St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon A...

(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.

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**.

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.

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.