(_a_) St John (the First Epistle);
(_b_) Some companion of St Paul (Epaphras or Luke);
(_c_) St Paul himself;
(i) A lost Epistle.
(ii) One of the Canonical Epistles.
(α) Hebrews;
(β) Philemon;
(γ) Ephesians.
(iii) The Apocryphal Epistle.
Footnote 591:
The work of Anger, _Ueber den Laodicenerbrief_ (Leipzig 1843), is very
complete. He enumerates and discusses very thoroughly the opinions of
his predecessors, omitting hardly anything relating to the literature
of the subject which was accessible at the time when he wrote. His
exposition of his own view, though not less elaborate, is less
satisfactory. A later monograph by A. Sartori, _Ueber den
Laodicenserbrief_ (Lübeck 1853), is much slighter and contributes
nothing new.
In this maze of conflicting hypotheses we might perhaps be tempted to
despair of finding our way and give up the search as hopeless. Yet I
venture to think that the true identification of the epistle in question
is not, or at least ought not to be, doubtful.
[Sidenote: 1. An epistle written by the Laodiceans.]
1. The opinion that the epistle was addressed by the Laodiceans to St
Paul, and not conversely, found much support in the age of the Greek
commentators. It is mentioned by St Chrysostom as held by ‘some
persons’, though he himself does not pronounce a definite opinion on the
subject[592]. [Sidenote: Advocates of this theory.]It is eagerly
advocated by Theodore of Mopsuestia. He supposes that the letter of the
Laodiceans contained some reflexions on the Colossian Church, and that
St Paul thought it good for the Colossians to hear what their neighbours
said of them[593]. Theodoret, though not mentioning Theodore by name,
follows in his footsteps[594]. The same opinion is also expressed in a
note ascribed to Photius in the [OE]cumenian Catena. This view seems to
have been very widely entertained in ancient times. It possibly
underlies the Latin Version ‘ea quæ Laodicensium est’[595]: it is
distinctly expressed in the rendering of the Peshito, ‘that which was
written by the Laodiceans’[596]. At a more recent date too it found
great favour. It was adopted on the one hand by Calvin[597] and
Beza[598] and Davenant and Lightfoot[599], on the other by Baronius[600]
and à Lapide and Estius, besides other very considerable names[601].
Latterly its popularity has declined, but it has secured the support of
one or two commentators even in the present century.
Footnote 592:
_ad loc._ τινὲς λέγουσιν ὅτι οὐχὶ τὴν Παύλου πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἀπεσταλμένην,
ἀλλὰ τὴν παρ’ αὐτῶν Πάυλῳ· οὐ γὰρ εἶπε τὴν πρὸς _Λαοδικέας_ ἀλλὰ
τὴν ἐκ _Λαοδικείας_.
Footnote 593:
Rab. Maur. _Op._ VI. p. 540 (Migne) ‘Non quia ad Laodicenses scribit.
Unde quidam falsam epistolam ad Laodicenses ex nomine beati Pauli
confingendam esse existimaverunt; nec enim erat vera epistola.
Æstimaverunt autem quidam illam esse, quæ in hoc loco est significata.
Apostolus vero non [_ad_] _Laodicenses_ dicit sed _ex Laodicea_; quam
illi scripserunt ad apostolum, in quam aliqua reprehensionis digna
inferebantur, quam etiam hac de causa jussit apud eos legi, ut ipsi
reprehendant seipsos discentes quæ de ipsis erant dicta’ (see _Spic.
Solesm._ I. p. 133) etc.
Footnote 594:
After repeating the argument based on the expression τὴν ἐκ
Λαοδικείας, Theodoret says εἰκὸς δὲ αὐτοὺς ἢ τὰ ἐν Κολασσαῖς γενόμενα
αἰτιάσασθαι ἢ τὰ αὐτὰ τούτοις νενοσηκέναι.
Footnote 595:
This however may be questioned. On the other hand Beza (_ad loc._),
Whitaker (_Disputation on Scripture_ pp. 108, 303, 468 sq., 526, 531,
Parker Society’s ed.), and others, who explain the passage in this
way, urge that it is required by the Greek ἐκ Λαοδικείας, and complain
that the other interpretation depends on the erroneous Latin
rendering.
Footnote 596:
Or, ‘that which was written from Laodicea.’ The difference depends on
the vocalisation of ܠܕܝܩܝܐ which may be either (1) ‘Laodicea,’ as in
vv. 13, 15, or (2) ‘the Laodiceans,’ as in the previous clause in this
same ver. 16.
