tfSNT 27 (1986) 49-68]

COLOSSIANS AND GNOSIS Roy Yates

9 The Crescent, Hipperholm, Halifax HX3 8NQ

I Many commentators have made the assumption that we have examples of 'gnosticism' in the New Testament, against which the canonical authors wrote to correct such erroneous views. The 'error' of the Colossians is regarded as a prime example of this. However, recent research into the origin and nature of gnosticism has shown that the developed systems of the second and third centuries, which were once thought to provide a clear set of characteristics by which to define gnosticism, Were in fact not systematized at all.1 Instead it is suggested that we are dealing with a much wider and less clearly defined phenomenon, whose teachings have been stylized and stereotyped by ancient and modern authors for the purpose of stowing diem to be inferior to those of orthodox Christianity. One of the major problems in assessing the relationship between the New Testament and gnosticism is that of terminology. British scholars have tended to reserve the term 'gnosticism9 to describe the second-century heresy as opposed by Irenaeus, "Hippolytus and others. German scholars have tended to speak of gnosticism in a much wider sense to include earlier manifestations of this movement of thought, not only in the New Testament, but in many other documents as well. The crux of the matter lies in the word 'gnosticism',2 which RMcL. Wilson rightly suggests should be reserved for the specific Christian heresy of the second century and avoided in discussions offirst-centurydocuments, where the more appropriate term is 'gnosis'. It is a mistake to suppose that this heresy can be transposed back into the first century, just as it is also a mistake to think of the heresy in isolation as if it came into being fully-developed in the second century. Time must be allowed for this

50

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

development, and the exegete must be aware of the trends and tendencies, the signs and notions in the air that indicate such a development. A second problem in dealing with gnosticism is that, because of its fundamentally syncretistic nature, there is no one uniform set of ideas that can be classed as gnosticism. Instead there is a blending together of elements of every sortfromvarious and often contradicting backgrounds. It was the object of the gnostic to engage in free speculation, and to develop the teachings and traditions handed down to him. E. Pagels3 has suggested that, like circles of artists today, gnostics considered original creative invention to be the mark of spiritual awareness. Each one was expected to express his own perceptions by revising and transforming what he was taught Merely to repeat the words of one's teacher was considered immature. The church fathers were conscious of what seemed to them to be a bewildering variety of gnostic teachinga picture confirmed by our reading of the Nag Hammadi texts. This apparent confusion is not accidental, but belongs to the very nature ofthe teachings. There was no gnostic church, no normative theology or rule of faith, no hierarchy, canon of scripture or other norm or authority and teaching. No limits were set to free representation and theological speculation. Although we know the names of a few revered gnostic teachers such as Basilides and Valentinus, gnostic writings show no interest in their Uves, authority or personalities. Their heroes are eitherfiguresfromprimordial times or alternative apostlesfromthe New Testament, but not contemporary teachers and holy men. It seems that what we have in gnosticism is a movement with a different authority structure and social structure, catering for people who found the imposition of bishops, canon or scripture and rule of faith too much of a constriction on their desire to follow their own theological and philosophical speculations wherever they might lead. The gnostics' use of scripture illustrates this. They adhered to the words of scripture, but had no regard for the literal meaning of the text The words were accepted, but were made to signify something completely different. No wonder such fathers as Irenaeus waxed wrathful with the gnostics, for they were mishandling the church's scriptures, and moreover were doing so on principles and methods which the orthodox themselves employed. The vital difference lay in the controlling factor. Irenaeus was governed by the 'rule of faith',4 whereas the gnostics endeavoured to mould the scriptures to suit

YATES Colossians and Gnosis

51

their own exegesis. The result was a synthesis which was alien to the Christian faith. Many of their writings can be understood as interpretations or paraphrases of Old Testament texts. But E.M. Yamauchi5 has shown how limited was the gnostics' use and knowledge of the Old Testament Evenfromthe patristic accounts it was clear that the early gnostics were especially fond of the early chapters of Genesis, but were concerned with very little else in the Old Testament. Yamauchi detects a revolt against Judaism, yet within Judaism; a development of the Jewish-gnostic exegesis of the book of Genesis. Perhaps we have here the clue to the origin of gnosticism. The Jewish element in the development of gnosticism is unmistakable.6 In some of our sources the Christian element appears to be only a superficial veneer, whereas the Jewish element is integral to the whole. But often the Old Testament material is used in a perverse and almost anti-Jewish way. The God of the creation stories is degraded into an evil and inferior demiurge, and the Old Testament figures who originally represented evil are presented as gnostic heroes. We are dealing with what K. Rudolph calls 'a critical selfdissolution on thefringesof Judaism'.7 The basic gnostic traditions were most likelyformedby people who lived in close proximity to Judaism and who reacted against it. This hostility and ambivalence towards Judaism in gnostic writings seems to derivefroma situation in which the Jewish community reacted decisively against such speculation. Some of these heterodox Jews would havefoundtheir way into Christian circles where Jewish tradition was both accepted and rejected. This was probably the context in which gnostic exegesis of the New Testament arose. When Christians refused to accept the gnostic reading of the Old Testament, a whole new era of controversy arose, resulting in the defining of Christian norms of treadling and authority, and the subsequent exclusion of the gnostic traditions. A.F. Segal8 offers a reconstruction of the way in which gnostic thought and exegesis probably developed on the fringe of, and in reaction to, Rabbinic Judaism. He takes up the rabbinic category of 'two powers in heaven', used by those sects where an angel or mediator was exalted into a second divine hypostasis. At first the debate centred on the exegesis of those passages of scripture which referred to a humanfigurein heaven, or which used anthropomorphic language of God, or in which the deity is referred to by the plural 'Elohim'. The rabbis countered the dangerous angelologies by supplying a different interpretation of the passages under discussion. The

