Coloseni Si Scoala Paulina

8/4/2019 Coloseni Si Scoala Paulina

1/22

Colossians and the Pauline School

ANGELA STANDHARTINGER

FB Evangelische Theologie, Philipps-Universitt Marburg, Alte Universitt

Lahntor 3, 35037 Marburg, Germany

What can we know about the School of Paul if we analyse the letter to theColossians? This question is divided into three parts: how and why was the letter

written, and what theological answers are given? Colossians depends mainly on the

oral tradition of Paul. With Pauls words but in new contexts the authors try toovercome the depressed situation of the communities after Pauls death. Like Paul,the authors of Colossians refer to Wisdom traditions, but in a more conservativemanner. Their dependence on and independence from Pauls speech and thinkingreveal the School of Paul as an ongoing context for discussion.

In recent decades, research in the Deutero-Pauline letters has made many

advances. Scholarship is no longer dominated by the question of authenticity,

but centers on the particular characteristics of individual pseudepigraphic letters.

These studies have revealed the varied reception of Pauline theology in the post-

Pauline period.Many scholars designate the Deutero-Pauline writings as products of the

School of Paul. But despite this opinio communis, there is no agreement regard-

ing what is meant by that term. Some scholars, like Hans Conzelmann, speak

about the School of Paul as a phenomenon contemporary with Paul. For

Conzelmann, the School of Paul was a school of wisdom, of which both Paul and

his fellow-workers were a part. After Pauls death, however, this school continued

its work.1 Other scholars, like Eduard Lohse and Peter Mller, see the School of

Paul as a purely post-Pauline phenomenon.2 This school collected and preserved

the teachings and traditions of the apostle. A third, more recent group of scholars

572

1 H. Conzelmann, Paulus und die Weisheit, NTS 12 (1965/6) 23144; idem, Die Schule des

Paulus, Theologia Crucis Signum Crucis: Festschrift fr Erich Dinkler(ed. C. Andresen and

G. Klein; Tbingen: Mohr, 1979) 8596.

2 E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon: A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to

Philemon(trans. William R. Poehlmann and Robert J. Karris; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971); P.

Mller, Anfnge der Paulusschule: Dargestellt am zweiten Thessalonicherbrief und am

Kolosserbrief (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 74; Zrich:

Theologischer, 1988).

New Test. Stud. 50, pp. 572593. Printed in the United Kingdom 2004 Cambridge University Press

DOI:10.1017/S0028688504000323


2/22

has compared the School of Paul with ancient philosophical schools and has

reached contrasting conclusions.3

This brief overview shows that the term School of Paul is a kind ofPlatzhalter

for a number of phenomena: Pauls theological work and method, the process of

transmitting Pauline traditions, the dependence of his students upon the apostle,and a socio-historic description for the institutional organization of Pauls and/or

his followers mission. Because of the many connotations the name school sug-

gests for modern readers, I am not actually convinced that School of Paul is a

useful term. Nevertheless, one has to deal with it.

In this article I shall raise neither socio-historical nor sociological questions,

nor shall I compare the School of Paul with the variety of other ancient schools.

Instead I shall concentrate on the letter to the Colossians, probably the oldest of

the Deutero-Pauline writings. Here, at least for most scholars, the School of Paul

is at work. The letter to the Colossians seems to be an appropriate test case for the

question: What are we discussing when we talk about the School of Paul?

I shall ask three questions, the first of which deals with Pauline traditions in

the letter. How was Colossians composed? Which sources written and oral

were available to the author(s) when they wrote this letter in the name of Paul?4

The second question inquires after the reasons and motives for writing a letter in

Pauls name to a Pauline community in the interior of Asia Minor. Why and under

what particular historical circumstances did people write this letter, and how did

they intend it to be read? The last question addresses the theology of Colossians.

Which theological, christological, ethical, and ecclesiological concepts are

employed to answer the most pressing questions of the original audience? Byanswering these three questions, I intend to explore the continuity and disconti-

nuity of Pauls theological work in the second generation.

1. The composition of Colossians: literary and oral dependency on Paul

It has long been clear that Colossians incorporates a series of phrases and

formulations also found in the letters of Paul.5 Thus the question arises whether

Colossians and the Pauline School 573

3 For a survey concerning the positive view, see R. S. Ascough, The Formation of Pauline

Churches(New York: Paulist, 1998) 2949. More critical because of the institutional dissimi-

larities: T. Schmeller, Schulen im Neuen Testament? Zur Stellung des Urchristentums in der

Bildungswelt seiner Zeit(Herders biblische Studien 30; Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 2001).

4 It is an open question whether this letter was written by one author male or female or by

a group authors. I favor the group of authors for two reasons: (1) throughout the letter, there

are sections written in the first person plural whose subjects are not clear (cf. 1.321, 28; 4.3,

1014), and (2) the information given about the fellow-workers in the personal notes, 1.78;

4.718, implies a system of imitation of Paul. See below.

5 E. P. Sanders, Literary Dependence in Colossians,JBL85 (1966) 2845, attempts to prove the

dependence of Colossians on all Pauline letters and thus its post-Pauline character. He under-

stands the expression literary dependence to include quotations from memory (30, n. 9).


3/22

Colossians is literarily dependent on one or more Pauline letters and, if so, which

ones. Lohse has already acknowledged the literary dependence of the lists of

names found in Colossians on those in the letter to Philemon. 6All the names of

the greeting list in Philemon are repeated without exception in Colossians.7 The

list of names is not, however, merely copied: Colossians adds distinctive remarksto the short list of greetings in Philemon. It is also surprising that Colossians gen-

erally reverses the order of names. Archippus, who is named in the adscriptioof

Philemon (2), is mentioned at the conclusion of Colossians (4.17). Demas and Luke

have switched places (Phlm 24/Col 4.14). Likewise, Aristarchus and Epaphras

appear in reversed order in Colossians (Col 4.10, 1213/Phlm 234). The more

specific description my fellow prisoner retains its original position and is thus

transferred from Epaphras (Phlm 23) to Aristarchus (Col 4.10), although Epaphras

is also portrayed as a companion of Paul in prison (cf. Col 1.78; 4.1213). Finally,

one can observe a similar phenomenon in the case of Jesus (Justus) and Mark, if

one follows Ernst Amling and Theodor Zahn in reading Jesus as a proper name in

front of Mark (Phlm 234/Col 4.1011).8

Philemon: Colossians:

(a) Archippus (2)

(b) Epaphras (23) (e) Aristarchus (4.10)

(c) [Jesus] (23) (d) Mark (4.10)

(d) Mark (24) (c) Jesus Justus (4.11)

(e) Aristarchus (24) (b) Epaphras (4.12ff.)(f) Demas (24) (g) Luke (4.14)

(g) Luke (24) (f) Demas (4.14)

(a) Archippus (4.17)

The evidence for the literary dependence of Colossians on Philemon, which

the largely congruent lists of names support, is confirmed by parallels between

the greetings:

574 angela standhartinger

6 Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 1757.

7 Besides this significant correspondence between the lists of names, another indirect argu-

ment for the literary dependence of Colossians on Philemon is the absence of the greeting

from all the brothers and sisters (cf. 1 Cor 16.1920; 2 Cor 13.12; Phil 4.212; Rom 16.16) and the

request to greet one another (1 Thess 5.26; Phil 4.21; 1 Cor 16.20; 2 Cor 13.12; Rom 16.16). In all

the Pauline letters, the only list of greetings that is comparable in its relative lack of com-

plexity occurs in Philemon.

8 Cf. T. Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament 1 (Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1906) 321; E. Amling,

Eine Konjektur im Philemonbrief, ZNW10 (1909) 2612.


