Colossians and Gnosis

7/31/2019 Colossians and Gnosis

1/21

tfSNT 27(1986) 49-68]

COLOSSIANS AND GNOSIS

Roy Yates

9 The Crescent, Hipperholm, Halifax HX3 8NQ

I

Many commentators have made the assumption that we haveexamples of'gnosticism' in the New Testament, against which thecanonical authors wrote to correct such erroneous views. The 'error'ofthe Colossians is regarded as a prime example ofthis. However,

recent research into the origin and nature of gnosticism has shownthat the developed systems of the second and third centuries, whichwere once thought to provide a clear set of characteristics by whichto define gnosticism, Were in fact not systematized at all.1 Instead itis suggested that we are dealing with a much wider and less clearlydefined phenomenon, whose teachings have been stylized and stereotyped by ancient and modern authors for the purpose of stowingdiem to be inferior to those of orthodox Christianity.

One of the major problems in assessing the relationship betweenthe New Testament and gnosticism is that of terminology. Britishscholars have tended to reserve the term 'gnosticism9 to describe thesecond-century heresy as opposed by Irenaeus, "Hippolytus andothers. German scholars have tended to speak of gnosticism in amuch wider sense to include earlier manifestations of this movementof thought, not only in the New Testament, but in many otherdocuments as well. The crux of the matter lies in the word

'gnosticism',2

which RMcL. Wilson rightly suggests should bereserved for the specific Christian heresy of the second century andi i i i ffi


2/21

50 Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament 27 (1986)

development, and the exegete must be aware of the trends andtendencies, the signs and notions in the air that indicate such a

development.A second problem in dealing with gnosticism is that, because of its

fundamentally syncretistic nature, there is no one uniform set ofideas that can be classed as gnosticism. Instead there is a blendingtogether of elements of every sortfromvarious and often contradictingbackgrounds. It was the object of the gnostic to engage in freespeculation, and to develop the teachings and traditions handeddown to him. E. Pagels3 has suggested that, like circles of artists

today, gnostics considered original creative invention to be the markof spiritual awareness. Each one was expected to express his ownperceptions by revising and transforming what he was taughtMerely to repeat the words ofone's teacher was considered immature.The church fathers were conscious of what seemed to them to be abewildering variety of gnostic teachinga picture confirmed by ourreading ofthe Nag Hammadi texts. This apparent confusion is notaccidental, but belongs to the very nature ofthe teachings. There was

no gnostic church, no normative theology or rule of faith, nohierarchy, canon of scripture or other norm or authority andteaching. No limits were set to free representation and theologicalspeculation. Although we know the names of a few revered gnosticteachers such as Basilides and Valentinus, gnostic writings show nointerest in their Uves, authority or personalities. Their heroes areeitherfiguresfromprimordial times or alternative apostlesfromtheNew Testament, but not contemporary teachers and holy men. It

seems that what we have in gnosticism is a movement with adifferent authority structure and social structure, catering for peoplewho found the imposition of bishops, canon or scripture and rule offaith too much of a constriction on their desire to follow their owntheological and philosophical speculations wherever they might lead.

The gnostics' use of scripture illustrates this. They adhered to thewords of scripture, but had no regard for the literal meaning of thetext The words were accepted, but were made to signify something

completely different. No wonder such fathers as Irenaeus waxedwrathful with the gnostics, for they were mishandling the church's


3/21

YATES Colossians andGnosis 51

their own exegesis. The result was a synthesis which was alien to theChristian faith. Many of their writings can be understood as interpretations or paraphrases ofOld Testament texts. But E.M. Yamauchi5

has shown how limited was the gnostics' use and knowledge of theOld Testament Evenfromthe patristic accounts it was clear that theearly gnostics were especially fond of the early chapters of Genesis,but were concerned with very little else in the Old Testament.Yamauchi detects a revolt against Judaism, yet within Judaism; adevelopment of the Jewish-gnostic exegesis ofthe book of Genesis.Perhaps we have here the clue to the origin of gnosticism.

The Jewish element in the development of gnosticism is unmistakable.6 In some of our sources the Christian element appears to beonly a superficial veneer, whereas the Jewish element is integral tothe whole. But often the Old Testament material is used in a perverseand almost anti-Jewish way. The God of the creation stories isdegraded into an evil and inferior demiurge, and the Old Testamentfigures who originally represented evil are presented as gnosticheroes. We are dealing with what K. Rudolph calls 'a critical self-dissolution on thefringesof Judaism'.7 The basic gnostic traditionswere most likelyformedby people who lived in close proximity toJudaism and who reacted against it. This hostility and ambivalencetowards Judaism in gnostic writings seems to derivefroma situationin which the Jewish community reacted decisively against suchspeculation. Some ofthese heterodox Jews would havefoundtheirway into Christian circles where Jewish tradition was both acceptedand rejected. This was probably the context in which gnostic exegesis

of the New Testament arose. When Christians refused to accept thegnostic reading of the Old Testament, a whole new era of controversyarose, resulting in the defining of Christian norms of treadling andauthority, and the subsequent exclusion of the gnostic traditions.

