o.ble, of tho Ephesian and Roman Epistles, and of St. Paul's earlier writings generally; but not, o.s we think, of the Pastoral Epistles, nor of Philippi ans. This dependence of 1 Peter on the Pauline Epistles presents e. curious and interesting problem. The key to its solution may probably be found, in part, in the reference of eh. iv.10 (see note in loc.) to Me.rk, who was present with St. Paul when he wrote to the Asiatic Churches, and was at that time contemplating a journey to the East; and who is found again at Babylon with St. Peter, when, at a date probably but little later, he is inditing his general Epistle addressed to the same quarter. The links which connect this Epistle with the other letters of St. Paul are too numerous and varied to be here set forth in detail. They pervade the entire texture of the Epistle, and extend not only to the general corre- spondence of thought and manner, which is apparent on the surface, but also to those finer idiosyncrasies of sentiment and nuances of style which infallibly betray the author, whatever variety of subject-matter, and of logical method and phraseology, his writings may present. This Epistle is linked to the rest by a network of coincidences of this nature, which embraces every one of the canonical Pauline Epistles, saving only that to the Hebrews. It has been one object of this Exposition to exhibit these correspondences as fully as possible. The student who will take any single section of this Epistle, and work out its lines of connection with the other Epistles, will gain an impression of its genuineness, and of the sure and solid way in which it is braced into the fabric of Pauline teaching and theology, such as can scarcely otherwise be obtained.
§ 8. AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTL~. It is the less necessary to defend the authenticity of this Epistle, assailed first by Mayerhoff (1838) and then more dangerously by Ba.nr, since Holtz- mann and Pfleiderer, the ablest representatives of the school of Baur who have dealt with the subject, acknowledge that "there is so much that is genuinely Pauline in it, that it is almost impossible to regard the whole of the Epistle as a later production." Its partial authenticity being allowed, the course of the Exposition will show that the Epistle is thoroughly consecutive, and is entirely a unity from beginning to end. Critics so frco from orthodox predilections and of such different schools as Do W ettc, Renan, and Ewald, acknowledge that it bears the stamp of Paul throughout. Holtzmann has attempted, in his ' Kritik der Epheser- u. Kolosserbriefe' (Leipzig, 1872), to recover the original Pauline nucleus by a learned and ingenious process of critical dissection. His analysis is rejected by Pflei- derer, who holds the interpolation theory, but gives no definite expression or thorough grounding to it (' Paulinism,' English trans., vol. ii. pp. 95-119; Pfleiderer's treatment of the subject-matter is, in many respects, remarkably clear and instructive). Klopper, in his full and impartial Commentary, has xiv INTRODUCTION 'l'O
eXRminc>d R-nd effectually draposed of Holtzmann's reconstruct.ion (ss. 25- 42). The chief objections made against the Pauline authorship on internal grounds have been met by anticipation in the preceding sections. "The ~emal testimony to our Epist.le is so ancient and unbroken and general, that from this side no well-founded doubt can be raised" (Meyer). It appears in the Muratol'ian Canon, the earliest deta,iled .list of the New Testa.ment writings, drawn up about the end of the second century. The Church Fathers of the second and third centuries, lrenmus, Tertullian, t-he Alexandrian Clement, and Origen, quote it repeatedly and amply, in the form in which we possess it, without hesitation or variation, as .a woz,k of the Apostle Paul and an authoritative Church document. From Tertullian and lrenrens we lea.rn that it wa.s acknowledged by Marcion a_nd •by the: , alentinian school of Gnostics in the first half of the second century. And, before the s.ge when formal q uotat.ion of the New Testament Script1J.res began, in the Epistles of the earlier Clement, of Barnabas, and of Ignatius, belonging to snb-a.postolic times, and in the writings of J11Stin Jilartyr and of Theophilus (' Ad Autolycum ') amongst their successors, there are expressions which appear to show an acquaintance with the Epistle.
§ 9. RECENT COMMENTARIES ..
Amongst available commentaries on this most ·difficult Epistle,·, Bishop Lightfoot's masterly work is pre-eminent in all that belongs to its historical and doctrinal elucidation. Every page of the present Exposition testifies to the writer's obligations to this work. Meyer displays here even more than his wonted thoroughness and acumen. It is needless to say that Ellicott and Alford should be diligently consulted. The latter, in his hand- ling of this Epistle, shows remarkable independence and SOl!,Dc¼iess of jndgment. Hofmann is always keen and suggestive. Klopper's; latest work (' Der Brief an d. Colosser, kritisch ~tersncht n. s. w;;• Berlin, 1882) is valuable for its ample and luminous discussion of the leading exegetical questions, and of recent critical theories of the Epistle. The writer is glad to find himself supported by Klopper on several points on which he has been compelled to dissent from other authorities, and regrets that this work was not earlier to hand. Valuable aid will be fourid in Eadie's and Ll. Davies' expositions, and in the 'Speaker's Commentary,' and the 'New Testament Commentary for English Readers.'
§ 10. ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE.
Tht main division of the Epistle evidently falls at the end of the second chapter. Its first half is chiefly doctrinal and polemical ; the second, hortatory and practical. It is divided in the following Exposition into ton 6E:Cti0n.s ; - THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANR. xv