Footnote 597:
Calvin is very positive; ‘Bis hallucinati sunt qui Paulum arbitrati
sunt ad Laodicenses scripsisse. Non dubito quin epistola fuerit ad
Paulum missa.... Impostura autem nimis crassa fuit, quod nebulo nescio
quis hoc prætextu epistolam supponere ausus est adeo insulsam, ut
nihil a Pauli spiritu magis alienum fingi queat.’ The last sentence
reveals the motive which unconsciously led so many to adopt this
unnatural interpretation of St Paul’s language.
Footnote 598:
_ad loc._ ‘Multo fœdius errarunt qui ex hoc loco suspicati sunt
quandam fuisse epistolam Pauli ad Laodicenses ... quum potius
significet Paulus epistolam aliquam ad se missam Laodicea, aut potius
qua responsuri essent Laodicenses Colossensibus.’
Footnote 599:
_Works_ II. p. 326.
Footnote 600:
_Ann. Eccl._ s. a. 60, § xiii.
Footnote 601:
e.g. Tillemont _Mem. Eccl._ p. 576.
[Sidenote: Reasons for it.]
The underlying motive of this interpretation was to withdraw the support
which the apocryphal epistle seemed to derive from this reference,
without being obliged at the same time to postulate a lost epistle of St
Paul. The critical argument adduced in its support was the form of
expression, τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας. [Sidenote: Objections to it.]The whole
context however points to a different explanation. The Colossian and
Laodicean Epistles are obviously regarded as in some sense companion
epistles, of which the Apostle directs an interchange between the two
Churches. And again, if the letter in question had been written by the
Laodiceans to St Paul, why should he enjoin the Colossians to get it
from Laodicea? How could he assume that a copy had been kept by the
Laodiceans; or, if kept, would be given up when required? Indeed the
difficulties in this hypothesis are so great, that nothing but the most
imperious requirements of the Greek language would justify its
acceptance. But the expression in the original makes no such demand. It
is equally competent for us to explain τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας either ‘the
letter written from Laodicea’, or ‘the letter to be procured from
Laodicea’, as the context may suggest. The latter accords at least as
well with Greek usage as the former[602].
Footnote 602:
See the note on iv. 16.
[Sidenote: Views respecting the person addressed.]
The vast majority of those who interpret the expression in this way
assume that the letter was written to (α) St Paul. The modifications of
this view, which suppose it addressed to some one else, need hardly be
considered. The theory for instance, which addresses it to (β)
Epaphras[603], removes none of the objections brought against the
simpler hypothesis. Another opinion, which takes (γ) the Colossians
themselves to have been the recipients[604], does indeed dispose of one
difficulty, the necessity of assuming a copy kept by the Laodiceans, but
it is even more irreconcileable with the language of the context. Why
then should St Paul so studiously charge them to see that they read it?
Why above all should he say καὶ ὑμεῖς, ‘_ye also_’, when they were the
only persons who would read it as a matter of course?
Footnote 603:
e.g. Storr _Opusc._ II. p. 124 sq.
Footnote 604:
So for instance Corn. à Lapide, as an alternative, ‘vel certe ad ipsos
Colossenses, ut vult Theodor.’; but I do not find anything of the kind
in Theodoret. This view also commends itself to Beza.
[Sidenote: 2. A letter written from Laodicea by St Paul.]
2. A second class of identifications rests on the supposition that it
was a letter written _from_ Laodicea, though not by the Laodiceans
themselves. The considerations which recommend this hypothesis for
acceptance are the same as in the last case. It withdraws all support
from the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans, and it refrains from
postulating a lost Apostolic epistle. It is not exposed to all the
objections of the other theory, but it introduces new difficulties still
more serious. Here a choice of several epistles is offered to us.
[Sidenote: 1 Timothy.](α) _The First Epistle to Timothy._ This view is
distinctly maintained by John Damascene[605] and by Theophylact[606];
but it took its rise much earlier. It appears in the margin of the
Philoxenian Syriac[607], and it seems to have suggested the
subscriptions found in many authorities at the close of that epistle.
The words ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Λαοδικείας are found in AKL 47 etc., and many of
these define the place meant by the addition ἥτις ἐστὶ μητρόπολις
Φρυγίας τῆς Πακατιανῆς. A similar note is found in some Latin MSS. It is
quite possible that this subscription was prior to the theory respecting
the interpretation of Col. iv. 16, and gave rise to it; but the converse
is more probable, and in some MSS (a^{scr}, 74) the bearing of this
subscription on Col. iv. 16 is emphasized, ἰδὸυ δὴ καὶ ἡ ἐκ Λαοδικείας.