A.F. Segal8 offers a reconstruction of the way in which gnosticthought and exegesis probably developed on the fringe of, and inreaction to, Rabbinic Judaism. He takes up the rabbinic category of'two powers in heaven', used by those sects where an angel ormediator was exalted into a second divine hypostasis. At first thedebate centred on the exegesis of those passages of scripture which


4/21


second stage was to discourage those who led prayers in the

synagogues from using certain heretical prayers. Also the firstcommandment was used as a defence against dualism. The incipientheretics were thusforcedto withdrawfromthe synagogues, althoughthe debate continued as the views of the 'two powers' hereticsbecame more and more extreme. Christians as well as gnostics cameunder this condemnation. The key factor in separating radicalgnosticismfromearlier Jewish exegesis andfromChristian exegesisis the negative portrayal of the secondfigurein heaven as an evil andsubordinate demiurge. Radical gnostics portrayed the God of the OldTestament, and the God of the synagogue in whose name they hadbeen expelled, in this perverse way. It is likely that such proto-gnosticinterpretation of angehe mediators originated in a thoroughly Hellen-ized form of Judaism. Segal concluded: 'The radicalization of gnosticism was a product of the battle between the rabbis, the Christiansand various other "two powers" sectarians who inhabited the structures of Judaism'.9 The battle was recorded as a debate over themeaning of several scripture passages, among which were all theangehe and theophany texts of the Old Testament, and plurals usedof God in scripture.

The situation described by Segal in his reconstruction of the originof gnosticism is post-Jamnian, and therefore second-century. Whatwe have in the New Testament comesfromthe earliest stage of thisdevelopment, when Jewish, Hellenistic and Christian elements werefused together. Fringe groups in Judaism, many of which were quite

orthodox, were able to express their own theological and philosophical speculations in terms of a developed angelology, merkabahmysticism, apocalypticism, and other developments. There werepoints of meeting with similar ideas and vocabulary in Hellenisticculture. In searching for new categories with which to express theirfaith, Christians too came into contact with this fusion of ideas.Danger signals were noticed when going too far along this road led toa disregard of traditional ethical standards, an over-concentration onasceticism, ecstatic visions, a misuse ofthe Jewish law, a dualism ofgood and evil powers, and an attitude of contempt towards the non-initiate and the non-visionary The New Testamentdocuments stand


5/21

YATES ColossiansandGnosis 53

still fluid, when the lines of demarcation between heresy andorthodoxy had not been drawn.

10Certainly those who held these

views felt themselves to be Christians and presented themselves assuch in the young Christian communities. St Paul is a keyfigureinthis development He stands at that point of interplay and interaction, where ideas from the Jewish, Hellenistic and Christiantraditions came together.

From evidence in the Epistles to the Corinthians it has beensuggested that Paul's opponents at Corinth held views of a 'gnostic'

nature. They present themselves as 'spiritual' and 'perfect' men whoare proud oftheir knowledge.11

All things are permitted to them intheir state of liberated maturity,

12but they lookdown on the weak

who have not experienced such liberation.13

As possessors of theSpirit they already have the resurrection.

14Worship has become a

demonstration ofthe gnostic indwelling ofthe Spirit,15

the eucharistis degraded into a meal designed to sate the appetite,

16and the

earthlyJesus is despised in favour of the heavenly Christ17

It isfurther

held that similar views prevailed in the other Paulinecommunities.

The primaryexponent ofthis viewis W. Schmithals. His thesis inGnosticism in Corinth

nis that the two cannonical letters to the

Corinthians were actually composed out ofa series ofsix separateletters, written by Paul in the middle of the first century, butcollected and edited about AD 96 for use in the anti-gnostic struggleof the church. He identifies only one set of opponents, who are

especiallyprominent in 2 Cor. 10-13, and who are characterized asJewish-Christian Gnostics. Their gnostic outlook on the gospel isevident in their pride in their knowledge, which in turn is manifestedin libertine behaviour in both social and individual morality. Theydemonstrated their superiority by speaking in tongues, and evenregarded the eucharist as a Jewish-gnostic rite rather than as theChristian communion. The use made by Paul of the distinction

between and ,19

shows that his opponents must

have been gnostics, while it is claimed that even Paul himself musthave had some gnostic tendencies because he does not explicitlyattack their radical cosmic dualism


6/21


the sameformerJewish Gnostics. Sometimes it is their Jewishnesswhich leads to conflict with Paul, and sometimes it is their gnosticism.Thus Schmithals proposes that Paul feces a single battlefront: aprelude to the debate between the church and the gnostics in thesecond century.

