Chapter V: PERSONAL (iv. 7–18) (11)

2. A second class of identifications rests on the supposition that it was a letter written _from_ Laodicea, though not by the Laodiceans themselves. The considerations which recommend this hypothesis for acceptance are the same as in the last case. It withdraws all support from the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans, and it refrains from postulating a lost Apostolic epistle. It is not exposed to all the objections of the other theory, but it introduces new difficulties still more serious. Here a choice of several epistles is offered to us. [Sidenote: 1 Timothy.](α) _The First Epistle to Timothy._ This view is distinctly maintained by John Damascene[605] and by Theophylact[606]; but it took its rise much earlier. It appears in the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac[607], and it seems to have suggested the subscriptions found in many authorities at the close of that epistle. The words ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Λαοδικείας are found in AKL 47 etc., and many of these define the place meant by the addition ἥτις ἐστὶ μητρόπολις Φρυγίας τῆς Πακατιανῆς. A similar note is found in some Latin MSS. It is quite possible that this subscription was prior to the theory respecting the interpretation of Col. iv. 16, and gave rise to it; but the converse is more probable, and in some MSS (a^{scr}, 74) the bearing of this subscription on Col. iv. 16 is emphasized, ἰδὸυ δὴ καὶ ἡ ἐκ Λαοδικείας. This identification has not been altogether without support in later times[608]. [Sidenote: 1 Thessalonians.](β) The _First Epistle to the Thessalonians_. A final colophon in the Philoxenian Syriac asserts that it was ‘written from Laodicea’: and the same is stated in a later hand of d, ‘scribens a Laodicea’. Again an Æthiopic MS, though giving Athens as the place of writing, adds that it was ‘sent with Timotheus, _Tychicus_, and _Onesimus_[609].’ This identification was perhaps suggested by the fact that 1 Thessalonians follows next after Colossians in the common order of St Paul’s Epistles. [Sidenote: 2 Thessalonians.](γ) The _Second Epistle to the Thessalonians_. In the Peshito (as given by Schaaf[609]) there is a final colophon stating that this epistle ‘was written from Laodicea of Pisidia and was sent by the hand of Tychicus[610]’. Though the addition of Pisidia wrongly defines the place as _Laodicea Combusta_, instead of _Laodicea ad Lycum_, yet the mention of the messenger’s name shows plainly that the identification with the missing epistle of Col. iv. 16 was contemplated. So too the Memphitic ‘per Silvanum et _Tychicum_’, and a Latin prologue ‘per Titum et _Onesimum_’. Again an Æthiopic MS points to the same identification, though strangely confused in its statements. In the superscription we are told that this epistle was written when the Apostle was at Laodicea, but in the subscription that it ‘was written at Athens to Laodicea and sent by Tychicus’; while the prolegomena state that it was written and left at Laodicea, and that afterwards, when St Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians from Rome, he gave directions that it should be transmitted to the Thessalonians by the Colossians[611]. [Sidenote: Galatians.](δ) The _Epistle to the Galatians_[612]. This might have been chosen, partly because it affords no internal data for deciding where it was written, partly because like the Colossian Epistle it is directed against a form of Judaism, and the advocates of this hypothesis might not be careful to distinguish the two types, though very distinct in themselves. I find no support for it in the subscriptions, except the notice ‘per _Tychicum_’ in some Slavonic MSS.

Footnote 605:

_Op._ II. p. 214 (ed. Lequien) τὴν πρὸς Τιμόθεον πρώτην λέγει. But he
adds τινὲς φασὶν ὅτι οὐχὶ τὴν Παύλου πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἐπεσταλμένην ... ἀλλὰ
τὴν παρ’ αὐτῶν Πάυλῳ ἐκ Λαοδικείας γραφεῖσαν.

Footnote 606:

_ad loc._ τίς δὲ ἦν ἡ ἐκ Λαοδικείας; ἡ πρὸς Τιμόθεον πρώτη· αὕτη γὰρ
ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἐγράφη. Τινὲς δέ φασιν ὅτι ἣν οἱ Λαοδικεῖς Παύλῳ
ἐπέστειλαν, ἀλλ’ οὐκ οἶδα τί ἂν ἐκείνῃς ἔδει αὐτοῖς πρὸς βελτίωσιν.