4/22

Phlm 5: Col 1.4:

(a) ajkouvwn (a) ajkouvsante~

(b) sou th;n ajgavphn (c) th;n pivstin uJmwn

(c) kai; th;n pivstin (e) ejn Cristw/` Ihsou

(d) h}n e[cei~ (b) kai; th;n ajgavphn(e) pro;~ to;n kuvrion Ihsoun (d) h{n e[cete

(f) kai; eij~ pavnta~ tou;~ aJgivou~ (f) eij~ pavnta~ tou;~ aJgivou~

The same technique of citation can be seen here. The sentence structure is

retained but the order of objects is reversed. Instead of love and faith, Colossians

has faith . . . and love. The order of objects be in Philemon becomes cebd.

These two sections cited are the two clearest and longest quotations from

Philemon.9 It is important to note that Colossians consistently employs reversal

when using literal quotations. This can also be seen in its citation of itself from thehymn of Col 1.1520 in Col 2.910.10

This specific technique of reversed citation differentiates Colossians use of

Philemon from its use of other Pauline letters presumed by some scholars.11 But

before this question can be pursued, it is necessary to note three different ways in

which Pauline phraseology and formulations influenced the work of later gener-

ations:

(a) Direct literary dependence resulted from contact with Pauls letters, whether

read in public or in private.(b) Indirect literary dependence resulted from the public reading of Pauls let-

ters and participation in a community whose liturgical terminology had been

deeply influenced by Paul and his writing.12


9 It remains unclear whether there are others. It is possible that the description of Onesimus

as ajdelfon ajgaphtovn in Phlm 16 reappears in Col 4.9 (as ajgaphto;~ ajdelfov~) and that the

greeting from Pauls own hand (Col 4.18) was prompted by Phlm 19.

10 Here, also, the order ac in Col 1.1520 becomes cedba in Col 2.910. Cf.

(a) 1.16 ei[te ajrcai; ei[te ejxousivai (c) 2.9 o{ti ejn aujtw`

(b) 1.18 kai; aujtov~ ejstin hJ kefalhv (e) katoikei`

(c) 1.19 o{ti ejn aujtw`/ eujdovkhsen (d) pa`n to; plhvrwma

(d) pan to; plhvrwma (b) 2.10 o{~ ejstin hJ kefalhv

(e) katoikh`sai (a) pavsh~ ajrch`~ kai; ejxousiva~

11 M. Kiley, Colossians as Pseudepigraphy(Sheffield: JSOT, 1986), attempts to show the literary

dependence of Colossians on Philemon and Philippians. O. Lepp, The Making of

Colossians (diss., University of Helsinki, 2000), tries to demonstrate that the author of

Colossians was aware of all the undisputed Pauline letters.

12 The first two criteria are suggested by the study of J. K. B. Maclean, Ephesians and the

Problem of Colossians: Interpretation of Texts and Traditions in Eph 1.12.10 (PhD diss.,

Harvard Divinity School, 1995) 1516.


5/22

(c) Oral tradition resulted from a familiarity with Pauls teaching and the dis-

cussions with his fellow-workers and communities, and from oral transmis-

sion of Pauls words.

Direct literary dependenceis detected by evidence that the author had knowledge

not just of terms but of specific passages from those letters.13 It seems probable in

cases where a given idea is expressed in a constellation of vocabulary common to

Colossians and a singlepericope of a Pauline letter and when it is likely that the

formulation in question does not stem from the pre-Pauline tradition.14 When a

specific turn of phrase or formulation is found repeatedly in the Pauline letters,

we cannot exclude the possibility that the process of transmission took place

orally, with or without the reception of the letters.

The period when the letters of Paul were collected and regularly read in the

churches is shrouded in obscurity. The earliest letter that undoubtedly reached

several churches is the letter to the Galatians. Paul and its other senders did notexpect this letter to be copied (cf. Gal 6.11). Similarly, the command of 1 Thess 5.27

does not claim that 1 Thessalonians should be read outside of Thessalonica but

only until all the brothers and sisters had heard it. The first evidence of the

exchange of letters between Paul and the churches (ejk Laodikeiva~) is Colossians

itself (4.16). Only from then on ought we to expect that, in addition to the spread

of Pauline phraseology by means of his associates, a second transmission

occurred through the reading of his letters.

As I have shown elsewhere, Paul prized the spoken word and frequently pre-

ferred it to the written expression of letters.15

The latter was for him an often oner-ous substitute used when, for reasons of distance or conflict, direct conversation

was impossible.16 It is hardly an accident that Paul often cited a proverb from

ancient criticism of writing: The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Cor 3.6; cf.

Rom 2.29; 7.6).17 It is therefore to be assumed that there had been oral transmis-

sion of teachings of Paul in his lifetime and probably for some years after his

death.

The oral transmission of Pauls words is no longer immediately accessible to

us; we can only make inferences based on the letters. Recent research on orality


13 Maclean, Ephesians, 15.

14 In particular this cannot be excluded for Col 1.267 and 2.1112. For a detailed discussion see

A. Standhartinger, Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte und Intention des Kolosserbriefs

(NovTSup 94; Leiden/Boston/Kln: Brill, 1999) 13551.

15 Standhartinger, Studien, 10610.

16 Cf., e.g., Gal 4.20; 2 Cor 10.1011.

17 Skeptical doubt on the written transmission of philosophical and religious thoughts was

popular in some ancient philosophical schools and in rabbinic and early Christian theology

from the fifth century bc e up to the third century ce . Regarding ancient criticism and the

high value placed on oral tradition, see further Standhartinger, Studien, 92104.


6/22

in early Christianity and the letters of Paul underlines a complex interaction of

oral and written communication in them. Werner Kelber and others have empha-

sized the oral hermeneutics of Paul. In his letters passages like Rom 10.621 and

others deal not only with oral preaching but needs to be orally performed to be

thoroughly understood.18

For Paul, letters are defective surrogates for oral com-munication (Gal 4.20; 2 Cor 10.911). His letters were read aloud to hearers, who

were at least in part illiterate. In their original context Pauls letters do not seem

to be a major rupture in the fundamentally oral context. 19

Modern research on ancient orality has tried to detect universal oral patterns

in written texts.20 However, it has now become clear from anthropological

research that there are no universal laws or patterns of oral composition, but that

they differ from context to context.21 If there are no universal patterns of oral

speech, how can one reconstruct oral speech from the letters of Paul?

Elsewhere I have suggested a method for addressing this issue.22 I have

observed that some phrases and formulae appear in different contexts in different

letters. For instance:

1 Thess 3.2: kai; ejpevmyamen Timovqeon . . . eij~ to; sthrivxai u Jma~ kai ;parakalevsai uJpe;r th~ pivstew~ ujmw`nRom 1.1112: eij~ to; sthricqh`nai uJma`~, tou`to dev ejstin sumparaklhqh`naiejn uJmi`n dia; th`~ ejn ajllhvloi~ pivstew~ uJmwn te kai; ejmou.23

Some of these repeated phrases center on Pauls message on justification in

Christ, such as Gal 2.16: ouj dikaioutai a[nqrwpo~ ejx e[rgwn novmou eja;n mh; dia;

pivstew~ Ihsou Cristou, a similar form to which appears in Phil 3.9 and Rom 3.20,

or the formulation zw de; oujkevti ejgwv, zh` de; ejn ejmoi; Cristov~, which is used in Gal

2.20 and again in 2 Cor 5.15; Rom 6.1011; 14.8. Others may have a biblical archetype

such as eij~ keno;n ejkopivasa (Phil 2.16; 1 Thess 3.5; 1 Cor 15.58) in Isa 65.23 (LXX). A

third group could originate in Jewish tradition, such as ou[te peritomhv ... ou[te


18 W. H. Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in

the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); A. J. Dewey, A Re-

Hearing of Romans 10.115, Orality and Textuality in Early Christian Literature(ed. J. Dewey

and E. Struthers Malbon; Semeia 65; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1995) 10927, at

122. See also the other contributions in this volume.

19 J. Dewey, Textuality in an Oral Culture: A Survey of the Pauline Traditions, Orality and

Textuality, 3765, at 57.