This identification has not been altogether without support in later
times[608]. [Sidenote: 1 Thessalonians.](β) The _First Epistle to the
Thessalonians_. A final colophon in the Philoxenian Syriac asserts that
it was ‘written from Laodicea’: and the same is stated in a later hand
of d, ‘scribens a Laodicea’. Again an Æthiopic MS, though giving Athens
as the place of writing, adds that it was ‘sent with Timotheus,
_Tychicus_, and _Onesimus_[609].’ This identification was perhaps
suggested by the fact that 1 Thessalonians follows next after Colossians
in the common order of St Paul’s Epistles. [Sidenote: 2
Thessalonians.](γ) The _Second Epistle to the Thessalonians_. In the
Peshito (as given by Schaaf[609]) there is a final colophon stating
that this epistle ‘was written from Laodicea of Pisidia and was sent by
the hand of Tychicus[610]’. Though the addition of Pisidia wrongly
defines the place as _Laodicea Combusta_, instead of _Laodicea ad
Lycum_, yet the mention of the messenger’s name shows plainly that the
identification with the missing epistle of Col. iv. 16 was contemplated.
So too the Memphitic ‘per Silvanum et _Tychicum_’, and a Latin prologue
‘per Titum et _Onesimum_’. Again an Æthiopic MS points to the same
identification, though strangely confused in its statements. In the
superscription we are told that this epistle was written when the
Apostle was at Laodicea, but in the subscription that it ‘was written at
Athens to Laodicea and sent by Tychicus’; while the prolegomena state
that it was written and left at Laodicea, and that afterwards, when St
Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians from Rome, he gave directions
that it should be transmitted to the Thessalonians by the
Colossians[611]. [Sidenote: Galatians.](δ) The _Epistle to the
Galatians_[612]. This might have been chosen, partly because it affords
no internal data for deciding where it was written, partly because like
the Colossian Epistle it is directed against a form of Judaism, and the
advocates of this hypothesis might not be careful to distinguish the two
types, though very distinct in themselves. I find no support for it in
the subscriptions, except the notice ‘per _Tychicum_’ in some Slavonic
MSS.
Footnote 605:
_Op._ II. p. 214 (ed. Lequien) τὴν πρὸς Τιμόθεον πρώτην λέγει. But he
adds τινὲς φασὶν ὅτι οὐχὶ τὴν Παύλου πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἐπεσταλμένην ... ἀλλὰ
τὴν παρ’ αὐτῶν Πάυλῳ ἐκ Λαοδικείας γραφεῖσαν.
Footnote 606:
_ad loc._ τίς δὲ ἦν ἡ ἐκ Λαοδικείας; ἡ πρὸς Τιμόθεον πρώτη· αὕτη γὰρ
ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἐγράφη. Τινὲς δέ φασιν ὅτι ἣν οἱ Λαοδικεῖς Παύλῳ
ἐπέστειλαν, ἀλλ’ οὐκ οἶδα τί ἂν ἐκείνῃς ἔδει αὐτοῖς πρὸς βελτίωσιν.
Footnote 607:
_ad loc._ ‘Propter eam quæ est ad Timotheum dixit.’
Footnote 608:
It is adopted by Erasmus in his paraphrase; ‘vicissim vos legatis
epistolam quæ Timotheo scripta fuit ex Laodicensium urbe’: but in his
commentary he does not commit himself to it. For other names see Anger
p. 17, note k.
Footnote 609:
_Catal. Bibl. Bodl. Cod. Æthiop._ p. 23.
Footnote 610:
In the editio princeps (Vienna 1555) the latter part of this colophon,
‘and was sent by the hand of Tychicus,’ is wanting.
Footnote 611:
_Catal. Bibl. Bodl. Cod. Æthiop._ p. 23.
Footnote 612:
Bloch, quoted in Anger p. 17 note l.
[Sidenote: Objections to these solutions.]
The special difficulties attending this class of solutions are manifold.
(1) It does not appear that St Paul had ever been at Laodicea when he
wrote the letter to the Colossians. (2) All the epistles thus singled
out are separated from the Colossian letter by an interval of some years
at least. (3) In every case they can with a high degree of probability
be shown to have been written elsewhere than at Laodicea. Indeed, as St
Paul had been long a prisoner either at Cæsarea or at Rome, when he
wrote to Colossæ, he could not have despatched a letter recently from
Laodicea.
[Sidenote: 3. A letter to the Laodiceans written by (_a_) St John. (_b_)
A companion of St Paul. (_c_) St Paul.]