Footnote 607:

_ad loc._ ‘Propter eam quæ est ad Timotheum dixit.’

Footnote 608:

It is adopted by Erasmus in his paraphrase; ‘vicissim vos legatis
epistolam quæ Timotheo scripta fuit ex Laodicensium urbe’: but in his
commentary he does not commit himself to it. For other names see Anger
p. 17, note k.

Footnote 609:

_Catal. Bibl. Bodl. Cod. Æthiop._ p. 23.

Footnote 610:

In the editio princeps (Vienna 1555) the latter part of this colophon,
‘and was sent by the hand of Tychicus,’ is wanting.

Footnote 611:

_Catal. Bibl. Bodl. Cod. Æthiop._ p. 23.

Footnote 612:

Bloch, quoted in Anger p. 17 note l.

[Sidenote: Objections to these solutions.]

The special difficulties attending this class of solutions are manifold. (1) It does not appear that St Paul had ever been at Laodicea when he wrote the letter to the Colossians. (2) All the epistles thus singled out are separated from the Colossian letter by an interval of some years at least. (3) In every case they can with a high degree of probability be shown to have been written elsewhere than at Laodicea. Indeed, as St Paul had been long a prisoner either at Cæsarea or at Rome, when he wrote to Colossæ, he could not have despatched a letter recently from Laodicea.

[Sidenote: 3. A letter to the Laodiceans written by (_a_) St John. (_b_)
A companion of St Paul. (_c_) St Paul.]

3. Thus we are thrown back on some form of the solution which makes it a letter written _to the Laodiceans_. And here we may at once reject the hypothesis that the writer was (_a_) St John[613]. The First Epistle of St John, which has been selected, was written (as is allowed on all hands) much later than this date. Nor again does St Paul’s language favour the alternative, which others have maintained, that the letter in question was written by (_b_) one of St Paul’s companions, e.g. Epaphras or Luke[614]. The writer must therefore have been (_c_) St Paul himself.

Footnote 613:

A conjecture of Lightfoot’s (_Works_ II. pp. 326, 339, London 1684),
but he does not lay much stress on it. He offers it ‘rather then
conceive that any epistle of Paul is lost.’ See also Anger p. 17, note
m.

Footnote 614:

Baumgarten _Comm._ ad loc., quoted by Anger p. 25, note g.

On this assumption three alternatives offer themselves.

[Sidenote: (i) A lost letter.]]

(i). We may suppose that the epistle in question has been lost. It has been pointed out elsewhere that the Apostle must have written many letters which are not preserved in our Canon[615]. Thus there is no _a priori_ objection to this solution; and, being easy and obvious in itself, it has found common support in recent times. If therefore we had no positive reasons for identifying the Laodicean letter with one of the extant epistles of our Canon, we might at once close with this account of the matter. But such reasons do exist. And moreover, as we are obliged to suppose that at least three letters—the Epistles to the Colossians, to the Ephesians, and to Philemon—were despatched by St Paul to Asia Minor at the same time, it is best not to postulate a fourth, unless we are obliged to do so.

Footnote 615:

_Philippians_ p. 136 sq.

[Sidenote: (ii) A Canonical epistle.]

(ii). But, if it was not a lost letter, with which of the Canonical Epistles of St Paul can we identify it with most probability? Was it

[Sidenote: (α) Hebrews. Philastrius.]

(α) _The Epistle to the Hebrews?_ The supporters of this hypothesis are able to produce ancient evidence of a certain kind, though not such as carries any real weight. Philastrius, writing about the close of the fourth century, says that some persons ascribed the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews to Luke the Evangelist, and adds that it was asserted (apparently by these same persons, though this is not quite clear) to have been written to the Laodiceans[616]. [Sidenote: Supposed testimony of MS G.]Again in the Græco-Latin MS G of St Paul’s Epistles, the _Codex Boernerianus_, probably written in the ninth century, after the Epistle to Philemon, which breaks off abruptly at ver. 20, a vacant space is left, as if for the conclusion of this epistle: and then follows a fresh title

ad laudicenses incipit epistola
==προϲ\ \ \ \ λαουδακηϲαϲ \ \ \ \ αρχεται \ \ \ \ επιϲτολη==