20 A. B. Lord, Perspectives on Recent Work on the Oral Traditional Formula, Oral Tradition1

(1986) 467503.

21 . Anderson, Oral Tradition, Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition(ed. H. Wansbrough;

JSNTSup 64; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991) 1758; D. Aune, Prolegomena to the Study of

Oral Tradition in the Hellenistic World, Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, 59105.

22 Cf. Standhartinger, Studien, 11752.

23 Cf. also Gal 1.11: gnwrivzw ga;r uJmi`n, ajdelfoiv, to; eujaggevlion to; eujaggelisqe;n uJp ejmouwith

1 Cor 15.1 and 2 Cor 8.1.


7/22

ajkrobustiva .. . ajlla; (Gal 5.6; 6.15; 1 Cor 7.19; Rom 2.289). Euthalios, an editor of

Pauls letters in the fourth century, identified this as a quotation from an

Apocryphon of Moses.24 Independently of the question of origin, one can observe

that Paul used some phrases repeatedly in different letters and contexts.

But and this is also important while Paul repeatedly uses similar or identicalphraseology, and to a certain degree fixed formulae, he never cites himself in those

placeswhere similar topicsor interpretationsare included in twoletters. Here differ-

entformulationsareused.25 ThisisatleastinpartduetodevelopmentsinPaulsthink-

ing,aphenomenonforwhichdiscussionsinthecommunitieswerelikelyresponsible.

My thesis is that Pauls preaching and the discussions of his co-workers and

communities have left traces in the letters. That repeated phraseology and for-

mulae appear in varied contexts and are sometimes applied to distinct topics is,

in my view, linked to the oral language of Paul and his circle.

It is interesting to notice that this specific phraseology, which one can find

more than once in Pauls letters, also occurs in Colossians. On this basis I wish to

demonstrate that Colossians depends on oral traditions of Pauls teaching and

discussions. If, of course, a certain phraseology or formula is also found in a the-

ological tradition or in the common language of Pauls contemporaries, we

cannot be sure whether Colossians adopts Pauls wording or just the same tra-

dition. For clarification I present a few brief examples here:

Col 4.5: ejn sofiva/ peripatei`te pro;~ tou;~ e[xw1 Thess 4.12: i{na peripathte eujschmovnw~ pro;~ tou;~ e[xwRom 13.13: wJ~ ejn hJmevra/ eujschmovnw~ peripathvswmen

Some interpreters posit literary dependence between Colossians and 1

Thessalonians on the basis of the agreement between peripatein pro;~ tou;~ e[xw

in 1 Thess 4.12 and Col 4.5. In my view, however, it cannot be overlooked that Paul

commanded an honorable way of life (eujschmovnw~ peripatein) in both 1 Thess

4.12 and Rom 13.13. Thus Colossians adopts an idea found several times in Pauls

works. Another example would be:

Col 4.3: i{na oJ qeo;~ ajnoivxh hJmin quvran tou` lovgou1 Cor 16.9: quvra gavr moi ajnevw/gen megavlh kai; ejnerghv~2 Cor 2.12: quvra~ moi ajnew/gmevnh~ ejn kurivw/

In this case, however, we find a widely used image for missionary effectiveness.26

It cannot be ruled out that Paul and Colossians used this metaphor independently


24 For a detailed discussion see Standhartinger, Studien, 11317.

25 For comparisons of 1 Cor 12.1227 and Rom 12.45; Gal 3 and Rom 4; Gal 4.218 and Rom 9.69,

as well as 1 Cor 15.212 and Rom 5.1221, see ibid., 10217.

26 Cf. Acts 14.27 as well, and Diogenes Laertius 6.86: They also called him [Crates] door opener

(qurepanoivkth~) because he entered every house and admonished those within. The Cynic

philosopher understands himself as a missionary of god. Cf. D. Georgi, The Opponents of

Paul in Second Corinthians(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 289.


8/22

of one another. A dependence upon Pauline style cannot therefore be conclu-

sively asserted.

The same may be said of a formula of ancient epistolary phraseology in Col 2.5,

which has some parallels in the Pauline letters.

Col 2.5: eij ga;r kai; th` sarki;; a[peimi, ajlla; tw`/ pneuvmati su;n uJmin eijmi1 Cor 5.3: ejgw; me;n gavr, ajpw;n tw`/ swvmati parw;n de; tw`/ pneuvmati2 Cor 10.11: o{ti oi|oiv ejsmen tw`/ lovgw/ di ejpistolw`n ajpovnte~, toiou`toi kaivparovnte~ tw/ e[rgw/2 Cor 13.10: dia; tou`to tau`ta ajpw;n gravfw, i{na parw;n mh; ajpotovmw~crhvswmaiPhil 2.12: mh; wJ~ ejn th` parousiva/ mou movnon ajlla; nu`n pollw`/ ma`llon ejnth` ajpousiva/ mou

Paul used the ajpwvnparwvn schema often and stereotypically. Similarly, the

related savrxpneuma dichotomy is foreign to neither Paul nor ancient epistolary

phraseology.27 The variants of the schema thus need not be in any way literarily

dependent on 1 Cor 5.3. Col 2.5 also uses the formula intentionally as I will show

below.

Colossians does include formulae found in the letters of Paul, but these are

first of all cases of idiomatic speech, i.e. formulae which speakers use both con-

sciously and unconsciously and which have frequently been borrowed from con-

temporary interlocutors. Modern analogies are problematic since, for a variety of

reasons (e.g. low rate of literate people, possibilities for copying, scriptura con-

tinua), we are dealing with a culture in which writing and oral transmission were

organized along different lines from today. Nevertheless, because in Colossians

we see the inclusion of some phraseology and formulae that appear repeatedly

in the Pauline letters, and, moreover, especially those which Paul placed in

varied contexts, we must, in my opinion, address the influence of Pauline

speech.

The inclusion of Pauline phraseology and formulae might also account for one

of the theologically problematic sections of Colossians, namely 1.245.

Col 1.24: Nu`n caivrw ejn toi`~ paqhvmasin uJpe;r uJmw`n kai; ajntanaplhrw ta;uJsterhvmata tw`n qlivyewn tou` Cristou` ejn th` sarkiv mou uJpe;r tou`

swvmato~ aujtou` o[ ejstin hJ ejkklhsiva1 Cor 16.17: o{ti to; uJmevteron uJstevrhma ou|toi ajneplhvrwsanPhil 2.30: i{na ajnaplhrwvsh to; uJmw`n uJstevrhma2 Cor 11.9: to; ga;r uJstevrhmav mou prosaneplhvrwsan oiJ ajdelfoi;.2 Cor 9.12: o{ti hJ diakoniva . . . ejsti;n . . . prosanaplhrou`sa ta;uJsterhvmata tw`n aJgivwn


27 Cf. Gal 4.29, as well as K. Thraede, Grundzge griechisch-rmischer Brieftopik(Munich: Beck,

1970) 80.


