[Sidenote: Text of the epistle.]
Paulus Apostolus non ab hominibus neque per hominem sed per Ihesum
Christum, fratribus qui sunt Laodiciae. ^2Gratia vobis et pax a Deo
patre et Domino Ihesu Christo.
^3Gratias ago Christo per omnem orationem meam, quod permanentes estis
in eo et perseverantes in operibus eius, promissum expectantes in diem
iudicii. ^4Neque destituant vos quorundam vaniloquia insinuantium, ut
vos avertant a veritate evangelii quod a me praedicatur. ^5Et nunc
faciet Deus ut qui sunt ex me ad profectum veritatis evangelii
deservientes et facientes benignitatem operum quae salutis vitae
aeternae.
^6Et nunc palam sunt vincula mea quae patior in Christo; quibus laetor
et gaudeo. ^7Et hoc mihi est ad salutem perpetuam; quod ipsum factum
orationibus vestris et administrante Spiritu sancto, sive per vitam sive
per mortem. ^8Est enim mihi vivere in Christo et mori gaudium. ^9Et id
ipsum in vobis faciet misericordia sua, ut eandem dilectionem habeatis
et sitis unianimes.
^{10}Ergo, dilectissimi, ut audistis praesentia mei, ita retinete et
facite in timore Dei, et erit vobis vita in aeternum: ^{11}Est enim Deus
qui operatur in vos. ^{12}Et facite sine retractu quaecumque facitis.
#^{13}al_13#Et quod est [reliquum], dilectissimi, gaudete in Christo; et
praecavete sordidos in lucro. ^{14}Omnes sint petitiones vestrae palam
apud Deum; et estote firmi in sensu Christi. ^{15}Et quae integra et vera
et pudica et iusta et amabilia, facite. ^{16}Et quae audistis et
accepistis in corde retinete; et erit vobis pax.
^{18}Salutant vos sancti.
^{19}Gratia Domini Ihesu cum spiritu vestro.
^{20}Et facite legi Colosensibus et Colosensium vobis.
Inc. ad laodicenses F; Incipit epistola ad laodicenses (laudicenses
P_{2}R) BDP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}CRH_{2}SV; Epistola ad laodicenses TM (_if this
heading be not due to the editors themselves_); Incipit epistola pauli
ad laodicenses GH_{1}; Incipit epistola beati pauli ad laodicenses X;
Incipit aepistola ad laudicenses sed hirunimus eam negat esse pauli A:
_no heading_ in L_{1}L_{2}H_{2}.
apostolus] _om._ TM. hominibus] homine G. ihesum christum] christum
ihesum T. christum] _add._ ‘et deum patrem omnipotentem qui
suscitavit eum a mortuis’ RX. fratribus qui sunt] his qui sunt
fratribus A. _For_ fratribus B _has_ fratres. laodiciae] laodicae
T; ladoicie L; laudaciae A; laudiciae R; laodiceae B.
2. patre] et patre nostro L_{1}; patre nostro H_{1}H_{2}SM; nostro
A. domino] add. nostro P_{2}P_{3}RGL_{2}.
3. christo] deo meo DP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}CL_{1}; deo meo et christo ihesu
RX. meam] memoriam M. permanentes estis] estis permanentes
AGR. in operibus eius] in operibus bonis H_{1}H_{2}S; om
BDTP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}CM. promissum expectantes] promissa expectantes T;
et promissum expectantes M; promissionem expectantes V; sperantes
promissionem AG; sperantes promissum RX. diem] die
BTDP_{1}P_{3}GCRH_{1}H_{2}SL_{1}VMX. iudicii] iudicationis GRX.
4. neque] _add._ enim R. destituant] distituant A; destituunt H_{1};
destituat M, Spec.; destituit DP_{1}P_{3}CM; distituit B; destitui P_{2};
disturbat T. vaniloquia] vaniloquentia BDTP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}GCVM;
vaneloquentia, Spec. insinuantium] insinuantium se GM; insanientium
H_{1}S; insimulantium T. ut] sed ut BA; sed peto ne R; seductorum ne
X. vos] _om._ T. avertant] Spec.; evertant FML_{2}; evertent
B. evangelii] aevanguelii A (_and so below_).
5. et nunc ... veritatis evangelii] _om._ L. faciet deus] deus faciet
AG. ut] _add._ sint G. qui] que (_altered from_ qui) P_{3}*
(or P_{3}**). me] _add._ perveniant TM; _add._ proficiant V. ad
profectum] imperfectum A; ad perfectum R; in profectum G. veritatis
evangelii] evangelii veritatis V. deservientes] _add._ sint
P_{2}**P_{3}**H_{1}H_{2}S. _For_ deservientes RX _have_ dei
servientes. et facientes] _repeated in_ L_{1}. _For_ facientes
benignitatem operum T _has_ benignitatem operum facientes.
operum] eorum RX; opera L_{2}. quae] _om._ M; _add._ sunt
AP_{2}**GCRH_{1}H_{2}SVX. _It is impossible to say in many cases whether a
scribe intended_ operum quae _or_ operumque. _Ranke prints_ operumque
_in_ F. salutis] _add._ et L_{1}.
6. nunc] nō = non L_{2}. palam sunt] sunt palam G; sunt
(_om._ palam) A. Christo] _add._ Ihesu (iesu)
DP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}CVX. quibus] in quibus TRMP_{2}. et] ut C.
7. mihi] michi H_{1}S (_and so below_); enim (_for_ mihi)
M. factum] fletum L_{2}M; factum est TP_{3}**H_{1}S. orationibus]
operationibus B. vestris] meis DP_{1}. et] est M: _om._
TGRL_{1}X. administrante spiritu sancto] administrantem spiritum
sanctum FBL_{2}; amministrante spiritum sanctum DCP_{1}P_{2}* (_but there
is an erasure in_ P_{1}). _For_ administrante L_{1}X _have_
amministrante; _and for_ spiritu sancto G _transposes and reads_
sancto spiritu. per mortem] mortem (_om._ per) H_{1}.
8. est enim] etenim T. mihi] _om._ M. vivere] vivere vita
DTP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}CVH_{1}H_{2}S; vere vita FL_{1}RMX; vera vita B; vere
(_altered into_ vivere _prima manu_) vita L_{2}. gaudium] lucrum et
gaudium A; gaudium ut lucrum H_{2}P_{2}**; gaudium vel lucrum H_{1}S.
9. et] _om._ T; qui (_om._ et) V. id ipsum] in ipsum FBL_{2}; in
idipsum L_{1}V; ipsum P_{2}GM; ipse TAH_{1}H_{2}SRX. in vobis] vobis
P_{2}; in nobis H_{2}. misericordia sua] misericordiam suam
FBDAP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}CH_{1}H_{2}RSVL_{1}XL_{2} (_but written_ misericordiā suā
_in several cases_). et] _om._ L_{1}; ut V. unianimes] unanimes
BDTP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}GCH_{1}RL_{1}L_{2}VMSX.
