In its vision of Christ, his body, the church, and the mystery of God hidden for centuries, Colossians is truly majestic, and certainly a worthy representative of the Pauline legacy. This assessment should not be forgotten in the midst of the great scholarly debate over whether or not the letter was written by Paul himself, an issue that has cast a long shadow over the discussions concerning Col.

1. The Background

   An important trade route through the Phrygian Mountains connected Ephesus on the western coast of Asia Minor with Iconium and Tarsus in the southeast. About 110 miles from Ephesus, along this route, in a volcanic section of the Phrygian region of the earthquake-prone province of Asia, is the valley of the Lycus River. On the bank of the river was Laodicea, an important commercial and textile center. From there, one could take a side road north for about six miles and arrive at Hierapolis, famous for its medicinal hot springs, a temple of Apollo, and purple dye. Or one can continue the main road for 11 miles to the SE and arrive at Colossae, also a textile center known for its purple wool products. In Roman times, Laodicea had become the most important and Colossae the least important of these three cities, arranged roughly in a triangle. Their population must have been largely Phrygian and Greek, but Jewish families from Babylon had resettled there just after 200 BC. At the time of Paul, the Jewish population of the Laodicea area appeared to number over 10,000 and (according to a late Talmudic reference) was quite Hellenized.

   Clearly, the churches in the three cities had a close relationship. Paul mentions Epaphras, who worked extensively in all three (Col 4:12-13); he asks that the letter to the Colossians be read in the church in Laodicea, and that the Colossians read "the one from Laodicea" (4:16; see also 2:1). The personal references in 4:7-17 are understandable if the Christian community in Colossae was a small, close-knit group whose members knew each other largely by name. This region had not been evangelized by Paul and had never seen his face (Col 2:1). Yet, since Paul feels free to instruct the Colossians and addresses them (and those in Laodicea) with a sense of pastoral responsibility (1:9, 24; 2:1-2), and since they are interested in what is happening to him (4:7, 9), it is likely that a Pauline mission proclaimed Christ in the Lycus Valley, perhaps sent when Paul was in Ephesus in the year 54-57. Acts 19:10 records that during the years Paul was there, "all the inhabitants of [the province] of Asia heard the word of the Lord." The fact that Epaphras, a Gentile and one of their own who had taught them the truth, was now with Paul (Col 1:6-7; 4:12-13) confirms the intermediate link between Paul and their evangelism.

   Paul is imprisoned (4: 3.10), and therefore communicates with Colossae through this letter that Tychicus carries, accompanied by Onesimus (4: 7-9). Thus, although absent in the flesh, he can be with them in spirit (2: 5).

2. General Analysis of the Message
   1. Opening Formula: 1: 1-2

      The opening formula mentions Timothy as co-sender, as in Philippians and Philemon (which contributes to the tendency to attach Col to these letters as "Letters from Captivity" or "Letters from Prison").

   2. Thanksgiving: 1: 3-8

      Paul shows that he has learned about the situation in Colossae through Epaphras and that he is pleased about it, writing words of encouragement. The impression is that the recipients, in Paul's judgment, have received the gospel and that it is bearing fruit among them.

   3. Body:
      1. 1: 9 - 2: 23: Pauline indicative (instructions)

         Paul moves smoothly into this section by explaining that he wants to deepen the sense of complete knowledge by appealing to what they know of Christ in whom it has pleased all the fullness of God to dwell. He does this by means of a famous Christological hymn (1:15-20) to which a special subsection will be devoted. Paul wants the Colossians to fully understand Christ as the mystery of God in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (2:2-3). The reason for this insistence is the danger presented by false teaching (2:8-23) which threatens the Christians in the Lycus valley who, by implication, were pagans. The gospel, "the word of truth" (1:5), implicitly opposes this teaching. The Colossians have already acquired a profound knowledge by being initiated into God's plan for all in Christ (2:3). No element of the universe has power over the Colossians, for Christians have been delivered from the power of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of God's beloved Son (1:13). Indeed, all principalities and powers were created by the Son of God, and all things, both on earth and in heaven, were reconciled through him; he is pre-eminent over all (1:16,18,20). Believers in him need not worry about food or drink (2:16), for Christ, by his death, will present them holy and without blemish before God (1:22). The feasts, the new moon and the Sabbath are only shadows of things to come; the substance belongs to Christ (2:17).

