OTHE PH CHAP. XVIII. OF THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. HILEMON appears to have been a man of fubftance at Coloffe, who had a fpacious houfe, in which not only a part of the Chriftian community in that city affembled, but likewife travelling Chriftians were entertained. He had therefore an ecclefiaftical office, and was deacon, when St. Paul calls him, ver. 1. his fellow-labourer. From this title, Hoffmann, in his Introduct. ad Lection. Ep. ad Coloffenfes, § 18. concludes that Philemon was bishop of Coloffe, as fome of the ancients pretend, especially the author of the work called the Apoftolic Conftitutions. But Philemen, even as deacon, was a fellow-labourer of St Paul: and therefore there is no neceffity, on account of this appellation, for making him a bithop. The affertion of the fathers is in this cafe of no value for thofe, whom they called the first bishops of the Chriftian churches, were generally bishops of their own creation. But, fetting this title afide, he appears to have been one of the first converts in the Coloffian community, and to have learnt the doctrines of Chrifiianity, not from Epaphras, as the other Coloffians had done, but from St. Paul himself. As St. Paul had not been at Coloffe, it is probable that Philemon came to him, while he refided at Ephefus. Archippus, the fon of Philemon, to whom this Epiftle, which is of the familiar kind, is likewife addreffed, had fhortly before been appointed deacon in the church of Coloffeæ, as we fee from Col. iv. 17. but not bifhop, as Jerom pretends. St. Paul makes honourable mention of him, and calls him, not merely his fellow-labourer, but his fellow-foldier. See my third Note to this Epifle, * See ver. 22. 2 Ver. 19. What What became of Onefimus is not known but whoever wishes to know what has been conjectured by various writers on this fubject may confult the remarks on the tenth verfe of this Epiftle in Wolfii Curæ. CHAP. XIX. OF THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. SECT. I. Of the fituation of Coloffe, and the circumstances of the Chriftian community in that city. COL OLOSSE was a city of Phrygia, fituate at the conflux of the Lycus and the Meander. By what nane it is called at prefent, I know not for Chonus, or Konus, which is fuppofed to be the fame as Coloffa, is more probably the fame as Conium mentioned by Pliny, and clearly diftinguished by him from Coloffæ. In the time of Herodotus it was a large city, and it is defcribed as fuch alfo by Xenophon : but in the time of St. Paul it muft have loft much of its ancient greatnefs, for Strabo reckons it among the woIÒμATA, or fmall towns of Phrygia, in oppofition to the great cities, among which he places the neighbouring city Laodicea. Pliny indeed reckons it among the oppida celeberrima Phrygiæ:' but by oppidum' hardly meant a great city, and if he did, his authority Pliny in • In D'Anville's map of Afia Minor, it will be found, as well as Laodicea and Hierapolis, which are mentioned in this Epiftle, near the place where the 47th degree of longitude croffes the 38th degree of latitude. Pag. 290. lin. 1. * Pag. 864, or 576. Lib. V. § 41. in points of geography is inferior to that of Strabo, Ptolemy has taken no notice of it, either in his catalogue of cities, or in his map. It is therefore much the finalleft and most unimportant city of all thofe, to which the Epiftles of St. Paul now extant were addreffed; and hence it appears extraordinary, that in the arrangement of St. Paul's Epiftles in the New Teftament, the Epiftle to the Coloffians fhould have been placed before thofe to the Theffalonians. It has been difputed, and the difpute is not yet determined, whether the name of this city fhould be written Κολοσσαι, with an e, or Κολασσαι with an a. Herodotus, Xenophon, Pliny and Strabo write it in the former manner but St. Paul appears to have written it according to the latter orthography. For the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephrem, the three most important Greek manufcripts, which contain this Epiftle, have Koλasoa: and to thefe may be added, eighteen other manufcripts quoted by Welftein, ten quoted by Matthäi, and the fecond Gôttingen manufcript. Origen, who is great authority, and leveral other fathers quoted by Wetstein and Griefbach write it in the fame manner: and this orthography is likewife obferved in the Coptic and both the Syriac verfions. But if St. Paul really wrote Kolacca, we muft fuppote that it was thus written by the inhabitants themselves: for though he had never been there himself, when he wrote the Epiftle, yet Onefimus and Epaphras were with him at that time, who were both of them from this place, and therefore must have known its real name. For this reafon I wrote, in the preceding editions of this Introduction, Epistle to the Colaffians:' but as this mode of writing met with difapprobation, as being different from the common cuftom, and it is of very little importance, in what The Epiftle was alfo fent by the hands of Onefimus. The