Schmithals has been widely criticized for his views and methods.J.M. Robinson22 says that his pan-gnostic theory has 'hung like analbatross around the neck of the Bultmann tradition', and J. Munck23

that he "lacks historical training and "forces his a priori opinionsupon the texts with offensive boldness'. Schmithals makes assumptions and presents hypotheses which he then proceeds to treat as ifthey were established acts. He assumes that there was a system ofpre-Christian gnosticism as fully developed as those known to usfrom the second century; that the evidence of the second century cansimply be applied en bloc to the situation at Corinth; and that Paulwas facing the same sort of opponents in every area of his ministry.R.McL Wilson24 warns that this is to run the risk of interpreting theembryonic and undeveloped in the light of the mature and fully-developed systems ofa later age.

We have no extant gnostic documents which pre-date Christianityto prove gnostic influence on Paul (or his opponents) beyond alldoubts. So instead of thinking of a fidi-scale developed gnosticreligion in confrontation with primitive Christianity, it is better tosuppose that gnosticism grew and developed as a movement more orless contemporary with Christianity and interacting with it Whatwas in process of development in the first century, and whichmanifested itself at Corinth, is best described as "a kind of gnosis'.25

In Paul there is a similarity of language with the later gnostic writers,but a fundamental difference in the ideas expressed. A similarity oflanguage does not always imply identity of meaning, so what isimportant in determining gnostic content is not so much the wordsused but the intention ofthe writers who used them.26 Just as forIrenaeus the controlling factor in interpreting scripture and settingout Christian theology was the rule of faith and the apostolic

tradition, so also for St Paul there was a controlling factor. In his caseit was a deep commitment to a fully incarnational theology, grounded


7/21


marriage and the eating of certain foods,29

and who held that forthem the resurrection had taken place.

30The precise nature of what

is being opposed in the Pastoral Epistles is difficult to define, butthere are certain links with a kind of Jewish gnosis. In 1 John we havea docetic Christology

31and a certain indifference to morality in

matters of conduct32

Jude,33

2 Peter34

and Revelation35

refer tothose who follow the way of Balaam into error by eating food offeredto idols and moral laxity, and who in Revelation

36are given the

name 'Nicolaitans'. Finally the Fourth Gospel makes a full use ofterminology and concepts that were to be taken up and incorporatedinto gnosticism, but of itself the gospel cannot be called 'gnostic'. Inall these references the vital question is not whether a particular

word or idea can be paralleled in later gnostic theories, but whetherthis gnostic meaning was present in the mind of the author when he

wrote.

Thus in the New Testament we have the first murmurings of thestorm that was to breakin all its fulness in the second century, butthese signs are enough to show that the danger had begun to makeitself felt

37Dealing with thisformativeperiod H. Koester

38suggests

that if there was a close relationship between the developing gnosisand Jewish mysticism and wisdom theology, it is necessary todetermine and localize with more precision the decisive turning pointin the line that leads from such Jewish predecessors into Christianand pagan gnosticism. It is our contention that the situation to whichthe Epistle to the Colossians is addressed may provide suchclarification.

It is notoriouslydifficult to determine what occasioned Paul to writethe Epistle to the Colossians. It is a real letter which takes for grantedmuch that we should like to have been told, and so one has to read

between the lines to make an inspired guess at what has been goingon. But there is danger in this of reading into the text solutions toproblems that never existed. The majority of commentators supposethat Paul is dealing with some kind of error and that he quotes


8/21

56 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27 (1986)

other gnostic, and attempted to show that both are combined in the

teaching of the Essenes. This identification has been superseded bythe discovery of actual gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi, and was by nomeans universally accepted by other scholars at the time.41 SinceLightfoot opinion has been divided between those who suppose thatwhat we have here at Colossae is some form of gnosticism,42 andthose who have their doubts about this identification.43 But the vastmajority are convinced that Paul was dealing with opponents whoseteachings led to a challenge to the uniqueness of Christ and found a

place alongside him for the placation of the other spiritual powers.

44

The references which are held to support his view are as follows:

a. There are regulations, probably derived from a Jewish source,which are being urged on the Colossians, concerning matters of foodand drink, festivals, new moons and sabbaths.45 They are urged, 'donot handle, do not taste, do not touch',46 but Paul dismisses these as'human precepts and doctrines'.47

b. There is a pronounced asceticism, "rigour of devotion and self-

abasement and severity to the body*,48

possibly undertaken tosubdue the flesh and induce visions,49 but which does not lead to ahigher moral standard and is 'of no use in checking the indulgence ofthe flesh'.50

c. The principalities and powers,51 elements of the world,52 andangels53 are taken as spiritual powers who were believed to standbetween the worshipper and God. Along with Christ they were to beplacated and worshippped in order to facilitate the believer's ascent

to the heavenly realms.d. The Pleroma or 'fulness'54 is regarded as a technical term for

the aggregate of divine powers through which access to God was tobe sought

Paul refers to this teaching as 'philosophy and empty deceit',55

'human tradition'56 and 'human precepts and doctrines'.57 It isassumed that the Great Christology of CoL 1.15-20 was incorporatedinto the epistle to challenge these false beliefs, and that Paul took up

such terms as 'pleroma' from the vocabulary of the false teaching toadd to the dignity and divinity of the Person of Christ It seems that