      2. 3: 1 - 4: 6: Pauline imperative (paraenesis and exhortations)

         In this section, Paul's message moves from Christology to how Christians should live. It is not clear that his commands are directly influenced by the reaction to false teachers. Indirectly, the author may be telling the Colossians that this is what they should pay attention to rather than listening to the specious arguments of the teachers. Having been raised with Christ, they should think about what is above, for when Christ appears, they will appear with him in glory (3:1-4). Col first gives two lists of five vices to be avoided, then a list of five virtues to be displayed by those who have put on a new self in Christ (3:5-17). Finally, in a household instruction, which will receive special attention in a subsection below, the author addresses more specifically the various members of the Christian household (wives, husbands, children, slaves, masters), showing how the mystery of God revealed in Christ affects all aspects of daily life (3:18 - 4:2). In a list similar to Gal 3:28, Col 3:11 gives us a list where all are equal in Christ, a list that embodies the social inequalities of a patriarchal structure.

   4. Greetings and Concluding Formula: 4: 7-18

      The greetings and the concluding formula mention eight of the ten persons referred to in Philemon. This parallelism is very important for the discussion of the author and setting of Col.

3. The Christological Hymn (1: 15-20)

   15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
   16 for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers - all things have been created through him and for him.
   17 He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
   18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything.
   19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
   20 and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.

   • Most believe that the author of the letter was using an already existing Christian hymn, familiar to the Colossians and perhaps to the entire region evangelized from Ephesus. Finding useful ideas in the hymn to correct false teaching, the author of Colossians made them clearer with minor additions.

   • The structure of the hymn is debated. Leaving aside suggestions to rearrange the lines for perfect balance, proposed divisions of existing lines include:
     1. three strophes (v. 15-16: creation; 17-18a: preservation; 18b-20: redemption);
     2. two strophes of unequal length (15-18a: creation; 18b-20: reconciliation);
     3. two strophes of approximately equal length (15-16 and 18b-20), separated by a refrain (17-18a, sometimes thought to correspond to the preface of the hymn in 13-14).

     Although the divisions differ in their treatment of 17-18a, they all recognize that in this hymn to God's beloved Son, the most visible parallelism is between the descriptions of 15-16a, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created" and 18b-19, "He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead...for in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwel.

   • What is the significance of Christology centered on the parallelism of the firstborn? If Jesus was raised from the dead before all others, was he the first to be created? In answering no to this question, many see a reference to the uniqueness of the Son, a firstborn who existed before any creation (as in the hymn in John's Prologue). However, the closest and most commonly accepted background for the description of 1:15-16a is the image of the personified female Wisdom in the OT, the image of God's goodness (Wis 7:26) who worked with God to establish all other things (Prov 3:19) - this Wisdom was created by God in the beginning (Prov 8:22; Sirach 24:9).

   • In addition to Wisdom personified, other contexts have been suggested for the hymn.
     1. Some see it as a pre-Christian text dealing with the Gnostic myth of the redeemer: a primitive man who enters the sphere of death to bring out those who belong to him. (Yet "the beginning of God's creation" and "the firstborn from the dead" are Christian terms in Rev 3:14 and 1:5.)

     2. Others, building on the "reconciliation" theme in Col 1:20a, understand the hymn against the backdrop of the Jewish Day of Atonement, when the Creator is reconciled to God's people. (Is there any evidence that Jews of this period emphasized the creation motif in observing Yom Kippur?)

     3. In the same direction, still others find echoes of the Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah) in 1:20.

     What can be said is that while some of the language of the hymn echoes Hellenistic Jewish descriptions of Wisdom, it also has parallels in Platonic, Hermetic and Philonic terminology. Therefore, it is expected that his Christology is formulated in a language that is not far removed from theirs.

