Chapter V: PERSONAL (iv. 7–18) (12)

And, if we are led to this conclusion by an examination of the epistle itself, we shall find it confirmed by an appeal to external testimony. There is ample evidence that a spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans was known to Greek writers, as well as Latin, at a sufficiently early date. [Sidenote: [Muratorian Fragment].]A mention of such an epistle occurs as early as the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon (about A.D. 170), where the writer speaks of two letters, one to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, as circulated under the name of Paul[630]. The bearing of the words however is uncertain. He may be referring to the Marcionite recension of the canonical Epistle to the Ephesians, which was entitled by that heretic an Epistle to the Laodiceans[631]. Or, if this explanation of his words be not correct (as perhaps it is not), still we should not feel justified in assuming that he is referring to the extant apocryphal epistle. Indeed we should hardly expect that an epistle of this character would be written and circulated at so early a date. The reference in Col. iv. 16 offered a strong temptation to the forger, and probably more than one unscrupulous person was induced by it to try his hand at falsification[632]. But, however this may be, it seems clear that before the close of the fourth century our epistle was largely circulated in the East and West alike. [Sidenote: Jerome.]‘Certain persons’, writes Jerome in his account of St Paul, ‘read also an Epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is rejected by all[633]’. No doubt is entertained, that this father refers to our epistle. [Sidenote: Theodore.]If then we find that about the same time Theodore of Mopsuestia also mentions an Epistle to the Laodiceans, which he condemns as spurious[634], it is a reasonable inference that the same writing is meant. [Sidenote: Theodoret.]In this he is followed by Theodoret[635]; and indeed the interpretations of Col. iv. 16 given by the Greek Fathers of this age were largely influenced as we have seen, by the presence of a spurious epistle which they were anxious to discredit[636]. [Sidenote: 2nd Council of Nicæa.]Even two or three centuries later the epistle seems to have been read in the East. At the Second Council of Nicæa (A.D. 787) it was found necessary to warn people against ‘a forged Epistle to the Laodiceans’ which was ‘circulated, having a place in some copies of the Apostle[637].’

Footnote 630:

_Canon Murat._ p. 47 (ed. Tregelles). The passage stands in the MS,
‘Fertur etiam ad Laudecenses alia ad Alexandrinos Pauli nomine fincte
ad heresem Marcionis et alia plura quæ in catholicam eclesiam recepi
non potest.’ There is obviously some corruption in the text. One very
simple emendation is the repetition of ‘alia’, so that the words would
run ‘ad Laudicenses alia, alia ad Alexandrinos’. In this case fincte
(= finctæ) might refer to the two epistles first mentioned, and the
Latin would construe intelligibly. The writing described as ‘ad
Laodicenses alia’ might then be the Epistle to the Ephesians under its
Marcionite title, the writer probably not having any personal
knowledge of it, but supposing from its name that it was a different
and a forged writing. But what can then be the meaning of ‘alia ad
Alexandrinos’? Is it, as some have thought, the Epistle to the
Hebrews? But this could not under any circumstances be described as
‘fincta ad hæresem Marcionis’, even though we should strain the
meaning of the preposition and interpret the words ‘_against_ the
heresy of Marcion’. And again our knowledge of Marcion’s Canon is far
too full to admit the hypothesis that it included a spurious Epistle
to the Alexandrians, of which no notice is elsewhere preserved. We are
therefore driven to the conclusion that there is a hiatus here, as in
other places of this fragment, probably after ‘Pauli nomine’; and
‘finctæ’ will then refer not to the two epistles named before, but to
the mutilated epistles of Marcion’s Canon which he had ‘tampered with
to adapt them to his heresy’. In this case the letter ‘ad Laudicenses’
may refer to our apocryphal epistle or to some earlier forgery.

Footnote 631:

See the introduction to the Epistle to the Ephesians.

Footnote 632:

Timotheus, who became Patriarch of Constantinople in 511, while still
a presbyter, includes in a list of apocryphal works forged by the
Manicheans ἡ πεντεκαιδεκάτη [i.e. τοῦ Παύλου] πρὸς Λαοδικεῖς ἐπιστολή,
Meurse p. 117 (quoted by Fabricius, _Cod. Apocr. N. T._ I.. p. 139).
Anger (p. 27) suggests that there is a confusion of the Marcionites
and Manicheans here. I am disposed to think that Timotheus recklessly
credits the Manicheans with several forgeries of which they were
innocent, among others with our apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans.
Still it is possible that there was another Laodicean Epistle forged
by these heretics to support their peculiar tenets.