52

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

second stage was to discourage those who led prayers in the synagogues from using certain heretical prayers. Also the first commandment was used as a defence against dualism. The incipient heretics were thusforcedto withdrawfromthe synagogues, although the debate continued as the views of the 'two powers' heretics became more and more extreme. Christians as well as gnostics came under this condemnation. The key factor in separating radical gnosticismfromearlier Jewish exegesis andfromChristian exegesis is the negative portrayal of the secondfigurein heaven as an evil and subordinate demiurge. Radical gnostics portrayed the God of the Old Testament, and the God of the synagogue in whose name they had been expelled, in this perverse way. It is likely that such proto-gnostic interpretation of angehe mediators originated in a thoroughly Hellenized form ofJudaism. Segal concluded: 'The radicalization of gnosticism was a product of the battle between the rabbis, the Christians and various other "two powers" sectarians who inhabited the structures of Judaism'.9 The battle was recorded as a debate over the meaning of several scripture passages, among which were all the angehe and theophany texts of the Old Testament, and plurals used of God in scripture. The situation described by Segal in his reconstruction of the origin of gnosticism is post-Jamnian, and therefore second-century. What we have in the New Testament comesfromthe earliest stage of this development, when Jewish, Hellenistic and Christian elements were fused together. Fringe groups in Judaism, many of which were quite orthodox, were able to express their own theological and philosophical speculations in terms of a developed angelology, merkabah mysticism, apocalypticism, and other developments. There were points of meeting with similar ideas and vocabulary in Hellenistic culture. In searching for new categories with which to express their faith, Christians too came into contact with this fusion of ideas. Danger signals were noticed when going too far along this road led to a disregard of traditional ethical standards, an over-concentration on asceticism, ecstatic visions, a misuse of the Jewish law, a dualism of good and evil powers, and an attitude of contempt towards the noninitiate and the non-visionary. The New Testament documents stand within the wider development of 'gnosis', making use of ideas and vocabulary that were to be developed by the gnostics; yet at the same time standing over against gnosis as critical of the abuses that such ideas could lead to. They comefroma time when the situation was

YATES Colossians and Gnosis

53

still fluid, when the lines of demarcation between heresy and orthodoxy had not been drawn.10 Certainly those who held these views felt themselves to be Christians and presented themselves as such in the young Christian communities. St Paul is a keyfigurein this development He stands at that point of interplay and inter action, where ideas from the Jewish, Hellenistic and Christian traditions came together. From evidence in the Epistles to the Corinthians it has been suggested that Paul's opponents at Corinth held views of a 'gnostic' nature. They present themselves as 'spiritual' and 'perfect' men who are proud of their knowledge.11 All things are permitted to them in their state of liberated maturity,12 but they look down on the weak who have not experienced such liberation.13 As possessors of the Spirit they already have the resurrection.14 Worship has become a demonstration of the gnostic indwelling of the Spirit,15 the eucharist is degraded into a meal designed to sate the appetite,16 and the earthly Jesus is despised in favour of the heavenly Christ17 It is further held that similar views prevailed in the other Pauline communities. The primary exponent of this view is W. Schmithals. His thesis in Gnosticism in Corinthn is that the two cannonical letters to the Corinthians were actually composed out of a series of six separate letters, written by Paul in the middle of the first century, but collected and edited about AD 96 for use in the anti-gnostic struggle of the church. He identifies only one set of opponents, who are especially prominent in 2 Cor. 10-13, and who are characterized as Jewish-Christian Gnostics. Their gnostic outlook on the gospel is evident in their pride in their knowledge, which in turn is manifested in libertine behaviour in both social and individual morality. They demonstrated their superiority by speaking in tongues, and even regarded the eucharist as a Jewish-gnostic rite rather than as the Christian communion. The use made by Paul of the distinction between and ,19 shows that his opponents must have been gnostics, while it is claimed that even Paul himself must have had some gnostic tendencies because he does not explicitly attack their radical cosmic dualism. In a subsequent volume Schmithals20 argues that Paul is dealing with the same kind of Jewish-Gnostic opposition in his letters to the Galatians, to Philippi, Thessalonica and also in Rom. 16.17-20.21 Although the opponents appear in different guises they are always

