English Versions (continued) – Ephphatha

English Versions (continued)

35. The Revised Version (1881-1895). The textual article above referred to describes the process of accumulation of materials which began with the coming of the Codex Alexandriuus to London in 1625, and continues to the present day, and the critical use made of these materials in the 19th century; and the story need not be repeated here. It was not until the progress of criticism had revealed the defective state of the received Greek text of the NT that any movement arose for the revision of the AV. About the year 1855 the question began to be mooted in magazine articles and motions in Convocation, and by way of bringing it to a head a small group of scholars [Dr. ElUcott, afterwards bishop of Gloucester, Dr. Moberly, head master of Winchester and afterwards bishop of SaUsbury, Dr. Barron, principal of St. Edmund’s Hall, Oxford, the Rev. H. Alford, afterwards dean of Canterbury, and the Rev. W. G. Humphrey; with the Rev. E. Hawkins, secretary of the S.P.G., and afterwards canon of Westminster, as their secretary] undertook a revision of the AV of Jn., which was published in 1857. Six of the Epistles followed in 1861 and 1863, by which time the object of the work, in calling attention to the need and the possibility of a revision, had been accomplished. Meanwhile a great stimulus to the interest in textual criticism had been given by the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus, and by the work of Tischendorf and Tregelles. In Feb. 1870 a motion for a committee to consider the desirableness of a revision was adopted by both Houses of the Convocation of Canterbury; and definite motions in favour of such a revision were passed in the following May. The Convocation of York did not concur, and thenceforward the Southern Houses proceeded alone. A committee of both Houses drew up the lists of revisers, and framed the rules for their guidance. The OT company consisted of 25 (afterwards 27) members, the NT of 26. The rules prescribed the introduction of as few alterations in the AV as possible consistently with faithfulness; the text to be adopted for which the evidence is decidedly preponderating, and when it differs from that from which the AV was made, the alteration to be indicated in the margin (this rule was found impracticable); alterations to be made on the first revision by simple majorities, but to be retained only if passed by a two-thirds majority on the second revision. Both companies commenced work at Westminster on June 22, 1870. The NT company met on 407 days in the course of eleven years, the OT company on 792 days in fifteen years. Early in the work the co-operation of American scholars was invited, and in consequence two companies of 15 and 16 members respectively were formed, which began work in 1872, considering the results of the English revision as each section of it was forwarded to them. The collaboration of the Enghsh and American companies was perfectly harmonious; and by agreement those recommendations of the American Revisers which were not adopted by the English companies, but to which the proposers nevertheless wished to adhere, were printed in an appendix to the published Bible. Publication took place, in the case of the NT, on May 17, 1881, and in the case of the canonical books of the OT almost exactly four years later. The revision of the Apocrypha was divided between the two English companies, and was taken up by each company on the completion of its main work. The NT company distributed Sirach, Tob., Jud., Wisd., 1 and 2 Mac. among three groups of its members, and the OT company appointed a small committee to deal with the remaining books. The work dragged on over many years, involving some inequalities in revision, and ultimately the Apocrypha was published in 1895.

