^{page 434 note 1} The theory harks back to the attempts of Alfred Seeberg to identify a substratum of oral material underlying the New Testament and other early Christian writings and following the pattern of the ‘two ways’, cf. Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit (Leipzig: Georg Böhme, 1906).Google ScholarKlein, G. in Der älteste christliche Katechismus und die Jüdische Propaganda-Literatur (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1909)Google Scholar and later Philip Carrington in The Primitive Christian Catechism. A Study in the Epistles (Cambridge University Press, 1940)Google Scholar support Seeberg in stressing Jewish origins. The latter however attempts to reconstruct a more comprehensive baptismal catechism following a four-, or six-fold pattern, with the ‘household tables’ taking their place in a section he terms Subiecti. Edward G. Selwyn develops Carrington's theory to incorporate additional data in a five-fold schema, outlined in an essay appended to his The First Epistle of Peter (London: Macmillan and Co. 1946)Google Scholar. Davies, W. D. draws on this hypothesis in Paul and Rabbinic Judasim (London: S.P.C.K. 1958, pp. 122 ff.)Google Scholar, and David, Daube in The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (University of London, 1956,Google Scholar chs. IV and V) proposes a variation on Selwyn's pattern which he thinks the Tannaites recommended for the instruction of proselytes in preparation for baptism, and which he considers formed the basis for a Christian version.

^{page 434 note 2} An die Kolosser, Epheser, und Philemon (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, Paul Siebeck, 1912, Dritte Auflage, 1953), pp. 46–50.Google Scholar

^{page 434 note 3} Die Haustafeln. Ein Stück urchristlicher Paränese (Leipzig: J. C. Heinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1928).Google Scholar

^{page 434 note 4} Cf. the second edition of The First Epistle of Peter (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958), pp. 188–204,Google Scholar cf. p. 195.

^{page 435 note 1} The Epistle to the Ephesians (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951), pp. 192, 194 f.Google Scholar; cf. I Pet. ii. 18, Eph. vi. 5 phiv;όβου/ Col. iii. 22 ϕοβούμενοι I Pet. iii. I, Eph. v. 22 λδλοις άνδράσιν/Col. iii. 18 άνδράσιν I Pet. v. 5, Eph. v.21 ύΠοτάσσω with άλλήλοις/ Col. iii. 18 ύΠοτάσσεσθε.

^{page 435 note 2} Ibid. p. 194.

^{page 435 note 3} indicates wording shared by parallel passages under investigation, and wording shared with other possible sources.

^{page 439 note 1} Cf. θεόσ και πατέρ (i. 3; iv. 6; v. 20), κατά τέν εύδοκιαν αύτοũ (i. 5, 9), κατ$$$ τέν ήνήρλειαν…αντο⋯ (i. 19; iii. 7), Χ$$$ριτ έοτε σεσωσμένοι (ii. 5, 8), ούρανοισ καλ έπλ (τσ) Υ⋯σ (i. 10; iii. 15), εισ έπαινον (τ⋯σ) δόξνσ αύτοũ (i. 12, 14), σθραλιзω, πνεũμα, άλιοσ in i.13; iv. 30, κόνũν (ì), ποτε in ii. 2, 12f., καινόσ άνθωποσ, κτìзω in ii. 15; iv. 24, $$$μθότερα, έν, έν in ii. 14, 16, 18, [λό$$$οσ, οτόμα, λνα, διδωμι in iv. 29; vi. 19, διδωμι, ξάρισ, άκοόω in iv. 29; iii. 2], καθώσ καλ, ξπιοτόσ in iv. 32; v. 2.

^{page 439 note 2} Cf. iv. 29 λόγος… στόματος… īνα δ⌦ Χάριν/ vi. 19 īνα μοι δοθ⌦ λόγος έν άνοίξει το⋯ στόματός μου/ col. iv. 3 ίνα ό θεός άνοίξ$$$⌦ ήμīν θύραν το⋯ λόγου. Since Col. iv. 3 and Eph. vi. 19 correspond in sense and in their position within each epistle, we judge that this parallel cannot be fortuitous and has a stronger claim to priority than that between iv. 29 and vi. 19, though iv. 29 makes direct contact with Έκ tgr;ο¯ στόματος ύμ⋯ν in Col. iii. 8. Of the other parallels listed in n. I, three sets, i. 3; iv. 6; v. 20, and i. 13; iv. 30, and iv. 32; v. 2, make contact with earlier material in the Pauline corpus, but since this occurs in each of the verses cited in equal measure, there is no impression of priority except that involved in the natural sequence of the text, cf. Mitton, Ibid. pp. 280 f., 298 f., 304 f.