54

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

the sameformerJewish Gnostics. Sometimes it is their Jewishness which leads to conflict with Paul, and sometimes it is their gnosticism. Thus Schmithals proposes that Paul feces a single battlefront: a prelude to the debate between the church and the gnostics in the second century. Schmithals has been widely criticized for his views and methods. J.M. Robinson22 says that his pan-gnostic theory has 'hung like an albatross around the neck of the Bultmann tradition', and J. Munck23 that he "lacks historical training^ and "forces his a priori opinions upon the texts with offensive boldness'. Schmithals makes assumptions and presents hypotheses which he then proceeds to treat as if they were established acts. He assumes that there was a system of pre-Christian gnosticism as fully developed as those known to us from the second century; that the evidence of the second century can simply be applied en bloc to the situation at Corinth; and that Paul was facing the same sort of opponents in every area of his ministry. R.McL Wilson24 warns that this is to run the risk of interpreting the embryonic and undeveloped in the light of the mature and fullydeveloped systems of a later age. We have no extant gnostic documents which pre-date Christianity to prove gnostic influence on Paul (or his opponents) beyond all doubts. So instead of thinking of a fidi-scale developed gnostic religion in confrontation with primitive Christianity, it is better to suppose that gnosticism grew and developed as a movement more or less contemporary with Christianity and interacting with it What was in process of development in the first century, and which manifested itself at Corinth, is best described as "a kind of gnosis'.25 In Paul there is a similarity of language with the later gnostic writers, but a fundamental difference in the ideas expressed. A similarity of language does not always imply identity of meaning, so what is important in determining gnostic content is not so much the words used but the intention of the writers who used them.26 Just as for Irenaeus the controlling factor in interpreting scripture and setting out Christian theology was the rule of faith and the apostolic tradition, so also for St Paul there was a controlling factor. In his case it was a deep commitment to a fully incarnational theology, grounded in the reality of Christ's death on the cross. At a later stage in the Church's self-definition warnings were issued against teachers who peddled a "gnosis falsely so called',27 who occupied themselves with 'myths and genealogies',28 forbade

YATES Colossians and Gnosis

55

marriage and the eating of certain foods,29 and who held that for them the resurrection had taken place.30 The precise nature of what is being opposed in the Pastoral Epistles is difficult to define, but there are certain links with a kind ofJewish gnosis. In 1 John we have a docetic Christology31 and a certain indifference to morality in matters of conduct32 Jude,33 2 Peter34 and Revelation35 refer to those who follow the way of Balaam into error by eating food offered to idols and moral laxity, and who in Revelation36 are given the name 'Nicolaitans'. Finally the Fourth Gospel makes a full use of terminology and concepts that were to be taken up and incorporated into gnosticism, but of itself the gospel cannot be called 'gnostic'. In all these references the vital question is not whether a particular word or idea can be paralleled in later gnostic theories, but whether this gnostic meaning was present in the mind of the author when he wrote. Thus in the New Testament we have the first murmurings of the storm that was to break in all its fulness in the second century, but these signs are enough to show that the danger had begun to make itself felt37 Dealing with thisformativeperiod H. Koester38 suggests that if there was a close relationship between the developing gnosis and Jewish mysticism and wisdom theology, it is necessary to determine and localize with more precision the decisive turning point in the line that leads from such Jewish predecessors into Christian and pagan gnosticism. It is our contention that the situation to which the Epistle to the Colossians is addressed may provide such clarification. It is notoriously difficult to determine what occasioned Paul to write the Epistle to the Colossians. It is a real letter which takes for granted much that we should like to have been told, and so one has to read between the lines to make an inspired guess at what has been going on. But there is danger in this of reading into the text solutions to problems that never existed. The majority of commentators suppose that Paul is dealing with some kind of error, and that he quotes slogans and catchwordsfromtheir teaching. But what exactly was it? J.J. Gnther39 listsforty-fourdifferent suggestions that have been made by scholars. Over a hundred years ago J.B. Lightfoot40 identified two elements in the Colossian teaching, one Judaic and the

56

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

other gnostic, and attempted to show that both are combined in the teaching of the Essenes. This identification has been superseded by the discovery of actual gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi, and was by no means universally accepted by other scholars at the time.41 Since Lightfoot opinion has been divided between those who suppose that what we have here at Colossae is some form of gnosticism,42 and those who have their doubts about this identification.43 But the vast majority are convinced that Paul was dealing with opponents whose teachings led to a challenge to the uniqueness of Christ and found a place alongside him for the placation of the other spiritual powers.44 The references which are held to support his view are as follows: a. There are regulations, probably derived from a Jewish source, which are being urged on the Colossians, concerning matters of food and drink, festivals, new moons and sabbaths.45 They are urged, 'do not handle, do not taste, do not touch',46 but Paul dismisses these as 'human precepts and doctrines'.47 b. There is a pronounced asceticism, "rigour of devotion and selfabasement and severity to the body*,48 possibly undertaken to subdue the flesh and induce visions,49 but which does not lead to a higher moral standard and is 'of no use in checking the indulgence of the flesh'.50 c. The principalities and powers,51 elements of the world,52 and angels53 are taken as spiritual powers who were believed to stand between the worshipper and God. Along with Christ they were to be placated and worshippped in order to facilitate the believer's ascent to the heavenly realms. d. The Pleroma or 'fulness'54 is regarded as a technical term for the aggregate of divine powers through which access to God was to be sought Paul refers to this teaching as 'philosophy and empty deceit',55 'human tradition'56 and 'human precepts and doctrines'.57 It is assumed that the Great Christology of CoL 1.15-20 was incorporated into the epistle to challenge these false beliefs, and that Paul took up such terms as 'pleroma' from the vocabulary of the false teaching to add to the dignity and divinity of the Person of Christ It seems that whatever Paul opposes can be presented as an argument against opinions held by the false teachers! W. Schmithals58 applies his gnostic theory to Colossians as well as the other Pauline letters. He finds two types of material dealing with the activity of opponents. There are ambiguous references to the fine