36. In dealing with the OT the Revisers were not greatly concerned with questions of text. The Massoretic Hebrew text available in 1870 was substantially the same as that which King James’ translators had before them; and the criticism of the LXX version was not sufficiently advanced to enable them safely to make much use of it except in marginal notes. Their work consisted mainly in the correction of mistranslations which imperfect Hebrew scholarship had left in the AV. Their changes as a rule are slight, but tend very markedly to remove obscurities and to improve the intelligibility of the translation. The gain is greatest in the poetical and prophetical books (poetical passages are throughout printed as such, which in itself is a great improvement), and there cannot be much doubt that if the revision of the OT had stood by itseU it would have been generally accepted without much opposition. With the new version of the NT the case was different. The changes were necessarily more numerous than in the OT, and the greater familiarity with the NT possessed by readers in general made the alterations more conspicuous. The NT Revisers had, in effect, to form a new Greek text before they could proceed to translate it. In this part of their work they were largely influenced by the presence of Drs. Westcott and Hort, who, as will be shown elsewhere (Text of the NT), were keen and convinced champions of the class of text of which the best representative is the Codex Vaticanus. At the same time Dr. Scrivener, who took a less advanced view of the necessity of changes in the Received Text, was also a prominent member of the company, and it is probably true that not many new readings were adopted which had not the support of Tischendorf and Tregelles, and which would not be regarded by nearly all scholars acquainted with textual criticism as preferable to those of the AV. To Westcott and Hort may be assigned a large part of the credit for leading the Revisers definitely along the path of critical science; but the Revisers did not follow their leaders the whole way, and their text (edited by Archdeacon Palmer for the Oxford Press in 1881) represents a more conservative attitude than that of the two great Cambridge scholars. Nevertheless the amount of textual change was considerable, and to this was added a very large amount of verbal change, sometimes (especially in the Epistles) to secure greater intelligibility, but oftener (and this is more noticeable in the Gospels) to secure uniformity in the translation of Greek words which the AV deliberately rendered differently in different places (even in parallel narratives of the same event), and precision in the representation of moods and tenses. It was to the great number of changes of this kind, which byithemselves appeared needless and pedantic, that most of the criticism bestowed upon the RV was due; but it must be remembered that where the words and phrases of a book are often strained to the uttermost in popular application, it is of great importance that those words and phrases should be as accurately rendered as possible. On the whole, it is certain that the RV marks a great advance on the AV in respect of accuracy, and the main criticisms to which it is justly open are that the principles of classical Greek were applied too rigidly to Greek which is not classical, and that the Revisers, in their careful attention to the Greek, were less happily inspired than their predecessors with the genius of the English language. These defects have no doubt militated against the general acceptance of the RV; but whether they continue to do so or not (and it is to be remembered that we have not yet passed through nearly so long a period as that during which the AV competed with the Geneva Bible or Jerome’s Vulgate with the Old Latin), it is certain that no student of the Bible can afford to neglect the assistance given by the RV towards the true understanding of the Scriptures. In so using it, it should be remembered that renderings which appear in the margin not infrequently represent the views of more than half the Revisers, though they failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority. This is perhaps especially the case in the OT, where the RV shows a greater adherence to the AV than in the NT.

37. It only remains to add that, after the lapse of the 14 years during which it was agreed that no separate American edition should be brought out, while the American appendix continued to appear in the English RV, the American revisers issued a fresh recension (NT in 1900, OT in 1901, without the Apocrypha), embodying not only the readings which appeared in their appendix to the English RV, but also others on which they had since agreed. It is unfortunate that the action originally taken by the English revisers with a view to securing that the two English-speaking nations should continue to have a common Bible should have brought about the opposite result; and though the alterations introduced by the American revisers eminently deserve consideration on their merits, it may be doubted whether the net result is important enough to justify the existence of a separate version. What influence it may have upon the history of the English Bible in the future it is for the future to decide.

Literature. — No detailed history of the manuscript English versions is in existence. A good summary of the pre- Wyclifite versions is given in the introduction to A. S. Cook’s B’SMcal Quotations in Old English Prose Writers, part 1 (1898); and the principal separate publications have been mentioned above. For the Wyclifite veraions the main authority ia the complete edition by J. Foishall and P. . Madden (4 vols., 1850); the NT in the later version was separately printed by Skeat ( 1879) . A good short conspectus of the subject is given in the introduction to the official Guide to the Wy cliffe Exhibition in the British Mu3eum(lS84) . The printed Bible has been much more fully investigated. The heat single authority is Bishop Westcott’s History of the English Bible (3rd ed., revised by W. Aldia Wright, 1905) ; see also the art. by J. H. Lupton in Hastings’ DB (Extra Vol., 1904); W. F. Moulton, History of the English Bible (2nd ed., 1884); and H. W. Hoare, The Evolution of the English Bible (2nd ed., 1902). The Printed English Bible, by R. Lovett(R.T.S.’ Present Day Primers,’ 1894) ia agood short history, and the same may be said of G. Milligan’a The English Bible (Church of Scotland Guild Text Books, new ed., 1907). For a bibliography of printed Bibles, see the section ‘Bible’ in the British Museum Catalogue (published separately), and the Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society, vol. i., by T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule (1903). For special and minute studies of certain parts of the subject, the works of F. Fry (The Bible by Coverdale, 1867, Description of the Great Bible, 1865, Bibliographical Description of the Editions of the NT, Tyndale’sVersion, 1878) and E. Arber (The First Printed English NT, 1871) are invaluable. Bagster’s English Hexapla (which can often be obtained second-hand) gives in parallel columns, beneath the Greek text as printed by Scholz, the NT according to ( 1 ) the second Wyclifite veraion; (2) Tindale, from the edition of 1534; (3) the Great Bible of 1539; (4) the Geneva NT of 1557; (5) the Rheims NT of 1582; and (,6) the AV of 1611. This gives the student a better idea of the evolution of the English Bible than any description. F. H. A. Scrivener’s Authorised Edition of the English Bible (1884) gives acareful and authoritative account of the various editions of the AV. For the history of the RV, see the Revisers’ prefaces and Bishop Ellicott’s BevisedVersionaf Holy Scripture (S.P.C.K. 1901). A more extensive bibliography is given in Dr. Lupton’s article in Hastings’ DB. F. C. Kenygn.

