COLOSSIANS, EPISTLE TO THE, the I2th book of the New Testament, one of the later letters of the Apostle Paul. Colossae, like the other Phrygian cities of Laodicea and Hierapo lis, had not been visited by Paul, but owed its belief in Jesus Christ to Epaphras, a Colossian who had laboured not only in his native city, but also in the adjacent portions of the Lycus valley— a Christian in whom Paul reposed the greatest confidence (i. 7; iv. 12, 13). This Epaphras, like the majority of the Colossians, was a Gentile. It is probable, however, that Jews were there with their synagogues (cf. Josephus Ant. xii. 149) and that some of the Gentiles, who afterwards became Christians, were either Jewish proselytes or adherents, who paid reverence to the God of the Jews. At all events, the letter indicates a sensitiveness on the part of the Christians not only to oriental mysticism and theosophy (cf. Sir W. M. Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia and the Church in the Roman Empire), but also to the Judaism of the Diaspora.
Our first definite knowledge of the Colossian Church dates from the presence of Epaphras in Rome, c. A.D. 6o, when Paul was a prisoner. Paul has received news, perhaps by letter (J. R. Harris, Expositor, Dec. 1898, pp. 404 et seq.) touching the state of reli gion in Colossae. He learns, to his joy, of their faith, hope and love, but detects a lack of that strength and joy and perfection, that richness of the fullness of knowledge expected of those who had been made full in Christ (i. 6, 9–I I, 28; ii. 2, 7, I0). The rea son for this, Paul sees, is the influence of the claim made by certain teachers in Colossae that the Christians, in order to attain unto and be assured of full salvation, must supplement Paul's message with their own fuller and more perfect wisdom, and must observe certain rites and practices (ii. 16, 21, 23) connected with the worship of angels (ii. 18, 23) and elementary spirits (ii. 8, 2o).
The origin and the exact nature of this religious movement are alike uncertain. (I) If it represents a type of syncretism as definite as that known to have existed in the developed gnostic systems of the end century, it is inconceivable that Paul should have passed it by as easily as he did. (2) As there is no reference to celibacy, communism and the worship of the sun, it is improb able that the movement is identical with that of the Essenes. (3 ) The phenomena might be explained solely on the basis of Judaism (von Soden, Peake). Certainly the asceticism and ritualism might be so interpreted, for there was among the Jews of the Dispersion an increasing tendency to asceticism, by way of protest against the excesses of the Gentiles. The reference in ii. 23 to severity of the body may have to do with fasting preparatory to seeing visions (c f . Apoc. Baruch, xxi. I, ix. 2, v. 7). Even the worship of angels, not only as mediators of revelation and visions, but also as cosmical beings, is a well-known fact in late Judaism (Apoc. Bar., lv. 3; Ethiopic Enoch, lx. I I, lxi. I o ; Col. ii. 8, 20; Gal. iv. 3) . As for the word "philosophy" (ii. 8), it is not necessary to take it in the technical Greek sense when the usage of Philo and Josephus per mits a looser meaning. Finally the references to circumcision, paradosis (ii. 8) and dogmata (ii. 2o), directly suggest a Jewish origin. If we resort solely to Judaism for explanation, it must be a Judaism of the Diaspora type. (4) The difficulty with the last mentioned position is that it under-estimates the speculative ten dencies of the errorists and ignores the direct influence of oriental theosophy. It is quite true that Paul does not directly attack the speculative position, but rather indicates the practical dangers inherent therein (the denial of the supremacy of Christ and of full salvation through Him) ; he does not say that the errorists hold Christ to be a mere angel or an aeon, or that words like pleroma (borrowed perhaps from their own vocabulary) involve a rigorous dualism. Yet his characterization of the movement as an arbitrary religion (ii. 23), a philosophy which is empty deceit (ii. 8), accord ing to elemental spirits and not according to Christ, and a higher knowledge due to a mind controlled by the flesh (ii. 18) ; his repeated emphasis on Christ, as supreme over all things, over men and angels, agent in creation as well as in redemption, in whom dwelt bodily the fullness of the Godhead; and his constant stress upon knowledge—all these combine to reveal a speculation real and dangerous, even if naïve and regardless of consequences, and to suggest (with Julicher and McGiffert) that in addition to Jewish influence there is also the direct influence of Oriental mysticism.
To meet the pressing need in Colossae, Paul writes a letter and entrusts it to Tychichus, who is on his way to Colossae with Onesi mus, Philemon's slave (iv. 7, 9). (On the relation of this letter to Ephesians and to the letter to be sent from Laodicea to Colossae, see EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE.) A letter like this, clear cut in its thought, teeming with ideas emanating from a unique religious experience, and admirably ad justed to known situations, bears on its face the marks of genuine ness even without recourse to the excellent external attestation. It is not strange that there is a growing consensus of opinion that Paul is the author. With the critical renaissance of the early part of the 19th century doubts were raised as to its genuineness (e.g., by E. T. Mayerhoff, 1838) . Quite apart from the difficulties cre ated by the Tubingen theory, legitimate difficulties were found in the style, in the speculation of the errorists and in the theology of the author. ( I ) As to style, it is replied that if there are pecul iarities in Colossians, so also in the admittedly genuine letters, Romans, Corinthians, Galatians. Moreover, if Philippians is Paul ine, so also the stylistically similar Colossians (cf. von Soden). (2) As to the speculation of the errorists it is explicable in the lifetime of Paul, recourse to the developed gnosticism of the end century being unnecessary. (3) As to the Christology of the author, it does not go beyond what we have already in Paul except in emphasis, which itself is occasioned by the circumstances. What is implicit in Corinthians is explicit in Colossians. H. J. Holtzmann (1872) subjected both Colossians and Ephesians to a rigorous examination, and found in Colossians at least a nucleus of Pauline material. H. von Soden (1885), with well-considered principles of criticism, made a similar examination and found a much larger nucleus, and later still 0893), in his commentary, reduced the non-Pauline material to a negligible minimum. Harnack, Julicher, McGiffert, Moffatt and Dibelius agree with Lightfoot, Weiss, Zahn (and early tradition) in holding that the letter is wholly Pauline— a position which is proving more and more acceptable to contem porary scholarship.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--In addition to literature mentioned in the text, Bibliography.--In addition to literature mentioned in the text, see Sanday, art. "Colossians" and Robertson, art. "Ephesians," in Smith's Bible Dict. (1893), and A. Jiilicher, art. "Colossians" and "Ephesians," in Encyc. Bib. (1899) ; The Introductions of H. J. Holtzmann (1S72), B. Weiss (1897), Th. Zahn (19oo), Julicher (1906), Moffatt (3rd ed., 1911) ; the Commentaries of J. B. Lightfoot (9th ed., 189o) , H. von Soden (1893) , T. K. Abbott (1897), E. Haupt (1902), Peake (1903), P. Ewald (2nd ed., 191o), M. Dibelius (2nd ed., 1927). (J. E. F.)