Читать книгу Colossians and Philemon - Michael F. Bird - Страница 7

When I open the chapel doors of the Epistle to the Colossians it is as if Johann Sebastian himself sat at the organ.1

The singular loftiness of the mind of Paul, though it may be seen to greater advantage in his other writings which treat of weightier matters, is also attested by this Epistle [to Philemon], in which, while he handles a subject otherwise low and mean, he rises to God with his wonted elevation. Sending back a runaway slave and thief, he supplicates pardon for him. But in pleading this cause, he discourses about Christian forbearance with such ability, that he appears to speak about the interests of the whole Church rather than the private affairs of a single individual. On behalf of a man of the lowest condition, he demeans himself so modestly and humbly, that nowhere else is the meekness of his temper painted in a more lively manner.2

City of Colossae

Colossae was a city in the Lycus Valley located within southwestern Phrygia in the interior of Asia Minor. Colossae was once a densely populated and wealthy city according to Xenophon, a city through which Xerxes and his army passed in 480 BCE.3 The Greek geographer Strabo described Colossae in his time as a polisma, or small city.4 In 133 BCE the last king of Pergamum bequeathed his kingdom to the Romans who later reorganized it as the province of Asia. The Lycus Valley was eventually incorporated into the Roman Empire and remained so for many centuries. By Paul’s time Colossae was dwarfed by the larger cities of Hierapolis and Laodicea also in the Lycus Valley.

There was a sizable Jewish population in the Lycus Valley. Seleucus Nicator (ca. 358–281 BCE), the founder of the Seleucid kingdom encompassing Asia Minor, granted civic rights to the Jews in all the cities that he founded and Antiochus II (ca. 286–46 BCE) planted Jewish colonists in the cities of Ionia.5 Antiochus III (ca. 241–187 BCE) settled some two thousand Jewish families from Babylon and Mesopotamia in the regions of Lydia and Phrygia, and Philo refers to the large population of Jews in every city of Asia Minor.6 Laodicea in particular was a collection point for payment of the temple tax by Jews living in the region, and in 62 BCE the proconsul of Asia Lucius Valerius Flaccus attempted to seize the collection, which, according to Cicero, consisted of twenty pounds of gold.7 If the temple tax was a half shekel or two drachmae, that could represent a collection from Jewish males numbering as many as ten thousand, though a slightly lower figure might be more cautious.8 Like other Anatolian cities, Colossae probably had a substantial Jewish population (possibly between one and two thousand persons) and at least one synagogue or prayer house. A number of Jewish sarcophagi in Hierapolis have been collected together by Walter Ameling, indicating a sizable Jewish presence in the Lycus Valley.9 Hierapolis and Laodicea suffered extensive damage from an earthquake that shook the region in the early 60s CE and we can safely assume that Colossae suffered the same fate. Laodicea was rebuilt using funds from within the city, but we do not know what happened to Colossae or if it survived the earthquake or not.10 There is no evidence of habitation in Colossae after 63–64 CE until coins reappear in the late second century.11

Colossae has never been excavated; however, excavations are planned in a joint project directed by Flinders University (Australia) and Pamukkale University (Turkey).12 We can anxiously await the results since it may significantly alter much of what we claim to know about Judaism, indigenous religions, and Christianity in Colossae. In fact, Colossians commentaries may need to be rewritten in light of the evidence that emerges.

Relationship of Colossians to Ephesians

Colossians stands conceptually between Galatians and Ephesians, while Philemon is probably the closest in style to Philippians. Colossians has a mix of Pauline polemics indicative of Galatians and the lavish language and high Christology of Ephesians. Ephesians and Colossians are similar in many respects as both are said to be delivered by Tychicus (Col 4:7–9; Eph 6:21), they exhibit similar language, theological concerns (e.g., “mystery,” “raised with Christ,” catholic “Church”), and share fifteen words not found elsewhere in other New Testament writings. The literary parallels between Colossians and Ephesians are numerous (see the table below) and have usually led to a literary relationship being posited between the two documents.13 Although some have argued that Colossians depends on Ephesians, the reverse seems far more likely given the use of Old Testament quotations and allusions in Ephesians that is lacking in Colossians. These quotations and allusions are more likely to have been added than subtracted by an author or redactor. There is also a greater focus on the church universal and more attention given to the Holy Spirit in Ephesians, which suggests theological explication of something found in Colossians. These letters are genetically related, but also somewhat independent of one another given the differences in purpose, audience, and even contents, showing how complicated the issue of literary dependency really is.14 The historical circumstances of their common relationship can only be judged once the questions of the authorship and the provenance of Colossians and Philemon are satisfactorily answered.

Ephesians	Colossians	Section
1:1–2	1:1–2	authors and addressees
1:22–23	1:17–19	headship of the Messiah
2:13–18	1:20–22	reconciliation through the cross
4:16	2:19	unity in the body
5:19–20	3:16	Christian worship
5:22–6:9	3:18–4:1	household code
6:19–20	4:3	Paul’s evangelism activities
6:21–22	4:7–8	Tychicus’s commendation

Authorship

Philemon is ordinarily regarded as genuinely Pauline and no new reasons have been adduced to doubt this fact. The style and vocabulary of Philemon, typified by the opening and closing sections, is characteristically Pauline. The overall linguistic variation of the contents also remains well within the diversity attested by the undisputed letters of Paul. Philemon would also seem to be an odd letter for a pseudepigrapher to compose given that it lacks doctrinally polemical content. Thus, we possess every confidence that it was written by Paul. The authorship of Colossians, on the other hand, is (with Second Thessalonians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles) disputed.15 It is proposed by many that Colossians is a pseudonymous letter (but not necessarily an ill-intended forgery) written in Paul’s name by a post-Pauline disciple. It was given the appearance of verisimilitude by fictitiously addressing the letter to an obscure community that Paul did not visit and one that probably ceased to exist after the earthquake of 61–62 CE. This would ensure the unlikelihood of any one being able to falsify its origins, whereas it was really intended as a general admonition for churches in Roman Asia sometime around the 70–80s.16

There are a number of legitimate reasons for disputing the letter’s authenticity: (1) The language of Colossians is somewhat different from the Hauptbriefe or “main letters” of Paul—Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, and Galatians—as well as the undisputed letters of First Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon. (2) The theology of Colossians is also said to be more developed than the main epistles, particularly in its high Christology, catholic ecclesiology, and realized eschatology. Nonetheless, most acknowledge that Colossians still has a very Pauline buzz about it in terms of cadence, ethos, tone, and content; it is as close to his mind as one might expect. For this reason, many commentators have followed Ernst Käsemann’s dictum: “if genuine, as late as possible, because of the content and style; if not genuine, as early as conceivable.”17

It is my contention, however, that despite some valid objections, Colossians is authentic and written during the apostle’s own lifetime in collaboration with his coworkers.18 First of all, a number of authors have argued that Colossians is pseudonymous based on statistical and linguistic comparisons with the undisputed letters.19 For instance, there are thirty-four hapax legomena in Colossians (i.e., words that occur nowhere else in the New Testament), twenty-eight words that appear elsewhere in the New Testament but nowhere else in Paul, several stylistic peculiarities such as synonymous expressions (e.g., “praying and asking,” 1:9) and dependent genitives (e.g., “the word of truth, of the gospel,” 1:5), and the absence of key Pauline words like “law,” “righteousness/justification,” “salvation” and “sin” that one might expect Paul to have used in tackling a philosophy with Jewish traits.20 Yet the linguistic data may not be fully decisive against Pauline authorship.