This is evidently intended as the heading to another epistle. No other epistle however succeeds, but the leaf containing this title is followed by several leaves, which were originally left blank, but were filled at a later date with extraneous matter. What then was this Epistle to the Laodiceans, which was intended to follow, but which the scribe was prevented from transcribing? As the Epistle to the Hebrews is not found in this MS, and as in the common order of the Pauline Epistles it would follow the Epistle to Philemon, the title has frequently been supposed to refer to it. This opinion however does not appear at all probable. Anger[617] indeed argues in its favour on the ground that in the companion MS F, the _Codex Augiensis_, which (so far as regards the Greek text) must have been derived immediately from the same archetype[618], the Epistle to the Hebrews does really follow. But what are the facts? [Sidenote: Relation of G to F.]It is plain that the Greek texts of G and F came from the same original: but it is equally plain that the two scribes had different Latin texts before them—that of G being the Old Latin, and that of F Jerome’s revised Vulgate. No argument therefore derived from the Latin text holds good for the Greek. But the phenomena of both MSS alike[619] show that the Greek text of their common archetype ended abruptly at Philem. 20 (probably owing to the loss of the final leaves of the volume). The two scribes therefore were left severally to the resources of their respective Latin MSS. The scribe of F, whose Greek and Latin texts are in parallel columns, concluded the Epistle to Philemon in Latin, though he could not match it with its proper Greek; and after this he added the Epistle to the Hebrews in Latin, no longer however leaving a blank column, as he had done for the last few verses of Philemon. On the other hand the Latin text in G is interlinear, the Latin words being written above the Greek to interpret them. When therefore the Greek text came to an end the scribe’s work was done, for he could no longer interlineate. But he left a blank space for the remainder of Philemon, hoping doubtless hereafter to find a Greek MS from which he could fill it in; and he likewise gave the title of the epistle which he found next in his Latin copy, in Greek as well as in Latin. The Greek title however he had to supply for himself. This is clear from the form, which shows it to have been translated from the Latin by a person who had the very smallest knowledge of Greek. No Greek in the most barbarous age would have written ==λαουδακηϲαϲ== for ==λαοδικεαϲ== or ==λαοδικηνουϲ==. The αου is a Latin corruption _au_ for _ao_, and the termination ==αϲ== is a Latin’s notion of the Greek accusative. Thus the whole word is a reproduction of the Latin ‘Laudicenses,’ the _en_ being represented as usual by the Greek ε[620]. [Sidenote: The spurious Laodicean Epistle intended.]If so, we have only to ask what writing would probably appear as _Epistola ad Laudicenses_ in a Latin copy; and to this question there can be only one answer. The apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans occurs frequently in the Latin Bibles, being found at least two or three centuries before the MS G was written. Though it does not usually follow the Epistle to Philemon, yet its place varies very considerably in different Latin copies, and an instance will be given below[621] where it actually occurs in this position.

Footnote 616:

_Hær._ lxxxix ‘Sunt alii quoque qui epistolam Pauli ad Hebræos non
adserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Barnabæ esse apostoli aut
Clementis de urbe Roma episcopi; alii autem Lucæ evangelistæ aiunt
epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam. Et quia addiderunt in ea
quædam non bene sentientes, inde non legitur in ecclesia; et si
legitur a quibusdam, non tamen in ecclesia legitur populo, nisi
tredecim epistolæ ipsius, et ad Hebræos interdum. Et in ea quia
rhetorice scripsit, sermone plausibili, inde non putant esse ejusdem
apostoli; et quia factum Christum dicit in ea [Heb. iii. 2], inde non
legitur; de pœnitentia autem [Heb. vi. 4, x. 26] propter Novatianos
æque. Cum ergo factum dicit Christum, corpore, non divinitate, dicit
factum, cum doceat ibidem quod divinæ sit et paternæ substantiæ
filius, _Qui est splendor gloriæ_, inquit, _et imago substantiæ ejus_
[Heb. i. 3]’ etc. Oehler punctuates the sentence with which we are
concerned thus: ‘alii autem Lucæ evangelistæ. Aiunt epistolam etiam ad
Laodicenses scriptam,’ and in his note he adds ‘videlicet Pauli esse
apostoli.’ Thus he supposes the clause to refer to the apocryphal
Epistle to the Laodiceans: and Fabricius explains the reference
similarly. Such a reference however would be quite out of place here.
The whole paragraph before and after is taken up with discussing the
Epistle to the Hebrews; and the interposition of just six words,
referring to a wholly different matter, is inconceivable. We must
therefore punctuate either ‘alii autem Lucæ evangelistæ aiunt
epistolam, etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam’, or ‘alii autem Lucæ
evangelistæ aiunt; epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam.’ In either
case it will mean that some persons supposed the Epistle to the
Hebrews to have been written to the Laodiceans.

