dusting off a pseudo-historical letter 307
antithetically juxtaposed, set within a general summation of the hortative
purpose of the letter (et quod est reliquum), while once again stressing
the positive relations between letter writer and recipient by means of the
vocative (delectissimi).39 this two-fold exhortation functions to position
the recipients in a positive light and derogatorily position other teachers
as illegitimate.
thus, to remain firm in their moral path, as the positive exhortation
in v. 13 declares, is “to rejoice in Christ.” this is the persuasive side of the
letter’s hortative purpose.
the dissuasive side of this exhortation is embodied in the imperative “be
wary” (praecavete). What the recipients are to beware are those who are
“out for sordid gain” (sordidos in lucro). Just as the recipients are exhorted
to continue to follow Ps.-Paul’s teaching, so also are they exhorted to be
on their guard regarding other teachers that counter that teaching. this
two-fold exhortation effectively articulates and demands a response to the
letter’s motivation for writing, as set forth in the body opening. While the
exact details of what it is about these false teachers that is so offensive
to the author are left unstated, the conflict is certainly present and expli-
cated in this accusation of “those who are out for sordid gain.”
What has been overlooked in scholarship when addressing laod 13 is
that there is no reason to assume literary dependency for understand-
ing this warning (praecavete sordidos in lucro), as this imperative taps
into a common polemical device for undermining one’s philosophical
opponents.40
Both within Christian circles (especially within the second century)
and the broader greco-roman philosophical tradition, it was common
39 a similar reading is taken by donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument, 43,
who argues that laodiceans “contains two major admonitions: beware of heretics and
devote yourself to the ethical life. In support of these two expressed hopes the letter enlists
the authority of Paul’s unique reputation.” donelson does not offer any detailed analysis
of how laodiceans articulates this two-fold exhortation, but merely connects this exhor-
tation to a conflict between heterodoxy and orthodoxy, specifically that “[h]eterodoxy is
undermining the tranquility and morality of the church.” While I agree with donelson
on recognizing a two-fold exhortation, I am not convinced that laodiceans contends
with heterodoxy or that the letter is best understood within the model of orthodoxy and
heresy.
40 furthermore, there is no basis on which to accept Quispel’s identification of the
opposing teachers: “laodiceans may allude to the endeavour of the Catholics in rome to
emasculate st Paul and to encapsulate him in a Canon by adding the unauthentic Pastoral
letters of timothy and titus... are these words [laod 4] an echo of the gigantic struggle
between the followers of Paul in rome and the followers of Peter, which was to lead to
the birth of the Catholic Church, the roman Catholic Church?” (Quispel, “epistle to the
laodiceans,” 693). descriptions of the false teachers are so vague in laodiceans that such
a specific identification is mere fanciful wish.