(1) We do not have a pure “control” sample of Paul’s own writings that we can be absolutely sure are exclusively his own wording/writing and thus make use of it as a template for comparison with Colossians. Apart from the fact of textual variations in the manuscript tradition itself, we have to admit that even the undisputed letters of Paul may be the result of an amanuensis or secretary and are not necessarily from Paul’s own hand. So comparing the style and language of Romans and Colossians may not in actual fact be comparing an authentic and pseudonymous piece of writing, but amount to comparing Tertius (Rom 16:22) and Timothy (Col 1:1) as Paul’s secretary and coauthor in two different letters. We would do well also to consider the observation of Matthew Brook O’Donnell about the limits of statistical analysis:

It seems unlikely that by simply counting words it is possible to differentiate between authors. While a particular author may have a core or base vocabulary, as well as an affinity for certain words (or combination/collocation of words), there are many factors, for instance, age, further education, social setting, rhetorical purpose and so on, that restrict or expand this core set of lexical items. In spite of this, New Testament attribution studies and many commentaries (sadly, some rather recent ones at that) have placed considerable weight on counting the number of words found in one letter but not found in a group of letters assumed to be authentic.21

(2) It should be noted that a significant number of hapax also occur in Galatians, Philippians, and even Philemon. As for absences of key terminology, the term “justify” does not appear at all in First Thessalonians or Philippians, while “law” is absent from Second Corinthians, and even “salvation” does not appear in Galatians or First Corinthians.22 In addition, there are some genuine stylistic and grammatical affinities with Paul’s other letters in Colossians which are evident in the opening greeting, thanksgiving section, epistle closing, plus the presence of typical Pauline expressions throughout Colossians (e.g., “in Messiah”). We also find conceptual similarities in terms of letter structure and theological content (e.g., freedom from Jewish practices).23

(3) There are cogent reasons why the language of Colossians is different to the other Pauline letters, such as the fact that Paul seems to be citing a lot of early traditional Christian material (Col 1:12–20; 3:5–14; 3:18–4:1; and perhaps 2:9–15)24 and mirroring some of the language of the philosophy that had become controversial in Colossae (e.g., Col 1:19; 2:9, 18). From a rhetorical vantage point, the letters to Ephesus and Colossae, cities in Roman Asia, may deliberately contain an Asiatic rhetoric that was often more flowery, ornamented, poetic, and slightly pompous compared to its Greek counterpart, thus accounting for the more descriptive and expansive nature of the language.25 Rhetorical training itself urged the necessity of adapting one’s style, language, and content to fit the occasion depending on the persona needed for the speaker or author.26

(4) Colossians does not properly fit the genre of a pseudepigraphal letter, which is ordinarily attributed to a famous figure of the past to one of his contemporaries and is intended to be of interest to its real readers only in a general sense. The problem in Colossae seems to be quite specific and there is no attempt to bridge the divide between fictive readers and real readers by means of a “testament” or other literary device.27 Ultimately, there is nothing about the language, style, and form that is wildly anachronistic or cannot be plausibly placed within the context of Paul’s own lifetime, and much of the structure and language sounds evidently genuine.

Second, regarding the theology of Colossians, Lohse claims that the thought of Colossians exhibits Pauline features but is an example of a Pauline theology that has undergone a profound change in many respects.28 To begin with, on ecclesiology, in the undisputed letters the “church” is always the church local (e.g., Gal 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:2) whereas in Colossians (and Ephesians) the ekklēsia is both the “church” local (Col 1:2; 4:15–16; cf. Eph 1:1) and the “Church” universal (Col 1:18, 24; cf. Eph 1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23–25, 27, 29, 32).29 Still, Paul viewed the churches as a pan-Roman Empire movement who were in close association with one another; there is nothing inconceivable about him referring to “Church” in this more trans-local sense. Concerning baptism and eschatology, Colossians refers to the baptized as those not only buried with Christ but risen with him as well (2:11–12; 3:1; cf. Eph 2:5–6), whereas in Romans the resurrection of Christians is still future (Rom 6:4–5). Yet in Romans, Paul can also refer to believers having been “glorified” in the past tense (Rom 8:30) and glory also relates to a present experience of the new covenant (2 Cor 3:18), which is not too many steps away from Col 2:11–13; 3:1. What is more, Col 2:11–12 is not saying that the resurrection has already taken place (as attributed to Hymenaeus and Philetus in 2 Tim 2:17–18), but as Todd Still notes it merely employs resurrection language to speak of a “believer’s conversion to, union with, and transformation through Christ.” A future resurrection of believers is implied by 1:18 where Jesus is the “firstborn from among the dead,” which suggests that Christians will follow in his train (see 1 Cor 15:20).30 Even with a strong emphasis on realized eschatology in several places (1:12–13; 2:11–12, 15, 20; 3:1), the future horizon has not disappeared completely in Colossians (1:5, 22, 24, 27–28; 3:4, 6, 10, 24–25) and it retains a reasonable amount of congruity with the undisputed Pauline letters.31 Likewise, the Christology of 1:15–20 and 2:9–10 may sound grandiose, yet it is not out of order with 1 Cor 8:4–6; 2 Cor 8:9; and Phil 2:5–11, which contain traditional material as well. The motif of victory in 2:15 is analogous to 1 Cor 15:54–57 and Rom 8:29–39, 16:20 too. Similarly, the household code of 3:18—4:1 is not the sexist regulations of a Pauline disciple who did not share the apostle’s egalitarian view of women, but stands as part of a natural trajectory from other elements of Paul’s letters about women and households (e.g., 1 Cor 7:1–40; 11:3–16; 14:33–35). In sum, the question of how much difference and development it takes to illegitimate Pauline authorship is unquantifiable and is therefore grossly subjective. What a later disciple of Paul theologically inferred from Paul’s writings fifteen years after his death might not be any different to what Paul and his coworkers inferred themselves while writing to believers from a position of captivity that naturally gave over to exercises of reflection.

There is of course no getting away from the valid perception that Colossians does sound a little different from, say, Galatians and First Thessalonians in language. Colossians develops motifs which, though genuinely Pauline, are emphasized and explored in new ways. What are we to make of this then? James Dunn regards Colossians as a “bridge” between the Pauline and post-Pauline periods and contends that it was composed at the end of Paul’s lifetime, but by somebody other than Paul at Paul’s own behest and approval, hence the autograph.32 The plausibility of this scenario is enhanced by the observation of Margaret MacDonald: “If we think of the authorship of Pauline works as a communal enterprise undertaken by Paul and his entourage, the sharp distinction between authentic and unauthentic epistles is significantly reduced.”33 I would add that this does not make Paul merely the authorizer rather than the author! He may have had varying degrees of input into his various letters ranging from writing them himself (Philemon), writing them with a coauthor (Colossians), dictating them (Romans), or authorizing their composition based on an earlier piece of correspondence (Ephesians). Given those qualifications, I have no hesitation in affirming Colossians as authentically Pauline and written in association with others such as Tychicus, Epaphras, Onesimus, Luke, and especially Timothy.34

Provenance of Colossians and Philemon

Given the qualified assumption of Pauline authorship of Philemon, Colossians, and (more loosely) Ephesians, when and where were the former two epistles written? What we can say is that Colossians and Philemon were probably written in relatively close temporal proximity to each other because the five same persons are mentioned in Paul’s greetings in both letters, namely, Luke, Mark, Demas, Aristarchus, and Epaphras (Col 4:10–14; Phlm 23–24). Timothy is named as coauthor in both letters (Col 1:1; Phlm 1), a sending of Onesimus is referred to in both letters (Col 4:9; Phlm 10, 12, 17), Archippus is mentioned in both (Col 4:17; Phlm 2), and the two letters are undersigned with Paul’s own hand (Col 4:18; Phlm 19). One peculiar fact is that Colossians makes no reference to any potential conflict between Onesimus and Philemon, which one might expect on the return of a runaway slave to his owner which could adversely affect relations within the community (see Paul’s exhortation for unity and reconciliation among Euodia and Syntyche in Phil 4:2). Rather, in Col 4:9 Onesimus is also regarded as a faithful and experienced coworker. The letter to Philemon does not mention Tychicus. It would seem that there was a gap between the composition of Philemon and Colossians,35 in which case the sending back of Onesimus in Phlm 12 and the sending of Onesimus with Tychicus in Col 4:9 may reflect two different journeys of Onesimus to Colossae separated by several months or even up to a year. I surmise that Paul first sent Onesimus back to Philemon. Philemon was reconciled to Onesimus and subsequently returned Onesimus to Paul’s service as requested by Paul. Sometime later, the news of an encounter with a certain “philosophy” in Colossae was relayed to Paul and his coworkers who responded by writing Colossians and sending Tychicus and Onesimus to deliver the letter to Colossae and a circular letter (Ephesians) to the other churches of Asia and principally to Laodicea. I find this scenario plausible, though admittedly unverifiable.