9/21


words and powers of persuasion which would lead men away fromthe truth to a false wisdom,59 and there are unambiguous anti-Jewish references condemning the use offoodand purity regulationsand the observance of the Jewish calendar of feasts.60 This suggests aspeculative Hellenistic gnosticism on the one hand, andJewish ethicsand practices on the other, and prompts Schmithals's theory thatColossians has passed through two editions to reach its present form.It is suggested that the original letter was written by Paul61 to warnthe Christians of Colossae against Judaizing legalism. The background to this was the practices of former God-fearers from thesynagogue who continued to observe Jewish purity regulations andfeast days. The deutero-Pauline author of the canonical Colossiansredirected Paul's original polemic against the gnostic heretics of hisown day, formulating his own anti-heretical passages,62 and composing other material to support his case.63 It is suggested that bothEphesians and Colossians spring from a situation in which thecoming together of Pauline Christianity and a Christianity based onthe synagogue was opposed by the more enthusiastic members of the

Pauline churches, a situation which resulted in a conflict with suchgnosticizing members.

Schmithals seems to be advocating a polarization of the twoelements of Judaism and gnosticism that Lightfoot sought to combinein his Essene theory. He also makes the unsubstantiated assumptionthat certain key verses are attacking gnosticism. In almost every casethese are capable ofa non-gnostic interpretation. What we have inColossians, as in the main Pauline epistles, are the raw materials outofwhich gnosticism was built, rather than gnosticism itself Schmithalsis again attempting to press the evidence into a mould ofhis owninvention, one into which it will not fit

M.D. Hooker64 calls into question not only the gnostic interpretartion of Colossians, but the more basic assumption of the majority ofscholars that Paul is here dealing with the teaching of opponents. Sheclaims that it does not necessarily follow that what Paul affirms,others have been denying. There is no need to postulate a 'falseteaching' unique to Colossae. Instead the danger was a temptation tosuccumb to pressurefromJews orJewish Christians to seek perfec


10/21


according to Hooker, is to demonstrate that both creation and

redemption are complete in Christ because he has replaced theJewish law. There is therefore no need for the Colossians to lookanywhere else for completion than in him.

Hooker is right to question the general assumption that Paul isdealing with the teaching of opponents in Colossians. But, on ourreading of the evidence, there seems to be something more here thanpressure on converts to make use of Jewish regulations in order tosubdue their former pagan desires and way oflife. One suspects that

if this were the case Paul would have replied more along the lines ofhis anti-Judaizing argument in Galatians. What we find opposed inColossians is obviously some kind of gnosis. It is not so extreme thatPaul condemns it out of hand. He rather attempts to correct some ofthe abuses it has led to. We have here one of the fusion points in thelinefromJudaism to gnosticism.

What then is going on at Colossae? Is there evidence ofa Christiangnosis here, or is it something more basic where ideasfromJewish,

Hellenistic and Christian backgrounds meet and cross-fertilize? Is itsimply a case of the Christians there exercising their freedom inChrist, andfindingthat suchfreedomhas got a little out ofhand? It isour suggestion that what Paul is dealing with has its roots in Jewishmysticism rather than pagan philosophical speculation. Althoughthere was a strong Jewish presence in the Lycus Valley,65 it wouldseem that the vast majority of the members of the church at Colossaewere Gentiles. Some ofthese were attracted to certain elements of

Jewish mysticism, including the mystical ascent of the initiate to theheavenly realms to witness the angehe worship of God himself.66 Arigorous self-discipline which included legal ordinances, food anddrink regulations, and a careful observance ofthe festival calendarand sabbaths was the necessary preparation for such mystical ascent.In line with this the 'flesh' seems to them to have meant the lowerside of human nature, including the body, and by following theirdetailed regulations67 they believed they could strip off" the fleshynature and thereby be in a positon to receive visions. This strippingoff of thefleshis unlikely to have included actual circumcision, but'circumcision' may have been used as a technical term for the


11/21


objects to,69

and the consequent neglect of soteriology.70

The

further dangers of assimilating teaching from parallel visionaryexperiences in pagan religion, of the veneration of angels and otherintermediaries, and the acceptance ofa complete dualism offleshandspirit, are not yet present in Colossians, but could so easilydevelopfrom it At this stage the principalities and powers are not regarded asevil cosmic powers but as part of the divine retinue around theheavenlythrone,

71who are witnessed at worship by the visionary,

72

and who according to Paul attended Christ in his triumph on the

cross.

