sidenote: ἐν ψαλμοῖς.]

(1) ἐν ψαλμοῖς B, P, with the cursives 17, 67^{**}, 73, 116, 118, and

in Latin, d, e, vulg., with the Latin commentators Victorinus,

Hilary and Jerome. Of these however it is clear that the Latin

authorities can have little weight in such a case, as the

preposition might have been introduced by the translator. All

the other Greek MSS with several Greek fathers omit ἐν.

[Sidenote: πνευματικαῖς.]

(3) πνευματικαῖς omitted in B, d, e. Of the Ambrosian Hilary

Tischendorf says ‘fluct. lectio’; but his comment ‘In quo enim

est spiritus, semper spiritualia meditatur’ seems certainly to

recognise the word. It appears to be found in every other

authority.

[Sidenote: τῇ καρδίᾳ.]

(5) τῇ καρδίᾳ א^* B with Origen in Cramer’s _Catena_, p. 201.

ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ K L, and the vast majority of later MSS, the

Armenian and Æthiopic Versions, Euthalius (Tischendorf’s

MS), Theodoret, and others. The Harclean Syriac (text) is

quoted by Tischendorf and Tregelles in favour of ἐν τῇ

καρδίᾳ, but it is impossible to say whether the translator

had or had not the preposition.

ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις א^c A D F G P, 47, 8^{pe}; the Old Latin,

Vulgate, Memphitic, Peshito Syriac, and Gothic Versions,

together with the margin of the Harclean Syriac; the fathers

Basil (II. p. 464), Victorinus (probably), Theodore of

Mopsuestia, the Ambrosian Hilary, Jerome, and others.

Chrysostom (as read in the existing texts) wavers between ἐν

τῇ καρδίᾳ and ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις. This form of the reading is

an attempt to bring Ephes. into harmony with Col., just as

(6) is an attempt to bring Col. into harmony with Ephes.

It will be seen how slenderly B is supported; and yet we can hardly

resist the impression that it has the right reading in all three cases.

In the omission of πνευματικαῖς more especially, where the support is

weakest, this impression must, I think, be very strong.

[Sidenote: Excellence of B elsewhere.]

This highly favourable estimate of B is our starting-point; and on the

whole it will be enhanced as we proceed. Thus for instance in i. 22 and

ii. 2 we shall find this MS alone (with one important Latin father)

retaining the correct text; in the latter case amidst a great

complication of various readings. And when again, as in iv. 8, we find B

for once on the side of a reading which might otherwise be suspected as

a harmonistic change, this support alone will weigh heavily in its

favour. Other cases in which B (with more or less support) preserves the

correct reading against the mass of authorities are ii. 2 πᾶν πλοῦτος,

ii. 7 τῇ πίστει, ii. 13 τοῖς παραπτώμασιν (omitting ἐν), v. 12 σταθῆτε,

together with several instances which will appear in the course of the

following investigation. On the other hand its value must not be

overestimated. [Sidenote: False readings in B.]Thus in iv. 3 τὸ

μυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ δι’ ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι[536] there can be little doubt

that the great majority of ancient authorities correctly read δι’ ὅ,

though B F G have δι’ ὅν: but the variation is easily explained. A

single stroke, whether accidental or deliberate, alone would be

necessary to turn the neuter into a masculine and make the relative

agree with the substantive nearest to it in position. Again in ii. 10 ὅς

ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλή, the reading of B which substitutes ὅ for ὅς is plainly

wrong, though supported in this instance by D F G 47^*, by the Latin

text d, and by Hilary in one passage (_de Trin._ ix. 8, II. p. 263),

though elsewhere (ib. i. 13, I. p. 10) he reads ὅ. But here again we

have only an instance of a very common interchange. Whether for

grammatical reasons or from diplomatic confusion or from some other

cause, five other instances of this interchange occur in this short

epistle alone; i. 15 ὅ for ὅς F G; i. 18 ὅ for ὅς F G; i. 24 ὅς for ὅ C

D^* etc.; i. 27 ὅς for ὅ א C D K L etc.; iii. 14 ὅς for ὅ א^* D. Such

readings again as the omission of καὶ αἰτούμενοι i. 9 by B K, or of δι’

αὐτοῦ in i. 20 by B D^* F G etc., or of ἡ ἐπιστολή in iv. 16 by B

alone, need not be considered, since the motive for the omission is

obvious, and the authority of B will not carry as great weight as it

would in other cases. Similarly the insertion of ἡ in i. 18, ἡ ἀρχή, by

B, 47, 67^{**}, b^{scr}, and of καί in ii. 15, καὶ ἐδειγμάτισεν, by B

alone, do not appear to deserve consideration, because in both instances

these readings would suggest themselves as obvious improvements. In

other cases, as in the omission of τῆς before γῆς (i. 20), and of ἑνί in

ἐν ἑνί σώματι (iii. 15), the scribe of B has erred as any scribe might

err.

Footnote 536:

In this passage B (with some few other authorities) has τοῦ Θεοῦ for

τοῦ Χριστοῦ, thus substituting a commoner expression (ii. 2, 1 Cor.

iv. 1, Rev. x. 7; comp. 1 Cor. ii. 1, v.l.) for a less common (Ephes.

iii. 4).

* * * * *

The various readings in this epistle are more perplexing than perhaps in

any portion of St Paul’s Epistles of the same length. The following

deserve special consideration.

i. 3 ==τῷ θεῷ πατρί.==

[Sidenote: i. 3 τῷ θεῷ πατρί,]]

On this very unusual collocation I have already remarked in the notes

(p. 199). The authorities stand as follows:

(1) τῷ θεῷ πατρί B C^*.

(2) τῷ θεῷ τῷ πατρί D^* F G Chrysostom.

One or other is also the reading of the Old Latin (d, e, g, harl.^{**}),

of the Memphitic, the two Syriac (Peshito and Harclean), the Æthiopic,

and the Arabic (Erpenius, Bedwell, Leipzig) Versions; and of Augustine

(_de Unit. Eccl._ 45, IX. p. 368) and Cassiodorus (II. p. 1351, Migne).

(3) τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί א A C^2 D^c K L P and apparently all

the other MSS; the Vulgate and Armenian Versions; Euthalius

(Tischendorf’s MS), Theodore of Mopsuestia (transl.), Theodoret, the

Ambrosian Hilary, and others.

A comparison of these authorities seems to show pretty clearly that τῷ

θεῷ πατρί was the original reading. The other two were expedients for

getting rid of a very unusual collocation of words. [Sidenote: compared

with iii. 17,]The scribes have felt the same difficulty again in iii. 17

εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ θεῷ πατρὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ, and there again we find καί

inserted before πατρί. In this latter instance however the great

preponderance of ancient authority is in favour of the unusual form τῷ

θεῷ πατρί.

[Sidenote: and i. 12.]

It is worth observing also that in i. 12, where τῷ πατρί has the highest

support, there is sufficient authority for τῷ θεῷ πατρί to create a

suspicion that there too it may be possibly the correct reading. Thus τῷ

θεῷ πατρί is read in א 37, while θεῷ τῷ πατρί stands in F G. One or

other must have been the reading of some Old Latin and Vulgate texts (f,

g, m, fuld.), of the Peshito Syriac, of the Memphitic (in some texts;

for others read τῷ πατρί simply), of the Arabic (Bedwell), of the

Armenian (Uscan), and of Origen (II. p. 451, the Latin translator);

while several other authorities, Greek and Latin, read τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί.

[Sidenote: Unique collocation.]

There is no other instance of this collocation of words, ὁ Θεὸς πατήρ,

in the Greek Testament, so far as I remember; and it must be regarded as

peculiar to this epistle.

i. 4 ==τὴν ἀγάπην [ἣν ἔχετε]==.

[Sidenote: i. 4 τὴν ἀγάπην [ἣν ἔχετε].]

Here the various readings are;

(1) τὴν ἀγάπην B.

(2) τὴν ἀγάπην ἣν ἔχετε A א C D^* F G P 17, 37, 47; the Old

Latin and Vulgate, Memphitic (apparently), and Harclean

Syriac Versions; the Ambrosian Hilary, Theodore of

Mopsuestia (transl.), and others.

(3) τὴν ἀγάπην τήν. D^c K L; the Peshito Syriac (apparently),

and Armenian (apparently) Versions; Chrysostom, Theodoret

and others.

If the question were to be decided by external authority alone, we could

not hesitate. It is important however to observe that (2) conforms to

the parallel passage Philem. 5 ἀκούων σου τὴν ἀγάπην καὶ τὴν πίστιν ἣν

ἔχεις, while (3) conforms to the other parallel passage Ephes. i. 15 καὶ

[τὴν ἀγάπην] τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἅγιους. Thus, though ἣν ἔχετε is so

highly supported and though it helps out the sense, it is open to

suspicion. Still the omission in B may be an instance of that impatience

of apparently superfluous words, which sometimes appears in this MS.

i. 7 ==ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν δίακονοϲ==.

[Sidenote: i. 7 ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν.]

Here there is a conflict between MSS and Versions.

(1) ἡμῶν A B א^* D^* F G, 3, 13, 33, 43, 52, 80, 91, 109. This

must also have been the reading of the Ambrosian Hilary

(though the editors make him write ‘pro _vobis_’), for he

explains it ‘qui eis ministravit gratiam Christi _vice

Apostoli_.’

(2) ὑμῶν א^c C D^b K L P, 17, 37, 47, and many others; the

Vulgate, the Peshito and Harclean Syriac, the Memphitic,

Gothic, and Armenian Versions; Chrysostom, Theodore of

Mopsuestia (transl.), and Theodoret (in their respective

texts, for with the exception of Chrysostom there is nothing

decisive in their comments), with others.

The Old Latin is doubtful; d, e having _vobis_ and g _nobis_.

Though the common confusion between these two words even in the best MSS

is a caution against speaking with absolute certainty, yet such a

combination of the highest authorities as we have here for ἡμῶν does not

leave much room for doubt: and considerations of internal criticism

point in the same direction. See the note on the passage.

i. 12 ==τῷ ἱκανώϲαντι==.

[Sidenote: i. 12 ἱκανώσαντι.]

Against this, which is the reading of all the other ancient authorities,

we have

(2) τῷ καλέσαντι D^* F G, 17, 80, with the Latin authorities d,

e, f, g, m, and the Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions.

It is so read also by the Ambrosian Hilary, by Didymus _de

Trin._ iii. 4 (p. 346), and by Vigilius Thapsensis _c.

Varim._ i. 50 (p. 409).

(3) τῷ καλέσαντι καὶ ἱκανώσαντι, found in B alone.

Here the confusion between ==τωιικανωϲαντι== and ==τωικαλεϲαντι==

would be easy, more especially at a period prior to the earliest

existing MSS, when the iota adscript was still written; while at the

same time καλέσαντι would suggest itself to scribes as the obvious word

in such a connexion. It is a Western reading.

The text of B obviously presents a combination of both readings.

i. 14 ==ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν==.

[Sidenote: i. 14 ἔχομεν or ἔσχομεν?]

