(1) The universe is animated by elemental spirits (2®). This conception appears also in Gal 4*- ", and is in line with that of Ps 104*, a passage which has been taken over in He 1^, though with a change of thought characteristic of later Judaism. Both the Book of Jubilees and Enoch speak of the spirits of such things as fire, mist, hail, the sea (cf. Rev 14" 16»).
(2) There are diflerent ranks of angels (P® 2^"- ^^ ; cf. Ro 8^^ 1 Co 15**, where substantially the same language is used). This conception perhaps starts from Dt 4^", where the nations are allotted to ' the host of heaven.' In Daniel each nation, including Israel, has its angelic ' prince, ' It was a natural development that led to the conception of orders of angelic powers in heaven itself (cf. En. Ixi. 10). In the later Rabbinism ten orders were enumerated (cf. also the angels of the churches in Rev.).
(3) In 2''*' ^* there is perhaps an allusion to the ministry of angels in the giving of the Law. This characteristic idea of the Rabbis was derived from Dt 332 (LXX). It is alluded to in Ac 7*^ He 2?, Jos. Ant. XV. V. 3.
(4) The angels, even the angel or angels of the Law, may be morally imperfect, and need recon- ciliation through the Cross (l^ 2}% This is typi- cally Pauline (cf. Ro 8=^^, 1 Co 2^-^ &■ 11«> 15^ Gal P). It does not seem to be a very early Jewish concep- tion, unless it appears in Gn Q^'*. Such ministers of evil as the destroying angel of Ex 12 are non- moral. But in the later writings angels are frequently charged with weakness of different kinds ; cf. Ps 82^- \ Job 4^8 151'. It was only at a late date that the distinction between absolutely good and absolutely bad angels arose. It was not the characteristic view of St. Paul's day, and there is no reason why we should expect to find it in his writings. There thus seems to be nothing particu- larly un-Pauline in the angelology of Colossians. (On this subject see esp. O. Everling, Die paulin- ische Angelologie tind Ddmonologie, 1888 ; A. S. Peake, Introd. to ' Col.' in EOT ; M. Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Patdus, 1909.)
7. Relation to Ephesians. — It is at once obvious that there is a close literary connexion between Colossians and Ephesians. The structure of the two Epistles is largely the same, though naturally the special warnings of Col. find no parallel in Eph., and a second thanksgiving and prayer in Eph 2-3^ 314-19 has no parallel in Colossians. The exhorta- tions at the end show close agreement in detail. And, most significant of all, there is a remarkable series of verbal parallels, running through verse after verse of the two Epistles. Only two alterna- tives are possible. Either both letters are by one writer, or one has been deliberately modelled on the other.
It has commonly been asserted that Eph. is based on Col., and in that case no presumption against Col. arises. Holtzmann, however, showed that the literary criticism did not work out so simply. Sometimes one Epistle, sometimes the other, seems to be prior. Accordingly, he regarded Eph. as based upon a shorter Col., which was subsequently expanded from Eph. in view of Gnosticism. But the tests by which he proposed to recover the original Col. do not work out well. The division of the heresy into two parts is not at all easy. And the literary criteria are altogether too minute. A similar and even more elaborate theory has been worked out by Soltau. Von Soden, however, in examining Holtzmann's view, only admitted 1"""" 210. w. 18b jj^g later insertions, and has subsequently reduced even this amount, rejecting only the Christological passage in ch. 1. The majority of scholars now accept the whole Epistle as Pauline.
As to the relations with Eph., it seems to the
{)resent writer that sufficient stress has not been aid upon the curious interweaving of the phrase- ology of the two Epistles. Even Holtzmann's hypothesis does not do justice to the way in which phrase after phrase is used in connexion with diflerent trains of thought. The author of Eph. did not copy Col. at all as the two later Synoptists copied St. Mark. He simply used its langua^^e, and to a most extraordinary extent. He is writing for
COLOURS
COLOURS
231
a different purpose, and applies to that purpose phraseology used with quite ditierent implications in Colossians. ThusEph2"-"isfull of the language of Col 2'^'^% and yet the points of the passages are quite different. Is it possible that such a pheno- menon could have arisen at all except in the work of a single -w riter writing a second letter while the language of ti.e first was still fresh in his mind ?
8. Style and language. — It has been objected that these are un-Pauline, but this holds only if the four great Epistles are taken as the final norm as to what St. Paul might have written. Of the 46 words not used elsewhere by St. Paul the majority are connected either ■with the heresy or with its refutation. Further, 11 Pauline words occur which are used by no other NT writer. It should be noted that St. Paul was now at Rome, in the midst of new associations, which would naturally atl'ect his vocabulary. The suggestion has been made that Timothy, who is associated witli St. Paul in the salutation, may have had a large share in the actual composition of the letter.