The Epistle from Laodicea[591].
In this topographical representation the connexion of meaning in the word pleroma as employed by St Paul and by Valentinus respectively seems at first sight to be entirely lost. When we read of the contrast between the pleroma and the kenoma, the fulness and the void, we are naturally reminded of the plenum and the vacuum of physical speculations. The sense of pleroma, as expressing completeness and so denoting the aggregate or totality of the Divine powers, seems altogether to have disappeared. |owing partly to the false antithesis κένωμα|But in fact this antithesis of κένωμα was, so far as we can make out, a mere after-thought, and appears to have been borrowed, as Irenæus states, from the physical theories of Democritus and Epicurus[567]. It would naturally suggest itself both because the opposition of πλήρης and κενὸς was obvious, and because the word κένωμα materially assisted the imagery as a description of the kingdom of waste and shadow. But in itself it is a false antithesis. |borrowed from physical philosophers;|The true antithesis appears in another, and probably an earlier, term used to describe the mundane kingdom. In this earlier representation, which there is good reason for ascribing to Valentinus himself, it is called not κένωμα ‘the void’, but ὑστέρημα ‘the deficiency, incompleteness’[568]. |but reappears in their common phraseology.|Moreover the common phraseology of the Valentinian schools shows that the idea suggested by this opposition to κένωμα was not the original idea of the term. They speak of τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν αἴωνων, τὸ πᾶν πλήρωμα τῶν αἴωνων, ‘the whole aggregate of the Æons’[569]. And this (making allowance for the personification of the Æons) corresponds exactly to its use in St Paul.
Again the teaching of the Valentinian schools supplies other uses which serve to illustrate its meaning. Not only does the supramundane kingdom as a whole bear this name, but each separate Æon, of which that kingdom is the aggregation, is likewise called a pleroma[570]. This designation is given to an Æon, because it is the fulness, the perfection, of which its mundane counterpart is only a shadowy and defective copy. Nor does the narrowing of the term stop here. There likewise dwells in this higher region a pleroma, or eternal archetype, not only of every comprehensive mundane power, but of each individual man; and to wed himself with this heavenly partner, this Divine ideal of himself, must be the study of his life. |Interpretation of John iv. 17, 18.|The profound moral significance, which underlies the exaggerated Platonism and perverse exegesis of this conception, will be at once apparent. But the manner in which the theory was carried out is curiously illustrated by the commentary of the Valentinian Heracleon on our Lord’s discourse with the Samaritan woman[571]. This woman, such is his explanation, belongs to the spiritual portion of mankind. But she had had six[572] husbands, or in other words she had entangled herself with the material world, had defiled herself with sensuous things. The husband however, whom she now has, is not her husband; herein she has spoken rightly: the Saviour in fact means ‘her partner from the pleroma’. Hence she is bidden to go and call him; that is, she must find ‘her pleroma, that coming to the Saviour with him (or it), she may be able to obtain from Him the power and the union and the combination with her pleroma’ (τὴν δύναμιν καὶ τὴν ἕνωσιν καὶ τὴν ἀνάκρασιν τὴν πρὸς τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῆς). ‘For’, adds Heracleon, ‘He did not speak of a mundane (κοσμικοῦ) husband when He told her to call him, since He was not ignorant that she had no lawful husband’.
Impossible as it seems to us to reconcile the Valentinian system with the teaching of the Apostles, the Valentinians themselves felt no such difficulty. They intended their philosophy not to supersede or contradict the Apostolic doctrine, but to supplement it and to explain it on philosophical principles. Hence the Canon of the Valentinians comprehended the Canon of Catholic Christianity in all its essential parts, though some Valentinian schools at all events supplemented it with Apocryphal writings. More particularly the Gospel of St John and the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians were regarded with especial favour; and those passages which speak of the pleroma are quoted more than once in their writings to illustrate their teaching. |and quote them in support of their views.|By isolating a few words from the context and interpreting them wholly without reference to their setting, they had no difficulty in finding a confirmation of their views, where we see only an incongruity or even a contradiction. For instance, their second Christ—the redeemer of the spiritual element in the mundane world—was, as we saw, compacted of gifts contributed by all the Æons of the pleroma. Hence he was called ‘the common fruit of the pleroma’, ‘the fruit of all the pleroma’[573], ‘the most perfect beauty and constellation of the pleroma’[574]; hence also he was designated ‘All’ (πᾶν) and ‘All things’ (πάντα)[575]. Accordingly, to this second Christ, not to the first, they applied these texts; Col. iii. 11 ‘And He is all things’, Rom. xi. 36 ‘All things are unto Him and from Him are all things’, Col. ii. 9 ‘In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead’, Ephes. i. 10 ‘To gather together in one all things in Christ through God’[576]. So too they styled him )Ευδόκητος, with a reference to Col. i. 19, because ‘all the pleroma was pleased through Him to glorify the Father’[577]. And inasmuch as this second Christ was according to the Valentinian theory instrumental in the creation of the mundane powers, they quoted, or rather misquoted, as referring to this participation in the work of the Demiurge, the passage Col. i. 16 ‘In Him were created all things, visible and invisible, thrones, deities, dominions’[578]. Indeed it seems clear that these adaptations were not always afterthoughts, but that in several instances at least their nomenclature was originally chosen for the sake of fitting the theory to isolated phrases and expressions in the Apostolic writings, however much it might conflict with the Apostolic doctrine in its main lines[579].