9/22

The formula (pros)ajnaplhroun to; (ta;) uJstevrhma(ta) seldom appears in ancient

literature.28 These few instances contrast with the frequent use of this phrase in

the Pauline letters. With regard to content, there is no correlation between Col 1.24

and the Pauline usage.29 If this phrase is characteristic of Pauline language, the

disputed reference can be read as both a reception of Pauls speech and a furtherdevelopment. Two additional formulae in Col 1.24 also have parallels in the letters

of Paul:

Col 1.24: Nu`n caivrw ejn toi`~ paqhvmasin uJpe;r uJmw`nPhil 3.10: tou` gnwnai aujto;n . . . kai; koinwnivan paqhmavtwn aujtou`2 Cor 1.5: o{ti kaqw;~ perisseuvei ta; paqhvmata tou` Cristou` eij~ hJma`~

Paul and the Corinthian church participate in the suffering of Christ. This is

expressed, however, with the phrase ta; paqhvmata tou Cristou, while Colossians

uses the formula qlivyei~ tou Cristou. Colossians associates this idea with the

Pauline idea of a bodily assumption of the sufferings of Christ:

Col 1.24 tw`n qlivyewn tou` Cristou` ejn th` sarkiv mou uJpe;r . . .Gal 6.17 ejgw; ga;r ta; stivgmata tou` Ihsou` ejn tw`/ swvmativ mou bastavzw.2 Cor 4.10 pavntote th;n nevkrwsin tou` Ihsou`ejn tw`/ swvmati perifevronte~

The theologically problematic sentence, I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for

your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christs afflictions

for the sake of his body . . ., can be explained, in my view, by a familiarity with the

Pauline phraseology. Colossians borrows the formula ajnaplhroun ta;

uJsterhvmata and the shared suffering with Christ (paqhvmata tou Cristou) thatmanifests itself bodily (ejn th` sarkiv mou/ ejn tw/ swvmativ mou) but combines them

in an entirely un-Pauline fashion. The idea of representative suffering and death

(uJpe;r uvmwn) is for Paul reserved for Christology (cf. 1 Cor 11.24; Rom 5.8). Only in

the polemical formula of an obviously absurd idea does 1 Cor 1.13 read mh; Paulo~

ejstaurwvqh uJpe;r uJmwn. Colossians, by contrast, takes the idea, widespread in the

ancient world, of the representative suffering and death of one for many and attri-

butes it to Paul.30 To my mind, Col 1.24 represents the attempt to interpret Pauls

death theologically.


28 Cf. also U. Wilckens, u{stero~ ktl, TWNT8 (1969) 590600. The additional instances of this

combination, according to Wilckens, are CH 13.1; TestBenj 11.5 (possibly secondary); 1 Clem

38.2. More common is the combination ajnaplhrou`n to; lei`pon, cf. Jos.Ant. 5.214; Bell. 4.198.

29 The need that Paul sees fulfilled or rather, that he hopes will be fulfilled in 1 Cor 16.7 and

Phil 2.30 is the need for fellowship with the Corinthian and Philippian churches. 2 Cor 9.12

and 11.9 discuss material needs.

30 The idea appears in particular in military-political and philosophical contexts (cf. Dio

Cassius 63.12.23; Epictet, Diatr. 3.24.64; 4 Macc 6.289; Jos.Ant. 13.56) and had here already

begun to take on soteriological significance.


10/22

Finally, I want to draw attention to another Pauline quotation in the follow-

ing sentence:

Col 1.25: h|~ ejgenovmhn ejgw; diavkono~ kata; th;n oijkonomivan tou` qeou` th;ndoqei`savn moi eij~ uJma`~ plhrw`sai to;n lovgon tou` qeou`,Gal 2.9: gnovnte~

th;n cavrin th;n doqei`sa;n moi1 Cor 3.10: Kata; th;n cavrin tou` qeou` th;n doqei`savn moi wJ~ sofo;~ajrcitevktwn qemevlion e[qhkaRom 12.6: e[conte~ de; carivsmata kata; th;n cavrin th;n doqei`san hJmindiavfora (c.f. Rom 12.3; 15.15)

In the established formula kata; th;n cavrin tou qeou th;n doqeisavn moi, Paul

speaks of the grace of God, which leads to the mission to the nations (Gal 2.9), the

founding of churches (1 Cor 3.6), instruction in the faith (Rom 12.3; 15.15), and the

gifts of the spirit (Rom 12.6). Colossians adopts this formula but replaces cavri~

with oijkonomiva.31 oijkonomiva refers to the plan consisting in the fulfillment of the

word of God. The revelation of the mystery described in the so-called revelationschema of 1.267 and the suffering and struggles of Paul (1.24; cf. 1.292.1) belong to

the same plan.32 By adopting the formula according to Gods commission that

was given to me, the suffering and struggle of the diavkono~ are interpreted as a

divine plan, which is founded in the primeval-eschatological process of revelation

described in 1.267.

In my view, the relationship of Colossians to the Pauline tradition can be

described as follows: The authors of Colossians were familiar with one Pauline

letter still extant today, namely the letter to Philemon. When they turned to liter-

ary models, they did so in a distinctive fashion. For this reason, also, it is unlikelythat the author of Colossians used additional written sources also known to us

since this characteristic style of reversal citation is found nowhere else. The

authors of Colossians had at their disposal, however, a familiarity with Pauline

phraseology and formulae, as I have tried to show above. Since the organized

public reading of all the Pauline letters probably began only in a later period (cf.

Col 4.16), it is unlikely that this familiarity stems from public reading of Pauls let-

ters. I argue instead that Colossians was written by a group of fellow-workers of

Paul and/or members of his churches who were familiar with Pauls teachings and

discussions because they participated in these. They picked up some of his (and


31 Already in the first centuryce , application ofoijkonomiva had been broadened considerably

and could be used in many contexts, for instance in describing the structure of a literary

work. Thus emerged its general meaning, plan. C.f. J. H. P. Reumann, The Use of oikono-

mia and Related Terms in Greek Sources to about ad 100, as a Background for Patristic

Applications (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1957).

32 Metaphors of struggle characterize the suffering of philosophers and martyrs: cf. W. T.

Wilson, The Hope of Glory: Education and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Colossians

(Leiden/New York/Cologne: Brill, 1997) 5662, 735.


11/22

their common) characteristic phrases and formulae. The authors of Colossians

adopted and reinforced precisely those formulae found more than once in the let-

ters of Paul. Sometimes this integration of Pauline formulae and phraseology in

Colossians was apparently intended to serve theological ends (cf. 1.24). In my

opinion, Colossians is the product of a circle familiar with the oral teaching ofPaul. The next question, then, is, Why did this circle write a letter in Pauls name,

and what was the purpose of this letter?

2. Why Colossians was written: Pauls heavenly letter to depressed

communities

With little comment, Colossians sketches the situation of the imprison-

ment of the fictitious sender, Paul (4.34, 10, 18). Paul is lonely and in danger.33 His

release is not expected.34 Colossians hints at the final apologia (4.34) and speaks

of the difficult struggle (1.282.1), which may represent the adoption of a topos

from the language of martyrdom.35 The struggle is carried out on behalf of the

Colossians, the Laodiceans, and all who have not seen me face to face (eJovrakan)

(2.1). The perfect tense allows for no expectation that any of the facts of the situ-

ation can be changed. With many other interpreters I proceed from the assump-

tion that Colossians presupposes the death of Paul.36

Hans Dieter Betz has also drawn attention to the portrayal of the situation in

2.5. Adopting epistolary phraseology from antiquity and from Paul, the author of

Colossians employs the formula: For though I am absent in body (th` sarki;

a[peimi), yet I am with you in spirit . . .. Betz interprets savrx in this case to meanthe body that has been destroyed in death (cf. 1 Cor 15.357). Yet, despite his

death, Paul is present with the Colossians in the spirit.37 The emphasis lies on


33 Despite the at least six loyal companions of Paul, 4.714 gives the impression of loneliness.

The emphasis in Col 4.11 lies on the word parhgoriva (comfort, aid, relief), which appears fre-

quently in association with life-threatening dangers (Plut. Mor. 599B; Philo, Deus65; Somn.

1.112). The abandonment by friends and fellow-workers is part of the image of the imprisoned

philosopher (cf. 2 Tim 1.1518; 4.16; and Philostrat., Vit. Apoll. 4.37).

34 Col 4.3 does not demand the release of Paul but rather the freeing of the word. Entirely dif-

ferent, however, is 2 Tim, which, despite clear reference to Pauls death (cf. 2 Tim 4.68; 4.18),

maintains the success of divine assistance in his defense as rescue from the lions mouth

(4.17).

35 Standhartinger, Studien, 1723.

36 Cf. Lohse, Colossians; Lepp, Making; H. D. Betz, Pauls Second Presence in Colossians,

Text and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts: Essays in Honor

of Lars Hartman(ed. T. Fornberg and D. Helholm; Oslo/Boston: Scandinavian, 1995) 513.