^{page 440 note 1} Mitton, Ibid. pp. 304 f.

^{page 440 note 2} This is suggested by Kirk, Kenneth E. in The vision of God (London: Longmans Green and Co., 1932, pp. 126 f.)Google Scholar. Dibelius does however hint at the possibility that this passage was added by another in the judgement that the Haustafeln emerged at a time when the immediacy of the eschato-logical hope had faded (Ibid. p. 47).

^{page 441 note 1} John, Knox in Philemon among the Letters of Paul (New York: Abingdon, 1935, revised 1959), pp. 36 ff.Google Scholar and Marcion and the New Testament (University of Chicago Press, 1942), pp. 45 f.Google Scholar argues convincingly for accepting Epiphanius' version of the order of the Pauline letters in Marcion's canon, which he considers preserves the original order in this respect inter alia. Edgar J. Goodspeed thinks Philemon stood on its own as the letter to the Laodiceans referred to in Col. iv. 16, cf. An Introduction to the New Testament (University of Chicago, 1937), pp. 112 ff.Google ScholarMitton, C. Leslie in The Formation of the Pauline Corpus of Letters (London: Epworth, 1955)Google Scholar accepts the feasibility of Knox's suggestion, but leaves the matter open (p. 64).

^{page 441 note 2} Ibid. (1959), op. cit.

^{page 442 note 1} Ibid. p. 39.

^{page 443 note 1} This possibility resembles the conclusion of Heinrich J. Holtzmann in elaborating his theory that Ephesians, though dependent on an earlier version of Colossians, is prior in certain parts, including Col. iii. 18–iv. 1. He does consider the possibility that a subsequent redactor made the insertion into Colossians at this point among others, but his impression is that the differences are such as the same writer could have produced in abbreviating his own work later, cf. Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe (Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1872), pp. 46 f.Google Scholar with pp. 41–6.

^{page 443 note 2} Cf. p. 437.

^{page 443 note 3} David Daube's excursus on ‘Participle and Imperative in I Peter’ in Selwyn's commentary, Ibid. pp. 467–88, rejects J.H. Moulton's view that the use of the participle as an imperative predicate was acceptable in the common Greek of the first century, postulating Semitic antecedents for such a construction (cf. Moulton's, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. I, pp. 180 ff. in the 1957 edition, Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark).Google Scholar In reply to Daube, Meecham, H. G. in ‘The Use of the Participle for the Imperative in the New Testament,’ Expository Times, LVIII, 805 1947, pp. 207 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar rules out most of the instances these scholars cite from the New Testament, on the grounds that they are textually uncertain, grammatically connected with a preceding or following verb, or due to case apposition or anacoluthon.

^{page 443 note 4} This is reflected in the variety of alternative readings on the part of different manuscripts at this point, cf. p. 440.

^{page 444 note 1} Cf. i. 9 f., 18 f., 21, 23; ii. 6, 19; iii. 6, 10, 17; iv. 4–6, 9 f., 14, 16, 18; v. 3 f., 9; vi. 13, 18.

^{page 444 note 2} The text used to calculate the frequency in the occurrence of linguistic traits is that of B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort (London: MacMillan, 1914), selected for the usually unvarying length of its pages. Eph. v. 21–vi. 9 is reckoned as 32 lines (excluding the quotations from the LXX in v. 31 and vi. 2 f.), and the rest of Ephesians as 242 lines, excluding the quotation in iv. 8. In the former, paired words occur in v. 27, 29; vi. 4 f., and in the latter, in i. 3, 4, 8, 17; ii. 1, 3, 6, 19, 20; iii. 10, 12, 17; 32; v. 19; vi. 18.

^{page 444 note 3} Cf. also Eph. i. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18a, 19; ii. 2, 3, 7, 12, 14, 15; iii. 2, 7, 9, 16; iv. 4, 7, 13, 17, 18, 22; v. 6, 8, 9, 11; vi. 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19. All these instances may be categorized as adjectival genitives, of the kind Nigel Turner characterizes as the genitive of quality and the genitivus materiae and epexegeticus or appositive genitive, cf. A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. III (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1963), pp. 212–15.Google Scholar In Eph. v. 21–vi. 9 all genitives that are in any sense adjectival are clearly partitive or objective, cf. v. 23, 26, 30; vi. 6, 9, cf. Ibid. pp. 208–12.