   • The hymn's emphasis on the fact that all things were created in the Son of God (1:16) emphasizes the superiority of Christ over principalities and powers. Special attention was also given to the whole "fullness" in 1:19: "For it pleased God to make all the fullness dwell in him. In Valentinian Gnosticism of the 2nd century, the fullness was that of the emanations that came out of God, but not God who was above all of them. The Hermetic corpus could speak of God as the fullness of good, and of the world as a fullness of evil. But neither of these is what is meant by Colossians where 2:9 ("For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily") interprets 1:19. By divine election, God in all his fullness dwells in Christ. Therefore, through him, all things can be reconciled to God (1:20a).

4. The False Teaching (2:8-23)

   The dangerous teaching in Colossae must be reconstructed from the hostile polemic of the letter against it, which makes it difficult to evaluate the tone and content of this teaching.

   1. As far as tone is concerned, it is clear that the situation in Colossae is not like that reported in Galatians, where foolish Galatians were won over in large numbers to another gospel. Nor is it like Philippi, where, even though the community was healthy, Paul was harshly polemical (Phil 3:2: "Beware of dogs; beware of wicked men; beware of mutilation [i.e. circumcision]"). In fact, we cannot be sure that the Christians in Colossae were even aware of their peril; and some of the descriptions could be purely potential (e.g., Col 2:8: "See that no one ensnares you"). However, it is more likely that those who would attack the Colossians were already present as a minority. We cannot know whether or not they were members of the church in Colossae.

   2. In terms of content, we can begin by noting that the cities of the Lycus River valley constituted a region where religious practices reflected a mixture of indigenous Phrygian cults, Eastern imports (Isis, Mithra), Greco-Roman deities and Judaism with its emphasis on a single God. In the description of the teaching that threatened the Colossian Christians, elements that seem to be linked to Judaism are described; for Col 2:11 emphasizes a circumcision that is not done by hand, a circumcision of Christ implicitly opposed to the need for physical circumcision. In addition (2:16), some would judge the Colossian Christians on matters of food and drink (dedicated to idols?) and on the observance of a feast, new moon or sabbaths (Jewish calendar observances?). Nevertheless, assuming that the letter to the Colossians envisions a single false teaching rather than a multitude of totally distinct false ones, the text seems to require something more complex than an attempt to get the Christian Gentiles in Colossae to observe the Mosaic law for salvation. Paul does not offer arguments from the Old Testament to refute them, nor does he explicitly link these observances to Judaism.

      In 2:8, Paul would like the recipients to beware of being seduced by an empty and deceptive "philosophy" that conforms to human tradition. He could be referring to the thinking of a Greek philosopher, or to the mystery religions, which were also called philosophies. Yet this designation does not necessarily exclude a Jewish element, since Josephus (War 2.8.2; #119; Ant. 18.1.2; #11) describes the positions of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes as philosophies, and Mark 7:8 sees Jesus condemning the Pharisees for rejecting God's command in favor of their human tradition.

      Col 2:8 then describes error as focusing on the "elements/forces" of the world/universe. In Greek philosophy, these may be the elements that constitute everything (earth, fire, water, air); but in Hellenistic times, the term also referred to the cosmic rulers or spirits that dominated the world, including the heavenly bodies that astrologically controlled human affairs. Col's hostile references to "principalities" and "powers" (2:15), to the abasement and "worship of angels" (2:18) are along these lines. Could the question of the feast, the new moon and the Sabbath be involved in this worship? Col 2:23 denigrates bodily severity. Could the extremes of asceticism be in mind in reference to "food and drink" (2:16) rather than food devoted to idols - an asceticism that manifests obedience to elemental spirits, principalities and powers?

      Combining these elements, many would describe the false teachers of Colossae as Judeo-Christian syncretists who fused Jewish, Christian and pagan elements into their philosophy: a "self-devised religion". Angels were associated with the stars and worshipped on festivals, the new moon, and the Sabbath, almost as deities who governed the universe and human life - elements of a cosmic pattern for people to follow in life. (As "sons of God" in the celestial court, angels could be understood as similar to the deities of the Greco-Roman pantheon.) This syncretism could incorporate believers in Christ under the proviso that they rated him as subordinate to the angelic principalities and powers. After all, Christ was flesh while the principalities are spirit.

      Two other factors are sometimes detected in teaching.