En-haddah

(Joshua 19:21). A city of Issachar noticed with En-gannim and Remeth; perhaps the present village Kefr Adhan on the edge of the Dothan plain, W. of En-gannim.

En-hakkore

En-hakkore (‘spring of the partridge’; cf. 1 S 262", Jeremiah 17:11). The name of a fountain at Lehi (Judges 15:19). The narrator (J (7)) of the story characteristically connects hakkori with the word yikra (‘he called’) of v. 18, and evidently interprets ‘En~hakkori as’ the spring of him that called.’ The whole narrative is rather obscure, and the tr. in some instances doubtful. The situation of En-hakkOrg is also quite uncertain.

En-hazor

En-hazor (‘spring of Razor,’ Joshua 19:37). A town of Naphtali, perhaps the mod. Hazlreh, on the W. slopes of the mountains of Upper Galilee, W. of Kedesh.

En-sqshpat

En-sqshpat (‘spring of judgment,’ or ‘decision’ (by oracle), Genesis 14:7). — A name for Kadesh — probably Kadesh-barnea. See Kadesh.

Ennatan

Ennatan (AV Etmatan), 1 Esdras 8:44. See Elnathan.

Enoch

Enoch (Heb. ChanSk) is the ‘seventh from Adam’ (Jude") in the Sethite genealogy of Genesis 5 (see vv. 18–24) In the Cainite genealogy of 4:17 ff. he is the son of Cain, and therefore the third from Adam. The resemblances between the two lists seem to show that they rest on a common tradition, preserved in different forms by J (ch. 4) and P (ch. 5)., though it is not possible to say which version is the more original. — The notice which invests the figure of Enoch with its peculiar significance is found in 5:24 ‘Enoch walked with God ; and he was not, for God took him.’ The idea here suggested — that because of his perfect fellowship with God this patriarch was ‘translated’ to heaven without tasting death (cf. Sirach 44:16 49:14, Hebrews 11:5) — appears to have exerted a certain Influence on the OT doctrine of immortality (see Psalms 49:15 73:24). — A much fuller tradition is presupposed by the remarkable development of the Enoch legend in the Apocalyptic literature, where Enoch appears as a preacher of repentance, a prophet of future events, and the recipient of supernatural knowledge of the secrets of heaven and earth, etc. The origin of this tradition has probably been discovered in a striking Babylonian parallel. The seventh name in the list of ten antediluvian kings given by Berosus is Evedoranchus, which (it seems certain) is a corruption of Enmeduranki, a king of Sippar who was received into the fellowship of Shamash (the sun-god) and Ramman, was initiated into the mysteries of heaven and earth, and became the founder of a guild of priestly diviners. When or how this myth became known to the Jews we cannot tell. A trace of an original connexion with the sun-god has been suspected in the 365 years of Enoch’s life (the number of days in the solar year). At all events it is highly probable that the Babylonian legend contains the germ of the later conception of Enoch as embodied in the apocalyptic Book of Enoch (c. B.C. 105-64), and the later Book of the Secrets of Enoch, on which see Hastings’ DB i. 705(1. — A citation from the Book of Enoch occurs in Jude "‘■ ( = En 1 5:4. 27:2). J. Skinner.

