← St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon / A revised text with introductions, notes and dissertations

Προς Κολασσαεις (part 3)

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. |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.

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, removes none of the objections brought against the simpler hypothesis. Another opinion, which takes (γ) the Colossians themselves to have been the recipients, 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?

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. |1 Timothy.|(α) The First Epistle to Timothy. This view is distinctly maintained by John Damascene and by Theophylact; but it took its rise much earlier. It appears in the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac, 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 (ascr, 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. |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.’ This identification was perhaps suggested by the fact that 1 Thessalonians follows next after Colossians in the common order of St Paul’s Epistles. |2 Thessalonians.|(γ) The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. In the Peshito (as given by Schaaf) there is a final colophon stating that this epistle ‘was written from Laodicea of Pisidia and was sent by the hand of Tychicus’. 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. |Galatians.|(δ) The Epistle to the Galatians. 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.

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.

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. 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. The writer must therefore have been (c) St Paul himself.

On this assumption three alternatives offer themselves.

(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. 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.

(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

(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. |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

προϲ

laudicenses

λαουδακηϲαϲ

incipit

αρχεται

epistola

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 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, the Epistle to the Hebrews does really follow. But what are the facts? |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 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. |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 where it actually occurs in this position.

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, 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.

(β) The Epistle to Philemon has been strongly advocated by Wieseler, 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, still two opinions may very fairly be held on this point. But Wieseler’s arguments entirely fail to establish his other position. |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.

(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. |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.

(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.

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) [P1]. 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.

8. Parisiensis Reg. Lat. 6 [P2]. 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 P2*, P2**.

9. Parisiensis Reg. Lat. 250 (formerly 3572) [P3]. 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 P3*, P3**.

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 [H1]. 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 [H2]. 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) [L1]. 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) [L2]. 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.

Incipiunt Capitula Epistole ad Laodicenses.

1. Paulus Apostolus pro Laodicensibus domino gratias refert et hortatur eos ne a seductoribus decipiantur.

2. De manifestis vinculis apostoli in quibus letatur et gaudet.

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. .

(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 L1, preserve a very ancient text, which closely resembles that of F.

Ad Laodicenses.

Paulus Apostolus non ab hominibus neque per hominem sed per Ihesum Christum, fratribus qui sunt Laodiciae. Gratia vobis et pax a Deo patre et Domino Ihesu Christo.

Gratias ago Christo per omnem orationem meam, quod permanentes estis in eo et perseverantes in operibus eius, promissum expectantes in diem iudicii. Neque destituant vos quorundam vaniloquia insinuantium, ut vos avertant a veritate evangelii quod a me praedicatur. Et nunc faciet Deus ut qui sunt ex me ad profectum veritatis evangelii deservientes et facientes benignitatem operum quae salutis vitae aeternae.

Et nunc palam sunt vincula mea quae patior in Christo; quibus laetor et gaudeo. Et hoc mihi est ad salutem perpetuam; quod ipsum factum orationibus vestris et administrante Spiritu sancto, sive per vitam sive per mortem. Est enim mihi vivere in Christo et mori gaudium. Et id ipsum in vobis faciet misericordia sua, ut eandem dilectionem habeatis et sitis unianimes.

Ergo, dilectissimi, ut audistis praesentia mei, ita retinete et facite in timore Dei, et erit vobis vita in aeternum: Est enim Deus qui operatur in vos. Et facite sine retractu quaecumque facitis.

#al_13#Et quod est [reliquum], dilectissimi, gaudete in Christo; et praecavete sordidos in lucro. Omnes sint petitiones vestrae palam apud Deum; et estote firmi in sensu Christi. Et quae integra et vera et pudica et iusta et amabilia, facite. Et quae audistis et accepistis in corde retinete; et erit vobis pax.

Salutant vos sancti.

Gratia Domini Ihesu cum spiritu vestro.

Et facite legi Colosensibus et Colosensium vobis.