73

The 'worldly elements'

74

refer to the simplistic humantradition represented in the rules and regulations accepted to inducesuch visionary ascent. But, as indicated earlier, this is the rawmaterial out ofwhich gnosticism developed, and illustrates 'into howcongenial a soil the seeds of Gnosticism were about to fall'.

75We

have here what seems like an earlystage in a trajectorywhich leadsfrom the interests ofJudaism, through contact with Christianityin aHellenistic environment, to the later gnosticism we have attested in

the Nag Hammadi documents and as opposed by the anti-gnosticFathers.

76

Gnostic exegesisofColossians2.14

In 1958 J. Danilou77 suggested that in the Odes of Solomon and inthe Gospel of Truth we have evidence of a Jewish-Christian exegesis

ofCoL 2.14 in terms of the 'heavenly book\ The idea ofthe 'heavenlytablets' or 'book ofdestiny' in which the destinies of mankind werewritten down in advance in heaven is a very old one. L. Koep78 hasshown that the concept is present in the Old Testament, in extra-canonical Jewish literature, and (sparingly) in Greek literature. TheBook of Words was usually regarded as a catalogue of man's sins, oras a catalogue of both evil and good works in terms of which a manwould be judged. The actual term 'cheirograph' is used of this book

in an anonymous Jewish apocalyptic writing dated in the firstcentury BC.79 Here the book is held by the accusing angel who notesd ll h i f h Th k h h i h b i d


12/21


Christian exegesis ofthe heavenly book applied to Christ himself He

begins with Rev. 5.1-3, where the sealed book is clearly the onecontaining the secret of human destinies. The slain Christ appears asthe


13/21


recalling but not quoting the Revelation passage. The 'letter* here

cannot have the same significance as the sealed scroll of Rev. 5,opened by the Lamb of God, but seems rather to refer to a note ofpassage enabling the visionary to ascend unhindered to the heavenlydaces. Many aspire to have this letter,88 but only the elect have thewisdom to understand.89 The link with Revelation is more with theMerkabah character ofthat book,90 but without the historical linksand setting of Revelation, and without its firm grounding of theevents of salvation in the death of Christ on the cross. To our reading

there is no obvious connection with CoL 2.14.The Gospel of Truth is a much more overtly Christian work thanthe Odes of Solomon, although a number of scholars in addition toDanilou have noticed links between the two.91 It is not a gospel inthe traditional sense, since it does not deal with the life and work ofJesus Christ Rather it is a gnostic meditation on the person and workof Christ as the revealer of the Father, who passed on the secret ofself-knowledge. It is by such salvific knowledge that the gnostic

achieves wholeness. The work does not explicitly cite the NewTestament documents, but interprets certain passages in a Christian-gnostic way.92 Ev. Ver. 19.35-21.1 is an example ofthis, with stronglinks with Rev. 5.2-4 and CoL 2.14.

In typical gnostic fashion the author uses words, phrases andconcepts from the New Testament, but uses them in differentcombinations and meanings from those intended by the originalauthors. They are transposed by being used in the service of the

unspoken, but ever present a gnostic dualistic concept of salvation. InEv. Ver. 19.35-21.1 we have again a reference to the heavenly bookwhich no one but Jesus could open. Salvation depends on its beingopened by him. There is a parallel with what we have in Ode 23, butthe Gospel of Truth goes on to link this more directly with the deathof Jesus on the cross. The author draws on the passion tradition, butthe incarnation and death of Jesus are emptied of their ftill-bloodedhumanity. Thus he says of the incarnation, 'Having stripped himself

ofthe perishable rags, he put on imperishability which no one canpossibly take awayfromhim'; and of the death ofJesus, 'He drawshi lf d t d th th h t l lif l th hi ' A th


14/21


the Valentinian system? It would seem that the odd phrase has been

picked out without any regard for the rest of the verse or the widercontextDanilou93 suggests that we have a most important exegesis of

CoL 2.14 in the phrase 'He put on that book; He was nailed to a tree;He published the edict of the Father on the cross'. The verb 'to nail'does not occur in the New Testament in connection with thecrucifixion, but is used by Paul in the active of the nailng of thecheirograph to the cross.94 Also the cross is not referred to as a tree,

except by implication in Gal. 3.13, citing the Deuteronomic law'cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree'. The interpretation of Col2.14 offered by O. Blanchette95 in terms of the cheirograph representing the 'body of Christ' mayfitthe Colossian passage, but is not quitewhat is being said here in the Gospel of Truth. Here Christ 'put onthat book5, but the result ofthe crucifixion is not the forgiveness of allour sins as in Col. 2.14, but the publication of'the edict of the Fatheron the cross' resulting in the release of the initiatefromtheflesh.Itwould seem that Christ is being presented as an archetype of thegnostic, who by unfolding the secret of the book can secure releasefrom thefleshto ascend to the Father. There are links here with theunderlying theme of Ode 23, and, we suggest, with the kind ofthingthat confronted Paul in Colossae. It is not a direct exposition of Col2.14, but use is made of its phrases and concepts in the service of thegnostic myth. The entireframeworkof thought in which this done isa-historical.