For ἔχομεν B, the Memphitic Version, and the Arabic (Bedwell, Leipzig),

read ἔσχομεν. This is possibly the correct reading. In the parallel

passage, Ephes. i. 7, several authorities (א^* D^*, the Memphitic and

Æthiopic Versions, and the translator of Irenæus v. 14. 3) similarly

read ἔσχομεν for ἔχομεν. It may be conjectured that ἔσχομεν in these

authorities was a harmonistic change in Ephes. i. 7, to conform to the

text which they or their predecessors had in Col. i. 14. Tischendorf on

Ephes. l.c. says ‘aut utroque loco εχομεν aut εσχομεν Paulum scripsisse

puto’; but if any inference can be drawn from the phenomena of the MSS,

they point rather to a different tense in the two passages.

i. 22 ==ἀποκατηλλάγητε==.

[Sidenote: i. 22 ἀποκατηλλάγητε.]

This reading is perhaps the highest testimony of all to the great value

of B.

The variations are;

(1) ἀποκατηλλάγητε B. This also seems to be the reading of

Hilary of Poitiers _In xci Psalm._ 9 (I. p. 270), who

transfers the Apostle’s language into the first person, ‘cum

aliquando essemus alienati et inimici sensus ejus in factis

malis, nunc autem reconciliati sumus corpore carnis ejus.’

(2) ἀποκατηλλάκηται 17.

(3) ἀποκαταλλαγέντες D^* F G, and the Latin authorities d, e,

g, m, the Gothic Version, the translator of Irenæus (v. 14.

3), and others.

(4) ἀποκατήλλαξεν, all the other authorities.

Of these (2) is obviously a corruption of (1) from similarity of sound;

and (3) is an emendation, though a careless emendation, of (1) for the

sake of the grammar. It should have been ἀποκαταλλαγέντας. The reading

therefore must lie between ἀποκατηλλάγητε and ἀποκατήλλαξεν. This latter

however is probably a grammatical correction to straighten the syntax.

In the Memphitic a single letter ⲁϫ for ⲁϥ would make the difference

between ἀποκατηλλάγητε and ἀποκατήλλαξεν; but no variation from the

latter is recorded.

ii. 2 ==τοῦ θεοῦ, χριϲτοῦ==.

[Sidenote: ii. 2 τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ.]

The various readings here are very numerous and at first sight

perplexing; but the result of an investigation into their several claims

is far from unsatisfactory. The reading which explains all the rest may

safely be adopted as the original.

[Sidenote: Original reading.]

(1) ==του θεου χριϲτου==.

This is the reading of B and of Hilary of Poitiers, _de Trin._ ix. 62

(I. p. 306), who quotes the passage _sacramenti Dei Christi in quo_

etc., and wrongly explains it ‘Deus Christus sacramentum est’.

[Sidenote: Variations;]

All the other variations are derived from this, either by explanation or

by omission or by amplification.

[Sidenote: (_a_) by interpretation,]

By explanation we get;

(2) ==του θεου ο εϲτιν χριϲτοϲ==,

the reading of D, with the Latin authorities d, e, which have _Dei quod

est Christus_. So it is quoted by Vigilius Thapsensis _c. Varim._ i. 20

(p. 380), and in a slightly longer form by Augustine _de Trin._ xiii. 24

(VIII. p. 944) _mysterium Dei quod est Christus Jesus_.

(3) ==του θεου εν χριϲτω==.

So it is twice quoted by Clement of Alexandria _Strom._ v. 10 (p. 683),

_ib._ 12 (p. 694); or

==του θεου του εν χριϲτω==,

the reading of 17.

So the Ambrosian Hilary (both text and commentary) has _Dei in Christo_.

And the Armenian has the same lengthened out, _Dei in Christo Jesu_

(Zohrab) or _Dei patris in Christo Jesu_ (Uscan).

(4) _Domini quod de Christo_

is the Æthiopic rendering. Whether this represents another various

reading in the Greek or whether the paraphrase is the translator’s own,

it is impossible to say.

[Sidenote: (_b_) by omission,]

The two following variations strive to overcome the difficulty by

omission;

(5) ==του θεου==,

the reading of D by a second hand, of P, 37, 67^{**}, 71, 80, 116.

(6) ==του χριϲτου==,

the reading of Euthalius in Tischendorf’s MS; but Tischendorf adds the

caution ‘sed non satis apparet’.

[Sidenote: (_c_) by amplification;]

All the remaining readings are attempts to remedy the test by

amplification. They fall into two classes; those which insert πατρός so

as to make Χριστοῦ dependent on it, (7), (8), and those which separate

Θεοῦ from Χριστοῦ by the interposition of a καί, (9), (10), (11).

[Sidenote: (i) by inserting πατρός to govern Χριστοῦ;]

(7) ==του θεου πατροϲ χριϲτου==,

the reading of א (by the first hand). Tischendorf also adds b^{scr*} and

o^{scr}; but I read Scrivener’s collations differently (_Cod. Aug._ p.

506): or

==του θεου πατροϲ του χριϲτου==,

the reading of A C, 4.

One or other is the reading of the Thebaic Version (given by Griesbach)

and of the Arabic (Leipz.).

A lengthened form of the same, _Dei patris Christi Jesu_, appears in the

oldest MSS of the Vulgate, am. fuld. f: and the same is also the reading

of the Memphitic (Boetticher).

(8) ==του θεου και πατροϲ του χριϲτου==.

So א (the third hand), b^{scr*}, o^{scr}, and a corrector in the Harclean

Syriac.

[Sidenote: (ii) by separating Θεοῦ from Χριστοῦ by a conjunction.]

(9) ==του θεου και χριϲτου==,

the simplest form of the other class of emendations by amplification. It

is found in Cyril _Thes._ p. 287.

(10) ==του θεου πατροϲ και του χριϲτου==.

So 47, 73, the Peshito Syriac (ed. princeps and Schaaf). And so it

stands in the commentators Chrysostom (but with various readings) and

Theodore of Mopsuestia (_Spicil. Solesm._ I. p. 131 _Dei patris et

Christi_, but in Rab. Maur. _Op._ VI. p. 521 _Dei patris Christi Jesu_).

Pelagius has _Dei patris et Christi Jesu_>, and so the Memphitic

(Wilkins).

[Sidenote: The common text the latest development.]

(11) ==του θεου και πατροϲ και του χριϲτου==.

This, which may be regarded as the latest development, is the reading of

the received text. It is found in D (third hand) K L, and in the great

majority of cursives; in the text of the Harclean Syriac, and in

Theodoret and others.

Besides these readings some copies of the Vulgate exhibit other

variations; e.g. demid. _Dei patris et Domini nostri Christi Jesu_,

tolet. _Dei Christi Jesu patris et Domini_.

It is not necessary to add any remarks. The justification of τοῦ Θεοῦ

Χριστοῦ as the original reading will have appeared in the variations to

which it has given rise. The passage is altogether an instructive lesson

in textual criticism.

ii. 16 ==ἐν βρώϲει καὶ ἐν πόϲει.==

[Sidenote: ii. 16 καί or ἤ?]

In this reading B stands alone among the MSS; but it is supported by the

Peshito Syriac and Memphitic Versions, by Tertullian (_adv. Marc._ v.

19), and by Origen (_in Ioann._ x. § 11, IV. p. 174). The testimony of

Tertullian however is invalidated by the fact that he uses _et_ as the

connecting particle throughout the passage; and the Peshito Syriac also

has ‘and’ for ἤ in the two last clauses, though not in the second.

The rest have ἐν βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει. This may be explained as a very

obvious, though not very intelligent, alteration of scribes to conform

to the disjunctive particles in the context, ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ

νεομηνίας ἢ σαββάτων.

In this same context it is probable that B retains the right form

νεομηνίας (supported here by F G and others) as against the Attic

νουμηνίας. In the same way in iii. 25 κομίσεται and iv. 9 γνωρίσουσιν B

(with some others) has resisted the tendency to Attic forms.

ii. 18 ==ἃ ἕορακεν==.

[Sidenote: ii. 18, the omission of the negative.]

That this is the oldest reading which the existing texts exhibit, will

appear from the following comparison of authorities.

(1) ἃ ἑώρακεν ἑώρακεν) A B א^* D^*, 17^*, 28, 67^{**}; the Old

Latin authorities d, e, m; the Memphitic, Æthiopic, and

Arabic (Leipz.) Versions; Tertull. _c. Marc._ v. 19 (‘ex

visionibus angelicis’; and apparently Marcion himself also);

Origen (_c. Cels._ v. 8, I. p. 583, though the negative is

here inserted by De la Rue, and _in Cant._ ii, III. p. 63,

_in his quæ videt_); Lucifer (_De non conv. c. hær._ p. 782

Migne); the Ambrosian Hilary (_ad loc._ explaining it

‘Inflantur motum pervidentes stellarum, quas angelos

vocat’). So too the unknown author of _Quæst. ex N. T._ ii.

62 in August. _Op._ III. Appx. p. 156. Jerome (_Epist. cxxi

ad Alg._ § 10, I. p. 880) mentions both readings (with and

without the negative) as found in the Greek text: and

Augustine (_Epist._ 149, II. p. 514), while giving the

preference to _quæ non vidit_>, says that some MSS have _quæ

vidit_>.

(2) ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν (ἑόρακεν) א^c C D^{bc} K L P, and the great

majority of cursives;

(3) ἃ οὐκ ἑώρακεν F G.

The negative is also read in g; in the Vulgate, the Gothic, both the

Syriac, and the Armenian Versions; in the translator of Origen _In Rom._

ix. § 42 (IV. p. 665), in Ambrose _In Psalm. cxviii Exp._ xx (I. p.

1222), and in the commentators Pelagius, Chrysostom, Theodore of

Mopsuestia (_Spic. Solesm._ I. p. 132 ‘quæ nec sciunt’), Theodoret, and

others.

From a review of these authorities we infer that the insertion of the

negative was a later correction, and that ἃ ἕωρακεν (or ἕορακεν)

represents the prior reading. In my note I have expressed my suspicion

that ἃ ἕωρακεν (or ἕορακεν) is itself corrupt, and that the original

reading is lost.

[Sidenote: The form ἕορακεν.]

The unusual form ἕορακεν is found in א B^* C D P, and is therefore to

be preferred to ἕωρακεν.

ii. 23 ==[καὶ] ἀφειδίᾳ ϲώματοϲ==.

[Sidenote: ii. 23. Is καί to be omitted?]

Here καί is found in all the Greek copies except B, but is omitted in

these Latin authorities, m, the translator of Origen (_In Rom._ ix. §

42, IV. p. 665), Hilary of Poitiers (_Tract. in xiv Ps._ § 7, p. 73),

the Ambrosian Hilary, Ambrose (_de Noe_ 25, p. 267), and Paulinus

(_Epist._ 50, p. 292 sq.). We have more than once found B and Hilary

alone in supporting the correct reading (i. 22, ii. 2); and this fact

gives weight to their joint authority here. The omission also seems to

explain the impossible reading of d, e, which have _in religione et

humilitate sensus et vexationem corporis_, where for _et vexationem_, we

should probably read _ad vexationem_, as in the Ambrosian Hilary. There

was every temptation for a scribe to insert the καί so as to make

ἀφειδίᾳ range with the other datives: while on the other hand a finer

appreciation of the bearing of the passage suggests that St Paul would

have dissociated it, so as to give it a special prominence.

A similar instance occurs in iii. 12 ὡς ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἅγιοι καὶ

ἠγαπημένοι, where B omits the καί with 17 and the Thebaic Version[537].

