5. The Colossian heresy. — The teaching attacked by St. Paul is described in 2^- ^^-^, ver.ses which in addition to their brevity present many problems
COLOSSIAis^S, EPISTLE TO THE
COLOSSIAiq"S, EPISTLE TO THE 229
both of translation and of text. Theories as to its character liave been varied and numerous. The principal facts that can be gleaned are as follows :
(1) The teaching was Christian ; cf. 2^^, which, however, suggests that it did not give Christ His due position.
(2) It was, at least in part, Judaistic. This would not necessarily be proved by the reference to ' the bond written in ordinances ' in 2^'', though it is on the whole probable that the Mosaic Law is intended. But the specific allusions in 2^^ 'in meat or in drink or in respect of a feast day, or a new moon, or a sabbath day,' are obviously Jewish. It is true that the Law says nothing about ' drink,' but the later Rabbinism certainly included such regulations, as is shown by He 9^". And this very Rabbinism is clearly alluded to in 2^, ' the tradition of men.' The references to circumcision (2^^ 3^^) show that the false teachers assigiied some value to it. Yet this Judaism cannot have been very like that attacked in Gal., as the whole tone of the letter shows. It was less definite, and mingled with other elements of a peculiar type.
(3) It claimed to be a ' philosophy ' (2^), which St. Paul calls a ' vain deceit.' It seems to have been regarded as the revelation of a secret ' wisdom and knowledge' (2^-^). Here, just as much as in 1 Co 1, we are certainly moving in Greek, or at least Hellenistic, regions of thought. Philo could speak of a 'Jewish philosophy.' And the Judaism of Colossaj, like that of Alexandria, was at least given a Hellenic colour. As Hort has shown [Juda- istic Christianity, p. 119ft'.), the term 'philosophy' might easily have been used of esoteric lore about angels, or even, though this usage is a later one, of an ascetic ethical cult, features which both appear at Colossai.
(4) Some sort of worship of angels seems to have been practised, and possibly, if the reading is correct, emphasis was laid upon visions communi- cated by them (2'^). St. Paul charges the teachers with reliance upon the spirits that control the ele- ments of the universe rather than upon Christ (2*). That this is the true meaning of aroLx^la in this passage, as well as in Gal 4^- ^, is shown by the exegesis, which implies in each case personal agents. And the emphasis laid by St. Paul upon the superiority of Christ to ' thrones or dominions or principalities or powers' (I^^; cf. 1-° 2^^) confirms this view. That there was angelolatry of some sort is certain, though the language in w^hich it is described cannot be pressed too closely, since St. Paul may be using the language of his o^vn angel- ology to describe the view of his opponents. In the 4th cent, the Council of Laodicea found it necessary to condemn an gel- worship. In the 5th cent. Theodo- ret says that the archangel Michael was worshipped in the district, and this worship continued for several centuries (see Zahn, op. cit. p. 476 f. ; cf. Lightfoot, Col. p. 68).
(5) Whatever 2-^ precisely means, it shows that stress was laid upon asceticism, for which special rules Avere given (2^^- -"• ^i). This was the natural outcome of a ' philosophy ' in which the spirits that ruled material things were the objects of fear and reverence. The angels who were the objects of the Colossian cult were powers who if not propitiated might be hostile to man, who must therefore guard himself by mortifying his material body. This is the point of St. Paul's counter-statement of the true Christian asceticism (3^^-)-
It has been made clear by the work of recent scholars that there is nothing in all this which need point to a date later than A.D. 60. The Tubingen school, from Baur to Hilgenfeld, thought that Col. reflected the great Gnostic systems of the 2nd century. The powers, etc., were the Valen- tinian aeons, forming the Pleroma, to which they
saw an allusion in 1'^. Asceticism, again, was a typical Gnostic feature, as was the emphasis on a secret wisdom or Gnosis (cf. 2^) confined to an inner circle of initiates or xAetot (cf. 1^^, where St. Paul declares that every man is to be made r^Xeios by the gospel). The Judaistic references were explained on this theory to be due to some sort of Gnostic Ebionism, on the lines of the pseudo-Clementines. That there were Gnostic tendencies at Colossse need not be denied. The emphasis on knowledge is enough to prove that. But there is no hall-mark of any particular 2nd-cent. system. The word irX-qpwfia in P** loses most of its point if it is used in the later technical sense (on the word see Lightfoot, Col. p. 323; J. A, Robinson, Eph., 1903, p. 255; Peake on Col 1'*). It is far more probable that the later Gnostics derived their usage from that of St. Paul.
^lore recently the theory has been held in a modified form, recognizing a genuine Pauline Epistle, directed against a Jewish-Christian tlieo- sophy, but regarding it as having been expanded by a2nd-cent. writer (so Pfleiderer, Primitive Chris- tianity, Eng. tr., 1906-11, who saw allusions to Gnostic Ebionism though he did not attempt to reconstruct the original Epistle ; Holtzmann and Soltau, who depend, however, rather on literary criticism ; see below). The arguments for this also fail if the known tendencies of the 1st cent, are sufficient to cover the facts. And there is no hint in the Epistle of any such division in the object of St. Paul's attack.