It is probable that what we have in the Gospel of Truth is adevelopment from the kind of thing Paul had to deal with inColossians. But even here it is not so extreme as to be condemnedautomatically by Christians. Indeed the Nag Hammadi library wasfound in the environs of a Pachomian monastery, and was probablyused by some of its members. This is why Paul, and later on theheresiarchs, concentrated on the abuses that such views could leadto, such as exclusivism, spiritual pride, and a neglect of normal

ethical standards. Our picture of what is hapenning at Colossae hasbeen confirmed by consideration of the Odes of Solomon and theGospel of Truth We have also helped to bridge the gap between


15/21

YATES Colossians and Gnosis 63

from the prison of the body, and how Christ could come to be

regarded as only one such agent in this process. This stage has not

been reached in Colossians. It is wrong to read it back into the

Colossian situation, although we recognize that the seeds of this

development were already there, soon to germinate and grow in a

congenial soil.

NOTES

1. F. Wisse, 'Prolegomena to the Study ofthe New Testament and

Gnosis', in The NewTestamentandGnosis: Essays in honourofRobertMcLWilson (ed. A.H.B. Logan and A.J.M. Wedderburn; Edinburgh: T. and T.Clark, 1983), pp. 138-45.2. R. McL Wilson, 'Slippery Words: . Gnosis, Gnostic, Gnosticism',

ExpT 89 (1978), pp. 296-301; Gnosis and the New Testament (Oxford:Blackwell, 1968), eh. 1, pp. 1-30. Also J. Munck, 'The NewTestament andGnosticism', in Current Issuesin NewTestamentInterpretation: EssaysinhonourofOtto A. Piper(London: SCM, 1962), pp. 224-38 (esp. p. 224).

3. E. Pagels, The Gnostic Gospeh (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson,

1979), p. 11.4. J. Danilou, The Gospel Message andHellenistic Culture (London:

Darton, Longman and Todd, 1973), pp. 144-52.5. E.M. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism, A Survey ofthe Proposed

Evidences (London: Tyndale, 1973), pp. 143E Also supported by R.McLWilson, "libe Gnostics and the Old Testament', in Proceedings ofthe

International Colloquium on Gnosticism. Stockholm, August 20-25, 1973(Almqvist and Wiksell: Stockholm, and Brill Leiden, 1977), pp. 164-68.

6. R.McL Wilson, The Gnostic Problem (London: Mowbray, 1958),p. 178.7. K. Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature andHistory ofan Ancient Religion

(E.T.: Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1983), p. 282. N. Dahl, 'The ArrogantArchon and the Lewd Sophia: Jewish Traditions in Gnostic Revolt', in The

Rediscovery ofGnosticism, Proceedings ofthe Conference at Yale, March1978, II S.HR. 41.2 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), pp. 689-712, also shows that thegnostic claim ofan arrogant demiurge isonly understandable as a protestwithin Judaism.

8. A.F. Segal, Two Powers inHeaven: Early Rabbinic Reports aboutChristianity andGnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1977); summaries on pp. 148fF.and pp 260ff


16/21


1972); also H.E.W. Turner, The Pattern of Christian Truth (London:Mowbray, 1954), who offers a careful criticism of Bauer on pp. 39-80.

11. 1 Cor. 8.1-3.12. 1 Cor. 10.23.13. 1 Cor. 10.23-31.14. 1 Cor. 15.29-32.15. 1 Cor. 12.3; 14.2-19.16. 1 Cor. 11.17-34; 10.1617. 1 Cor. 12.3.18. W. Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth (first German edition, 1956;

E.T.: New York: Abingdon, 1971).19. 1 Cor. 4.14ff; 15.44ff.20. W. Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics (first German edition, 1966;

E.T.: New York: Abingdon, 1972).21. This is regarded as afragmentof a letter to Ephesus.22. J.M. Robinson, 'The Nag Hammadi Library and the Study of the New

Testament', in The New Testment and Gnosis: Essays in honour of RobertMcL Wilson, p. 2.