3. Thus we are thrown back on some form of the solution which makes it a
letter written _to the Laodiceans_. And here we may at once reject the
hypothesis that the writer was (_a_) St John[613]. The First Epistle of
St John, which has been selected, was written (as is allowed on all
hands) much later than this date. Nor again does St Paul’s language
favour the alternative, which others have maintained, that the letter in
question was written by (_b_) one of St Paul’s companions, e.g. Epaphras
or Luke[614]. The writer must therefore have been (_c_) St Paul himself.
Footnote 613:
A conjecture of Lightfoot’s (_Works_ II. pp. 326, 339, London 1684),
but he does not lay much stress on it. He offers it ‘rather then
conceive that any epistle of Paul is lost.’ See also Anger p. 17, note
m.
Footnote 614:
Baumgarten _Comm._ ad loc., quoted by Anger p. 25, note g.
On this assumption three alternatives offer themselves.
[Sidenote: (i) A lost letter.]]
(i). We may suppose that the epistle in question has been lost. It has
been pointed out elsewhere that the Apostle must have written many
letters which are not preserved in our Canon[615]. Thus there is no _a
priori_ objection to this solution; and, being easy and obvious in
itself, it has found common support in recent times. If therefore we had
no positive reasons for identifying the Laodicean letter with one of the
extant epistles of our Canon, we might at once close with this account
of the matter. But such reasons do exist. And moreover, as we are
obliged to suppose that at least three letters—the Epistles to the
Colossians, to the Ephesians, and to Philemon—were despatched by St Paul
to Asia Minor at the same time, it is best not to postulate a fourth,
unless we are obliged to do so.
Footnote 615:
_Philippians_ p. 136 sq.
[Sidenote: (ii) A Canonical epistle.]
(ii). But, if it was not a lost letter, with which of the Canonical
Epistles of St Paul can we identify it with most probability? Was it
[Sidenote: (α) Hebrews. Philastrius.]
(α) _The Epistle to the Hebrews?_ The supporters of this hypothesis are
able to produce ancient evidence of a certain kind, though not such as
carries any real weight. Philastrius, writing about the close of the
fourth century, says that some persons ascribed the authorship of the
Epistle to the Hebrews to Luke the Evangelist, and adds that it was
asserted (apparently by these same persons, though this is not quite
clear) to have been written to the Laodiceans[616]. [Sidenote: Supposed
testimony of MS G.]Again in the Græco-Latin MS G of St Paul’s Epistles,
the _Codex Boernerianus_, probably written in the ninth century, after
the Epistle to Philemon, which breaks off abruptly at ver. 20, a vacant
space is left, as if for the conclusion of this epistle: and then
follows a fresh title
ad laudicenses incipit epistola
==προϲ\ \ \ \ λαουδακηϲαϲ \ \ \ \ αρχεται \ \ \ \ επιϲτολη==
This is evidently intended as the heading to another epistle. No other
epistle however succeeds, but the leaf containing this title is followed
by several leaves, which were originally left blank, but were filled at
a later date with extraneous matter. What then was this Epistle to the
Laodiceans, which was intended to follow, but which the scribe was
prevented from transcribing? As the Epistle to the Hebrews is not found
in this MS, and as in the common order of the Pauline Epistles it would
follow the Epistle to Philemon, the title has frequently been supposed
to refer to it. This opinion however does not appear at all probable.
Anger[617] indeed argues in its favour on the ground that in the
companion MS F, the _Codex Augiensis_, which (so far as regards the
Greek text) must have been derived immediately from the same
archetype[618], the Epistle to the Hebrews does really follow. But what
are the facts? [Sidenote: Relation of G to F.]It is plain that the Greek
texts of G and F came from the same original: but it is equally plain
that the two scribes had different Latin texts before them—that of G
being the Old Latin, and that of F Jerome’s revised Vulgate. No argument
therefore derived from the Latin text holds good for the Greek. But the
phenomena of both MSS alike[619] show that the Greek text of their
common archetype ended abruptly at Philem. 20 (probably owing to the
loss of the final leaves of the volume). The two scribes therefore were
left severally to the resources of their respective Latin MSS. The
scribe of F, whose Greek and Latin texts are in parallel columns,
concluded the Epistle to Philemon in Latin, though he could not match it
with its proper Greek; and after this he added the Epistle to the
Hebrews in Latin, no longer however leaving a blank column, as he had
done for the last few verses of Philemon. On the other hand the Latin
text in G is interlinear, the Latin words being written above the Greek
to interpret them. When therefore the Greek text came to an end the
scribe’s work was done, for he could no longer interlineate. But he left
a blank space for the remainder of Philemon, hoping doubtless hereafter
to find a Greek MS from which he could fill it in; and he likewise gave
the title of the epistle which he found next in his Latin copy, in Greek
as well as in Latin. The Greek title however he had to supply for
himself. This is clear from the form, which shows it to have been
translated from the Latin by a person who had the very smallest
knowledge of Greek. No Greek in the most barbarous age would have
written ==λαουδακηϲαϲ== for ==λαοδικεαϲ== or ==λαοδικηνουϲ==.