Enosh

Enosh (Gu 4 J, 5:6–11 P), ENOS (Luke 3). The name is poetical, denoting ‘man’; the son of Seth, and grandson of Adam. As the time of Cain was marked by sin and violence, so that of Seth was marked by piety. In the days of Enosh men began to ‘call with the name of J",’ i.e. to use His name in invocations. The name J" having been known practically from the beginning of human life, the writer (J) always employs it in preference to the title ‘Elohim.’ In E (Exodus 3:14) and P (6:2 f.) it was not revealed till long afterwards. A. H. M’Neile.

En-rdimon

(‘spring of [the] pomegranate’). One of the settlements of the Judahites after the return from the Exile (Nehemiah 11:29). In Joshua 15:32 amongst the towns assigned to Judah we find ‘Ain and Kimmon,’ and in 19:7 (ct. 1 Chronicles 4) amongst those assigned to Simeon are ‘Ain, Rimmon.’ In all these instances there can be little doubt that we ought to read En-rimmon. En-rimmon is probably to be identified with the modern Umm er- Rumamin, about 9 miles N. of Beersheba.

En-rogei

En-rogei i (‘spring of the fuller’).— In the border of the territory of Judah (Joshua 15:7) and Benjamin (18:16). It was outside Jerusalem; and David’s spies, Jonathan and Ahimaaz, were here stationed in quest of news of the revolt of Absalom (2 Samuel 17:17). Here Adonijah made a feast ‘by the stone of Zoheleth,’ when he endeavoured to seize the kingdom (1 Kings 1:9). The identification of this spring lies between two places, the Virgin’s Fountain and Job’s Well, both in the Kidron Valley. The strongest argument for the former site is its proximity to a cliff face called Zahweileh, in which an attempt has been made to recognize Zoheleth. This, however, is uncertain, as Zahweileh is a cliff, not an isolated stone. R. A. S. Macalister.

Ensaiytple

‘Ensample’ and ‘example’ (both from Lat. exemplum) are both used in AV. Tindale has ‘ensample’ only, and so all the Eng. versions until the Rhemish appeared. That version used ‘example’ probably as being nearer the Vulg. word exemplum. The AV frequently reveals the influence of the Rhemish version.

En-shemesh

En-shemesh (‘sun-spring,’ Joshua 15:7 18:17). A spring E. of En-rogel, on the way to Jericho. It is believed to be the spring on the Jericho road E. of Olivet, generally known as the ‘Apostles’ fountain’ (,’ Ain Had).

Ensign

See Banner.

Ensue

The verb ‘ensue’ is used Intransitively, meaning to follow, in Judith 9:4 ; and transitively, with the full force of pursue, in 1 Peter 3:11.

En-tapp

En-tapp tJAH.— A place on the boundary of Manasseh (Joshua 17:7). Generally identified with a spring near YasMf, in a valley to the S. of Mukhna, which drains into Wady Kanah. The place is probably the Tappuah (wh. see) of Joshua 16:8 17:8.

Envy

Envy leads to strife, and division, and railing, and hatred, and sometimes to murder. The Bible classes it with these things (Romans 1:29 13:13. 1 Corinthians 3:3, 2 Corinthians 12:20. Galatians 5:21. 1 Timothy 6:4. Titus 3:3. James 3:14, 16). It is the antipode of Christian love. Envy loveth not, and love envieth not (1 Corinthians 13:4). Bacon closes his essay on ‘Envy’ with tills sentence: ‘Envy is the vilest affection and the most depraved ; for which cause it is the proper attribute of the Devil, who is called. The envious man, that soweth tares amongst the wheat by night ; as it always cometh to pass, that Envy worketh subtilly and in the dark, and to the prejudice of good things, such as is the wheat.’ Chrysostom said: ‘As a moth gnaws a garment, so doth envy consume a man, to be a living anatomy, a skeleton, to be a lean and pale carcass, quickened with a fiend.’ These are Scriptural estimates. Envy is devilish, and absolutely inconsistent with the highest lite. Examples abound in the Bible, such as are suggested by the relations between Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, Rachel and Leah, Joseph and his brothers, Saul and David, Haman and Mordecai, the elder brother and the prodigal sou, the Roman evangelists of Philippians 1 and the Apostle Paul, and many others.

D. A. Hayes.

EP.a!NETUS.— A beloved friend of St. Paul at Rome, greeted in Romans 16:5; he was the ‘firstfruits of Asia (RV) unto Christ,’ i.e. one of the first converts of that province. Hebrews 9 a native of Ephesus.