      1. First, some would characterize the teaching rejected by the letter to the Colossians as Gnosticism because of the references to visions, to being inflated by the bodily mind, to the gratification of the flesh (2:18.21-23), and to elemental spirits if they are understood as emanations from God. Yet there is no direct reference to "knowledge" in the teachers' critique. It is true that in Col's positive presentation of Christ there are frequent references to "knowledge", "understanding", "wisdom" (1:9-10.28; 2:2-3; 3:10, 16; 4:5) and "fullness", and this could be seen as an implicit criticism of the use of the same language by false teachers. Unfortunately, the information we have on nascent Gnosticism in the first century is very limited (as opposed to a more detailed knowledge of the Gnostic systems developed in the second century), so that to identify the teaching as Gnostic because of the vague characteristics just mentioned is to elucidate the unknown with the less known, and this does not significantly increase our picture of the situation in Colossae.

      2. Second, in its positive sections, Colossians speaks of the divine mystery hidden from past ages but now revealed in Christ - the knowledge of which was shared with the Colossians (1:26-27; 2:2-3; 4:3). Some would see in this an implicit criticism of false teachers as followers of a mystery religion. One could cite nearby Hierapolis as a center of worship of Cybele, the great Anatolian mother goddess, and the possible use of the obscure word embateuein ("to enter into") with "visions" in 2:18 to refer to initiation into the enacted rites of a mystery religion. It is possible that the false teachers had ties to mystery religions or used the language of mystery religions. However, Paul's own use of the term "mystery" comes from apocalyptic Judaism and is certainly not dependent on his having been exposed to mystery religions.

   If these observations leave a picture filled with uncertainties, it is an honest estimate of the state of our knowledge of the situation. At this distance in time and space, we may not be able to decipher all the elements that went into the syncretism attacked at Col or to identify the final product with any precision. We must be content with what is probable: the opponents had combined belief in Christ with Jewish and pagan ideas to fashion a hierarchical system of heavenly beings in which Christ was subordinate to angelic powers to whom worship was due.

5. Household Code (3:18-4:1)

   This is the first of the five NT lists of rules for members of the Christian household that we will encounter, and perhaps the oldest. Both in the wisdom literature of the OT and in the ethical discussions of Greek philosophers, the behavior of household members toward one another was discussed. Specifically, popular philosophers developed detailed catalogs of ethical responsibilities toward governing authorities, parents, siblings, husbands, wives, children, other relatives, and clients. In maturing Christian communities, believers needed guidance so that outsiders could see the effect of faith in Christ on their lives and recognize them as beneficial members of society. This need was perhaps most pressing when and where the majority of Christians were Gentiles who had not been raised with a knowledge of the Jewish law.

   There is little doubt, therefore, that both in form and content the household codes of the NT were influenced by the ethical lists of the society of the time. But now there was a new motivation: "In the Lord" (Col 3:18.20; also "Lord" 3:22.24; "Master in heaven" 4:1), a Christ who is above all principality and power. These are rules for households under Christ's lordship - "Serve the Lord Christ" is said to slaves in 3:24 but could be said to all. This principle determines which ethical admonitions will be emphasized and sets the tone - and eliminates any contradiction with 2:20-22, which warns the Colossians against rules that are according to human precepts and doctrines. This is illustrated by the fact that the first part of each of the three pairs (3:18-19: wives/husbands; 3:20-21: children/fathers; 3:22-4:1: slaves/masters) is an invitation to submission and obedience, with submission to Christ's lordship being translated into specific subjection within the community. The second part of each pair, the one to whom submission is due, must exemplify the characteristics of the Lord who is above all: love, absence of anger, justice. The fact that the slaves receive four verses of instruction and the masters only one may reflect the social status of Christians: many slaves, few rich masters. (The relationship of Col. to Phlm, a letter that deals with the slave/master relationship, also comes into play.)

   How should Christian readers in later eras evaluate these ethical instructions formulated as advice to 1st century families?