YATES Colossians and Gnosis

57

words and powers of persuasion which would lead men away from the truth to a false wisdom,59 and there are unambiguous antiJewish references condemning the use offoodand purity regulations and the observance of the Jewish calendar of feasts.60 This suggests a speculative Hellenistic gnosticism on the one hand, and Jewish ethics and practices on the other, and prompts Schmithals's theory that Colossians has passed through two editions to reach its present form. It is suggested that the original letter was written by Paul61 to warn the Christians of Colossae against Judaizing legalism. The background to this was the practices of former God-fearers from the synagogue who continued to observe Jewish purity regulations and feast days. The deutero-Pauline author of the canonical Colossians redirected Paul's original polemic against the gnostic heretics of his own day, formulating his own anti-heretical passages,62 and composing other material to support his case.63 It is suggested that both Ephesians and Colossians spring from a situation in which the coming together of Pauline Christianity and a Christianity based on the synagogue was opposed by the more enthusiastic members of the Pauline churches, a situation which resulted in a conflict with such gnosticizing members. Schmithals seems to be advocating a polarization of the two elements ofJudaism and gnosticism that Lightfoot sought to combine in his Essene theory. He also makes the unsubstantiated assumption that certain key verses are attacking gnosticism. In almost every case these are capable of a non-gnostic interpretation. What we have in Colossians, as in the main Pauline epistles, are the raw materials out of which gnosticism was built, rather than gnosticism itself Schmithals is again attempting to press the evidence into a mould of his own invention, one into which it will not fit M.D. Hooker64 calls into question not only the gnostic interpretar tion of Colossians, but the more basic assumption of the majority of scholars that Paul is here dealing with the teaching ofopponents. She claims that it does not necessarily follow that what Paul affirms, others have been denying. There is no need to postulate a 'false teaching' unique to Colossae. Instead the danger was a temptation to succumb to pressurefromJews or Jewish Christians to seek perfection by means of religious observance. The pressure could be especially greatfornewly baptized Christians, surrounded by the lax morality associated with their pagan past, to take on the safeguard of observing certain Jewish regulations. Paul's reply to this threat,

58

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

according to Hooker, is to demonstrate that both creation and redemption are complete in Christ because he has replaced the Jewish law. There is therefore no need for the Colossians to look anywhere else for completion than in him. Hooker is right to question the general assumption that Paul is dealing with the teaching of opponents in Colossians. But, on our reading of the evidence, there seems to be something more here than pressure on converts to make use of Jewish regulations in order to subdue their former pagan desires and way of life. One suspects that if this were the case Paul would have replied more along the lines of his anti-Judaizing argument in Galatians. What we find opposed in Colossians is obviously some kind of gnosis. It is not so extreme that Paul condemns it out of hand. He rather attempts to correct some of the abuses it has led to. We have here one of the fusion points in the linefromJudaism to gnosticism. What then is going on at Colossae? Is there evidence of a Christian gnosis here, or is it something more basic where ideasfromJewish, Hellenistic and Christian backgrounds meet and cross-fertilize? Is it simply a case of the Christians there exercising their freedom in Christ, andfindingthat suchfreedomhas got a little out of hand? It is our suggestion that what Paul is dealing with has its roots in Jewish mysticism rather than pagan philosophical speculation. Although there was a strong Jewish presence in the Lycus Valley,65 it would seem that the vast majority of the members of the church at Colossae were Gentiles. Some of these were attracted to certain elements of Jewish mysticism, including the mystical ascent of the initiate to the heavenly realms to witness the angehe worship of God himself.66 A rigorous self-discipline which included legal ordinances, food and drink regulations, and a careful observance of the festival calendar and sabbaths was the necessary preparation for such mystical ascent. In line with this the 'flesh' seems to them to have meant the lower side of human nature, including the body, and by following their detailed regulations67 they believed they could strip off" the fleshy nature and thereby be in a positon to receive visions. This stripping off of thefleshis unlikely to have included actual circumcision, but 'circumcision' may have been used as a technical term for the preparatory and initiatory rites. Although attended by great perils, such visionary experience is unlikely to have been condemned by Paul since he experienced something similar himself.68 It is the vaunting of spiritual achievements following such visions that he

YATES Colossians and Gnosis

59

objects to,69 and the consequent neglect of soteriology.70 The further dangers of assimilating teaching from parallel visionary experiences in pagan religion, of the veneration of angels and other intermediaries, and the acceptance of a complete dualism offleshand spirit, are not yet present in Colossians, but could so easily develop from it At this stage the principalities and powers are not regarded as evil cosmic powers but as part of the divine retinue around the heavenly throne,71 who are witnessed at worship by the visionary,72 and who according to Paul attended Christ in his triumph on the cross.73 The 'worldly elements'74 refer to the simplistic human tradition represented in the rules and regulations accepted to induce such visionary ascent. But, as indicated earlier, this is the raw material out of which gnosticism developed, and illustrates 'into how congenial a soil the seeds of Gnosticism were about to fall'.75 We have here what seems like an early stage in a trajectory which leads from the interests ofJudaism, through contact with Christianity in a Hellenistic environment, to the later gnosticism we have attested in the Nag Hammadi documents and as opposed by the anti-gnostic Fathers.76 Gnostic exegesis of Colossians 2.14 In 1958 J. Danilou77 suggested that in the Odes of Solomon and in the Gospel of Truth we have evidence of a Jewish-Christian exegesis of CoL 2.14 in terms of the 'heavenly book\ The idea of the 'heavenly tablets' or 'book of destiny' in which the destinies of mankind were written down in advance in heaven is a very old one. L. Koep78 has shown that the concept is present in the Old Testament, in extracanonical Jewish literature, and (sparingly) in Greek literature. The Book of Words was usually regarded as a catalogue of man's sins, or as a catalogue of both evil and good works in terms of which a man would be judged. The actual term 'cheirograph' is used of this book in an anonymous Jewish apocalyptic writing dated in the first century BC.79 Here the book is held by the accusing angel who notes down all the sins of the seer. The seer asks that they might be wiped out There is also another book containing his good deeds. Danilou80 examines Jewish-Christian use of this image to express the special character of the Christian revelation. Three texts, Rev. 5.1-3, Od. Sol. 23.5-9 and Ev. Ver. 19.35-20.25 are cited as evidence of an early