The heretics called Docetæ by Hippolytus have no connexion with docetism, as it is generally understood, i.e. the tenet that Christ’s body was not real flesh and blood, but merely a phantom body. Their views on this point, as represented by this father, are wholly different[580]. Of their system generally nothing need be said here, except that it is largely saturated with Valentinian ideas and phrases. From the Valentinians they evidently borrowed their conception of the pleroma, by which they understood the aggregate, or (as localized) the abode, of the Æons. With them, as with the Valentinians, the Saviour is the common product of all the Æons[581]; and in speaking of him they echo a common Valentinian phrase ‘the pleroma of the entire Æons’[582].
The Ophite heresy, Proteus-like, assumes so many various forms, that the skill of critics has been taxed to the utmost to bind it with cords and extract its story from it. It appears however from the notices of Hippolytus, that the term pleroma was used in a definite theological sense by at least two branches of the sect, whom he calls Naassenes and Peratæ.
Of the Naassenes Hippolytus tells us that among other images borrowed from the Christian and Jewish Scriptures, as well as from heathen poetry, they described the region of true knowledge—their kingdom of heaven, which was entered by initiation into their mysteries—as the land flowing with milk and honey, ‘which when the perfect (the true Gnostics, the fully initiated) have tasted, they are freed from subjection to kings (ἀβασιλεύτους) and partake of the pleroma.’ Here is a plain allusion to Joh. i. 16. ‘This’, the anonymous Naassene writer goes on to say, ‘is the pleroma, through which all created things coming into being are produced and fulfilled (πεπλήρωται) from the Uncreated’[583]. Here again, as in the Valentinian system, the conception of the pleroma is strongly tinged with Platonism. The pleroma is the region of ideas, of archetypes, which intervenes between the author of creation and the material world, and communicates their specific forms to the phenomenal existences of the latter.
The theology of the second Ophite sect, the Peratæ, as described by Hippolytus, is a strange phenomenon. |Their theology|They divided the universe into three regions, the uncreate, the self-create, and the created. Again the middle region may be said to correspond roughly to the Platonic kingdom of ideas. But their conception of deity is entirely their own. They postulate three of every being; three Gods, three Words, three Minds (i.e. as we may suppose three Spirits), three Men. Thus there is a God for each region, just as there is a Man. In full accordance with this perverse and abnormal theology is their application of St Paul’s language. |and corresponding application of πλήρωμα.|Their Christ has three natures, belonging to these three kingdoms respectively; and this completeness of His being is implied by St Paul in Col. i. 19, ii. 9, which passages are combined in their loose quotation or paraphrase, ‘All the pleroma was pleased to dwell in him bodily, and there is in him all the godhead’, i.e. (as Hippolytus adds in explanation) ‘of this their triple division (τῆς οὕτω διῃρημένης τρίαδος)’[584]. This application is altogether arbitrary, having no relation whatever to the theological meaning of the term in St Paul. It is also an entire departure from the conception of the Cerinthians, Valentinians, and Naassenes, in which this meaning, however obscured, was not altogether lost. These three heresies took a horizontal section of the universe, so to speak, and applied the term as coextensive with the supramundane stratum. The Peratæ on the other hand divided it vertically, and the pleroma, in their interpretation of the text, denoted the whole extent of this vertical section. There is nothing in common between the two applications beyond the fundamental meaning of the word, ‘completeness, totality’.
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 (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.
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.