Inc. ad laodicenses F; Incipit epistola ad laodicenses (laudicenses P2R) BDP1P2P3CRH2SV; Epistola ad laodicenses TM (if this heading be not due to the editors themselves); Incipit epistola pauli ad laodicenses GH1; Incipit epistola beati pauli ad laodicenses X; Incipit aepistola ad laudicenses sed hirunimus eam negat esse pauli A: no heading in L1L2H2.

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 L1; patre nostro H1H2SM; nostro A. domino] add. nostro P2P3RGL2.

3. christo] deo meo DP1P2P3CL1; deo meo et christo ihesu RX. meam] memoriam M. permanentes estis] estis permanentes AGR. in operibus eius] in operibus bonis H1H2S; om BDTP1P2P3CM. promissum expectantes] promissa expectantes T; et promissum expectantes M; promissionem expectantes V; sperantes promissionem AG; sperantes promissum RX. diem] die BTDP1P3GCRH1H2SL1VMX. iudicii] iudicationis GRX.

4. neque] add. enim R. destituant] distituant A; destituunt H1; destituat M, Spec.; destituit DP1P3CM; distituit B; destitui P2; disturbat T. vaniloquia] vaniloquentia BDTP1P2P3GCVM; vaneloquentia, Spec. insinuantium] insinuantium se GM; insanientium H1S; insimulantium T. ut] sed ut BA; sed peto ne R; seductorum ne X. vos] om. T. avertant] Spec.; evertant FML2; 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) P3* (or P3**). 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 P2**P3**H1H2S. For deservientes RX have dei servientes. et facientes] repeated in L1. For facientes benignitatem operum T has benignitatem operum facientes. operum] eorum RX; opera L2. quae] om. M; add. sunt AP2**GCRH1H2SVX. It is impossible to say in many cases whether a scribe intended operum quae or operumque. Ranke prints operumque in F. salutis] add. et L1.

6. nunc] nō = non L2. palam sunt] sunt palam G; sunt (om. palam) A. Christo] add. Ihesu (iesu) DP1P2P3CVX. quibus] in quibus TRMP2. et] ut C.

7. mihi] michi H1S (and so below); enim (for mihi) M. factum] fletum L2M; factum est TP3**H1S. orationibus] operationibus B. vestris] meis DP1. et] est M: om. TGRL1X. administrante spiritu sancto] administrantem spiritum sanctum FBL2; amministrante spiritum sanctum DCP1P2* (but there is an erasure in P1). For administrante L1X have amministrante; and for spiritu sancto G transposes and reads sancto spiritu. per mortem] mortem (om. per) H1.

8. est enim] etenim T. mihi] om. M. vivere] vivere vita DTP1P2P3CVH1H2S; vere vita FL1RMX; vera vita B; vere (altered into vivere prima manu) vita L2. gaudium] lucrum et gaudium A; gaudium ut lucrum H2P2**; gaudium vel lucrum H1S.

9. et] om. T; qui (om. et) V. id ipsum] in ipsum FBL2; in idipsum L1V; ipsum P2GM; ipse TAH1H2SRX. in vobis] vobis P2; in nobis H2. misericordia sua] misericordiam suam FBDAP1P2P3CH1H2RSVL1XL2 (but written misericordiā suā in several cases). et] om. L1; ut V. unianimes] unanimes BDTP1P2P3GCH1RL1L2VMSX.

10. ergo] ego H2. ut] et L2. praesentia mei] praesentiam ei DP; praesentiam G**; in praesentia mei P3**; praesentiam mihi M; presenciam eius L2; praesentiam dei A; præsentiam domini (dnī) P2**H1H2S. ita] om. DP1P2**P3CX. retinete] retinere A; sentite T. in] cum TM; om. B. timore] timorem AB. dei] domini H1S. vita] pax et vita RX. in aeternum] in aeterno A; in aeterna G*; aeterna (eterna) G**PL1.

11. Est enim ... vos] om. (?) T. enim] om. B. vos] vobis GAH1H2SRVP2** (or P2*) P3**MX.

12. retractu] retractatu BP2RL2; retractatione AGV; tractu T; reatu H1S. In P2** ut peccato is added; in H2 t peccato. quaecumque] quodcumque TM.