Footnote 633:

_Vir. Ill._ 5 (II. p. 840) ‘Legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab
omnibus exploditur’.

Footnote 634:

The passage is quoted above, p. 341, note 593.

Footnote 635:

τινὲς ὑπέλαβον καὶ πρὸς Λαοδικέας αὐτὸν γεγραφέναι· αὐτίκα τοίνυν καὶ
προσφέρουσι πεπλασμένην ἐπιστολήν.

Footnote 636:

Anger (p. 143) argues against a Greek original on the ground that the
Eastern Church, unlike the Latin, did not generally interpret Col. iv.
16 as meaning an epistle written _to_ the Laodiceans. The fact is
true, but the inference is wrong, as the language of the Greek
commentators themselves shows.

Footnote 637:

Act. vi. Tom. v (Labbe viii. p. 1125 ed. Colet.) καὶ γὰρ τοῦ θείου
ἀποστόλου πρὸς Λαοδικεῖς φέρεται πλαστὴ ἐπιστολὴ ἕν τισι βίβλοις τοῦ
ἀποστόλου ἐγκειμένη, ἣν οἱ πάτερες ἡμῶν ἀπεδοκίμασαν ὡς αὐτοῦ
ἀλλοτρίαν.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: The Greek restored.]

The Epistle to the Laodiceans then in the original Greek would run somewhat as follows[638]:

==ΠΡΟΣ ΛΑΟΔΙΚΕΑΣ.==

[Sidenote: ^a Gal. i. 1.]

^a==ΠΑΥΛΟΣ ἀπόστολοϲ οὐκ ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι’ ἀνθρώπου αλλὰ διὰ ἰηϲοῦ χριϲτοῦ, τοῖϲ ἀδελφοῖϲ τοῖϲ οὖϲιν εν λαοδικείᾳ.== [Sidenote: ^b Gal. i. 3.; Phil. i. 2.]^2^b==χάριϲ ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸϲ καὶ κυρίου ἰηϲοῦ χριϲτοῦ.==

[Sidenote: ^c Phil. i. 3.]

^3^c==Εὐχαριϲτῶ τῷ Χριϲτῷ ἐν πάϲῃ δεήϲει μου, ὅτι ἐϲτὲ εν αὐτῷ μένοντεϲ καὶ προϲκαρτεροῦντεϲ τοῖϲ ἐργοιϲ αὐτοῦ,== [Sidenote: ^d Gal. v. 5.]^d==ἀπεκδέχομενοι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν== [Sidenote: ^e 2 Pet. ii. 9; iii. 7; cf. Phil. ii. 16.]^e==εἰϲ ἡμέραν κρίϲεωϲ.==

