The Expositor's Bible: The Epistle to the EphesiansFindlay, George G. (George Gillanders)
Religion
The Expositor's Bible: The Epistle to the Ephesians
Findlay, George G. (George Gillanders)
Bible. Ephesians -- Commentaries
Criticism has attempted to derive first one and then the other of the
two from its fellow,--thus, in effect, stultifying itself. Finally Dr.
Holtzmann, in his _Kritik der Epheser-und Kolosserbriefe_,[11] undertook
to show that each epistle was in turn dependent on the other. There is,
Holtzmann says, a Pauline nucleus hidden in Colossians, which he has
himself extracted. By its aid some ecclesiastic of genius in the second
century composed the Ephesian epistle. He then returned to the brief
Colossian writing of St Paul, and worked it up, with his own Ephesian
composition lying before him, into our existing epistle to the
Colossians. This complicated and too ingenious hypothesis has not
satisfied any one except its author, and need not detain us here. But
Holtzmann has at any rate made good, against his predecessors on the
negative side, the unity of origin of the two canonical epistles, the
fact that they proceed from one mint and coinage. They are _twin_
epistles, the offspring of a single birth in the apostle’s mind. Much of
their subject-matter, especially in the ethical section, is common to
both. The glory of the Christ and the greatness of the Church are truths
inseparable in the nature of things, wedded to each other. To the
confession, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” His
response ever is, “_I will build my Church_.”[12] The same
correspondence exists between these two epistles in the dialectic
movement of the apostle’s thought.
At the same time, there is a considerable difference between the two
writings in point of style. M. Renan, who accepts Colossians from Paul’s
hand, and who admits that “among all the epistles bearing the name of
Paul the epistle to the Ephesians is perhaps that which has been most
anciently cited as a composition of the apostle of the Gentiles,” yet
speaks of this epistle as a “verbose amplification” of the other, “a
commonplace letter, diffuse and pointless, loaded with useless words and
repetitions, entangled and overgrown with irrelevancies, full of
pleonasms and obscurities.”[13]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account