"Dwelling on Visions: On the Nature of the so-called 'Colossians Heresy'"⁽¹⁾

Robert M. Royalty, Jr.

Stanford University, California, USA

For almost 120 years, the reconstruction of the Colossian opposition has focused on sources outside the New Testament. The classic work of Lightfoot drew on the Gnostic and Second Temple Jewish texts available at the time.⁽²⁾ Dibelius' equally classic Gnostic proposal brought Apuleius' Metamorphoses and the inscriptions from the Apollo sanctuary at Claros, with a controversial reading of ejmbateuvw (Col 2:18) as a technical term for initiation into a mystery, to bear on the problem,⁽³⁾ while Bornkamm's important reformulation of the Gnostic proposal as Jewish Gnosticism included comparisons to the Book of Elchasai and the Pseudo-Clementines. The major discoveries of the Nag Hammadi and Qumran texts fueled new proposals for the Colossian opponents as either Gnostic, Jewish Gnostic, or "purely" Jewish.⁽⁴⁾ Three more recent proposals have been driven not by new discoveries of texts but by careful re-evaluations of existing evidence. First, a number of scholars (whose work I follow here) have located the Colossian opponents in an ascetic-mystical strand of ancient Judaism, drawing on apocalyptic and revelatory texts such as 1 Enoch and 2 Baruch for comparison.⁽⁵⁾ Second, several scholars have attempted to locate the opponents in the syncretistic context of Anatolian religious practices and constructed a "text" of evidence from cultic practices in Asia, practices that include both Greek and Jewish influences.⁽⁶⁾ Third, scholars proposing a philosophical context have used philosophical texts and doxographies such as Diogenes Laertes' Lives of the Eminent Philosophers to clarify the identity of the opponents in the letter.⁽⁷⁾ These different approaches, with their attendant sets of comparative texts, represent the major schools of research on the Colossian errorists.⁽⁸⁾ No one school has carried the field; all five of these approaches remain well-represented in current research.⁽⁹⁾

This paper brings a hitherto unexamined text in the history of Colossians research in support of an apocalyptic construal of the opposition. While I draw on Francis' work, this proposal diverges from his Jewish mystical-ascetic solution, because the text chosen for comparison is another text from within the NT, the Apocalypse of John. The proposal is that Revelation provides a social-historical, theological, and ideological anchor for the reconstruction of the Colossian opponents. There are strong literary and historical grounds for this comparison, to be discussed below. As an apocalypse, the Book of Revelation shares a number of motifs with revelatory literature such as 1 Enoch and 2 Baruch. The construction presented here addresses the key exegetical and interpretive problems in Colossians (2:8, 16-23) but also reads the entire letter as a response to the apocalyptic Christianity of the Apocalypse.

There are important methodological reasons for framing a specifically Christian context for the opponents to be considered before delving into the exegetical and historical details of this proposal. Any reconstruction must include a plausible context in which the opposing groups would actually meet. Christian groups and teachers would be the most likely dialogue partners in a Christian dispute over matters of theology and praxis, particularly in the first century ce. We have far more evidence of intramural Christian polemic and disagreement in first-century texts than we do that non-Christians were taking any notice of the new communities.⁽¹⁰⁾ While there has been a strong tendency since Lightfoot to identify the Colossian opponents as a variety of Jews, Gnostics, or Hellenistic philosophers, the most likely conversation partners within the Christian community, and hence the targets of polemic, would be other Christians. First-century Christian teachers traveled between churches, exchanged views, and usually caused a disurbance in the community they visited.⁽¹¹⁾

Second, construing the Colossian controversy as an intramural Christian conflict casts a different light on notions of Christian identity in the last quarter of the first century and the "othering" of the Colossian errosists. Scholars should be careful not to cast Jewish, Gnostic, or pagan groups as "the enemy" within a canonized text too quickly without first considering Christian groups as well, since to do so runs the risk of letting the ideological processes of canonization, which occurred long after the actual Colossian controversy, unduly affect the historical task of reconstruction. Studies of the opponents as something outside of Christianity operate on the presupposition that the letter to the Colossians represents a purer form of proto-orthodox Christianity while the opponents represent heterodox, if not heretical, views.⁽¹²⁾ By maintaining that the opponents in the letter to the Colossians are specifically Christian opponents, I am attempting to keep our notion of first-century Christianity as broad as possible in order to avoid anachronistic and theologically biased divisions into orthodox and heretical.

This paper argues that Colossians was written by a follower of Paul in response to the introduction of new charismatic, apocalyptic strains of Christianity from Palestine into Asia Minor, including the Lycus Valley, in the aftermath of the Jewish war with Rome in 66-70 ce. The debate between "Paul" (a name chosen to enhance the authority of his position) and apocalyptic Christian teachers such as John of Patmos in the Letter to the Colossians has a theological, moral, and an ideological dimension. The theological debate centers on the realized achievements of Christ and the relation of Christians to angels and other heavenly and earthly powers; thus, the author of Colossians argues Christology at length. The moral argument focuses on the observance of Jewish law and customs, such as Sabbaths, new moon festivals, and dietary requirements; its wider implications include the relations between social groups within the community and between the Christian community and Greco-Roman culture. These moral and theological issues between the author and his opponents reveal the important ideological underpinnings of the controversy. The author of the Apocalypse arrived in Asia after the Jewish-Roman war; his "dwelling on visions" and descriptions of heavenly angels created a disturbance within the churches while his charismatic, prophetic authority challenged the emerging Pauline church hierarchy. Revelation 2-3 contains significant evidence of longstanding disputes between the author John and the Asian Christian communities over matters of interpretation and praxis.⁽¹³⁾ Reception problems for the Apocalypse continued well into the second and third centuries.⁽¹⁴⁾ John's apocalyptic visions were controversial from their introduction into Asia through their eventual reception into the canon.

This argument rests upon three assumptions about Revelation. First, the author of the Apocalypse, the seer John of Patmos, was an itinerant, charismatic prophet who came to Asia from Palestine after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.⁽¹⁵⁾ He was the leader of a prophetic group, which probably included Christians from Palestine as well some recruited in Asia, and was known to at least the seven Asian churches addressed in Revelation and probably many more.⁽¹⁶⁾ Second, the author of the Apocalypse was aware of Pauline traditions, as shown by a number of formal features and theological motifs in the text.⁽¹⁷⁾ Third, the final text of the Apocalypse as we have it today was composed in stages, beginning perhaps as early as the 60s and reaching its final form at the end of the first-century.⁽¹⁸⁾ These stages are important because of the assumed date for Colossians. The author of Revelation was active as a prophet in Asia at least twenty years before the final form of the Apocalypse circulated among Christian communities. While I assume non-Pauline authorship and a relatively late date for Colossians, it is not necessary to push the composition of Colossians all the way to the 90s in order to postulate contact between the Pauline school represented by Colossians and the Palestinian apocalyptic traditions brought to Asia by John. Colossians is a response to the prophetic activity of John and his followers, who were dwelling on their visions of heavenly worship in the Asian Christian communities.

I.

Literary parallels alone suggest a comparison of Colossians and Revelation. Rev 1:5 and 3:14 include phrases that almost certainly refer either to the actual Christ Hymn in Col 1:15-20 or to the Christological traditions behind the hymn. The key phrases from Colossians both contain the word , "firstborn." Christ is called in Col 1:15 and , in Col 1:18.⁽¹⁹⁾ In Rev 1:5, in what is essentially the epistolary prescript of the Apocalypse, John sends grace and peace to the seven churches of Asia "from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead [ ], and the ruler [] of the kings of the earth." Then, in the opening of the prophetic message to Laodicea in Rev 3:14, Christ announces to the Laodiceans that "these are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the origin of God's creation [ ]."⁽²⁰⁾ The diction of the phrases in Colossians and Revelation is too close and too infrequent elsewhere in the NT to allow for coincidental overlap. occurs only in these three verses in the NT (Col 1:15, 18; Rev 1:5).⁽²¹⁾ is found most frequently in Paul (Rom 1:20, 25; 8:19, 20, 21, 22, 39; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). In our two texts, it occurs only in Col 1:15, 23 and Rev 3:14.⁽²²⁾ Furthermore, Colossae was only ten miles from Laodicea and the two churches were closely associated. Col 4:12-16 describes close associations between the churches of the Lycus valley (see also 2:1). Epaphras, the founder of the church at Colossae (Col 1:7), has worked in the nearby churches of Hierapolis and Laodicea as well (4:13). The Colossians apparently know the members of the church at Laodicea, including the woman who supports the church, Nympha (4:15). The author's command to send this letter on to Laodicea to be read in Nympha's church and to read another letter to the Laodiceans (Col 4:16) implies that the issues at stake for the author in Colossae and Laodicea are the same.⁽²³⁾

These close literary parallels combined with the geographical proximity of Laodicea and Colossae strongly suggest that the John was aware of the Christ Hymn and probably the theology and teachings of the Colossian church. There were obviously shared traditions, such as baptismal traditions, among the Christian churches of the Lycus valley in Asia Minor.⁽²⁴⁾ As R. H. Charles notes, it is significant that the references to Colossians occur in Revelation only in the message to Laodicea, one of Colossae's sister churches.⁽²⁵⁾ It is indeed most significant that these shared phrases appear in Revelation in a polemical context. The message to Laodicea in Revelation is one of several places in Revelation where we see evidence of deep ideological divisions within the churches of Asia. In this message, wealth is the presenting issue for the ideological conflict between "Christ" (as mouthpiece for the implied author) and the church. While the Laodiceans claim to be rich (plouvsio") and in need of nothing (oujde;n creivan e[cw), Christ responds that they are really poor (ptwcov"), blind, wretched, pitiable, and naked (Rev 3:17).⁽²⁶⁾ The Laodiceans probably were wealthy, most likely from commercial activity.⁽²⁷⁾ The author of the Apocalypse takes a strongly negative view of the Laodicean attitude toward their wealth.⁽²⁸⁾ Material wealth has lead, in John's view, to complacency with their spiritual state as well, as indicated by Rev 3:15-16, in which Christ condemns the church for its lack of commitment. While the Laodiceans, unlike several other churches, are not condemned for tolerating John's Christian opposition (cf. Rev 2:14-15, 20-23), in John's view the church has not committed itself fully to the difficult struggles against the Romans, Jews, and other Christians that John understands to be central to the Christian life (cf. Rev 1:9). The Laodicean spiritual complacency, which was based on their material wealth, could also be construed as over-realized eschatology; we could thus read Rev 3:17 as an eschatological argument. A close parallel can be found in Paul's ironic chiding of the Corinthians in 1 Cor 4:8.⁽²⁹⁾ It is difficult to imagine the lukewarm Laodiceans as strong spiritual enthusiasts on the order of the rowdy Corinthians. Wealth and complacency, not enthusiasm, are the central moral issues in the message to the Laodiceans. But it is highly likely that their eschatological views differed sharply from John's.⁽³⁰⁾