Footnote 617:

_Laodicenerbrief_ p. 29 sq.

Footnote 618:

If indeed the Greek text of F was not copied immediately from G, as
has been recently maintained by Mr Hort in the _Journal of Philology_
III. p. 67. The divergent phenomena of the two Latin texts seem to me
unfavourable to this hypothesis; but it ought not to be hastily
rejected.

Footnote 619:

Volkmar, the editor of Credner’s _Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen
Kanon_ p. 299, with strange carelessness speaks of ‘the appearance
(das Vorkommen) of the Laodicean Epistle in both the _Codices
Augiensis_ and _Boernerianus_ which in other respects are closely
allied.’ There is no mention of it in the Codex Augiensis.

Footnote 620:

It is curious that this MS, which was written by an Irish scribe,
should give the same corrupt form, Laud_ac_- for Laod_ac_-, which we
find in the Book of Armagh; see below p. 348.

Footnote 621:

See p. 352. It occurs also in this position in the list of Aelfric
(see below p. 362), where the order of the Pauline Epistles is ...
Col., Hebr., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Philem., Laod.

[Sidenote: This identification unsatisfactory.]

Thus beyond the notice in Philastrius there is no ancient support for the identification of the missing letter of Col. iv. 16 with the Epistle to the Hebrews; and doubtless the persons to whom Philastrius alludes had no more authority for their opinion than their modern successors. Critical conjecture, not historical tradition, led them to this result. The theory therefore must stand or fall by its own merits. It has been maintained by one or two modern writers[622], chiefly on the ground of some partial coincidences between the Epistles to the Hebrews and the Colossians; but the general character and purport of the two is wholly dissimilar, and they obviously deal with antagonists of a very different type. The insuperable difficulty of supposing that two epistles so unlike in style were written by the same person to the same neighbourhood at or about the same time would still remain, even though the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews should be for a moment granted.

Footnote 622:

See especially Schneckenburger _Beiträge_ p. 153 sq.

[Sidenote: (β) Philemon.]

(β) The _Epistle to Philemon_ has been strongly advocated by Wieseler[623], as the letter to which St Paul refers in this passage. For this identification it is necessary to establish two points; (1) that Philemon lived not at Colossæ, but at Laodicea; and (2) that the letter is addressed not to a private individual, but to a whole church. For the first point there is something to be said. Though for reasons explained elsewhere the abode of Philemon himself appears to have been at Colossæ, wherever Archippus may have resided[624], still two opinions may very fairly be held on this point. But Wieseler’s arguments entirely fail to establish his other position. [Sidenote: This epistle does not answer the conditions.]The theme, the treatment, the whole tenour of the letter, mark it as private: and the mere fact that the Apostle’s courtesy leads him to include in the opening salutation the Christians who met at Philemon’s house is powerless to change its character. Why should a letter, containing such intimate confidences, be read publicly in the Church, not only at Laodicea but at Colossæ, by the express order of the Apostle? The tact and delicacy of the Apostle’s pleading for Onesimus would be nullified at one stroke by the demand for publication.

Footnote 623:

Some earlier writers who maintained this view are mentioned by Anger,
p. 25, note f. It has since been more fully developed and more
vigorously urged by Wieseler, first in a programme _Commentat. de
Epist. Laodicena quam vulgo perditam putant_ 1844, and afterwards in
his well known work _Chronol. des Apostol. Zeit._ p. 450 sq. It may
therefore be identified with his name. He speaks of it with much
confidence as ‘scarcely open to a doubt,’ but he has not succeeded in
convincing others.

Footnote 624:

See the introduction to the Epistle to Philemon.

[Sidenote: (γ) Ephesians.]

