New Testament Introduction Series: Colossians – Part 3

THE PROBLEM AT COLOSSAE
The issue of the problem facing the Colossians is just as debated over as the authorship. It is of typical Pauline nature to respond to problems that arise within the early church. Letters such as Galatians and the epistles to the Corinthians showcase Paul’s response to critical issues in the life of the church. Often, Paul is correcting a distorted view or challenging the communities to live in light of the resurrected Lord. Thus, when we come to the book of Colossians many seek to understand the nature of the issue that prompted the response by Paul.

False teaching or a deceptive philosophy (vs. 8), may serve as a better indicator of the problem in Colossae. O’Brian is cautious, and correctly so, to define the problem at Colossae as heresy. Seeing as Paul himself never uses those exact words, it seems as if it might only have been in development and Paul issues his warnings as a precaution. Rather than a full-blown heresy, we can put together the problems at Colossae by Paul’s response in 2:8-23.  Currently, there are three main positions on the source of false teaching at Colossae.  Jewish mysticism, Judaism, and religio-syncretism have all been provided as valid options for the false teaching.

Jewish Mysticism
Jewish Mysticism is thought to describe some of the unique features that are highlighted in 2:8-23. Many who see the Jewish roots, argue that it is a specific strand of Judaism and not Judaism in general. Quite possibly this could have been the Essene group who typically “imply a degree of asceticism not usually associated with Jewish tradition.” As Paul describes the “worship of angels” in verse 18 this would not have been a predominately Jewish feature.   Some commentators see a special emphasis on the role of angels in creation and the giving of the law. This is supported by some intertestamental literature, mainly Philo who references the Jewish worship of angels. The reference of Philo could serve to highlight the interesting argument of Paul in verse 18 on the worship of angels. O’Brien sees the recent scholarly work on Jewish-Christian mysticism as shedding much needed light on the warnings of Paul in 2:8-23.

Judaism
Others however see the problem at Colossae as strictly Judaism. Both Dunn and Wright serve as the main proponents of this view.  Dunn and Wright argue that Paul is describing a problem with Judaism at Colossians. Although many of the features could fit into any religious system, there are some, specifically the reference to circumcision (vs. 11) that highlights the specific Jewish nature of the problem. The issue of circumcision is the most distinctively Jewish feature of the Colossian philosophy.  Any one present during the first century would have regarded the act of circumcision with no other group but the Jews. Other issues such as baptism (vs. 12), and Sabbath (vs. 16), and food purity rules (vs. 16), are difficult to understand outside of a Jewish framework and further strengthen the argument of the nature of a Jewish problem at Colossae.  Although some debate the presence of false teachers at Colossae, it seems to have had roots within the Jewish synagogue system in the region.

One does wonder at the response of Paul to the problem at Colossae. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul resounds with one of his fiercest and most direct challenges to the problem makers, where he says that the Galatians have been “bewitched” (Gal. 1:7) and condemns his opponents to Hell (Gal. 1:8). Such a response of Paul is absent in the letter to the Colossians. Assuming Pauline authorship of the book, why did Paul not respond in the same way? One can only assume that the problem, however similar, did not pose the same threat as the problem in Galatia. Judging from Paul’s response, this problem at Colossae did not seek to undermine or further convert the Colossians, rather it seeks to mature the believers at Colossae through another agency, Judaism, apart from Christ.

Religious Syncretism
Some see the problem at Colossae as a syncretism between Judaism, Christianity, and other first century Roman religions. The two most influential supporters of this view have been Eduard Lohse, and most recently Doug Moo. Lohse argues in his commentary on Colossians that the aspects of Paul’s warnings in 2:8-23 indicate a varied adoption of religious practices throughout the region. Lohse bases his understanding on the word “philosophy” which would be the broadest term to “describe all sorts of groups, tendencies and points of view and thus had become a very broad term.”
In dealing with the inherent Jewish elements in Paul’s warning, specifically circumcision, Lohse notes that nowhere in the New Testament are circumcision and baptism compared with one another.

Concluding that Paul borrowed the term from the slogans of the group, he argues that circumcision refers broadly to the initiatory rites of mystery cults. While there were certainly initiatory rites associated with many cults, it is hard pressed to see why Paul would choose such a theologically loaded Jewish word to speak of simple initiation into a group. Furthermore nowhere in antiquity is circumcision used with reference to a syncretistic religion and circumcision in the first century was classically identified with Judaism. It is more likely that circumcision stands for a specifically Jewish identity marker and nothing more.

Moo likewise argues from a socio-local point. While noting that there was a rather large minority of Jewish people in the area, He argues that they were just as susceptible to syncretism based on their location in the Roman Empire. Moo argues that Colossae was a “cosmopolitan city exposed to a wide variety of religions and philosophies, were likely quite susceptible to these kinds of mixtures.”  Amongst the vast cults and emperor worship, each religious group found its place in the Roman Pantheon of religions. Some even see the rhetoric of Paul as confronting the imperial cult present at that time, as his readers would have instantly recognized the imperial themes.  Almost every religion was acceptable in the Roman Empire, as long as that religion was accepting of every other religion. Naturally with many religious groups syncretization was bound to occur.  Moo’s point is largely correct in regards to its historical nature.

