Philippians and Philemon - MR Vincent - 1906.pdf

INTRODUCTION 1 59
country, sent to Puteoli, and put to death by having his legs broken. The
Roman Acts, 10, speak of him as perfected by martyrdom in the great city
of the Romans.
The letter was included in the collection of Marcion, and is
named in the Muratorian Canon in connection with the Past-
oral Epistles. The supposed references in Ignatius {Eph. ii.
Mag. xii. ; Polyc. vi.) are vague. In Eph. ii. the name Onesimus
occurs in connection with the verb,and the reference
is inferred from a similar play on the name, Philem. 20. (See
Westcott, Canon of ihe N.T., p. 48.) It is found in the Syriac
and Old Latin versions, and is ascribed to Paul by Origen {Horn,
in Jer. 19 ; Comm. in Mi. tract. 33, 34.) TertuUian is the first
who distinctly notices it. He says : " This epistle alone has had
an advantage from its brevity ; for by that it has escaped the falsi-
fying touch of Marcion. Nevertheless, I wonder that when he
receives one epistle to one man, he should reject two to Timothy,
and one to Titus which treat of the government of the church "
{Adv. Marc. v. 42). Eusebius {H. E. iii. 25) puts it among the
//£. Jerome, in his preface to his commentary on the
epistle, refers to those who hold that it was not written by Paul, or
if by him, not under inspiration, because it contained nothing to
edify. These also alleged that it was rejected by most of the
ancients because it was a letter of commendation and not of
instruction, containing allusions to everyday matters. Jerome
replies that all St. Paul's letters contain allusions to such matters,
and that this letter would never have been received by all the
churches of the world if it had not been Paul's. Similar testimony
is given by Chrysostom, who, like Jerome, had to defend
the letter against the charge of being on a subject beneath the
apostle's notice.
The only serious attack upon the epistle in modern times is
that of Baur, who intimates that he rejects it with reluctance, and
exposes himself by so doing to the charge of hypercriticism.
" This letter," he says, " is distinguished by the private nature of
its contents ; it has nothing of those commonplaces, those general
doctrines void of originality, those repetitions of familiar things
which are so frequent in the supposed writings of the apostle. It
deals with a concrete fact, a practical detail of ordinary Hfe. . . .
What objection can criticism make to these pleasant and charming
;