10. ergo] ego H_{2}. ut] et L_{2}. praesentia mei] praesentiam ei DP;
praesentiam G**; in praesentia mei P_{3}**; praesentiam mihi M;
presenciam eius L_{2}; praesentiam dei A; præsentiam domini (dnī)
P_{2}**H_{1}H_{2}S. ita] _om._ DP_{1}P_{2}**P_{3}CX. retinete]
retinere A; sentite T. in] cum TM; _om._ B. timore] timorem
AB. dei] domini H_{1}S. vita] pax et vita RX. in aeternum] in
aeterno A; in aeterna G*; aeterna (eterna) G**PL_{1}.
11. Est enim ... vos] _om._ (?) T. enim] _om._ B. vos] vobis
GAH_{1}H_{2}SRVP_{2}** (_or_ P_{2}*) P_{3}**MX.
12. retractu] retractatu BP_{2}RL_{2}; retractatione AGV; tractu T;
reatu H_{1}S. _In_ P_{2}** ut peccato _is added_; _in_ H_{2} t
peccato. quaecumque] quodcumque TM.
13. quod est reliquum] quod est FBTDP_{1}P_{2}*P_{3}*RCL_{1}L_{2}MX; quod est
optimum GH_{1}H_{2}SV; quodcunque optimum est A; quodcunque est obtimum
P_{2}**; quod bonum est P_{3}**: see p. 356. dilectissimi] dilectissime
B. christo] domino DP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}CX. sordidos] _add._ omnes
P_{2}**H_{1}H_{2}S; _add._ homines A. in] ut L_{1}. lucro] lucrum RX.
14. omnes] in omnibus G; homines (_attached to the preceding sentence_)
TM. sint] _omitted here and placed after_ palam H_{1}S. apud]
aput F; ante AG. deum] dominum A. firmi in sensu christi]
sensu firmi in christo ihesu R.
15. quae] _add._ sunt R. integra] intigra; _add._ sunt
T. vera] _add._ sunt DP_1P_2P_3CVX. pudica et iusta] iusta et
pudica R. iusta] iusta et casta AGV; casta et iusta
P_2**H_1H_2S. amabilia] _add._ sunt TH_1H_2SM; _add._ et sancta RX.
16. audistis] _add._ et vidistis L_2. accepistis] accipistis
A. pax] _add. ver._ 17, salutate omnes fratres (sanctos _for_
fratres GV) in osculo sancto AGP_2**H_1H_2SRVX.
18. sancti] omnes sancti AGRH_1SVX; sancti omnes H_2; _add._ in christo
ihesu RX.
19. domini ihesu] domini nostri ihesu (iesu) christi
DTAP_1P_2P_3GCH_1H_2SVMRX.
20. et] _add._ hanc H_1H_2SP_2**. legi] _add._ epistolam
L_1P_3** colosensibus et] _om._ FTDP_1P_2*P_3CVL_1L_2. _They are
also omitted in the La Cava_ MS; _see above_ p. 348. colosensium]
_add._ epistolam L_2. _The words_ colosensibus, colosensium, _are
commonly written with a single_ s, _more especially in the oldest MSS.
In L_1 the form is_ cholosensium.
_The last sentence_ et facite etc. _is entirely omitted in_ M. _In_ RX
_it is expanded into_ et facite legi colosensibus hanc epistolam et
colosensium (colosensibus R) vos legite. deus autem et pater domini
nostri ihesu christi custodiat vos immaculatos in christo ihesu cui est
honor et gloria in secula seculorum. amen.
_Subscriptions._ Explicit P_2P_3H_1; Exp. ad laodicenses F; Explicit
epistola ad laodicenses (laudicenses R) DP_1GCH_2SRVX. _There is no
subscription in_ AL_1L_2, _and none is given for_ TM.
[Sidenote: Notes on the epistle.]
The following notes are added for the sake of elucidating one or two
points of difficulty in the text or interpretation of the epistle.
4 Neque] This is the passage quoted in the _Speculum_ § 50 published by
Mai _Nov. Patr. Bibl._ I. 2. p. 62 sq., ‘Item ad Laodicenses: Neque
destituat vos quorundam vaneloquentia (_sic_) insinuantium, ut vos
avertant a veritate evangelii quod a me praedicatur’. We ought possibly
to adopt the reading ‘destituat ... vaniloquentia’ of this and other old
mss in preference to the ‘destituant ... vaniloquia’ of F. ‘Vaniloquium’
however is the rendering of ματαιολογία 1 Tim. i. 6, and is supported by
such analogies as inaniloquium, maliloquium, multiloquium,
stultiloquium, etc.; see Hagen _Sprachl. Erörter. zur Vulgata_ p. 74,
Roensch _Das Neue Testament Tertullians_ p. 710.
destituant] Properly ‘_leave in the lurch_’ and so ‘_cheat_’,
‘_beguile_’, e.g. Cic. _pro Rosc. Am._ 40 ‘induxit, decepit, destituit,
adversariis tradidit, omni fraude et perfidia fefellit.’ In Heb. ix. 26
εἰς ἀθέτησιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας is translated ‘ad destitutionem peccati’. The
original here may have been ἐξαπατήσωσιν or ἀθετήσωσιν. insinuantium]
In late Latin this word means little more than ‘to communicate’, ‘to
inculcate’, ‘to teach’: see the references in Roensch _Itala u. Vulgata_
p. 387, Heumann _Handlexicon des römischen Rechts_ s.v., Ducange
_Glossarium_ s.v. So too ‘insinuator’ Tertull. _ad Nat._ ii. 1,
‘insinuatrix’ August. _Ep._ 110 (II. p. 317). In Acts xvii. 3 it is the
rendering of παρατιθέμενος.
5 ut qui sunt etc.] The passage, as it stands, is obviously corrupt; and
a comparison with Phil. i. 12 τὰ κατ’ ἐμὲ μᾶλλον εἰς προκοπὴν τοῦ
εὐαγγελίου ἐλήλυθεν seems to reveal the nature of the corruption. (1)
For ‘qui’ we should probably read ‘quæ’, which indeed is found in some
late MSS of no authority. (2) There is a lacuna somewhere in the
sentence, probably after ‘evangelii’. The original therefore would run
in this form ‘ut quæ sunt ex me ad profectum veritatis [eveniant] ...
deservientes etc.,’ the participles belonging to a separate sentence of
which the beginning is lost. The supplements ‘perveniant’, ‘proficiant’,
found in some MSS give the right sense, though perhaps they are
conjectural. The Vulgate of Phil. i. 12 is ‘quæ circa me sunt magis ad
profectum venerunt evangelii’. In the latter part of the verse it is
impossible in many cases to say whether a MS intends ‘operum quæ’ or
‘operumque’; but the former is probably correct, as representing ἐργων
τῶν τῆς σωτηρίας: unless indeed this sentence also is corrupt or
mutilated.
7 administrante etc.] Considering the diversity of readings here, we may
perhaps venture on the emendation ‘administratione spiritus sancti’, as
this more closely resembles the passage on which our text is founded,
Phil. i. 19 διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως καὶ ἐπιχορηγίας τοῦ πνεύματος κ.τ.λ.