So where was Paul when this happened? He was obviously in captivity (Phlm 1, 10, 23; Col 4:3, 10, 18), but which period of captivity, since he refers to imprisonments in the plural in 2 Cor 11:23 (cf. 1 Clem. 5.6)? The main candidates are Ephesus (ca. 55–57 CE) or Rome (ca. 61–66 CE).36 This subject is one of the most perplexing facing students of Colossians. The problem is mirrored in text-critical observations since some manuscripts (e.g., A and B) regard Colossians as written from Rome. Yet the Marcionite prologue declares it written from Ephesus. To add further complications the Marcionite prologue places the composition of Philemon and Ephesians in Rome. Even if we take into account the movements of Paul’s coworkers according to the Pauline letters and Acts, the evidence still remains ambiguous.37 The internal evidence of Colossians and Philemon themselves are not decisive, nor does taking into account the wider New Testament provide us with a clear cut answer. Instead, we have to weigh the arguments for and against an Ephesian or Roman setting.38

Roman Setting: Pro and Con. In favor of a Roman provenance is that we know Paul did experience a prolonged period of imprisonment in Rome, which is attested by Acts (Acts 28:16) and other early Christian literature.39 The letter to the Philippians was also written from captivity and many think it sent from Rome (Phil 1:13–14). Unfortunately, there is no clear reference to a Roman imprisonment in the undisputed letters of Paul, which is no small fact, and must be taken into consideration. Second, in Phlm 9 Paul calls himself an “old man,” which suggests that it was written at the end of his life. However, this might be a phrase used rhetorically to get Philemon to respect his elder and the apostle. Third, and perhaps the strongest argument for a Roman provenance, is that the theology of Colossians seems to represent a maturation and development of Pauline thought. This is attributable no doubt to Paul’s own theological reflection on Christology and ecclesiology, but also to the interpretation of Paul’s thought that began with his coworkers like Timothy and had already started to weave its way into the letter. Still, this does not necessitate a later date after Paul’s death, since Paul’s theology clearly developed somewhat during the short time span between Galatians (ca. 49 CE) and Romans (ca. 55–56 CE). We do not know how much of the so-called developed theology of Colossians is attributable to the interpretive insights of Paul’s coworkers and their inferences about Paul’s theology, which could have been made from any location or residence with time for writing and reflection. Fourth, Rome would be a very good place for a runaway slave to hide in the massive population of the city, yet it was also a long way to travel (approximately 1200 miles by sea) when other cities in Asia Minor and Syria such as Ephesus and Antioch were nearer and large enough to afford a veil of protection. Fifth, a Roman setting was the preferred view of patristic authors, but it was not unanimous, and constitutes tertiary evidence at best.

Ephesian Setting: Pro and Con. The case for an Ephesian setting is strengthened by accounts that place Paul there more than once (1 Cor 16:8; Acts 18:19–21 and esp. 19:1–20:1) and for three years during his Aegean mission (Acts 19:8–10). That Paul experienced imprisonment in Ephesus is arguably implied in 2 Cor 1:8 where the apostle refers to the hardships experienced by him and his companions in Asia, and also in 1 Cor 15:32 where Paul speaks metaphorically of fighting wild beasts in Ephesus.40 However, there is no clear evidence for an Ephesian imprisonment in Paul’s letters or in Acts. Second, it can be argued that Ephesus and Colossae, only one hundred miles apart, make far more plausible the flight of Onesimus, the delegation of Tychicus/Onesimus, any travels back and forth by Epaphras, the forthcoming visit of John Mark, and the possible visit of Paul to Philemon. This flurry of comings and goings is more likely than a series of lengthy sea journeys that were dangerous and took weeks or months at a time. Third, Paul’s request in Phlm 22 that a guest room be prepared for him is more realistic given an Ephesian imprisonment. If it was Paul’s plan to go further west after his release from confinement in Rome, then a journey to Colossae to visit Philemon would have meant significantly revising (or reversing) that plan. Alternatively, the remark may simply be rhetorical and a polite wish to visit but with no actual intent to do so (my in-laws in Australia threaten to visit me in Scotland all the time but thankfully only rarely do so) and remain consistent with a Roman setting. Fourth, according to ancient sources there was an earthquake that destroyed parts of the Lycus Valley, especially Laodicea, ca. 61–62 CE.41 We do not hear of any references to Christians there in extant sources and only Laodicea is mentioned among the seven churches that John the Seer wrote to at the end of the first century (Rev 1:11; 3:14). Even so, we do not know for sure how the Christians in Colossae were affected by the earthquake and what impact it had upon their lives. True enough, Paul does not mention the earthquake when we might expect him to do so, but neither does he mention other “seismic” events such as the expulsion of Jews from Rome under Claudius (49 CE) and their return under Nero (54 CE) when he wrote to the Romans.

The evidence is tightly balanced (and I confess to having changed my mind a number of times). The answer, I think, lies not with internal evidence from Colossians or Philemon, but with the letter to the Philippians and the movements of Timothy. He is named as cosender of Colossians and Philemon (Col 1:1; Phlm 1). To that we can add the observations that Timothy is also named as cosender of Philippians (Phil 1:1), Philippians is also written from captivity (Phil 1:13–14), and Philippians is similar to Philemon in at least two other respects: both look forward to Paul’s eventual release from prison (Phlm 22; Phil 1:19–26; 2:24), and there are several stylistic similarities between them as noted by Francis Watson.42 By way of deduction, my line of reasoning runs Timothy → Philippians → Philemon → Colossians → Location! Thus, the circumstances of Philippians and Timothy are crucial for the provenance and date of Colossians/Philemon.

Philippians could have been written from either Rome or Ephesus, but the internal and external evidence to decide the matter is much stronger. There is a reference to the “praetorian guard” in Phil 1:13, which may denote the elite body guard unit of the emperor in Rome, which also functioned as a police force in the capital. There is also a reference to a greeting from those of “Caesar’s household” in Phil 4:22, which would naturally fit a Roman setting. However, “praetorian” can mean more generally “palace guard” or “military headquarters” (Matt 27:27; Mark 15:16; John 18:28, 33; 19:9; Acts 23:35). And “Caesar’s household” might denote the imperial staff stationed at an imperial residence in Ephesus since this was also the Roman capital of western Asia. Given the rancorous language in Philippians, debates with Paul’s opponents in Galatia and Corinth still seem very recent (e.g., Phil 3:2–11, 18–19). It is also unlikely that Roman prisoners would be incarcerated in the emperor’s own residence. Furthermore, there is no reference to Timothy accompanying Paul to Rome in Acts 28, but he is placed in Ephesus during Paul’s extended ministry there (1 Cor 16:8–10). We also know from Acts that Timothy engaged in one or more trips to Greece and Macedonia from Ephesus (Acts 19:22). Thus, Paul’s intent to send Timothy to Philippi (Phil 2:19) is more likely to comport with his travels to Greece and Macedonia during Paul’s stay in Ephesus than during Paul’s imprisonment in Rome.43 An Ephesian provenance for Philippians seems slightly more probable. As I see it, then, this is how it all stands:

For Rome:

• There is a strong possibility that Philippians was written in Rome and, if so, Timothy’s presence with Paul in Rome is thereby established since he was a cosender of the letter to the Philippians. The Paul–Timothy–Rome connection can then be linked with the letters to Philemon and to the Colossians.

• The theology of Colossians appears to be “developed” in some sense.

• There is no clear reference to an Ephesian imprisonment and it is hard to place John Mark in Ephesus.

For Ephesus:

• An Ephesian setting for Philippians remains highly probable.

• There is no clear reference to Timothy in Rome during Paul’s imprisonment there, but we can place him easily in Ephesus.

• An imprisonment in Ephesus makes for a more plausible scenario regarding the movements of Onesimus and others to and from Colossae.

• Colossae may have been destroyed in 61–62 CE leaving Paul no one to even write to.

The marginally less problematic of these options then is the Ephesian provenance.44 I surmise that the epistle to Philemon was written by Paul himself during an imprisonment in Ephesus (ca. 55–57 CE) and Philemon subsequently discharged Onesimus to Paul’s service where he became thereafter part of Paul’s entourage. Colossians was written cooperatively by Paul and his coworkers (Col 1:1; 4:7–17) from Ephesus and was delivered by Tychicus and Onesimus. Ephesians was written by a secretary of Paul at Paul’s behest and composed on the basis of Colossians in order to be given to the Pauline churches of Asia Minor, including Ephesus and Laodicea, as the letter carriers passed through those regions on their way to deliver the correspondence to Colossae. In editorial language, Paul is the author of Philemon, the managing editor and chief contributor to Colossians, and the commissioning editor of Ephesians.