The αου is a Latin corruption _au_ for _ao_, and the termination
==αϲ== is a Latin’s notion of the Greek accusative. Thus the whole
word is a reproduction of the Latin ‘Laudicenses,’ the _en_ being
represented as usual by the Greek ε[620]. [Sidenote: The spurious
Laodicean Epistle intended.]If so, we have only to ask what writing
would probably appear as _Epistola ad Laudicenses_ in a Latin copy; and
to this question there can be only one answer. The apocryphal Epistle to
the Laodiceans occurs frequently in the Latin Bibles, being found at
least two or three centuries before the MS G was written. Though it does
not usually follow the Epistle to Philemon, yet its place varies very
considerably in different Latin copies, and an instance will be given
below[621] where it actually occurs in this position.
Footnote 616:
_Hær._ lxxxix ‘Sunt alii quoque qui epistolam Pauli ad Hebræos non
adserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Barnabæ esse apostoli aut
Clementis de urbe Roma episcopi; alii autem Lucæ evangelistæ aiunt
epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam. Et quia addiderunt in ea
quædam non bene sentientes, inde non legitur in ecclesia; et si
legitur a quibusdam, non tamen in ecclesia legitur populo, nisi
tredecim epistolæ ipsius, et ad Hebræos interdum. Et in ea quia
rhetorice scripsit, sermone plausibili, inde non putant esse ejusdem
apostoli; et quia factum Christum dicit in ea [Heb. iii. 2], inde non
legitur; de pœnitentia autem [Heb. vi. 4, x. 26] propter Novatianos
æque. Cum ergo factum dicit Christum, corpore, non divinitate, dicit
factum, cum doceat ibidem quod divinæ sit et paternæ substantiæ
filius, _Qui est splendor gloriæ_, inquit, _et imago substantiæ ejus_
[Heb. i. 3]’ etc. Oehler punctuates the sentence with which we are
concerned thus: ‘alii autem Lucæ evangelistæ. Aiunt epistolam etiam ad
Laodicenses scriptam,’ and in his note he adds ‘videlicet Pauli esse
apostoli.’ Thus he supposes the clause to refer to the apocryphal
Epistle to the Laodiceans: and Fabricius explains the reference
similarly. Such a reference however would be quite out of place here.
The whole paragraph before and after is taken up with discussing the
Epistle to the Hebrews; and the interposition of just six words,
referring to a wholly different matter, is inconceivable. We must
therefore punctuate either ‘alii autem Lucæ evangelistæ aiunt
epistolam, etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam’, or ‘alii autem Lucæ
evangelistæ aiunt; epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam.’ In either
case it will mean that some persons supposed the Epistle to the
Hebrews to have been written to the Laodiceans.
Footnote 617:
_Laodicenerbrief_ p. 29 sq.
Footnote 618:
If indeed the Greek text of F was not copied immediately from G, as
has been recently maintained by Mr Hort in the _Journal of Philology_
III. p. 67. The divergent phenomena of the two Latin texts seem to me
unfavourable to this hypothesis; but it ought not to be hastily
rejected.
Footnote 619:
Volkmar, the editor of Credner’s _Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen
Kanon_ p. 299, with strange carelessness speaks of ‘the appearance
(das Vorkommen) of the Laodicean Epistle in both the _Codices
Augiensis_ and _Boernerianus_ which in other respects are closely
allied.’ There is no mention of it in the Codex Augiensis.
Footnote 620:
It is curious that this MS, which was written by an Irish scribe,
should give the same corrupt form, Laud_ac_- for Laod_ac_-, which we
find in the Book of Armagh; see below p. 348.
Footnote 621:
See p. 352. It occurs also in this position in the list of Aelfric
(see below p. 362), where the order of the Pauline Epistles is ...
Col., Hebr., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Philem., Laod.
[Sidenote: This identification unsatisfactory.]