37 Betz, Pauls Second Presence, 513. Cf. also H.-J. Klauck, Die antike Briefliteratur und das

Neue Testament: Ein Lehr und Arbeitsbuch(Paderborn: Ferdinand Schningh, 1998) 304.


12/22

yet I am with you in spirit. The letter is meant to convey the spiritual presence of

Paul or to replace the (bodily) presence of Paul.

In this regard, Betz has characterized Colossians as a heavenly letter.38 I agree

with this but with some slight differences. In antiquity there were letters of the

gods,39

which contained mysteries, teachings, and important messages40

or whichhad healing powers.41 In addition, there is also the idea of letters from deceased

people. Regarding the Cynic philosopher Peregrinus, Lucian reported:

It is said that he [Peregrinus] sent letters to nearly all the well-known cities

testamentary dispositions, so to speak, and exhortations and prescriptions.

And he selected from his companions ambassadors whom he called

messengers of the dead (nekravggeloi) and messengers from theunderworld (nerterodrovmoi).42

Here Lucian draws together two ideas. First is the idea that, shortly before their

deaths, philosophers and other famous people compose letters, in which they

summarize their teachings one last time,43 reflect upon their own deaths,44 and

make arrangements for their funerals or successors.45 By calling the messengers

messengers of the dead and messengers from the underworld, however, Lucian

alludes to another idea, namely the sending of letters from the underworld. The

idea of reports sent in letters by dead people to those they have left behind was

also found, if infrequently, in HellenisticRoman antiquity.46

Colossians itself purports to be a letter which Paul, in prison shortly before his

death, sent to a church, unfamiliar to him, in eastern Asia Minor. The survival of

the apostle is not addressed. His struggle, fruitless when gauged by the standard

of physical survival, is interpreted theologically (cf. 1.245) as suffering for the


38 Betz, Pauls Second Presence, 514 n. 27.

39 Cf. A. Dieterich, Weitere Beobachtungen zu den Himmelsbriefen, Kleine Schriften

(Leipzig/Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1911) 24351; R. Stbe, Der Himmelsbrief: Ein Beitrag zur allge-

meinen Religionsgeschichte (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1918); I. Sykutris, Epistolographie,

PWSup 5 (1931) 185220, 206; W. Speyer, Bcherfunde in der Glaubenswerbung der Antike

(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970).

40 This motif is also used in the Gnostic writings, e.g.Acts Thom. 11011; Odes Sol. 23.522.

41 Pausanias Descr. 10.38.13; Aristides. Or. 47.78 (Keil), among others. The healing powers of let-

ters are also found in Philostrat. Vit. Apoll. 3.38.

42 Lucian, Peregr. 41.

43 Chion of Heraclea, Epist. 1416; Letter of Mara Bar Serapion, Spicilegium Syriacum (ed. W.

Cureton; London: F. and J. Rivington, 1855) 706.

44 Cf. e.g. Pherecydes: Diogenes Laertius 1.122; Epicur: Diogenes Laertius 10.22. In the epistolary

novels of both Socrates and the Socratics, as well as of Chion of Heraclea, a will is formulated

as a letter. Cf. Epist. 27 of the Socratic letters, as well as Chion, Epist. 17.

45 Cf. e.g. Arcesilaos: Diogenes Laertius 4.434 or Alexander, according to Pseudo-Callisthenes

Vita Alexandri Magni, 33.14. According to Epictet, Socrates is said to have written paeans

while in prison (Diatr. 2.6.26).

46 Cf. Plin. Nat. 2.248. According to Plut. Mor. 1118A and Cicero Fin. 1.19.63 and Nat. d. 1.43, the

canonesof Epicurus were diopethv~ (sent by Zeus) or caeleste volumen.


13/22

ekklesia. In Col 2.5 Paul affirms his spiritual presence, despite his absence in the

flesh. In the letter, this presence becomes to a certain degree real. Independently

of the question, presumably not a decisive one, of whether in this case the

portrayal of a posthumous address to the congregation is intended or whether

the letter simply reflects the effect of reaching out before imminent death, theintended effect of Colossians is that of a heavenly letter.

With the heavenly letter, the fictitious Paul reacts to particular problems in

the church. In my view, problems become apparent in the tension between two

sets of statements in the letter. On the one hand, already in the greeting of

Colossians, there is an emphasis on growth.47 Colossians emphasizes that the

gospel has already been proclaimed throughout the whole world (1.56, 23). The

passive formulae leave open the question of who was proclaiming it. The claim

was, nevertheless, presumably exaggerated for the second half of the first century.

On the other hand, in Colossians itself synonym-rich exhortations present an

obstacle to the image of growth and the unbounded spread of the gospel. As early

as 1.23 the message of salvation is qualified: provided that you continue securely

established and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope promised by

the gospel that you heard . . .. The conspicuous accumulation of synonyms is

repeated in 2.627: As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, continue

to live your lives in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith,

just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.48 Once attention has been

drawn to this fact, additional similar statements emerge. Paul, present in spirit,

rejoices to see your order (tavxi~)49 and the firmness (sterevwma) of your faith

(2.5). The senders pray that the church may be filled with the knowledge to walk. . . prepared to endure everything with patience (1.11).

The strong emphasis on words such as steadfastness, strength, rootedness,

and foundation implores the implied audience to understand themselves in

these terms.50 They will bear fruit by remaining steadfast and growing and will


47 This borrowing of the metaphor of growth is not unusual. In this case, however, the botani-

cal process is interrupted. In nature, the fruit follows growth. In my view, this is because, for

the author of Colossians, the bearing of fruit consists in growth. The lack of this growth is the

chief problem Colossians seeks to address.

48 Strength and steadfastness are so important to the author of Colossians that the semantic

contradiction in 2.67 does not disturb him. One cannot, in any real sense at least, walk

(peripatei`n), be rooted, built up, and firm.

49 In military contexts, tavxi~ implies invincibility.

50 Cf. T. H. Olbricht, The Stoicheia and the Rhetoric of Colossians: Then and Now, Rhetoric,

Scripture, and Theology: Essays from the Pretoria Conference (ed. S. E. Porter and T. H.

Olbricht; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996) 30828, at 31718; M. Y. MacDonald, The

Pauline Churches: A Socio-Historical Study of Institutionalization in the Pauline and

Deutero-Pauline Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1988) 917; P. V. Furnish,

Colossians, Epistle to the, Anchor Bible Dictionary1 (1992) 19906, at 1095: The purpose of

letter is stated indirectly in 1.23.


14/22

participate in the worldwide spread of the gospel, which has been carried out in

such a marvelous fashion.

The oft-repeated call for steadfast and patient endurance (1.11, 23; 2.5, 7; 4.12),

however, permits the assumption that, for the community addressed by

Colossians, the opposite situation in fact prevailed. In my view, herein lies the truepurpose of Colossians. Presumably, Pauls death led to uncertainty within the

churches. The parousia of Christ, expected by Paul within his lifetime, remained

unrealized (cf. 1 Thess 4.155.8; Rom 13.11). The community apparently threatened

to give up and collapse. As a strategy to counteract this, Paul, present in spirit in

Colossians, demands endurance, walking in rootedness, and paints a picture of

the worldwide spread of the gospel, in which the addressees already have been

included.