The Colossian Philosophy

Another confusing matter is the nature of the Colossian “philosophy.”45 We have no direct account of the philosophy by the teachers themselves, but are reliant entirely upon what Paul says about them, directly and indirectly, in Colossians. What Paul wrote against the philosophy is itself based on what he was told about them from others and is admixed with some general exhortations that could apply to many doctrinal intrusions among Christian groups. It is hard to determine the precise contours of the philosophy since Paul speaks of them explicitly only at limited points (2:4, 8, 16–23) and elsewhere perhaps only implicitly (1:15–20, 22–23; 2:2–3; 3:1–2).46 There is also the problem of trying to understand what kind of religious label the philosophy fits into. J. J. Gunther listed forty-four different identifications of Paul’s opponents in Colossae in his 1973 monograph, and more are continually added.47 Morna Hooker proposed that there actually was no heresy or false teachers in Colossae and Paul merely writes a general admonition to urge the congregation there not to conform to the beliefs and practices of their Jewish and pagan neighbors.48 But the portrayal of the philosophy seems far too specific and the use of the indefinite pronouns suggests that Paul genuinely did have some group or individual in mind (2:8, 16, 18). Others advocate not a Jewish or pagan threat to the Colossian church, but a Christian heresy based on the mystery religions,49 the Ebionites,50 or a syncretism involving the Christian gospel, Judaism, and Hellenistic cosmology.51 While there might be some grounds for suggesting that the philosophy has begun impacting the Colossians (e.g., 2:19), for the most part it seems that it remains an external and decidedly non-Christian threat. Paul would be unlikely to commend the Colossians’ faithfulness and steadfastness if they had succumbed to the philosophy (1:4; 2:5). Never are the “teachers” in Colossae charged with denying Jesus, perverting the gospel, or with being “false” as Paul alleges of his opponents elsewhere (see Gal 1:7; 2:4–5; 5:2–4; 2 Cor 11:4; cf. Jude 4; 1 John 4:1–2; Rev 2:2).

The philosophy was clearly indebted to Judaism in some form given the references to the Sabbath (2:16), circumcision (2:11), and food laws (2:21). However, the references to the “powers” (1:16; 2:8, 10, 15), the “worship of angels” (2:18), asceticism (2:21–23), festivals (2:16), and wisdom (1:9, 2:3, 23; 3:16) could derive from a number of different religious and philosophical systems. If we add to that the melting pot of religions, philosophies, and magic in Phrygia (interior Asia Minor) where syncretism was common and Jewish acculturation inevitable, it further complicates our ability to pin down concretely the philosophy to any one particular philosophical school or known religious movement. Even so, three main options present themselves for consideration.

First, the “philosophy” could have derived from one of the Hellenistic philosophical schools of Pythagoreanism,52 Middle Platonism,53 or even Cynicism.54 The problem is, however, that “philosophy” is such a broad category and many of the philosophies of the ancient world (Stoicism, Pythagoreanism, Cynicism, etc.) often overlapped in their metaphysical understanding of the world. Moreover, while it is conceivable that Jewish philosophers could admix Hellenistic philosophy to their system of belief, it is less likely that non-Jews would add Jewish rituals denoting Jewish identity to their religious practices, especially Sabbath keeping and circumcision.

Second, the philosophers might be advocating a syncretistic amalgam of Judaism and indigenous Phrygian practices of magic, mysteries, and angel veneration. Nearly all commentators regard the philosophy as a syncretism of some form.55 Philo appears to complain about the infiltration of syncretism among the Jews of Alexandria, which poses a similar analogy.56 Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer point out that around one third of the extant magical papyri and amulets are based on Jewish elements.57 We also know from later papyri and patristic evidence that even many Christians were willing to use magic spells for particular ends.58 Furthermore, some Jews were known to practice magic as evidenced by Bar-Jesus/Elymas who, according to Acts, was something of a personal attendant or chaplain to Sergius Paulus on the island of Cyprus (Acts 13:6–12). The second century Christian polemicist Celsus mentioned Jews “who worship angels and are addicted to sorcery of which Moses was their teacher.”59 Clinton Arnold has shown how angels were important in ancient magic for protection and petitions.60 There is an inscription from Phrygia concerning a Jewish lady, Julia Severa, who was a synagogue benefactor and a priestess of the imperial cult.61

At the same time, the argument for a syncretistic Judaism in Asia Minor can be overstated. Josephus records that most Jews in Asia Minor strictly observed the laws about food and festivals and came into conflict with their Gentile neighbors because of their faithfulness to the Jewish way of life.62 Paul Trebilco states, “No evidence has arisen from this study to suggest that Judaism in Asia minor was syncretistic or had been compromised by paganism.”63 Similar is F. F. Bruce: “Some outward conformity with pagan customs on the part of influential Jews in Phrygia may be taken as established; but it would be precarious to draw conclusions from this about forms of syncretism that might be reflected in the beliefs and practices deprecated in Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians.”64 We should also be aware of the looseness of the term “syncretism.” What counts as syncretism? For instance, according to the Mishnah tractate Abodah Zarah a Jew is permitted to make and sell idols for a living (m. Abod. Zar. 1.8). If one believes that Zeus is another name of Yahweh, is that syncretism or pluralism (Ep. Arist. 16)? Some Jewish apocalyptic writings could venerate angels like Metratron, the “little Yahwheh,” but without actually compromising their Jewish beliefs in toto (3 En. 10:3; 12:5; 17:1–3; 30:1; b. Sanh. 38b). In relation to Colossians, I would make two further points. First, there is no reference to magic, amulets, spells, calling on angels, or initiation rites in pagan temples. Second, there is a difference between syncretism and acculturation. Colossians exhibits the telltale signs of a set of Jewish teachings expressed in the idiom and categories of Hellenism. Yet Hellenism itself can either flatten out or reinforce Jewish distinctives as exposure to a secondary culture forces one to either absorb or deflect external influences.

Third, the philosophy is conceivably a form of Judaism that is being commended to the Colossians. Judaism could also be described as a philosophy in apologetic literature.65 Josephus describes the various Jewish sects as philosophies66 and he can even refer to the Jewish religion as a form of national philosophy.67 Philo represents Judaism as achieving the highest ideals of Hellenistic philosophy.68 What also indicates Jewish adversaries is the injunction in 2:16–17, where the triadic formula of festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths occurs in the Septuagint and represents the commandments of the Torah (law of Moses). The references to circumcision (2:11, 3:11, and 4:11) imply that while circumcision itself was probably not the presenting issue, nonetheless, it was crucial in identifying Paul’s opponents. What is more, there are a number of similarities between the teachers in Colossae and the proselytizers in Galatia and how both are engaged by Paul. The philosophy is touted as an oppressive spiritual force in much the same way that Paul likens the law in Galatians to hostile spiritual powers (Col 2:8, 14–15; Gal 4:9–11). In Colossians, as in Galatians, the erroneous beliefs required Paul to shore up the integrity of Gentile Christian identity without the need to take on law observance (Col 3:11; Gal 3:28). In Colossians as in Galatians, Paul exhorts that one does not require Torah to facilitate righteous living (Col 2:23–3:17; Gal 5:13–15). In Colossians as in Galatians, freedom from the designs of the Colossian philosophers and from the Galatian proselytizers is indebted to dying with Messiah and being baptized into Messiah (Col 2:12; 3:3; Gal 3:26–27). Colossians and Galatians both refer to the freedom of the Christian from circumcision and festivals (Col 2:11–12, 16; Gal 5:2; 6:12–15; 4:10) and refer to deliverance from evil powers (Col 1:13–14; Gal 1:4). In light of this, it seems that Paul is evidently negating the value of Jewish boundary markers and lessening the social and religious function of the law as it stands as a threat to the integrity of Jesus-believing Gentiles and involves a devaluing of the preeminence of the Messiah.

But what type of Judaism was Paul engaging? A hybrid Jewish Gnosticism could be conceivable if Colossians was written late in the first century or in the early second century.69 Yet Colossians was not likely to have been composed so late, and the philosophy lacks the anti-cosmic dualism that was at the root of Gnosticism whereby the creation of the material world is attributed to the act of a malevolent demiurge. Over a hundred years ago J. B. Lightfoot suggested that the “heresy” had an affinity with Essenism and Gnosticism since the Essenes had a tendency towards mysticism.70 The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, arguably stemming from an Essene sect, provided further grounds for links between the Colossian philosophy and the Essenes. Pierre Benoit writes, “A return to the Mosaic law by circumcision, rigid observance concerning diet and the calendar, speculations about the angelic powers: all this is part and parcel of the doctrines of Qumran.”71 The parallels between the philosophy and Josephus’s account of the Essenes and with selected portions of the Qumran scrolls are undeniable. However, there remains the absence of any evidence that the Essenes were in Phrygia or the Lycus Valley. The asceticism and mysticism of the philosophy could also comport with a number of other Jewish religious strains, including merkabah mystics or apocalyptic sects.