^{page 444 note 4} Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, III, 509 f.Google Scholar

^{page 445 note 1} Christus und die Kirche im Epheserbrief (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, Paul Siebeck, 1930), p. 38.Google Scholar

^{page 445 note 2} In ii. 3 the mind as well as the flesh (τ⋯ς σαρκός καί τ⋯ν διανοι⋯ν) are regarded as evil because they are under the sway of the demonic powers (cf. ii. 2). These, not αίμα καί σάρκα, are seen as the true enemies (vi. 12). In ii. 11 σάρξ refers to the morally neutral fact of ethnic origin, and in ii. 14 to the physical being of Christ.

^{page 445 note 3} Cf. C. Leslie Mitton, Ibid. p. 91.

^{page 445 note 4} Cf. Kennedy, H. A. A., St Paul and the Mystery Religions (New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1913), p. 127.Google Scholar G. Bornkamm thinks the word refers here to the allegorical exposition of Gen. ii. 24, cf.Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, IV, 822.Google Scholar Raymond E. Brown considers it refers in Eph. v. 32 to scripture with a deeper meaning; though pursuing semitic origins, he can point only to second-century writers, especially Justin, for similar use, cf. The Semitic Background of the Term, ‘Mystery’ in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), pp. 65 f.Google ScholarCoppens, J. in ‘“Mystery” in Paul's Theology’, Paul and Qumran, ed. J., Murphy-O'Connor (Chicago: Priory Press, 1968), pp. 132–58,Google Scholar attempts to align the use with that in the rest of Ephesians, which he relates to similar concepts in the Qumran writings, cf. pp. 146 f., but we find his exegesis somewhat forced.

^{page 446 note 1} ‘Der Epheserbrief in Lichte der Qumrantexte’, New Testament Studies, VII (1960), 334–46,Google Scholar cf. p. 346. For an English translation cf. Murphy-O'Connor, Ibid. pp. 115–31.

^{page 446 note 2} Cf. άθυμέω Col. iii. 21, J. Dial. 107. 3 (άθυμίαν I Cl. 59. 2); άνταΠόδοσις Col. iii. 24, J. Dial. 26. 4 cit., 85. 8 cit.; έκτρέϕω Eph. v. 9, vi. 4, H.Vis. iii. 9. 1; εύνια Eph. vi. 7, I. Rom. iv. 1, I. Tral. 1. 2, M. Pol. 17. 3; άνθρωΠάρεσκος Col. iii. 22, Eph. vi. 6 (άνθρωΠαρεσκ⋯σαι I. Rom. ii. 1), άνθρωΠάρεσκοι 2 Cl. 131. 1, άνθρωπαρεσκεία J. Ap. 2. 3ab; ρ⌦υτίς in Eph. v. 27 is not found elsewhere in early Christian literature, but appears to be a word revived from earlier antiquity in the second century a.d.; όϕθαλμοδουλία is evidently peculiar to Col. iii. 22 and Eph. vi. 6 till much later.

^{page 446 note 3} Cf. also H. Man. 12. 6. 2, I Cl. 58. I.

^{page 446 note 4} Cf. also J. Ap. 61. 3, 10, 12, 62. I, 66. I, J. Dial. 13. I, 14.I, 18. 2, 44. 4.

^{page 446 note 5} Cf. also H. Sim. 9. 6. 4, 8. 7, 26. 2.

^{page 446 note 6} Cf. also H. Man. 5. I, 5. 10. 2. 3.

^{page 446 note 7} Cf. έρεθίзω Col. iii. 21, ίσότης Col. iv. 1, θάλπω Eph. v. 29; the following occur also in the early fathers: άνήκω Col. iii. 18, άπλότης Col. iii. 22, Eph. vi. 5, παροργίзω Eph. vi. 4; Justin also uses the last-mentioned.

^{page 447 note 1} ‘Romans 13. 1–7: An Interpolation’, N.T.S. XI (07 1965), pp. 365–74.Google Scholar The passage contains no hapax legomena, which could be due to a deliberate attempt to use typically Pauline vocabulary in an obviously atypical context. Least used words in the New Testament that occur here show the same kinds of connections with later strata as the two passages under consideration, cf. διαταγή Rom. xiii. 2, Acts vii. 53, 1 Cl. 20. 3; έκδικος Rom. xiii. 4, I Thess. iv. 6, Tat. 17. 4, 25. I; είκ⋯ Rom. xiii. 4, Gal. iii. 4, I Cor. xv. 2, I Cl. 40.2, J. Ap. 4. 2, J. Dial. 97. I; ϕόρος Rom. xiii. 6 f., Luke xx. 22 f., J. Ap. 17. I f., Tat. 4. I.