que ion might be determined with greater certainty, if ancient infcriptions could be discovered in the plac where this city flood. The place might be eafily found, for it is clearly determined by being at the conflux of the Lycus and the Meander, what manner the name be written, I write at present Epistle to the Coloffians.' The Chriftian community in Coloffa, Laodicea, and Hierapolis, cities which lay in the neighbourhood of each other, but which have been long fince deftroyed, were clolely connected, as may be naturally fuppofed from their fituation, and as appears from Col. iv. 13. where all three are mentioned together. From Col. ii. 1. we fee that St. Paul, when he wrote this Epistle, had been neither at Coloffa, nor at Laodicea: and therefore he was concerned for their fafety, on hearing that they were in danger of being feduced by falfe teachers. It is true that he had twice travelled through Phrygia: but, as this was a very extenfive country, we muft not infer, that he visited every city in it. Coloffæ efpecially, as being only a small town, he might very eafily have left unnoticed ; and if we have any reafon to wonder, it is that he did not vifit Laodicea, because this was the capital of Phrygia. But if we examine a good map of Phrygia, efpecially that of D'Anville, we fhall not think it extraordinary that St. Paul in neither of his two journies through Phrygia went even to Laodicea: for it appears from the two paffages juft quoted from the Acts of the Apostles that his route lay each time through the north of Phrygia, whereas Laodicea, as well as Coloffæ and Hierapolis, were fituate in the fouthern part of that country. The first time that he went through Phrygia, (Acts xvi. 6. 7.) he came from Derbe, which was about four degrees to the east of Coloffa, and travelled through Phrygia and Galatia, the boundary of which countries is between the 39th and 40th degrees of latitude : thence he came into Myfia, which lay nearly in the fame latitude, and intended to go into Bithynia, which lay to the north of Phrygia. The route therefore, which he took from Derbe, nuft have been through the northern part of Phrygia. On his fecond journey (Acts xviii. 23.) he likewife travelled through Galatia, as well as Phrygia. We must conclude therefore, that his route lay then alfo through the northern parts: and this is confirmed by ¤ Aûts xvi. 6. xviii. 23. what what St. Luke fays, ch. xix. 1, where he exprefsly relates that St. Paul travelled through the upper parts, (Ta RINTEOIXa μeen), that is, the northern diftricts of Afia Minor. But the latitude of Coloffe was about 38, and therefore one or two degrees to the fouth of St. Paul's road whence it appears, that St. Paul's having twice travelled through Phrygia by no means implies that he vifited Coloffa, St. Paul himself fays in his Epistle to the Coloffians, ch. ii. 1. as plainly, I think, as words can imply, that when he wrote this Epiftle, he had never been either at Coloffa, or at Laodicea, But Lardner, and before him Theodoret, have endeavoured to interpret this paffage, so as to make it imply the contrary". The words of St. Paul are, Θελω γαρ ύμας ειδέναι ἡλικον αγωνα εχω περι ύμων, και των εν Λαοδίκεια, και όσοι εχ έωρακασι το προσωπον με εν Gaga. It is obvious therefore, as it appears to me at leaft, that the Coloffians and the Laodiceans were reckoned by St. Paul among thofe, who had never feen him in perfon. But Lardner confiders the latter clause as an antithefis, and as opposed to the Coloffians and Laodiceans: whence he argues that thefe had really feen St. Paul in perfon. Now this interpretation does violence, not only to the grammatical conftruction, but likewife In the Supplement to his Credibility of the Gospel History, vol. II. ch. 14. Lardner has brought feveral arguments to prove, that St. Paul had been at Coloffe, long before he wrote this Epiftle, and that he himself founded the church there. His arguments have not convinced me of the truth of this opinion: but whether it be right, or no:, I leave to the decifion of the reader. I must make however one obfervation on his ninth argument, which he deduces from Col. iii. 16. where St. Paul fays: teaching and admonishing one another in pfalms, and hymns, and fpiritual fongs, finging with grace in your hearts to the Lord.' This thews, as Lardner fays, that the Coloffians were endowed with fpiritual gifts and that as fpiritual gifts could be communicated only by Apottles, the Coloffians must have received them from St. Paul. But this paliage really fhews no fuch thing: it fhews that the Coloffians had the power, not of making, but only of finging, fpiritual fongs; and if this requires a fupernatural endowment, every man who fings the pfalms of David muft have a fupernatural endowment. Befides, if the paffage really implied what Lardner fuppofes, it would not prove that St. Paul had been at Coloffe: for fome individuals of the Coloffian community might have feen St. Paul in other places, and have there received from him fpiritual gifts. |