I want to suggest, in line with a number of researchers, that the background to the philosophy lies in Jewish mysticism.72 First, F. F. Bruce noted the affinities of the Colossian philosophy with merkabah mysticism.73 Merkabah mysticism was a Jewish movement that got its name from its concern with visions of the heavenly chariot (mrkbh) that was with God during Ezekiel’s glorious vision (Ezek 1:4–28). Visions of God’s throne and angelic worship were granted to those who undertook rigorous adherence to the Mosaic law with periods of asceticism and purification as a form of preparation for such visions. Eventually this led to what the later rabbis called the “two powers in heaven” heresy, since the name Yahweh was said to include two deities. There is no doubt that our sources on merkabah mysticism postdate Paul, nonetheless, similar visionary experiences, ascents to heaven, and interest in heavenly worship are attested pre-70 CE (e.g., Pss 29:1–2; 148:1–2; 2 Cor 12:1–4; 1 En. 14:8–23; 4Q405; Apoc. Ab. 17:1–21; Apoc. Zeph. 8:3–4; Ascen. Isa. 7:13—9:33), which provide a backdrop to Col 2:18.74

Second, adherence to regulations of the Mosaic law can be linked to the veneration and appeasement of angels. The law was said to have been given to Moses by God through angels (see Gal 3:19; Acts 7:53; Heb 2:2). As such, keeping the law becomes a tribute to the angels and disobedience to the precepts of the law can result in judgment from angelic beings. There is clear evidence that some Jews taught that circumcision and obedience to the law could protect someone from evil angels.75 Thus, the need to follow the regulations of the Torah in Col 2:14, 16–17 is perhaps connected to the heavenly jurisdiction of the “thrones” and “authorities” who are angelic beings that demand observance of the law. Paul argues in turn that there is no need to placate those cosmic entities whom the Messiah has supremacy over (1:16; 2:8–10) and has subjugated (2:15).

Third, the references to asceticism, visions, and the worship of angels underscore the mystical aspect of the philosophy even more. This is apparent in 2:18 where there are those who “insist” or “delight”76 upon ascetic practices and self-abasement. This self-mortification probably pertains to fasting as an expression of humility (Pss 35:13; 69:10; Isa 58:3, 5; Jdt 4:9). The self-deprivation of fasting was often a means to visionary experiences (Dan 10:2–3; Apoc. Ab. 9:7–10; 12:1–2; T. Isaac 4:1–6; 5:4; 4 Ezra 5:13, 20; 6:35; 9:23–25; 2 Bar. 43:3; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 1:2–7) and this may have enabled participants to have, or claim to have had, visions of ascents to heaven to behold angelic worship (e.g., Isa 6:2–3; Dan 7:10; Luke 2:14; Rev 4–5). That is why this “self-abasement” is closely linked to the “worship of angels” and going into detail about “visions which he has seen.”

But what precisely is the “worship of angels”? Is it the worship of angels themselves or worship with the angels? Traditionally, it has been taken as an objective genitive, meaning worship directed at the angels, which could be occasioned by the view of angels as divine mediators, lesser deities, or stemming from an angel cult in Phyrgia. It is common today to argue that it is a subjective genitive and refers to worship performed by the angels. That corresponds with the narration found in various apocalypses where prophets and saints of old are translated to God’s throne and participate in the praises of heaven.77 The evidence from the Qumran scrolls also shows that angelic worship was much coveted and the liturgy of the sectarians was thought to include the presence of the angels (e.g., 1QH 3:21–22; 1QM 7:4–6; 1QSa 2:8–9; 1QSb 4:25–26). In particular, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400–5) describe the praise of angels in the heavenly sanctuary where the angels are assembled in military formation and provide anthems of divine blessing to God:

The [Cheru]bim fall before Him and bless Him; as they arise, the quiet voice of God [is heard], followed by a tumult of joyous praise. As they unfold their wings, God’s q[uiet] voice is heard again. The Cherubim bless the image of the chariot-throne that appears above the firmament, [then] they joyously acclaim the [splend]or of the luminous firmament that spreads beneath His glorious seat. As the wheel-beings advance, holy angels come and go. Between His chariot-throne’s glorious [w]heels appears something like an utterly holy spiritual fire. All around are what appear to be streams of fire, resembling electrum, and [sh]ining handiwork comprising wondrous colors embroidered together, pure and glorious. The spirits of the living [go]dlike beings move to and fro perpetually, following the glory of the two [wo]ndrous chariots. A quiet voice of blessing accompanies the tumult of their movement, and they bless the Holy One each time they retrace their steps. When they rise up, they do so wondrously, and when they settle down, they [sta]nd still. The sound of joyous rejoicing falls silent, and the qui[et] blessing of God spreads through all the camps of the divine beings. The sound of prais[es] . . . coming out of each of their divisions on [both] sides, and each of the mustered troops rejoices, one by one in order of rank . . .78

Also central to the discussion is the meaning of the Greek word thrēskeia in Col 2:18. F. O. Francis argues that in 4 Macc 5:7 and Josephus Ant. 12.253 the word thrēskeia is used for the “worship” that belongs to the Jews, not worship of the Jews. He applies it similarly to Col 2:18 as meaning “worship” belonging to the angels, i.e., worship performed by the angels.79 Clinton Arnold correctly notes, however, that “A survey of the usage of thrēskeia fails to turn up one example of a divine being, or a typical object of worship . . . related to thrēskeia in the genitive case that should be taken as a subjective genitive.”80 While this may be true, we have already documented evidence of seers claiming to have partaken of heavenly worship with angelic beings. What is more, Arnold’s otherwise erudite study flounders on the observation that thrēskeia was not used in any of the magical incantations involving angels that he cites and there is no reference to incantations over angelic names in Colossians.81 Alternatively, Loren Stuckenbruck points out there is no need to choose absolutely between an objective genitive (“worshipping the angels”) and a subjective genitive (“worship performed by the angels”) because if someone is insisting on the benefits attained by seeing angelic worship, then they are also attributing something special and majestic to the angels themselves. The problem is not only the superfluity of the ritual and vision for the believer, but also the temptation to venerate angels encountered in the ascent.82 In fact, gaining access to worship of the angels by ascetic practices and appeasing the angels by law observance are not mutually exclusive.

A further factor in favor of defining the philosophy as tied with Jewish mysticism is the use of the word embateuō in 2:18. The word, though ambiguous, seems to be linked to visionary reports of “entering into” or “going into detail about” heavenly ascents and what is seen therein (see 1 En. 14:9).83 Persons in Colossae are perhaps boasting about the worship of the angels that they have seen upon entrance into the heavenly realm and subsequently venerating the angels that accompanied them in their tour of the heavenly court. A plausible scenario, then, is that the teachers advocated the necessity of ascetic practices leading to visionary experiences resulting in one sharing in the angelic liturgies of heaven, submitting to angelic “rulers and authorities,” who exercised some form of power over them through law observance, and translating all of this into their every day pattern of life (2:8–10, 16–23). The role of angels in the Colossian philosophy may not be clear-cut since their roles in veneration, mediation, or domination could overlap. What seems likely is that the Colossian philosophy represents a combination of the ascetic-mystical piety of Jewish apocalypticism with its emphasis on visionary experiences of heavenly ascents (an incipient form of merkabah mysticism), the dualism of Hellenistic cosmology and anthropology, and perhaps the veneration of angels influenced by local pagan folk religions involving appeal to angels through magic; all of these are possibilities for comprising elements of the philosophy.

Another element of the Colossian philosophy that I wish to advocate is its tacit missionary function. One or more persons from Colossae or the Lycus Valley is commending Judaism to the Gentile Christians in Colossae by using the religious ritual of ascetic-mystic Judaism and the language of Hellenistic philosophy (most likely Stoicism of some form) as a means of attracting them to it. Harald Hegermann argues that the Colossians were being exposed to Jewish missionary propaganda,84 and while I reject the idea of widespread Jewish missionary activity, nonetheless, I think here it has something going for it. Jewish communities did attract proselytes and many Jews wrote philosophical defenses of their faith for largely Jewish audiences but potentially for Gentile readers as well. Many Gentiles did convert to Judaism and in numbers high enough to alarm the cultural elites.85 Gentile adherents to Jewish ways, sometimes known as God-fearers, do not seem to have been an infrequent occurrence either.86 James Dunn argues that the Colossian philosophy represents the apologia (philosophical defense) of a local synagogue responding to the rise of a form of messianic Judaism in their immediate circle.87 If the best type of defense is offense, then perhaps a circle of Jewish teachers from a local synagogue immersed in Jewish mystical traditions and Hellenistic thought have come into contact with Christians in Colossae and are commending this form of “Judaism” to them. Their criticism of Christianity and Jesus Christ may even be benign in down playing rather than denying him a heavenly role. They condemn those who do not keep the regulations of Torah, they claim a share in the inheritance of Israel, and insist that the Colossian Christians undertake the ascetic rigor required for heavenly visions.88 This scenario provides an appropriate background to the Colossian philosophy and explains the socio-rhetorical dynamics of the letter. This accounts for the Jewish character of the philosophy as well as the Hellenistic terminology in which it is expressed. The philosophy, as it is written about in the letter to the Colossians, arguably represents an attempt by one or more Jewish individuals to recruit Christian Gentiles to a form of Jewish belief and practice through a highly contextualized missionary approach. The absence of a concerted polemic against circumcision (though perhaps implied in 2:11; 3:11; and 4:11) by Paul may be said to count against that hypothesis. But I suggest that the polemical references to circumcision, spiritual or physical, could hardly be heard as any other than an intra-Jewish debate stemming from factional rivalries over the nature and boundaries of Jewish identity. What is more, not all forms of Jewish missionary activity were necessarily said to be after “full” converts. Some Jewish perspectives on conversion did not require circumcision (see especially Josephus Ant. 20.41 and Philo QE 2.2) and only sought partial adherents and philosophical respect for its beliefs and practices in a wider intellectual forum. Whereas Lohse argues that the sacramental initiation was made more attractive by dressing it up in a Jewish term,89 I think the reverse holds, viz., an essentially Jewish religious tradition is being dressed in a garb of Hellenistic philosophy and language, thus appealing to Gentile believers who were formerly pagans in the religious smorgasbord of the Lycus Valley.