23. J. Munck, "The New Testament and Gnosticism', in Current Issues in

New Testament Interpretation: Essays in honour of Otto A. Piper (ed W.Klassen and G.F. Snyder, London, SCM, 1962), p. 230.24. Wilson, Gnosis and the New Testament, p. 55.25. R.MdL Wilson, 'Gnosis at Corinth', in Paul andPaulinism: Essays in

honour of CK. Barrett (ed MD. Hooker and S.G. Wilson; London: SPCK,1982), p. 111.26. Thus F. Wisse, 'The "Opponents" in the New Testament in Light of

the Nag Hammadi Writings', in Colloque international sur les textes de NagHammadi, Qubec, 22-25 aot 1978, B. Bare; Qubec, Louvain, 1981),

pp. 99-120, holds that evidence of opponents in the New Testament isinsufficient to characterize them as gnostics. He cites the optimisticenthusiasm, the denial of the resurrection, libertinism and docetism, andesoteric teaching concluding that none of these can be described as typicallygnostic.27. 1 Tim. 6.20.28. 1 Tim 1.4; Tit 3.9; and Tit 1.14, which hints that these myths are of

Jewish origin.29. 1 Tim. 4.3.

30. 2 Tim. 2.18.31. Ijn4.2.


17/21


36. Rev. 2.10-15. CK. Barrett, 'Gnosis and the Apocalypse of John', inGnosis andthe New Testament, p. 129, connects those who profess to know

'the deep things of Satan' and the sect known as the Ophites.37. R.McL Wilson, The Gnostic Problem, p. 84.38. Quoted by R-McL. Wilson, 'Gnosis at Corinth', in Paul and Paulinism,

p. 112.39. J.J. Gnther, St. Paul's Opponents and Their Background: A Study of

Apocalyptic andJewish Sectarian Teachings (Leiden: Brill, 1973), pp. 340. J.B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon

(London; Macmillan, 2nd edn, 1876), pp. 73-113.41. T.K. Abbott, Epistles to the Ephesiam and the Colossiam (^:

T. and T.Clark, 1897), p. xlix; A.S. Peake, 'The Epistle to the Colossians', inThe Expositor'sGreekTestament(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1903),m,pp.484S

42. G. Bornkamm, 'Die Hresis des Kolosserbriefes', in Das Ende desGesetzes (Munich, 1958), p. 150; W. Schmithals, 'The Corpus Paulinum andGnosis', in Gnosis and the New Testament, pp. 107-24.43. E. Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser und Epheserbriefes (Lund: Gleenip

1946), pp. 176; C.F.D. Moule, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon

(Cambridge: CUP, 1957), p. 33.44. E. Lohse, Colossians andPhilemon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971),pp. 127-31; R.P. Martin, Colosians: The Church's Lord and the Christian'sLiberty (Exeter. Paternoster, 1972), pp. 4-20; Colossians and Philemon(London; Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1973), pp. 8-19.45. CoL 2.16.46. CoL 2.21.47. CoL 2.21.48. CoL 2.23; cf 2.18.

49. CoL 2.18.50. CoL 2.23.51. CoL 1.16; 2.15.52. CoL 2.8; 2.10.53. CoL 2.18.54. CoL 1.19; 2.9.55. CoL 2.8.56. Col. 2.8.57. CoL 2.22.58. W. Schmithals,


18/21

66 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 27 (1986)

62. CoL2.1; 2.18.63. CoL 1.13; 1.16b; 1.18c; 2.8; 2.10; 2.15; 2.18f

64. MD. Hooker, 'Were there False Teachers in Colossae?', in ChristandSpiritin the New Testament: Essays in honourof Charles Francis DigbyMoule (ed . Lindars and S.S. Smalley; Cambridge: CUP, 1973), pp. 315-31.

65. Antiochi the Great had some two thousand Jewish faniilies settled inLydia and Phrygia around the year 200 BC. See F.F. Bruce, 'ColossianProblems. Part I: Jews and Christians in the Lycus Valley', BibSac 141(1984), pp. 3-15; The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon and to theEphesians(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), pp. 8-13.

66. R. Yates, 'The Worship ofAngels (CoL 2.18)', ExpT (forthcoming).67. There is no reference to the Mosaic law in Colossians. It is therefore

unlikelythat either circumcision or the keeping of the Jewish law was beingforced onto them.68. 2 Cor. 12.1-10.69. Col. 2.18 'being vainlyconceited by his sensual outiook\70. Note the emphasis on the cross: Col. 1.20; 2.14f.71. Col. 1.16.

72. Col. 2.18.73. CoL 2.15.

74. Col. 2.8; 2.10.75. R. Law, The Testsof Life (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1909), p. 28.76. Our suggestion is supported by A.T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not

Yet(Cambridge: CUP, 1981), pp. 110-18; C.A. Evans, 'The ColossianMystics', Bib 63 (1982), pp. 188-205; F.F. Bruce, Commentary, pp. 23-26.