60

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

Christian exegesis of the heavenly book applied to Christ himself He begins with Rev. 5.1-3, where the sealed book is clearly the one containing the secret of human destinies. The slain Christ appears as the <me who accomplishes the design of God contained in the sealed book. The next stage of this line of exegesis would be for Christ to be identified with the book itself, in that his coming into the world constitutes revelation. It is claimed that this is found in the twentythird Ode of Solomon.81 The publication of the text in 1911 led P. Batiffol82 to see in the wheel of Ode 23 a symbol of the croes. Danilou claims to have found confirmation for BatifibFs original interpretation of the Ode, and evidence that there was a JewishChristian exegesis of Paul's 'cheirograph', in Ev. Ver. 19.35-20.25, and especially in the lines, 'This is why Jesus appeared and took that book, He was nailed to a tree; he fastened to the cross the ordinance of the Father'.83 The cheirograph is taken to be the ordinance of the Father (i.e. the book itself), promulgated on the cross, where Christ wins the right to unfold it It is the link between the letter and the cross, and the revelation of the Father, detected in both the Ode and the Gospel of Truth, which confirms the presence of JewishChristian theological speculation. However, we feel that Danilou's linking of the letter in Ode 23 with CoL 2.14 is farfromobvious, since there is no reference in the Ode to the cross or to the redemptive power of Christ's death. Indeed R. Harris84 develops the idea of the letter in the Ode in terms of Christ's incarnation. He does not relate it to CoL 2.14 at all, but suggests that the mysterious 'wheel' could stand for an angelic being. What then is happening in these references? Rev. 5.1-3 has obviously influenced the writer of the 23rd Ode of Solomon, where we have what would appear to be a Jewish-Christian, and probably also gnostic meditation on the passage. It is suggested by K. Rudolph85 that the Odes of Solomon originated in Edessa in a region where those groups at first predominated which were later to be declared heretical, such as Marconionism, gnosticism, and Jewish Christianity. Danilou86 draws attention to the strange combination of teachings typical of gnosticism, such as the apocalyptic symbolism of the book of life, the feminine character of the Spirit, a marked asceticism, and parallels with the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is probable that the mysterious 'wheel' of Ode 23 has links with the chariot of Jewish Merkabah mysticism87 rather than being a symbol of the cross of Christ The Ode would therefore seem to be a meditation on this experience,

YATES Colossians and Gnosis

61

recalling but not quoting the Revelation passage. The 'letter* here cannot have the same significance as the sealed scroll of Rev. 5, opened by the Lamb of God, but seems rather to refer to a note of passage enabling the visionary to ascend unhindered to the heavenly daces. Many aspire to have this letter,88 but only the elect have the wisdom to understand.89 The link with Revelation is more with the Merkabah character ofthat book,90 but without the historical links and setting of Revelation, and without its firm grounding of the events of salvation in the death of Christ on the cross. To our reading there is no obvious connection with CoL 2.14. The Gospel of Truth is a much more overtly Christian work than the Odes of Solomon, although a number of scholars in addition to Danilou have noticed links between the two.91 It is not a gospel in the traditional sense, since it does not deal with the life and work of Jesus Christ Rather it is a gnostic meditation on the person and work of Christ as the revealer of the Father, who passed on the secret of self-knowledge. It is by such salvific knowledge that the gnostic achieves wholeness. The work does not explicitly cite the New Testament documents, but interprets certain passages in a Christiangnostic way.92 Ev. Ver. 19.35-21.1 is an example of this, with strong links with Rev. 5.2-4 and CoL 2.14. In typical gnostic fashion the author uses words, phrases and concepts from the New Testament, but uses them in different combinations and meanings from those intended by the original authors. They are transposed by being used in the service of the unspoken, but ever present a gnostic dualistic concept of salvation. In Ev. Ver. 19.35-21.1 we have again a reference to the heavenly book which no one but Jesus could open. Salvation depends on its being opened by him. There is a parallel with what we have in Ode 23, but the Gospel of Truth goes on to link this more directly with the death ofJesus on the cross. The author draws on the passion tradition, but the incarnation and death of Jesus are emptied of their ftill-blooded humanity. Thus he says of the incarnation, 'Having stripped himself of the perishable rags, he put on imperishability which no one can possibly take awayfromhim'; and of the death of Jesus, 'He draws himself down to death, though eternal life clothes him'. Are there allusions here to CoL 2.15 in the verb 'having stripped himself, which the gnostic gqspel takes as a reference to 'the perishable rags' of his humanity? I so, why is there no use made of the reference to the principalities and powers which would have been so congenial to

