563 . Iren. i. 2. 6, Hippol. vi. 32.
559.Iren. i. 4. 1, 2, ii. 3. 1, ii. 4. 1, 3, ii. 5. 1, ii. 8. 1–3, ii. 14. 3, iii. 25. 6, 7, etc.
560.Iren. i. 6. 3, i. 7. 1 sq., ii. 14. 3, ii. 15. 3 sq., ii. 20. 5, ii. 30. 3, etc.
561.Iren. i. 5. 2, ii. 14. 3; comp. Hippol. vi. 34.
562.Iren. i. 4. 1 λέγουσιν ἐν σκιαῖς [σκιᾶς] καὶ κενώματος τόποις )εκβεβράσθαι κ.τ.λ. The Greek MS reads καὶ σκηνώματος, but the rendering of the early Latin translation ‘in umbræ [et?] vacuitatis locis’ leaves no doubt about the word in the original text. Tertullian says of this Achamoth (adv. Valent. 14) ‘explosa est in loca luminis aliena ... in vacuum atque inane illud Epicuri’. See note 567.
563.Iren. i. 2. 6, Hippol. vi. 32.
564.They quoted, as referring to this descent of the second Christ into the kenoma, the words of St Paul, Phil. ii. 7 ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν; Clem. Alex. Exc. Theod. 35 (p. 978).
565.Iren. i. 7. 1 καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι νυμφίον καὶ νύμφην, νυμφῶνα δὲ τὸ πᾶν πλήρωμα: comp. Hippol. vi. 34 ὁ νυμφίος αὐτῆς.
566.This language is so frequent that special references are needless. In Iren. ii. 5. 3 we have a still stronger expression, ‘in ventre pleromatis’.
567.Iren. ii. 14. 3 ‘Umbram autem et vacuum ipsorum a Democrito et Epicuro sumentes sibimetipsis aptaverunt, quum illi primum multum sermonem fecerint de vacuo et de atomis’.
568.Hippol. vi. 31 καλεῖται δὲ ὅρος μὲν ὁῦτος ὅτι ἀφορίζει ἀπὸ τοῦ πληρώματος ἔξω τὸ ὑστέρημα· μετοχὲυς δε ὅτι μετέχει καὶ τοῦ ὑστερήματος (i.e. as standing between the πλήρωμα and ὑστέρημα)· σταυρὸς δέ, ὅτι πέπηγεν ἀκλινῶς καὶ ἀμετανόητως, ὡς μὴ δύνασθαι μηδὲν τοῦ ὑστερήματος καταγενέσθαι ἐγγὺς τῶν ἐντὸς πληρώματος αἴωνων. Irenæus represents the Marcosians as designating the Demiurge καρπὸς ὑστερήματος i. 17. 2, i. 19. 1, ii. præf. 1, ii. 1. 1 (comp. i. 14. 1). This was perhaps intended originally as an antithesis to the name of the Christ, who was καρπὸς πληρώματος. The Marcosians however apparently meant Sophia Achamoth by this ὑστερημα. This transference from the whole to the part would be in strict accordance with their terminology: for as they called the supramundane æons πληρώματα (Iren. i. 14. 2, 5; quoted in Hippol. vi. 43, 46), so also by analogy they might designate the mundane Powers ὑστερήματα (comp. Iren. i. 16. 3). The term, as it occurs in the document used by Hippolytus, plainly denotes the whole mundane region.
Hippolytus does not use the word κένωμα, though so common in Irenæus. This fact seems to point to the earlier date of the Valentinian document which he uses, and so to bear out the result arrived at in a previous note (p. 332) that we have here a work of Valentinus himself. The word ὑστέρημα appears also in Exc. Theod. 22 (p. 974).
569.e.g. Hippol. vi. 34, Iren. i. 2. 6. See especially Iren. ii. 7. 3 ‘Quoniam enim pleroma ipsorum triginta Aeones sunt, ipsi testantur’.
570.See the passages from Irenæus quoted above, note 568; comp. Exc. Theod. 32, 33 (p. 977). Similarly λόγοι is a synonym for the Æons, ὁμωνύμως τῷ Λόγῳ, Exc. Theod. 25 (p. 975).
571.Heracleon in Orig. in Ioann. xiii, iv. p. 205 sq. The passages are collected in Stieren’s Irenæus p. 947 sq. See especially p. 950 ὄιεται [ὁ Ἡρακλέων] τῆς Σαμαρείτιδος τὸν λεγόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἄνδρα τὸ πλήρωμα εἶναι αὐτῆς, ἵνα σὺν ἐκείνῳ γενομένη πρὸς τὸν σωτῆρα κομίσεσθαι παρ’ αὐτοῦ τὴν δύναμιν καὶ τὴν ἕνωσιν καὶ τὴν ἀνάκρασιν τὴν πρὸς τὸ πλήρωμα αὑτῆς δυνηθῇ· οὐ γὰρ περὶ ἀνδρός, φησί, κοσμικοῦ ἔλεγεν ... λέγων αὐτῇ τὸν σωτῆρα εἰρηκέναι, Φώνησόν σου τὸν ἄνδρα καὶ ἐλθὲ ἐνθάδε· δηλοῦντα τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ πληρώματος σύζυγον. Lower down Heracleon says ἦν αὐτῆς ὁ ἀνὴρ ἐν τῷ Αἰῶνι. By this last expression I suppose he means that the great æon Man of the Ogdoad, the eternal archetype of mankind, comprises in itself archetypes corresponding to each individual man and woman, not indeed of the whole human race (for the Valentinian would exclude the psychical and carnal portion from any participation in this higher region) but of the spiritual portion thereof.