In an intriguing contrast that deepens the literary connections between our two NT texts, Colossians contains positive use of wealth imagery functioning to support a strongly realized eschatology. Colossians uses the same type of imagery and eschatology that John attacks in the message to Laodicea, the sister church of Colossae. First, the author writes that God chose to make known (gnwrivsai) to the Gentiles the "riches [] of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you" (1:27). Second, the author expresses his desire that everyone in Colossae, Laodicea, and "all who have not seen me face to face" (Col 2:2) would have "all the riches [ ] of assured understanding and have the knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ himself." In Christ, furthermore, all the "treasures" () of wisdom and knowledge are hidden (Col 2:3). Finally, in the exhortation in 3:16, the author implores his audience to "let the word of Christ [God] dwell in you richly []." By expressing God's benefits with wealth imagery, the author of Colossians follows a well-established Pauline tradition. Paul, however, tends to use the language of wealth as a metaphor for God's mercy, kindness, or forgiveness.⁽³¹⁾ In Colossians, by contrast, there is a very strong connection between knowledge and wealth in the letter.⁽³²⁾ Each of these passages in Colossians describes knowledge of God's mystery or word as either wealth or a treasure. A wide variety of cognitive language surrounds the wealth language in these passages.⁽³³⁾ In all of these passages this "wealth" of knowledge is a realized possession of the Colossians; God "has enabled" (iJkanwvsanti) them to share in this inheritance of heavenly wealth and knowledge (1:12; cf. 1:5). Christ has been revealed (ejfanerwvqh, 1:26); the of this mystery has been made known to the nations by God (1:27). While the wealth imagery in Colossians describes a benefit already in the possession of the audience, Revelation presents this as something to be obtained entirely in the future (Rev 3:18; 21:7). The wealth imagery in both Colossians and the message to Laodicea points to eschatology as a major point of controversy between the author of Colossians and his apocalyptic Christian opponents.

These shared motifs in Revelation and Colossians call for a more careful comparison of the two letters. These parallels between Colossians and Revelation occur in a polemical context. Both texts are focused on the negative construction of an opponent who presents a theological, moral, and ideological challenge to the author. The intertextuality suggests contact, but whether this contact implies agreement or dissent remains a central question.

II.

The next task is to show correspondences between the opponents, as we can best discern them in Colossians, and the apocalyptic Christianity presented in Revelation. In examining the "polemical core" of Colossians, we find that there is not as much detail in Colossians about what the opponents propose as about what the author disagrees with.⁽³⁴⁾ What we do find, however, corresponds to the views of an apocalyptic Christian group such as John and his circle of prophets, the community that produced Revelation. While Col 2:8 has traditionally been the exegetical crux of the description of the opponents for scholars, interpretation of this verse has often run to atomistic analysis that ignores the rhetoric of the letter.⁽³⁵⁾ Exegesis of this verse and its problematic terms (in particular ta; stoicei`a tou` kovsmou) therefore need to be placed within the context of what can be known from the rest of the letter.

While the direct attack on the opponents begins in Col 2:8, the author begins his argument against them with an indirect reference in 2:4 that anticipates the two major theological points of debate, Christology and eschatology.⁽³⁶⁾ Col 2:4-5 ends the "autobiographical" section (Col 1:24-2:5); the conceit of the "absent author" is part of the pseudepigraphical character of this letter. The author writes of his suffering (pavqhma) and struggle (ajgwvn) "for your sake" (uJpe;r uJmw`n, 1:24, 2:1); this "you" includes not only the Colossians but the Laodiceans and "all who have not seen me face-to-face" (Col 2:1; cf. eij ga;r kai; th`/ sarki; a[peimi, 2:5). This appeal can be read as an effort to establish the trustworthiness of the implied author, the absent "Paul." Col 2:2-3 expresses the strong wish of the author that the post-Pauline church in Asia--"all who have not seen me face-to-face"--might have "all the riches of assured understanding" ( ) and the "knowledge" () of God's mystery, that is, Christ. This language has social functions for the post-Pauline church. It also conveys a fully realized eschatology in conjunction with a high Christology. Col 2:3 develops the Christology further: in Christ "all [pavnte" again] treasuries of wisdom and knowledge" are hidden (). This long sentence (Col 2:1-3) describes Christ's identity as the revealed mystery of God (cf.1:25-26) who provides access to God and to all wisdom and knowledge, a reference back to the fuller description of Christ in the hymn (1:15-18; cf. also 1:5, 13). The author is clear that all glory and knowledge reside in Christ and that the mystery has been fully, not partially, revealed to the Colossians and all the "saints."

While usually read as a response to a gnostic philosophy--even though Colossians shades closer to Gnosticism than any NT letter except Ephesians--this high Christology and fully realized eschatology takes on a different polemical edge when we read it as a response to Christian prophets offering new heavenly revelations. The focus on the Christian community's access to all of God's hidden mysteries, wisdom and knowledge in Christ has a specific rhetorical purpose in the argument against the opposition. If the operating assumption in reading Col 2:2 is that the author opposes a group who offers an alternative source of wisdom and knowledge to Christ, then standard readings of this verse focus on issues of access to wisdom and knowledge. Is this access through Christ or some other medium? But I suggest that we change the operating assumption and hence our understanding of the question these verses attempt to answer: does Christ in fact provide full access to all the riches ( ) and full knowledge () of God's mysteries? If all the treasuries of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ, have they been fully revealed or do fuller heavenly revelations await? The argument is not presented by the author as "Christ vs. something else" but rather as different views of who Christ is and what Christ has accomplished. The Christological and eschatological statements in 2:2-3 are emphatically connected to the warning against those who "deceive by plausible arguments" ( ) by the Tou`to levgw, i{na in 2:4. The arguments of his opponents are piqanologiva, persuasive but false, because the opponents are Christian prophets.

Before continuing with a direct assault, however, the author must lay one more piece of the foundation for his attack, the importance of received Christian tradition. By including and commenting on the Christ Hymn in his letter (Col 1:15-20), the author places great rhetorical and theological weight on traditional material. He then explicitly refers to the value of tradition. First, when applying the Christ Hymn to the Colossian situation, the author warns his audience to stay within the boundaries of established faith ( µµ) and not to shift from the message of the gospel that they had heard (tou` eujaggelivou ou| hjkouvsate, 1:23). Second, in an even more direct appeal to the importance of tradition in Col 2:6, the author cites established tradition as a warrant and guide for the Christian life (note ). The Colossians are to live their lives in Christ, "rooted and established," "as you have received" ( ) and "just as you were taught" ( , 2:6).⁽³⁷⁾ The connection of Col 2:6-7 to what precedes, especially 2:4-5 (note the in 2:6), and to what follows in 2:8-23 needs to be emphasized. Why this extensive appeal to tradition? Col 1:23 and 2:6-7 suggests that something new has come to the Christian churches of the Lycus Valley in Asia. The apocalyptic opposition poses this new challenge in Christian terms and so the author turns to tradition as a primary argument.

In 2:8, the author turns directly to his Christian opponents. The key to understanding this verse is deciding which elements are accurate descriptions of the opponents and which are negative characterizations of the opponents by the author.⁽³⁸⁾ Understanding of the structure of the sentence is crucial for this task, since a number of phrases are set in clear opposition to one another. I suggest the following reading:

µ µ

µ

X

The clear parallelism and balance in the verse reveals the extent to which it is a polemical and pejorative description of the opponents, rather than an accurate restatement of their positions. The participle , a hunting term meaning capturing or dragging away prey, casts a strongly negative tone over the entire verse and links 2:8 to the negative descriptions of the opponents as deceiving (2:4) and having the "appearance" of wisdom (2:23).⁽³⁹⁾ The connection of with , both controlled by , shows that these two elements are to be read together. The juxtaposition of the two words as objects of the same preposition makes it highly unlikely that the opponents identified themselves as a philosophy. Rather, filosofiva is a derogatory term equivalent to "empty deceit." The opponents take the Christians captive by both philosophy and deceit; the terms are rhetorically connected in the text. Recent studies have taken filosofiva as a self-designation of the errorists. The opponents have thus been identified as Pythagoreans, Cynics, or a syncretistic blend of Hellenistic philosophy which includes some Jewish, Gnostic and "pagan" mystery elements.⁽⁴⁰⁾ But there are problems with this interpretation. The word filosofiva had a broad enough range of meanings in this period so that use of the term does not necessarily refer to one the philosophical schools.⁽⁴¹⁾ It is significant that the word filosofiva is absent from the NT and early Christian literature before the second-century apologists, with this one exception in Col 2:8.⁽⁴²⁾ Philosophy had unusual or even negative associations within the early Christian community, connotations which the author of Colossians draws on here. He certainly makes it clear that filosofiva is something to be avoided. Furthermore, these unknown opponents (ti~) are not called philosophers. The indefinite pronoun suggests someone with regular access to the community; that is, another Christian.⁽⁴³⁾ Rather than construing the opposition as part of a philosophical school or another group identifiable by modern terms as "philosophy," the evidence points to the use of filosofiva as part of the derogatory portrayal of this opponents.