In 219 καὶ ἅγιοι is read for ἅγιοι καί. The great gain in force leads to

the suspicion that this omission may be correct, notwithstanding the

enormous preponderance of authority on the other side.

Footnote 537:

It is true that in the text (_Spicil. Solesm._ I. p. 123, Rab. Maur.

Op. VII. p. 539, Migne) he is credited with the later Latin reading

_ut cognoscat quæ circa vos sunt_, but his comment implies the other;

‘Quoniam omnia vobis nota faciet Tychicus illa quæ erga me sunt,

propterea a me directus est cum Onesimo fratre qui a vobis venerat, ut

nota vobis faciant quæ erga nos sunt [= γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν] et

oblectent vos per suum adventum [= καὶ παρακαλέσῃ τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν],

omnia quæ hic aguntur manifesta facientes vobis.’ See _Spicil.

Solesm._ l.c.; the comment is mutilated in Rab. Maur. _Op._ l.c.

iv. 8. ==γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν==.

[Sidenote: iv. 8 γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν.]

Of the various readings of this passage I have already spoken (p. 29

sq., note 1, p. 301).

The authorities are as follows:

(1) γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν A B D^* F G P, 10, 17, 33, 35, 37, 44, 47,

71, 111, 116, 137; d, e, g; the Armenian and Æthiopic

Versions; Theodore of Mopsuestia[537], Theodoret[538],

Jerome (on Ephes. vi. 21 sq., VII. p. 682), and Euthalius

(Tischendorf’s MS). This is also the reading of א^*, except

that it has ὑμῶν for ἡμῶν.

(2) γνῷ τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν א^c C D^{bc} K L and the majority of

cursives; the Memphitic, Gothic, Vulgate, and both Syriac

Versions; the Ambrosian Hilary, Jerome (on Philem. I, VII.

p. 748), Chrysostom (expressly), and others.

Footnote 538:

In the text; but in the commentary he is made to write ἵνα γνῷ γάρ,

φησί, τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν, an impossible reading.

[Sidenote: The various readings accounted for.]

The internal evidence is considered in the note on the passage, and

found to accord with the vast preponderance of external authority in

favour of γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν. The reading of א by the first hand

exhibits a transitional stage. It would appear as though the transcriber

intended it to be read γνῷ τε τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν. At all events this is the

reading of III and of Io. Damasc. _Op._ II. p. 214. The variation γνῷ τὰ

περὶ ὑμῶν is thus easily explained. (1) ἡμῶν would be accidentally

substituted for ὑμῶν; (2) γνῶτε would then be read γνῷ τε; (3) the

awkward and superfluous τε would be omitted. In illustration of the

tendency to conform the persons of the two verbs γνῷ, παρακαλέσῃ, (see

p. 301) it may be mentioned that 17 reads γνῶτε, παρακαλέσητε, both here

and in Ephes. vi. 22.

iv. 15. ==κατ’ οἶκον αὐτῶν==.

[Sidenote: iv. 15 αὐτῶν.]

The readings here are:

(1) αὐτῶν א A C P, 5, 9, 17, 23, 34, 39, 47, 73; together with the

Memphitic Version, the Arabic (Leipz.), and Euthalius

(Tischendorf’s MS). The Memphitic Version is commonly but

wrongly quoted in favour of αὐτοῦ, owing to a mistranslation

of Wilkins. But both Wilkins and Boetticher give without any

various reading ΠΟΥΗΙ, i.e. οἶκον αὐτῶν. This seems also to

be the reading of Theodore of Mopsuestia (_Spic. Solesm._ I.

p. 133) _quæ in domo eorum est ecclesia_; though in Rab.

Maur. _Op._ VI. p. 540 his text runs _quæ in domo ejus est

ecclesiam_, and he is made to say _Nympham cum omnibus suis

qui in domo ejus sunt_.

(2) αὐτῆς B 67^{**}.

(3) αὐτοῦ D F G K L and the great majority of cursives; and so the

Gothic Version, Chrysostom, and Theodoret (the latter

distinctly).

[Sidenote: _Nymphas_ or _Nympha_?]]

The singular, whether αὐτοῦ or αὐτῆς, is the reading of the old Latin

and Vulgate, which have _ejus_, and of the Armenian. The pronoun is also

singular in the Peshito and Harclean Syriac. In this language the same

consonants express masculine and feminine alike, the difference lying in

the pointing and vocalisation. And here the copies are inconsistent with

themselves. [Sidenote: The Syriac versions.]In the Peshito (both the

editio princeps and Schaaf) the proper name is vocalised as a feminine

_Numphē_ (= Νύμφη), and yet ܒܒܝܬܗ is treated as having a masculine affix

κατ’ οἶκον αὐτοῦ. In the text of the Harclean ܕܝܠܗܿ is pointed thus, as

a feminine αὐτῆς; while the margin gives the alternative reading ܕܝܠܗ

(without the point) = αὐτοῦ. The name itself is written Nympha, which

according to the transliteration of this version might stand either for

a masculine (as _Barnaba_, _Luka_, in the context, for Βαρναβας, Λουκᾶς)

or for a feminine (since _Demas_, _Epaphras_, are written with an

_s_)[539]. [Sidenote: The Latin authorities.]The Latin _ejus_ leaving

the gender undetermined, the Latin commentators were free to take either

Nymphas or Nympha; and, as Nympha was common Latin form of Νύμφη, they

would naturally adopt the female name. So the commentator Hilary

distinctly.

Footnote 539:

More probably the latter. In Rom. xvi the terminations -α and ᾶς for

the feminine and masculine names respectively are carefully reproduced

in the Harclean Version. In ver. 15 indeed we have _Julias_, but the

translator doubtless considered the name to be a contraction for

_Julianus_. The proper Syriac termination _-a_ seems only to be

employed for the Greek -ας in very familiar names such as _Barnaba_,

_Luka_.

It should be added that the word is accentuated as a masculine νυμφᾶν in

D^c L P, and as a feminine νύμφαν in B^c and Euthalius (Tischendorf’s

MS.).

_On the meaning of πλήρωμα._

[Sidenote: The meaning of the verb πληροῦν.]

The verb πληροῦν has two senses. It signifies either (1) ‘To fill’, e.g.

Acts ii. 2 ἐπλήρωσεν ὅλον τὸν οἶκον; or (2) ‘To fulfil, complete,

perfect, accomplish’, e.g. Matt. xxvi. 56 ἵνα πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαί, Rom.

xiii. 8 νόμον πεπλήρωκεν, Acts xii. 25 πληρώσαντες τὴν διακονίαν. The

latter sense indeed is derived from the former, but practically it has

become separate from it. The word occurs altogether about a hundred

times in the New Testament, and for every one instance of the former

sense there are at least four of the latter.

[Sidenote: False issue raised respecting πλήρωμα]

[Sidenote: resulting in theological confusion]

In the investigations which have hitherto been made into the

signification of the derived substantive πλήρωμα, as it occurs in the

New Testament, an almost exclusive prominence has been given to the

former meaning of the verb; and much confusion has arisen in

consequence. The question has been discussed whether πλήρωμα has an

active or a passive sense, whether it describes the filling substance or

the filled receptacle: and not unfrequently critics have arrived at the

result that different grammatical senses must be attached to it in

different passages, even within the limits of the same epistle. Thus it

has been maintained that the word has a passive sense ‘id quod impletur’

in Ephes. i. 23 τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἥτις ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ τὰ

πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρουμένου, and an active sense ‘id quod implet’ in

Ephes. iii. 19 ἵνα πληρωθῆτε εἰς πᾶν τὸ πληρώμα τοῦ Θεοῦ. Indeed so long

as we see in πληροῦν only the sense ‘to fill’, and refuse to contemplate

the sense ‘to complete’, it seems impossible to escape from the

difficulties which meet us at every turn, otherwise than by assigning to

its derivative πλήρωμα both an active and a passive sense; but the

greatest violence is thus done to the connexion of theological ideas.

[Sidenote: and disregard of grammar.]

Moreover the disregard of lexical rules is not less violent[540].

Substantives in -μα, formed from the perfect passive, appear always to

have a passive sense. They may denote an abstract notion or a concrete

thing; they may signify the action itself regarded as complete, or the

product of[Sidenote: Meaning of substantives in -μα.] the action; but in

any case they give the _result_ of the agency involved in the

corresponding verb. Such for example are ἄγγελμα ‘a message’, ἅμμα ‘a

knot’, ἀργύρωμα ‘a silver-made vessel’, βούλευμα ‘a plan’, δικαίωμα ‘a

righteous deed’ or ‘an ordinance’, ζήτημα ‘an investigation’, κήρυγμα ‘a

proclamation’, κώλυμα ‘a hindrance’, ὁμοίωμα ‘a likeness’, ὅραμα ‘a

vision’, στρῶμα ‘a carpet’, σφαίρωμα ‘a round thing’, etc. In many cases

the same word will have two meanings, both however passive; it will

denote both the completed action and the result or object of the action:

e.g. ἅρπαγμα the ‘robbery’ or the ‘booty’, ἀντάλλαγμα the ‘exchange’ or

the ‘thing given or taken in exchange’, θήρευμα the ‘hunt’ or the

‘prey’, πάτημα the ‘tread’ or the ‘carpet’, and the like. But in all

cases the word is strictly passive; it describes that which might have

stood after the active verb, either as the direct object or as the

cognate notion. [Sidenote: Apparent exceptions.]The apparent exceptions

are only apparent. Sometimes this deceptive appearance is in the word

itself. Thus κάλυμμα ‘a veil’ seems to denote ‘that which _covers_’, but

it is really derived from another sense and construction of καλύπτειν,

not ‘to hide’, but ‘to wrap round’ (e.g. Hom. _Il._ v. 315 πρόσθε δέ οἱ

πέπλοιο φαεινοῦ πτύγμ’ ἐκάλυψεν, xxi. 321 τόσσην οἱ ἄσιν καθύπερθε

καλύψω), and therefore is strictly passive. Sometimes again we may be

led astray by the apparent connexion with the following genitive. Thus

in Plut. _Mor._ 78 E δήλωμα τοῦ προκόπτειν the word does not mean, as

might appear at first sight, ‘a thing showing’, but ‘a thing shown’, ‘a

demonstration given’; nor in 2 Thess. i. 5 ἐνδειγμα τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως

must we explain ἕνδειγμα ‘a thing proving’, but ‘a thing proved’, ‘a

proof’. And the same is probably the case also with such expressions as

συμποσίων ἐρέθισμα (Critias in Athen. xiii. p. 600 D), τόξου ῥῦμα (Æsch.

_Pers._ 147), and the like; where the substantives in -μα are no more

deprived of their passive sense by the connexion, than they are in

ὑπόδημα ποδῶν or στρῶμα κλίνης; though in such instances the license of

poetical construction may often lead to a false inference. Analogous to

this last class of cases is Eur. _Troad._ 824 Ζηνὸς ἔχεις κυλίκων

πλήρωμα καλλίσταν λατρείαν, not ‘the filling’, but ‘the fulness of the

cups, the brimming cups, of Zeus.’