12 retractu] ‘_wavering_’, ‘_hesitation_’. For this sense of
‘retractare’, ‘to rehandle, discuss’, and so ‘to question, hesitate’,
and even ‘to shirk, decline’, see Oehler _Tertullian_, index p. cxciii,
Roensch _N. T. Tertullian’s_ p. 669, Ducange _Glossarium_ s.v.: comp.
e.g. Iren. v. 11. 1 ‘ne relinqueretur quæstio his qui infideliter
retractant de eo’. So ‘retractator’ is equivalent to ‘detractator’ in
Tert. _de Jejun._ 15 ‘retractatores hujus officii’ (see Oehler’s note);
and in 1 Sam. xiv. 39 ‘absque retractatione morietur’ is the rendering
of ‘dying he shall die’, θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖται. Here the expression
probably represents χωρὶς ... διαλογισμῶν of Phil. ii. 14, which in the
Old Latin is ‘sine ... detractionibus’. All three forms occur, retractus
(Tert. _Scorp._ 1), retractatus (Tert. _Apol._ 4, _adv. Marc._ i. 1, v.
3, _adv. Prax._ 2, and frequently), retractatio (Cic. _Tusc._ v. 29,
‘sine retractatione’ and so frequently; 1 Sam. l. c). Here ‘retractus’
must be preferred, both as being the least common form and as having the
highest MS authority. In Tert. _Scorp._ 1 however it is not used in this
same sense.
13 quod est reliquum] I have already spoken of this passage, p. 352, and
shall have to speak of it again, p. 357. The oldest and most trustworthy
MSS have simply ‘quod est’. The word ‘reliquum’ must be supplied, as
Anger truly discerned (p. 163); for the passage is taken from Phil. iii.
1 τὸ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί μου, χαίρετε ἐν Κυρίῳ. See the Vulgate translation
of τὸ λοιπόν in 1 Cor. vii. 29. Later and less trustworthy authorities
supply ‘optimum’ or ‘bonum’.
14 in sensu Christi] ‘_in the mind of Christ_’: for in 1 Cor. ii. 16
νοῦν Χριστοῦ is rendered ‘sensum Christi’.
20 facite legi etc.] Though the words ‘Colosensibus et’ are wanting in
very many of the authorities which are elsewhere most trustworthy, yet I
have felt justified in retaining them with other respectable copies,
because (1) The homœoteleuton would account for their omission even
in very ancient MSS; (2) The parallelism with Col. iv. 16 requires their
insertion; (3) The insertion is not like the device of a Latin scribe,
who would hardly have manipulated the sentence into a form which savours
so strongly of a Greek original.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: Theory of a Greek original discussed.]
It is the general, though not universal, opinion that this epistle was
altogether a forgery of the Western Church[628]; and consequently that
the Latin is not a translation from a lost Greek original, but preserves
the earliest form of the epistle. Though the forgery doubtless attained
its widest circulation in the West, there are, I venture to think,
strong reasons for dissenting from this opinion.
Footnote 628:
e.g. Anger _Laodicenerbrief_ p. 142 sq., Westcott _Canon_ p. 454 sq.
(ed. 4). Erasmus asks boldly, ‘Qui factum est ut hæc epistola apud
Latinos extet, cum nullus sit apud Græcos, ne veterum quidem, qui
testetur eam a se lectam?’ The accuracy of this statement will be
tested presently.
[Sidenote: Frequent Grecisms in the epistle.]
If we read the epistle in its most authentic form, divested of the
additions contributed by the later MSS, we are struck with its cramped
style. Altogether it has not the run of a Latin original. And, when we
come to examine it in detail, we find that this constraint is due very
largely to the fetters imposed by close adherence to Greek idiom. Thus
for instance we have ver. 5 ‘_qui_ [or _quæ_] _sunt ex me_’, οἱ [or τὰ]
ἐξ ἐμοῦ; _operum quæ salutis_, ἐργων τῶν τῆς σωτηρίας; ver. 6 _palam
vincula mea quæ patior_, φανεροὶ οἱ δεσμοί μου ὃυς ὑπομένω; ver. 13
_sordidos in lucro_, αἰσχροκερδεῖς; ver. 20 _et facite legi Colosensibus
et Colosensium vobis_, καὶ ποιήσατε ἵνα τοῖς Κολασσαεῦσιν ἀναγνωσθῇ καὶ
ἡ Κολασσαέων ἵνα [καὶ] ὑμῖν. It is quite possible indeed that parallels
for some of these anomalies may be found in Latin writers. Thus Tert.
_c. Marc._ i. 23 ‘redundantia justitiæ super _scribarum et Pharisæorum_’
is quoted to illustrate the genitive ‘Colossensium’ ver. 20.[629] The
Greek cast however is not confined to one or two expressions but extends
to the whole letter.
Footnote 629:
Anger, p. 165.
[Sidenote: It differs widely from the Old Latin and Vulgate Versions.]
But a yet stronger argument in favour of a Greek original remains. This
epistle, as we saw, is a cento of passages from St Paul. If it had been
written originally in Latin, we should expect to find that the passages
were taken directly from the Latin versions. This however is not the
case. Thus compare ver. 6 ‘_palam_ sunt vincula mea’ with Phil. i. 13
‘ut vincula mea _manifesta_ fierent’: ver. 7 ‘_orationibus vestris et
administrante_ spiritu sancto’ [_administratione_ spiritus sancti’?]
with Phil. i. 19 ‘_per vestram obsecrationem_ (V. _orationem_) et
_subministrationem _ spiritus sancti’; ver. 9 ‘ut eandem _dilectionem_
habeatis et sitis unianimes’ with Phil. ii. 2 ‘eandem _caritatem_
habentes, unanimes’; ver. 10 ‘_ergo_, dilectissimi, ut _audistis_
præsentia mei ... _facite in_ timore’ with Phil. ii. 12 ‘_Propter quod_
(V. _Itaque_) dilectissimi mihi (V. _charissimi_ mei) sicut semper
_obaudistis_ (V. _obedistis_) ... præsentia (V. in præsentia) mei ...
_cum_ timore (V. _metu_) ... _operamini_’; ver. 11, 12 ‘_Est enim Deus_
qui operatur in vos (v. 1. vobis). Et facite sine _retractu_ quæcumque
facitis’ with Phil. ii. 13, 14 _Deus enim est_ qui operatur in vobis ...
Omnia autem facite sine ... _detractionibus_ (V. _hæsitationibus_)’;
ver. 13 _quod est_ [_reliquum_], dilectissimi, gaudete in Christo et
_præcavete_’ with Phil. iii. 1, 2 ‘_de cætero_, fratres mei, gaudete in
Domino ... _Videte_’; ib. ‘_sordidos in lucro_’ with the Latin
renderings of αἰσχροκερδεῖς 1 Tim. iii. 8 ‘_turpilucros_’ (V. ‘_turpe
lucrum sectantes_’), αἰσχροκερδῆ Tit. i. 7 _turpilucrum_ (V. ‘_turpis
lucri cupidum_’); ver. 14 ‘_sint petitiones_ vestræ _palam_ apud Deum’
with Phil. iv. 6 ‘_postulationes_ (V. petitiones) vestræ _innotescant_
apud Deum’; ver. 20 ‘facite _legi_ Colosensibus et _Colosensium vobis_’
with Col. iv. 16 ‘facite _ut_ et in Laodicensium ecclesia _legatur_ et
_eam quæ Laodicensium_ (MSS Laodiciam) _est ut_ (om. V.) _vos legatis_’.