A, J. Maclean.

Epaphras

Mentioned by St. Paul in Colossians 1:7 i", Philem and described by him as his ‘fellow-servant,’ and also as a ‘servant’ and ‘faithful minister’ of Christ. He was a native or inhabitant of Colossse (Colossians 4:12), and as St. Paul’s representative (1:7) founded the Church there (1:7). The tact of his prayerful zeal for Laodicea and Hierapolis suggests his having brought the faith to these cities also (4:13). He brought news of the Colossian Church to the Apostle during his first Roman imprisonment, perhaps undertaking the journey to obtain St. Paul’s advice as to the heresies that were there prevalent. He is spoken of as St. Paul’s ‘fellow-prisoner’ (Philem "), a title probably meaning that his care of the Apostle entailed the practical sharing of his captivity. The Epistle to the Colossians was a result of this visit, and Epaphras brought it back with him to his flock. Epaphras is a shortened form of Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25). but, as the name was in common use, it is not probable that the two are to be identified. Charles T. P. Gbierson.

Epaphroditus

Mentioned by St. Paul in Philippians 2:25–30 4:18. and described by him as his ‘brother, fellow-worker, and fellow-soldier’ (2:25). He was the messenger by whom the Philippians sent the offerings which fully supplied the necessities of St. Paul during his first Roman imprisonment 4:18). In Rome he laboured so zealously for the Church and for the Apostle as to ‘hazard’ his life (2:30) indeed, he came ‘nigh unto death,’ but God had mercy on him, and the Apostle was spared this ‘sorrow upon sorrow’(v.2’). News of his illness reached Philippi, and the distress thus caused his friends made him long to return (v. 26). St. Paul therefore sent him ‘the more diligently,’ thus relieving their minds, and at the same time lessening ills own sorrows by his knowledge of their joy at receiving him back in health. Apparently the Epistle to the Pliilippians was sent by him.

Charles T. P. Gribrson.

Ephah

1, A son of Midian, descended from Abraham and Keturah (Genesis 25:4 = 1 Chronicles 1:33). the eponymous ancestor of an Arabian tribe whose identity is uncertain. This tribe appears in Isaiah 60 as engaged in the transport of gold and frankincense from Sheba. 2. A concubine of Caleb (1 Chronicles 2:46). 3. A Judahite (1 Chronicles 2:47).

Ephai

Described in Jeremiah 40 (Gr 477 as ‘the Netophathite,’ whose sons were amongst the ‘captains of the forces’ who joined Gedaliah at Mizpah, and were murdered along with him by Ishmael (Jeremiah 41:3).

Epher

1. The name of the second of the sons of Midian mentioned in Genesis 25:4. 1 Chronicles 1:33. and recorded as one of the descendants of Abraham by his wife Keturah (Genesis 26:1). 2. The name of one of the sons of Ezrah (1 Chronicles 4:17). 3. The first of a group of five heads of fathers’ houses belonging to the half tribe of Mauasseh (1 Chronicles 6:24).

Ephes-dammim

The place in Judah where the Philistines were encamped at the time when David slew Gohath (1 Samuel 17:1). The same name appears In 1 Chronicles 11:13 as Fas-Dammim.

Ephesians, Epistle to

This Epistle belongs to the group of Epistles of the Captivity, and was almost certainly, it genuine, written from Rome, and sent by Tychicus at the same time as the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (see Colossians).

1. Destination. — To whom was it addressed? That it was specifically written to the Ephesian Church is improbable, for two reasons — (1) The words ‘at Ephesus’ in 1’ are absent from two of the earliest MSS, and apparently from the Epistle as known to Marcion (a.d. 140), who refers to it as addressed to the Laodiceans. Origen also had access to a copy of the Epistle from which they were absent. (2) The Epistle is almost entirely devoid of the personal touches — references to St. Paul’s long stay at Ephesus, greetings to friends, etc. — that we should expect to find in an Epistle to a Church with which the Apostle’s relations had been as close as they had been with the Ephesian Church. On the other hand, early tradition, as shown in the title, associated the Epistle with Ephesus, and, except Marcion, no early writer associated it with any other Church. Moreover, personal touches are not wholly absent. St. Paul has heard of the faith and love of those to whom he writes (1"); they had been saddened by news of his imprisonment (3") ; they apparently know Tychicus (6"- Perhaps the best explanation of all the facts is to be found in the suggestion madeby Ussher, and adopted by’Lighttoot (Biblical Essays), that the Epistle is really a circular letter to the Churches of Asia (cf. the First Epistle of St. Peter). Possibly the space where ‘at Ephesus’ now appears was left blank for Tychicus to fill in as he left copies of the letter at the various churches on his line of route. If this solution is the true one, this Epistle is most probably the letter referred to in Colossians 4.