Thus beyond the notice in Philastrius there is no ancient support for
the identification of the missing letter of Col. iv. 16 with the Epistle
to the Hebrews; and doubtless the persons to whom Philastrius alludes
had no more authority for their opinion than their modern successors.
Critical conjecture, not historical tradition, led them to this result.
The theory therefore must stand or fall by its own merits. It has been
maintained by one or two modern writers[622], chiefly on the ground of
some partial coincidences between the Epistles to the Hebrews and the
Colossians; but the general character and purport of the two is wholly
dissimilar, and they obviously deal with antagonists of a very different
type. The insuperable difficulty of supposing that two epistles so
unlike in style were written by the same person to the same
neighbourhood at or about the same time would still remain, even though
the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews should be for a
moment granted.
Footnote 622:
See especially Schneckenburger _Beiträge_ p. 153 sq.
[Sidenote: (β) Philemon.]
(β) The _Epistle to Philemon_ has been strongly advocated by
Wieseler[623], as the letter to which St Paul refers in this passage.
For this identification it is necessary to establish two points; (1)
that Philemon lived not at Colossæ, but at Laodicea; and (2) that the
letter is addressed not to a private individual, but to a whole church.
For the first point there is something to be said. Though for reasons
explained elsewhere the abode of Philemon himself appears to have been
at Colossæ, wherever Archippus may have resided[624], still two opinions
may very fairly be held on this point. But Wieseler’s arguments entirely
fail to establish his other position. [Sidenote: This epistle does not
answer the conditions.]The theme, the treatment, the whole tenour of the
letter, mark it as private: and the mere fact that the Apostle’s
courtesy leads him to include in the opening salutation the Christians
who met at Philemon’s house is powerless to change its character. Why
should a letter, containing such intimate confidences, be read publicly
in the Church, not only at Laodicea but at Colossæ, by the express order
of the Apostle? The tact and delicacy of the Apostle’s pleading for
Onesimus would be nullified at one stroke by the demand for publication.
Footnote 623:
Some earlier writers who maintained this view are mentioned by Anger,
p. 25, note f. It has since been more fully developed and more
vigorously urged by Wieseler, first in a programme _Commentat. de
Epist. Laodicena quam vulgo perditam putant_ 1844, and afterwards in
his well known work _Chronol. des Apostol. Zeit._ p. 450 sq. It may
therefore be identified with his name. He speaks of it with much
confidence as ‘scarcely open to a doubt,’ but he has not succeeded in
convincing others.
Footnote 624:
See the introduction to the Epistle to Philemon.
[Sidenote: (γ) Ephesians.]
(γ) But may we not identify the letter in question with the _Epistle to
the Ephesians_, which also is known to have been despatched at the same
time with the Epistle to the Colossians? Unlike the Epistle to Philemon,
it was addressed not to a private person but to a church or churches. If
therefore it can be shown that the Laodiceans were the recipients,
either alone or with others, we have found the object of our search.
[Sidenote: This is the true solution.]The arguments in favour of this
solution are reserved for the introduction to that epistle. Meanwhile it
is sufficient to say that educated opinion is tending, though slowly, in
this direction, and to express the belief that ultimately this view will
be generally received[625].
Footnote 625:
See above p. 37.
[Sidenote: (iii) The extant un-canonical Epistle to the Laodiceans.]
(iii) Another wholly different identification remains to be mentioned.
It was neither a lost epistle nor a Canonical epistle, thought some, but
the writing which is extant under the title of the ‘Epistle to the
Laodiceans,’ though not generally received by the Church. Of the various
opinions held respecting this apocryphal letter I shall have to speak
presently. It is sufficient here to say that the advocates of its
genuineness fall into two classes. Either they assign to it a place in
the Canon with the other Epistles of St Paul, or they acquiesce in its
exclusion, holding that the Church has authority to pronounce for or
against the Canonicity even of Apostolic writings.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: General character of the spurious epistle.]
The apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans is a cento of Pauline phrases
strung together without any definite connexion or any clear object. They
are taken chiefly from the Epistle to the Philippians, but here and
there one is borrowed elsewhere, e.g. from the Epistle to the Galatians.
Of course it closes with an injunction to the Laodiceans to exchange
epistles with the Colossians. The Apostle’s injunction in Col. iv. 16
suggested the forgery, and such currency as it ever attained was due to
the support which that passage was supposed to give to it. Unlike most
forgeries, it had no ulterior aim. It was not framed to advance any
particular opinions, whether heterodox or orthodox. It has no doctrinal
peculiarities. Thus it is quite harmless, so far as falsity and
stupidity combined can ever be regarded as harmless.