The opposing Christian teaching is then further described by two phrases.⁽⁴⁴⁾ In keeping with the overall tone of Col 2:8, these phrases are polemical and derogatory descriptions of the opponents. The first phrase describes the "philosophy and empty deceit" of the author's opponents as "human tradition" ( ). The idea of "human tradition" as a threat to be avoided has been carefully introduced in the letter so that it has particular rhetorical force at this point. The characterization of the opponents' teaching was anticipated in the description of Christian in 1:23 and 2:6-7, where we saw that the author warned his audience against something new in the churches of the Lycus valley. The description of the opponents' teaching as kata; th;n paravdosin tw`n ajnqrwvpwn identifies his Christian opposition as the new perceived threat to the churches. Furthermore, it is a challenge with direct access to the community by Christian apocalyptic prophets which must be faced head-on. In the face of this new challenge to the "way things have been done" in Colossae and Laodicea, the author valorizes tradition for its own sake as a primary theological warrant, casting his own teaching explicitly as divine tradition, kata; Cristovn. Since the author has used traditional material and made a powerful, explicit appeal to tradition as a warrant (Col 1:15-18, 23; 2:6-7), his characterization of his opponents' teaching as human tradition has a particularly strong negative force. "Someone" who brings to Colossae new and therefore "human" traditions does not teach . This strand of the polemic remains as a refrain in the letter as the author calls his opponents "puffed up with a fleshly mind" ( , 2:18) and their regulations (µ) "human teachings" ( , 2:23). These attacks are paradoxical reversals of the opponents' claims. They claim to have access to heavenly revelations and visions of worshipping angels; the author of Colossians characterizes this as earthly, fleshly, human teaching. Col 2:8 thus sets the established tradition in opposition to the empty, philosophical, deceitful instruction according to human tradition and the elemental spirits.

No phrase in the letter has caused more difficulty or controversy than µ. Bandstra has divided the interpretations into three types: the "principial" interpretation, referring to principles of teaching or instruction in the root sense of stoi`co~ as a row, line, or series, a sense which also includes the letters of the alphabet; the "cosmological," in which the phrase is understood as referring to the elements of the material world--earth, water, air, fire; and the "personalized-cosmological," in which the phrase refers to personalized spiritual beings.⁽⁴⁵⁾ Scholars favoring the identification of the opponents as a pagan/Greco-Roman syncretistic philosophy have found the second, cosmological interpretation especially conducive to their arguments.⁽⁴⁶⁾ But we do not need to specify which interpretation in order to read this as a derogatory reference to apocalyptic Christianity, since the apocalyptic worldview in Revelation allows for variations of the three. Indeed, the controversy surrounding the phrase gives ambiguity in interpretation a peculiar strength over precision! The "principial" interpretation fits well with the apocalyptic-mystical view of the Colossian opponents and also allows for a double-entendre on the numerological speculation based on letters found in Rev 13:16.⁽⁴⁷⁾ The sort of "wisdom" (sofiva, Rev 13:18) that produced the numerology or gematria for the "number of the name of the Beast" could be taken as an example of teaching according to the µ. But there are also cosmological forces at work in the Apocalypse and successions of angels between John and God in the heavenly throne room, such as the four living creatures (Rev 4:6-8) and the multitude of angels (5:11; 7:9), suggesting a "personalized-cosmological" view. Nor does the Apocalypse prohibit the strictly cosmological interpretation. Angels in the Apocalypse can be identified as controlling the four basic elements of the universe, earth, wind, water, and fire, as they bring about judgment upon the earth (see Rev 6:12-17; 7:1; 8:5; 12:15-16; and 16:3-21). The Apocalypse reveals a true awareness of the "power of the Cosmos," as Eduard Schweizer described the ancient sense of .⁽⁴⁸⁾

While it is not necessary to choose one interpretation to connect the Colossian opponents to a Christian apocalyptic group--nor should any construction depend entirely on the construal of stoicei`a--it is clear that the context of the phrase is polemical and the meaning, for the author, derogatory. This phrase recalls Galatians; Christians have been freed from ta; stoicei`a tou` kovsmou according to Paul (Gal 4:3, 9). Because Paul uses the term and because the author of Colossians adheres to the Pauline tradition, the word probably means what it means in Galatians, principles of religious instruction (note also plhvrwma, Gal 4:4). Given the Pauline usage, moreover, it is almost certainly not a self-designation of the opponents, any more than are the terms empty deceit, human tradition, or philosophy.⁽⁴⁹⁾ The author of Colossians portrays his opponents slanderously as teaching an empty and deceitful philosophy that accords power to the "elemental spirits of the universe" whereas, in his formulation of the Christian tradition, the Colossians have died to these elemental spirits (Col 2:20). According to the author, the opponents believe that these spirits still control human action in some way. In the rhetoric of Colossians, the "established faith" frees them from any such concerns.

So too all of Col 2:8 is a polemical description of the opponents. It is a warning ( µ) not to be taken captive () by "empty deceit" ( ). Thus, it does not contain any positive descriptions of the opponents or quotations of their slogans. Rather, it consists of phrases that the author uses as slanderous characterizations of his opponents: philosophy, empty deceit, human tradition, elements of the universe. He contrasts his opponents' teaching to his teaching "according to Christ," by which the author means a certain set of Pauline theological traditions, in particular eschatological and Christological formulations. These formulations provide ideological support for him and his allies in the Christian community.

III.

While Col 2:8 is the first polemical assault, 2:16-23 contains a point-by-point dismissal of the opponents' teachings. The strong of 2:16 introduces a specific list of ethical teachings by "someone" (, cf. 2:8) that the recipients of this letter should reject. The two main characteristics of the opponents described in Col 2:16-23 are (1) the observance of some type of Jewish halakah (note , Col 2:6, and µ, 2:20) relating to food and the observance of the Sabbath, new moons, and festivals and (2) the use of visionary ascent as a source of theological and ethical authority. Col 2:16-23 begins with the first of these two issues, Jewish-inspired practices and purity rules: "do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food and drink" (Col 2:16). For the author of Colossians, the opponents' emphasis of self-denial and asceticism is their most distinguishing characteristic. He returns to it directly twice more in the letter. He calls attention to their warnings against food and drink again in 2:21 and in 2:23 characterizes the opponents as having the reputation () of wisdom "in promoting self-imposed piety [], humility [], and severe treatment of the body" ( µ, 2:23).⁽⁵⁰⁾ The strongest objection for the author of Colossians corresponds to the moral code of the Apocalypse, which contains clear condemnation of Christians on matters of food. Christ, speaking prophetically through the author John, condemns two of the churches in Asia (Pergamum and Thyatira) for tolerating the eating of idol-meant and Christian teachers who endorsed the activity (2:14, 20). Christ also praises the Ephesians for rejecting the teaching of the Nicolaitans (2:6), teaching which might have included liberal dietary rules. Those excluded from the New Jerusalem in Rev 21:8 and 22:15, moreover, include idolaters (), a term which in the Apocalypse both includes those who have violated the sanction against eating meat from the pagan temple as well as people who have worshipped idols.⁽⁵¹⁾ Eating idol-meat was of course an important moral issue in early Christianity (1 Corinthians 8-10; Romans 14-15). It is clearly still a live issue in the Pauline churches addressed by John of Patmos. It is also a source of conflict between John's apocalyptic-prophetic circle and the leaders in the Pauline churches of Asia, such as the author of Colossians, who would have held more tolerant views of dietary practices. Since the author, as part of the post-Pauline leadership in the Lycus valley, holds the view toward idol-meat set forth by Paul in 1 Corinthians and Romans, the challenge of John's apocalyptic rhetoric condemning this practice necessitates a strong response.

Another aspect of the opponents' teaching centered on calendar and astronomical phenomenon, "observing festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths." The problematic word (Col 2:8, 20), moreover, was also used to refer to the stars and the 12 signs of the zodiac.⁽⁵²⁾ Here again there is a correspondence between the author's description of his opponents and Revelation, since the Apocalypse is totally imbued with astronomical and astrological imagery.⁽⁵³⁾ Many visions in Revelation have explicit astronomical imagery, including some of the most central visions. For instance, Jesus appears to John on Patmos holding seven stars in his right hand (ajstevra" eJptav, Rev 1:16).⁽⁵⁴⁾ Or again, John sees "in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars" (Rev 12:1).⁽⁵⁵⁾ The twelve jewels on the foundations of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:19-20) may have some connection to the signs of the zodiac.⁽⁵⁶⁾ All of this astronomical imagery is applied in a positive manner to Christian images (Jesus, the woman in heaven, the New Jerusalem). Revelation contains 30 occurrences of `h{lio", selhvnh, and ajsthvr alone, while Paul and the Pauline letters virtually never use these words.⁽⁵⁷⁾ The astronomical and astrological imagery in Revelation deepens the connection between the Colossian opposition and Revelation.