^4==Μηδὲ ὑμᾶϲ ἐξαπατήϲωϲιν== [Sidenote: ^f 1 Tim. i. 6.]^f==ματαιολογίαι τινῶν διδαϲκόντων ἵνα== [Sidenote: ^g 2 Tim. iv. 4.]^g==ἀποϲτρέπϲωϲιν υμᾶϲ ἀπὸ== [Sidenote: ^h Col. i. 5; Gal. ii. 5, 14.]^h==τῆϲ αληθείαϲ== [Sidenote: ^i Gal. i. 11 (cf. i. 8).]^i==τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ εὐαγγελιϲθέντοϲ ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ.== ^5==καὶ νῦν ποιήϲει ὁ Θεὸϲ ἵνα== [Sidenote: ^k Phil. i. 12.]^k==τα ἐξ ἐμοῦ εἰϲ προκοπὴν τῆϲ ἀληθείαϲ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου * * * λατρεύοντεϲ καὶ ποιοῦντεϲ χρηϲτότητα ἐργων τῶν τῆϲ ϲωτηρίαϲ [καὶ] τῆϲ αἰωνίου ζωῆϲ.== ^6==καὶ νῦν== [Sidenote: ^l Phil. i. 13.]^l==φανεροὶ οἱ δεϲμοί μου, οὓϲ ὑπομένω ἐν Χριϲτῷ, ἐν οἷϲ== [Sidenote: ^m Matt. v. 12; cf. Phil. i. 18]^m==χρω καὶ ἀγαλλιῶμαι.== ^7==καὶ== [Sidenote: ^n Phil. i. 19.]^n==τοῦτό ἐϲτίν μοι εἰϲ ϲωτηρίαν ἀΐδιον, ὃ καὶ ἀπέβη διὰ τῆϲ ὑμῶν δέηϲεωϲ καὶ ἐπιχορηγίαϲ πνεύματοϲ ἁγίου,== [Sidenote: ^o Phil. i. 20.]^o==εἴτε διὰ ζωῆϲ )έιτε διὰ θανάτου.== [Sidenote: ^p Phil. i. 21.]^8^p==ἑμοὶ γὰρ τὸ ζῆν ἐν Χριϲτῷ καὶ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν χαρά.== ^9==καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποίηϲει [καὶ] ἐν ὑμῖν διὰ τοῦ ἐλέουϲ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα== [Sidenote: ^q Phil. ii. 2.]^q==τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγάπην ἔχητε, ϲύμπϲυχοι ὄντεϲ.== [Sidenote: ^r Phil. ii. 12.]^{10}^r==ὥϲτε, ἀγαπητοί, καθὼϲ ὑπηκούϲατε ἐν τῇ παρουϲίᾳ μου, οὕτωϲ== [Sidenote: ^s 2 Thess. ii. 5 (see vulg.).]^s==μνημονεύοντεϲ μετὰ φόβου Κυρίου ἐργάζεϲθε, καὶ ἔϲται ὑμῖν ζωὴ εἰϲ τὸν αἰῶνα·== [Sidenote: ^t Phil. ii. 13.]^{11}^t==Θεὸϲ γάρ ἐϲτιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν.== [Sidenote: ^u Phil. ii. 14.]^{12}==καὶ== ^u==ποιεῖτε χωρὶϲ διαλογιϲμῶν== [Sidenote: ^x Col. iii. 17, 23.]^x==ὅ τι ἐὰν ποιῆτε.==

[Sidenote: ^y Phil. iii. 1.]^{13}==Καὶ== ^y==τὸ λοιπόν, ἀγαπητοί, χαίρετε ἐν Χριϲτῷ. Βλέπετε δὲ τοὺϲ== [Sidenote: ^z 1 Tim. iii. 8; Tit. i. 7.]^z==αἰϲχροκερδεῖϲ.== [Sidenote: ^a Phil. iv. 6.]^{14}^a==πάντα τὰ αἰτήματα ὑμῶν γνωριζέϲθω πρὸϲ τὸν Θεόν. καὶ== [Sidenote: ^b 1 Cor. xv. 58.]^b==ἑδραῖοι γίνεϲθε ἐν== [Sidenote: ^c 1 Cor. ii. 16.]^c==τῷ νοΐ τοῦ Χριϲτοῦ.== [Sidenote: ^d Phil. iv. 8, 9.]^{15}^d==ὅϲα τε ὁλόκληρα καὶ ἀληθῆ καὶ ϲεμνὰ καὶ δίκαια καὶ προϲφιλῆ, ταῦτα πράϲϲετε.== ^{16}==ἃ καὶ ἠκούϲατε καὶ παρελάβετε, ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ κρατεῖτε, καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη ἔϲται μεθ’ ὑμῶν.==

[Sidenote: ^e Phil. iv. 22.]

^{18}^e==Ἀϲπάζονται ὑμᾶϲ οἱ ἅγιοι.==

[Sidenote: ^f Phil. iv. 23.]

^{19}^f==Ἡ χάριϲ τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰηϲοῦ Χριϲτοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματοϲ ὑμῶν.==

[Sidenote: ^g Col. iv. 16.]

