ὑπὲρ ἃ λέγω κ.τ.λ.] What was the thought upmost in the Apostle’s mind
when he penned these words? Did he contemplate the manumission of
Onesimus? If so, the restraint which he imposes upon himself is
significant. Indeed throughout this epistle the idea would seem to be
present to his thoughts, though the word never passes his lips. This
reserve is eminently characteristic of the Gospel. Slavery is never
directly attacked as such, but principles are inculcated which must
prove fatal to it.
22. ἅμα δὲ κ.τ.λ.] When St Paul first contemplated visiting Rome, he had
intended, after leaving the metropolis, to pass westward into Spain;
Rom. xv. 24, 28. But by this time he appears to have altered his plans,
purposing first to revisit Greece and Asia Minor. Thus in Phil. ii. 24
he looks forward to seeing the Philippians shortly; while here he
contemplates a visit to the Churches of the Lycus valley.
There is a gentle compulsion in this mention of a personal visit to
Colossæ. The Apostle would thus be able to see for himself that Philemon
had not disappointed his expectations. Similarly Serapion in Eus. _H.E._
vi. 12 προσδοκᾶτέ με ἐν τάχει.
ξενίαν] ‘_a lodging_’; comp. _Clem. Hom._ xii. 2 πρόαξωσιν τὰς ξενίας
ἑτοιμάζοντες. So the Latin _parare hospitium_ Cic. _ad Att._ xiv. 2,
Mart. _Ep._ ix. 1. This latter passage, ‘Vale et para hospitium’,
closely resembles St Paul’s language here. In the expression before us
ξενία is probably the _place_ of entertainment: but in such phrases as
καλεῖν ἐπὶ ξενίᾳ, παρακαλεῖν επὶ ξενίαν, φροντίζειν ξενίας, and the
like, it denotes the offices of hospitality. The Latin _hospitium_ also
includes both senses. The ξενία, as a lodging, may denote either
quarters in an inn or a room in a private house: see _Philippians_ p. 9.
For the latter comp. Plato _Tim._ 20 C παρὰ Κριτίαν πρὸς τὸν ξενῶνα, οὗ
καὶ καταλύομεν, ἀφικόμεθα. In this case the response would doubtless be
a hospitable reception in Philemon’s home; but the request does not
assume so much as this.
χαρισθήσομαι] ‘_I shall be granted to you_’. The grant (χαρίζεσθαι) of
one person to another, may be for purposes either (1) of destruction, as
Acts xxv. 11 οὐδεὶς με δύναται αὐτοῖς χαρίσασθαι (comp. ver. 16), or (2)
of preservation, as Acts iii. 14 ᾐτήσασθε ἄνδρα φονέα χαρισθῆναι ὑμῖν,
and here.
23–25. ‘Epaphras my fellow-captive in Christ Jesus salutes you. As do
also Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow-labourers. The grace
of our Lord Jesus Christ be with thee and thy household, and sanctify
the spirit of you all.’
23 sq. For these salutations see the notes on Col. iv. 10 sq. Epaphras
is mentioned first because he was a Colossian (Col. iv. 12) and, as the
evangelist of Colossæ (see p. 29 sq.), doubtless well known to Philemon.
Of the four others Aristarchus and Mark belonged to the Circumcision
(Col. iv. 11), while Demas and Luke were Gentile Christians. All these
were of Greek or Asiatic origin and would probably be well known to
Philemon, at least by name. On the other hand Jesus Justus, who is
honourably mentioned in the Colossian letter (iv. 11), but passed over
here, may have been a Roman Christian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
23–25]
^{23}Ἀσπάζεταί σε Ἐπαφρᾶς ὁ συναιχμάλωτός μου ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ,
^{24}Μάρκος, Ἀρίσταρχος, Δημᾶς, Λουκᾶς, οἱ συνεργοί μου.
^{25}Ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου [ἡμῶν] Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν.
ὁ συναιχμάλωτος] On the possible meanings of this title see Col. iv. 10,
where it is given not to Epaphras but to Aristarchus.
25. Ἡ χάρις κ.τ.λ.] The same form of farewell as in Gal. vi. 18; comp. 2
Tim. iv. 22.
