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

576. Iren. i. 3. 4. The passages are given in the text as they are quoted by Irenæus from the Valentinians. Three out of the four are incorrect.

577. Iren. i. 12. 4; comp. Exc. Theod. 31 (p. 977) εἰ ὁ κατελθὼν εὐδοκία τοῦ ὅλου ἦν· ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα ἦν σωματικῶς.

578. Iren. i. 4. 5 ὅπως ἐν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα κτισθῇ, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, θρόνοι, θεότητες, κυριότητες, where the misquotation is remarkable. In Exc. Theod. 43 (p. 979) the words run πάντα γὰρ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, θρόνοι, κυριότητες, βασιλεῖαι, θεότητες, λειτουργίαι· δὶο καὶ ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν κ.τ.λ. (the last words being taken from Phil. ii. 9 sq.).

579. Thus they interpreted Ephes. iii. 21 εἰς πάσας τὰς γενὲας τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων as referring to their generated æons: Iren. i. 3. 1. Similar is the use which they made of expressions in the opening chapter of St John, where they found their first Ogdoad described: ib. i. 8. 5.

580. R. H. viii. 10 (p. 267).

581. ib. viii. 9.

582. ib. viii. 10 (p. 266).

583. R. H. v. 8.

584. R. H. v. 12.

585. See Köstlin in Theolog. Jahrb. Tübingen 1854, p. 185.

586. Pistis Sophia p. 3 sq.

587. ib. p. 15 sq.: comp. pp. 4, 60, 75, 187, 275.

588. ib. p. 28 sq.: comp. p. 56. On p. 7 πλήρωμα is opposed to ἀρχή, apparently in the sense of ‘completion’.

589. Matt. v. 18.

590. R. H. viii. 13.

591. The work of Anger, Ueber den Laodicenerbrief (Leipzig 1843), is very complete. He enumerates and discusses very thoroughly the opinions of his predecessors, omitting hardly anything relating to the literature of the subject which was accessible at the time when he wrote. His exposition of his own view, though not less elaborate, is less satisfactory. A later monograph by A. Sartori, Ueber den Laodicenserbrief (Lübeck 1853), is much slighter and contributes nothing new.

592. ad loc. τινὲς λέγουσιν ὅτι οὐχὶ τὴν Παύλου πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἀπεσταλμένην, ἀλλὰ τὴν παρ’ αὐτῶν Πάυλῳ· οὐ γὰρ εἶπε τὴν πρὸς Λαοδικέας ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας .

593. Rab. Maur. Op.VI. p. 540 (Migne) ‘Non quia ad Laodicenses scribit. Unde quidam falsam epistolam ad Laodicenses ex nomine beati Pauli confingendam esse existimaverunt; nec enim erat vera epistola. Æstimaverunt autem quidam illam esse, quæ in hoc loco est significata. Apostolus vero non [ad] Laodicenses dicit sed ex Laodicea; quam illi scripserunt ad apostolum, in quam aliqua reprehensionis digna inferebantur, quam etiam hac de causa jussit apud eos legi, ut ipsi reprehendant seipsos discentes quæ de ipsis erant dicta’ (see Spic. Solesm. I. p. 133) etc.

594. After repeating the argument based on the expression τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας, Theodoret says εἰκὸς δὲ αὐτοὺς ἢ τὰ ἐν Κολασσαῖς γενόμενα αἰτιάσασθαι ἢ τὰ αὐτὰ τούτοις νενοσηκέναι.

595. This however may be questioned. On the other hand Beza (ad loc.), Whitaker (Disputation on Scripture pp. 108, 303, 468 sq., 526, 531, Parker Society’s ed.), and others, who explain the passage in this way, urge that it is required by the Greek ἐκ Λαοδικείας, and complain that the other interpretation depends on the erroneous Latin rendering.

596. Or, ‘that which was written from Laodicea.’ The difference depends on the vocalisation of ܠܕܝܩܝܐ which may be either (1) ‘Laodicea,’ as in vv. 13, 15, or (2) ‘the Laodiceans,’ as in the previous clause in this same ver. 16.

597. Calvin is very positive; ‘Bis hallucinati sunt qui Paulum arbitrati sunt ad Laodicenses scripsisse. Non dubito quin epistola fuerit ad Paulum missa.... Impostura autem nimis crassa fuit, quod nebulo nescio quis hoc prætextu epistolam supponere ausus est adeo insulsam, ut nihil a Pauli spiritu magis alienum fingi queat.’ The last sentence reveals the motive which unconsciously led so many to adopt this unnatural interpretation of St Paul’s language.

598. ad loc.‘Multo fœdius errarunt qui ex hoc loco suspicati sunt quandam fuisse epistolam Pauli ad Laodicenses ... quum potius significet Paulus epistolam aliquam ad se missam Laodicea, aut potius qua responsuri essent Laodicenses Colossensibus.’

599. WorksII. p. 326.

600. Ann. Eccl. s. a. 60, § xiii.

601. e.g. Tillemont Mem. Eccl. p. 576.

602. See the note on iv. 16.

603. e.g. Storr Opusc.II. p. 124 sq.

604. So for instance Corn. à Lapide, as an alternative, ‘vel certe ad ipsos Colossenses, ut vult Theodor.’; but I do not find anything of the kind in Theodoret. This view also commends itself to Beza.

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.

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.

607. ad loc.‘Propter eam quæ est ad Timotheum dixit.’

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.

609. Catal. Bibl. Bodl. Cod. Æthiop. p. 23.

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

611. Catal. Bibl. Bodl. Cod. Æthiop. p. 23.

612. Bloch, quoted in Anger p. 17 note l.

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.

614. Baumgarten Comm. ad loc., quoted by Anger p. 25, note g.

615. Philippians p. 136 sq.