3. Monet Laodicenses apostolus ut sicut sui audierunt praesentia ita
retineant et sine retractu faciant.
4. Hortatur apostolus Laodicenses ut fide sint firmi et quæ integra et
vera et deo placita sunt faciant. et salutatio fratrum. EXPLICIUNT
CAPITULA. INCIPIT EPISTOLA BEATI PAULI APOSTOLI AD LAODICENSES.
These capitulations may be compared with those given by Dr Westcott from
Reg. 1. E. viii, with which they are nearly identical.
Besides these nineteen MSS, of which (with the exception of _Cavensis_)
collations are given below, it may be worth while recording the
following, as containing this epistle.
Among the Lambeth MSS are (i) no. 4, large folio, 12th or 13th cent.
Laod. stands between Col. and 1 Thess. (ii) no. 90, small folio, 13th or
14th cent. Laod. stands between Col. and 1 Thess. without title or
heading of any kind. Apparently a good text. (iii) no. 348, 4to, 15th
cent. Laod. stands between Col. and 1 Thess., without heading etc. (iv)
no. 544, 8vo, 15th cent. Laod. stands between Col. and 1 Thess., without
heading etc. (v) no. 1152, 4to, 13th or 14th cent. Laod. occupies the
same position as in the four preceding MSS and has no heading or title.
The first and last of these five MSS are collated by Dr Westcott
(_Canon_ p. 572 sq.). I inspected them all.
In the Bodleian Library at Oxford belonging to the Canonici collection
are (i) Canon. Bibl. 82 (see _Catal._ p. 277), very small 4to, 13th
cent., containing parts of the N. T. St Paul’s Epp. are at the end of
the volume, following Apoc. Laod. intervenes between Tit. and Philem.,
beginning ‘Explicit epistola ad titum. Incipit ad laud.’, and ending
‘Explicit epistola ad laudicenses. Incipit ad phylemonem’. (ii) Canon.
Bibl. 7 (see _Catal._ p. 251), small 4to, beginning of 14th cent.,
containing Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp., Apoc., Paul. Epp. Laod. is at the
end. (iii) Canon. Bibl. 16 (_Catal._ p. 256), small 4to, containing the
N. T., 15th cent., written by the hand ‘Stephani de Tautaldis’. Laod.
follows Col. (iv) Canon. Bibl. 25 (_Catal._ p. 258), very small 4to,
mutilated, early part of 15th cent. It contains a part of St Paul’s Epp.
(beginning in the middle of Gal.) and the Apocalypse. Laod. follows Col.
For information respecting these MSS I am indebted to the Rev. J.
Wordsworth.
In the University Library, Cambridge, I have observed the Epistle to the
Laodiceans in the following MSS. (i) Dd. 5. 52 (see _Catal._ I. p. 273),
4to, double columns, 14th cent. Laod. is between Col. and 1 Thess. (ii)
Ee. I. 9 (see _Catal._ II. p. 10), 4to, double columns, very small neat
hand, 15th cent. It belonged to St Alban’s. Laod. is between Col. and 1
Thess. (iii) Mm. 3. 2 (see _Catal._ IV. p. 174), fol., Latin Bible,
double columns, 13th cent. Laod. is between Col. and 1 Thess., but the
heading is ‘Explicit epistola ad Colocenses, et hic incipit ad
thesalocenses’, after which Laod. follows immediately. At the top of the
page is ‘Ad Laudonenses’. (iv) Ee. I. 16 (see _Catal._ II. p. 16), 4to,
double columns, Latin Bible, 13th or 14th cent. The order of the N. T.
is Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp., Paul Epp., Apoc. Here Laod. is between Heb.
and Rev.; it is treated like the other books, except that it has no
prologue.
In the College Libraries at Cambridge I have accidentally noticed the
following MSS as containing the epistle; for I have not undertaken any
systematic search. (i) St Peter’s, O. 4. 6, fol., 2 columns, 13th cent.,
Latin Bible. The order of the N. T. is Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp., Paul
Epp., Apoc. The Epistle to the Laodiceans is between Heb. and Apoc. (ii)
Sidney Δ. 5. 11, fol., 2 columns, Latin Bible, 13th cent. The order of
the N. T. is Evv., Paul. Epp., Acts, Cath. Epp., Apoc.; and Laod. is
between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim. (iii) Emman. 2. 1. 6, large fol., Latin
Bible, early 14th cent. The order of the N. T. is different from the
last, being Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp., Paul. Epp.; Apoc.; but Laod. is in
the same position, between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim.