Col 2:16, mentioning both food regulations and the Sabbath, indicates some type of a Jewish context for the author's opponents.⁽⁵⁸⁾ As noted above, there have been a number of Jewish proposals for the opponents. The definition of Judaism in the late first century should not be too narrow, since it could include any one of the many varieties of Judaism as well as Christianity. The author of Colossians criticizes his opponents for Jewish practices and observances but never calls them directly Jews or accuses them of "judaizing," as does Paul in Galatians (cf. Gal 2:14). Nevertheless, a close relationship with Judaism is implied; perhaps the opponents claim the title of "the true Jews" or at least consider their beliefs to be the fulfillment of the promises to the Jewish people. This latter possibility corresponds to the identities evoked by the author of the Apocalypse for his implied audience.⁽⁵⁹⁾ The messages to Smyrna and Philadelphia portray an intense struggle with other groups over the rights to the title of "Jews."⁽⁶⁰⁾ Here, speaking through John the Seer, "Christ" calls these opponents "so-called Jews" and "the synagogue of Satan" (Rev 2:9; 3:9). The derogatory and polemical description of these other, "false," Jewish groups strongly suggests that John and his followers claimed the titles of the "true Jews" and "the true synagogue" for themselves. A Christian group which celebrated freedom from Jewish practices or no longer conceived of their identity in Jewish terms would not bother to characterize a rival group as "so-called Jews" or "the synagogue of Satan." Rather, they would call them Jews and the synagogue, since as Christians they were separate. John and his prophetic circle, bringing apocalyptic Jewish-Christian traditions to Asia from Palestine, laid explicit claim to the symbols of Jewish identity. The author of Colossians opposes a group who also lay explicit claim to Jewish traditions and practices, and thus we have another correspondence between the opponents in Colossians and the Christianity of the Apocalypse.⁽⁶¹⁾

The second main characteristic of the author's opposition discernible in Col 2:16-23 is the valuation of apocalyptic visions as a source of authority for the theology and practice of the church. The description by the author of Colossians of what his opponents advocate ( , µ, Col 2:18) has caused numerous interpretational difficulties. My interpretation depends on reading as a subjective genitive and taking µ in its sense of "entering."⁽⁶²⁾ While the lexical evidence is open to interpretation and will not be rehearsed here, it is clear that there are a number of advantages to this reading.⁽⁶³⁾ Most significantly, this reading fits the immediate context of the two phrases, allowing them to be read in their root sense without resorting to awkward translations of a} eJovraken ejmbateuvwn.⁽⁶⁴⁾ One of the weakest parts of a Gnostic proposal for the errorists is the inability to explain why "angels" or other heavenly middle-figures would be worshiped at all when the heavenly intermediaries are associated with the demiurge; the subjective reading of avoids this problem as well as the highly unlikely notion that the Christian audience of Colossians engaged in actual worship of angels.⁽⁶⁵⁾

These two key exegetical positions suggest an apocalyptic milieu for the Colossian opponents. Assuming this apocalyptic milieu, the description in Col 2:18 points to the apocalyptic Christianity of the Apocalypse very well. The Apocalypse, written close to the time and the place of Colossians and sent to Colossae's sister church in Laodicea, includes extensive description of angels worshipping in heaven. Revelation contains more references to angels than any other book of the NT. Indeed, John takes a position on the genitive in Col 2:18.⁽⁶⁶⁾ Twice, apparently as a defense against being characterized as with an objective genitive, John is spurned by angels for falling at their feet (Rev 19:10; 22:8-10). While we need not claim that this is a direct response to his opponents in the church leadership such as the author of Colossians, it is clear that the author wants to avoid charges of angel worship against his community.⁽⁶⁷⁾ Because his visions describe the worship of angels (subjective genitive), John takes precautions against being accused of advocating the worship of angels (objective genitive). John does describe the worship of angels in the heavenly throne room (Rev 5:2, 11; 7:11-12; 8:2-5; 9:14; 15:5-8; etc.), often in great detail, which he had seen upon entering heaven (Rev 4:1-2). Angels deliver the Apocalypse to John; initiate action on earth; hand John scrolls and give him instructions; interpret visions; and guide John in the New Jerusalem. The heavenly visions and descriptions of angelic worship are more than major literary aspects of the Apocalypse. For John, these heavenly visions legitimate his role as a prophet and his authority in the church (see. Rev 1:19; 5:4-5; 10:8-11; 14:13; 19:10; 21:5; 22:8-10, 16-20). They are a source not only of authority but of moral and theological instruction. The ascent to heaven described in Revelation 4-22, moreover, was almost certainly not John's first vision. He has established a reputation as a visionary prophet among the seven churches of Asia, including Laodicea, and draws on this reputation in sending the Apocalypse. Thus we can conclude that his prophetic authority was based on a long series of visions, probably going back to Palestine, and certainly to the time of the composition of Colossians.

Of equal importance to the content of Col 2:16-23 for understanding the moral and theological teaching of the opponents is the way the author describes the relationship of the opponents to his audience. The choice of verbs in 2:16 and 2:18 is telling in this regard. These are opponents who are able to condemn (krinevtw) and disqualify (katabrabeuevtw) Christians in Colossae, Hierapolis, and Laodicea on the basis of whether they eat or drink certain items, celebrate festivals or Sabbaths, or have mystical visions of angels in heaven. It is unlikely that someone outside the Christian community would be able to judge or condemn in the manner implied here. These verbs suggest that the opponents have some authority (although the author contests that authority) within the Christian community. Col 2:16 is the only use of krivnw in Colossians, but Paul's use in Romans and 1 Corinthians provides analogies for how the verb functions in Colossians as part of intra-communal judgement. While God is frequently the agent of judging or condemning (e.g. Rom 2:1-16; 3:6-7; 1 Cor 4:5), when Paul discusses issues of food and idol-meat (similar to the problem in Colossians), he uses the verb krivnw to describe the acts of judging to be avoided within the community (see Rom 14:3, 4, 5, 10, 22). 1 Cor 5:12, in which Paul distinguishes between the church judging those within the community and God judging those outside, is also instructive in this regard.⁽⁶⁸⁾ While certainly not a technical term, the use of krivnw in Col 2:16 implies that someone within the Christian community is doing the condemning. Similarly, no one could "disqualify" (katabrabeuevtw) a member of the church unless they had some standing or authority within the community, for instance as a charismatic prophet. While the argument in Colossians has traditionally and rightly been understood as an argument against the opponents' theological and moral positions, it must also be viewed as an argument against their authority within the church. The author seeks to undercut their attempts to condemn and disqualify members of the community.

The author of Colossians, responding to the theological and ideological threat of the apocalyptic heavenly visions by John and his prophetic community and their practical consequences in community behavior, attempts to turn his audience's attention away from the angels who inhabit the heavenly throne room and back towards a different set of Pauline theological traditions. For the author of Colossians, apocalyptic visions of heavenly worship do not build worshipers up in the established Christian faith (2:6-7) because they are based on empty deceit and human tradition. He values the established tradition handed down in the churches over prophetic visions that raise challenges to his authority on moral and theological matters.

IV.

As we have seen, Col 2:16-23 outlines the basic moral issues at stake between the two opposing groups. The apocalyptic prophets advance a dramatically different understanding of Christian praxis with regard to food, drink, astronomical forces and other powers (stoicei`a) that exert control over human existence from the views of the author. These moral disputes between the Christian leaders have a theological basis. The theological dispute between the new apocalyptic prophets in the area and the established hierarchy is primarily eschatological. The source of their disagreements over eschatology, what Christ has done and has yet to do with regard to these powers, is no doubt the heavenly revelations brandished by John as a source of authority. These apocalyptic visions include more than descriptions of angels worshiping in the heavenly throne room. They also describe "what is, and what is to take place after this" (Rev 1:19). The apocalyptic visions of John are a source for his theology, particularly eschatology and moral teachings, aw well as authority, and thus are the source of the conflict between apocalyptic Christians and the post-Pauline leadership in Colossae and the Lycus valley.

There are clues to this eschatological dispute between the author of Colossians and his opponents in the interpretation of the Christ Hymn in Col 1:19-23. But the Christ hymn is widely considered to be traditional material and should not be read too closely as a direct attack on the opponents.⁽⁶⁹⁾ To do so would be futile mirror reading; the opponents did not necessarily hold the opposite of every statement in Col 1:15-18.⁽⁷⁰⁾ Indeed, the use of Col 1:15 and 1:8 in Rev 1:5 and 3:14 signals the amount of theological agreement between the two Christian groups. The use of traditional material in Colossians is an effective rhetorical device--an external proof, in rhetorical theory--in the face of theological innovation within the Christian community.⁽⁷¹⁾ Rather, we should turn our attention to the second main Christological section, Col 2:9-15. This section is particularly important rhetorically because its framed by attacks on the opponents and because it develops the author's Christological and eschatological position in a clearly polemical context. Re-reading Col 2:9-15 in juxtaposition to the Apocalypse sharpens our perception of the theological differences in the struggle among the churches of the Lycus valley. The ways in which the author shapes the traditional material of the Christ Hymn as part of the polemic against the opponents will become clearer as we outline the eschatological issues in Col 2:9-15.

Two main eschatological points emerge in this section. First, Col 2:10 picks up on the major Colossians theme of the plhvrwma (cf. Col 1:19), as the author assures his audience that they "have come to fullness" in Christ (ejste; ejn aujtw`/ peplhrwmevnoi), a strongly realized statement without any eschatological reservation.⁽⁷²⁾ Realized eschatology, which is a strong aspect of Colossians, is a particularly salient theme in Col 2:9-15, where it takes on a polemical edge because it is a main feature of the debate between the author and his apocalyptic opponents. The strongest eschatological statement occurs in 2:12 with the claim that in baptism, the Colossians "were also raised with him [i.e. Christ, ejn w|/ kai; sunhgevrqhte] through faith in the power of God."⁽⁷³⁾ Col 2:12 is a striking parallel and reinterpretation of Rom 6:4, with the significant use of the aorist for sunegeivrw.⁽⁷⁴⁾ The shift in the eschatological horizon is an important piece of evidence for the deutero-Pauline authorship of Colossians and is evident in other parts of the letter. Col 1:12-14, which introduces the Christ hymn, is another passage with a strongly realized eschatology. These verses describe what Christ has done; all the verbs are aorist forms, implying action completed in the past. The father "has enabled" () the Colossians to share in the inheritance of the saints and has rescued them () from the power of darkness and transferred (µ) them to the kingdom of his beloved son. The Colossians have (e[comen) the forgiveness of sins as a present possession.

More important for our purposes than the comparison with Paul is the comparison with Revelation. The visions of the Apocalypse could be described as a grand affirmation of "not yet" over any eschatological claims of "already." The horizon is short: Revelation describes "what must soon take place," "for the time is near" (Rev 1:1-3; cf. 1:19). But the prominence of the eschatological reservation in the Apocalypse is strong. The messages to the seven churches each end with a future promise to "those who conquer" that they will receive a heavenly reward (dwvsw in Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 28; 3:5, 12, 21). Christ has made the Christian community into a kingdom and a priesthood (Rev 1:6; 5:10), but they will rule upon the earth (, 5:10).⁽⁷⁶⁾ The inheritance of the New Jerusalem is an eschatological event that "those who conquer" may look forward to in the future ( oJ nikw`n klhronomhvsei tau`ta, Rev 21:7). Even those who have been martyred in Revelation do not have the full benefits of those who have just been baptized in Colossians, since they are told to "rest a little longer" (i{na ajnapauvsontai e[ti crovnon mikrovn, Rev 6:11) while Colossians promises the audience that they have already been raised with Christ. The strongly realized eschatology of Col 2:12, with its sense of spiritual resurrection, is in stark contrast to the strong eschatological reservations expressed in Rev 6:11 (note , cf. Col 2:10 µ) or Rev 20:4-7, in which John envisions a future millennial rule of the martyred saints.