The majority of interpreters, however, have found the chief aims of Colossians

in the fight against the so-called Colossian philosophy (Col 2.8), although the

religio-historical identification of the opponents and the determination of their

theological position are still debated.51 But, as I have shown elsewhere, consensus

is hardly to be expected, since the author of Colossians does not argue but rather

compiles warnings addressed to unspecified persons (ti;~, mhdeiv~) (2.4, 8, 16, 18).52

The few descriptions hardly permit the identification of a particular religio-his-

torical group.53

Some interpreters have sought to overcome the exegetical dilemma with the

hypothesis that the subtle suggestions of the text would have been understood in

the concrete situation of the church in Colossae. But this presupposes that

Colossians was actually addressed to a particular church in Colossae in AsiaMinor. Opposing this, however, is first of all its emphasis on the universal. Already

in Col 1.6, the phrase as in the whole world supersedes the salutation to those in

Colossae (cf. 1.23). Pauls work is for all people (1.28) and all those who have not

seen him (2.1). The request to share the letters of Paul and the churches in 4.16

finally makes altogether clear the universal relevance of the letter.54

A second objection is the lack of specifically Colossian local color. In the first

century Colossae was a small town in inland Asia Minor, which looked back to a


51 The opponents have been variously identified as Gnostics with affinities with Judaism, as

adherents of Qumran, apocalyptic, or mystical Judaism, and as devotees of mystery theology

or a local Phrygian cult and magical practices, and they have been sought in a number of

philosophical movements, including neo-Pythagoreanism, Middle Platonism, and Cynicism.

52 For a detailed discussion of the question of Colossian heresy see Standhartinger, Studien,

1625 and 18194.

53 Also debated is the question of what should be regarded as language taken from the teach-

ings of the opponents, what as (distorted) polemic, and what as the position of the author.

For a list of the various interpretations in 2.4, 8, 1623, cf. ibid., 1625.

54 Cf. also W. Schenk, Der Kolosserbrief in der neueren Forschung (19451985), ANRW 2.25.4

(1987) 332763, at 33345.


15/22

time of greater fame.55 On account of changes in routes, it lay in the shadow of the

nearby metropolis of Laodicea and the renowned shrine of Apollo in Hierapolis.56

The claim that it was abandoned in 61/62 ce in the wake of an earthquake, though

often made,57 is improbable as far as we can know from the archeological remains

like coins and known inscriptions.58

Between 20 bc e and 210 ce the region experi-enced at least five earthquakes.59 The few available archeological sources indicate

a Greekpoliswhich, though small, had civil offices and for some time the right to

mint coins.60 The city achieved some fame on account of a color of wool which

was called Colossian.61

In my view, Colossians contains no local information beyond that known to

any citizen of the Roman world.62 I consider the choice of the address, To the

saints and faithful brothers and sisters in Christ in Colossae, a reflection of the

authors agenda. The selection of a small town somewhere in the hinterland of

Asia Minor manifestly demonstrates the spread of the gospel throughout the

world, even to the furthest corners of the Roman Empire.

If the letter is really addressed universally to all the Pauline churches, what

is the aim of the warnings about certain people in Col 2? When the individual


55 In the fifth centurybc e Herodotus called it a great city of the Phrygians (Hist. 2.30.1).

56 A small part can still be seen today but appears insignificant beside the much larger archeo-

logical remains of the neighboring cities of Laodicea and Hierapolis. The still extant theater

offered about 1015 rows of seats. This supports the claim that it was a small town.

57 B. Reike, The Historical Setting of Colossians, RevExp70 (1973) 42938; A. Lindemann, Die

Gemeinde von Koloss: Erwgungen zum Sitz im Leben eines pseudopaulinischenBriefes, Wort und Dienst16 (1981) 11134.

58 Unfortunately, Colossae has not been excavated up to now. But coins and other remains give

no grounds for assuming the town was left after the earthquake in 61/62. Cf. H. von Aulock,

Mnzen und Stdte Phrygiens II (Istambuler Mitteilungen 27; Tbingen: Wasmuth, 1987)

247, 8394, and Standhartinger, Studien, 1016.

59 T. R. S. Broughton, Roman Asia Minor,An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome4 (ed. T. Frank;

New Jersey: Pageant Books, 1959) 503918, mentions earthquakes in 20 bc e (Laodicea,

Thyatira, Chios), in 53 ce under Claudius (Laodicea, Hierapolis, Antioch/Meander), in 61/62

ce under Nero (Laodicea, Hierapolis, Colossae), in 144 ce (Laodicea, Hierapolis), and under

Alexander Severus (193211 ce , Hierapolis). According to Strabo, Almost the entire region

around the Meander is threatened by earthquakes and is undermined with fire and water to

the very bowels of the earth (Strabo Geogr. 12.8.17).

60 An excavation has not yet been undertaken. Von Aulock, Mnzen und Stdte Phrygiens II,

offers an inventory of the coins that have been found.

61 Strabo Geogr.. 12.8.16 (578); Plin. Nat. 8.190.

62 It shows, for instance, no knowledge of the disputes taking place in the 60s in Laodicea and

Hierapolis, which can be verified by coins (cf. Michael Drger, Die Stdte der Provinz Asia in

der Flavierzeit: Studien zur kleinasiatischen Stadt- und Regionalgeschichte[Frankfurt: Lang,

1993] 478), nor are there any references to such specific local concerns as the raising of

sheep, the wool trade, the dyeing of wool, or the production of wreaths, or any mention of

the great age of the city.


16/22

warnings are examined, the use of expressions from ancient Sophistic polemics

which had, however, long since become topoi in general polemics becomes

apparent.63 At the same time, the emphasis on vices having to do with words

comes to the fore. The author of Colossians fears that his addressees could be led

astray (paralogivzesqai) or taken captive (sulagwgein) by plausible arguments(piqano;~-logiva) or empty deceit (kenh; ajpavth). But this danger as shown by the

list of vices in 3.89 has already infiltrated the heart of the church.64 One can pre-

sume at least a connection between the vices of language of the old self and the

warning against deceitfulness in arguments.

Col 2.16 also indicates the danger posed to the church by internal critics. The

sentence mh; ou\n ti~ uJma~ krinevtw ejn brwvsei kai; ejn povsei . . . cannot be trans-

lated instrumentally as therefore do not let anyone condemn you in matters of

food and drink . . .. Rather, the preposition ejn indicates first and foremost the

area, the place or the time in which the judgment occurs.65 Thus it is more likely

that the author has in mind a judging which takes place while eating and drink-

ing,66 as well as while celebrating certain festivals. The issue in question, then, is

criticism which occurs during the churchs celebrations.67

A similar case is the formula mhdei;~ uJma~ katabrabeuevtw qevlwn ejn

tapeinofrosuvnh kai; qrhskeiva/ twn ajggevlwn in Col 2.18. Col 3.12 shows that a

humble cast of mind belongs among the virtues of the church. The formula of

angels could describe either the worship of angels as objects the veneration of

angels or the worship of angels as a subject angelic worship. Thus, in this case,

ejn tapeinofrosuvnh kai; qrhskeiva/ also more likely describes the time or place of

the worship of the community. The sentence could be translated: No one shouldmaliciously68 condemn you, while self-abasement and the worship of angels take

place. In this case, however, the one who condemns is someone who saw this

upon entering69 that is, an outsider (cf. 1 Cor 14.235).


63 Cf. in particular the key words paralogivzesqai, piqanologiva, sulagwgei`n, kenh; ajpavth.

For details see Standhartinger, Studien, 1823.

64 The author of Colossians adds to a traditional list of vices foul language (aijscrologiva, 3.8).

65 This is also the case for all instances ofkrivnein ejn in the NT: cf. Standhartinger, Studien,

1856.

66 It is also notable that brw`si~ and povsi~ refer not to what is being eaten (cf. brw`ma, povma)

but rather to the subjective act of eating.

67 This is not to deny that the judgment refers to questions of food and time, as well, but

there is no hint beside Col 2.16 and 2.213 (a sentence for which I know no convincing

translation) that food laws and festival practice, either Jewish or pagan, are under dis-

cussion here.

68 Regarding the translation of qevlwn, cf. A. Fridrichsen, qevlwn Col 2.18, ZNW 22 (1921)

1357.