Footnote 540:

The meaning of this word πλήρωμα is the subject of a paper _De vocis

πλήρωμα vario sensu in N. T._ in Storr’s _Opusc. Acad._ I. p. 144 sq.,

and of an elaborate note in Fritzsche’s _Rom._ II. p. 469 sq. Storr

attempts to show that it always has an active sense ‘id quod implet’

in the New Testament. Fritzsche rightly objects to assigning a

persistently active sense to a word which has a directly passive

termination: and he himself attributes to it two main senses, ‘id quod

impletur’ and ‘id quo res impletur’, the latter being the more common.

He apparently considers that he has surmounted the difficulties

involved in Storr’s view, for he speaks of this last as a passive

sense, though in fact it is nothing more than ‘id quod implet’

expressed in other words. In Rom. xiii. 10 πλήρωμα νόμου he concedes

an active sense ‘legis completio’, h. e. ‘observatio’.

[Sidenote: πλήρωμα connected with the second sense of πληροῦν.]]

Now if we confine ourselves to the second of the two senses above

ascribed to πληροῦν, it seems possible to explain πλήρωμα in the same

way, at all events in all the theological passages of St Paul and St

John, without doing any violence to the grammatical form. As πληροῦν is

‘to complete’, so πλήρωμα is ‘that which is completed’, i.e. the

complement[541], the full tale, the entire number or quantity, the

plenitude, the perfection.

Footnote 541:

The English word complement has two distinct senses. It is either (i)

the complete set, the entire quantity or number, which satisfies a

given standard or cadre, as e.g. the complement of a regiment; or (ii)

the number or quantity which, when added to a preexisting number or

quantity, produces completeness; as e.g. the complement of an angle,

i.e. the angle by which it falls short of being a complete right

angle. In other words, it is either the whole or the part. As a

theological term, πλήρωμα corresponds to the first of these two

senses; and with this meaning alone the word ‘complement’ will be used

in the following dissertation.

[Sidenote: Its uses in Classical writers.]

This indeed is the primary sense to which its commonest usages in

classical Greek can be most conveniently referred. Thus it signifies (1)

[Sidenote: (1) ‘A ship’s crew.’] ‘A ship’s crew’: e.g. Xen. _Hell._ i.

6. 16 διὰ τὸ ἐκ πολλῶν πληρωμάτων ἐς ὀλίγας (ναῦς) ἐκλελέχθαι τοὺς

ἀρίστους ἐρέτας. In this sense, which is very frequent, it is generally

explained as having an active force, ‘that which fills the ships’; and

this very obvious explanation is recommended by the fact that πληροῦν

ναῦν is a recognized expression for ‘manning a ship’, e.g. Xen. _Hell._

i. 6. 24. But πλήρωμα is used not only of the crew which mans a ship,

but also of the ship which is manned with a crew; e.g. Polyb. i. 49. 4,

5 τὴν παρουσίαν τῶν πληρωμάτων ... τὰ προσφάτως παραγεγονότα πληρώματα,

Lucian _Ver. Hist._ ii. 37, 38, ἀπὸ δύο πληρωμάτων ἐμάχοντο ... πέντε

γὰρ εἶχον πληρώματα; and it is difficult to see how the word could be

transferred from the crew to the ship as a whole, if the common

explanation were correct. Fritzsche (_Rom._ II. p. 469 sq.), to whom I

am chiefly indebted for the passages quoted in this paragraph, has

boldly given the word two directly opposite senses in the two cases,

explaining it in the one ‘ea quibus naves complentur, _h. e._ vel socii

navales vel milites classiarii vel utrique’, and in the other ‘id quod

completur, _v. c._ navigium’; but this severance of meaning can hardly

be maintained. On the other hand, if we suppose that the crew is so

called as ‘the complement,’ (i.e. ‘not that which fills the ship,’ but

‘that which is itself full or complete in respect of the ship’), we

preserve the passive sense of the word, while at the same time the

transference to the fully equipped and manned vessel itself becomes

natural. In this sense ‘a complement’ we have the word used again of an

army, [Sidenote: (2) ‘Population.’]Aristid. _Or._ I. p. 381 μήτε

αὐτάρκεις εσἔσθαι πλήρωμα ἑνὸς οἰκέιου στρατεύματος παρασχέσθαι. (2) It

sometimes signifies ‘the population of a city’, Arist. _Pol._ iii. 13

(p. 1284) μὴ μέντοι δυνατοὶ πλήρωμα παρασχέσθαι πόλεως (comp. iv. 4, p.

1291). Clearly the same idea of completeness underlies this meaning of

the word, so that here again it signifies ‘the complement’: comp. Dion.

Hal. _A. R._ vi. 51 τοῦ δ’ ὀλίγου καὶ οὐκ ἀξιομάχου πληρώματος τὸ πλεῖόν

ἐστι δημοτικόν κ.τ.λ., Eur. _Ion_ 663 τῶν φίλων πλήρωμ’ ἀθροίσας ‘the

whole body of his friends’. [Sidenote: (3) ‘Total amount.’](3) ‘The

entire sum’, Arist. _Vesp._ 660 τούτων πλήρωμα τάλαντ’ ἐγγὺς δισχίλια

γίγνεται ἡμῖν, ‘From these sources a total of nearly two thousand

talents accrues to us’. [Sidenote: (4) ‘Entire term.’](4) ‘The full

term’, Herod. iii. 22 ὀγδώκοντα δ’ ἔτεα ζόης πλήρωμα ἀνδρὶ μακρότατον

προκέεσθαι. [Sidenote: (5) ‘Fulfilment.’](5) ‘The perfect attainment’,

‘the full accomplishment’, e.g. Philo _de Abr._ 46 (II. p. 39) πλήρωμα

χρηστῶν ἐλπίδων. In short the fundamental meaning of the word generally,

though perhaps not universally, is neither ‘the filling material’, nor

‘the vessel filled’; but ‘that which is complete in itself’, or in other

words ‘plenitude, fulness, totality, abundance’.

[Sidenote: Use of πλήρωμα in the Gospels.

Matt. ix. 16.]

In the Gospels the uses of the word present some difficulty. (1) In

Matt. ix. 16 αἴρει γὰρ τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱματίου καὶ χεῖρον

σχίσμα γίνεται, it refers to the ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου which has gone

before; but πλήρωμα need not therefore be equivalent to ἐπίβλημα so as

to mean the patch itself, as is often assumed. The following pronoun

αὐτοῦ is most naturally referred to ἐπίβλημα; and if so πλήρωμα

describes ‘the completeness’, which results from the patch. The

statement is thus thrown into the form of a direct paradox, the very

completeness making the garment more imperfect than before. [Sidenote:

Mark ii. 21.]In the parallel passage Mark ii. 21 the variations are

numerous, but the right reading seems certainly to be αἴρει τὸ πλήρωμα

ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, τὸ καινὸν τοῦ παλαιοῦ κ.τ.λ. The received text omits the

preposition before αὐτοῦ, but a glance at the authorities is convincing

in favour of its insertion. In this case the construction will be αἴρει

τὸ πλήρωμα (nom.) ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ (i.e. τοῦ ἱματίου, which has been mentioned

immediately before), τὸ καινὸν (πλήρωμἀ τοῦ παλαιοῦ (ἱματίοὐ; ‘The

completeness takes away from the garment, the new _completeness_ of the

old _garment_’, where the paradox is put still more emphatically.

[Sidenote: Mark vi. 43.] (2) In Mark vi. 43 the right reading is καὶ

ἦραν κλασμάτων δώδεκα κοφίνους πληρώματα, i.e. ‘full’ or ‘complete

measures’, where the apposition to κοφίνους obviates the temptation to

explain πληρώματα as ‘ea quæ implent’. [Sidenote: Mark viii. 20.]On the

other hand in Mark viii. 20 πόσων σπυρίδων πληρώματα κλασμάτων ἤρατε;

this would be the _prima facie_ explanation; comp. Eccles. iv. 6 ἀγαθόν

ἐστι πλήρωμα δρακὸς ἀναπαύσεως ὑπὲρ πληρώματα δύο δρακῶν μόχθου. But it

is objectionable to give an active sense to πλήρωμα under any

circumstances; and if in such passages the patch itself is meant, it

must still be so called, not because it fills the hole, but because it

is itself fulness or full measure as regards the defect which needs

supplying.

[Sidenote: Usage in St. Paul’s Epistles.]

From the Gospels we pass to the Epistles of St Paul, whose usage bears

more directly on our subject. And here the evidence seems all to tend in

the same direction. [Sidenote: 1 Cor. x. 26.](1) In 1 Cor. x. 26 τοῦ

Κυρίου γὰρ ἡ γῆ καὶ τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῆς it occurs in a quotation from Ps.

xxiv (xxiii). 1. The expressions τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς γῆς, τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς

θαλάσσης, occur several times in the LXX (e.g. Ps. xcvi (xcv). 11, Jer.

viii. 16), where τὸ πλήρωμα is a translation of מלא, a word denoting

primarily ‘fulness’, but having in its secondary uses a considerable

latitude of meaning ranging between ‘contents’ and ‘abundance’. This

last sense seems to predominate in its Greek rendering πλήρωμα, and

indeed the other is excluded altogether in some passages, e.g. Cant. v.

13 ἐπὶ πληρώματα ὑδάτων. [Sidenote: Rom. xiii. 10.](2) In Rom. xiii. 10

πλήρωμα νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη, the best comment on the meaning of the word is

the context, ver. 8 ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἕτερον νόμον πεπλήρωκεν, so that

πλήρωμα here means the ‘completeness’ and so ‘fulfilment,

accomplishment’: see the note on Gal. v. 14. [Sidenote: Rom. xv. 29.](3)

In Rom. xv. 29 ἐν πληρώματι εὐλογίας Χριστοῦ ἐλεύσομαι, it plainly has

the sense of ‘fulness, abundance’. [Sidenote: Gal. iv. 4.](4) In Gal.

iv. 4 ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρονοῦ and [Sidenote: Eph. i.

10.]Ephes. i. 10 εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν, its force is

illustrated by such passages as Mark i. 15 πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ

ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία κ.τ.λ., Luke xxi. 24 ἄχρι οὗ πληρωθῶσιν καιροὶ ἐθνῶν

(comp. Acts ii. 1, vii. 23, 30, ix. 23, xxiv. 27), so that the

expressions will mean ‘the full measure of the time, the full tale of

the seasons’. [Sidenote: Rom. xi. 25.](5) In Rom. xi. 25 πώρωσις ἀπὸ

μέρους τῷ Ἰσραὴλ γέγονεν ἄχρις ὁῦ τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰσέλθῃ, it seems

to mean ‘the full number’, ‘the whole body’, (whether the whole

absolutely, or the whole relatively to God’s purpose), of whom only a

part had hitherto been gathered into the Church. [Sidenote: Rom. xi.

12.](6) In an earlier passage in this chapter the same expression occurs

of the Jews, xi. 12 εἰ δὲ τὸ παράπτωμα αὐτῶν πλοῦτος κόσμου καὶ τὸ

ἥττημα αὐτῶν πλοῦτος ἐθνῶν, πόσῳ μᾶλλον τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῶν. Here the

antithesis between ἥττημα and πλήρωμα, ‘failure’ and ‘fulness’, is not

sufficiently direct to fix the sense of πλήρωμα; and (in the absence of

anything to guide us in the context) we may fairly assume that it is

used in the same sense of the Jews here, as of the Gentiles in ver. 25.

[Sidenote: General result.]