The second main point is both eschatological and Christological. Col 2:10 describes Christ as "the head of every ruler and authority." Revelation does not disagree with Colossians that Christ is the ruler of earthly powers (see Rev 1:5, oJ a[rcwn tw`n basilevwn th`" gh`"), but the disagreement between Colossians and Revelation could hardly be greater over the current status of "rulers and authorities." The authors have dramatically different views of what God has already accomplished through Christ with regard to the earthly powers.⁽⁷⁷⁾ This contrast appears most strongly in Col 2:13-15.⁽⁷⁸⁾ According to Colossians, God has made the Christian community alive, forgiven sins, erased the record, nailed it to the cross, and "disarmed the rulers and authorities [µ ] and made a public examination of them, triumphing over them in it" (2:15). Again, all verb forms are aorist (µ, µ, µ). The language is primarily militaristic; qriambeuvw suggests the triumphal procession of a Roman emperor and ajpekduvomai, in the middle voice, means to disarm.⁽⁷⁹⁾ The polemical statement of Colossian's eschatology in Col 2:9-15 climaxes with a strongly militaristic image of God's defeat, in Christ, of all rulers and powers, earthly or heavenly. God's domination through Christ of the is a key notion in Colossians (Col 1:13, 16; 2:10, 15).⁽⁸⁰⁾ The author of Colossians anticipates the glorious epiphany of Christ (with the believers, 3:4) but he does not anticipate any future battles between Christ and the powers of this world. According to 2:15, Christ has achieved this victory once and for all. Again, as with the realized eschatology in both 2:9-15 and 1:12-14, we see this view of Christ's reconciliation of the powers attached to the Christ Hymn as well. In Col 1:20, the author writes that, through Christ, God reconciled (ajpokatallavxai) "all things, whether on earth or in heaven." This is a universal statement of the reconciliation already achieved by God through Christ for the entire creation.⁽⁸¹⁾

The striking description of what Christ has already accomplished in Col 2:14-15, unparalleled in the NT,⁽⁸²⁾ may be read as reaction to descriptions of apocalyptic visions by the opponents of what is yet to happen between Christ and the earthly powers. Whereas Col 2:15 commemorates the final defeat of the authorities and powers having already occured, Revelation describes a situation in which God still allows these powers and authorities considerable reign on earth. While John describes Christ as the (Rev 1:5) and the (Rev 3:14), his visions portray considerable work left to be done with the of the world, which in Revelation are the "kings of the earth" and the other allies of Satan, in particular the two beasts. The triumphal military imagery in Col 2:15 could well be a reaction to violent imagery such as we find in the visions of Revelation. The Apocalypse abounds in visions of future struggles between the forces of God and the forces of Satan. Arguably the only vision of this struggle that expresses a past reality is Revelation 12, in which Michael and the angels cast down the dragon Satan. John envisions a series of climactic struggles before Satan is finally chained once and for all (Rev 12:18-13:18; 16:12-21; 17:14; 18:21-24; 19:11-21; 20:1-4, 7-10). The earthly powers and authorities have yet to be finally defeated. Where the author of Colossians describes God's actions through Christ with aorist participles, John describes these battles between the heavenly and demonic forces in the future tense (e.g., µ, 17:14; , 20:7).

In sharp contrast to the Apocalypse, Col 2:9-15 presents an eschatological view in which God has already defeated the rulers and authorities throught Christ. When he turns to describe the effects of God and Christ's actions on the community, the differences in eschatological horizon between Colossians' and the Apocalypse's worldview are clearly delineated. The contrast between the strongly realized eschatology of Col 2:11-15, which emphasizes what God has already done with the rulers and authorities, and Revelation, which dwells on visions of future conflict between the heavenly and demonic forces, could not be greater. These strongly different eschatological worldviews support radically different understandings of the social world as well. Colossians description of the defeat of the ajrcavi kai; ejxousivai implies a different relationship to the dominant Greco-Roman culture from what we find in the Apocalypse. In Revelation, Greco-Roman culture is something to be resisted. It is controlled by satanic beasts and destined to be destroyed by the heavenly armies, then replaced by the New Jerusalem.⁽⁸³⁾ Colossians, in contrast, claims that everything (ta; pavnta) including the ajrcavi kai; ejxousivai, has been reconciled and redeemed by God through Christ on the cross (Col 1:20; 2:15). Therefore, the author writes in the most direct address against his Christian opponents in the letter, do not let anyone condemn or disqualify you (2:16-18). Thus eschatology, with its attendant implications for both Christology and the relationship of the Christian community to Greco-Roman culture, is at the heart of the conflict.

Reading Col 2:9-15 as a polemic against other Christian teachers suggests a futher possibility for what the apocalyptic opponents are expounding. One is that Christ has not done these things; Christ has not yet fully disarmed the rulers and powers of the world. The Apocalypse presents this alternative theology and eschatological horizon in its visions. In a related variation, it is possible that the opponents are arguing that the achievements of the Christ have not yet been realized in the Christian community. Could the apocalyptic prophets also be holding back on what this "Pauline" author maintains was done in Col 2:11-14 as well as 2:15? The "philosophy" that he opposes very likely contains a strong eschatological reservation. Christians have not achieved freedom by Christ's deeds but are awaiting the return and final judgment before entering the heavenly city. These possibilities are by no means mutually exclusive; rather, they build upon each other. If Christ's nature and actions are conceived in even slightly lower or more limited terms than the very full, high view of Colossians, then it would follow that the eschatological promises of Christ have not been completely fulfilled. Rather than seeing the Christian community as already raised with Christ, John and his prophetic circle hold that significant work remains to be done within the Christian churches. Judgment and the final battle are coming soon, but they are in the future.

V.

I have explored the literary connections between Revelation and Colossians and have shown the sharp contrast in theology, Christology, and ethics. Furthermore, my reconstruction goes beyond the polemical core and contested phrases such as ta; stoicei`a tou` kovsmou and qrhskeiva/ tw`n ajggevlwn and considers the rhetoric, theology, and ideology of the entire letter. My hypothesis has offered a rhetorical situation for the polemical eschatological and Christological focuses in Colossians, since the author has an opposing Christian theology in sight. By comparing the two texts and arguing that the author of Colossians is opposing apocalyptic Christians who have recently come to the Lycus valley from Palestine, I have suggested plausible social-historical context for the mystical-apocalyptic school of interpretation of the Colossians opponents.

I will conclude with a brief look at the ideological aspect of the dispute between the author and his opponents, which is the main focus of chapters 3-4 in Colossians. Recall that the author of Colossians expresses some concern about "dwelling on visions." Imagine the disruption a wandering prophet might cause in the church meeting in Colossae when he described a vision such as Rev 20:4-7. Since millennial views have traditionally caused disruptions in established Christian churches throughout history--for instance the "new prophecy" of Montanus and his followers in Asia in the second century--it is highly plausible that the same sort of disturbance occurred in the Pauline churches of the Lycus valley with the introduction of radical apocalyptic Christian theology when John and his followers came to Asia after the Roman war. Such as clash of theological perspectives and cultural worldviews would result in a powerful intra-church struggle.

Detailed analysis of the paranesis in 3:5-17 and the household code in 3:18-4:1 are beyond the scope of this paper, but a few suggestive comments may be made to show how the function and message of these ethical passages fit with my overall proposal. In Col 3:1-4, after the polemical dismissal of his opponents' teachings, the author begins the task of settling down the community by reasserting his view of the social world. The morality of Colossians flows directly from its eschatology; "if you have been raised with Christ [sunhgevrqhte, cf. 2:12], seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God" (Col 3:1). This sounds very apocalyptic, with an appeal to ta; a[nw, the things above, the same appeal made by the opponents with their heavenly revelations and visions of worshiping angels. The author continues the apocalyptic theme with promises of revelations in 3:4 (note fanerwqh`/, fanerwqhvsesqe). But this apocalyptic language is an attempt to usurp the authority of the opponents and reinscribe their notions of "what is above" in their own ethical and ideological terms.<sup>(84)</sup> Despite his appeal to ta; a[nw in 3:2, the author's vision in the rest of letter is decidedly earthly. While he himself calls upon the audience to reject the earthly (ta; ejpi; th`" gh`", 3:5), the behavior he calls them to in exchange for the "earthly" is a series of general moral injunctions focused on harmonious life in the Christian community: avoid anger and slander, do not lie, be meek and patient with one another, forgive, etc. (3:8-17). The Colossians Haustafel or household code, one of the earthliest passages in the New Testament, follows in 3:18-4:1. Reading this section as a "nomistic" and "orthodox" response to "enthusiastic" and "heretical" threats to the stability of the church and the social order only confirms the proposal of this paper.⁽⁸⁶⁾ Revelation, with its polarizing condemnation of Greek culture, Roman rule, and the Christian communities in Asia, represents a clear and strong threat to the stability of church order in Colossians. The prophets from Palestine, with their visions of worshiping angels and future conflict, were upsetting evey dimension of social life in Colossae. The author tries to put on the fire by settling down the community. The paraenesis in Col 3:5-17 and the household code in 3:18-4:1, then, are part of the ideological response of the author to the apocalyptic prophets assaults against his authority and against stability in the churches of Colossae and the Lycus Valley.

Religious divisions arise, both in antiquity and in modern times, over relatively small disagreements between groups which hold the vast majority of their theological beliefs in common. But even these points of agreement, upon closer analysis, show the extent of disagreement on matters of theology. Christology and eschatology are key to the disagreement between the author of Colossians and the author of Revelation. The theological and ethical innovations, moreover, pose an ideological threat to Pauline traditions. Power struggles gravitate toward the differences within a community. A major component of the disagreement between the author of Colossians and his opponents is ideological. When we consider the social and ideological ramifications of these Christological and eschatological positions, we see the potential for a split between the established hierarchy of the Pauline churches and the charismatic apocalyptic prophets from Palestine.

