The extant Gnostic work, called Pistis Sophia, was attributed at one time on insufficient grounds to Valentinus. It appears however to exhibit a late development of Ophitism^[585], far more Christian and less heathen in its character than those already considered. In this work the word pleroma occurs with tolerable frequency; but its meaning is not easily fixed. |Frequent use of the term.|Early in the treatise it is said that the disciples supposed a certain ‘mystery’, of which Jesus spoke, to be ‘the end of all the ends’ and ‘the head (κεφαλήν) of the Universe’ and ‘the whole pleroma’^[586]. Here we seem to have an allusion to the Platonic kingdom of ideas, i.e. of intelligible being, of absolute truth, as reproduced in the Valentinian pleroma. And the word is used sometimes in connexion with the completeness of revelation or the perfection of knowledge. Thus our Lord is represented as saying to His disciples, ‘I will tell you the whole mystery and the whole pleroma, and I will conceal nothing from you from this hour; and in perfection will I perfect you in every pleroma and in every perfection and in every mystery, which things are the perfection of all the perfections and the pleroma of all the pleromas’^[587]. Elsewhere however Mary, to whom Jesus is represented as making some of his chief revelations, is thus addressed by Him; ‘Blessed art thou above (παρὰ) all women that are on the earth, for thou shalt be pleroma of all the pleromas and perfection of all the perfections’^[588], where the word must be used in a more general sense.

One heresy still remains to be noticed in connexion with this word. Hippolytus has preserved an account of the teaching of Monoimus the Arabian, of whom previously to the discovery of this father’s treatise we knew little more than the name. In this strange form of heresy the absolute first principle is the uncreate, imperishable, eternal Man. I need not stop to enquire what this statement means. It is sufficient for the present purpose to add that this eternal Man is symbolized by the letter Ι, the ‘one iota’, the ‘one tittle’ of the Gospel^[589]; and this Ι, as representing the number ten, includes in itself all the units from one to nine. ‘This’, added Monoimus, ‘is (meant by) the saying (of scripture) All the pleroma was pleased to dwell upon the Son of Man bodily’^[590]. Here the original idea of the word as denoting completeness, totality, is still preserved.

The different opinions respecting the epistle thus designated by St Paul, which have been held in ancient or modern times, will be seen from the following table;

1. An Epistle written by the Laodiceans; to

(α) St Paul;

(β) Epaphras;

(γ) Colossæ.

2. An Epistle written by St Paul from Laodicea.

(α) 1 Timothy;

(β) 1 Thessalonians;

(γ) 2 Thessalonians;

(δ) Galatians.

3. An Epistle addressed to the Laodiceans by

(a) St John (the First Epistle);

(b) Some companion of St Paul (Epaphras or Luke);

(c) St Paul himself;

(i) A lost Epistle.

(ii) One of the Canonical Epistles.

(α) Hebrews;

(β) Philemon;

(γ) Ephesians.

(iii) The Apocryphal Epistle.

In this maze of conflicting hypotheses we might perhaps be tempted to despair of finding our way and give up the search as hopeless. Yet I venture to think that the true identification of the epistle in question is not, or at least ought not to be, doubtful.

1. The opinion that the epistle was addressed by the Laodiceans to St Paul, and not conversely, found much support in the age of the Greek commentators. It is mentioned by St Chrysostom as held by ‘some persons’, though he himself does not pronounce a definite opinion on the subject^[592]. |Advocates of this theory.|It is eagerly advocated by Theodore of Mopsuestia. He supposes that the letter of the Laodiceans contained some reflexions on the Colossian Church, and that St Paul thought it good for the Colossians to hear what their neighbours said of them^[593]. Theodoret, though not mentioning Theodore by name, follows in his footsteps^[594]. The same opinion is also expressed in a note ascribed to Photius in the Œcumenian Catena. This view seems to have been very widely entertained in ancient times. It possibly underlies the Latin Version ‘ea quæ Laodicensium est’^[595]: it is distinctly expressed in the rendering of the Peshito, ‘that which was written by the Laodiceans’^[596]. At a more recent date too it found great favour. It was adopted on the one hand by Calvin^[597] and Beza^[598] and Davenant and Lightfoot^[599], on the other by Baronius^[600] and à Lapide and Estius, besides other very considerable names^[601]. Latterly its popularity has declined, but it has secured the support of one or two commentators even in the present century.

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^[602].

The vast majority of those who interpret the expression in this way assume that the letter was written to (α) St Paul. The modifications of this view, which suppose it addressed to some one else, need hardly be considered. The theory for instance, which addresses it to (β) Epaphras^[603], removes none of the objections brought against the simpler hypothesis. Another opinion, which takes (γ) the Colossians themselves to have been the recipients^[604], does indeed dispose of one difficulty, the necessity of assuming a copy kept by the Laodiceans, but it is even more irreconcileable with the language of the context. Why then should St Paul so studiously charge them to see that they read it? Why above all should he say καὶ ὑμεῖς, ‘ye also’, when they were the only persons who would read it as a matter of course?

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^[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]. |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. |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]. |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.

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^[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.

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^[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.

(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^[616]. |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

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? |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]. |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.

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.

(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. |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^[625].

(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)^[626] [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.

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 L₁, preserve a very ancient text, which closely resembles that of F.^[627]