62

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

the Valentinian system? It would seem that the odd phrase has been picked out without any regard for the rest of the verse or the wider context Danilou93 suggests that we have a most important exegesis of CoL 2.14 in the phrase 'He put on that book; He was nailed to a tree; He published the edict of the Father on the cross'. The verb 'to nail' does not occur in the New Testament in connection with the crucifixion, but is used by Paul in the active of the nailng of the cheirograph to the cross.94 Also the cross is not referred to as a tree, except by implication in Gal. 3.13, citing the Deuteronomic law 'cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree'. The interpretation of Col 2.14 offered by O. Blanchette95 in terms of the cheirograph representing the 'body of Christ' mayfitthe Colossian passage, but is not quite what is being said here in the Gospel of Truth. Here Christ 'put on that book5, but the result of the crucifixion is not the forgiveness of all our sins as in Col. 2.14, but the publication of'the edict of the Father on the cross' resulting in the release of the initiatefromtheflesh.It would seem that Christ is being presented as an archetype of the gnostic, who by unfolding the secret of the book can secure release from thefleshto ascend to the Father. There are links here with the underlying theme of Ode 23, and, we suggest, with the kind ofthing that confronted Paul in Colossae. It is not a direct exposition of Col 2.14, but use is made of its phrases and concepts in the service of the gnostic myth. The entireframeworkof thought in which this done is a-historical. It is probable that what we have in the Gospel of Truth is a development from the kind of thing Paul had to deal with in Colossians. But even here it is not so extreme as to be condemned automatically by Christians. Indeed the Nag Hammadi library was found in the environs of a Pachomian monastery, and was probably used by some of its members. This is why Paul, and later on the heresiarchs, concentrated on the abuses that such views could lead to, such as exclusivism, spiritual pride, and a neglect of normal ethical standards. Our picture of what is hapenning at Colossae has been confirmed by consideration of the Odes of Solomon and the Gospel of Truth. We have also helped to bridge the gap between Paul's position in Colossians and gnostic writings of a later generation. It is easy to see how speculation of a Merkabah kind, in itself not objectionable in either Judaism or Christianity, could develop in a different context into the gnostic concept of the release of the soul

Y T S Colossians and Gnosis AE

63

from the prison of the body, and how Christ could come to be regarded as only one such agent in this process. This stage has not been reached in Colossians. It is wrong to read it back into the Colossian situation, although we recognize that the seeds of this development were already there, soon to germinate and grow in a congenial soil. NOTES 1. F. Wisse, 'Prolegomena to the Study of the New Testament and Gnosis', in The New Testament and Gnosis: Essays in honour of Robert McL Wilson (ed. A.H.B. Logan and A.J.M. Wedderburn; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1983), pp. 138-45. 2. R. McL Wilson, 'Slippery Words: . Gnosis, Gnostic, Gnosticism', ExpT 89 (1978), pp. 296-301; Gnosis and the New Testament (Oxford: Blackwell, 1968), eh. 1, pp. 1-30. Also J. Munck, 'The New Testament and Gnosticism', in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in honour of Otto A. Piper (London: SCM, 1962), pp. 224-38 (esp. p. 224). 3. E. Pagels, The Gnostic Gospeh (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1979), p. 11. 4. J. Danilou, The Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1973), pp. 144-52. 5. E.M. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism, A Survey of the Proposed Evidences (London: Tyndale, 1973), pp. 143E Also supported by R.McL Wilson, "libe Gnostics and the Old Testament', in Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Gnosticism. Stockholm, August 20-25, 1973 (Almqvist and Wiksell: Stockholm, and Brill Leiden, 1977), pp. 164-68. 6. R.McL Wilson, The Gnostic Problem (London: Mowbray, 1958), p. 178. 7. K. Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of an Ancient Religion (E.T.: Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1983), p. 282. N. Dahl, 'The Arrogant Archon and the Lewd Sophia: Jewish Traditions in Gnostic Revolt', in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Proceedings of the Conference at Yale, March 1978, II S.HR. 41.2 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), pp. 689-712, also shows that the gnostic claim of an arrogant demiurge is only understandable as a protest within Judaism. 8. A.F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1977); summaries on pp. 148fF. and pp. 260ff. 9. Op. at., p. 265. 10. On thefluidityof the relationship between 'heresy* and 'orthodoxy' in the earliest years of Christianity see W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (first German edition, 1934; E.T.: London: SCM,