Thus, whatever hesitation may be felt about the exact force of the word

as it occurs in the Gospels, yet substantially one meaning runs through

all the passages hitherto quoted from St Paul. In these πλήρωμα has its

proper passive force, as a derivative from πληροῦν ‘to make complete’.

It is ‘the full complement, the entire measure, the plenitude, the

fulness’. There is therefore a presumption in favour of this meaning in

other passages where it occurs in this Apostle’s writings.

[Sidenote: Theological passages in]

We now come to those theological passages in the Epistles to the

Colossians and Ephesians and in the Gospel of St John, for the sake of

which this investigation has been undertaken. They are as follows;

[Sidenote: Colossians and Ephesians.]

Col. i. 19 ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι.

Col. ii. 9 ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς, καὶ

ἐστὲ ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρωμένοι.

Ephes. i. 23 αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἥτις ἐστὶν τὸ

σῶμα αὐτοῦ, τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρουμένου.

Ephes. iii. 19 ἵνα πληρωθῆτε εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ.

Ephes. iv. 13 εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον, εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας τοῦ πληρώματος τοῦ

Χριστοῦ.

[Sidenote: St. John.]

John i. 14, 16 καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν (καὶ

ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός) πλήρης

χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας ... ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν

καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος.

[Sidenote: Ignatius.]]

To these should be added two passages from the Ignatian Epistles[542],

which as belonging to the confines of the Apostolic age afford valuable

illustration of the Apostolic language.

_Ephes._ inscr. Ἰγνάτιος, ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος, τῇ εὐλογημένῃ ἐν μεγέθει Θεοῦ

πατρὸς πληρώματι[543] ... τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῇ ἀξιομακαρίστῳ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ

κ.τ.λ.

_Trall._ inscr. Ἰγνάτιος, ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος ... ἐκκλησίᾳ ἁγίᾳ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν

Τράλλεσιν ... ἣν καὶ )ασπάζομαι ἐν τῷ πληρώματι, ἐν ἀποστολικῷ

χαρακτῆρι.

Footnote 542:

The first of the two passages is contained in the short Syriac

recension of the Ignatian Epistles, though loosely translated; the

other is wanting there. I need not stop to enquire whether the second

was written by St Ignatius himself or by an interpolator. The

interpolated epistles, if they be interpolated, can hardly be later

than the middle of the second century and are therefore early enough

to afford valuable illustrations of the Apostles’ language.

Footnote 543:

The common texts read καὶ πληρώματι, but there can be little doubt

(from a comparison of the authorities) that καὶ should be struck out.

The present Syriac text has _et perfectæ_ for πληρώματι; but there is

no reason for supposing that the Syriac translator had another reading

before him. A slight change in the Syriac, ܒܫܘܡܠܝܐ for ܘܡܫܡܠܝܐ, would

bring this Version into entire accordance with the Greek; and the

confusion was the more easy, because the latter word occurs in the

immediate context. Or the translator may have indulged in a paraphrase

according to his wont; just as in the longer Latin Version πληρώματι

here is translated _repletæ_.

[Sidenote: The term has a recognised value]

It will be evident, I think, from the passages in St Paul, that the word

πλήρωμα ‘fulness, plenitude’, must have had a more or less definite

theological value when he wrote. This inference, which is suggested by

the frequency of the word, seems almost inevitable when we consider the

form of the expression in the first passage quoted, Col. i. 19. The

absolute use of the word, πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα ‘all _the_ fulness’, would

otherwise be unintelligible, for it does not explain itself. In my notes

I have taken ὁ Θεός to be the nominative to εὐδόκησεν, but if the

subject of the verb were πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα, as some suppose, the inference

would be still more necessary. The word however, regarded as a

theological term, does not appear to have been adopted, like so many

other expressions in the Apostolic writers[544], from the nomenclature

of Alexandrian Judaism. [Sidenote: derived from Palestine and not

Alexandria.]At least no instance of its occurrence in this sense is

produced from Philo. We may therefore conjecture that it had a

Palestinian origin, and that the Essene Judaizers of Colossæ, whom St

Paul is confronting, derived it from this source. In this case it would

represent the Hebrew מלא, of which it is a translation in the LXX, and

the Aramaic ܡܘܠܙܐ or some other derivative of the same root, such being

its common rendering in the Peshito.

Footnote 544:

See the notes on Col. i. 15 sq.

[Sidenote: It denotes the totality of the Divine powers, etc. in the

Colossian letter.]

The sense in which St Paul employs this term was doubtless the sense

which he found already attached to it. He means, as he explicitly states

in the second Christological passage of the Colossian Epistle (ii. 9),

the pleroma, the plenitude of ‘the Godhead’ or ‘of Deity’. In the first

passage (i. 19), though the word stands without the addition τῆς

θεότητος, the signification required by the context is the same. The

true doctrine of the one Christ, who is the absolute mediator in the

creation and government of the world, is opposed to the false doctrine

of a plurality of mediators, ‘thrones, dominions, principalities,

powers’. An absolute and unique position is claimed for Him, because in

Him resides ‘all the pleroma’, i.e. the full complement, the aggregate

of the Divine attributes, virtues, energies. This is another way of

expressing the fact that He is the Logos, for the Logos is the synthesis

of all the various δυνάμεις, in and by which God manifests Himself

whether in the kingdom of nature or in the kingdom of grace.

[Sidenote: Analogy to its usage elsewhere: e.g.]

This application is in entire harmony with the fundamental meaning of

the word. The term has been transferred to the region of theology, but

in itself it conveys exactly the same idea as before. It implies that

all the several elements which are required to realise the conception

specified are present, and that each appears in its full proportions.

[Sidenote: in Philo of the family]Thus Philo, describing the ideal state

of prosperity which will result from absolute obedience to God’s law,

mentions among other blessings the perfect development of the family:

‘Men shall be fathers and fathers too of goodly sons, and women shall be

mothers of goodly children, so that each household shall be the

_pleroma_ of a numerous kindred, where no part or name is wanting of all

those which are used to designate relations, whether in the ascending

line, as parents, uncles, grandfathers, or again in the descending line

in like manner, as brothers, nephews, sons’ sons, daughters’ sons,

cousins, cousins’ sons, kinsmen of all degrees[545].’ [Sidenote: and in

Aristotle, of the state.]So again Aristotle, criticizing the _Republic_

of Plato, writes; ‘Socrates says that a city (or state) is composed of

four classes, as its indispensable elements (τῶν ἀναγκαιοτάτων): by

these he means the weaver, the husbandman, the shoemaker, and the

builder; and again, because these are not sufficient by themselves, he

adds the smith and persons to look after the necessary cattle, and

besides them the merchant and the retail dealer: these together make up

the _pleroma_ of a city in its simplest form (ταῦτα πάντα γίνεται

πλήρωμα τῆς πρώτης πόλεως); thus he assumes that a city is formed to

supply the bare necessities of life (τῶν ἀναγκων χάριν) etc.’[546]. From

these passages it will be seen that the adequacy implied by the word, as

so used, consists not less in the variety of the elements than in the

fulness of the entire quantity or number.

Footnote 545:

_de Præm. et Pæn._ 18 (II. p. 425). The important words are ὡς ἕκαστον

οἶκον πλήρωμα εἶναι πολυανθρώπου συγγενείας, μηδενὸς ἐλλειφθέντος ἢ

μέρους ἢ ὀνόματος τῶν ὅσα ἐπιφημίζεται κ.τ.λ. The construction of the

subsequent part of the sentence is obscure; and for ὁμοίους we should

probably read ὁμοίως.

Footnote 546:

Arist. _Pol._ iv. 4 (p. 1291).

[Sidenote: Transition from Colossians to Ephesians.]

So far the explanation seems clear. But when we turn from the Colossian

letter to the Ephesian, it is necessary to bear in mind the different

aims of the two epistles. While in the former the Apostle’s main object

is to assert the supremacy of the Person of Christ, in the latter his

principal theme is the life and energy of the Church, as dependent on

Christ[547]. So the pleroma residing in Christ is viewed from a

different aspect, no longer in relation to God, so much as in relation

to the Church. [Sidenote: Corresponding application of πληρωμα to the

Church.]It is that plenitude of Divine graces and virtues which is

communicated through Christ to the Church as His body. The Church, as

_ideally_ regarded, the bride ‘without spot or wrinkle or any such

thing’, becomes in a manner identified with Him[548]. All the Divine

graces which reside in Him are imparted to her; His ‘fulness’ is

communicated to her: and thus she may be said to be His pleroma (i. 23).

This is the ideal Church. The actual militant Church must be ever

advancing, ever struggling towards the attainment of this ideal. Hence

the Apostle describes the end of all offices and administrations in the

Church to be that the collective body may attain its full and mature

growth, or (in other words) may grow up to the complete stature of

Christ’s fulness[549]. But Christ’s fulness is God’s fulness. Hence in

another passage he prays that the brethren may by the indwelling of

Christ be fulfilled till they attain to the _pleroma_ of God (iii. 19).

It is another way of expressing the continuous aspiration and effort

after holiness which is enjoined in our Lord’s precept, ‘Ye shall be

perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect’[550].

Footnote 547:

See the notes on Col. ii. 19 (p. 266).

Footnote 548:

Ephes. v. 27 sq.

Footnote 549:

The Apostle in this passage (Ephes. iv. 13) is evidently contemplating

the collective body, and not the individual believers. He writes οἱ

πάντες, not πάντες, and ἄνδρα τέλειον, not ἄνδρας τελέιους. As he has

said before _ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ_ ἡμῶν ἐδόθη [ἡ] χάρις _κατὰ τὸ

μέτρον_ τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ, so now he describes the result of

these various partial graces bestowed on _individuals_ to be the unity

and mature growth of the _whole_, ‘the building up of the _body_’,

μεχρὶ καταντήσωμεν _οἱ πάντες_ εἰς τὴν _ἑνότητα_ ... εἰς

_ἄνδρα_ τέλειον, εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας τοῦ πληρώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

This corporate being must grow up into the one colossal Man, the

standard of whose spiritual and moral stature is nothing less than the

pleroma of Christ Himself.

Footnote 550:

Matt. v. 48.

[Sidenote: Gospel of St. John.]

The Gospel of St John, written in the first instance for the same

Churches to which the Epistle to the Ephesians was sent, has numerous

and striking points of resemblance with St Paul’s letter. This is the

case here. As St Paul tells the Ephesians that the ideal Church is the

pleroma of Christ and that the militant Church must strive to become the

pleroma of Christ, so St John (i. 14 sq.) after describing our Lord as

μονογενής, i.e. the unique and absolute representative of the Father,

and as such ‘full (πλήρης) of grace and of truth’, says that they, the

disciples, had ‘received out of His pleroma’ ever fresh accessions of

grace. Each individual believer in his degree receives a fraction of

that pleroma which is communicated whole to the ideal Church.

[Sidenote: Ignatian letters.]

The use of the word is not very different in the Ignatian letters. St

Ignatius greets this same Ephesian Church, to which St Paul and St John

successively here addressed the language already quoted, as ‘blessed in

greatness by the pleroma of God the Father,’ i.e. by graces imparted

from the pleroma. To the Trallians again he sends a greeting ‘in the

pleroma’, where the word denotes the sphere of Divine gifts and

operations, so that ἐν τῷ πληρώματι is almost equivalent to ἐν τῷ Κυρίῳ

or ἐν τῷ πνεύματι.