   1. A first approach is to discuss the question at the internal biblical level. There are texts in the undisputed Pauline letters that recognize baptismal equality for all Christians with regard to salvific benefits (Gal 3:27-29; 1 Cor 12:13 - cf. also Col 3:10-11). In citing these letters, some suggest that the domestic codes of later NT writings are a corruption reflecting an increasingly authoritarian patriarchal ecclesiastical order. While pointing to passages in the earlier Pauline letters that make women subordinate to men (e.g., 1 Cor 14:34-36), others respond that the later writings are just as canonical and authoritative as the undisputed Pauline writings. Recognizing this, still others point out that not all NT writings develop the gospel implications of equal salvific benefits with equal depth, and that the tensions between the texts must be carefully explored without rejecting any of them.

   2. The second approach, which is not exclusive of the first, is to discuss the question at the hermeneutical level of the translation of culturally conditioned NT texts in the lives of people today.
      1. One view on the present subject treats the codes as a virtually Christian law to be obeyed as the eternal will of God. This view allows for a spectrum in which some laws are considered more important than others; but a fundamental question remains: does this view not canonize a particular first-century social arrangement, even though the NT presents it as being "in the Lord"?

      2. The other fundamental viewpoint gives priority to our contemporary social experience in evaluating codes. Again, there is a range of ways in which interpreters seek out the value inculcated in a 1st century context and seek to translate it into modern social relations. Some reinterpret the codes to mean that women owe their deserving husbands respect, not submission. Others, more radical, argue that gospel values may require that guidelines be reworded to say the opposite. Modern slaves (of an economic or political system) should not be asked to obey or be submissive, but to revolt and overthrow their oppressive masters. Because of the inequalities imposed on women for centuries, wives should be told to speak out and sometimes fight against their husbands. This point of view also raises a fundamental question: does it not reduce the biblical text to an interesting piece of ancient information? In seeking a way between this Scylla and Charybdis, reference can be made to the discussion of biblical authority we had earlier, for an answer will explicitly or implicitly reflect the position taken with regard to the inspiration, revelation, and teaching of the church - and the Christian love that is given. The fact that few would change the directive given to the children serves as a warning that one attitude toward home directives may not be appropriate for all couples mentioned.

6. Did Paul Write Colossians?

   Until now, the one addressing the Colossians has been referred to as "Paul" because that is how the letter presents him. Moreover, much of the vocabulary, style and theology of Colossians is typically Pauline; and if the name "Paul" did not appear in 1:1.23; 4:18.23, the letter would surely still be placed in a Pauline mood. It was not until 1805, and then systematically from the late 1830s, that the Pauline writing of Col was challenged. As with 2 Thess, Col offers a good opportunity to evaluate the type of reasoning proposed. At present, about 60 percent of critical scholarship holds that Paul did not write the letter.

   At the outset, it should be noted that the discussion is complicated by two very different conceptions of pseudonymity in relation to Col. Some scholars think it was written by someone close to Paul during his lifetime or shortly after his death, perhaps with an idea of what Paul himself wanted to write. Others think of a situation several decades later, where someone from the Pauline heritage takes up the apostle's mantle and speaks of a situation that has just developed. So, in addition to asking whether it is likely that someone other than Paul wrote the letter, one must also decide which of the two pseudonymity scenarios is more plausible.

   1. Vocabulary

      Col uses 87 words that do not appear in the undisputed Pauline letters (34 of which do not appear anywhere else in the NT). Yet Phil, actually written by Paul and of comparable length, uses 79 words that do not appear in the other undisputed Pauline letters (36 of which appear nowhere else in the NT). Thus, the percentages of unusual words prove nothing; and even if they were much higher in Col, this would not be decisive because the author could draw on the false teaching present in Col for some of his distinctive terms. Another vocabulary objection to Pauline writing is the absence in Col of favorite Pauline terms: "righteousness/justification," "believing," "law," "freedom," "promise," "salvation." Again, this statistic becomes less impressive when one realizes that "justify" is not found in 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, and 2 Corinthians; nor is "law" in 1 Thessalonians and 2 Corinthians; nor is "save/salvation" in Galatians. Once again, Col's vocabulary may have been shaped by the problem at hand.

