243
ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ ο ΘΔ]. 131.
' Χρ. before Ino. Β.
belong to the text of the manuscripts followed by Origen early in the third century, nor to that of those mentioned by Basil about a century and a half later. The omission is supported also to some extent by a statement made by Tertullian regarding Marcion; and more decidedly by the general character of the Epistle (its lack of personal references, salutations to individuals, etc.), as well as by the difficulty of understanding why the phrase should have been dropped if it did be- long to the original text. Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort and others, there- fore, bracket it in their texts; Tregelles brackets it in his margin and the Revisers give it as an alternative reading in their margin.
If ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ is retained, allis plain. If the hypothesis is accepted (on which see Introduction) that a blank space was left after the τοῖς οὖσιν to be filled in with the names, each in its turn, of the particular Churches in the Province of Asia to which the letter came in its rounds among the congregations, all still remains plain. But if the clause is omitted and if the hypothesis mentioned is not accepted, a difficulty arises in dealing with the combination τοῖς οὖσιν καὶ πιστοῖς. There are far-fetched expedients which need only to be named in order to be dismissed—such as Origen’s notion that thé τοῖς οὖσιν has a transcendental sense, meaning that the saints ARE, as God is called I AM, and expressing the idea, as it may be, that they are those who have been called out of non-existence into real existence or an existence worthy of the name; and the somewhat similar idea that the tots οὖσιν denotes the reality of their sainthood: ‘‘ the saints who are really such”’; or the reality of their saint- hood and faith: ‘‘ the saints and believers who are truly such’. The choice lies between two explanations, viz., (1) ‘‘to the saints who are also believers in Christ Jesus,” and (2) ‘“‘to the saints who are also faithful in Christ Jesus”. The for- mer gives to πιστοῖς the special New Testament sense which it has in such Pauline passages as 2 Cor. vi. 15; Gal. lii. 9; 2 Tim. iv. 3; Titus Ἱ. 6. It takes the term to be added in order to com- plete the description of the readers as Christians—not merely set apart, as might be the case with Jews (the τοῖς
ἁγίοις by itself not going necessarily beyond the OT idea and the Israelite relation), but specifically believers in Christ. The latter gives the adjec- tive the sense of trustworthy, stead- fast, which is its classical sense, but which it also has in a later passage of this Epistle (vi. 21), in other Pauline Epistles (Col) iv. ο τ πι 1. το 2 Tim. ii. 2), and occasionally elsewhere ὙΠ ἘΠΕ ΝΕ (2:2.,.00 bet. va το Πες, ii.17). The term thus defines the readers, who are understood to be Christians, as faithful, constant in their Christian pro- fession. This is favoured by the desig- nation of the brethren in Col. i. 2, which is the closest parallel and in which the πιστοῖς seems to have the sense of faith- ful. It is objected that, if this were the meaning, the πιστοῖς should have been followed by the simple dative Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, as in Heb. 11. 2. In like mannet it is objected to the former explanation that in connecting the πιστοῖς immedi- ately with the ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ‘‘ be- lieving in Christ Jesus,” it has usage against it, πιστὸς ἐν not being found in that sense in the NT although we find πίστις ἐν occasionally in‘ Pauline pas- sages (Eph. i. 15; Gal. iii. 26) and πισ- τεύειν ἐν at least once elsewhere (Mk. i. 15). Butin point of fact the ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ is best taken here in the definite Pauline sense which it has as an inde- pendent phrase expressing a distinct and profound idea—that of fellowship or union with Christ, or standing in Him. It is doubtful whether ic is meant to qualify both the ἁγίοις and the πιστοῖς (so Abbott, etc.). More probably it qualifies the nearer adjective, and expresses the fact that it is in virtue of their union with Christ that the readers are πιστοί. Their constancy has its meaning and its life in their fellowship with Him. Of the two explanations the second is to be preferred on the whole (with Lightfoot, etc.), al- though the first has the support of Meyer, Ellicott, etc.