<- Previous   First   Next ->

word as ajlhvqeia is inconceivable, to say nothing of authority.’

Dr Hort rejoins: ‘Not a word to help me to the right meaning! Mine may be wrong; it only seems more likely to me than others to which I can attach no meaning.

‘In vs. 24 th'" ajlhqeiva" simply corresponds to th'" ajpavth" of vs. 22 according to St Paul's favourite antithesis, and needs no other explanation. Again, even if I took ajlhqeiva/ (cf. Phil. 1:18) as only equivalent to ajlhqw'" , I do not know why every single word is bound to be pregnant. But it seems to me that I give it its full theological sense, as full as in St John's Epistles. What is the alternative? Surely not with Meyer to join it with what follows “ as it is in Jesus for you to put off ...” I could easier believe with Credner (and, apparently, Origen) that it means ‘As He is in truth in Jesus’: but then that is only my own sense in a clumsy and unnatural form. All the other multitudinous renderings in Meyer convey nothing to my mind. A modification of Meyer's own view has just struck me as imaginable: “were taught that, as is truth in Jesus, ye should put off...” But (1) this renders the Greek horribly obscure, and (2) it requires ejn tw'/ cristw'/ . The right interpretation must be one which justifies the transition to ejn tw'/ jIhsou' . Surely ejn aujtw'/ ejdidavcqhte needs nothing to follow: first the learning Him , then the expansion of that by all manner of teaching received, but still in Him.

Dr Westcott replies: ‘I thought that I had indicated my meaning clearly enough. My idea is that, just as the Lord said “I am the Truth,” so here St Paul reminds the Ephesians that there is Truth in Jesus, i.e. in the true humanity of the Word, whereby all the offices of life are revealed in the right relations. This appears to me obvious and pointed.’

Dr Hort rejoins: ‘Your construction fits the Greek (if ajlhvqeia is read) better than any other; but the chasm which divides it from your interpretation is surely wide. I cannot by any process read such a sense into the statement, surely on any view a strange under statement, “there is truth in Jesus.” The idea seems to me on the other hand to be already given in my interpretation in the words aujto;n hjkouvsate kai; ejn aujtw'/ ejdidavcqhte , and without some such sense as mine I do not see how you can pass from to;n cristo;n (Eph. 4:20) to tw'/ jIhsou' , all the more as this is the only passage of Ephesians where jIhsou'" occurs not combined with Cristov" .

‘The whole idea may be thus analysed:

( a ) Jesus is the truth of the Christ. ( b ) The Christ is the truth of humanity. ( g ) The Christ is the truth of God. ‘Now according to my view vs. 20 expresses ( b ), the special doctrine of this Epistle, and vs. 21 expresses ( a ), shewing that those who had received the Gospel had implicitly received ( b ). But it seems to me that your view either omits ( a ) or confuses it with ( b ), and fails to explain either kaqwv" or tw'/ jIhsou' . The use of ajlhqeiva/ seems to me analogous (at a different level) to the use of ajlhqinov" in 1 John 5:20: the God in His Son is the true God. I must claim margin for ajlhqeiva/, ejn .’

Dr Westcott replies: ‘I don't in the least degree admit the force of your objections to my interpretation, nor see the possibility of such a dative as ajlhqeiva/ ; but I admit your “claim” as a freeborn Englishman—till you give it up!’

Dr Hort writes finally: ‘I don't see how margin can be dispensed with, as your interpretation seems to me absolutely impossible; and, as far as I can find, it is as completely without authority as, I fear, mine is. But your construction has all authority; so I do not ask for text, as I have failed to persuade you.’

Dr Westcott replies: ‘Very well.’


<- Previous   First   Next ->