13. quod est reliquum] quod est FBTDP1P2*P3*RCL1L2MX; quod est optimum GH1H2SV; quodcunque optimum est A; quodcunque est obtimum P2**; quod bonum est P3**: see p. . dilectissimi] dilectissime B. christo] domino DP1P2P3CX. sordidos] add. omnes P2**H1H2S; add. homines A. in] ut L1. lucro] lucrum RX.

14. omnes] in omnibus G; homines (attached to the preceding sentence) TM. sint] omitted here and placed after palam H1S. 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.

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.

It is the general, though not universal, opinion that this epistle was altogether a forgery of the Western Church; 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.

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. The Greek cast however is not confined to one or two expressions but extends to the whole letter.

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. |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.

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. |[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. 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. 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. 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. |Jerome.|‘Certain persons’, writes Jerome in his account of St Paul, ‘read also an Epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is rejected by all’. No doubt is entertained, that this father refers to our epistle. |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, it is a reasonable inference that the same writing is meant. |Theodoret.|In this he is followed by Theodoret; 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. |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.’

The Epistle to the Laodiceans then in the original Greek would run somewhat as follows:

ΠΡΟΣ ΛΑΟΔΙΚΕΑΣ.

aΠΑΥΛΟΣ ἀπόστολοϲ οὐκ ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι’ ἀνθρώπου αλλὰ διὰ ἰηϲοῦ χριϲτοῦ, τοῖϲ ἀδελφοῖϲ τοῖϲ οὖϲιν εν λαοδικείᾳ. |b Gal. i. 3.; Phil. i. 2.|bχάριϲ ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸϲ καὶ κυρίου ἰηϲοῦ χριϲτοῦ.

cΕὐχαριϲτῶ τῷ Χριϲτῷ ἐν πάϲῃ δεήϲει μου, ὅτι ἐϲτὲ εν αὐτῷ μένοντεϲ καὶ προϲκαρτεροῦντεϲ τοῖϲ ἐργοιϲ αὐτοῦ, |d Gal. v. 5.|dἀπεκδέχομενοι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν |e 2 Pet. ii. 9; iii. 7; cf. Phil. ii. 16.|eεἰϲ ἡμέραν κρίϲεωϲ.

eἈϲπάζονται ὑμᾶϲ οἱ ἅγιοι.

fἩ χάριϲ τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰηϲοῦ Χριϲτοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματοϲ ὑμῶν.

gκαὶ ποιήϲατε ἵνα τοῖϲ Κολαϲϲαεῦϲιν αναγνωϲθῇ, καὶ η τῶν Κολαϲϲαέων ἵνα καὶ ὑμῖν.

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. 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. |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. |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. 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. |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’.|Hervey of Dole.| And between two or three centuries later Hervey of Dole (c. A.D. 1130), if it be not Anselm of Laon, commenting on this same passage, says: ‘Although the Apostle wrote this epistle also as his fifteenth or sixteenth, 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. 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. |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’. |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)’. 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. |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’. Thus he tacitly ignores the Epistle to the Laodiceans, with which he can hardly have been unacquainted.

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. In one of the three or four extant authorities for the Old Latin Version of the Pauline Epistles it has a place. In one of the two most ancient copies of Jerome’s revised Vulgate it is found. 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.

And, when the Scriptures came to be translated into the vernacular languages of modern Europe, this epistle was not uncommonly included. |Albigensian.|Thus we meet with an Albigensian version, which is said to belong to the thirteenth century. |Bohemian.|Thus too it is found in the Bohemian language, both in manuscript and in the early printed Bibles, in various recensions. |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. |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. The prologue prefixed to the commoner of the two forms runs as follows:

‘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.’

The two forms of the epistle in its English dress are as follows. 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.

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:

‘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’.

But some eccentric spirits on both sides were still found to maintain its genuineness. |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.’ |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. 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.