These examples tell their own tale. [Sidenote: Thus internal evidence
favours a Greek original.]The occasional resemblances to the Latin
Version are easily explained on the ground that reminiscences of this
version would naturally occur to the translator of the epistle. The
habitual divergences from it are only accounted for on the hypothesis
that the original compiler was better acquainted with the New Testament
in Greek than in Latin, and therefore presumably that he wrote in Greek.
[Sidenote: External testimony to the same effect.]
And, if we are led to this conclusion by an examination of the epistle
itself, we shall find it confirmed by an appeal to external testimony.
There is ample evidence that a spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans was
known to Greek writers, as well as Latin, at a sufficiently early date.
[Sidenote: [Muratorian Fragment].]A mention of such an epistle occurs as
early as the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon (about A.D. 170), where
the writer speaks of two letters, one to the Laodiceans and another to
the Alexandrians, as circulated under the name of Paul[630]. The bearing
of the words however is uncertain. He may be referring to the Marcionite
recension of the canonical Epistle to the Ephesians, which was entitled
by that heretic an Epistle to the Laodiceans[631]. Or, if this
explanation of his words be not correct (as perhaps it is not), still we
should not feel justified in assuming that he is referring to the extant
apocryphal epistle. Indeed we should hardly expect that an epistle of
this character would be written and circulated at so early a date. The
reference in Col. iv. 16 offered a strong temptation to the forger, and
probably more than one unscrupulous person was induced by it to try his
hand at falsification[632]. But, however this may be, it seems clear
that before the close of the fourth century our epistle was largely
circulated in the East and West alike. [Sidenote: Jerome.]‘Certain
persons’, writes Jerome in his account of St Paul, ‘read also an Epistle
to the Laodiceans, but it is rejected by all[633]’. No doubt is
entertained, that this father refers to our epistle. [Sidenote:
Theodore.]If then we find that about the same time Theodore of
Mopsuestia also mentions an Epistle to the Laodiceans, which he condemns
as spurious[634], it is a reasonable inference that the same writing is
meant. [Sidenote: Theodoret.]In this he is followed by Theodoret[635];
and indeed the interpretations of Col. iv. 16 given by the Greek Fathers
of this age were largely influenced as we have seen, by the presence of
a spurious epistle which they were anxious to discredit[636]. [Sidenote:
2nd Council of Nicæa.]Even two or three centuries later the epistle
seems to have been read in the East. At the Second Council of Nicæa
(A.D. 787) it was found necessary to warn people against ‘a forged
Epistle to the Laodiceans’ which was ‘circulated, having a place in some
copies of the Apostle[637].’
Footnote 630:
_Canon Murat._ p. 47 (ed. Tregelles). The passage stands in the MS,
‘Fertur etiam ad Laudecenses alia ad Alexandrinos Pauli nomine fincte
ad heresem Marcionis et alia plura quæ in catholicam eclesiam recepi
non potest.’ There is obviously some corruption in the text. One very
simple emendation is the repetition of ‘alia’, so that the words would
run ‘ad Laudicenses alia, alia ad Alexandrinos’. In this case fincte
(= finctæ) might refer to the two epistles first mentioned, and the
Latin would construe intelligibly. The writing described as ‘ad
Laodicenses alia’ might then be the Epistle to the Ephesians under its
Marcionite title, the writer probably not having any personal
knowledge of it, but supposing from its name that it was a different
and a forged writing. But what can then be the meaning of ‘alia ad
Alexandrinos’? Is it, as some have thought, the Epistle to the
Hebrews? But this could not under any circumstances be described as
‘fincta ad hæresem Marcionis’, even though we should strain the
meaning of the preposition and interpret the words ‘_against_ the
heresy of Marcion’. And again our knowledge of Marcion’s Canon is far
too full to admit the hypothesis that it included a spurious Epistle
to the Alexandrians, of which no notice is elsewhere preserved. We are
therefore driven to the conclusion that there is a hiatus here, as in
other places of this fragment, probably after ‘Pauli nomine’; and
‘finctæ’ will then refer not to the two epistles named before, but to
the mutilated epistles of Marcion’s Canon which he had ‘tampered with
to adapt them to his heresy’. In this case the letter ‘ad Laudicenses’
may refer to our apocryphal epistle or to some earlier forgery.
Footnote 631:
See the introduction to the Epistle to the Ephesians.
Footnote 632:
Timotheus, who became Patriarch of Constantinople in 511, while still
a presbyter, includes in a list of apocryphal works forged by the
Manicheans ἡ πεντεκαιδεκάτη [i.e. τοῦ Παύλου] πρὸς Λαοδικεῖς ἐπιστολή,
Meurse p. 117 (quoted by Fabricius, _Cod. Apocr. N. T._ I.. p. 139).
Anger (p. 27) suggests that there is a confusion of the Marcionites
and Manicheans here. I am disposed to think that Timotheus recklessly
credits the Manicheans with several forgeries of which they were
innocent, among others with our apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans.
Still it is possible that there was another Laodicean Epistle forged
by these heretics to support their peculiar tenets.
Footnote 633:
_Vir. Ill._ 5 (II. p. 840) ‘Legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab
omnibus exploditur’.
Footnote 634:
The passage is quoted above, p. 341, note 593.
Footnote 635:
τινὲς ὑπέλαβον καὶ πρὸς Λαοδικέας αὐτὸν γεγραφέναι· αὐτίκα τοίνυν καὶ
προσφέρουσι πεπλασμένην ἐπιστολήν.
Footnote 636:
Anger (p. 143) argues against a Greek original on the ground that the
Eastern Church, unlike the Latin, did not generally interpret Col. iv.
16 as meaning an epistle written _to_ the Laodiceans. The fact is
true, but the inference is wrong, as the language of the Greek
commentators themselves shows.
Footnote 637:
Act. vi. Tom. v (Labbe viii. p. 1125 ed. Colet.) καὶ γὰρ τοῦ θείου
ἀποστόλου πρὸς Λαοδικεῖς φέρεται πλαστὴ ἐπιστολὴ ἕν τισι βίβλοις τοῦ
ἀποστόλου ἐγκειμένη, ἣν οἱ πάτερες ἡμῶν ἀπεδοκίμασαν ὡς αὐτοῦ
ἀλλοτρίαν.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: The Greek restored.]
The Epistle to the Laodiceans then in the original Greek would run
somewhat as follows[638]:
==ΠΡΟΣ ΛΑΟΔΙΚΕΑΣ.==
[Sidenote: ^a Gal. i. 1.]