Finally, my hypothesis raises an important methodological question about the scholarly construal of opponents in the New Testament texts. Scholars have claimed that the Colossian opponents were Jewish, Gnostic, mystical, visionary, apocalyptic, philosophers, and of course syncretistic. The early Christians were all these. The advantage of my proposal is that one need not choose Jewish over pagan any more than one need say Paul or the other earliest Christians were more "Greek" or "Jewish." For the Colossian opponents, like all the various early Christian groups of which we have evidence, were a diverse mix of these elements. The tendency to cast the opposition as totally "other," Jews or Gnostics or some group that is slanderously labelled "heretical," seem to involve presuppositions based on theological beliefs and a canonical hermeneutic, which may be at odds with the historical data and social-historical processes. While historical-critical scholars of the New Testament and early Christianity have learned to bracket the term "heresy" in discussion and analysis of the earliest Christian groups, patterns of heresiological thinking remain in the construction of New Testament opposition.

1. This is a revised version of a paper presented in the Pauline Epistles Section of the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San Francisco, CA, November, 1997. It has been submitted to the Journal of Biblical Literature for review.

2. See J. B. Lightfoot, "The Colossian Heresy," in Fred O. Francis and Wayne A. Meeks, eds., Conflict at Colossae: A Problem in the Interpretation of Early Christianity Illustrated by Selected Modern Studies (Rev. ed; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975), 13-59; orig. pub. St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (3^rd ed.; London: MacMillan and Co., 1879).

3. See Martin Dibelius, "The Isis Initiation in Apuleius and Related Initiatory Rites" in Francis and Meeks, Conflict at Colossae, 61-121, trans. by the editors from Dibelius' collected essays, Botschaft und Geschichte (ed. G. Bornkamm with H. Kraft; vol 2; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1956.

4. Interestingly, the Gnostic camp split over the interpretation of stoicea to kosmo and plroma. See Richard E. DeMaris, The Colossian Controversy: Wisdom in Dispute at Colossae (JSNTSup 96; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) 24-25. Typical of one view is H.-M. Schenke, "Der Widerstreit gnosticher und kirklicher Christologie im Spiegel des Kolosserbriefes," ZTK 61 (1964) 395-99, who, citing Hypostasis of the Archons, identified the elements as archons to whom the Colossian Gnostics had to endure humility (note ejn tapeinofrosuvnh/, Col 2:18). Cf. the opposing view of A. Moyo, "The Colossian Heresy in Light of Some Gnostic Documents from Nag Hammadi," Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 48 (1984) 30-44, who, citing Eugnostos the Blessed and Sophia of Jesus Christ, claimed that some Gnostic circles viewed the cosmic power in a positive light. E. Saunders, "The Colossian Heresy and Qumran Theology," in B. Daniels and J. Suggs, eds., Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament (SD 29; Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967) 133-45, found verification for Lightfoot's original comparisons between the Colossian "errorist" and the Essenes; while E. Yamauchi, "Qumran and Colossae," BSac 121 (1964) 141-52, saw the Colossian error as a type of Gnostic Judaism, between the Essene and Gnostics. S. Lyonnet, "Paul's Adversaries in Colossae," in Francis and Meeks, Conflict at Colossae, 147-61 (orig. pub. "L'Étude du milieu littéraire et l'exégèse du Nouveau Testament," Biblica 37 [1956]), attempts a "purely Jewish" formulation of the opposition.

5. See Fred O. Francis, "Humility and Angelic Worship in Col 2:18" in Francis and Meeks, Conflict at Colossae, 163-95 (orig. pub. ST 16 [1963] 109-134); and "The Background of EMBATEUEIN (Col 2:18) in Legal Papyri and Oracle Inscriptions" in Francis and Meeks, eds., Conflict at Colossae, 197-207; A. Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World (Kampen: Kok, 1964); Craig A. Evans, "The Colossian Mystics," Bib 63 (1982) 188-205; Christopher Rowland, "Apocalyptic Visions and the Exaltation of Christ in the Letter to the Colossians," JSNT 19 (1983) 73-83; and John R. Levison, "2 Apoc. Bar. 48:42-52:7 and the Apocalyptic Dimension of Colossians 3:1-6," JBL 108 (1989): 93-108.

6. See H. Hegermann, Die Vorstellung vom Schöpfungsmittler im hellenistischen Judentum und Urchristentum (TU 82; Berlin: Akademi Verlag, 1961); and J. Lähnemann, Der Kolosserbrief: Komposition, Situation und Argumentation (SNT 3; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1971).

7. See Ernst Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1946); G. B. Caird, Paul's Letters from Prison (New Clarendon Bible; Oxford: OUP, 1976); and Eduard Schweizer, "Slaves of the Elements and Worshippers of Angels: Gal 4:3, 9 and Col 2:8, 18, 20," JBL 107 (1988) 455-468.

8. So identified by Richard DeMaris, The Colossian Controversy, 18-40. He has labeled the five broad interpretive schools for the identification of the opponents Jewish Gnosticism; Gnostic Judaism; Ascetic, Apocalyptic, Mystical Judaism; Hellenistic Syncretism; and Hellenistic Philosophy. DeMaris, citing W. Scheck, "Der Kolosserbrief in der neureren Forschung (1945-1985)," ANRW II.25.4, 3327-64, calls the identification of the opponents and the Christ hymn in Col 1:15-20 the "dual preoccupations" of Colossians scholars.

9. DeMaris, The Colossian Controversy, argues for a "distinctive blend of popular Middle Platonic, Jewish, and Christian elements that cohere around the pursuit of wisdom" (17); while Troy W. Martin, By Philosophy and Empty Deceit: Colossians as a Response to a Cynic Critique (JSNTSup 118; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) argues more pointedly that the opponents are in fact Cynic philosophers. Thomas J. Sappington, Revelation and Redemption at Colossae (JSNTSup 53; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) extends and refines Francis' work on the apocalyptic-mystical construction of the opponents.

10. Evidence for first-century Gnostic communities is sketchy; see Michael Goulder, "Colossians and Barbelo," NTS 41 (1995) 601; and Jarl Fossum, "Colossians 1.15-18a in the Light of Jewish Mysticism and Gnosticism," NTS 35 (1989) 183-84, who emphasizes the common parentage of Christianity and Gnosticism. Evidence of pagan attention to Chistianity begins in the second century, which alone casts some doubt on the theory that the Colossian opponents were some type of Hellenistic philosopher.

11. E.g. Acts 6:1-6; 9:26-30; 11:19-20; 15:1-2, 39; 18:24-19:1; 1 Cor 3:5-6; 2 Cor 11:4-5, 22-23; Gal 2:4-14; 3 John 5-9.

12. The frequent designation of the opposition as a "heresy" (for instance, in as recent an article as Goulder, "Colossians and Barbelo,") demonstrates this wide-spread presupposition. The literature on heresiology is quite large and a review is beyond the scope here; this research proceeds in the spirit of Helmut Koester, "GNOMAI DIAPHORAI: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity," in Trajectories through Early Christianity, ed. J. M. Robinson and H. Koester (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 114-57

13. See Rev 2:2, 5-6, 14-16, 20-24; 3:1, 4, 15-18; see also Robert M. Royalty, Jr., The Streets of Heaven: The Ideology of Wealth in the Apocalypse of John (Macon,GA: Mercer University Press, 1998), 28-34.

14. See Eus. Hist. Eccl. 3.25; A. C. Sundberg, Jr., "Canon of the NT," IDBSup 136-40; Gerhard Maier, Die Johannesoffenbarung und die Kirche (WUNT 25; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1981) 1-107; and Arthur W. Wainright, Mysterious Apocalypse: Interpreting the Book of Revelation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993) 21-31.

15. See Adela Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 25-50; David Aune, Revelation (WBC 52A; Dallas, TX: Word, 1997), lvi; and Royalty, Streets of Heaven, 15-16. "Author" here should not be taken as a narrative-exegetical term (i.e., the "implied author") but rather as a designation for the historical figure who initiated the recording of the visions which eventually circulated as the Apocalypse.

16. See David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983) 274-88, and Aune, Revelation, lxxv-lxxvi on prophecy in Revelation. See Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 140-46; David E. Aune, "The Prophetic Circle of John of Patmos and the Exegesis of Revelation 22.16," JSNT 37 (1989) 103-116; and Aune, Revelation, liv, on John as the leader or "master prophet" of a group or guild of prophets. Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 46, opposes this hypothesis. There were Christian communities in Trales, Magnesia, Hierapolis, and of course Colossae, as well as the seven cities mentioned in the Apocalypse (Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea). Since the choice of seven cities is clearly stylized to fit the literary structure of the Apocalypse, and since John, as an itinerant prophet, was known throughout Asia, it is likely that he had visited other Christian communities besides the ones mentioned in Revelation.

17. See Schüssler Fiorenza, Justice and Judgment, 85-113. The most arresting evidence is the letter form of Revelation, by which John clearly places himself in line with Pauline tradition. Revelation also employs a large number of Pauline terms.

18. A fairly long tradition before the final text, 30 years or more, seems almost certain. Scholars are generally divided between a date in the 60s, under Nero, or the 90s, under Domitian (or possibly Trajan), but the main criterion has usually been the erroneous assumption of imperial persecution of the Christians under one of these emperors (see most recently Thomas B. Slater, "On the Social Setting of the Revelation to John," NTS 44 (1998) 232-56. Aune, Revelation, lvi-lxx, finds evidence in the composite nature of the text for both Neronic (or even earlier) and Domitianic or Trajanic dating. A. J. P. Garrow, Revelation (New Testament Readings; London and New York: Routledge, 1997), 66-79, has dated Revelation to Titus' reign (ca. 80 ce), splitting the difference between the two main views.