(γ) But may we not identify the letter in question with the _Epistle to the Ephesians_, which also is known to have been despatched at the same time with the Epistle to the Colossians? Unlike the Epistle to Philemon, it was addressed not to a private person but to a church or churches. If therefore it can be shown that the Laodiceans were the recipients, either alone or with others, we have found the object of our search. [Sidenote: This is the true solution.]The arguments in favour of this solution are reserved for the introduction to that epistle. Meanwhile it is sufficient to say that educated opinion is tending, though slowly, in this direction, and to express the belief that ultimately this view will be generally received[625].

Footnote 625:

See above p. 37.

[Sidenote: (iii) The extant un-canonical Epistle to the Laodiceans.]

(iii) Another wholly different identification remains to be mentioned. It was neither a lost epistle nor a Canonical epistle, thought some, but the writing which is extant under the title of the ‘Epistle to the Laodiceans,’ though not generally received by the Church. Of the various opinions held respecting this apocryphal letter I shall have to speak presently. It is sufficient here to say that the advocates of its genuineness fall into two classes. Either they assign to it a place in the Canon with the other Epistles of St Paul, or they acquiesce in its exclusion, holding that the Church has authority to pronounce for or against the Canonicity even of Apostolic writings.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: General character of the spurious epistle.]

The apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans is a cento of Pauline phrases strung together without any definite connexion or any clear object. They are taken chiefly from the Epistle to the Philippians, but here and there one is borrowed elsewhere, e.g. from the Epistle to the Galatians. Of course it closes with an injunction to the Laodiceans to exchange epistles with the Colossians. The Apostle’s injunction in Col. iv. 16 suggested the forgery, and such currency as it ever attained was due to the support which that passage was supposed to give to it. Unlike most forgeries, it had no ulterior aim. It was not framed to advance any particular opinions, whether heterodox or orthodox. It has no doctrinal peculiarities. Thus it is quite harmless, so far as falsity and stupidity combined can ever be regarded as harmless.

* * * * *

Among the more important MSS which contain this epistle are the following. The letters in brackets [ ] give the designations adopted in the apparatus of various readings which follows.

1. _Fuldensis_ [F]. The famous MS of the Vulgate N. T. written for Victor Bishop of Capua, by whom it was read and corrected in the years 546, 547; edited by Ern. Ranke, _Marburgi et Lipsiæ_ 1868. The Laodicean Epistle occurs between Col. and 1 Tim. without any indication of doubtful authenticity, except that it has no argument or table of contents, like the other epistles. The scribe however has erroneously interpolated part of the argument belonging to 1 Tim. between the title and the epistle; see p. 291 sq. of Ranke’s edition.

2. _Cavensis._ A MS of the whole Latin Bible, at the Monastery of La Cava near Salerno, ascribed to the 6th or 7th or 8th century. See Vercellone _Var. Lect. Vulg. Lat. Bibl._ I. p. lxxxviii. Unfortunately we have no account of the readings in the Laodicean Epistle (for which it would be the most important authority after the Codex Fuldensis), except the last sentence quoted by Mai _Nov. Patr. Bibl._ I. 2. p. 63, ‘Et facite legi Colossensium vobis.’ Laod. here occurs between Col. and 1 Thess. (Mai p. 62). Dr Westcott (Smith’s _Dict. of the Bible s.v. Vulgate_, p. 1713) has remarked that the two oldest authorities for the interpolation of the three heavenly witnesses in 1 Joh. v. 7, this La Cava MS and the _Speculum_ published by Mai, also support the Laodicean Epistle (see Mai l.c. pp. 7, 62 sq.). The two phenomena are combined in another very ancient MS, Brit. Mus. _Add._ 11,852, described below.

3. _Armachanus_ [A]. A MS of the N. T., now belonging to Trinity College, Dublin, and known as the ‘Book of Armagh.’ It was written in the year 807, as ascertained by Bp. Graves; see the _Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy_ III. pp. 316, 356. The Laodicean Epistle follows Colossians on fol. 138, but with the warning that Jerome denies its genuineness. The text of the Laodicean Epistle in this MS is not so pure as might have been anticipated from its antiquity. I owe the collation of readings which is given below to the kindness of Dr Reeves, who is engaged in editing the MS.

4. _Darmstadiensis_ [D]. A fol. MS of the whole Bible, defective from Apoc. xxii. 12 to the end, now in the Grand-ducal library at Darmstadt, but formerly belonging to the Cathedral Library at Cologne; presented by Hermann Pius, Archbishop of Cologne from A.D. 890–925. Laod. follows Col. A collation was made for Anger, from whom (p. 144) this account is taken.