[Sidenote: Gnostic sects.]

When we turn from Catholic Christianity to the Gnostic sects we find

this term used, though (with one important exception) not in great

frequency. Probably however, if the writings of the earlier Gnostics had

been preserved, we should have found that it occupied a more important

place than at present appears. One class of early Gnostics separated the

spiritual being Christ from the man Jesus; they supposed that the Christ

entered Jesus at the time of His baptism and left him at the moment of

His crucifixion. Thus the Christ was neither born as a man nor suffered

as a man. In this way they obviated the difficulty, insuperable to the

Gnostic mind, of conceiving the connexion between the highest spiritual

agency and gross corporeal matter which was involved in the Catholic

doctrine of the Incarnation and Passion, and which Gnostics of another

type more effectually set aside by the theory of docetism, i.e. by

assuming that the human body of our Lord was only a phantom body and not

real flesh and blood. Irenæus represents the former class as teaching

that ‘Jesus was the receptacle of the Christ’, and that the Christ

‘descended upon him from heaven in the form of a dove and after He had

declared (to mankind) the nameless Father, entered (again) into the

pleroma imperceptibly and invisibly’[551]. [Sidenote: The

Cerinthians.]Here no names are given. But in another passage he ascribes

precisely the same doctrine, without however naming the pleroma, to

Cerinthus[552]. And in a third passage, which links together the other

two, this same father, after mentioning this heresiarch, again alludes

to the doctrine which maintained that the Christ, having descended on

Jesus at his baptism, ‘flew back again into His own pleroma’[553]. In

this last passage indeed the opinions of Cerinthus are mentioned in

connexion with those of other Gnostics, more especially the

Valentinians, so that we cannot with any certainty attribute this

expression to Cerinthus himself. But in the first passage the unnamed

heretics who maintained this return of the Christ ‘into the pleroma’ are

expressly distinguished from the Valentinians; and presumably therefore

the allusion is to the Cerinthians, to whom the doctrine, though not the

expression, is ascribed in the second passage. [Sidenote: Connexion of

this use with St Paul and with the Colossian heretics.]Thus there seems

to be sufficient reason for attributing the use of the term to

Cerinthus[554]. This indeed is probable on other grounds. The term

_pleroma_, we may presume, was common to St Paul and the Colossian

heretics whom he controverts. To both alike it conveyed the same idea,

the totality of the divine powers or attributes or agencies or

manifestations. But after this the divergence begins. They maintained

that a single divine power, a fraction of the pleroma, resided in our

Lord: the Apostle urges on the contrary, that the whole pleroma has its

abode in Him[555]. The doctrine of Cerinthus was a development of the

Colossian heresy, as I have endeavoured to show above[556]. He would

therefore inherit the term _pleroma_ from it. [Sidenote: The _pleroma_

localized.]At the same time he seems to have given a poetical colouring

to his doctrine, and so doing to have treated the pleroma as a

_locality_, a higher spiritual region, from which this divine power,

typified by the dove-like form, issued forth as on wings, and to which,

taking flight again, it reascended before the Passion. If so, his

language would prepare the way for the still more elaborate poetic

imagery of the Valentinians, in which the pleroma, conceived as a

locality, a region, an _abode_ of the divine powers, is conspicuous.

Footnote 551:

iii. 16. 1 ‘Quoniam autem sunt qui dicunt Iesum quidem receptaculum

Christi fuisse, in quem desuper quasi columbam descendisse, et quum

indicasset innominabilem Patrem, incomprehensibiliter et invisibiliter

_intrasse in pleroma_’.

Footnote 552:

i. 26. 1 ‘post baptismum descendisse in eum ab ea principalitate, quæ

est super omnia, Christum figura columbæ; et tunc annuntiasse

incognitum Patrem et virtutes perfecisse: in fine autem _revolasse

iterum_ Christum de Iesu et Iesum passum esse et resurrexisse, etc.’

Footnote 553:

iii. 11. 1 ‘iterum revolasse in suum pleroma’. This expression is the

connecting link between the other two passages. This third passage is

quoted more at length, above, p. 112: but I ought to have stated there

that _illi_ is referred by several critics to the Valentinians, and

that certainly some characteristic errors of the Valentinian teaching

are specified immediately after. The probable explanation seems to be

that _illi_ is intended to include the Gnostics generally, and that

Irenæus mentions in illustration the principal errors of Gnostic

teaching, irrespective of the schools to which they belong. He goes on

to say that St John in his Gospel desired to exclude ‘omnia talia’.

Footnote 554:

I have not been able however to verify the statement in Harvey’s

_Irenæus_ I. p. lxxiii that ‘The Valentinian notion of a spiritual

marriage between the souls of the elect and the angels of the Pleroma

originated with Cerinthus’.

Footnote 555:

See p. 101 sq., and the notes on i. 19.

Footnote 556:

p. 107 sq.

[Sidenote: The term avoided by Basilides,]

The attitude of later Gnostics towards this term is widely divergent.

The word is not, so far as I am aware, once mentioned in connexion with

the system of Basilides. Indeed the nomenclature of this heresiarch

belongs to a wholly different type; and, as he altogether repudiated the

doctrine of emanations[557], it is not probable that he would have any

fondness for a term which was almost inextricably entangled with this

doctrine.

Footnote 557:

Hippol. _R. H._ vii. 22 φεύγει γὰρ πάνυ καὶ δέδοικε τὰς κατὰ προβολὴν

τῶν γεγονότων οὐσίας ὁ Βασιλείδης. Basilides asked why the absolute

First Cause should be likened to a spider spinning threads from

itself, or a smith or carpenter working up his materials. The later

Basilideans, apparently influenced by Valentinianism, superadded to

the teaching of their founder in this respect; but the strong language

quoted by Hippolytus leaves no doubt about the mind of Basilides

himself.

[Sidenote: but prominent in Valentinianism.]

On the other hand with Valentinus and the Valentinians the doctrine of

the _pleroma_ was the very key-stone of their system; and, since at

first sight it is somewhat difficult to connect their use of the term

with St Paul’s, a few words on this subject may not be out of place.

[Sidenote: Poetic teaching of Valentinus.]

Valentinus then dressed his system in a poetic imagery not unlike the

myths of his master Plato. But a myth or story involves action, and

action requires a scene of action. Hence the mysteries of theology and

cosmogony and redemption call for a _topographical_ representation, and

the pleroma appears not as an abstract idea, but as a locality.

[Sidenote: _Topographical_ conception of the pleroma.]

The Valentinian system accordingly maps out the universe of things into

two great regions, called respectively the _pleroma_ and the _kenoma_,

the ‘fulness’ and the ‘void’. From a Christian point of view these may

be described as the kingdoms of light and of darkness respectively.

[Sidenote: Antithesis of _pleroma_ and _kenoma_.]From the side of

Platonism, they are the regions of real and of phenomenal existences—the

world of eternal archetypes or ideas, and the world of material and

sensible things. The identification of these two antitheses was rendered

easy for the Gnostic; because with him knowledge was one with morality

and with salvation, and because also matter was absolutely bound up with

evil. It is difficult to say whether the Platonism or the Christianity

predominates in the Valentinian theology; but the former at all events

is especially prominent in their conception of the relations between the

pleroma and the kenoma.

[Sidenote: _Pleroma_ the abode of the Æons.]

The pleroma is the abode of the Æons, who are thirty in number. These

Æons are successive emanations, of which the first pair sprang

immediately from the preexistent Bythus or Depth. This Bythus is deity

in itself, the absolute first principle, as the name suggests; the

profound, unfathomable, limitless, of whom or of which nothing can be

predicated and nothing known. Here again we have something like a

_local_ representation. The Æons or emanations are plainly the

attributes and energies of deity; they are, or they comprise, the

eternal ideas or archetypes of the Platonic philosophy. In short they

are deity relative, deity under self-imposed limitations, deity derived

and divided up, as it were, so as at length to be conceivable.

[Sidenote: Different forms of Valentinianism.]

The topographical relation of Bythus to the derived Æons was differently

given in different developments of the Valentinian teaching. According

to one representation he was outside the pleroma; others placed his

abode within it, but even in this case he was separated from the rest by

Horus (Ὅρος), a personified Boundary or Fence, whom none, not even the

Æons themselves, could pass[558]. The former mode of representation

might be thought to accord better with the imagery, at the same time

that it is more accurate if regarded as the embodiment of a

philosophical conception. Nevertheless the latter was the favourite mode

of delineation; and it had at least this recommendation, that it

combined in one all that is real, as opposed to all that is phenomenal.

In this pleroma every existence which is suprasensual and therefore true

has its abode.

Footnote 558:

For the various modes in which the relation of the absolute first

principle to the pleroma was represented in different Valentinian

schools, see Iren. i. 1. 1, i. 2. 4, i. 11. 1, 3, 5, i. 12. 1, etc.

The main distinction is that stated in the text: the first principle

was represented in two ways; either (i) as a monad, outside the

pleroma; or (ii) as a dyad, a syzygy, most commonly under the

designation of Βυθός and Σιγή, included within the pleroma but fenced

off from the other æons. The Valentinian doctrine as given by

Hippolytus (vi. 29 sq.) represents the former type. There are good,

though perhaps not absolutely decisive, reasons for supposing that

this father gives the original teaching of Valentinus himself. For (1)

this very doctrine of the monad seems to point to an earlier date. It

is the link which connects the system of Valentinus not only with

Pythagoreanism to which (as Hippolytus points out) he was so largely

indebted, but also with the teaching of the earlier heresiarch

Basilides, whose first principle likewise was a monad, the absolute

nothing, the non-existent God. The conception of the first principle

as a dyad seems to have been a later, and not very happy, modification

of the doctrine of the founder, being in fact an extension of the

principle of syzygies which Valentinus with a truer philosophical

conception had restricted to the derived essences. (2) The exposition

of Hippolytus throughout exhibits a system at once more consistent and

more simple, than the luxuriant developments of the later

Valentinians, such as Ptolemæus and Marcus. (3) The sequence of his

statement points to the same conclusion. He gives a consecutive

account of some one system, turning aside from time to time to notice

the variations of different Valentinian schools from this standard and

again resuming the main thread of his exposition. It seems most

natural therefore that he should have taken the system of the founder

as his basis. On the other hand Irenæus (i. 11. 1) states that

Valentinus represented the first principle as a dyad (Ἄρρητος or

Βυθὁς, and Σιγή): but there is no evidence that he had any direct or

indirect knowledge of the writings of Valentinus himself, and his

information was derived from the later disciples of the school, more

especially from the Ptolemæans.

[Sidenote: _Kenoma_, the region of phenomena.]

Separated from this celestial region by Horus, another Horus or

Boundary, which, or who, like the former is impassable, lies the

‘kenoma’ or ‘void’—the kingdom of this world, the region of matter and

material things, the land of shadow and darkness[559]. Here is the

empire of the Demiurge or Creator, who is not a celestial Æon at all,

but was born in this very void over which he reigns. Here reside all

those phenomenal, deceptive, transitory things, of which the eternal

counterparts are found only in the pleroma.

Footnote 559:

Iren. i. 4. 1, 2, ii. 3. 1, ii. 4. 1, 3, ii. 5. 1, ii. 8. 1–3, ii. 14.

3, iii. 25. 6, 7, etc.

[Sidenote: Platonism of this antithesis.]