^{20}^g==καὶ ποιήϲατε ἵνα τοῖϲ Κολαϲϲαεῦϲιν αναγνωϲθῇ, καὶ η τῶν Κολαϲϲαέων ἵνα καὶ ὑμῖν.==

Footnote 638:

A Greek version is given in Elias Hutter’s Polyglott New Testament
(Noreb. 1599); see Anger p. 147 note g. But I have retranslated the
epistle anew, introducing the Pauline passages, of which it is almost
entirely made up, as they stand in the Greek Testament. The references
are given in the margin.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Scanty circulation in the East,]

But, though written originally in Greek, it was not among Greek Christians that this epistle attained its widest circulation. In the latter part of the 8th century indeed, when the Second Council of Nicæa met, it had found its way into some copies of St Paul’s Epistles[639]. But the denunciation of this Council seems to have been effective in securing its ultimate exclusion. We discover no traces of it in any extant Greek MS, with the very doubtful exception which has already been considered[640]. [Sidenote: but wide diffusion in the West.]But in the Latin Church the case was different. St Jerome, as we saw, had pronounced very decidedly against it. Yet even his authority was not sufficient to stamp it out. At least as early as the sixth century it found a place in some copies of the Latin Bibles: and before the close of that century its genuineness was affirmed by perhaps the most influential theologian whom the Latin Church produced during the eleven centuries which elapsed between the age of Jerome and Augustine and the era of the Reformation. [Sidenote: Gregory the Great.]Gregory the Great did not indeed affirm its canonicity. He pronounced that the Church had restricted the canonical Epistles of St Paul to fourteen, and he found a mystical explanation of this limitation in the number itself, which was attained by adding the number of the Commandments to the number of the Gospels and thus fitly represented the teaching of the Apostle which combines the two[641]. But at the same time he states that the Apostle wrote fifteen; and, though he does not mention the Epistle to the Laodiceans by name, there can be little doubt that he intended to include this as his fifteenth epistle, and that his words were rightly understood by subsequent writers as affirming its Pauline authorship. The influence of this great name is perceptible in the statements of later writers. [Sidenote: Haymo of Halberstadt.]Haymo of Halberstadt, who died A.D. 853, commenting on Col. iv. 16, says, The Apostle ‘enjoins the Laodicean Epistle to be read to the Colossians, because though it is very short and is not reckoned in the Canon, yet still it has some use[642]’.[Sidenote: Hervey of Dole.] And between two or three centuries later Hervey of Dole (c. A.D. 1130), if it be not Anselm of Laon[643], commenting on this same passage, says: ‘Although the Apostle wrote this epistle also as his fifteenth or sixteenth[644], and it is established by Apostolic authority like the rest, yet holy Church does not reckon more than fourteen,’ and he proceeds to justify this limitation of the Canon with the arguments and in the language of Gregory[645]. Others however did not confine themselves to the qualified recognition given to the epistle by the great Bishop of Rome. Gregory had carefully distinguished between genuineness and canonicity; but this important distinction was not seldom disregarded by later writers. [Sidenote: English Church. Aelfric.]In the English Church more especially it was forgotten. Thus Aelfric abbot of Cerne, who wrote during the closing years of the tenth century, speaks as follows of St Paul: ‘Fifteen epistles wrote this one Apostle to the nations by him converted unto the faith: which are large books in the Bible and make much for our amendment, if we follow his doctrine that was teacher of the Gentiles’. He then gives a list of the Apostle’s writings, which closes with ‘one to Philemon and one to the Laodiceans; fifteen in all as loud as thunder to faithful people[646]’. [Sidenote: John of Salisbury.]Again, nearly two centuries later John of Salisbury, likewise writing on the Canon, reckons ‘Fifteen epistles of Paul included in one volume, though it be the wide-spread and common opinion of nearly all that there are only fourteen; ten to churches and four to individuals: supposing that the one addressed to the Hebrews is to be reckoned among the Epistles of Paul, as Jerome the doctor of doctors seems to lay down in his preface, where he refuteth the cavils of those who contended that it was not Paul’s. But the fifteenth is that which is addressed to the Church of the Laodiceans; and though, as Jerome saith, it be rejected by all, nevertheless was it written by the Apostle. Nor is this opinion assumed on the conjecture of others, but it is confirmed by the testimony of the Apostle himself: for he maketh mention of it in the Epistle to the Colossians in these words, _When this epistle shall have been read among you_, etc. (Col. iv. 16)[647]’. Aelfric and John are the typical theologians of the Church in this country in their respective ages. The Conquest effected a revolution in ecclesiastical and theological matters. The Old English Church was separated from the Anglo-Norman Church in not a few points both of doctrine and of discipline. Yet here we find the representative men of learning in both agreed on this one point—the authorship and canonicity of the Epistle to the Laodiceans. From the language of John of Salisbury however it appears that such was not the common verdict at least in his age, and that on this point the instinct of the many was more sound than the learning of the few. Nor indeed was it the undisputed opinion even of the learned in this country during this interval. [Sidenote: The epistle repudiated by Lanfranc.]The first Norman Archbishop, Lanfranc, an Italian by birth and education, explains the passage in the Colossian Epistle as referring to a letter written by the Laodiceans to the Apostle, and adds that otherwise ‘there would be more than thirteen Epistles of Paul[648]’. Thus he tacitly ignores the Epistle to the Laodiceans, with which he can hardly have been unacquainted.

