[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 Neutestamentlichen 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.