The Situation Behind the Epistle to Philemon

So far we have tentatively concluded that the letter to Philemon was written during 55–56 CE during Paul’s imprisonment in Ephesus. It was composed due to the estrangement between Onesimus and Philemon, which, after Paul’s intervention, resulted in Philemon releasing Onesimus to Paul’s care and service. Some time thereafter, Onesimus and Tychicus were dispatched to the Lycus Valley to deliver the letters to the Colossians and Laodiceans (Ephesians).90

It is hard to say much about Paul’s relationship to Philemon and Onesimus because we know very little of the specifics. Philemon was evidently a well-to-do Christian in a small Phyrigan town of the Lycus Valley in Asia Minor, he was a slave owner, and a church met in his house which was presumably led by himself, his wife Apphia, and Archippus. He seems to have shared some kind of partnership/fellowship (koinōnon) with Paul (v. 17), which elsewhere means becoming partners in ministry by sharing material needs (see Acts 2:42; Phil 1:5; 2:1). Paul also says that Philemon owes him his very own self, perhaps suggesting that Paul was significant in Philemon’s conversion and now the apostle seeks a mutual benefit from this relationship (v. 20). Onesimus is known from Colossians as “one of yourselves” and he later travelled with Tychicus to Colossae (Col 4:7–9). He was a slave who had come to Paul, or perhaps he sought out Epaphras and Paul together because they were esteemed by his master and could mediate between them. Or else maybe one of Paul’s associates found him hiding somewhere in want of food and shelter. Sometime during Onesimus’s period of respite and sanctuary with Paul, he was converted to Christian faith (v. 10). Why he had not converted earlier as part of Philemon’s household is a good question but one we cannot answer.

What is the situation behind the letter? There are several options to consider.91 First, there is the traditional view that Onesimus had simply run away from Philemon most probably because he had damaged goods or stolen something leaving his master Philemon out of pocket (vv. 11, 18). Onesimus then sought shelter with Paul, a respected friend of the master, and Paul pleads to Philemon to forgive Onesimus his transgression and hopefully allow him to remain in Paul’s retinue. But there are further factors for consideration that might count against this proposal, such as the observation that Paul never uses the words phygas, draptēs, or fugitivus as terms to describe Onesimus as a slave taken to flight. Nor does he ever refer to the dire punishments that await a returned fugitive slave. Normally runaways try to vanish, so why would a runaway slave flee to his master’s friend and run the risk of being turned over to authorities? Maybe Onesimus had a change of mind or knew that his capture was imminent, but these are speculations to account for the fact that a runaway slave is now in the company of a friend of his master. Moreover, nowhere in the letter is the precise reason for Onesimus’s sudden departure ever given, and running away is only one possibility, which is more ordinarily assumed than proven.

A second option is that Onesimus is not a runaway slave, but is rather a slave who is in some measure of domestic trouble with his master and seeks the intervention of an amicus domini (friend of the master) to intercede for him in hope of being restored back to favored status in Philemon’s household. In this sense, the letter to Philemon is roughly analogous to the letter that Pliny the Younger sent to Sabinus to intercede on behalf of a freedman to his master.92

A third view is that the slave Onesimus was sent to Paul by the church of Colossae to provide provisions for the apostle, but Paul writes back asking that Onesimus be permanently released to his team of coworkers to assist in evangelization. Sarah Winter bases this largely on the high frequency of commercial terminology in the letter as Paul seeks to have Onesimus break all formal and legal ties with Philemon’s household.93

Finally, a fourth perspective is that Onesimus was not a slave at all, but only a brother of Philemon, and Paul seeks to reconcile two estranged brothers. Key to this position is understanding “as a slave” metaphorically, whereas “as a beloved brother” is not metaphorical (v. 16). Paul refers to the physical kinship of Onesimus and Philemon “in the flesh” as well as a fictive kinship “in the Lord” as the basis of their reconciliation. A. D. Callahan writes: “When Paul exhorted Philemon to receive Onesimus no longer as a slave, he was there commanding the former to desist in treating the latter as though he were beyond the pale of fraternal entitlements to love, honor, and respect . . . In this short, diplomatic epistle Paul attempted deftly to heal a rift not between errant slave and irate master, but between estranged Christian brothers.”94 In light of this I conclude:

(a) Against option four that Onesimus and Philemon are brothers is that the letter has far too much gravity and pathos for Paul simply to be urging Philemon to treat Onesimus as a beloved brother. Fraternal love is a major theme, but it exists between the two now only in light of Onesimus’s conversion. Paul seems to use a different form of exhortation when he seeks reconciliation of equal persons within a community (e.g., Phil 4:2; 2 Cor 2:5–11). It is the social inequality between the two, deliberately complicated by Onesimus’s conversion,95 that is the problem in the reconciliation.

(b) Against option three that Paul seeks to have Onesimus released to his service is that this view lacks any reasonable explanation of the disruption between Onesimus and Philemon that is apparent in verses 15–19, and particularly the fact that the separation could have implied that Philemon might never receive Onesimus back at all (v. 15). Did Philemon or Archippus think that by sending Onesimus to Paul on an errand or with supplies that they were thereby running the risk of never seeing him again? I would doubt it.

(c) The first option, the view that Onesimus was a runaway slave, explains the language of being “separated” (v. 15), “wronged,” and “owed” (v. 18). The reference to “as a slave” is probably real (v. 16); that Paul needs Philemon’s consent before enlisting Onesimus among his cohort of coworkers implies a slave-master relationship between the two (vv. 13–14). Yet this view lacks the expected references to fugitive status, there is no mention of the severity of punishment that could await a runaway slave, it begs the question of why Onesimus went to Paul at all rather than vanish entirely, and finally, no explicit circumstance for Onesimus’s flight is given, which must give cause for thought.

(d) I conclude that the second option is the most probable, and that Onesimus journeyed to Ephesus from Colossae to have Paul mediate between him and his master over some matter that is now public before the Colossian church. Onesimus has become a believer as a result of the encounter, which, in tandem with Paul’s religious authority, adds further reason for Philemon to respond favorably to Onesimus and to heed Paul’s request. The urgent qualification that needs to be made here is that Philemon’s perception of Onesimus’s absence may not accord with Onesimus’s actual intentions in going to Paul. The technical legal distinction between a runaway slave and a slave absent from duty and absconded to his master’s superior, may not exist in the mind of an irate slave owner.96 Either way, Paul agrees to be an advocate for Onesimus to Philemon in order to effect reconciliation between them and to secure a better future for them beyond the normal slave-master relationship.

