the existence of certain transitional links between the gnosis of the 2d century and the earlier stages of the apostolic preaching? Such links are found in the incipient Gnosticism, if so it is to be called, of which we have traces in the epistles of the imprisonment and the
subsequent Pastoral Epistles.A third objection has been made to the genuineness of the epistle to the Colossians, as well as to the Ephesian epistle, on the ground of the peculiarity of their style and of certain terms used in them, some of which are asserted to be technical terms, as æon, pleroma, &c., and others are words not elsewhere used in the Pauline writings. The answer to this objection is that the peculiar terms are not used in the sense which they acquired in heretical writings of a later period, and that the unusual words are to be attributed partly to the nature of the subject and partly to the disposition of the writer s mind at the time. If, indeed, we are to condemn any writing of an author for containing peculiarities not exhibited in other writings of the same author, the questions arise, whence are we to take our standard of judgment, or how are we to know in what cases we should apply so vague a critical canon? Bleek says, sensibly enough, in view of this line of objection, “We do not for a moment deny that the epistle to the Colossians contains much which is peculiar to itself; but its contents, such as they are, do not tell against its coming from the same author as the other epistles of St Paul, for even those which Baur allows to be genuine contain much that is distinctive and peculiar, e.g., the Galatians as compared with the Corinthians, and 2 Corinthians as compared with 1 Corinthians.” The fact is that in the Tübingen school “subjective criticism” has run to riot. The phenomena to be investigated are interpreted according to a preconceived theory, rather than fairly looked at, examined, and explained. The testimony of the early church to the Colossian and Ephesian letters is unexceptionable. In the case of the epistle to the Colossians, there are indications of its recognition in allusions by Justin Martyr and Theophilus of Antioch ; it occurs in the .Iuratorian canon (circ. 170 A.D.) ; it is cited by Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen; Eusebius places it among the “acknowledged” books of the apostolical writings; and it occurs in Marcion's list, as given by Epiphanius. Nor is there anything in the epistle itself that is out of accordance with the circumstances of the apostle Paul, or the condition of the Asiatic churches in the seventh decade of the 1st century.
We must now briefly notice the character of the teaching against which St Paul directed the controversial portion of the epistle to the Colossians (ii. 4-23). His warnings are against a philosophy which is vain and fallacious; against a system of multiplied religious observances and distinctions of meats; against an arbitrary system of angel-worship; and against certain rigorous rules of asceticism. The basis of this alien teaching was unmistakably Judaic, but the Judaizing effort was of a mystic and ascetic type; and it is not unreasonable to see in the theosophical speculations and ascetic ordinances, indicated in St Paul's picture of the dangers which beset the Colossian Christians, an admixture of Jewish and Oriental elements. Professor Lightfoot has shown that Oriental notions concerning the evil of matter and the need of rigid abstinence, together with “an esoteric doctrine relating to angelic beings” and a tendency to sun worship, appear in Essenism, which he suggests might be called Gnostic Judaism. The Essene side of Judaism was doubtless represented among the Jews who were settled in, or journeyed to and from, various places in Asia Minor; and all mystic and ascetic ideas would find a congenial soil in Phrygia. The teaching and tendencies alluded to in the epistle to the Colossians, and subsequently in the Pastoral Epistles, form the intermediate link between the “Gnostic Judaism” of the Essenes and teachers allied to them and the “Judaizing Gnosticism” of the 2d century.
The question whether Paul himself planted the church at Colossæ is one of minor importance, which has been much discussed by commentators. Lardner argues elaborately in favour of a visit by Paul to Colossæ and Laodicea. He bases his view upon a passage cited from Theodoret, in which ch. ii. 1 is interpreted so as to distinguish between the Colossians and Laodiceans on the one side and the “as many as had not seen Paul's face” on the other. This view has been controverted in detail by Davidson, but is advocated by Wordsworth. Bleek mentions Schulz, Wiggers, and others as following Theodoret, but he takes the contrary view himself, as do also Alford, Conybeare and Howson, and Lightfoot. The last-named commentator says that Theodoret's interpretation is “opposed alike to grammatical and logical considerations.”
Another disputable though not very important point is whether the Ephesian or the Colossian letter was written first. Critics are divided, and it is somewhat difficult to gather from a comparison of the epistles which view is most probable. We are inclined to favour the view that the briefer, more controversial, and in some respects more vigorous letter was written first, and was followed by the fuller and more mystic one. It has been said that this epistle is characterized by a “ruggedness of expression and want of finish that borders on obscurity” (Lightfoot), and it has been suggested that the absence of personal connection on St Paul's part with the Colossian church might partially account for “the diminished fluency of this letter,” as compared with other and earlier ones. We do not think this explanation a satisfactory one. The “ruggedness” should rather be attributed to the intensity of feeling wherewith the apostle, confined as he was in his far-off place of imprisonment, threw himself into the controversy with the false teachers,—persons whom he must have regarded as among the “grievous wolves,” of whom he had forewarned the elders at Miletus some few years previously (Acts xx. 29, 30), men who should “arise out of the Christian community itself, and speak perverse things to draw men after them.” This explanation is somewhat corroborated by what Alford points out, viz., that the majority of peculiar expressions in the epistle occur in the second chapter. And Professor Lightfoot himself adds—“No epistle of St Paul is more vigorous in conception or more instinct with meaning. It is the very compression of thoughts which creates the difficulty. If there is a want of fluency there is no want of force. Feebleness is the last charge which can be brought against this epistle.”
The value of this epistle to the church historian, to the Christian theologian, and to any one who wishes fairly to estimate the “philosophic” bearings of Christian dogma is very great. A commentator of the 17th century, H. Suicer, mentioned by Walch in his Bibliotheca Theologica, calls the epistle to the Colossians theologiæ Christianæ compendium.
further literature upon the subject, may be found in “Introductions,” such as those by Davidson and Bleek, and in “Prolegomena” of commentators, e.g., Alford, Wordsworth, and Braune in Lange's Bibelwerk, a treasury of information made accessible to English readers in Dr Schaff's edition, published by T. & T. Clark. Frequent reference has been made in the course of this article to the recent very valuable commentary of Professor Lightfoot. In addition to the exegetical notes, he gives us thorough
dissertations on “the churches of the Lycus,” the “Colossian heresy,” and “the Essenes.” There is also a digest