It is in this antithesis that the Platonism of the Valentinian theory

reaches its climax. All things are set off one against another in these

two regions[560]: just as

The swan on still St Mary’s lake

Floats double, swan and shadow.

Not only have the thirty Æons their terrestrial counterparts; but their

subdivisions also are represented in this lower region. The kenoma too

has its ogdoad, its decad, its dodecad, like the pleroma[561]. There is

one Sophia in the supramundane region, and another in the mundane; there

is one Christ who redeems the Æons in the spiritual world, and a second

Christ who redeems mankind, or rather a portion of mankind, in the

sensible world. There is an Æon Man and another Æon Ecclesia in the

celestial kingdom, the ideal counterparts to the Human Race and the

Christian Church of the terrestrial. Even individual men and women, as

we shall see presently, have their archetypes in this higher sphere of

intelligible being.

Footnote 560:

Iren. i. 6. 3, i. 7. 1 sq., ii. 14. 3, ii. 15. 3 sq., ii. 20. 5, ii.

30. 3, etc.

Footnote 561:

Iren. i. 5. 2, ii. 14. 3; comp. Hippol. vi. 34.

[Sidenote: The localization of the _pleroma_ carried out in detail.]

The topographical conception of the pleroma moreover is carried out in

the details of the imagery. The second Sophia, called also Achamoth, is

the desire, the offspring, of her elder namesake, separated from her

mother, cast out of the pleroma, and left ‘stranded’ in the void

beyond[562], being prevented from returning by the inexorable Horus who

guards the frontier of the supramundane kingdom. The second Christ—a

being compounded of elements contributed by all the Æons[563]—was sent

down from the pleroma, first of all at the eve of creation to infuse

something like order and to provide for a spiritual element in this

lower world; and secondly, when He united Himself with the man Jesus for

the sake of redeeming those who were capable of redemption[564]. At the

end of all things Sophia Achamoth, and with her the spiritual portion of

mankind, shall be redeemed and received up into the pleroma, while the

psychical portion will be left outside to form another kingdom under the

dominion of their father the Demiurge. This redemption and ascension of

Achamoth (by a perversion of a scriptural image) was represented as her

espousals with the Saviour, the second Christ; and the pleroma, the

scene of this happy union, was called the bridal-chamber[565]. Indeed

the localization of the pleroma is as complete as language can make it.

The constant repetition of the words ‘within’ and ‘without’, ‘above’ and

‘beneath’, in the development of this philosophical and religious myth

still further impresses this local sense on the term[566].

Footnote 562:

Iren. i. 4. 1 λέγουσιν ἐν σκιαῖς [σκιᾶς] καὶ κενώματος τόποις

_)εκβεβράσθαι_ κ.τ.λ. The Greek MS reads καὶ σκηνώματος, but the

rendering of the early Latin translation ‘in umbræ [et?] vacuitatis

locis’ leaves no doubt about the word in the original text. Tertullian

says of this Achamoth (_adv. Valent._ 14) ‘explosa est in loca luminis

aliena ... in vacuum atque inane illud Epicuri’. See note 567.

Footnote 563:

Iren. i. 2. 6, Hippol. vi. 32.

Footnote 564:

They quoted, as referring to this descent of the second Christ into

the kenoma, the words of St Paul, Phil. ii. 7 ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν; Clem.

Alex. _Exc. Theod._ 35 (p. 978).

Footnote 565:

Iren. i. 7. 1 καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι νυμφίον καὶ νύμφην, _νυμφῶνα_ δὲ τὸ

πᾶν πλήρωμα: comp. Hippol. vi. 34 ὁ νυμφίος αὐτῆς.

Footnote 566:

This language is so frequent that special references are needless. In

Iren. ii. 5. 3 we have a still stronger expression, ‘in ventre

pleromatis’.

[Sidenote: The connexion with St. Paul’s use of the term obscured,]

In this topographical representation the connexion of meaning in the

word _pleroma_ as employed by St Paul and by Valentinus respectively

seems at first sight to be entirely lost. When we read of the contrast

between the pleroma and the kenoma, the fulness and the void, we are

naturally reminded of the _plenum_ and the _vacuum_ of physical

speculations. The sense of pleroma, as expressing completeness and so

denoting the aggregate or totality of the Divine powers, seems

altogether to have disappeared. [Sidenote: owing partly to the false

antithesis κένωμα]But in fact this antithesis of κένωμα was, so far as

we can make out, a mere after-thought, and appears to have been

borrowed, as Irenæus states, from the physical theories of Democritus

and Epicurus[567]. It would naturally suggest itself both because the

opposition of πλήρης and κενὸς was obvious, and because the word κένωμα

materially assisted the imagery as a description of the kingdom of waste

and shadow. But in itself it is a false antithesis. [Sidenote: borrowed

from physical philosophers;]The true antithesis appears in another, and

probably an earlier, term used to describe the mundane kingdom. In this

earlier representation, which there is good reason for ascribing to

Valentinus himself, it is called not κένωμα ‘the void’, but ὑστέρημα

‘the deficiency, incompleteness’[568]. [Sidenote: but reappears in their

common phraseology.]Moreover the common phraseology of the Valentinian

schools shows that the idea suggested by this opposition to κένωμα was

not the original idea of the term. They speak of τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν αἴωνων,

τὸ πᾶν πλήρωμα τῶν αἴωνων, ‘the whole aggregate of the Æons’[569]. And

this (making allowance for the personification of the Æons) corresponds

exactly to its use in St Paul.

Footnote 567:

Iren. ii. 14. 3 ‘Umbram autem et vacuum ipsorum a Democrito et Epicuro

sumentes sibimetipsis _aptaverunt_, quum illi primum multum sermonem

fecerint de vacuo et de atomis’.

Footnote 568:

Hippol. vi. 31 καλεῖται δὲ ὅρος μὲν ὁῦτος ὅτι ἀφορίζει ἀπὸ τοῦ

πληρώματος ἔξω τὸ ὑστέρημα· μετοχὲυς δε ὅτι μετέχει καὶ τοῦ

ὑστερήματος (i.e. as standing between the πλήρωμα and ὑστέρημα)·

σταυρὸς δέ, ὅτι πέπηγεν ἀκλινῶς καὶ ἀμετανόητως, ὡς μὴ δύνασθαι μηδὲν

τοῦ ὑστερήματος καταγενέσθαι ἐγγὺς τῶν ἐντὸς πληρώματος αἴωνων.

Irenæus represents the Marcosians as designating the Demiurge καρπὸς

ὑστερήματος i. 17. 2, i. 19. 1, ii. præf. 1, ii. 1. 1 (comp. i. 14.

1). This was perhaps intended originally as an antithesis to the name

of the Christ, who was καρπὸς πληρώματος. The Marcosians however

apparently meant Sophia Achamoth by this ὑστερημα. This transference

from the whole to the part would be in strict accordance with their

terminology: for as they called the supramundane æons πληρώματα (Iren.

i. 14. 2, 5; quoted in Hippol. vi. 43, 46), so also by analogy they

might designate the mundane Powers ὑστερήματα (comp. Iren. i. 16. 3).

The term, as it occurs in the document used by Hippolytus, plainly

denotes the _whole_ mundane region.

Hippolytus does not use the word κένωμα, though so common in Irenæus.

This fact seems to point to the earlier date of the Valentinian

document which he uses, and so to bear out the result arrived at in a

previous note (p. 332) that we have here a work of Valentinus himself.

The word ὑστέρημα appears also in _Exc. Theod._ 22 (p. 974).

Footnote 569:

e.g. Hippol. vi. 34, Iren. i. 2. 6. See especially Iren. ii. 7. 3

‘Quoniam enim pleroma ipsorum triginta Aeones sunt, ipsi testantur’.

[Sidenote: The original meaning shown by other uses.]

Again the teaching of the Valentinian schools supplies other uses which

serve to illustrate its meaning. Not only does the supramundane kingdom

as a whole bear this name, but each separate Æon, of which that kingdom

is the aggregation, is likewise called a pleroma[570]. This designation

is given to an Æon, because it is the fulness, the perfection, of which

its mundane counterpart is only a shadowy and defective copy. Nor does

the narrowing of the term stop here. There likewise dwells in this

higher region a pleroma, or eternal archetype, not only of every

comprehensive mundane power, but of each individual man; and to wed

himself with this heavenly partner, this Divine ideal of himself, must

be the study of his life. [Sidenote: Interpretation of John iv. 17,

18.]The profound moral significance, which underlies the exaggerated

Platonism and perverse exegesis of this conception, will be at once

apparent. But the manner in which the theory was carried out is

curiously illustrated by the commentary of the Valentinian Heracleon on

our Lord’s discourse with the Samaritan woman[571]. This woman, such is

his explanation, belongs to the spiritual portion of mankind. But she

had had six[572] husbands, or in other words she had entangled herself

with the material world, had defiled herself with sensuous things. The

husband however, whom she now has, is not her husband; herein she has

spoken rightly: the Saviour in fact means ‘her partner from the

pleroma’. Hence she is bidden to go and call him; that is, she must find

‘her pleroma, that coming to the Saviour with him (or it), she may be

able to obtain from Him the power and the union and the combination with

her pleroma’ (τὴν δύναμιν καὶ τὴν ἕνωσιν καὶ τὴν ἀνάκρασιν τὴν πρὸς τὸ

πλήρωμα αὐτῆς). ‘For’, adds Heracleon, ‘He did not speak of a mundane

(κοσμικοῦ) husband when He told her to call him, since He was not

ignorant that she had no lawful husband’.

Footnote 570:

See the passages from Irenæus quoted above, note 568; comp. _Exc.

Theod._ 32, 33 (p. 977). Similarly λόγοι is a synonym for the Æons,

ὁμωνύμως τῷ Λόγῳ, _Exc. Theod._ 25 (p. 975).

Footnote 571:

Heracleon in Orig. _in Ioann._ xiii, iv. p. 205 sq. The passages are

collected in Stieren’s Irenæus p. 947 sq. See especially p. 950 ὄιεται

[ὁ Ἡρακλέων] τῆς Σαμαρείτιδος τὸν λεγόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἄνδρα τὸ

_πλήρωμα εἶναι αὐτῆς_, ἵνα σὺν ἐκείνῳ γενομένη πρὸς τὸν σωτῆρα

κομίσεσθαι παρ’ αὐτοῦ τὴν δύναμιν καὶ τὴν ἕνωσιν καὶ τὴν ἀνάκρασιν τὴν

πρὸς _τὸ πλήρωμα αὑτῆς_ δυνηθῇ· οὐ γὰρ περὶ ἀνδρός, φησί,

κοσμικοῦ ἔλεγεν ... λέγων αὐτῇ τὸν σωτῆρα εἰρηκέναι, Φώνησόν σου τὸν

ἄνδρα καὶ ἐλθὲ ἐνθάδε· δηλοῦντα _τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ πληρώματος σύζυγον_.

Lower down Heracleon says ἦν αὐτῆς ὁ ἀνὴρ ἐν τῷ Αἰῶνι. By this last

expression I suppose he means that the great æon Man of the Ogdoad,

the eternal archetype of mankind, comprises in itself archetypes

corresponding to each individual man and woman, not indeed of the

whole human race (for the Valentinian would exclude the psychical and

carnal portion from any participation in this higher region) but of

the spiritual portion thereof.