^a==ΠΑΥΛΟΣ ἀπόστολοϲ οὐκ ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι’ ἀνθρώπου αλλὰ διὰ ἰηϲοῦ
χριϲτοῦ, τοῖϲ ἀδελφοῖϲ τοῖϲ οὖϲιν εν λαοδικείᾳ.== [Sidenote: ^b Gal.
i. 3.; Phil. i. 2.]^2^b==χάριϲ ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸϲ καὶ
κυρίου ἰηϲοῦ χριϲτοῦ.==
[Sidenote: ^c Phil. i. 3.]
^3^c==Εὐχαριϲτῶ τῷ Χριϲτῷ ἐν πάϲῃ δεήϲει μου, ὅτι ἐϲτὲ εν αὐτῷ
μένοντεϲ καὶ προϲκαρτεροῦντεϲ τοῖϲ ἐργοιϲ αὐτοῦ,== [Sidenote: ^d Gal.
v. 5.]^d==ἀπεκδέχομενοι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν== [Sidenote: ^e 2 Pet. ii.
9; iii. 7; cf. Phil. ii. 16.]^e==εἰϲ ἡμέραν κρίϲεωϲ.==
^4==Μηδὲ ὑμᾶϲ ἐξαπατήϲωϲιν== [Sidenote: ^f 1 Tim. i.
6.]^f==ματαιολογίαι τινῶν διδαϲκόντων ἵνα== [Sidenote: ^g 2 Tim.
iv. 4.]^g==ἀποϲτρέπϲωϲιν υμᾶϲ ἀπὸ== [Sidenote: ^h Col. i. 5; Gal.
ii. 5, 14.]^h==τῆϲ αληθείαϲ== [Sidenote: ^i Gal. i. 11 (cf. i.
8).]^i==τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ εὐαγγελιϲθέντοϲ ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ.== ^5==καὶ νῦν
ποιήϲει ὁ Θεὸϲ ἵνα== [Sidenote: ^k Phil. i. 12.]^k==τα ἐξ ἐμοῦ εἰϲ
προκοπὴν τῆϲ ἀληθείαϲ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου * * * λατρεύοντεϲ καὶ ποιοῦντεϲ
χρηϲτότητα ἐργων τῶν τῆϲ ϲωτηρίαϲ [καὶ] τῆϲ αἰωνίου ζωῆϲ.== ^6==καὶ
νῦν== [Sidenote: ^l Phil. i. 13.]^l==φανεροὶ οἱ δεϲμοί μου, οὓϲ
ὑπομένω ἐν Χριϲτῷ, ἐν οἷϲ== [Sidenote: ^m Matt. v. 12; cf. Phil. i.
18]^m==χρω καὶ ἀγαλλιῶμαι.== ^7==καὶ== [Sidenote: ^n Phil. i.
19.]^n==τοῦτό ἐϲτίν μοι εἰϲ ϲωτηρίαν ἀΐδιον, ὃ καὶ ἀπέβη διὰ τῆϲ ὑμῶν
δέηϲεωϲ καὶ ἐπιχορηγίαϲ πνεύματοϲ ἁγίου,== [Sidenote: ^o Phil. i.
20.]^o==εἴτε διὰ ζωῆϲ )έιτε διὰ θανάτου.== [Sidenote: ^p Phil. i.
21.]^8^p==ἑμοὶ γὰρ τὸ ζῆν ἐν Χριϲτῷ καὶ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν χαρά.==
^9==καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποίηϲει [καὶ] ἐν ὑμῖν διὰ τοῦ ἐλέουϲ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα==
[Sidenote: ^q Phil. ii. 2.]^q==τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγάπην ἔχητε, ϲύμπϲυχοι
ὄντεϲ.== [Sidenote: ^r Phil. ii. 12.]^{10}^r==ὥϲτε, ἀγαπητοί, καθὼϲ
ὑπηκούϲατε ἐν τῇ παρουϲίᾳ μου, οὕτωϲ== [Sidenote: ^s 2 Thess. ii. 5
(see vulg.).]^s==μνημονεύοντεϲ μετὰ φόβου Κυρίου ἐργάζεϲθε, καὶ ἔϲται
ὑμῖν ζωὴ εἰϲ τὸν αἰῶνα·== [Sidenote: ^t Phil. ii. 13.]^{11}^t==Θεὸϲ
γάρ ἐϲτιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν.== [Sidenote: ^u Phil. ii.
14.]^{12}==καὶ== ^u==ποιεῖτε χωρὶϲ διαλογιϲμῶν== [Sidenote: ^x
Col. iii. 17, 23.]^x==ὅ τι ἐὰν ποιῆτε.==
[Sidenote: ^y Phil. iii. 1.]^{13}==Καὶ== ^y==τὸ λοιπόν, ἀγαπητοί,
χαίρετε ἐν Χριϲτῷ. Βλέπετε δὲ τοὺϲ== [Sidenote: ^z 1 Tim. iii. 8;
Tit. i. 7.]^z==αἰϲχροκερδεῖϲ.== [Sidenote: ^a Phil. iv.
6.]^{14}^a==πάντα τὰ αἰτήματα ὑμῶν γνωριζέϲθω πρὸϲ τὸν Θεόν. καὶ==
[Sidenote: ^b 1 Cor. xv. 58.]^b==ἑδραῖοι γίνεϲθε ἐν== [Sidenote:
^c 1 Cor. ii. 16.]^c==τῷ νοΐ τοῦ Χριϲτοῦ.== [Sidenote: ^d Phil.
iv. 8, 9.]^{15}^d==ὅϲα τε ὁλόκληρα καὶ ἀληθῆ καὶ ϲεμνὰ καὶ δίκαια καὶ
προϲφιλῆ, ταῦτα πράϲϲετε.== ^{16}==ἃ καὶ ἠκούϲατε καὶ παρελάβετε, ἐν
τῇ καρδίᾳ κρατεῖτε, καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη ἔϲται μεθ’ ὑμῶν.==
[Sidenote: ^e Phil. iv. 22.]
^{18}^e==Ἀϲπάζονται ὑμᾶϲ οἱ ἅγιοι.==
[Sidenote: ^f Phil. iv. 23.]
^{19}^f==Ἡ χάριϲ τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰηϲοῦ Χριϲτοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματοϲ ὑμῶν.==
[Sidenote: ^g Col. iv. 16.]
^{20}^g==καὶ ποιήϲατε ἵνα τοῖϲ Κολαϲϲαεῦϲιν αναγνωϲθῇ, καὶ η τῶν
Κολαϲϲαέων ἵνα καὶ ὑμῖν.==
Footnote 638:
A Greek version is given in Elias Hutter’s Polyglott New Testament
(Noreb. 1599); see Anger p. 147 note g. But I have retranslated the
epistle anew, introducing the Pauline passages, of which it is almost
entirely made up, as they stand in the Greek Testament. The references
are given in the margin.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: Scanty circulation in the East,]
But, though written originally in Greek, it was not among Greek
Christians that this epistle attained its widest circulation. In the
latter part of the 8th century indeed, when the Second Council of Nicæa
met, it had found its way into some copies of St Paul’s Epistles[639].