Footnote 639:

Quoted above, p. 359, note 637.

Footnote 640:

See above, p. 315 sq.

Footnote 641:

Greg. Magn. _Mor. in Iob._ xxxv. § 25 (III. p. 433, ed. Gallicc.)
‘Recte vita ecclesiæ multiplicata per decem et quattuor computatur;
quia utrumque testamentum custodiens, et tam secundum Legis decalogum
quam secundum quattuor Evangelii libros vivens, usque ad perfectionis
culmen extenditur. Unde et Paulus apostolus quamvis epistolas
quindecim scripserit, sancta tamen ecclesia non amplius quam
quatuordecim tenet, ut ex ipso epistolarum numero ostenderet quod
doctor egregius Legis et Evangelii secreta rimasset’.

Footnote 642:

_Patrol. Lat._ CXVII. p. 765 (ed. Migne) ‘Et eam quæ erat Laodicensium
ideo præcipit Colossensibus legi, quia, licet perparva sit et in
Canone non habeatur, aliquid tamen utilitatis habet’. He uses the
expression ‘eam quæ erat Laodicensium’, because τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας was
translated in the Latin Bible ‘eam quæ Laodicensium est’.

Footnote 643:

See _Galatians_ p. 232 on the authorship of this commentary.

Footnote 644:

A third Epistle to the Corinthians being perhaps reckoned as the 15th;
see Fabric. _Cod. Apocr. Nov. Test._ II p. 866.

Footnote 645:

_Patrol. Lat._ CLXXXI. p. 1355 sq. (ed. Migne) ‘_et ea_ similiter
epistola, _quæ Laodicensium_ est, i.e. quam ego Laodicensibus misi,
legatur vobis. Quamvis et hanc epistolam quintamdecimam vel
sextamdecimam apostolus scripserit, et auctoritas eam apostolica sicut
cætera firmavit, sancta tamen ecclesia non amplius quam quatuordecim
tenet, ut ex ipso epistolarum numero ostenderet etc.’ At the end of
the notes to the Colossians he adds ‘Hucusque protenditur epistola quæ
missa est ad Colossenses. Congruum autem videtur ut propter notitiam
legentium subjiciamus eam quæ est ad Laodicenses directa; quam, ut
diximus, in usu non habet ecclesia. Est ergo talis.’ Then follows the
text of the Laodicean Epistle, but it is not annotated.

Footnote 646:

_A Saxon Treatise concerning the Old and New Testament_ by Ælfricus
Abbas, p. 28 (ed. W. L’Isle, London 1623).

Footnote 647:

Ioann. Sarisb. _Epist._ 143 (I. p. 210 ed. Giles) ‘Epistolæ Pauli
quindecim uno volumine comprehensæ, licet sit vulgata et fere omnium
communis opinio non esse nisi quatuordecim, decem ad ecclesias,
quatuor ad personas; si tamen illa quæ ad Hebræos est connumeranda est
epistolis Pauli, quod in præfatione ejus astruere videtur doctorum
doctor Hieronymus, illorum dissolvens argutias qui eam Pauli non esse
contendebant. Cæterum quintadecima est illa quæ ecclesiæ Laodicensium
scribitur; et licet, ut ait Hieronymus, ab omnibus explodatur, tamen
ab apostolo scripta est: neque sententia hæc de aliorum præsumitur
opinione sed ipsius apostoli testimonio roboratur. Meminit enim ipsius
in epistola ad Colossenses his verbis, _Quum lecta fuerit apud vos hæc
epistola, etc._’

Footnote 648:

_Patrol. Lat._ CL. p. 331 (ed. Migne) on Col. iv. 16 ‘Hæc si esset
apostoli, _ad Laodicenses_ diceret, non _Laodicensium_; et plusquam
tredecim essent epistolæ Pauli’. We should perhaps read xiiii for
xiii, ‘quatuordecim’ for ‘tredecim’, as Lanfranc is not likely to have
questioned the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

[Sidenote: Occurrence in MSS of all ages and countries.]

