522
Il.
€ ti. 20; Gal.® φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
iv. 3, cf.
νεο. κατὰ τὰ " στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου καὶ οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν ' 9. ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ
Pet. iii. 10, 12; Heb. v. 12.
lack of any indication that Paul had two evils to attack. The meaning is “ his philosophy, which is vain deceit”. The word has, of course, no reference to Greek philosophy, and probably none to the allegorical method of Scripture exegesis that the false teachers may have employed. Philo uses it of the law of Judaism, and Josephus of the three Jewish sects. Here, no doubt, it means just the false teaching that threat- ened to undermine the faith of the Church. There is no condemnation of philosophy in itself, but simply of the empty, but plausible, sham that went by that name at Colosse. Hort thinks that the sense is akin to the later usage of the word to denote the ascetic life—kxara τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων: ‘according to human tradition" as opposed to Divine revelation. Meyer, Ellicott and Findlay connect with σνλαγ. It is more usual to connect with ἀπ. or τ. Φιλ. κ. κεν. ἀπ. The last is perhaps best. It indicates the source from which their teaching was drawn.—«atTa τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κ . [On this phrase the following authorities may be referred to: Hilgenfeld, Galater- brief, pp. 66sq.; Lipsius, Paul. Rechtf., p. 83; Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers,’ ii., 252; Klépper, ad loc. ; Spitta, 2 Pet. ce Aen 263 sq.; Everling, Paul. Angel. u. Dam., pp. ὅς sq.; Haupt, ad loc. ; Abbott, ad loc. The best and fullest account in English is Massie’s article ‘‘ Elements” in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible. To these may now be added St. John Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Fewish T. ht, pp. 163-170, and Deissmann’s article ‘ Ele- ments” in the Encyclopedia Biblica.] Originally or. meant the letters of the alphabet, then in Plato and later writers the physical elements, and lastly (but only from the first century Α.Ρ.) the rudi- ments of knowl It has been fre- quently taken in this sense as the A B C of religious knowledge (so recently Mey., Lightf., Ol., Cremer and many others). This explanation had, however, been attacked by Neander with powerful argu- ments in his discussion of the parallel pas- sage Gal. iv. 3. (Planting and Training, i., 465, 466, cf. 323 [Bohn’s ed.].) He pointed out that if or. meant first prin- ciples we should have had a genitive of the object, as in Heb. v. 12, or. τ. ἀρχῆς
τ. λογίων. Such an omission of the leading idea is inadmissible. Further, Paul regarded the heathen as enslaved under στ. τ. κόσ. and their falling away to Jewish rites as a return to this slavery. Therefore the expression must apply to something both had in common, and something condemned by Paul, which cannot be the first principles of religion (to which also ἀσθενῆ would be inappro- priate), but the ceremonial observances, which were so called as earthly and material. It has been further pointed out by Klépper that following κατὰ τ. παρ. τ. ἀνθρ. this term introduced by κατὰ and not connected by καὶ must express the content of the teaching, which is not very suitable if “ religious rudiments” is the meaning. Nor is it true that the false teachers gave elemen- tary instruction. If this view be set aside, as suiting neither the expression in itself nor the context in which it occurs, the question arises whether we should return to the interpretation of several Fathers, that the heavenly bodies are referred to. These were called στοιχεῖα (examples are given in Valesius on Eus. H. Ε., v., 24, Hilg. 1.ς.).. This is favoured by the reference to “ days, and months, and seasons, and io Gal. iv. 11, immediately following the mention of στ. in ver. το, for these were regulated by the heavenly bodies. But it is unsatisfactory, for the context in which the expression occurs, especially in Galatians, points to personal beings. In this passage the contrast of στ. τ. κ. with Χριστόν is fully satisfied only if the former are personal. In Gal. iv. 3 Paul applies the illustration of the heir under ‘guardians and stewards” to the pre- Christian world under the στ. τ. κ., and here again a personal reference is forcibly suggested. Still more is this the case with Gal, iv. 8,9. In ver. 8 Paul says ἐδουλεύσατε τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσι θεοῖς. In the next verse he asks “ how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly στ.» to which you wish to be in νο - (δουλεῦσαι) over in?” This clearly identifies τ. στ. with τ. φύσ. μὴ οὖσι θεοῖς, and therefore proves their per- sonality, which is suggested also by ἐδονλ.; accordingly they cannot be the heavenly bodies or the physical ele- ments of the world. Hilgenfeld, followed