69 Cf. Col 2.18: a} eJovraken ejmbateuvwn . . .


17/22

The identification of the opposition in Colossae should become more lucid in

2.203. Unfortunately, the grammatical structure and meaning of the sentences is

not clear at all.70

The author of Colossians believes his addressees are under threat. In my view,

however, this threat is posed not so much by specific opponents who have infil-trated the church but rather by doubts caused by deceitful words and abusive

language. Thus the opposition against which Col 2.423 cautions is the uncer-

tainty caused by doubt, internal criticism which endangers the strength, stead-

fastness, and internal unity of the church. Condemnation from external sources

(2.18) is another cause of concern.

To combat these troubles, the heavenly letter from Paul reassuresthe addressees

that they are already included in the spread of the gospel throughout the world. The

death of Paul is not the end of the gospel. As suffering for (1.24), it belongs to Gods

planand commission(1.25). Paul absent in body but present, bymeansof the letter,

in spirit rejoices in the steadfastness of the church, which itself becomes a sign of

the gospels spread to the most distant corners of the Roman Empire. The Pauline

community is already armed against pessimism and critical voices from within and

outside. It is thus in a position to withstand all pessimism and uncertainty.71

3. The theological answers of Colossians

If the authors of the letter to the Colossians wrote a heavenly letter in

Pauls name, reflecting on Pauls death and the welfare and the steadfastness of

the post-Pauline community, what are their theological answers to the depressedsituation of that time?72 To answer this question one has to look closely at the the-

ology of the letter.

A main characteristic of the letter is a transformation of eschatological ideas

and language into spatial thought. Already in the greeting, the author of


70 For a different reconstruction, especially on the question of whether do not handle, do not

taste, do not touch is a quote from the opposition or a statement of the author, see

Standhartinger, Studien, 245.

71 It is interesting to note that, in this regard, Colossians corresponds with the function of

JewishHellenistic testaments, which also sought to strengthen and arm the succeeding gen-

erations. One can also detect similar structures. A retrospective of the lives (Col 1.32.5) is fol-

lowed by warnings about someone whose appearance is expected in the future (see the

future tense in 2.8). A third part consists of exhortations. The biographical section at the end

commands the hearers to read, preserve, and spread the words that have been received (c.f.

4.16).

72 Probably not long after Pauls death, which was caused by the Romans (cf. 1 Clem5.7) before

the persecution under Nero. In my opinion, the years 6469 ce are the most likely date for the

composition of Colossians. The destruction of the temple and the persecution of Jewish

people is not on the horizon.


18/22

Colossians speaks of hope that has been laid up for the addressees in heaven.73

The church is commanded: Joyfully [12] give thanks to the Father, who has

enabled you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the light, [13] who has res-

cued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the

Son of his love (Col 1.11d13). This concerns a transfer, a shift in space out of dark-ness into light, as is found in the language of conversion used in many ancient

religions. Especially in JewishHellenistic wisdom, the residence of the elect and

the righteous is the divine sphere, and transfer to this sphere can be described as

a rescue.74 For the author of Colossians, the process of raising up has already come

to a conclusion (aorist).75 The church has not only died with Christ but has also

been raised with him (2.12; 3.1). It ought, therefore, to seek and contemplate that

which is above (3.12).

The transformation of space occurs through the change of thought. Right at

the start the author prays that the church might be filled with the knowledge of

Gods will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding (1.9) and grow in the knowl-

edge of God (1.10; cf. 2.23). The thinking things that are above (3.2), the knowl-

edge (ejpivgnwsi~) (1.10), the understanding (suvnesi~) of the divine mystery,

Christ, the place of all wisdom (sofiva) and knowledge (gnwsi~) (2.23), are the

aim of this associative, meditative language in the letter. With this the authors of

Colossians seek to persuade their addressees of the heavenly reality that has

already been achieved.76 The formulae barely distinguish between Christ and the

church (cf. 1.27; 3.34).

Clearly, Lady Wisdom stands behind Christ in the Colossian hymn (1.1520).

Moreover, Col 1.1520 identifies the subject of the song with the suffering right-

eous one (in contrast to, e.g., Wis 10).77 The earthly destiny of the righteous one,


73 Cf. Gnther Bornkamm, Die Hoffnung im Kolosserbrief: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Frage der

Echtheit des Briefes (1961), in Geschichte und Glaube2 (Munich: C. Kaiser, 1971) 20613.

74 Cf. the prayer of Aseneth following the visit of the heavenly man: Blessed be the Lord God,

who sent you [the Anthropos] to rescue me from the darkness and lead me to the light and

blessed be his name forever (JosAs15.13, in M. Philonenko, Joseph et Asneth: Introduction,

texte critique, traduction et notes[Leiden: Brill, 1968]).

75 Cf. also the so-called thennow schemata in 1.212 and 2.13. This idea of being transferred to

the heavenly sphere, while actually living on earth, also appears in Joseph and Aseneth. In

this story, originating in Jewish Wisdom circles, Aseneth leaves the realm of the dead and

mute gods (8.5) and is returned to life (15.4; cf. 8.1011). The return to life corresponds to the

transformation into a heavenly form (14.1216; 18.36) and the insight into heavenly secrets

(16.7; 22.9, in Philonenko). In JosAs this process is understood as a change of mind

(metavnoia). See also A. Standhartinger, Weisheit in Joseph und Asenethund den paulini-

schen Briefen, NTS47 (2001) 482501.

76 In the NT, such frequency of the terms wisdom and knowledge occurs only here and in 1

Cor 12.

77 However, the link between Wisdom and martyrdom theology has already been established in

Wis 5. According toWis 5.1, 5, 1516, the martyrs ofwisdom receive a placein the gloryof heaven.


19/22

however, is merely hinted at with the formula dia; tou ai{mato~ tou staurou

aujtou. Dominating the foreground is instead the reconciliation and establish-

ment of peace between God and humankind (cf. 4 Macc 17.2118.4). This is also

expressed in the framework of the hymn in 1.1214 and 1.212.

The interpretation of the cross in the hymn follows the tradition of the Jewishtheology of martyrdom.78 The cross identifies a particular righteous one. Col

2.1415, however, offers a different interpretation. Here the cross is a sign of victory

in a triumphal procession, symbolizing the defeat of the powers and dominions.79

Christology undoubtedly plays an important role in Colossians. But the key chris-

tological idea here, unlike in Pauls letters, is not Gods solidarity with the cruci-

fied one and, founded upon this, Gods new relationship with humanity. Instead

Colossians cities from the hymn a different idea: The whole fullness of the deity

dwells bodily in Christ (2.9; cf. 1.19), and he is the head of every ruler and auth-

ority (2.10; cf. 1.16, 18; 2.15). The raising of Christ is applied directly to the church.

It has died and is risen with him (2.12, 20; 3.1). As the one (universal) ekklesia, it is

his body (1.18, 24; 2.17, 19). It has come to fullness in him (2.10), has already been

transferred into his kingdom (1.1214). Christ is in them (1.27), their life (3.4), and

with Christ they are hidden in God (3.3). Each of these formulae reiterates the idea

that the community participates in the divine fullness present in Christ and that it

finds itself already present with him in the realm of heaven.

The ethicpresented in Colossians is characterized by a fundamental dichot-

omy between earth and heaven: Put to death, therefore, your members which are

upon the earth . . . (3.5). This exhortation adopts the opposition of things that are

above and things that are on earth found in 3.2 (cf. also 2.1819). As Egon

Brandenburger has shown, the emphasis on this contrast stems from the thought

of the mystic branch of JewishHellenistic wisdom theology.80 The putting to


78 Cf. also the pre-Pauline tradition found in 2 Cor 5.19.

79 Col 2.1415 contains a fragment of a mythological tradition, which, on account of its abbrevi-

ated form, is hard to understand. A suggestion of the underlying interpretation of the cross

may lie in the image of the triumphal procession (Col 2.15). In the Roman triumphal proces-

sion, military leaders taken prisoner were marched at the head of the procession beside

spoils of war and pictures of battles and conquered lands, which were held up on poles (cf.