Indeed the safest criterion of the extent to which this opinion prevailed, is to be found in the manuscripts. At all ages from the sixth to the fifteenth century we have examples of its occurrence among the Pauline Epistles and most frequently without any marks which imply doubt respecting its canonicity. These instances are more common in proportion to the number of extant MSS in the earlier epoch than in the later[649]. In one of the three or four extant authorities for the Old Latin Version of the Pauline Epistles it has a place[650]. In one of the two most ancient copies of Jerome’s revised Vulgate it is found[651]. Among the first class MSS of this latter Version its insertion is almost as common as its omission. This phenomenon moreover is not confined to any one country. Italy, Spain, France, Ireland, England, Germany, Switzerland—all the great nations of Latin Christendom—contribute examples of early manuscripts in which this epistle has a place[652].

Footnote 649:

The proportion however is very different in different collections. In
the Cambridge University Library I found the epistle in four only out
of some thirty MSS Which I inspected; whereas in the Lambeth Library
the proportion was far greater.

Footnote 650:

The _Speculum_ of Mai, see above, p. 348.

Footnote 651:

The Codex Fuldensis, which was written within a few years of the Codex
Amiatinus.

Footnote 652:

The list of MSS given above p. 348 sq. will substantiate this
statement.

[Sidenote: Versions.]

And, when the Scriptures came to be translated into the vernacular languages of modern Europe, this epistle was not uncommonly included. [Sidenote: Albigensian.]Thus we meet with an Albigensian version, which is said to belong to the thirteenth century[653]. [Sidenote: Bohemian.]Thus too it is found in the Bohemian language, both in manuscript and in the early printed Bibles, in various recensions[654]. [Sidenote: German.]And again an old German translation is extant, which, judging from linguistic peculiarities, cannot be assigned to a later date than about the fourteenth century, and was printed in not less than fourteen editions of the German Bible at the close of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth centuries, before Luther’s version appeared[655]. [Sidenote: English.]In the early English Bibles too it has a place. Though it was excluded by both Wycliffe and Purvey, yet it did not long remain untranslated and appears in two different and quite independent versions, in MSS written before the middle of the fifteenth century[656]. The prologue prefixed to the commoner of the two forms runs as follows:

[Sidenote: English prologue.]

‘Laodicensis ben also Colocenses, as tweye townes and oo peple in maners. These ben of Asie, and among hem hadden be false apostlis, and disceyuede manye. Therfore the postle bringith hem to mynde of his conuersacion and trewe preching of the gospel, and excitith hem to be stidfast in the trewe witt and loue of Crist, and to be of oo wil. But this pistil is not in comyn Latyn bookis, and therfor it was but late translatid into Englisch tunge[657].’

Footnote 653:

An account of this MS, which is at Lyons, is given by Reuss in the
_Revue de Théologie_ v. p. 334 (Strassb. 1852). He ascribes the
translation of the New Testament to the 13th century, and dates the MS
a little later.

Footnote 654:

This version is printed by Anger, p. 170 sq.

Footnote 655:

See Anger, p. 149 sq., p. 166 sq.

Footnote 656:

These two versions are printed in Lewis’s New Testament translated by
J. Wiclif (1731) p. 99 sq., and in Forshall and Madden’s _Wycliffite
Versions of the Holy Bible_ (1850) IV. p. 438 sq. They are also given
by Anger p. 168 sq. (1843), who takes the rarer form from Lewis and
the other from a Dresden MS. Dr Westcott also has printed the commoner
version in his _Canon_, p. 457 (ed. 4), from Forshall and Madden.