But the denunciation of this Council seems to have been effective in
securing its ultimate exclusion. We discover no traces of it in any
extant Greek MS, with the very doubtful exception which has already been
considered[640]. [Sidenote: but wide diffusion in the West.]But in the
Latin Church the case was different. St Jerome, as we saw, had
pronounced very decidedly against it. Yet even his authority was not
sufficient to stamp it out. At least as early as the sixth century it
found a place in some copies of the Latin Bibles: and before the close
of that century its genuineness was affirmed by perhaps the most
influential theologian whom the Latin Church produced during the eleven
centuries which elapsed between the age of Jerome and Augustine and the
era of the Reformation. [Sidenote: Gregory the Great.]Gregory the Great
did not indeed affirm its canonicity. He pronounced that the Church had
restricted the canonical Epistles of St Paul to fourteen, and he found a
mystical explanation of this limitation in the number itself, which was
attained by adding the number of the Commandments to the number of the
Gospels and thus fitly represented the teaching of the Apostle which
combines the two[641]. But at the same time he states that the Apostle
wrote fifteen; and, though he does not mention the Epistle to the
Laodiceans by name, there can be little doubt that he intended to
include this as his fifteenth epistle, and that his words were rightly
understood by subsequent writers as affirming its Pauline authorship.
The influence of this great name is perceptible in the statements of
later writers. [Sidenote: Haymo of Halberstadt.]Haymo of Halberstadt,
who died A.D. 853, commenting on Col. iv. 16, says, The Apostle ‘enjoins
the Laodicean Epistle to be read to the Colossians, because though it is
very short and is not reckoned in the Canon, yet still it has some
use[642]’.[Sidenote: Hervey of Dole.] And between two or three centuries
later Hervey of Dole (c. A.D. 1130), if it be not Anselm of Laon[643],
commenting on this same passage, says: ‘Although the Apostle wrote this
epistle also as his fifteenth or sixteenth[644], and it is established
by Apostolic authority like the rest, yet holy Church does not reckon
more than fourteen,’ and he proceeds to justify this limitation of the
Canon with the arguments and in the language of Gregory[645]. Others
however did not confine themselves to the qualified recognition given to
the epistle by the great Bishop of Rome. Gregory had carefully
distinguished between genuineness and canonicity; but this important
distinction was not seldom disregarded by later writers. [Sidenote:
English Church. Aelfric.]In the English Church more especially it was
forgotten. Thus Aelfric abbot of Cerne, who wrote during the closing
years of the tenth century, speaks as follows of St Paul: ‘Fifteen
epistles wrote this one Apostle to the nations by him converted unto the
faith: which are large books in the Bible and make much for our
amendment, if we follow his doctrine that was teacher of the Gentiles’.
He then gives a list of the Apostle’s writings, which closes with ‘one
to Philemon and one to the Laodiceans; fifteen in all as loud as thunder
to faithful people[646]’. [Sidenote: John of Salisbury.]Again, nearly
two centuries later John of Salisbury, likewise writing on the Canon,
reckons ‘Fifteen epistles of Paul included in one volume, though it be
the wide-spread and common opinion of nearly all that there are only
fourteen; ten to churches and four to individuals: supposing that the
one addressed to the Hebrews is to be reckoned among the Epistles of
Paul, as Jerome the doctor of doctors seems to lay down in his preface,
where he refuteth the cavils of those who contended that it was not
Paul’s. But the fifteenth is that which is addressed to the Church of
the Laodiceans; and though, as Jerome saith, it be rejected by all,
nevertheless was it written by the Apostle. Nor is this opinion assumed
on the conjecture of others, but it is confirmed by the testimony of the
Apostle himself: for he maketh mention of it in the Epistle to the
Colossians in these words, _When this epistle shall have been read among
you_, etc. (Col. iv. 16)[647]’. Aelfric and John are the typical
theologians of the Church in this country in their respective ages. The
Conquest effected a revolution in ecclesiastical and theological
matters. The Old English Church was separated from the Anglo-Norman
Church in not a few points both of doctrine and of discipline. Yet here
we find the representative men of learning in both agreed on this one
point—the authorship and canonicity of the Epistle to the Laodiceans.
From the language of John of Salisbury however it appears that such was
not the common verdict at least in his age, and that on this point the
instinct of the many was more sound than the learning of the few. Nor
indeed was it the undisputed opinion even of the learned in this country
during this interval. [Sidenote: The epistle repudiated by Lanfranc.]The
first Norman Archbishop, Lanfranc, an Italian by birth and education,
explains the passage in the Colossian Epistle as referring to a letter
written by the Laodiceans to the Apostle, and adds that otherwise ‘there
would be more than thirteen Epistles of Paul[648]’. Thus he tacitly
ignores the Epistle to the Laodiceans, with which he can hardly have
been unacquainted.
Footnote 639:
Quoted above, p. 359, note 637.
Footnote 640:
See above, p. 315 sq.
Footnote 641:
Greg. Magn. _Mor. in Iob._ xxxv. § 25 (III. p. 433, ed. Gallicc.)
‘Recte vita ecclesiæ multiplicata per decem et quattuor computatur;
quia utrumque testamentum custodiens, et tam secundum Legis decalogum
quam secundum quattuor Evangelii libros vivens, usque ad perfectionis
culmen extenditur. Unde et Paulus apostolus quamvis epistolas
quindecim scripserit, sancta tamen ecclesia non amplius quam
quatuordecim tenet, ut ex ipso epistolarum numero ostenderet quod
doctor egregius Legis et Evangelii secreta rimasset’.
Footnote 642:
_Patrol. Lat._ CXVII. p. 765 (ed. Migne) ‘Et eam quæ erat Laodicensium
ideo præcipit Colossensibus legi, quia, licet perparva sit et in
Canone non habeatur, aliquid tamen utilitatis habet’. He uses the
expression ‘eam quæ erat Laodicensium’, because τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας was
translated in the Latin Bible ‘eam quæ Laodicensium est’.
Footnote 643:
See _Galatians_ p. 232 on the authorship of this commentary.
Footnote 644:
A third Epistle to the Corinthians being perhaps reckoned as the 15th;
see Fabric. _Cod. Apocr. Nov. Test._ II p. 866.
Footnote 645:
_Patrol. Lat._ CLXXXI. p. 1355 sq. (ed. Migne) ‘_et ea_ similiter
epistola, _quæ Laodicensium_ est, i.e. quam ego Laodicensibus misi,
legatur vobis. Quamvis et hanc epistolam quintamdecimam vel
sextamdecimam apostolus scripserit, et auctoritas eam apostolica sicut
cætera firmavit, sancta tamen ecclesia non amplius quam quatuordecim
tenet, ut ex ipso epistolarum numero ostenderet etc.’ At the end of
the notes to the Colossians he adds ‘Hucusque protenditur epistola quæ
missa est ad Colossenses. Congruum autem videtur ut propter notitiam
legentium subjiciamus eam quæ est ad Laodicenses directa; quam, ut
diximus, in usu non habet ecclesia. Est ergo talis.’ Then follows the
text of the Laodicean Epistle, but it is not annotated.