   2. Style

      There are extraordinarily long sentences in Col, linked together by participles and relative pronouns (sometimes not apparent in translations that separate sentences), e.g., 1:3-8; 2:8-15. It is true that there are long sentences in the undisputed Pauline letters (e.g., Rom 1:1-7), but Col's style is marked by pleonastic synonyms, the piling up of words that convey the same idea. His "liturgical hymnal style" has similar characteristics to the hymns of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Can such differences be reconciled with the fact that Paul wrote Col? Assuming that Paul did not personally evangelize in Colossae, was he careful to send a message in a style influenced by the hymns and liturgical confessions known there, so that his correction of the teaching would not seem foreign? Did he employ a scribe who knew Colossae (Epaphras or a scribe influenced by him?) and rely on his cooperation for appropriate wording? This might explain in part why so many of the minor particles, adverbs and linking words common to authentic Pauline style are absent from Col. Yet, since the differences in style extend to the formulation of key arguments, many scholars would say that no explanation based on the role of a scribe can account for Col.

   3. Theology

      The highly developed Christology, ecclesiology and eschatology found in Colossians became the main argument against the author Paul.

      1. Christologically, the characteristic Pauline assessment of Christ's death/resurrection as the source of justification is absent from Col, although in him we have redemptive forgiveness of sins (1:14) and, through the blood of his cross, peace and reconciliation (1:20). The shift of emphasis to creation through Christ and his pre-eminence is undoubtedly shaped by a desire to respond to false doctrine, but is it reconcilable with the thinking of the historical Paul? Those, who argue that it is, quote 1 Corinthians 8:6: "Now for us there is... one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and by whom we are." At the other end of the Christological spectrum, Col 1:24 would have Paul say, "I rejoice in (my) sufferings for your sake, and I make up in my flesh what is lacking in Christ's sufferings for his body, that is, for the Church." Although in none of the undisputed letters is Paul so specific about the vicarious value of his sufferings, would this not be explicable if Col was written towards the end of his life, after he had had even more opportunities to bear the cross?

      2. Ecclesiologically, in the undisputed Pauline letters, the term "church" most often refers to the local Christian community, such as "the churches in Galatia" and "the church of God in Corinth", with only a few examples of a more universal usage, such as "the church" (Gal 1:13; 1 Cor 12:28; 15:9). Local usage still appears in the greetings of Col (4:15-16), but in 1:18.24 the Lord exercises his authority over the whole world as head of his body, the church. Thus, the Church affects even the heavenly powers. In 1 Corinthians 12:12 - 14:27 (see also 6:13-15; 10:16-17; Romans 12:4-5), Paul speaks of the risen body of Christ of which every Christian is a member, just as the various parts of the physical body, including the head, are members of the physical body. Yet he never used the image of the church as the body of Christ or of Christ as the head - a major theme in Col (and Eph). One gets the impression from reading Col that the church is part of the supreme achievement of Christ and the goal of Paul's own work (1:24). Can such a developed ecclesiology be attributed to Paul's lifetime?

      3. Eschatologically, the present status of the Christian is greatly exalted - in other words, realized eschatology seems to dominate future eschatology. Christians are already in the kingdom of God's beloved Son (1:13). Through baptism they are raised with Christ (2:12; 3:1), something that is never said in Paul's undisputed writings and that, according to some scholars, he never said. It is true that the historical Paul who wrote Phil 3:11-12.20-21 would not say that Christians are so fully glorified that they do not need to be raptured in a future bodily resurrection to meet the risen Christ; but Col 3:4, which refers to the final coming of Christ and the future glorification of Christians, shows that the author of Col does not advocate such a fully realized eschatology. Once this misunderstanding is cleared up, is being "raised with Christ" so far from the authentic Pauline thought that all have died in Christ, but that the risen Christ now lives in Christians?

         The point made at the end of the last paragraph is important in assessing the theological arguments against Paul's writing of Col. Many scholars work almost with a dialectic of thesis and antithesis. They are sure of the clarity of Paul's thinking, which flows from the revelation he received, and they can judge with certainty what would be contrary to it. Others evaluate Paul's revelation of God's benevolence in Christ as offering a general theological orientation that was shaped and found articulation in the situations he encountered. Comparing Gal and Rom, they can see a remarkable modification and maturation of expression, influenced by the pastoral focus of Rom. The claim that Paul could not have had the christological, ecclesiological and eschatological views put forward in Col is exaggerated. Yet, in itself, the theological argument strengthens the case against Paul's writing of Colossians.