2. Purpose. — This Epistle, unlike most of St. Paul’s, does not appear to have been written with a view to any particular controversy or problem of Church lite. Ot all the Pauline Epistles it has most of the character of a treatise or homily. Its keynote is the union of the Christian body, Jewish and Gentile, in Christ, in whom all things are being fulfilled. It may be regarded as carrying on the doctrinal teaching of the Epistle to the Romans from the point reached in that Epistle; and. Indeed, may not improbably have been so intended by St. Paul.

3. Authenticity. — The authenticity of the Epistle is well attested by external testimony, but has been disputed during the last century on internal grounds. The chief of these are — (1) Difference of style from the earlier Epistles. This is very marked, but (a) the style is like that of the Epistle to the Colossians, and resembles also the Epistle to the Philippians; (6) there are many definitely Pauline phrases and turns of expression; (c) arguments from style are always unreliable (see Colossians). (2) Doctrinal differences. The chief of these are; (a) the prominence given to the ‘Catholic’ idea of the Church; (6) the doctrine of the pre-existent Christ as the agent of creation; (c) the substitution of the idea of the gradual fulfilment of the Divine purpose for the earlier idea of an imminent return (Parousia) of Christ. In these and other directions there is certainly a development, but is it not such a development as might easily take place in the mind of St. Paul, especially when three years of imprisonment had given him opportunities for quiet thought, and had brought him into contact with Roman imperialism at its centre? (3) The references to ‘apostles and prophets’ in 3:5 4:11, which seem to suggest that the writer Is looking back on the Apostolic age from the standpoint of the next generation. But in 1 Corinthians 12:28 ‘apostles’ and ‘prophets’ stand first in the order of spiritual gifts, and both there and here the word ‘apostle’ ought probably to be taken in a wider sense than as including only the Twelve and St. Paul. Apostles and prophets were the two kinds of teachers exercising general, as distinguished from localized, authority in the early Church.

Those who deny the genuineness of the Epistle have generally regarded it as the work of a disciple of St. Paul early in the 2nd century. Some critics admit the genuineness of Colossians, and regard this Epistle as a revised version drawn up at a later date. But the absence of any reference to the special theological controversies of the 2nd century, and of any obvious motive for the composition of the Epistle at a later time, make this theory difficult to accept. Nor is it easy to see how an Epistle purporting to be by St. Paul, that had not been in circulation during his lifetime, could have secured a place in the collection of his Epistles that began to be made very soon after his death (2 Peter 3:16). There does not, then, seem to be any adequate ground for denying the Pauline authorship of this Epistle.

4. Characteristics. — The following are among the distinctive lines of thought of the Epistle. (1) The stress laid on the idea of the Church as the fvlfilment of the eternal purpose of God — the body of which Christ is the head (V^ 2:16 3:6 4). the building of which Christ is the corner-stone (2:20–22). the bride (5). (2) The cosmic significance of the Atonement (l’"- " 2:7 3:10). (3) The prominence given to the work of the Holy Spirit (1:13, 17 2:18 3:16 i’- 5). In this the Epistle differs from Colossians, and resembles 1 Corinthians. (4) Repeated exhortations to unity, and the graces that make for unity (4 5 etc.). (5) The conception of the Christian household (S’^B’) and of the Christian warrior (6).

