meaning that would thus be the result, it is very doubtful whether that rendering can be accepted as grammatically justifiable. None of the few instances which are adduced in support of the contention that πᾶς without the article can mean “the whole” can be said to be free of doubt. Some, 6.Ρ., πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα (Matt. ii. 3), πᾶς Ισραήλ (Rom. xi. 26), are not pertinent, inasmuch as the nouns are proper names. Others are almost equally doubtful for other reasons, 6.6., ἐπὶ παντὸς προσώπου τῆς γῆς (Acts xvii. 26), where the phrase πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς has much the force of a proper name, there being only one such thing. The same in effect is the case with πᾶν σῶμα in a passage of Aristotle which has been very confidently appealed to, viz., Set τὸν πολιτικὸν εἰδέναι πῶς τὰ περὶ ψυχῆς ' ὥσπερ καὶ τὸν ὀφθαλμοὺς θεραπεύοντα, καὶ πᾶν σῶμα (Eth. Nic., i. 18, 7). Por σῶμα is used there not in the sense of any particular body, but in that of body as distinguished from soul. If the sentence must be translated in accordance with the stated force of πᾶς in conjunction with an anarthrous noun, οἱ2., as = “in every letter,” it cannot safely be concluded that Ignatius had in his mind a particular Epistle of St. Paul’s known to be addressed to the Ephesians. It would be strange, indeed, as Professor Abbott remarks (ut sup., p. xi), that if Ignatius wished to remind the Ephesians of Paul’s regard for them he should “ only refer to the mention of them in other Epistles, and not at all to that which had been specially addressed to them”. But allowing this contested passage to stand aside, we find Ignatius elsewhere using words or phrases which appear to indicate an acquaintance with characteristic expressions in our Epistle, such as πλήρωμα, προορίζεσθαι, ἐκλέγειν, θέλημα τοῦ Πατρός, λίθοι ναοῦ πατρός, ἡτοιμασμένοι εἰς οἰκοδομὴν Θεοῦ πατρός (chap. ix. ; cf. Eph. ii, 20-22), μιμηταὶ ὄντες τοῦ Θεοῦ (chap. i. ; cf Eph. ν. 1).
The witness of Polycarp, Hermas and Hippolytus is also of some significance. In Polycarp we have two passages which have all the appearance of quotations from our Epistle or reminiscences of its terms, viZ.:; χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι, οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων (Ep. ad Philipp., chap. i.; cf. Eph. ii. 5, 8, 9); and (in the Latin form, the Greek not being extant) “ ut his scripturis dictum est, ivascimini et nolite peccare et sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram” (chap. xii.; cf. Eph. iv. 26). In Hermas, not to mention other sentences which are less definite, we have ἴπεςε---μηδὲ λύπην ἐπάγειν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ σεμνῷ καὶ ἀληθεῖ (Mand. ; cf. Eph. iii. 30); and ἔσονται εἰς ἓν πνεῦμα καὶ ἕν σῶμα (Sim., ix., 13; cf. Eph. iv. 4, 5). From Hippolytus we gather that Eph. iii, 4-18 was quoted as γραφή by the Valentinians (Philos., vi., 34).
The judgments of scholars have differed and no doubt will con- tinue to differ as to the relevancy and the value of these testimonies.