   4. False Teaching

      Some biblical scholars have disavowed Paul as the author of Col because the heresy described there was second century. This is obviously an exaggeration; but some scholars would argue that, while a struggle against the Judaizers makes sense during Paul's lifetime, the struggle against the teaching described in Col (whether gnostic, syncretic or mystery religion) makes more sense later. However, the diagnosis of this teaching involves so much conjecture that any argument for dating it is highly speculative.

   5. Characters And Situation

      An exceptionally solemn image of Paul emerges from his designation in the letter as an apostle by the will of God (1:1), a minister of the Gospel and of the Church according to God's economy (1:23-25). Epaphras is a fellow minister of Christ on behalf of Paul (1:7). Paul's vicarious suffering for the Colossians is emphasized (1:24). Some interpreters would see the author of Colossians idealizing Paul, a figure from the past, as a saint.

      As for the other characters, if the pseudonymity of 2 Thess was favored by the almost total absence of references to stage characters and the local situation, Col gives us these references in abundance and with remarkable similarity to Phlm. Besides Paul himself, ten people are named in Phlm: seven where Paul is imprisoned, and three at the destination. Although not in the same order, eight of these people are mentioned in Col: the same seven where Paul is imprisoned (plus two not mentioned in Phlm: Tychicus and Jesus-Justus), and one of the same people at the destination, Archippus (plus a woman or man named Nympha[s] not mentioned in Phlm). The only two members of Phlm not mentioned in Col are Philemon and (his wife?) Apphia - an understandable absence since Phlm was sent to them to deal with a problem in their home that is not the focus in Col. How do we explain this similarity between the stage characters and the situation? There are two possible solutions:

      1. The two letters were written at about the same time by Paul himself (or on his instructions by a scribe) and were carried to the region of Colossae on the same journey by Tychicus accompanied by Onesimus. This solution is by far the simplest. As we shall see in the next chapter, some will add that Eph, a more general letter composed by Paul and addressed to different churches in the same region, was also included in the mailbag. One objection to the simultaneity posed in this solution is that Onesimus must be defended in Phlm, whereas in Col 4:9 he seems to be an authorized envoy.

      2. Paul wrote Phlm and another author borrowed the stage characters and the situation to compose Col. In this hypothesis, there are two possibilities.
         1. If both letters were read in Colossae, Col may have been written by Timothy at about the time Paul wrote Phlm, perhaps because the rules of Paul's imprisonment had changed in a way that made it impossible for him to communicate later by his own hand or by dictation. Timothy is designated as a co-sender, and he could speak with authority on behalf of Paul who had "no one like him" (Phil 2:20).

         2. However, if Timothy had learned earlier what Paul intended to write in Colossae and formulated it himself, he would in fact be a scribe, which would prevent Col from being considered a pseudonym in the strict sense. The more difficult possibility that Col was written by someone else years after Paul wrote Phlm is discussed in the next subsection.

7. From Where and When?

   The characters involved in the letters to Philemon and the Colossians could not have remained in the same place for very long, and so, in any solution, the composition of Col must remain close to that of Phlm, whether in fact or in fiction. In the following discussion, this principle has been applied: if Col is authentically from Paul's lifetime, it should be dated as late as possible; if it is post-Pauline, it should be dated as early as possible.

   If Col really was written by Paul while he was in prison, the same three proposed places of origin for Philippians can be invoked here (Rome, Ephesus, Caesarea). Most scholars reject the Caesarea site for Col because it is a very unlikely base for an active missionary enterprise directed toward the interior of Asia Minor. Therefore, the choice has generally been Rome and Ephesus, the two candidates for Phlm discussed in chapter 21. For Phlm alone, assuming Philemon lived in the Colossae area, geographical proximity made Ephesus more logical than Rome as the place of the letter's dispatch; and there was nothing in the content to prevent Phlm from being dated to about AD 55. Yet, because Col's theology seems developed and because parallels have been detected between Col and Rom, Rome and a later dating of about 61-63 are favored by most authenticity advocates. (It is obvious that Phlm should then also be attributed to that place and date).