64

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

1972); also H.E.W. Turner, The Pattern of Christian Truth (London: Mowbray, 1954), who offers a careful criticism of Bauer on pp. 39-80. 11. 1 Cor. 8.1-3. 12. 1 Cor. 10.23. 13. 1 Cor. 10.23-31. 14. 1 Cor. 15.29-32. 15. 1 Cor. 12.3; 14.2-19. 16. 1 Cor. 11.17-34; 10.16 17. 1 Cor. 12.3. 18. W. Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth (first German edition, 1956; E.T.: New York: Abingdon, 1971). 19. 1 Cor. 4.14ff; 15.44ff. 20. W. Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics (first German edition, 1966; E.T.: New York: Abingdon, 1972). 21. This is regarded as afragmentof a letter to Ephesus. 22. J.M. Robinson, 'The Nag Hammadi Library and the Study of the New Testament', in The New Testment and Gnosis: Essays in honour of Robert McL Wilson, p. 2. 23. J. Munck, "The New Testament and Gnosticism', in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in honour of Otto A. Piper (ed W. Klassen and G.F. Snyder, London, SCM, 1962), p. 230. 24. Wilson, Gnosis and the New Testament, p. 55. 25. R.MdL Wilson, 'Gnosis at Corinth', in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in honour of CK. Barrett (ed MD. Hooker and S.G. Wilson; London: SPCK, 1982), p. 111. 26. Thus F. Wisse, 'The "Opponents" in the New Testament in Light of the Nag Hammadi Writings', in Colloque international sur les textes de Nag Hammadi, Qubec, 22-25 aot 1978, B. Bare; Qubec, Louvain, 1981), pp. 99-120, holds that evidence of opponents in the New Testament is insufficient to characterize them as gnostics. He cites the optimistic enthusiasm, the denial of the resurrection, libertinism and docetism, and esoteric teaching concluding that none of these can be described as typically gnostic. 27. 1 Tim. 6.20. 28. 1 Tim 1.4; Tit 3.9; and Tit 1.14, which hints that these myths are of Jewish origin. 29. 1 Tim. 4.3. 30. 2 Tim. 2.18. 31. Ijn4.2. 32. ljnl.8,3.4ff. 33. Jude 11. 34. 2 Pet 2.15. 35. Rev. 2.14.

YATES Colossians and Gnosis

65

36. Rev. 2.10-15. CK. Barrett, 'Gnosis and the Apocalypse of John', in Gnosis and the New Testament, p. 129, connects those who profess to know 'the deep things of Satan' and the sect known as the Ophites. 37. R.McL Wilson, The Gnostic Problem, p. 84. 38. Quoted by R-McL. Wilson, 'Gnosis at Corinth', in Paul and Paulinism, p. 112. 39. J.J. Gnther, St. Paul's Opponents and Their Background: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings (Leiden: Brill, 1973), pp. 3 40. J.B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (London; Macmillan, 2nd edn, 1876), pp. 73-113. 41. T.K. Abbott, Epistles to the Ephesiam and the Colossiam (^: T. and T. Clark, 1897), p. xlix; A.S. Peake, 'The Epistle to the Colossians', in The Expositor's Greek Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1903), m,pp.484S 42. G. Bornkamm, 'Die Hresis des Kolosserbriefes', in Das Ende des Gesetzes (Munich, 1958), p. 150; W. Schmithals, 'The Corpus Paulinum and Gnosis', in Gnosis and the New Testament, pp. 107-24. 43. E. Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser und Epheserbriefes (Lund: Gleenip, 1946), pp. 176; C.F.D. Moule, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon (Cambridge: CUP, 1957), p. 33. 44. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), pp. 127-31; R.P. Martin, Colosians: The Church's Lord and the Christian's Liberty (Exeter. Paternoster, 1972), pp. 4-20; Colossians and Philemon (London; Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1973), pp. 8-19. 45. CoL 2.16. 46. CoL 2.21. 47. CoL 2.21. 48. CoL 2.23; cf 2.18. 49. CoL 2.18. 50. CoL 2.23. 51. CoL 1.16; 2.15. 52. CoL 2.8; 2.10. 53. CoL 2.18. 54. CoL 1.19; 2.9. 55. CoL 2.8. 56. Col. 2.8. 57. CoL 2.22. 58. W. Schmithals, <The Corpus Paulinum and Gnosis', in The New Testament and Gnosis, pp. 107-24. 59. CoL 2.4; 2.8; 2.23. 60. CoL 2.16; 2.21. 61. CoL 1.1-8; 1.14-19; 2.1a; 2.4; 2.16; 2.20-23; 3.1-11; 3.12-15a; 4.2-18.

66

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

62. CoL 2.1; 2.18. 63. CoL 1.13; 1.16b; 1.18c; 2.8; 2.10; 2.15; 2.18f 64. MD. Hooker, 'Were there False Teachers in Colossae?', in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: Essays in honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule (ed . Lindars and S.S. Smalley; Cambridge: CUP, 1973), pp. 31531. 65. Antiochi the Great had some two thousand Jewish faniilies settled in Lydia and Phrygia around the year 200 BC. See F.F. Bruce, 'Colossian Problems. Part I: Jews and Christians in the Lycus Valley', BibSac 141 (1984), pp. 3-15; The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), pp. 8-13. 66. R. Yates, 'The Worship of Angels (CoL 2.18)', ExpT (forthcoming). 67. There is no reference to the Mosaic law in Colossians. It is therefore unlikely that either circumcision or the keeping of the Jewish law was being forced onto them. 68. 2 Cor. 12.1-10. 69. Col. 2.18 'being vainly conceited by his sensual outiook\ 70. Note the emphasis on the cross: Col. 1.20; 2.14f. 71. Col. 1.16. 72. Col. 2.18. 73. CoL 2.15. 74. Col. 2.8; 2.10. 75. R. Law, The Tests of Life (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1909), p. 28. 76. Our suggestion is supported by A.T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet (Cambridge: CUP, 1981), pp. 110-18; C.A. Evans, 'The Colossian Mystics', Bib 63 (1982), pp. 188-205; F.F. Bruce, Commentary, pp. 23-26. 77. J. Danilou, A History of Early Christian Doctrine: I. The Theology of Jewish Christianity (French edn, 1958; E.T.: London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1964), pp. 192-204 on 'The Heavenly Boole. 78. L. Koep, Das himmlische Buch in Antike und Christentum (Bonn: Hanstein, 1952), pp. 15ff., 55ff. Also see Danilou, op. cit., pp. 193ff., and Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, , p. 628. 79. See G. Steindor Die Apocalypse der Elias, eine unbekannte Apocalypse, und Bruchstcke der Sophonias Apocalypse, pp. 18 ff. 80. Op. cit., pp. 199-204. 81. Ulis pseudepigraphical work contains forty-two hymns of the same character as the canonical Psalms. There are diverse theories about its origin, from Jewish, Jewish-Christian, and Gnostic sources. It is possible they were written in Syria in the second century. An English translation is given in R. Harris and A. Mingana, The Odes and Psalms of Solomon (Manchester Manchester University Press, and London: Longmans Green and Co., 1920). Harris refers to Ode 23 as 'the most difficult of all the hymns in the collection' (p. 336). 23.5-10 reads as follows:

YATES Colossians and Gnosis 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. And His thought was like a letter, And His will descendedfromon high; And it was sent like an arrow Which is violently shotfromthe bow; And many hands rushed to the letter To seize it and to take it and read iL And it escapedfromtheir fingers, And they were affrighted at it and the seal that was on it For it was not permittedforthem to loose the seal; For the power that was over the seal was greater than they. But those who saw it went after the letter, That they might know where it would alight, And who should read it, And who should hear it

67

A more recent translation has been made by J.H. Charlesworth, The Odes of Solomon (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977). 82. J. Labourt and P. Batiffol, Odes de Salomon (Paris: Lecoffie, 1911), pp. 81-85. 83. Text in J.M. Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library in English (Leiden: Brill, 1977), p. 39. The connection between the Gospel of Truth and Col 2.14 was noticed by W.C. van Unnik in The Jung Codex (ed. F.L. Cross; London: Mowbrays, 1955), pp. 108f. 84. Op. cit., pp. 336-40. 85. K. Rudolph, Gnosis, p. 327; also Yamauchi, op. cit., pp. 84ff. On the origin of the Christian community at Edessa see Bauer, op. cit., pp. 1-43, and H. Koester, 'GNOMAIDIAPHOROI: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity', in J.M. Robinson and H. Koester, Trajectories Through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), pp. 114-57, esp. 123-46. Other writings associated with this region are the apocryphal Acts of Thomas (with the gnostic Song of the Pearl), The Gospel of Thomas, and the words of Bardaisan. 86. Op. cit., pp. 30-33. 87. J.H. Charlesworth, op. cit., p. 95 n. 8, detects links with the Qumran Liturgical Fragment published by J. Strugnell, "The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran: 4Q Serek Sirot Olat Hassaggat', VTS 7 (I960), pp. 318-45. Also cf. Harris, op. cit., p. 340, who suggests that the wheel could stand for an angelic being. 88. Odes of Solomon 23.7f. 89. Odes of Solomon 23.2f. 90. See C. Rowland, The Open Heaven (London: SPCK, 1982), pp. 41441. 91. See KMcL. Wilson, Gnosis and the New Testament, p. 90 n. 20. 92. W.C. van Unnik, op. cit., pp. 81-129, suggested in 1955 that the Gospel of Truth may have been actually composed by Valentinus himself in Rome about 140-145 AD, before the development of the typically gnostic dogmas.

68

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

This is now challenged by RMcL. Wilson, op cit., pp. 89, and K. Rudolph, op. cit., p. 319, who prefer to speak in terms of a document which has affinities with the Valentinian school 93. Danilou, op. cit., pp. 203f. 94. W.C. van Unnik, op. cit., pp. HOf. 95. O. Bianchetti 'Does the Cheirograph of CoL 2.14 Represent Christ Himself?', CBQ 23 (1961), pp. 306-12. Also see A.J. Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World (Kampen: Kok, 1964), pp. 158ft; H. Weiss, 'The Law in the Epistle to the Colossians', CBQ 34 (1972), pp. 294-314.

the biblical seminar

Mark Kiley COLOSSIANS AS PSEUDBPIGRAPHY This study will appeal to those interested in the relationship between the letter to Colossians from Paul the Apostle* and the Greco-Roman culture which produced letters purporting to be by someone other than their actual author. The study performs a unique service among monographs on Colossians by documenting methods used in the writing of such letters. While providing a fresh and comprehensive ranking of the arguments that have been advanced against Colossians' authenticity, the study suggests an entirely new criterion for distinguishing

Paul from his imitators, namely his concern for thefinancingof bis mission. It also suggests for the first time that Colossians' author uses both of Paul's known genuine prison letters as models. A unique appendix of Graeco-Roman letters discussing missionfinancescontributes towardfirmlyfixingPaul himself in his cultural context
Mark Kiley received the PhD in New Testament and Christian Origin from Harvard University. He is currendy Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at the University of St Jerome's College. Waterloo. Ontario. pa 7.95/$11.95 ISBN 1 85075 024 6Pbk The Biblical Seminar, 4 C.240PP

Department of Biblical Studies University of Sheffield Sheffield SI0 2TN England

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.