Footnote 646:
_A Saxon Treatise concerning the Old and New Testament_ by Ælfricus
Abbas, p. 28 (ed. W. L’Isle, London 1623).
Footnote 647:
Ioann. Sarisb. _Epist._ 143 (I. p. 210 ed. Giles) ‘Epistolæ Pauli
quindecim uno volumine comprehensæ, licet sit vulgata et fere omnium
communis opinio non esse nisi quatuordecim, decem ad ecclesias,
quatuor ad personas; si tamen illa quæ ad Hebræos est connumeranda est
epistolis Pauli, quod in præfatione ejus astruere videtur doctorum
doctor Hieronymus, illorum dissolvens argutias qui eam Pauli non esse
contendebant. Cæterum quintadecima est illa quæ ecclesiæ Laodicensium
scribitur; et licet, ut ait Hieronymus, ab omnibus explodatur, tamen
ab apostolo scripta est: neque sententia hæc de aliorum præsumitur
opinione sed ipsius apostoli testimonio roboratur. Meminit enim ipsius
in epistola ad Colossenses his verbis, _Quum lecta fuerit apud vos hæc
epistola, etc._’
Footnote 648:
_Patrol. Lat._ CL. p. 331 (ed. Migne) on Col. iv. 16 ‘Hæc si esset
apostoli, _ad Laodicenses_ diceret, non _Laodicensium_; et plusquam
tredecim essent epistolæ Pauli’. We should perhaps read xiiii for
xiii, ‘quatuordecim’ for ‘tredecim’, as Lanfranc is not likely to have
questioned the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
[Sidenote: Occurrence in MSS of all ages and countries.]
Indeed the safest criterion of the extent to which this opinion
prevailed, is to be found in the manuscripts. At all ages from the sixth
to the fifteenth century we have examples of its occurrence among the
Pauline Epistles and most frequently without any marks which imply doubt
respecting its canonicity. These instances are more common in proportion
to the number of extant MSS in the earlier epoch than in the later[649].
In one of the three or four extant authorities for the Old Latin Version
of the Pauline Epistles it has a place[650]. In one of the two most
ancient copies of Jerome’s revised Vulgate it is found[651]. Among the
first class MSS of this latter Version its insertion is almost as common
as its omission. This phenomenon moreover is not confined to any one
country. Italy, Spain, France, Ireland, England, Germany,
Switzerland—all the great nations of Latin Christendom—contribute
examples of early manuscripts in which this epistle has a place[652].
Footnote 649:
The proportion however is very different in different collections. In
the Cambridge University Library I found the epistle in four only out
of some thirty MSS Which I inspected; whereas in the Lambeth Library
the proportion was far greater.
Footnote 650:
The _Speculum_ of Mai, see above, p. 348.
Footnote 651:
The Codex Fuldensis, which was written within a few years of the Codex
Amiatinus.
Footnote 652:
The list of MSS given above p. 348 sq. will substantiate this
statement.
[Sidenote: Versions.]
And, when the Scriptures came to be translated into the vernacular
languages of modern Europe, this epistle was not uncommonly included.
[Sidenote: Albigensian.]Thus we meet with an Albigensian version, which
is said to belong to the thirteenth century[653]. [Sidenote:
Bohemian.]Thus too it is found in the Bohemian language, both in
manuscript and in the early printed Bibles, in various recensions[654].
[Sidenote: German.]And again an old German translation is extant, which,
judging from linguistic peculiarities, cannot be assigned to a later
date than about the fourteenth century, and was printed in not less than
fourteen editions of the German Bible at the close of the fifteenth and
the beginning of the sixteenth centuries, before Luther’s version
appeared[655]. [Sidenote: English.]In the early English Bibles too it
has a place. Though it was excluded by both Wycliffe and Purvey, yet it
did not long remain untranslated and appears in two different and quite
independent versions, in MSS written before the middle of the fifteenth
century[656]. The prologue prefixed to the commoner of the two forms
runs as follows:
[Sidenote: English prologue.]
‘Laodicensis ben also Colocenses, as tweye townes and oo peple in
maners. These ben of Asie, and among hem hadden be false apostlis, and
disceyuede manye. Therfore the postle bringith hem to mynde of his
conuersacion and trewe preching of the gospel, and excitith hem to be
stidfast in the trewe witt and loue of Crist, and to be of oo wil. But
this pistil is not in comyn Latyn bookis, and therfor it was but late
translatid into Englisch tunge[657].’
Footnote 653:
An account of this MS, which is at Lyons, is given by Reuss in the
_Revue de Théologie_ v. p. 334 (Strassb. 1852). He ascribes the
translation of the New Testament to the 13th century, and dates the MS
a little later.
Footnote 654:
This version is printed by Anger, p. 170 sq.
Footnote 655:
See Anger, p. 149 sq., p. 166 sq.
Footnote 656:
These two versions are printed in Lewis’s New Testament translated by
J. Wiclif (1731) p. 99 sq., and in Forshall and Madden’s _Wycliffite
Versions of the Holy Bible_ (1850) IV. p. 438 sq. They are also given
by Anger p. 168 sq. (1843), who takes the rarer form from Lewis and
the other from a Dresden MS. Dr Westcott also has printed the commoner
version in his _Canon_, p. 457 (ed. 4), from Forshall and Madden.
Of one of these two versions Forshall and Madden give a collation of
several MSS; the other is taken from a single MS (I. p. xxxii). Lewis
does not state whence he derived the rarer of these two versions, but
there can be little doubt that it came from the same MS _Pepys._ 2073
(belonging to Magd. Coll. Cambridge) from which it was taken by
Forshall and Madden (I. p. lvii); since he elsewhere mentions using
this MS (p. 104). The version is not known to exist in any other.
Forshall and Madden give the date of the MS as about 1440.
Footnote 657:
From Forshall and Madden, IV. p. 438. The earliest MSS which contain
the common version of the Laodicean Epistle (to which this prologue is
prefixed) date about A.D. 1430.
[Sidenote: Two Versions of the epistle.]
The two forms of the epistle in its English dress are as follows[658].
The version on the left hand is extant only in a single MS; the other,
which occupies the right column, is comparatively common.
‘Poul, apostle, not of men, ne bi man, but bi Jhesu Crist, to the
britheren that ben of Laodice, grace to ȝou, and pees of God the fadir,
and of the Lord Jhesu Crist. Gracis I do to Crist bi al myn orisoun,
that ȝe be dwellinge in him and lastinge, bi the biheest abidinge in the
dai of doom. Ne he vnordeynede vs of sum veyn speche feynynge, that vs
ouerturne fro the sothfastnesse of the gospel that of me is prechid.