Of one of these two versions Forshall and Madden give a collation of
several MSS; the other is taken from a single MS (I. p. xxxii). Lewis
does not state whence he derived the rarer of these two versions, but
there can be little doubt that it came from the same MS _Pepys._ 2073
(belonging to Magd. Coll. Cambridge) from which it was taken by
Forshall and Madden (I. p. lvii); since he elsewhere mentions using
this MS (p. 104). The version is not known to exist in any other.
Forshall and Madden give the date of the MS as about 1440.

Footnote 657:

From Forshall and Madden, IV. p. 438. The earliest MSS which contain
the common version of the Laodicean Epistle (to which this prologue is
prefixed) date about A.D. 1430.

[Sidenote: Two Versions of the epistle.]

The two forms of the epistle in its English dress are as follows[658]. The version on the left hand is extant only in a single MS; the other, which occupies the right column, is comparatively common.

‘Poul, apostle, not of men, ne bi man, but bi Jhesu Crist, to the britheren that ben of Laodice, grace to ȝou, and pees of God the fadir, and of the Lord Jhesu Crist. Gracis I do to Crist bi al myn orisoun, that ȝe be dwellinge in him and lastinge, bi the biheest abidinge in the dai of doom. Ne he vnordeynede vs of sum veyn speche feynynge, that vs ouerturne fro the sothfastnesse of the gospel that of me is prechid. Also now schal God do hem leuynge, and doynge of blessdnesse of werkis, which heelthe of lyf is. And now openli ben my boondis, whiche I suffre in Crist Jhesu, in whiche I glad and ioie. And that is to me heelthe euerlastynge, that that I dide with oure preieris, and mynystringe the Holy Spirit, bi lijf or bi deeth. It is forsothe to me lijf into Crist, and to die ioie withouten eende. In vs he schal do his merci, that ȝe haue the same louynge, and that ȝe be of o wil. Therfore, derlyngis, as ȝe han herd in presence of me, hold ȝe, and do ȝe in drede of God; and it schal be to ȝou lijf withouten eend. It is forsothe God that worchith in vs. And do ȝe withouten ony withdrawinge, what soeuere ȝe doon. And that it is, derlyngis, ioie ȝe in Crist, and flee ȝe maad foul in clay. Alle ȝoure axingis ben open anentis God, and be ȝe fastned in the witt of Crist. And whiche been hool, and sooth, and chast, and rightwijs, and louable, do ȝe; and whiche herden and take in herte, hold ȝe; and it schal be to ȝou pees. Holi men greeten ȝou weel, in the grace of oure Lord Jhesu Crist, with the Holi Goost. And do ȝe that pistil of Colosensis to be red to ȝou. Amen.

‘Poul, apostle, not of men, ne by man, but bi Jhesu Crist, to the britheren that ben at Laodice, grace to ȝou, and pees of God the fadir, and of the Lord Jhesu Crist. I do thankyngis to my God bi al my preier, that ȝe be dwelling and lastyng in him, abiding the biheest in the day of doom. For neithir the veyn spekyng of summe vnwise men hath lettide ȝou, the whiche wolden turne ȝou fro the treuthe of the gospel, that is prechid of me. And now hem that ben of me, to the profiȝt of truthe of the gospel, God schal make disseruyng, and doyng benygnyte of werkis, and helthe of euerlasting lijf. And now my boondis ben open, which Y suffre in Crist Jhesu, in whiche Y glade and ioie. And that is to me to euerlastyng helthe, that this same thing be doon by ȝoure preiers, and mynystryng of the Holi Goost, either bi lijf, either bi deeth. Forsothe to me it is lijf to lyue in Crist, and to die ioie. And his mercy schal do in ȝou the same thing, that ȝe moun haue the same loue, and that ȝe be of oo will. Therfore, ȝe weel biloued britheren, holde ȝe, and do ȝe in the dreede of God, as ȝe han herde the presence of me; and lijf schal be to ȝou withouten eende. Sotheli it is God that worchith in ȝou. And, my weel biloued britheren, do ȝe without eny withdrawyng what euer thingis ȝe don. Joie ȝe in Crist, and eschewe ȝe men defoulid in lucre, _either foul wynnyng_. Be alle ȝoure askyngis open anentis God, and be ȝe stidefast in the witt of Crist. And do ȝe tho thingis that ben hool, and trewe, and chaast, and iust, and able to be loued; and kepe ȝe in herte tho thingis that ȝe haue herd and take; and pees schal be to ȝou. Alle holi men greten ȝou weel. The grace of oure Lord Jhesu Crist be with ȝoure spirit. And do ȝe that pistil of Colocensis to be red to ȝou.

