Quite plain is it, by the very hypothesis, that one of two courses alone remains open to them in editing the text: either (1) To leave a blank space after τοῖς οὔσιν: or else, (2) To let the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ stand,—which I respectfully suggest is the wisest thing they can do. [For with Conybeare and Howson (Life and Letters of S. Paul, ii. 491), to eject the words “at Ephesus” from the text of Ephes. i. 1, and actually to substitute in their room the words “in Laodicea,”—is plainly abhorrent to every principle of rational criticism. The remarks of C. and H. on this subject (pp. 486 ff) have been faithfully met and sufficiently disposed of by Dean Alford (vol. iii. Prolegg. pp. 13-8); who infers, “in accordance with the prevalent belief of the Church in all ages, that this Epistle was veritably addressed to the Saints in Ephesus, and to no other Church.”] In the former case, they will be exhibiting a curiosity; viz. they will be shewing us how (they think) a duplicate (“carta bianca”) copy of the Epistle looked with “the space after τοῖς οὔσι left utterly void:” in the latter, they will be representing the archetypal copy which was sent to the Metropolitan see of Ephesus. But by printing the text thus,—τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν [ἐν Ἐφέσω] καὶ πιστοῖς κ.τ.λ., they are acting on an entirely different theory. They are merely testifying their mistrust of the text of every MS. in the world except Codd. B and א. This is clearly to forsake the “Encyclical” hypothesis altogether, and to put Ephes. i. 1 on the same footing as any other disputed text of Scripture which can be named.
“On the whole,” says Bishop Middleton, (Doctrine of the Greek Art. p. 355) “I see nothing so probable as the opinion of Macknight (on Col. iv. 16,)—‘that the Apostle sent the Ephesians word by Tychicus, who carried their letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans; with an order to them to communicate it to the Colossians.’ ”—This suggestion is intended to meet another difficulty, and leaves the question of the reading of Ephes. i. 1 untouched. It proposes only to explain what S. Paul means by the enigmatical expression which is found in Col. iv. 16.
Macknight's suggestion, though it has found favour with many subsequent Divines, appears to me improbable in a high degree. S. Paul is found not to have sent the Colossians “word by Tychicus, who carried their letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans.” He charged them, himself, to do so. Why, at the same instant, is the Apostle to be thought to have adopted two such different methods of achieving one and the same important end? And why, instead of this roundabout method of communication, were not the Ephesians ordered,—if not by S. Paul himself, at least by Tychicus,—to send a copy of their Epistle to Colosse direct? And why do we find the Colossians charged to read publicly τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας, which (by the hypothesis) would have been only a copy,—instead of τὴν ἐξ Ἐφέσου, which, (by the same hypothesis,) would have been the original? Nay, why is it not designated by S. Paul, τὴν πρὸς Ἐφεσίους,—(if indeed it was his Epistle to the Ephesians which is alluded to,) instead of τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας; which would hardly be an intelligible way of indicating the document? Lastly, why are not the Colossians ordered to communicate a copy of their Epistle to the illustrious Church of the Ephesians also, which had been originally addressed by S. Paul? If the Colossians must needs read the Epistle (so like their own) which the Apostle had just written to the Ephesians, surely the Ephesians must also be supposed to have required a sight of the Epistle which S. Paul had at the same time written to the Colossians!
One is rather surprised to find the facts of the case so unfairly represented in addressing unlearned readers; who are entitled to the largest amount of ingenuousness, and to entire sincerity of statement. The facts are these:—
(1) Valentt. (apud Irenæum), (2) Clemens Alex., and (3) Theodotus (apud Clem.) read ἔστι: but then (1) Irenæus himself, (2) Clemens Alex., and (3) Theodotus (apud Clem.) also read ἦν. These testimonies, therefore, clearly neutralize each other. Cyprian also has both readings.—Hippolytus, on the other hand, reads ἔστι; but Origen, (though he remarks that ἔστι is “perhaps not an improbable reading,”) reads ἦν ten or eleven times. Ἦν is also the reading of Eusebius, of Chrysostom, of Cyril, of Nonnus, of Theodoret,—of the Vulgate, of the Memphitic, of the Peshito, and of the Philoxenian Versions; as well as of B, A, C,—in fact of all the MSS. in the world, except of א and D.
All that remains to be set on the other side are the Thebaic and Cureton's Syriac, together with most copies of the early Latin.
And now, with the evidence thus all before us, will any one say that it is lawfully a question for discussion which of these two readings must exhibit the genuine text of S. John i. 4? (For I treat it as a question of authority, and reason from the evidence,—declining to import into the argument what may be called logical considerations; though I conceive them to be all on my side.) I suspect, in fact, that the inveterate practice of the primitive age of reading the place after the following strange fashion,—ὁ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, was what led to this depravation of the text. Cyril in his Commentary [heading of lib. i, c. vi.] so reads S. John i. 3, 4. And to substitute ἐστί (for ἦν) in such a sentence as that, was obvious.... Chrysostom's opinion is well known, “Let us beware of putting the full stop” (he says) “at the words οὐδὲ ἐν,—as do the heretics.” [He alludes to Valentinus, Heracleon (Orig. Opp. i. 130), and to Theodotus (apud Clem. Alex.). But it must be confessed that Irenæus, Hippolytus (Routh, Opusc. i. 68), Clemens Alex., Origen, Concil. Antioch. (A.D. 269, Routh iii. 293), Theophilus Antioch., Athanasius, Cyril of Jer.,—besides of the Latins, Tertullian, Lactantius, Victorinus (Routh iii. 459), and Augustine,—point the place in the same way. “It is worth our observation,” (says Pearson,) “that Eusebius citing the place of S. John to prove that the Holy Ghost was made by the Son, leaves out those words twice together by which the Catholics used to refute that heresy of the Arians, viz. ὁ γέγονεν.”]
Chrysostom proceeds,—“In order to make out that the Spirit is a creature, they read Ὁ γέγονε, ἐν αὐτῳ ζωὴ ἦν; by which means, the Evangelist's language is made unintelligible.” (Opp. viii. 40.)—This punctuation is nevertheless adopted by Tregelles,—but not by Tischendorf. The Peshito, Epiphanius (quoted in Pearson's note, referred to infrà), Cyprian, Jerome and the Vulgate divide the sentence as we do.—See by all means on this subject Pearson's note (z), Art. viii, (ii. p. 262 ed. Burton). Also Routh's Opusc. i. 88-9.
It may not be altogether useless that I should follow this famous Critic of the text of the N. T. over the ground which he has himself chosen. He challenges attention for the four following readings of the Codex Sinaiticus:—
(1.) S. John i. 4: εν αυτω ζωη εστιν.—(2.) S. Matth. xiii. 35: το ρηθεν δια ησαιου του προφετου.—(3.) S. John xiii. 10: ο λελουμενος ουχ εχι χρειαν νιψασθαι.—(4.) S. John vi. 51: αν τις φαγη εκ του εμου αρυου, ζησει εις τον αιωνα;—ο αρτος ον εγω δωσω υπερ της του κοσμου ζωης η σαρξ μου εστιν. (And this, Dr. Teschendorf asserts to be “indubitably correct.”)