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

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 (ascr, 74) the bearing of this subscription on Col. iv. 16 is emphasized, ἰδὸυ δὴ καὶ ἡ ἐκ Λαοδικείας. This identification has not been altogether without support in later times[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.

(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.