While syncretism could be a daily temptation on the part of the believers at Colossae, it seems to lose momentum when compared with Paul’s response. Galatians clearly indicates how Paul deals with any form of syncretism and the gospel, whether that is Jewish or any other first century religion. Paul appears persistently antagonistic to syncretize anything with faith and the gospel. Hence we find the biting and abrupt response to the church at Galatia. However, to the church in Colossae, his response is calm and well-mannered. Either Paul in his old age had broadened his stance on these issues, or the issue that presented itself to the Colossians was not a threat to the message of the gospel that Epaphras had delivered to them. Even contemporary sources note that the Jewish worship of a monotheistic God and the emphasis on their special election was offensive to their neighbors which kept the number of proselytes low. While syncretism was a viable option, it does not seem to be the basis of Paul’s warning and argument found in Colossians.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the issues that confront the reader of this book are broad and deep. It seems at every turn the reader is confronted with a new obstacle from which their decision sets them on a new course in the letter. Issues such as authorship, the problem of Colossae, and the date and writing of the letter, force the reader to move between the micro and macro contexts of the letter. The reader is forced to keep the overall message of the book in tension with the chapters they encounter. These issues are not easy, but careful and dedicated study yields great results for the reader who encounters this book.

 

New Testament Introduction Series: Colossians – Part 2

AUTHORSHIP OF COLOSSIANS
The book of Colossians poses an interesting challenge to student and scholar alike. As any person accustomed to reading Pauline literature there is a noted difference in theme, style, and even theology of Colossians.  Colossians in current scholarship finds itself within the “deutero-Pauline” camp and is there with books such as Second Thessalonians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. A debate has raged on over the book of Colossians since F.C Baur rejected the traditionally held position of Pauline authorship. In the wake of Baur’s rejection many scholars have followed his path. Showcasing this stark change, scholar Raymond Brown notes that “at the present moment 60 percent of critical scholarship holds that Paul did not write the letter.” Many of the rejection find their basis in the unique vocabulary and the absence of the typical theological images and themes frequently used by Paul.  Currently there are three camps for the authorship of Colossians.  There is the group that accepts Pauline authorship, the group that rejects Pauline authorship, and the group that holds a student or companion was the author under the authority of Paul.

Most notably, Colossians differs from accepted Pauline literature in vocabulary. Colossians boasts 87 words that are not used in Pauline literature, and 34 of those are hapax legomena only found in the letter of Colossians. A question is then posed as to why an author would dramatically change his vocabulary from his other writings. This argument is not thoroughly convincing as accepted books like Philippians employs some 70 words that are not found within Pauline literature. Furthermore, the difference in vocabulary is easily understandable when one recognizes that the situation at Colossae was strikingly different than anything Paul had previously encountered, thus it would require the use of new vocabulary to deal with the new problem that arose at Colossae.  Therefore a dismissal of Colossians on linguistic usage seems to be on shaky ground. Many commentators have thus seen that the Greek of Colossians offers little to the issue of authorship

More pressing however is the absence of typical Pauline theology. Colossians seems to portray a very high Christology (1:15-20) and absent are the typical Pauline themes of righteousness and justification. Should such issues trouble the modern reader in regards to Pauline authorship? Many have sought to seek a more developed Pauline theology in the letter of Colossians, arguing that as it was written later, we begin to see a more developed theology. The absence of typical Pauline language can be misleading. Although certain theological terms are absent does not mean that the theology of those terms are absent from the discussion. Although not explicitly present, Wright argues that the principle of justification is within 3:10-13. Furthermore if one accepts that justification is not Paul’s center of thought then this argument seems to fail when scrutinized with the emphasis on the person of Christ, which is throughout Colossians.

In conclusion, the issue of authorship is a highly debated issue with many entangled aspects. It is in this author’s opinion that Paul is the author of Colossians and that written late, reveals a development in the Pauline style and theology. The uniqueness in linguistics and theology is due to the fact that church at Colossae faced a specifically unique situation not seen by the other churches, thus needing a specific and unique response by Paul.

DATE AND PLACE OF ORIGIN
While not carrying the weight of authorship or theme, the time and place of Colossians is as difficult to prove as the other features. We learn much about the location of the letter from Paul’s own words, where in 4:3 he describes himself as “in chains.” This refers to his imprisonment, and groups Colossians with the epistles of Philippians, Ephesians, and Philemon, classically known as the “prison epistles.”  While many agree this is referring to the imprisonments of Paul, they disagree as to where these imprisonments took place. Traditionally the imprisonment was thought to have taken place from Rome.  Others have offered that the imprisonment took place in Ephesus, although these are not the only possibilities. The choice on location really hinges on the issues of Pauline authorship and the dating of the letter.

The date of the writing of Colossians is just as difficult as the location. Much of the dating depends on the issue of authorship. If the letter to the Colossians is pseudepigraphical then the letter could have been written at any time.  Assuming Pauline authorship, one must rely on the information in Acts to provide a background.  This however brings up another tangled issue, as the city of Colossae is not mentioned in Acts. Only two imprisonments are found in the book of Acts, Caesarea (Acts 24), and Rome (Acts 28).  The imprisonment in Ephesus is inferred from the book of Second Corinthians. From the dating in Acts the letter would need to have been written later, unless Luke decided not to include a different imprisonment. I would be inclined and somewhat obligated to accept a Roman origin of the letter and to date it later, between 60-61 AD.  This allows for the development of Pauline theology that we see in Colossians, although it does present some problems for travel with Onesimus. Judging from the information within the book of Colossians it would seem that Paul wrote the letter from Rome in the early 60’s.