572.Origen expressly states that Heracleon read ἕξ for πέντε. The number six was supposed to symbolize the material creature: see Heracleon on ‘the forty and six years’ of John ii. 20 (Stieren p. 947). There is no reason to think that Heracleon falsified the text here; he appears to have found this various reading already in his copy.
573.The expression is ὁ κοινὸς τοῦ πληρώματος καρπὸς in Hippolytus vi. 32, 34, 36 (pp. 190, 191, 192, 193, 196). In Irenæus i. 8. 5 it is καρπὸς παντὸς τοῦ πληρώματος.
574.Iren. i. 2. 6 τελειότατον κάλλος τε καὶ ἄστρον τοῦ πληρώματος.
575.Iren. i. 2. 6, i. 3. 4.
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 Kösthn 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.Works II. p. 326.
600.Ann. Eccl. s. a. 60, § xiii.
601.e.g. Tillemont Mem. Eccl. p. 576.
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.
616.Hær. lxxxix ‘Sunt alii quoque qui epistolam Pauli ad Hebræos non adserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Barnabæ esse apostoli aut Clementis de urbe Roma episcopi; alii autem Lucæ evangelistæ aiunt epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam. Et quia addiderunt in ea quædam non bene sentientes, inde non legitur in ecclesia; et si legitur a quibusdam, non tamen in ecclesia legitur populo, nisi tredecim epistolæ ipsius, et ad Hebræos interdum. Et in ea quia rhetorice scripsit, sermone plausibili, inde non putant esse ejusdem apostoli; et quia factum Christum dicit in ea [Heb. iii. 2], inde non legitur; de pœnitentia autem [Heb. vi. 4, x. 26] propter Novatianos æque. Cum ergo factum dicit Christum, corpore, non divinitate, dicit factum, cum doceat ibidem quod divinæ sit et paternæ substantiæ filius, Qui est splendor gloriæ, inquit, et imago substantiæ ejus [Heb. i. 3]’ etc. Oehler punctuates the sentence with which we are concerned thus: ‘alii autem Lucæ evangelistæ. Aiunt epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam,’ and in his note he adds ‘videlicet Pauli esse apostoli.’ Thus he supposes the clause to refer to the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans: and Fabricius explains the reference similarly. Such a reference however would be quite out of place here. The whole paragraph before and after is taken up with discussing the Epistle to the Hebrews; and the interposition of just six words, referring to a wholly different matter, is inconceivable. We must therefore punctuate either ‘alii autem Lucæ evangelistæ aiunt epistolam, etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam’, or ‘alii autem Lucæ evangelistæ aiunt; epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam.’ In either case it will mean that some persons supposed the Epistle to the Hebrews to have been written to the Laodiceans.
617.Laodicenerbrief p. 29 sq.
618.If indeed the Greek text of F was not copied immediately from G, as has been recently maintained by Mr Hort in the Journal of Philology III. p. 67. The divergent phenomena of the two Latin texts seem to me unfavourable to this hypothesis; but it ought not to be hastily rejected.
619.Volkmar, the editor of Credner’s Geschichte des Neutestamenthchen Kanon p. 299, with strange carelessness speaks of ‘the appearance (das Vorkommen) of the Laodicean Epistle in both the Codices Augiensis and Boernerianus which in other respects are closely allied.’ There is no mention of it in the Codex Augiensis.
620.It is curious that this MS, which was written by an Irish scribe, should give the same corrupt form, Laudac- for Laodac-, which we find in the Book of Armagh; see below p. 348.
621.See p. 352. It occurs also in this position in the list of Aelfric (see below p. 362), where the order of the Pauline Epistles is ... Col., Hebr., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Philem., Laod.
622.See especially Schneckenburger Beiträge p. 153 sq.
623.Some earlier writers who maintained this view are mentioned by Anger, p. 25, note f. It has since been more fully developed and more vigorously urged by Wieseler, first in a programme Commentat. de Epist. Laodicena quam vulgo perditam putant 1844, and afterwards in his well known work Chronol. des Apostol. Zeit. p. 450 sq. It may therefore be identified with his name. He speaks of it with much confidence as ‘scarcely open to a doubt,’ but he has not succeeded in convincing others.
624.See the introduction to the Epistle to Philemon.
626.So at least I find the number given in my notes. But in Bentl. Crit. Sacr. p. xxxvii it is 3561.
627.The epistle has been critically edited by Anger Laodicenerbrief p. 155 sq. and Westcott Canon App. E. p. 572. I have already expressed my obligations to both these writers for their collations of MSS.
In the apparatus of various readings, which is subjoined to the epistle, I have not attempted to give such minute differences of spelling as e and ae, or c and t (Laodicia, Laoditia), nor is the punctuation of the MSS noted.
628.e.g. Anger Laodicenerbrief p. 142 sq., Westcott Canon p. 454 sq. (ed. 4). Erasmus asks boldly, ‘Qui factum est ut hæc epistola apud Latinos extet, cum nullus sit apud Græcos, ne veterum quidem, qui testetur eam a se lectam?’ The accuracy of this statement will be tested presently.
629.Anger, p. 165.
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.
631.See the introduction to the Epistle to the Ephesians.
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.