19. The parallels are noted by NA²⁶ and most commentators; R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920, 1985), 1:94-95, develops the parallels between Revelation and Colossians at some length and concludes that John had direct or indirect knowledge of Colossians. See also Aune, Revelation, 38-39.

20. On the term oJ ajmhvn, see Lou H. Silberman, "Farewell to O AMHN," JBL 82 (1963) 213-215; and G. K. Beale, "The Old Testament Background of Rev 3.14," NTS 42 (1996) 133-52.

21. The jek is inserted in Rev 1:5, by assimilation with Col 1:18, in the majority tradition following Andreas of Caesarea. Paul, with the exception of the bracketed instance in 1 Thess 1:10, invariably uses ejk nekrw`n (see Rom 4:24; 6:9, 13; 7:4; 8:11; 10:7, 9; 11:15; 1 Cor 15:12, 20; Gal 1:1; Phil 3:11) while Ephesians and Colossians vary ( ejk nekrw`n, Eph 1:20; Col 2:12; ejk tw`n nekrw`n, Eph 5:15; Col 1:18).

22. See also Mark 10:6; 13:19; 16:15; Heb 4:13; 9:11; 1 Pet 2:13; 2 Pet 3:4.

23. On erroneous versions of this lost letter, see Edgar Hennecke, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, R. McL. Wilson, eds., New Testament Apocrypha (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965) 2.128-32.

24. Schüssler Fiorenza, Justice and Judgment, 70-73, argues that the predicative statements in Rev 1:5-6 belong to early Christian baptismal tradition and that elements could have been taken from Christological traditions such as those reflected in Col 1:15-20.

25. See Charles, Revelation, 1:95.

26. See Royalty, Streets of Heaven, 164-75, on the message to Laodicea; on the Laodicean reply, cf. Arr. Epict. Diss. 3.7.29; Hos 12:9; Zech 11:5. Aune, Revelation, 1:258, suggests that this is a conventional excuse.

27. See H. B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John (3rd ed.; London: MacMillan, 1911), 61 (who hedges somewhat on spiritual or material boasting); Charles, Revelation, 1:96; Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdman's, 1977), 126; G. B. Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine (2nd ed.; London: A. & C. Black, 1966, 1984), 57; Wilfrid J. Harrington, Revelation (Sacra Pagina 16; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical/Michael Glazier, 1993), 75.

28. I argue in Streets of Heaven, 164-75, that it is not wealth itself but the attitude towards their commercially-derived wealth that is condemned here.

29. See Wilhelm Bousset, Die Offenbarung Johannis (5th ed.; MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896), 270-271; Ulrich B. Müller, Die Offenbarung des Johannes (Gütersloh and Würzburg: Gütersloher and Echter, 1984), 136; M. Eugene Boring, Revelation (IBC. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1989), 94-97; and Aune, Revelation, 1:259.

30. See Schüssler Fiorenza, Justice and Judgment, 119.

31. See Rom 2:4-5; 9:23; 10:12; 11:12; 2 Cor 4:7; 6:10; 8:2. These three 2 Corinthians examples have a strong Stoic character; see Victor P. Furnish, II Corinthians (ABD 32A; New York: Doubleday, 1984) 347-348; John J. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence (SBLDS 99; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 199-201; and Susan R. Garrett, "The God of This World and the Affliction of Paul: 2 Cor 4:1-12" in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (ed. D. L. Balch, E. Ferguson and W. A. Meeks; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 99-117.

32. This use of wealth language appears in Paul only in Rom 11:33 and 1 Cor 1:5, where it is part of the ironic foreshadowing of 1 Cor 4:8. In this second use of ploutevw in 1 Corinthians, "becoming rich" connotes extensive spiritual enthusiasm, probably including speaking in tongues; Paul criticizes the Corinthian notion of "being rich" in 1 Corinthians 12-14. The other instances of wealth language in Paul concern financial support for his ministry, the churches, or the Jerusalem church (e.g. 1 Cor 16:2; 2 Cor 9:11; Phil 4:19).

33. gnwrivsai (1:27); didavskonte", sofiva/ (1:28);sunevsew", ejpivgnwsin tou` musthrivou tou` qeou` (2:2); sofiva" kai; gnwvsew" (2:3); ejn pavsh/ sofiva/ didavskonte" (3:16).

34. DeMaris's elimination of 2:9-15 from the "polemical core" unnecessarily narrows the investigation (see Colossian Controversy, 41-45). As I argue below, the rhetorical placement of 2:9-15 between the two main polemical passages (2:8 and 2:16-23) shows that the issues raised in 2:9-15 are central to the debate between the author and his opponents (cf. Evans, "Colossian Mystics," 194, where he groups 2:8-15). Furthermore, Col 1:24-2:7 introduces the full-scale attack in 2:8. While we should not necessarily try to find information about the opponents behind every line of Colossians, ignoring the rhetorical arrangement of the letter runs the risk of missing both the subtlety and force of the author's polemic.

35. See the criticisms of such approaches in Francis and Meeks, Conflict at Colossae, 216.

36. See Section III for a fuller discussion of these issues as the theological focus of the clash between the two Christian groups.

37. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 92-93, cites Rabbinic parallels for the Greek verbs in Col 2:6-7 that describe the transmission and reception of tradition.

38. See Martin, Philosophy and Empty Deceit, 27-34. Francis and Meeks, Conflict at Colossae, 216, summarized the interpretational problems well in reference to µ in 2:8: "the phrase . . . may be the quotation of a slogan of the opponents, a description of their thought and practice, or a condemnatory, perhaps ironic, attribution to them of something they deliberately avoid. Is Christ said to be the head of all rule and authority because the opponents believe the opposite (so that the positive assertions of the writer seemingly mirror the opponents)? Or is this simply the writer's view in any case?" [their italics].

39. See Pokorný, Colossians, 112.

40. See esp. E. Schweizer, "Slaves of the Elements"; Martin, By Philosophy and Empty Deceit; and DeMaris, The Colossian Controversy. F. Gerald Downing, in a recent review of By Philosophy and Empty Deceit, JBL 117(1998) 542-44, critiques Martin's tendency to shape Cynicism to fit the Colossian opposition.

41. See Lohse, Colossians, 94-95; Pokorný, 112; 4 Macc 4:11; 5:4; Philo, Leg. ad Gaium 156; Mut. 223; Jos. Bell. 2:119; Ant. 18:11; Stob. frag. 23.68.

42. See Acts 17:18; freq. in Just. Dial. Tryph., 1 Apol.; Mel. fr. in Eus. HE 4.26.7; Athen. leg. 2.4.

43. The use is possibly ironic or contemptuous; see BDB §302.

44. Lightfoot and Meyer also construe kai; ouj kata; Cristovn in opposition to both katav phrases, but Martin cites a number of scholars who see this only as a negation of kata; ta; stoicei`a tou` kovsmou (see Martin, Philosophy and Empty Deceit, 33 n.2). But Martin offers no justification for his "better" reading, which ignores the parallelism of the sentence.

45. See Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World, 5-46, cited in Martin, By Philosophy and Empty Deceit, 32; see also Lohse, 96-98; Harris, Colossians and Philemon. 93.

46. Schweizer, "Slaves of the Elements," has argued forcefully that refers to the "basic" elements--earth, wind, air, and fire, and sometimes the "heavens." He admits, however, that ancient authors speak of the "power" of these elements and personify them, thus opening the way for broader understanding of the as spiritual powers.

47. Following the "bolder hypothesis" by Goulder, "Colossians and Barbelo," 615-616, with regard to possible alphabetical speculations by the Gnostic community that produced the Apocryphon of John.

48. See Schweizer, "Slaves of the Elements and Worshippers of the Angels," 468.

49. So also Pokorný, Colossians and Philemon, 114; against Martin, Philosophy and Empty Deceit, 32 n1. While the use in Colossians need not be determined by the use in in Gal 4:3--different issues are at stake in the two letters--the general field of meaning is most likely the same.

50. See Lohse, Colossians, 115; severe treatment of the body means a call for abstinence.

51. Cf. Rev 9:20-21, where porneiva suggests that this particular condemned group probably ate meat offered to idols as well as worshiped actual physical idols. On the connections between idolatry and porneiva, see Phyllis Bird, "'To Play the Harlot': An Inquiry into an Old Testament Metaphor," in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (ed. P. L. Day; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989) 75-94; Exod 16:36; 23:2; 32:6; Judg 2:17; 8:33; 8:27; Deut 31:11; Isa 1:21; Jer 2:2; Ezek 16:36; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:6-8; and the rabbinic literature cited by Wayne A. Meeks, "'And Rose up to Play': Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1-22," JSNT 16 (1982) 64-78. For a comparison of vice-lists in the Apocalypse, see Royalty, Streets of Heaven, 223-25.

52. See Lohse, Colossians, 97, who cites Ps.-Callisthenes 1.1.3 and 1.12.1; Diog. Laert. 6.102; and the Paris Magical Papyrus 4.1303. The astronomical interpretation of stoice`ia in both Colossians and Galatians is argued by T. C. G. Thornton, "Jewish New Moon Festivals, Galatians 4:3-11 and Colossians 2:16," JTS 40 (1989) 97-100, who maintains that ta; stoicei`a tou` kovsmou, for the author of Colossians, represents "pagan elements from which Christians are now free."

53. Astrological imagery is noted by most commentators, but the function of this imagery in the text remains the subject of debate. Significant twentieth century astrological readings of Revelation include Franz Boll, Auf der Offenbarung Johannis: Hellenistiche Studien zum Weltbild der Apokalypse (Berlin: Teubner, 1914); Austin Farrer, The Revelation of St. John the Divine (Oxford University Press, 1964); Bruce J. Malina, On the Genre and Message of Revelation: Star Visions and Sky Journeys (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), who suggests that John was an astral prophet who saw his visions in the sky; and Jacques M. Chevalier, A Postmodern Revelation: Signs of Astrology and the Apocalypse (University of Toronto Press, 1997), who characterizes Revelation as a script setting eschatological views of time explicity against pagan astral views.

54. See Aune, Revelation, 97-98, for three different astronomical interpretations of this image, all of which have astrological implications.