Footnote 572:

Origen expressly states that Heracleon read ἕξ for πέντε. The number

six was supposed to symbolize the material creature: see Heracleon on

‘the forty and _six_ years’ of John ii. 20 (Stieren p. 947). There is

no reason to think that Heracleon falsified the text here; he appears

to have found this various reading already in his copy.

[Sidenote: Valentinians accept St Paul and St John,]

Impossible as it seems to us to reconcile the Valentinian system with

the teaching of the Apostles, the Valentinians themselves felt no such

difficulty. They intended their philosophy not to supersede or

contradict the Apostolic doctrine, but to supplement it and to explain

it on philosophical principles. Hence the Canon of the Valentinians

comprehended the Canon of Catholic Christianity in all its essential

parts, though some Valentinian schools at all events supplemented it

with Apocryphal writings. More particularly the Gospel of St John and

the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians were regarded with especial

favour; and those passages which speak of the pleroma are quoted more

than once in their writings to illustrate their teaching. [Sidenote: and

quote them in support of their views.]By isolating a few words from the

context and interpreting them wholly without reference to their setting,

they had no difficulty in finding a confirmation of their views, where

we see only an incongruity or even a contradiction. For instance, their

second Christ—the redeemer of the spiritual element in the mundane

world—was, as we saw, compacted of gifts contributed by all the Æons of

the pleroma. Hence he was called ‘the common fruit of the pleroma’, ‘the

fruit of all the pleroma’[573], ‘the most perfect beauty and

constellation of the pleroma’[574]; hence also he was designated ‘All’

(πᾶν) and ‘All things’ (πάντα)[575]. Accordingly, to this second Christ,

not to the first, they applied these texts; Col. iii. 11 ‘And He is all

things’, Rom. xi. 36 ‘All things are unto Him and from Him are all

things’, Col. ii. 9 ‘In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead’,

Ephes. i. 10 ‘To gather together in one all things in Christ through

God’[576]. So too they styled him )Ευδόκητος, with a reference to Col.

i. 19, because ‘all the pleroma was pleased through Him to glorify the

Father’[577]. And inasmuch as this second Christ was according to the

Valentinian theory instrumental in the creation of the mundane powers,

they quoted, or rather misquoted, as referring to this participation in

the work of the Demiurge, the passage Col. i. 16 ‘In Him were created

all things, visible and invisible, thrones, deities, dominions’[578].

Indeed it seems clear that these adaptations were not always

afterthoughts, but that in several instances at least their nomenclature

was originally chosen for the sake of fitting the theory to isolated

phrases and expressions in the Apostolic writings, however much it might

conflict with the Apostolic doctrine in its main lines[579].

Footnote 573:

The expression is ὁ κοινὸς τοῦ πληρώματος καρπὸς in Hippolytus vi. 32,

34, 36 (pp. 190, 191, 192, 193, 196). In Irenæus i. 8. 5 it is καρπὸς

παντὸς τοῦ πληρώματος.

Footnote 574:

Iren. i. 2. 6 τελειότατον κάλλος τε καὶ ἄστρον τοῦ πληρώματος.

Footnote 575:

Iren. i. 2. 6, i. 3. 4.

Footnote 576:

Iren. i. 3. 4. The passages are given in the text as they are quoted

by Irenæus from the Valentinians. Three out of the four are incorrect.

Footnote 577:

Iren. i. 12. 4; comp. _Exc. Theod._ 31 (p. 977) εἰ ὁ κατελθὼν εὐδοκία

τοῦ ὅλου ἦν· ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα ἦν σωματικῶς.

Footnote 578:

Iren. i. 4. 5 ὅπως ἐν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα κτισθῇ, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα,

θρόνοι, θεότητες, κυριότητες, where the misquotation is remarkable. In

_Exc. Theod._ 43 (p. 979) the words run πάντα γὰρ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ

ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, θρόνοι, κυριότητες, βασιλεῖαι, θεότητες,

λειτουργίαι· δὶο καὶ ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν κ.τ.λ. (the last words

being taken from Phil. ii. 9 sq.).

Footnote 579:

Thus they interpreted Ephes. iii. 21 εἰς πάσας τὰς γενὲας τοῦ αἰῶνος

τῶν αἰώνων as referring to their generated æons: Iren. i. 3. 1.

Similar is the use which they made of expressions in the opening

chapter of St John, where they found their first Ogdoad described:

_ib._ i. 8. 5.

[Sidenote: Use of the term by the Docetæ]

The heretics called Docetæ by Hippolytus have no connexion with

docetism, as it is generally understood, i.e. the tenet that Christ’s

body was not real flesh and blood, but merely a phantom body. Their

views on this point, as represented by this father, are wholly

different[580]. Of their system generally nothing need be said here,

except that it is largely saturated with Valentinian ideas and phrases.

From the Valentinians they evidently borrowed their conception of the

pleroma, by which they understood the aggregate, or (as localized) the

abode, of the Æons. With them, as with the Valentinians, the Saviour is

the common product of all the Æons[581]; and in speaking of him they

echo a common Valentinian phrase ‘the pleroma of the entire Æons’[582].

Footnote 580:

_R. H._ viii. 10 (p. 267).

Footnote 581:

_ib._ viii. 9.

Footnote 582:

_ib._ viii. 10 (p. 266).

[Sidenote: and by two Ophite sects.]

The Ophite heresy, Proteus-like, assumes so many various forms, that the

skill of critics has been taxed to the utmost to bind it with cords and

extract its story from it. It appears however from the notices of

Hippolytus, that the term _pleroma_ was used in a definite theological

sense by at least two branches of the sect, whom he calls Naassenes and

Peratæ.

[Sidenote: (i) Naassenes.]

Of the Naassenes Hippolytus tells us that among other images borrowed

from the Christian and Jewish Scriptures, as well as from heathen

poetry, they described the region of true knowledge—their kingdom of

heaven, which was entered by initiation into their mysteries—as the land

flowing with milk and honey, ‘which when the perfect (the true Gnostics,

the fully initiated) have tasted, they are freed from subjection to

kings (ἀβασιλεύτους) and partake of the pleroma.’ Here is a plain

allusion to Joh. i. 16. ‘This’, the anonymous Naassene writer goes on to

say, ‘is the pleroma, through which all created things coming into being

are produced and fulfilled (πεπλήρωται) from the Uncreated’[583]. Here

again, as in the Valentinian system, the conception of the pleroma is

strongly tinged with Platonism. The pleroma is the region of ideas, of

archetypes, which intervenes between the author of creation and the

material world, and communicates their specific forms to the phenomenal

existences of the latter.

Footnote 583:

_R. H._ v. 8.

[Sidenote: (ii) Peratæ.]

The theology of the second Ophite sect, the Peratæ, as described by

Hippolytus, is a strange phenomenon. [Sidenote: Their theology]They

divided the universe into three regions, the uncreate, the self-create,

and the created. Again the middle region may be said to correspond

roughly to the Platonic kingdom of ideas. But their conception of deity

is entirely their own. They postulate three of every being; three Gods,

three Words, three Minds (i.e. as we may suppose three Spirits), three

Men. Thus there is a God for each region, just as there is a Man. In

full accordance with this perverse and abnormal theology is their

application of St Paul’s language. [Sidenote: and corresponding

application of πλήρωμα.]Their Christ has three natures, belonging to

these three kingdoms respectively; and this completeness of His being is

implied by St Paul in Col. i. 19, ii. 9, which passages are combined in

their loose quotation or paraphrase, ‘All the pleroma was pleased to

dwell in him bodily, and there is in him all the godhead’, i.e. (as

Hippolytus adds in explanation) ‘of this their triple division (τῆς οὕτω

διῃρημένης τρίαδος)’[584]. This application is altogether arbitrary,

having no relation whatever to the theological meaning of the term in St

Paul. It is also an entire departure from the conception of the

Cerinthians, Valentinians, and Naassenes, in which this meaning, however

obscured, was not altogether lost. These three heresies took a

horizontal section of the universe, so to speak, and applied the term as

coextensive with the supramundane stratum. The Peratæ on the other hand

divided it vertically, and the pleroma, in their interpretation of the

text, denoted the whole extent of this vertical section. There is

nothing in common between the two applications beyond the fundamental

meaning of the word, ‘completeness, totality’.

Footnote 584:

_R. H._ v. 12.

[Sidenote: Pistis Sophia.]

The extant Gnostic work, called Pistis Sophia, was attributed at one

time on insufficient grounds to Valentinus. It appears however to

exhibit a late development of Ophitism[585], far more Christian and less

heathen in its character than those already considered. In this work the

word pleroma occurs with tolerable frequency; but its meaning is not

easily fixed. [Sidenote: Frequent use of the term.]Early in the treatise

it is said that the disciples supposed a certain ‘mystery’, of which

Jesus spoke, to be ‘the end of all the ends’ and ‘the head (κεφαλήν) of

the Universe’ and ‘the whole pleroma’[586]. Here we seem to have an

allusion to the Platonic kingdom of ideas, i.e. of intelligible being,

of absolute truth, as reproduced in the Valentinian pleroma. And the

word is used sometimes in connexion with the completeness of revelation

or the perfection of knowledge. Thus our Lord is represented as saying

to His disciples, ‘I will tell you the whole mystery and the whole

pleroma, and I will conceal nothing from you from this hour; and in

perfection will I perfect you in every pleroma and in every perfection

and in every mystery, which things are the perfection of all the

perfections and the pleroma of all the pleromas’[587]. Elsewhere however

Mary, to whom Jesus is represented as making some of his chief

revelations, is thus addressed by Him; ‘Blessed art thou above (παρὰ)

all women that are on the earth, for thou shalt be pleroma of all the

pleromas and perfection of all the perfections’[588], where the word

must be used in a more general sense.

Footnote 585:

See Köstlin in _Theolog. Jahrb._ Tübingen 1854, p. 185.

Footnote 586:

_Pistis Sophia_ p. 3 sq.

Footnote 587:

_ib._ p. 15 sq.: comp. pp. 4, 60, 75, 187, 275.

Footnote 588:

_ib._ p. 28 sq.: comp. p. 56. On p. 7 πλήρωμα is opposed to ἀρχή,

apparently in the sense of ‘completion’.

[Sidenote: Monoimus the Arabian.]

One heresy still remains to be noticed in connexion with this word.

Hippolytus has preserved an account of the teaching of Monoimus the

Arabian, of whom previously to the discovery of this father’s treatise

we knew little more than the name. In this strange form of heresy the

absolute first principle is the uncreate, imperishable, eternal Man. I

need not stop to enquire what this statement means. It is sufficient for

the present purpose to add that this eternal Man is symbolized by the

letter Ι, the ‘one iota’, the ‘one tittle’ of the Gospel[589]; and this

Ι, as representing the number ten, includes in itself all the units from

one to nine. ‘This’, added Monoimus, ‘is (meant by) the saying (of

scripture) _All the pleroma was pleased to dwell upon the Son of Man_

_bodily_’[590]. Here the original idea of the word as denoting

completeness, totality, is still preserved.

Footnote 589:

Matt. v. 18.

Footnote 590:

_R. H._ viii. 13.

_The Epistle from_ _Laodicea_[591].

[Sidenote: Different theories classified.]

The different opinions respecting the epistle thus designated by St

Paul, which have been held in ancient or modern times, will be seen from

the following table;