5. _Bernensis_ no. 334 [B]. A 4to MS of miscellaneous contents, ending with the Pauline Epistles, the last being the Epistle to the Laodiceans, written in the 9th cent. The Laodicean Epistle is a fragment, ending with ‘Gaudete in Christo et præcavete sordibus in lucro’ (ver. 13). This account is taken by Anger from Sinner _Catal. Cod. MSS. Bibl. Bern._ I. p. 28. In his Addenda (p. 179) Anger gives a collation of this MS.

6. _Toletanus_ [T] A MS of the Latin Bible belonging to the Cathedral Library at Toledo, and written about the 8th century: see Westcott in Smith’s _Dict. of the Bible_, s.v. _Vulgate_ p. 1710, Vercellone _Var. Lect._ I. p. lxxxiv. sq. The readings in the Laodicean Epistle are taken from Joh. Mariana _Schol. in Vet. et Nov. Test._, where it is printed in full. The edition which I have used is dated Paris 1620 (p. 831). The text however cannot be assumed to be strictly accurate, as Mariana had a printed copy of the epistle before him, from which at all events he supplied in brackets words wanting in the MS (see Anger p. 144), and which may have influenced his readings in other ways. In this MS Laod. follows Col.

7. _Parisiensis_ Reg. Lat. 3 (formerly 3562)[626] [P_{1}]. A Latin Bible, in one volume fol., called after Anowaretha by whom it was given to the monastery of Glanfeuille (St Maur), and ascribed in the printed Catalogue to the 9th cent. Laod. follows Col. on fol. 379.

Footnote 626:

So at least I find the number given in my notes. But in _Bentl. Crit.
Sacr._ p. xxxvii it is 3561.

8. _Parisiensis_ Reg. Lat. 6 [P_{2}]. A MS of the Latin Bible in 4 vols. fol., according to the Catalogue probably written in the 10th cent. [?]. It belonged formerly to the Duc de Noailles. Laod. follows Col. It contains numerous corrections in a later hand either between the lines or in the margin. The two hands are distinguished as P_{2}*, P_{2}**.

9. _Parisiensis_ Reg. Lat. 250 (formerly 3572) [P_{3}]. A fol. MS of the N. T., described in the Catalogue as probably belonging to end of the 9th cent. Laod. follows Col. It has a few corrections in a later hand. The two hands are distinguished as P_{3}*, P_{3}**.

These three Parisian MSS I collated myself, but I had not time to examine them as carefully as I could have wished.

10. _Brit. Mus._ Add. 11,852. [G]. An important MS of St Paul’s Epistles written in the 9th cent. It formerly belonged to the monastery of St Gall, being one of the books with which the library there was enriched by Hartmot who was Abbot from A.D. 872 to 884 or 885. Laod. follows Heb. and has no capitula like the other epistles.

11. _Brit. Mus._ Add. 10,546 [C]. A fol. MS of the Vulgate, commonly known as ‘Charlemagne’s Bible,’ but probably belonging to the age of Charles the Bald († 877). Laod. stands between Heb. and Apoc. It has no argument or capitula.

12. _Brit. Mus._ Reg. 1. E. vii, viii [R]. An English MS of the Latin Bible from Christ Church, Canterbury, written about the middle of the 10th cent. Laod. follows Heb. This is the most ancient MS, so far as I am aware, in which the epistle has capitulations. It is here given in its fullest form, and thus presents the earliest example of what may be called the modern recension.

13. _Brit. Mus._ Harl. 2833, 2834 [H_{1}]. A MS of the 13th cent. written for the Cathedral of Angers. Laod. follows Apoc.

The readings of the four preceding MSS are taken from the collations in Westcott _Canon_ Appx. E p. 572 sq. (ed. 4).

14. _Brit. Mus._ Harl. 3131 [H_{2}]. A smallish 4to. of the 12th cent., said to be of German origin, with marginal and interlinear glosses in some parts. Laod. stands between Philem. and Heb. It has no heading but only a red initial letter P. At the end is 'Expl. Ep̅la̅ ad Laodicenses. Prologus ad Ebreos.'