6. Relation to other books. — The Epistle has lines of thought recalling 1 Cor. See, e.g., in 1 Cor. the idea of the riches (1:5) and the mystery (2:7–10) of the gospel, the work of the Spirit (2:10, 11 12). the building (3). the one body (10 12) all things subdued unto Christ (.15^-^‘). The relation to Colossians is very close.’ The one is the general and systematic exposition of the same truths which appear in a special bearing in the other’ (Lighttoot). Ct. the relation of Galatians and Romans. Ephesians and Philippians have many thoughts in common. See, e.g., the Christian citizenship (Ephesians 2:12, 19, Philippians 1:27 3:20), the exaltation of Christ (Ephesians 1:20. Philippians 2:9). the true circumcision (Ephesians 2:11. Philippians 3:3), unity and stability (Ephesians 2:18 ff. 4:3 6:13. Philippians 1:27). Ct. also Ephesians 6:18 with Philippians 4:6. and Ephesians 5:2 with Philippians 4:18. In regard to Romans and Ephesians, ‘the unity at which the former Epistle seems to arrive by slow and painful steps is assumed in the latter as a starting-point, with a vista of wondrous possibilities beyond’ (Hort).

There is a close connexion between this Epistle and 1 Peter, not so much in details as in ‘identities of thought and similarity in the structure of the two Epistles as wholes’ (Hort). If there is any direct relation, it is probable that the author of 1 Peter used this Epistle, as he certainly used Romans. In some respects this Epistle shows an approximation of Pauline thought to the teaching of the Fourth Gospel. See, e.g., the teaching of both on grace, on the contrast of light and darkness, on the work of the pre-incarnate Logos; and compare John 17 with the whole Epistle. Ct. also Revelation 21:10, 14 with Ephesians 2:20, 21. Revelation 19:7 with Eph 5, and Revelation 13 with Ephesians 3:11.

J. H. B. Masterman.

Ephesus

The capital of the Roman province Asia; a large and ancient city at the mouth of the river Cayster, and about 3 miles from the open sea. The origin of the name, which is native and not Greek, is unknown. It stood at the entrance to one of the valleys that the roads through the central plateau of Asia Minor pass. The chief of these was the route up the Maeander as far as the Lycus, its tributary, then along the Lycus towards Apamea. It was the most important avenue of civilization in Asia Minor under the Roman Empire. Miletus had been in earlier times a more important harbour than Ephesus, but the track across from this main road to Ephesus was much shorter than the road to Miletus, and was over a pass only 600 ft. high. Consequently Ephesus replaced Miletus before and during the Roman Empire, especially as the Mffiander had silted up so much as to spoil the harbour at the latter place. It became the great emporium for all the trade N. of Mt. Taurus.

Ephesus was on the main route from Rome to the East, and many side roads and sea-routes converged at it (Acts 19:21 20:1, 17, 1 Timothy 1:3. 2 Timothy 4:12). The governors of the provinces in Asia Minor had always to land at Ephesus. . It was an obvious centre for the work of St. Paul, as influences from there spread over the whole province (Acts 19:10). Corinth was the next great station on the way to Rome, and communication between the two places was constant. The ship in Acts 18:19. bound from Corinth for the Syrian coast, touched first at Ephesus.

Besides Paul, Tychicus (Ephesians 6:21 f.) and Timothy (according to 1 Timothy 1:3. 2 Timothy 4:9). John Mark (Colossians 4:10. 1 Peter 5). and the writer of the Apocalypse (1:11 2:1) were acquainted with Asia or Ephesus.

The harbour of Ephesus was kept large enough and deep enough only by constant attention. The alluvial deposits were (and are) so great that, when once the Roman Empire had ceased to hold sway, the harbour became gradually smaller and smaller, so that now Ephesus is far away from the sea. Even in St. Paul’s time there appear to have been di£Sculties about navigating the channel, and ships avoided Ephesus except when loading or unloading was necessary (cf. Acts 20:16). The route by the high lands, from Ephesus to the East, was suitable for foot passengers and light traffic, and was used by St. Paul (Acts 19:1; probably also 16:6). The alternative was the main road through Colossse and Laodicea. neither of which St. Paul ever visited (Colossians 2:1).