Also now schal God do hem leuynge, and doynge of blessdnesse of werkis,
which heelthe of lyf is. And now openli ben my boondis, whiche I suffre
in Crist Jhesu, in whiche I glad and ioie. And that is to me heelthe
euerlastynge, that that I dide with oure preieris, and mynystringe the
Holy Spirit, bi lijf or bi deeth. It is forsothe to me lijf into Crist,
and to die ioie withouten eende. In vs he schal do his merci, that ȝe
haue the same louynge, and that ȝe be of o wil. Therfore, derlyngis, as
ȝe han herd in presence of me, hold ȝe, and do ȝe in drede of God; and
it schal be to ȝou lijf withouten eend. It is forsothe God that worchith
in vs. And do ȝe withouten ony withdrawinge, what soeuere ȝe doon. And
that it is, derlyngis, ioie ȝe in Crist, and flee ȝe maad foul in clay.
Alle ȝoure axingis ben open anentis God, and be ȝe fastned in the witt
of Crist. And whiche been hool, and sooth, and chast, and rightwijs, and
louable, do ȝe; and whiche herden and take in herte, hold ȝe; and it
schal be to ȝou pees. Holi men greeten ȝou weel, in the grace of oure
Lord Jhesu Crist, with the Holi Goost. And do ȝe that pistil of
Colosensis to be red to ȝou. Amen.
‘Poul, apostle, not of men, ne by man, but bi Jhesu Crist, to the
britheren that ben at Laodice, grace to ȝou, and pees of God the fadir,
and of the Lord Jhesu Crist. I do thankyngis to my God bi al my preier,
that ȝe be dwelling and lastyng in him, abiding the biheest in the day
of doom. For neithir the veyn spekyng of summe vnwise men hath lettide
ȝou, the whiche wolden turne ȝou fro the treuthe of the gospel, that is
prechid of me. And now hem that ben of me, to the profiȝt of truthe of
the gospel, God schal make disseruyng, and doyng benygnyte of werkis,
and helthe of euerlasting lijf. And now my boondis ben open, which Y
suffre in Crist Jhesu, in whiche Y glade and ioie. And that is to me to
euerlastyng helthe, that this same thing be doon by ȝoure preiers, and
mynystryng of the Holi Goost, either bi lijf, either bi deeth. Forsothe
to me it is lijf to lyue in Crist, and to die ioie. And his mercy schal
do in ȝou the same thing, that ȝe moun haue the same loue, and that ȝe
be of oo will. Therfore, ȝe weel biloued britheren, holde ȝe, and do ȝe
in the dreede of God, as ȝe han herde the presence of me; and lijf schal
be to ȝou withouten eende. Sotheli it is God that worchith in ȝou. And,
my weel biloued britheren, do ȝe without eny withdrawyng what euer
thingis ȝe don. Joie ȝe in Crist, and eschewe ȝe men defoulid in lucre,
_either foul wynnyng_. Be alle ȝoure askyngis open anentis God, and be
ȝe stidefast in the witt of Crist. And do ȝe tho thingis that ben hool,
and trewe, and chaast, and iust, and able to be loued; and kepe ȝe in
herte tho thingis that ȝe haue herd and take; and pees schal be to ȝou.
Alle holi men greten ȝou weel. The grace of oure Lord Jhesu Crist be
with ȝoure spirit. And do ȝe that pistil of Colocensis to be red to ȝou.
Footnote 658:
Printed from Forshall and Madden l.c. I am assured by those who are
thoroughly conversant with old English, that they can discern no
difference of date in these two versions, and that they both belong
probably to the early years of the 15th century. The rarer version is
taken from a better Latin text than the other.
[Sidenote: Revival of learning and condemnation of the epistle.]
Thus for more than nine centuries this forged epistle hovered about the
doors of the sacred Canon, without either finding admission or being
peremptorily excluded. At length the revival of learning dealt its
death-blow to this as to so many other spurious pretensions. As a rule,
Roman Catholics and Reformers were equally strong in their condemnation
of its worthlessness. The language of Erasmus more especially is worth
quoting for its own sake, and must not be diluted by translation:
[Sidenote: Strictures of Erasmus.]
‘Nihil habet Pauli præter voculas aliquot ex cæteris ejus epistolis
mendicatas.... Non est cujusvis hominis Paulinum pectus effingere.
Tonat, fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paulus. At hæc, præterquam quod
brevissima est, quam friget, quam jacet!... Quanquam quid attinet
argumentari? Legat, qui volet, epistolam.... Nullum argumentum
efficacius persuaserit eam non esse Pauli quam ipsa epistola. Et si quid
mihi naris est, ejusdem est opificis qui næniis suis omnium veterum
theologorum omnia scripta contaminavit, conspurcavit, perdidit, ac
præcipue ejus qui præ cæteris indignus erat ea contumelia, nempe D.
Hieronymi[659]’.
Footnote 659:
On Col. iv. 16. Erasmus is too hard upon the writer of this letter,
when he charges him with such a mass of forgeries. He does not explain
how this hypothesis is consistent with the condemnation of the Epistle
to the Laodiceans in Hieron. _Vir. Ill._ 5 (quoted above p. 359).
[Sidenote: Exceptions.]
But some eccentric spirits on both sides were still found to maintain
its genuineness. [Sidenote: Prætorius.]Thus on the one hand the Lutheran
Steph. Prætorius prefaces his edition of this epistle (A.D. 1595) with
the statement that he ‘restores it to the Christian Church’; he gives
his opinion that it was written ‘either by the Apostle himself or by
some other Apostolic man’: he declares that to himself it is ‘redolent
of the spirit and grace of the most divine Paul’; and he recommends
younger teachers of the Gospel to ‘try their strength in explaining it’,
that thus ‘accustoming themselves gradually to the Apostolic doctrine
they may extract thence a flavour sweeter than ambrosia and
nectar[660].’ [Sidenote: Stapleton.]On the other hand the Jesuit
Stapleton was not less eager in his advocacy of this miserable cento. To
him its genuineness had a controversial value. Along with several other
apocryphal writings which he accepted in like manner, it was important
in his eyes as showing that the Church had authority to exclude even
Apostolic writings from the Canon, if she judged fit[661]. But such
phenomena were quite abnormal. The dawn of the Reformation epoch had
effectually scared away this ghost of a Pauline epistle, which (we may
confidently hope) has been laid for ever and will not again be suffered
to haunt the mind of the Church.
Footnote 660:
_Pauli Apostoli ad Laodicenses Epistola, Latine et Germanice_,
Hamburg, 1595, of which the preface is given in Fabricius _Cod. Apocr.
Nov. Test._ II. p. 867. It is curious that the only two arguments
against its genuineness which he thinks worthy of notice are (1) Its
brevity; which he answers by appealing to the Epistle to Philemon; and
(2) Its recommendation of works (‘quod scripsit opera esse facienda
quæ sunt salutis æternæ’); which he explains to refer to works that
proceed of faith.
Footnote 661:
See Bp. Davenant on Col. iv. 16: ‘Detestanda Stapletonis opinio, qui
ipsius Pauli epistolam esse statuit, quam omnes patres ut adulterinam
et insulsam repudiarunt: nec sanior conclusio, quam inde deducere
voluit, posse nimirum ecclesiam germanam et veram apostoli Pauli
epistolam pro sua authoritate e Canone excludere’. So also Whitaker
_Disputation on Scripture_ passim (see the references given above, p.
341, note 595).
------------------------------------------------------------------------