55. See Charles, Revelation, 1:310-316. The origins of the imagery in Revelation 12 probably are in Babylonian and Greek myths; the twelve stars represent the twelve signs of the zodiac.

56. See Austin Farrer, A Rebirth of Images: The Making of St Johns' Apocalypse (Westminster, Dacre, 1949), 216-44. Charles, Revelation, 2:165-69, claims that the gems are a reversed list of the signs of the zodiac and therefore are meant to be a repudiation of astronomical speculation, but see T. F. Glasson, "The Order of Jewels in Revelation XXI, 19-20: A Theory Eliminated," JTS 26 (1975) 95-100.

57. See Rev 1:16, 20; 2:1, 28; 3:1; 6:12, 13; 7:2, 16; 8:10, 11, 12; 9:1, 2; 10:1; 12:1, 4; 16:8; 16:12; 21:23; 22:5, 16; cf. 1 Cor 15:41 and Eph 4:26.

58. According to Lightfoot, "The Colossians Heresy": "A mere glance at the epistle suffices to detect the presence of JUDAISM in the teaching which the Apostle combats. The observance of sabbaths and new moons is decisive in this respect" (Conflict at Colossae, 13). The phrase "festival, new moon, sabbath" appears in LXX Hos 2:13; Ezek 45:17; 1 Chron 23:31; 2 Chron 2:3; 31:13. See Lohse, Colossians, 115; DeMaris, Colossian Controversy, 56-58.

59. By "implied audience," I am borrowing from narrative theory to refer to the imagined or ideal audience created by the rhetoric of the text, not the actual audience of Christians in Asia Minor.

60. On Revelation and Judaism, see Aune, Revelation, 168-72; A. T. Kraabel, "Paganism and Judaism: The Sardis Evidence" in Paganisme, Judaïsme, Christianisme: Influences et affrontements dans le monde antique (Mélanges offerts à Marcel Simon; eds. A. Benoit, M. Philonenko, and C. Vogel; Paris: de Baccard, 1978) 13-33; and "The Diaspora Synagogue: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence since Sukenik," ANRW 2.19.1, 477-510; Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 85-87; Thompson, Revelation, 173-74; Friederich Wilhelm Horn, "Zwischen der Synagoge des Satans und dem neuen Jerusalem: Die christlich-jüdische Standortbestimmung in der Apokalypse des Johannes," ZRGG 46 (1994) 143-62; and Peder Borgen, "Polemic in the Book of Revelation," in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith (ed. C. A. Evans and D. A. Hagner; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993) 199-211.

61. Greek observers, of course, confused Christians and Jews well into the second century; see Arr. Epict. Diss. 2.19.21; 4.7.6; Luc. Per.

62. On the subjective genitive tw`n ajggevlwn, see Francis, Conflict at Colossae, 176-81; on ejmbateuvwn, Conflict at Colossae, 171-76 and "The Background of EMBATUEIN," Conflict in Colossae, 197-207. See also Evans, "Colossians Mystics," 196-98; Rowland, "Apocalyptic Visions"; Levison, "2 Apoc. Bar. and Colossians," 100-101; and Sappington, Revelation and Redemption, 158-61.

63. Note Francis' rejoinder in Conflict at Colossae, 181-82, to Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 119 n. 36.

64. E.g., "as he had visions of them during the mystery rites" (Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 114). Schweizer, "Slaves of the Elements," who dismisses the subjective reading of based on 2:23, "which speaks of an activity of the Colossians, not of the angels" (465 n. 39), does not provide a discussion or translation of µ. The discussion of 2:23 does indeed focus upon the Colossians' activity with respect to the halakah described in 2:16, 20-21 (noted above as the most salient aspect of the opposition). The author of Colossians can hardly deny the existence of angels or that angels worship God. He can only enjoin against a Christian prophet who makes a heavenly vision of the angels the central focus of ecclesial life.

65. See DeMaris, Colossian Controversy, 25; Sappington, Revelation and Redemption, 159.

66. So also Francis, "Humility and Angelic Worship," Conflict at Colossae, 179.

67. Roloff, Revelation, 38-40, contends that the seven angels of the messages are a criticism of angel worship.

68. 1 Cor 6:1-6 offers an apocalyptic vision of the church judging the world, including the angels; cf. Rev 20:4-5.

69. The traditional hymn was edited by the author, e.g. 1:18a, although a variety of theories exist on the structure and additions in the hymn. This issue is peripheral to the present study; see Lohse, Colossians, 41-61; E. Käsemann, "A Primitive Christian Baptismal Liturgy," Essays on New Testament Themes (SBT 41; London: SCM, 1964, 149-68, esp. 150-53; Jack T. Sanders, The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background (SNTMS 15; Cambridge: CUP, 1971) 12-14, 75-87; R. G. Hammerton-Kelly, Pre-Existence, Wisdom, and the Son of Man: A Study of the Idea of Pre-Existence in the New Testament (SNTMS 21; Cambridge: CUP, 1973) 168-78; Jean-Noël Aletti, Colossiens 1,15 -20: Genre et exégèse du texte; Fonction de la thématique sapientielle (AnBib 91; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981); and N. T. Wright, "Poetry and Theology in Colossians 1.15-20," NTS 36 (1990): 444-468, who directs his interpretation towards the establishment and development of the widely critiqued view of M. D. Hooker, "Were There False Teachers at Colossae?", in Christ and Spirit (Fs. C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 315-31 (see Wright, 463-65 and 464 n.64).

70. See Lohse, Colossians, 46, 46 n. 100.

71. Also known as "inartistic" proofs (, Lat. inartificialis); see Heinrich Lausberg, Handbuch zum literarischen Rhetorik: Ein Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft (2 vols.; Munich: Max Hueber, 1960) 1.190-93 [§348-54]; George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1984) 13-19; Arist. Rh. 1.2.2 [1355B]; 3.13.4 [1414B]; Quint. Inst. 5. preface, 1.1.

72. See Lohse, Colossians, 57, and A. J. M. Wedderburn, "The Theology of Colossians," in Andrew T. Lincoln and A. J. M. Wedderburn, The Theology of the Later Pauline Letters (New Testament Theology; Cambridge: CUP, 1993), 31-32 on the term plhvrwma in Colossians; it is more likely a starting point for later Gnostic or Valentinian Gnostic speculation than evidence of Gnostic opponents, since the supreme God is distinct from the plhvrwma in Gnosticism.

73. Cf. Col 1:13-14; 3:11. Käsemann, "Primitive Christian Baptismal Liturgy,"sees the hymn as a baptismal liturgy. In Col 2:11, the author refers to baptism as "circumcision" (peritomhv), probably as part of the polemic against the Jewish Christian theology of his opponents. There is no evidence in Colossians or Revelation, however, that the apocalyptic prophets insisted on circumcision; see Lohse, Colossians, 101-102; cf. Pokorný, Colossians, 124-25.

74. Paul does not write that Christians "will be raised" but rather that Christ "was raised" (hjgevrqh) and that Christians "will walk" (peripathvswmen) in newness of life (Rom 6:4; cf. suzhvsomen⁽⁷⁵⁾

75. Aland, Kurt, Black, Matthew, Martini, Carlo M., Metzger, Bruce M., and Wikgren, Allen, The Greek New Testament, (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart) 1983.

76. See Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Priester für Gott: Studien zum Herrschafts- und Priestermotiv in der Apokalypse (NTAbh 7, n.s.; Münster: Aschendorff, 1972) 253-262; Justice and Judgment, 68-81; and Andrew J. Bandstra, "'A Kingship and Priests': Inaugurated Eschatology in the Apocalypse," Calvin Theological Journal 27 (1992) 10-25.

77. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 106, notes the change in subject and argues (n. 85) that "God, not Christ, is the subject of [Col 2:13] and following statements. God forgives sins and effects the resurrection with Christ."

78. See Wedderburn, "Theology of Colossians," 42: [T]hese . . . verses speak of what God has accomplished through Christ in striking terms unparalleled in the New Testament and at times puzzling in their imagery."

79. See BAGD s.v. qriambeuvw , ajpekduvomai; G. Delling, TDNT 3:159-60; Lohse, Colossians, 112 n.142; Pokorný, Colossians, 140; Wedderburn, "Theology of Colossians," 44-45. Roy Yates, "Colossians 2.15: Christ Triumphant," NTS 37 (1991) 573-91, confirms that the main metaphor is that of an imperial triumph but argues that the principalities and powers, in Colossians, are not evil forces that have been conquered but rather participate in the celebratory procession lead by Christ.

80. Cf. Eph 1:21; 2:2; 3:10; 6:12; Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 15:24; Phil 2:9; 1 Pet 3:22; Heb 2:5; 2 Pet 2:10.

81. Wedderburn, "Theology of Colossians," 40, sees the letter narrowing down the truly universal scope of the hymn to the reconciliation of human beings. Contra Yates, the use of the verbs ajpokatallavssw and eijrhnopoievw in Col 1:20 suggest that an adversarial relationship between Christ and the ajrcavi kai; ejxousivai.

82. So also Wedderburn, "Theology of Colossians," 42.

83. This is of course a major focus of the interpretation of Revelation. Rather than review and critique the significant social-historical and sociological studies here, I refer the reader to discussion in my recent book Streets of Heaven.

84. Here I am in disagreement with Levison, "2 Apoc. Bar. and Colossians," who does not allow enough force for the strongly realized eschatology of Colossians in his apocalyptic interpretation. The revealed/hidden scheme appears in 3:1-4 but only as a segue to traditional paraenesis and the household code. Note especially that what is hidden in Christ has "now been revealed to [God's] saints," (nu`n de; ejfanerwvqh toi`" aJgivoi" aujtou`⁽⁸⁵⁾

85. Aland, Kurt, Black, Matthew, Martini, Carlo M., Metzger, Bruce M., and Wikgren, Allen, The Greek New Testament, (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart) 1983. -

86. See James E. Crouch, The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel (FRLANT 109; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), 150-51. Martin Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (3^rd ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Morh [Paul Siebeck]), 243, discusses the presence of nomistic and enthusiastic elements in the earliest Christian communities.