Paul and Slavery

More sensitively we have to ask: did Paul endorse slavery or was he at least complicit to its continuing operation?97 The mere mention of slavery conjures up feelings and thoughts that are so clearly an affront to our modern moral sensibilities. We desperately want Paul to speak out directly against it and we are scandalized that he did not do so. Space prohibits us from entering into a lengthy discussion of slavery in antiquity. By one definition a slave was a person who did not have the right of refusal. Some people voluntarily sold themselves into slavery in order to avoid a deathly poverty, and many slaves enjoyed good living conditions during their service and were even rewarded with emancipation. Yet in the ancient world a slave was regarded as a piece of human property and susceptible to manifold forms of abuse and exploitation (particularly vulnerable were women and children). Many were forced into slavery as a result of capture from war—both combatants and civilians—and some were born into slavery. In major urban centers up to one third of the population were slaves. Four points need to be mentioned:98 (1) Slavery was indelibly part of the social structure, welfare system, and economic activity of the ancient world and no one seems to have envisaged the operation of society without the institution of slavery. While the moral treatment of slaves was discussed on a philosophical plane, the fact of slavery was never debated and its necessity was simply assumed. (2) In the absence of a modern democracy and libertarian ethics it would have been impossible to lodge an effective and successful political protest against slavery. (3) The most effective means of ameliorating the slave’s plight was through just and kind treatment by a master, with the hope of manumission at a future point, and the prospect of remaining under the master’s patronage and provision as a freedman or freedwoman. (4) In 1 Cor 7:21 (“Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so”) Paul seems to urge slaves not to accept the status quo, but seek to improve their condition and achieve their freedom where possible. Moreover, in the epistle to Philemon, Paul urges Philemon to accept Onesimus in a way that radically alters the slave-master relationship. It is their fictive kinship as brothers in Messiah and coworkers for the kingdom that transcends societal norms and also transforms their attitudes, actions, and responses towards each other with a decidedly Christian ethic. F. F. Bruce notes that the epistle to Philemon “brings us into an atmosphere in which the institution of slavery could only wilt and die.”99 Paul was no William Wilberforce, but without Paul we might never have had William Wilberforce.

1. Deissman 1957: 107.

2. Calvin 1979a: 348.

3. Xenophon Anab. 1.2.6.

4. Strabo Geogr. 12.8.13.

5. Josephus Ant. 12.119, 125.

6. Ibid. 12.147–53; Philo Legat. 245.

7. Cicero Flac. 28.68.

8. Cf. Bruce 1984a: 5; Trebilco 1991: 13–14.

9. Ameling 2004: 398–440.

10. Tacitus Annals 14.27; and according to Eusebius (Chron. 1.21) all three major towns in the Lycus Valley were destroyed. Strabo (Geogr. 12.8.16) wrote that the entire region was known as a centre of repeated catastrophes.

11. Lincoln 2000: 580.

12. See “Colossae,” online: http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/theology/institute/colossae/.

13. See the synoptic parallels provided by Kooten 2003 and further lists of parallels in Talbert 2007: 4–5. I find that a comparison of Eph 6:21–22 and Col 4:7–8 clearly supports some sort of literary relationship between the two writings. Yet F. C. Baur overstates the case when he writes, “The whole contents of the two Epistles are substantially the same,” and asserts that Ephesians and Colossians are so interwoven “that they stand or fall together in their claim to apostolic origin” ([1873–75] 2003: vol. 2, 4, 44).

14. On the independent nature of Colossians from Ephesians, see Ellis 1999: 110–11; and Talbert 2007: 4–6; while Barth and Blanke (1994: 72–114) argue that the problem of literary dependency is unsolved and perhaps unsolvable.

15. Technically, Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles are the so-called “Deutero-Pauline” letters, while Colossians and Second Thessalonians are the proper “Disputed Pauline” letters. Cf. Mead 1986: 118.

16. Cf. recently Lohse 1971: 181; Pokorný 1991: 21; Lincoln 2000: 580; Wilson 2005: 17–19; but against this scenario is Schweizer 1982: 19–21; Wedderburn 1987: 70; Dunn 1996: 37.

17. Käsemann, RGG 3:728.

18. Cf. especially the positive case for Pauline authorship in O’Brien 1982: xli–xlix; Smith 2006: 6–14. In particular, it seems hard to place Col 4:7–17 in a post-Pauline context. Furthermore, deSilva (2004: 701) argues that the contents are exactly what we would expect from an astute pastoral leader concerning: (a) reliance on shared traditions, (b) Paul’s brief reflection on his own calling in God’s purpose, and (c) personal matters like prayer requests, personal greetings, and personal exhortations.

19. Cf. Bujard 1973; Kiley 1986; Collins 2005.

20. Cf. the data listed in Lohse 1971: 84–88; McL. Wilson 2005: 12–13.

21. O’Donnell 2005: 388.

22. Lohse 1971: 87; O’Brien 1982: xliii.

23. Lohse 1971: 84–85, 87, 182–83; McL. Wilson 2005: 14.

24. Cf. Cannon (1983: 49): “Based on the United Bible Societies’ text of Colossians, of the 114 lines of text in the first two chapters, thirty-four (or thirty percent) of them are drawn from traditional material and twenty-five of them are careful applications of the traditional material. This means that over fifty percent of the first two chapters of Colossians are influenced by words, ideas, and modes of expression that were already existing in the early church. Any judgment made about the authorship of the letter must keep this important factor fully in mind.”

25. Cf. Reicke 2001: 75; Bird 2008b, 377–78.

26. Witherington 2007: 1–2, esp. the quote from L. T. Johnson in n. 2.

27. Cf. Bauckham 1988: 492.

28. Lohse 1971: 180 (see all of 177–83); cf. Baur 2003 [1873–75]: vol. 2, 7–8, 35–38 on the apparently developed Christology of Colossians.

29. I am unpersuaded by O’Brien (1982: xlv–xlvi, 57–61) who understands the “church” in 1:18 as a reference to heavenly assembly around the risen Christ.

30. Still 2004: 133.

31. Cf. Sappington 1991: 226; Gorman 2004: 477; Still 2004: 130–35; deSilva 2004: 697–98.

32. Dunn 1996: 38–39.

33. MacDonald 2008: 44.

34. On Timothy as author see Schweizer 1982: 23–25; Dunn 1996: 38–39. It is interesting that two manuscripts state that Colossians was written “from Rome through Tychicus and Onesimus” (075, 1739, 1881, and several Byzantine witnesses), which associates these Pauline coworkers with the letter’s composition and delivery.

35. Cf. Gnilka 1982: 5; Schweizer 1982: 24–25; Pokorný 1991: 9.

36. Another option put forward (e.g., Ellis 1999: 266–75; Reicke 2001: 75) is Caesarea (Acts 23:33—26:32) where, according to Acts, Paul was imprisoned for two years (Acts 24:27). But Paul had no hope for an early release which is reflected in Philemon (v. 22). Caesarea would not have provided a likely outlet for Paul’s evangelistic work referred to in Colossians (Col 4:3–4). Caesarea is also a less likely refuge for a runaway slave (see Martin 1973: 24).

37. (1) Timothy can be placed in Ephesus (Acts 19:22; 1 Cor 16:10; 1 Tim 1:3) but not Rome (unless Phil 1:1 was written from Rome). (2) Tychicus is linked to Rome and Ephesus (2 Tim 4:12) but towards the end of Paul’s imprisonment. (3) Aristarchus was apparently in Ephesus during the riot there (Acts 19:29) and he probably sailed onto Rome with Paul (Acts 27:2). (4) Demas is only linked with Paul in his final imprisonment and noted for his desertion (2 Tim 4:10). (5) If Luke was Paul’s travelling companion after Troas (Acts 16:11) he may have been with Paul in Ephesus and probably accompanied him to Rome, hence “we came to Rome” (Acts 28:14, 16; cf. 2 Tim 4:11). (6) John Mark had broken off from Paul (Acts 15:37–41) during an earlier missionary journey so the reference to him with Paul in Col 4:10 and Phlm 24 is all the more peculiar. It means that reconciliation has probably occurred. He is placed in Rome by 1 Pet 5:13 and in Ephesus by 2 Tim 4:11.

38. For a Roman setting see, e.g., Kümmel 1975: 347–48; O’Brien 1982: xlix–liv; Dunn 1996: 41; Gorman 2004: 478; Witherington 2007: 22–24; and for an Ephesian setting, e.g., Lohse 1971: 166–67 (for Philemon); Martin 1973: 30; Schweizer 1982: 25–26; Wright 1986: 34–39; Stuckenbruck 2003: 127; deSilva 2004: 668 (for Philemon).

39. The Pastoral Epistles (if authentic) also testify to a second Roman imprisonment (2 Tim 1:17), but Colossians could not have been written during a second Roman imprisonment since Timothy was in Ephesus at this time and unable to be cosender of the letter to the Colossians.

40. A number of Pauline chronologists (e.g., Knox 1950: 71; Jewett 1979: 103; Lüdemann 1984: 263; Riesner 1998: 213–16) either support or allow the possibility of an Ephesian imprisonment.

41. Tacitus Annals 14.27.

42. Watson 2007: 141–42.

43. Cf. Thielman 2003.

44. I have changed my mind on this since Bird 2008a: 65. Note also the hesitancy of Moule 1957: 24; and Dunn 1996: 41.

45. I prefer the term “philosophy” since that is the word used to describe the viewpoint that Paul is opposing in Colossians (2:8) and other terms like “error” or “heresy” presuppose later standards of orthodoxy.