In the open plain, about 5 miles from the sea, S. of the river, stands a little hill which has always been a religious centre. Below its S.W. slope was the temple sacred to Artemis (see Diana op the Ephesians). The Greek city Ephesus was built at a distance of 1-2 miles S.W. of this hill. The history of the town turns very much on the opposition between the free Greek spirit of progress and the slavish submission of the Oriental population to the goddess. Croesus the Lydian represented the predominance of the latter over the former, but Lysimachus (B.C. 295) revived the Greek influence. Ephesus, however, was always proud of the position of ‘Warden of the Temple of Artemis’ (Acts 19:35). The festivals were thronged by crowds from the whole of the province of Asia. St. Paul, whose residence in Ephesus lasted 2 years and 3 months (Acts 19:8, 10). or. roughly expressed, 3 years (Acts 20:31). at first incurred no opposition from the devotees of the goddess, because new foreign religions did not lessen the influence of the native goddess; but when his teaching proved prejudicial to the money interests of the people who made a living out of the worship, he was at once bitterly attacked. Prior to this occurrence, his influence had caused many of the famous magicians of the place to burn their books (Acts 19:13–19). The riot of 19:32 was no mere passing fury of a section of the populace. The references to Ephesus in the Epistles show that the opposition to Christianity there was as long-continued as it was virulent (1 Corinthians 15:32 le*, 2 Corinthians 1:8 10).

The scene in Acts 19:23 ff. derives some illustration from an account of the topography and the government of been calculated that it could hold 24,000 people. It was on the western slope of Mt. Pion, and overlooked the harbour. The Asiarchs (see Asiarch), who were friendly to St. Paul, may have been present in Ephesus at that time on account of a meeting of their body (Acts 19:31). The town-clerk or secretary of the city appears as a person of importance, and this is exactly in accordance with what is known of municipal affairs in such cities. The Empire brought decay of the influence of popular assemblies, which tended more and more to come into the hands of the officials, though the assembly at Ephesus was really the highest municipal authority (Acts 19:39). and the Roman courts and the proconsuls (Acts 19:38) were the final judicial authority in processes against individuals. The meeting of the assembly described in Acts was not a legal meeting. Legal meetings- could be summoned only by the Roman officials, who had the power to call together the people when they pleased. The secretary tried to act as intermediary between the people and these officials, and save the people from trouble at their hands. The temple of Artemis which existed in St. Paul’s day was of enormous size. Apart from religious purposes, it was used as a treasure-house: as to the precise arrangements for the charge of this treasure we are in ignorance.

There is evidence outside the NT also for the presence of Jews in Ephesus. The twelve who had been baptized with the baptism of John (Acts 19:3) may have been persons who had emigrated to Ephesus before the mission of Jesus began. When St. Paul turned from the Jews to the population in general, he appeared, as earlier in Athens, as a lecturer in philosophy, and occupied the school of Tyrannus out of school hours. The earlier part of the day, beginning before dawn, he spent in manual labour. The actual foundation of Christianity in Ephesus may have been due to Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:19).

‘Ephesian’ occurs as a variant reading in the ‘Western’ text of Acts 20:4 for the words ‘of Asia,’ as applied to Tychicus and Trophimus. Trophimus was an inhabitant of Ephesus (Acts 21:29). capital of Asia; but Tychicus was probably merely an inhabitant of the province Asia; hence they are coupled under the only adjective applicable to both. It is hardly safe to infer from the fact that Tychicus bore the letter to the Colossians that he belonged to Colossae (province Asia) ; but it is possible that he did. A. SonTER.

Ephlal

A descendant of Judah (1 Chronicles 2:37).

Ephod

1. Father of Hanniel (Numbers 34 P). 2. See Dhess, § 2 (c), and Phiests and Levites. 3. The ‘ephod’ of Judges 8:27 17:5 18 is probably an image.

Ephphatha

Mark 7:34. where Jesus says to a man who was deaf and had an impediment in his speech, ‘Ephphatha,’ that is, ‘Be opened.’ The word is really Aramaic, and if we transliterate it as it stands we obtain eppattach or epp’thach. Both these forms are contracted : the former for ithpattach, the latter for iihp’thack, which are respectively second sing, imperative Ithpaal and Ithpeal of the verb p’t?iach, ‘to open.’ Some Gr. MSS present ephphetha, which is certainly Ithpeal, whereas ephphatha may be Ithpaal. Jerome also reads ephphetha.

It is not certain whom or what Jesus addressed when He said ‘Be opened.’ It may be the mouth of the man as in Luke 1:64 (so Weiss, Morison, etc.) ; or the ear, as in Targ. of Isaiah 50:5 (so Bruce, Swete, etc.); or it may be the deaf man himself. One gate of knowledge being closed, the man is conceived of as a bolted room, and ‘Jesus said to him. Be thou opened.’ ‘J. T. Mabshall.