ὑμῶν] The persons whose names are mentioned in the opening salutation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS._
p. 6, l. 12. On Polemo and his family see _Ephemeris Epigraphica_ I. p.
270 sq. (1873).
p. 38, note 125. The investigations of M. Waddington respecting the
chronology of this period (see below) require a modification of
the dates here given for the earthquakes in the second century.
He enumerates three: (1) One at Rhodes, from A.D. 138–142; (2)
One which destroyed Mitylene and did considerable damage to
Smyrna, A.D. 151–152; (3) One which destroyed Smyrna A.D. 180.
These two last have been confounded together by previous
writers. See M. Waddington’s _Mémoire_, pp. 242 sq., 267 sq.
p. 48, note 160. On the names Ammias, Tatias, which are feminine and not
masculine, see below p. 373.
p. 49, note. I have here given the commonly received date for the
martyrdom of Polycarp; for I had not then seen M. Waddington’s
investigations. This writer seems to have proved conclusively
that it took place several years earlier, A.D. 155: see his
_Mémoire sur la Chronologie du Rhéteur Ælius Aristide_ p. 232
sq., in the _Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions_, &c. XXVI.
(1867).
pp. 52, 53. As these remarks respecting the silence of Eusebius will
seem to be directed against the opinions expressed in a recent
work, it may be worth while stating that the early sheets of
this commentary were struck off nearly twelve months before
_Supernatural Religion_ was published. The expression in p. 53,
note 170, ‘numerous and patent quotations,’ is too strongly
worded, though the references to St James in Clement’s Epistle
seem to me to be clear. I might however have chosen other more
palpable illustrations from that epistle.
p. 63, l. 12. The Proconsulate of Paullus, under whom this martyrdom
took place, is dated by Borghesi (_[OE]uvres_ VIII. p. 507)
somewhere between A.D. 163–168, by Waddington (_Fastes des
Provinces Asiatiques_ p. 731, in Le Bas and Waddington _Voyage
Archéologique etc._) probably A.D. 164–166. This rests on the
assumption that the _Servillius Paullus_ here named must be
identified with _L. Sergius Paullus_ of the inscriptions. The
name _Sergius_ is elsewhere confounded with _Servius_
(_Servillius_) owing to the use of contractions (see Borghesi
IV. p. 493, VIII. p. 504). The mistake must have been introduced
very early into the text of Eusebius. All the Greek MSS have
_Servillius_ (_Servilius_), and so it is written in the Syriac
Version. Ruffinus however writes it correctly _Sergius_.
p. 71, line 1. We may conjecture that it was the earthquake under
Gallienus (A.D. 262) which proved fatal to Colossæ (see above p.
38, note 125). This is consistent with the fact that no
Colossian coins later than Gordian (A.D. 238–244) are extant.
When St Chrysostom wrote, the city existed no longer, as may be
inferred from his comment (XI. p. 323) ‘Ἡ πόλις τῆς Φρυγίας ἦν·
καὶ δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ τὴν Λαοδίκειαν πλησίον εἶναι.’
On the other hand M. Renan (_L’Antechrist_ p. 99) says of the
earthquake under _Nero_, ‘Colosses ne sut se relever; elle
disparut presque du nombre des églises;’ and he adds in a note
‘Colosses n’a pas de monnaies impériales [Waddington].’ This is
a mistake, and he must have misunderstood M. Waddington.
p. 77, note 229. To this list of works add Mansel’s _Gnostic Heresies of
the First and Second Centuries_ (London 1875).
p. 112, note 336. See p. 330, note 553.
p. 160, l. 4. For ‘argument for silence’ read ‘argument from silence.’
p. 205, col. 1, l. 30. Strike out τοῦ before περιπατῆσαι.
p. 210, col. 1, l. 2. The dissertation to which reference is here made
is deferred to a later volume.
p. 250, col. 2, l. 21. Strike out the words in brackets.
p. 270, col. 1. ἅτινά ἐστιν κ.τ.λ. Comp. Seneca _de Vit. beat._ 7 ‘in
ipso usu sui periturum.’
p. 280, col. 1, l. 23. For ‘Ammianus’ read ‘Ammonius.’
------------------------------------------------------------------------