Notice of a few other MSS, in which this epistle occurs, will be found
in Hody _de Bibl. Text. Orig._ p. 664, and in Anger p. 145 sq.
This list, slight and partial as it is, will serve to show the wide
circulation of the Laodicean Epistle. At the same time it will have been
observed that its position varies very considerably in different copies.
(i) The most common position is immediately after Colossians, as the
notice in Col. iv. 16 would suggest. This is its place in the most
ancient authorities, e.g. the Fulda, La Cava, and Toledo MSS, and the
Book of Armagh.
(ii) Another position is after 2 Thess. So Laud. Lat. 8, Sidn. [Delta].
5. 11, Emman. 2. 1. 6: see also MSS in Hody _Bibl. Text. Orig._ p. 664.
It must be remembered that in the Latin Bibles the Epistles to the
Thessalonians sometimes precede and sometimes follow the Epistle to the
Colossians. Hence we get three arrangements in different MSS; (1) 1, 2
Thess., Col., Laod.; (2) Col., Laod., 1, 2 Thess.; (3) Col., 1, 2
Thess., Laod.
(iii) It occurs at least in one instance between Titus and Philemon;
Oxon. Bodl. Canon. 82. Mai also (_Nov. Patr. Bibl._ I. 2. p. 63)
mentions a ‘very ancient MS’, in which it stands between Titus and 1
John; but he does not say how Titus and 1 John appear in such close
neighbourhood.
(iv) Again it follows Philemon in Brit. Mus. Harl. 3131. This also must
have been its position in the Latin MS which the scribe of the Codex
Boernerianus had before him: see above p. 346.
(v) Another and somewhat common position is after Hebrews; e.g. Brit.
Mus. Add. 11,852, Add. 10,546, Reg. I. E. viii, Sloane 539, Camb. Univ.
Ee. I. 16, Pet. O. 4. 6. See also Hody l.c.
(vi) It is frequently placed at the end of the New Testament, and so
after the Apocalypse when the Apocalypse comes last, e.g. Harl. 2833.
Sometimes the Pauline Epistles follow the Apocalypse, so that Laod.
occurs at the end at once of the Pauline Epistles and of the N. T.; e.g.
Bodl. Canon. Lat. 7.
Other exceptional positions, e.g. after Galatians or after 3 John, are
found in versions and printed texts (see Anger p. 143); but no authority
of Latin MSS is quoted for them.
The _Codex Fuldensis_, besides being the oldest MS, is also by far the
most trustworthy. In some instances indeed a true reading may be
preserved in later MSS, where it has a false one; but such cases are
rare. The text however was already corrupt in several places at this
time; and the variations in the later MSS are most frequently attempts
of the scribes to render it intelligible by alteration or amplification.
Such for instance is the case with the mutilated reading ‘quod est’
(ver. 13), which is amplified, even as early as the Book of Armagh, into
‘quodcunque optimum est’, though there can be little doubt that the
expression represents τὸ λοιπόν of Phil. iii. 2, and the missing word
therefore is ‘reliquum’. The greatest contrast to F is presented by such
MSS as RX, where the epistle has not only been filled out to the amplest
proportions, but also supplied with a complete set of capitulations like
the Canonical books. Though for this reason these two MSS have no great
value, yet they are interesting as being among the oldest which give the
amplified text, and I have therefore added a collation of them. On the
other hand some much later MSS, especially L_{1}, preserve a very ancient
text, which closely resembles that of F.[627]
Footnote 627:
The epistle has been critically edited by Anger _Laodicenerbrief_ p.
155 sq. and Westcott _Canon_ App. E. p. 572. I have already expressed
my obligations to both these writers for their collations of MSS.
In the apparatus of various readings, which is subjoined to the
epistle, I have not attempted to give such minute differences of
spelling as _e_ and _ae_, or _c_ and _t_ (_Laodicia_, _Laoditia_), nor
is the punctuation of the MSS noted.