77. J. Danilou, A History of Early Christian Doctrine: I. The Theology ofJewish Christianity (French edn, 1958; E.T.: London: Darton, Longman and

Todd, 1964), pp. 192-204 on 'The Heavenly Boole.78. L. Koep, Das himmlische Buch in Antike undChristentum (Bonn:Hanstein, 1952), pp. 15ff., 55ff. Also see Danilou, op. cit., pp. 193ff., andStrack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, , p. 628.79. SeeG. Steindor DieApocalypse der Elias, eine unbekannte Apocalypse,

und Bruchstcke der Sophonias Apocalypse, pp. 18 ff.80. Op. cit., pp. 199-204.81. Ulis pseudepigraphical work contains forty-two hymns of the same

character as the canonical Psalms. There are diverse theories about its

origin, from Jewish, Jewish-Christian, and Gnostic sources. It is possiblethey were written in Syria in the second century. An English translation is


19/21


5. And His thought was like a letter,And His will descendedfromon high;

6. And it was sent like an arrowWhich is violently shotfromthe bow;

7. And many hands rushed to the letterTo seize it and to take it and read iL

8. And it escapedfromtheir fingers,And they were affrighted at it and the seal that was on it

9. For it was not permittedforthem to loose the seal;For the power that was over the seal was greater than they.

10. But those who saw it went after the letter,That they might know where it would alight,

And who should read it,And who should hear it

A more recent translation has been made by J.H. Charlesworth, The Odes of

Solomon (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977).

82. J. Labourt and P. Batiffol, Odes de Salomon (Paris: Lecoffie, 1911),pp. 81-85.

83. Text in J.M. Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library in English (Leiden:Brill, 1977), p. 39. The connection between the Gospel of Truth and Col

2.14 was noticed by W.C. van Unnik in The Jung Codex (ed. F.L. Cross;London: Mowbrays, 1955), pp. 108f.

84. Op. cit., pp. 336-40.

85. K. Rudolph, Gnosis, p. 327; also Yamauchi, op. cit., pp. 84ff. On theorigin of the Christian community at Edessa see Bauer, op. cit., pp. 1-43, andH. Koester, 'GNOMAIDIAPHOROI: The Origin and Nature of Diversifica

tion in the History of Early Christianity', in J.M. Robinson and H. Koester,Trajectories Through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971),pp. 114-57, esp. 123-46. Other writings associated with this region are the

apocryphal Acts of Thomas (with the gnostic Song of the Pearl), The Gospelof Thomas, and the words of Bardaisan.

86. Op. cit., pp. 30-33.

87. J.H. Charlesworth, op. cit., p. 95 n. 8, detects links with the QumranLiturgical Fragment published by J. Strugnell, "The Angelic Liturgy at

Qumran: 4Q Serek Sirot Olat Hassaggat', VTS 7(I960), pp. 318-45. Also cf.Harris, op. cit., p. 340, who suggests that the wheel could stand for an angelicbeing.88. Odes of Solomon 23.7f.

89. Odes of Solomon 23.2f.90. See C. Rowland, The Open Heaven (London: SPCK, 1982), pp. 414-


20/21


This is now challenged by RMcL. Wilson, op cit., pp. 89, and K. Rudolph,

op. cit., p. 319, who prefer to speak in terms of a document which has

affinities with the Valentinian school

93. Danilou, op. cit., pp. 203f.

94. W.C. van Unnik, op. cit., pp. HOf.

95. O. Bianchetti 'Does the Cheirograph of CoL 2.14 Represent Christ

Himself?', CBQ 23 (1961), pp. 306-12. Also see A.J. Bandstra, The Law and

the Elements of the World (Kampen: Kok, 1964), pp. 158ft; H. Weiss, 'The

Law in the Epistle to the Colossians', CBQ 34 (1972), pp. 294-314.

the biblical seminar-

Mark Kiley

COLOSSIANS ASPSEUDBPIGRAPHY

This study will appeal to those interestedin the relationship between the letter toColossians from Paul the Apostle* andthe Greco-Roman culture which produced letters purporting to be by

someone other than their actual author.The study performs a unique serviceamong monographs on Colossians bydocumenting methods used in the writing of such letters.

While providing a fresh and comprehensive ranking of the arguments thathave been advanced against Colossians'authenticity, the study suggests anentirely new criterion for distinguishing

Paul from his imitators, namely hisconcern for thefinancingof bis mission.It also suggests for the first time thatColossians' author uses both of Paul'sknown genuine prison letters as models.

A unique appendix of Graeco-Romanletters discussing missionfinancescontributes towardfirmlyfixingPaul himselfin his cultural context

Mark Kiley received the PhD in NewTestament and Christian Origin fromHarvard University. He is currendyAssistant Professor of Religious Studiesat the University of St Jerome's College.Waterloo. Ontario.

pa 7.95/$11.95

ISBN 1 85075 024 6Pbk

The Biblical Seminar, 4 C.240PP


21/21

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Documents

Colossians and Gnosis