* * * * *
Among the more important MSS which contain this epistle are the
following. The letters in brackets [ ] give the designations adopted in
the apparatus of various readings which follows.
1. _Fuldensis_ [F]. The famous MS of the Vulgate N. T. written for
Victor Bishop of Capua, by whom it was read and corrected in the years
546, 547; edited by Ern. Ranke, _Marburgi et Lipsiæ_ 1868. The Laodicean
Epistle occurs between Col. and 1 Tim. without any indication of
doubtful authenticity, except that it has no argument or table of
contents, like the other epistles. The scribe however has erroneously
interpolated part of the argument belonging to 1 Tim. between the title
and the epistle; see p. 291 sq. of Ranke’s edition.
2. _Cavensis._ A MS of the whole Latin Bible, at the Monastery of La
Cava near Salerno, ascribed to the 6th or 7th or 8th century. See
Vercellone _Var. Lect. Vulg. Lat. Bibl._ I. p. lxxxviii. Unfortunately
we have no account of the readings in the Laodicean Epistle (for which
it would be the most important authority after the Codex Fuldensis),
except the last sentence quoted by Mai _Nov. Patr. Bibl._ I. 2. p. 63,
‘Et facite legi Colossensium vobis.’ Laod. here occurs between Col. and
1 Thess. (Mai p. 62). Dr Westcott (Smith’s _Dict. of the Bible s.v.
Vulgate_, p. 1713) has remarked that the two oldest authorities for the
interpolation of the three heavenly witnesses in 1 Joh. v. 7, this La
Cava MS and the _Speculum_ published by Mai, also support the Laodicean
Epistle (see Mai l.c. pp. 7, 62 sq.). The two phenomena are combined in
another very ancient MS, Brit. Mus. _Add._ 11,852, described below.
3. _Armachanus_ [A]. A MS of the N. T., now belonging to Trinity
College, Dublin, and known as the ‘Book of Armagh.’ It was written in
the year 807, as ascertained by Bp. Graves; see the _Proceedings of the
Royal Irish Academy_ III. pp. 316, 356. The Laodicean Epistle follows
Colossians on fol. 138, but with the warning that Jerome denies its
genuineness. The text of the Laodicean Epistle in this MS is not so pure
as might have been anticipated from its antiquity. I owe the collation
of readings which is given below to the kindness of Dr Reeves, who is
engaged in editing the MS.
4. _Darmstadiensis_ [D]. A fol. MS of the whole Bible, defective from
Apoc. xxii. 12 to the end, now in the Grand-ducal library at Darmstadt,
but formerly belonging to the Cathedral Library at Cologne; presented by
Hermann Pius, Archbishop of Cologne from A.D. 890–925. Laod. follows
Col. A collation was made for Anger, from whom (p. 144) this account is
taken.
5. _Bernensis_ no. 334 [B]. A 4to MS of miscellaneous contents, ending
with the Pauline Epistles, the last being the Epistle to the Laodiceans,
written in the 9th cent. The Laodicean Epistle is a fragment, ending
with ‘Gaudete in Christo et præcavete sordibus in lucro’ (ver. 13). This
account is taken by Anger from Sinner _Catal. Cod. MSS. Bibl. Bern._ I.
p. 28. In his Addenda (p. 179) Anger gives a collation of this MS.
6. _Toletanus_ [T] A MS of the Latin Bible belonging to the Cathedral
Library at Toledo, and written about the 8th century: see Westcott in
Smith’s _Dict. of the Bible_, s.v. _Vulgate_ p. 1710, Vercellone _Var.
Lect._ I. p. lxxxiv. sq. The readings in the Laodicean Epistle are taken
from Joh. Mariana _Schol. in Vet. et Nov. Test._, where it is printed in
full. The edition which I have used is dated Paris 1620 (p. 831). The
text however cannot be assumed to be strictly accurate, as Mariana had a
printed copy of the epistle before him, from which at all events he
supplied in brackets words wanting in the MS (see Anger p. 144), and
which may have influenced his readings in other ways. In this MS Laod.
follows Col.
7. _Parisiensis_ Reg. Lat. 3 (formerly 3562)[626] [P_{1}]. A Latin Bible,
in one volume fol., called after Anowaretha by whom it was given to the
monastery of Glanfeuille (St Maur), and ascribed in the printed
Catalogue to the 9th cent. Laod. follows Col. on fol. 379.
Footnote 626:
So at least I find the number given in my notes. But in _Bentl. Crit.
Sacr._ p. xxxvii it is 3561.