15. _Brit. Mus._ Sloane 539 [S]. A small fol. of the 12th cent., said to be German. It contains St Paul’s Epistles with glosses. The gloss on Col. iv. 16 ‘et ea quæ est Laodicensium etc.’ runs ‘quam ego eis misi ut ipsi michi ut videatis hic esse responsum.’ Laod. follows Heb., and has no glosses.

The two last MSS I collated myself.

16. _Bodl._ Laud. Lat. 13 (formerly 810) [L_{1}]. A 4to MS in double columns of the 13th cent. containing the Latin Bible. See _Catal. Bibl. Laud. Cod. Lat._ p. 10. Laod. follows Col. Notwithstanding the date of the MS, it gives a very ancient text of this epistle.

17. _Bodl._ Laud. Lat. 8 (formerly 757) [L_{2}]. A fol. MS of the Latin Bible, belonging to the end of the 12th cent. See _Catal. Bibl. Laud. Cod. Lat._ p. 9. This is the same MS, which Anger describes (p. 145) as 115C (its original mark), and of which he gives a collation. Laod. stands between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim.

I am indebted for collations of these two Laudian MSS to the kindness of the Rev. J. Wordsworth, Fellow of Brasenose College.

18. _Vindob._ 287 [V]. The Pauline Epp., written by Marianus Scotus (i.e. the Irishman), A.D. 1079. See Alter _Nov. Test. ad Cod. Vindob. Græce Expressum_ II. p. 1040 sq., Denis _Cod. MSS Lat. Bibl. Vindob._ I. no. lviii, Zeuss _Grammatica Celtica_ p. xviii (ed. 2). The Epistle to the Laodiceans is transcribed from this MS by Alter l.c. p. 1067 sq. It follows Col.

19. _Trin. Coll. Cantabr._ B. 5. 1 [X]. A fol. MS of the Latin Bible, written probably in the 12th century. Laod. follows Col. I have given a collation of this MS, because (like Brit. Mus. Reg. 1. E. viii) it is an early example of the completed form. The epistle is preceded by capitula, as follows.

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. 346.

(v) Another and somewhat common position is after Hebrews; e.g. Brit. Mus. Add. 11,852, Add. 10,546, Reg. I. E. viii, Sloane 539, Camb. Univ. Ee. I. 16, Pet. O. 4. 6. See also Hody l.c.

(vi) It is frequently placed at the end of the New Testament, and so after the Apocalypse when the Apocalypse comes last, e.g. Harl. 2833. Sometimes the Pauline Epistles follow the Apocalypse, so that Laod. occurs at the end at once of the Pauline Epistles and of the N. T.; e.g. Bodl. Canon. Lat. 7.

Other exceptional positions, e.g. after Galatians or after 3 John, are found in versions and printed texts (see Anger p. 143); but no authority of Latin MSS is quoted for them.

The _Codex Fuldensis_, besides being the oldest MS, is also by far the most trustworthy. In some instances indeed a true reading may be preserved in later MSS, where it has a false one; but such cases are rare. The text however was already corrupt in several places at this time; and the variations in the later MSS are most frequently attempts of the scribes to render it intelligible by alteration or amplification. Such for instance is the case with the mutilated reading ‘quod est’ (ver. 13), which is amplified, even as early as the Book of Armagh, into ‘quodcunque optimum est’, though there can be little doubt that the expression represents τὸ λοιπόν of Phil. iii. 2, and the missing word therefore is ‘reliquum’. The greatest contrast to F is presented by such MSS as RX, where the epistle has not only been filled out to the amplest proportions, but also supplied with a complete set of capitulations like the Canonical books. Though for this reason these two MSS have no great value, yet they are interesting as being among the oldest which give the amplified text, and I have therefore added a collation of them. On the other hand some much later MSS, especially L_{1}, preserve a very ancient text, which closely resembles that of F.[627]

Footnote 627:

The epistle has been critically edited by Anger _Laodicenerbrief_ p.
155 sq. and Westcott _Canon_ App. E. p. 572. I have already expressed
my obligations to both these writers for their collations of MSS.

In the apparatus of various readings, which is subjoined to the
epistle, I have not attempted to give such minute differences of
spelling as _e_ and _ae_, or _c_ and _t_ (_Laodicia_, _Laoditia_), nor
is the punctuation of the MSS noted.

AD LAODICENSES.

[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.]