W. Ehlers, Triumphus, PWVII A [1939] 493511; Jos. Bell. 7.14050). They were thus made a

public example (Col 2.15). The cross of Col 2.14, upon which the now rubbed out record is

nailed, is carried, like the pictures on display in the triumphal processions, among them. If

one emphasizes the medium of ajpekdusavmeno~ in 2.15, however, the section presupposes

another mythos, according to which the individual described, by removing his clothing,

reveals his true divine identity and thus unmasks the powers and dominions. Cf.

Standhartinger, Studien, 21216.

80 Cf. E. Brandenburger, Fleisch und Geist: Paulus und die dualistische Weisheit (Neukirchen-

Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1968), as well as Die Auferstehung der Glaubenden als historisches

und theologisches Problem, Wort und Dienst(1967) 1633.


20/22

death of all earthly thinking is a prerequisite for God to inhabit the soul and thus

for true knowledge of God. Colossians also takes up the idea that the soul must

renounce its bodilyfleshly exterior to make room for the indwelling of the divine

(Col 2.1113). This concerns a fundamental transformation, which consists in the

abandonment of the old and the putting on of the new self (3.911). The virtuesbound up with the putting on of the new self, compassion, kindness, humility,

meekness, and patience, are fundamental characteristics and qualities of God.

What is surprising, however, in the tradition of dualistic wisdom, is that the com-

mand does not end with the description of the individuals knowledge of and

nearness to God but rather addresses the actions of the community. Members of

the church are commanded not to lie to one another (eij~ ajllhvlou~, 3.9), to bear

with one another (ajllhvlwn) and forgive one another (eJautoi~, 3.13). The knowl-

edge so often emphasized in Colossians does not end in the salvation of the indi-

vidual but rather leads to conduct which will establish and maintain the

community (cf. also 2.2; 3.14).81

This reciprocity is expressed in a concrete ecclesiology. In describing Pauls

fellow-workers (named only in Colossians as co-slaves: 1.7; 4.7) Colossians consti-

tutes a system of reciprocal imitation: Epaphras is, on the one hand, the double of

Paul (1.23; 1.282.1).82 On the other, as a beloved co-slave (ajgaphto;~ suvndoulo~),

a faithful diakonos (pivsto~ diavkono~), and a co-servant, he is a model for

Tychicus83 and Onesimus (4.7, 9). Epaphras is one of you (4.12), like Onesimus

(4.9). This information contradicts Phlm 23. In emulation of Paul, Epaphras acts as

representative of the church. But the church is itself included in this process of

imitation. The members of the church are also faithful (pistov~, 1.4), are alsobeloved and bound to one another in the bonds of love (2.2; 3.14). In this way they

cooperate in the process of reaching full perfection (teleiovth~), for which Paul

and Epaphras are struggling (1.28; 4.12). Finally, the church imitates Pauls group

(we) directly, in that they, like the apostle and his companions, teach and admon-

ish one another in all wisdom (3.16; cf. 1.28). The church as a whole emulates

Onesimus, Tychicus, and Epaphras, and with them, Paul.

Central to the life of the community is the theme of thanksgiving (eujcaristiva,

1.12; 2.6; 3.1517; 4.2). In Col 3.1517 the worshipof the church is described. It is


81 On the meaning of the household duty code in the letter, see A. Standhartinger, The Origin

and Intention of the Household Code in the Letter to the Colossians,JSNT79 (2000) 11730.

82 Both Paul and Epaphras are described as diavkono~ (1.7, 235). Both struggle for (uJpevr) the

church (1.29; 2.1; 4.12) and for those in Laodicea (2.1; 4.13). Struggle and pain are present for

both of them (present tense 1.24; 4.13). The task for each of them is to bring the church to full

perfection in God or Christ (1.28; 2.2; 4.12). Both pray unceasingly for the church (1.9; 4.12).

The formula fellow servant (suvndoulo~) suggests the Pauline self-description dou`lo~

Cristou in Gal 1.10; Phil 1.1 and elsewhere.

83 Possibly a name chosen on account of its meaning: the child of fortune is to bring the

church news from Paul.


21/22

characterized by the indwelling of Christ (3.16). The church ought mutually

(eJautouv~) to teach and admonish one another with spiritual psalms, hymns, and

songs (3.16). However, this is to be done not aloud but rather ejn tai~ kardivai~.

With this expression Colossians takes up the tradition of the prayer of the heart,

which was understood in Hellenistic and JewishHellenistic philosophy as thehighest expression of true sacrifice.84 Through thanksgiving the church is trans-

ferred into the heavenly sphere. What has already occurred becomes open to

experience.

Conclusion

Colossians proves to be the product of the Pauline circles and fellow-

workers. Presumably acquainted with Pauline style through personal conversa-

tions and building on the literary foundation of Philemon, they wrote a heavenly

letter in Pauls name. The letter to the Colossians reacted to uncertainty and ten-

dencies toward disintegration in the early post-Pauline years (1.23; 2.57). Paul,

absent in body but, by means of the letter, present in spirit, interprets his death as

a suffering for the universal ekklesiaand part of the divine plan (1.247). Gods

plan, established at the beginning of time and revealed in the present, is the

spread of the gospel throughout the world, including the churches of small towns

in rural Asia Minor, such as Colossae (1.56, 23). With his heavenly letter Paul

gives a final message to his communities, (as if he would be) present in spirit:

Suffering and internal and external criticisms are not signs of decline and thus

need not inspire doubt (1.282.1; 2.4, 8, 1623). Through the Christ event, thechurch finds itself already in the heavenly realm, in the kingdom of the child of

Gods love (1.13). It has been raised with Christ (2.12; 3.1) and united with Christ

(1.27; 3.34), in whom the fullness of God dwells bodily (1.19; 2.910). Thus the

church should put to death earthly thinking (3.19), seek those things that are

above, in the divine realm, and celebrate the heavenly worship of thanksgiving

(3.1217).

As demonstrated above, the letter to the Colossians was highly influenced by

Wisdom theology in its speculative guises. It shares this characteristic with Pauls

letters. But, at the same time, the most striking differences occur in the receptionof this JewishHellenistic theology. In contrast to Paul, Colossians does not cri-

tique the implied dualism of speculative Wisdom theology (cf. 1 Cor 3.14, for

instance). History is reduced to a confrontation between then the time of hos-

tility between the world and God and now the time of reconciliation and


84 Cf. Philo, Plant. 126; Spec. 1.272; Heir. 1415; and O. Casel, Die logikh; qusiva der antiken

Mystik in christlich-liturgischer Umdeutung, Jahrbuch fr Liturgiewissenschaft4 (1924)

3747.


22/22

Christs triumph over all hostile powers. Christ caused this change in some ways

(1.20; 2.1415), but, more importantly for the authors of Colossians, Christ opens

the fullness of divine reality to the community (2.910). The community has

already been transferred to this heavenly sphere. This Christology eclipses Pauls

emphasis on the cross as a sign of Gods solidarity with suffering and humanity.Surprisingly, what remains despite dualistic tendencies and the emphasis on

knowledge and wisdom is a call for mutuality, especially in ethics and ecclesiol-

ogy. This shows that the letter to the Colossians is still more interested in the

strengthening of the community than in the salvation of the individual.

The borrowing of Pauline diction on the one hand and, on the other, the inde-

pendent, even sometimes conservative, adoption of traditions and ideas from the

speculative branch of JewishHellenistic Wisdom theology confirm the thesis of

Hans Conzelmann: There was a Pauline school, which was founded by Paul him-

self and which continued to exist after his death.85 In Colossians this school

reveals itself mainly as a discussing circle, which, while maintaining reverence for

the apostle, is entirely able to solve its actual problems with theological thinking

of its own.


85 Conzelmann, Schule, 90. For Conzelmann, the main reason to assume a School of Paul is the

existence of Pauline passages in which Wisdom theology appears (1 Cor 1.1831; 2.616; 2 Cor

3.718; Rom 1.1831) without major reworking.

Coloseni Si Scoala Paulina

Documents

Transcript of Coloseni Si Scoala Paulina