Footnote 658:

Printed from Forshall and Madden l.c. I am assured by those who are
thoroughly conversant with old English, that they can discern no
difference of date in these two versions, and that they both belong
probably to the early years of the 15th century. The rarer version is
taken from a better Latin text than the other.

[Sidenote: Revival of learning and condemnation of the epistle.]

Thus for more than nine centuries this forged epistle hovered about the doors of the sacred Canon, without either finding admission or being peremptorily excluded. At length the revival of learning dealt its death-blow to this as to so many other spurious pretensions. As a rule, Roman Catholics and Reformers were equally strong in their condemnation of its worthlessness. The language of Erasmus more especially is worth quoting for its own sake, and must not be diluted by translation:

[Sidenote: Strictures of Erasmus.]

‘Nihil habet Pauli præter voculas aliquot ex cæteris ejus epistolis mendicatas.... Non est cujusvis hominis Paulinum pectus effingere. Tonat, fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paulus. At hæc, præterquam quod brevissima est, quam friget, quam jacet!... Quanquam quid attinet argumentari? Legat, qui volet, epistolam.... Nullum argumentum efficacius persuaserit eam non esse Pauli quam ipsa epistola. Et si quid mihi naris est, ejusdem est opificis qui næniis suis omnium veterum theologorum omnia scripta contaminavit, conspurcavit, perdidit, ac præcipue ejus qui præ cæteris indignus erat ea contumelia, nempe D. Hieronymi[659]’.

Footnote 659:

On Col. iv. 16. Erasmus is too hard upon the writer of this letter,
when he charges him with such a mass of forgeries. He does not explain
how this hypothesis is consistent with the condemnation of the Epistle
to the Laodiceans in Hieron. _Vir. Ill._ 5 (quoted above p. 359).

[Sidenote: Exceptions.]

But some eccentric spirits on both sides were still found to maintain its genuineness. [Sidenote: Prætorius.]Thus on the one hand the Lutheran Steph. Prætorius prefaces his edition of this epistle (A.D. 1595) with the statement that he ‘restores it to the Christian Church’; he gives his opinion that it was written ‘either by the Apostle himself or by some other Apostolic man’: he declares that to himself it is ‘redolent of the spirit and grace of the most divine Paul’; and he recommends younger teachers of the Gospel to ‘try their strength in explaining it’, that thus ‘accustoming themselves gradually to the Apostolic doctrine they may extract thence a flavour sweeter than ambrosia and nectar[660].’ [Sidenote: Stapleton.]On the other hand the Jesuit Stapleton was not less eager in his advocacy of this miserable cento. To him its genuineness had a controversial value. Along with several other apocryphal writings which he accepted in like manner, it was important in his eyes as showing that the Church had authority to exclude even Apostolic writings from the Canon, if she judged fit[661]. But such phenomena were quite abnormal. The dawn of the Reformation epoch had effectually scared away this ghost of a Pauline epistle, which (we may confidently hope) has been laid for ever and will not again be suffered to haunt the mind of the Church.

Footnote 660:

_Pauli Apostoli ad Laodicenses Epistola, Latine et Germanice_,
Hamburg, 1595, of which the preface is given in Fabricius _Cod. Apocr.
Nov. Test._ II. p. 867. It is curious that the only two arguments
against its genuineness which he thinks worthy of notice are (1) Its
brevity; which he answers by appealing to the Epistle to Philemon; and
(2) Its recommendation of works (‘quod scripsit opera esse facienda
quæ sunt salutis æternæ’); which he explains to refer to works that
proceed of faith.

Footnote 661:

See Bp. Davenant on Col. iv. 16: ‘Detestanda Stapletonis opinio, qui
ipsius Pauli epistolam esse statuit, quam omnes patres ut adulterinam
et insulsam repudiarunt: nec sanior conclusio, quam inde deducere
voluit, posse nimirum ecclesiam germanam et veram apostoli Pauli
epistolam pro sua authoritate e Canone excludere’. So also Whitaker
_Disputation on Scripture_ passim (see the references given above, p.
341, note 595).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.