   If Col was not written by Paul and the characters and situation were copied from the actual Pauline letter to Philemon, we have very little internal evidence for the place of origin or date of Col. From the external evidence, it appears that Ignatius (writing about 110) was familiar with the letter to the Ephesians, and so this letter is not normally dated later than 100. Since the author of Eph was probably inspired by Col (rather than the other way around), a date for Col of no later than the 80s seems appropriate. A number of characters mentioned in Col (and Phlm) are associated in the NT with Rome. However, if the truly Pauline Phlm was written from Ephesus (as our ch. 21 favors), Col's dependence on Phlm and the setting of Col's entire Lycus valley, geographically close to Ephesus, make that city the most likely place of origin for a pseudonymous Col.

   If one accepts the existence of a considerable number of Deutero-Pauline letters, the existence of a Pauline school of disciples in Ephesus, which, after Paul's death, continued his legacy into the 80s, is not implausible. However, how could an author of this school have sent a letter to the Christians of the Lycus valley who possessed the letter sent to Philemon twenty-five years earlier? Presumably it would have been important to them if they had known that Col, despite appearances, was not really written by the long-dead Paul. If, therefore, the author wanted to make people forget the pseudonymous character of the letter, he could have presented Col as dating from a distant time, that is, at the same time as Phlm, but only recently found. By addressing the region of Colossae, now in ruins as a result of an earthquake - an area where there was a house-church of which Paul had spoken in Phlm - the author of the Pauline school of the 80s would be draping himself in the mantle of the apostle by borrowing from Phlm the stage characters that constituted Paul's link with the Lycus valley. A false syncretic teaching was now threatening the next generation of Christians, and the writer's intention would have been to remind them of what the Pauline missionaries had told them about Christ and to develop that Christology to refute the new error.

   No assurance is possible, but the arguments as a whole point to the position of the school mentioned in the last paragraph. What is certain is that Col belongs to the Pauline heritage. If this letter is treated in the Deutero-Pauline section of this introduction, it is because that is how most scholars now treat it.

8. Issues and Problems for Reflection
   1. The hymn in the letter to the Colossians professes that Christ Jesus is the image of the invisible God - the Son of God in whom all things were created, in whom all the fullness of God willed to dwell, and through whom all things were reconciled to God. How, in fifty years (at the latest), did Christians come to believe this of a Galilean preacher crucified as a criminal? Like the other NT hymns, Col 1:15-20 offers a challenge to understanding the development of NT Christology. Since most scholars consider the hymns in the Pauline letters to be pre-Pauline or non-Pauline in origin, it is worth noting where the "lofty" Christological statements in these hymns are similar to those in the prose of the uncontested letters, For example, compare Col 1:16 ("All things are created by him and for him") and 1 Cor 8:6 ("For us there is only one God, the Father, from whom all things come and to whom we go, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things exist and through whom we are").

   2. Against the philosophy of the false teachers, Paul describes a Christ who is preeminent, superior to any principality or power. This message was written to a first century Christian community that had been established relatively recently. What does this pre-eminence mean today, when believing Christians are a minority percentage of the world's population and there is little evidence of Christ's superiority over what passes for principalities and powers today?

   3. The question of who composed Col is important, for example, in determining how advanced ecclesiology was during Paul's lifetime. However, whether it was written during Paul's lifetime or afterwards, in a school of Pauline disciples, Col describes the church as the body of Christ and sees the apostle as having suffered for the body of Christ, the church. There are, however, many Christians today who profess a love of Christ but not of the Church, even though the Nicene Creed, after three "We believe" clauses covering the Father, the Son and the Spirit, has a fourth clause that says, "We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church." How does Col respond to this dilemma?

   4. Compare the five household codes in the NT and the differences between them (both in terms of the groups mentioned in one and not in the other, and the tone of the instructions). Are the differences plausibly explicable from the respective social situations of the first-century communities involved?

   5. We can use Col 1:3-14 to reflect on the content and form of prayer in the Pauline tradition. It is a very interesting exercise to compare the beginnings of Paul's letters to see what he prays for.

   6. Col 4:10 identifies Mark as "Barnabas' cousin" and 4:14 describes Luke as "the beloved physician". These identifications are missing in Phlm 1:24. Are we witnessing the emergence of hagiography here? Other NT works say more about Mark and Luke, which is worth analyzing in answer to this question.