46. On the methodology for trying to identify Paul’s opponents in Colossae see Sumney 1993; Wolter 1993: 156; DeMaris 1994: 41–45; Arnold 1996: 4; Stettler 2005: 172.

47. Gunther 1973; and see surveys in Francis 1975; Stettler 2005; Smith 2006: 19–38.

48. Hooker 1973; but see response by Gnilka 1980: 163–64 n. 4. Calvin (1979a: 132–33) saw Paul confronting worldly philosophy on the one hand with its reference to “stars, fate, the trifles of a like nature” and the Jews on the other hand who urged “observance of their ceremonies” and “had raised up many mists with a view of throwing Christ into the shade.” These Jews are clearly Jewish Christians for Calvin, and he says that they tried to “mix up Christ with Moses, and might retain the shadows of the law along with the gospel.” Throughout the commentary he calls them “false apostles.” At the same time Calvin saw these false teachers as Hellenistic to some extent and concerned with speculations contained in the books of Dionysius on the Celestial Hierarchy stemming from the Platonic school. Calvin emphasizes at length Paul’s critique of Jewish ceremonies (1979a: 181–82, 188–89), which he sees pregnant even in the “elements” (2:8) and “written code” (2:14).

49. Cf. e.g., Dibelius 1975: 99.

50. Baur 2003 [1873–75]: 2.28–32.

51. Cf. e.g., Lincoln (2000: 567) who writes: “[T]he proponent(s) of the teaching have taken a number of elements from Judaism and the Christian gospel and linked these with typical cosmological concerns from the Hellenistic world. It is quite plausible that a Hellenistic Jew who had left the synagogue to join a Pauline congregation or a Gentile convert who had had some previous contact with the synagogue would advocate such a philosophy, and the writer evidently was concerned that it might appeal to others among his preponderantly Gentile Christian readers.” Similarly, see Arnold 1996: 228–29.

52. Schweizer 1982: 81, 129–33, 136–37, 151.

53. DeMaris 1994; Kooten 2003: 143–46.

54. Martin 1996.

55. Cf. Bruce 1957: 166–67; Lohse 1971: 18, 128; Martin 1973: 18–19; O’Brien 1982: xxxviii; Barth and Blanke 1994: 38; Lincoln 2000: 563–68; and esp. Arnold 1996.

56. Philo Spec. 1.315–16.

57. Hengel and Schwemer 1997: 70.

58. Cf. Meyer and Smith 1994; Arnold 1996: 83–97, 238–43; Busch 2007.

59. Origen Cels. 1.26.

60. Arnold 1996: 20–31.

61. See discussion and references in Bruce 1984a: 7; Trebilco 1991: 58–59.

62. Cf. e.g., Josephus Ant. 14.261.

63. Trebilco 1991: 142; cf. Dunn 1995: 156.

64. Bruce 1984a: 7.

65. 4 Macc 5:22; Ep. Arist. 30–31.

66. J. W. 2.119, 166; Ant. 18.11, 25.

67. Ant. 1.18; 16.398; Ag. Ap. 1.181; 2.47.

68. Cf. Opif. 8.128; Migr. 34; Somn. 1.226; 2.244; Mos. 2.2; Spec. 1.32, 37; 3.185–91; Legat. 156, 245, 318.

69. Cf. e.g., Bruce 1957: 166; Lohse 1971: 129; Bornkamm 1975: 130; Pokorný 1991: 117–21.

70. Lightfoot 1879: 82–114; but see criticisms in Yamauchi 1964; Lohse 1971: 128–29; Barth and Blanke 1994: 379; Smith 2006: 21–24.

71. Benoit 1968: 17.

72. Cf. e.g., Francis 1975; Evans 1982; O’Brien 1982: xxxviii; Rowland 1983; Bruce 1984c; Sappington 1991; Sumney 1993: 387–88; Dunn 1995; 1996: 174; Garland 1998: 27; Roberts 1998; Smith 2006; Talbert 2007: 219; Witherington 2007: 165–66.

73. Bruce 1984c: 201–4.

74. Cf. discussion in Smith 2006: 38–73.

75. CD 16.4–6 and the “Angel of Obstruction”; Jub. 15:28–32 and the spirits who “rule so that they might be led astray.” According to Hippolytus (Haer. 9.11) a Jewish Christian group called the Elchasai urged keeping the Sabbath because “There exist wicked stars of impiety . . . Honour the day of thee Sabbath, since that day is one of those during which prevails (the power) of these stars.” Note also the incantation of 4Q510 1:4–6 for warding off evil angels and spirits: “And I, the Sage, declare the grandeur of his radiance in order to frighten and terr[ify] all the spirits of the ravaging angels and the bastard spirits, demons, Liliths, owls, and [jackals . . .].”

76. Or else thelōn is adverbial and means “intentionally disqualifying” (BDF § 148.2).

77. Apoc. Ab. 17–18; 2 Bar. 2:2; 3:1–2; T. Levi 3:4–8; T. Job 48–50; Apoc. Zeph. 8:3–4; Ascen. Isa. 7:37; 8:17; 9:28–34 (Smith 2006: 126).

78. 4Q405 frags. xxi–xxii, 6–14 (trans. Wise, Abegg, and Cook).

79. Francis 1975: 180.

80. Arnold 1996: 91.

81. Cf. Arnold 1996: 93–95.

82. Stuckenbruck 1995: 117–19; cf. Rowland 1983: 117.

83. Some have argued that embateuō was a technical term in the mystery cults for initiation rites and its presence in Colossians means that some of the Gentile converts were previously involved in the mystery cults. This is based largely on an inscription from the Apollos temple at Claros 30 km north of Ephesus, which uses the word embateuō three times (Dibelius 1975; Arnold 1996: 104–57). The problem is that in the various witnesses to the mystery rites embateuō is never used alone and always includes the words muēsis or epopteia for expressing the reception of the mysteries. This combination of words is entirely lacking from Col 2:18–23, which evacuates the argument for a “technical” usage of embateuō. A far better background for embateuō is Jewish mystical ascents to heaven for worship with the angels (Sappington 1991: 156–68; Rowland 1983: 76; Evans 1982: 198).

84. Hegermann 1961: 162; cf. Stettler 2005: 196. Discussed further in Bird [forthcoming].

85. Seneca De Superstitione; cited in Augustine Civ. 6.11; Tacitus Hist. 5.5; Juvenal Sat. 14.96–106.

86. Cf. Acts 10:2, 22, 35; 13:16, 26, 43, 50; 16:14; 17:4, 17; 18:7.

87. Dunn 1995; 1996: 34.

88. Cf. Stettler 2005: 193.

89. Lohse 1971: 130.

90. About Philemon and Colossians we have already noted that: (1) they are both written during a Pauline imprisonment, (2) they have the same coauthor in Timothy, (3) they share the same list of Pauline coworkers in the closing greetings, and (4) there is no mention of the Philemon/Onesimus tension in Colossians, which led us to infer that the rift had been healed and Onesimus is called a “faithful and beloved brother” implying that he had proven himself in service. Thus, the letter to Philemon probably precedes that written to the Colossians by some time.

91. Cf. Fitzmyer 2000: 17–24.

92. Pliny Ep. 9.21: “To Sabianus. The freedman of yours with whom you said you were angry has been to me, flung himself at my feet, and clung to me as if I were you. He begged my help with many tears, though he left a good deal unsaid; in short, he convinced me of his genuine penitence. I believe he has reformed, because he realizes that he did wrong. You are angry, I know, and I know too that your anger was deserved, but mercy wins most praise when there was just cause for anger. You loved the man once, and I hope you will love again, but it is sufficient for the moment if you allow yourself to be appeased. You can always be angry again if he deserves it, and will have more excuse if you were once placated. Make some concession to his youth, his tears and your own kind heart, and do not torment him or yourself any longer—anger can only be a torment to your gentle self” (trans. B. Radice [LCL]).

93. Cf. Winter 1987.

94. Callahan 1993: 371.

95. On Onesimus’s conversion we have to ask, did Onesimus go to Paul to gain leverage over his master and was a safe return to Philemon a contributing factor in Onesimus’s conversion to faith in Jesus (see Barclay 1996: 102)?

96. Cf. further Barclay 1996: 101–2; Harrill 1999.

97. On slavery in the New Testament and antiquity see Guzlow 1969; Keener 1992: 188–207; Barth and Blanke 2000: 1–102; Harrill 2005; and the history of interpretation of Paul and slavery in Byron 2008.

98. Dunn 1996: 306–7.

99. Bruce 1977: 401.