8. _Parisiensis_ Reg. Lat. 6 [P_{2}]. A MS of the Latin Bible in 4 vols.
fol., according to the Catalogue probably written in the 10th cent. [?].
It belonged formerly to the Duc de Noailles. Laod. follows Col. It
contains numerous corrections in a later hand either between the lines
or in the margin. The two hands are distinguished as P_{2}*, P_{2}**.
9. _Parisiensis_ Reg. Lat. 250 (formerly 3572) [P_{3}]. A fol. MS of the
N. T., described in the Catalogue as probably belonging to end of the
9th cent. Laod. follows Col. It has a few corrections in a later hand.
The two hands are distinguished as P_{3}*, P_{3}**.
These three Parisian MSS I collated myself, but I had not time to
examine them as carefully as I could have wished.
10. _Brit. Mus._ Add. 11,852. [G]. An important MS of St Paul’s Epistles
written in the 9th cent. It formerly belonged to the monastery of St
Gall, being one of the books with which the library there was enriched
by Hartmot who was Abbot from A.D. 872 to 884 or 885. Laod. follows Heb.
and has no capitula like the other epistles.
11. _Brit. Mus._ Add. 10,546 [C]. A fol. MS of the Vulgate, commonly
known as ‘Charlemagne’s Bible,’ but probably belonging to the age of
Charles the Bald († 877). Laod. stands between Heb. and Apoc. It has no
argument or capitula.
12. _Brit. Mus._ Reg. 1. E. vii, viii [R]. An English MS of the Latin
Bible from Christ Church, Canterbury, written about the middle of the
10th cent. Laod. follows Heb. This is the most ancient MS, so far as I
am aware, in which the epistle has capitulations. It is here given in
its fullest form, and thus presents the earliest example of what may be
called the modern recension.
13. _Brit. Mus._ Harl. 2833, 2834 [H_{1}]. A MS of the 13th cent. written
for the Cathedral of Angers. Laod. follows Apoc.
The readings of the four preceding MSS are taken from the collations in
Westcott _Canon_ Appx. E p. 572 sq. (ed. 4).
14. _Brit. Mus._ Harl. 3131 [H_{2}]. A smallish 4to. of the 12th cent.,
said to be of German origin, with marginal and interlinear glosses in
some parts. Laod. stands between Philem. and Heb. It has no heading but
only a red initial letter P. At the end is 'Expl. Ep̅la̅ ad Laodicenses.
Prologus ad Ebreos.'
15. _Brit. Mus._ Sloane 539 [S]. A small fol. of the 12th cent., said to
be German. It contains St Paul’s Epistles with glosses. The gloss on
Col. iv. 16 ‘et ea quæ est Laodicensium etc.’ runs ‘quam ego eis misi ut
ipsi michi ut videatis hic esse responsum.’ Laod. follows Heb., and has
no glosses.
The two last MSS I collated myself.
16. _Bodl._ Laud. Lat. 13 (formerly 810) [L_{1}]. A 4to MS in double
columns of the 13th cent. containing the Latin Bible. See _Catal. Bibl.
Laud. Cod. Lat._ p. 10. Laod. follows Col. Notwithstanding the date of
the MS, it gives a very ancient text of this epistle.
17. _Bodl._ Laud. Lat. 8 (formerly 757) [L_{2}]. A fol. MS of the Latin
Bible, belonging to the end of the 12th cent. See _Catal. Bibl. Laud.
Cod. Lat._ p. 9. This is the same MS, which Anger describes (p. 145) as
115C (its original mark), and of which he gives a collation. Laod.
stands between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim.
I am indebted for collations of these two Laudian MSS to the kindness of
the Rev. J. Wordsworth, Fellow of Brasenose College.
18. _Vindob._ 287 [V]. The Pauline Epp., written by Marianus Scotus
(i.e. the Irishman), A.D. 1079. See Alter _Nov. Test. ad Cod. Vindob.
Græce Expressum_ II. p. 1040 sq., Denis _Cod. MSS Lat. Bibl. Vindob._ I.
no. lviii, Zeuss _Grammatica Celtica_ p. xviii (ed. 2). The Epistle to
the Laodiceans is transcribed from this MS by Alter l.c. p. 1067 sq. It
follows Col.
19. _Trin. Coll. Cantabr._ B. 5. 1 [X]. A fol. MS of the Latin Bible,
written probably in the 12th century. Laod. follows Col. I have given a
collation of this MS, because (like Brit. Mus. Reg. 1. E. viii) it is an
early example of the completed form. The epistle is preceded by
capitula, as follows.