Interview with Paul Foster on his New Colossians Commentary

I’m happy to be able to interview my good friend Paul Foster (Edinburgh Uni) about his recently released Colossians commentary in the BNTC series.

On authorship, you note there are different ways in which Paul could have had an influence on the letter’s content. In the end, you opt for the position that ‘Written sometime after Paul’s death, by a follower of Paul, to co-opt his apostolic authority in responding to a perceived misleading teaching in Colossae.’ What led you to that conclusion.

When I commenced writing the commentary my working assumption was that I would write in favour of Pauline authorship, although genuinely I did not have a strongly fixed opinion on the question. As you note, through the process of writing the commentary, I have come to the position that the letter was written sometime after Paul’s death, by a follower of Paul. A number of things led to that position. First the archaeology evidence that Colossae was not left uninhabited after the earthquake in the Lycus Valley around 61 C.E. opened up the possibility of a later date. Second, and for me most importantly, the number of thematic or theological developments seemed to be the most suggestive evidence for an author other than Paul. In comparison to letters that are widely considered genuine, the ecclesiology is more universal, the eschatology more realized, the christology heightened and developed in new ways. In addition, there is a lack of interaction with or citation of Jewish scriptures, there is a lack of reference to the Spirit, and the household code appears to soften or domesticate Paul’s more radical teachings on freedom and equality of all believers. I admit that each of these arguments can be answered one-by-one in defence of Paul’s authorship. However, I found their cumulative weight to tip the scales in favour of non-Pauline authorship.

I know many will fixate on the decision I have taken on authorship – it is the first question you asked(!), however, I hope the commentary will not be assessed solely on that criterion. For me it was a matter of deciding between quite evenly balanced evidence, and I can see how a number of my individual arguments could be reversed. In fact, I would go so far as to say that my decision to suggest the letter was written by somebody other than Paul is still open to revision. However, on the basis of the evidence, as I was able to make best sense of it, the thematic and theological developments and also the omissions can most adequately be explained if the author was somebody other than Paul.

The part of the letter that gave me most pause for thought, and led me most strongly to consider whether Paul may have been the author, was the list of named associates and fellow believers in Col 4.7-17. This is in some ways reminiscent of the list of greetings in Rom 16.3-23 – a letter also addressed to another group the author claims not to have visited.

Yet, when all the factors are taken together – on balance and tentatively – the evidence makes better sense, at least to me, by supposing somebody other then Paul wrote the letter.

At one point you infer that the make-up of the Colossian assembly was ‘predominantly slaves, perhaps with some free women and their children.’ What leads to that inference?

The major piece of evidence is the household code. The most extensive set of instructions is reserved for the slaves (Col 3.22-25), in contrast to other briefly named groups. Also this household code, unlike typical Graeco-Roman examples (that I list in the commentary) reverses the order of the normal pairings. Women are addressed before their husbands, children before their parents, and slaves before their masters. This is an inverted and perhaps subversive household code. Here it appears the author places women, children, and slaves first because they constitute his addressees. Reserving the address to slaves until the last pairing gives it a climactic feeling. Furthermore, the reference to Nympha in Col 4.15 reveals the prominence of women in the early Jesus movement.

Such a suggestion also aligns with Celsus’ critique of early Christianity – that it predominantly attracted women and slaves, and other considered as belonging to the non-elites of ancient Mediterranean society.

There’s not a lot of mention of the Holy Spirit in Colossians, why do you think that is?

The honest answer is that I do not know. However, with the unsurprising exception of Philemon, it is shown in the commentary that for Colossians references to the Spirit occur at the lowest rate in comparison to the other Pauline letters. I think there are two possible, but tentative, reasons why this may be the case. Firstly, if the ‘problem’ behind the letter was that some individual (or individuals) was encouraging the Colossians to combine worship of Christ with participation in local mystery cults that promised ecstatic spiritual experience, then perhaps the author wished to play down the ‘charismatic’ experiences associated with the Spirit. Perhaps it could be claimed the mystery cults offered more in this regard. Secondly, the author presents what might arguably be the most heightened Christology contained in any of the Pauline epistles. Not only does the author repeatedly use the typical Pauline ‘in Christ’ language to declare that believers now exist in Christ, the author also states that Christ dwells in them (Col 1.27). This expanded and heightened set of Christological affirmations, appears to squeeze out a role for the Spirit in the author’s overall theological schema. This may account for a lack of ‘space’ for the author to integrate a pneumatology into his expanded Christological schema. This uncompromising and enlarged Christological vision ascribes all benefits to believers on the basis of their union with Christ – both through them being in Christ, and through Christ being in them. Consequently, there may not have been any need for the author to discuss the Spirit given the way his theology is set out.

One unique feature of your introduction is that you appeal to prosographical analysis. What is that and what is its relevance to Colossians?

The term prosopography is derived from the Greek word for ‘created-face’ prosōpoeia (προσωποεῖα). A prosopography is not simply a list of dramatis personae in a literary work such as Colossians. Rather, it seeks to gain insight into a collective group of historical characters, where details about certain individuals might be minimal or non-existent. Therefore, prosopographical research has the aim of learning about group dynamics and patterns of relationship through the study of collective biography. Typically a certain mass of data is required to undertake a prosopographical study, such as the information derived from inscriptions at a large funerary site. While Colossians does not yield this type of mass data, nonetheless it is valuable to consider the characters in the letter as a whole. By so doing one is able to assemble not only their individual characteristics, but it is also possible to apprehend greater detail by considering networks of relationships.

When it comes to the Colossian heresy/philosophy, you think many scholars have too quickly assumed an essentially deviant Jewish belief. Instead, you think the author is concerned about a syncrestic religious pluralism within Phyrgia. Why is that?

The author’s addressees are described as undergoing a circumcision made without hands (Col 2.11), which they received through Christ. This, and their former manner of life, the vices that amount to idolatry (Col 3.5) in which they once walked (Col 3.7), suggests that the Colossians were previously pagan rather than Jewish. This would align with what is known of the majority religious culture in Phrygia during this period.

Colossians is self-evidently a highly christological letter. It asserts the centrality of Christ in the divine plan of redemption and reconciliation (Col. 1.13, 20, 23). There is a focus on the cross both as the instrument that removed the condemnatory charges against believers (Col. 2.14), and as the mechanism through which Christ’s death has become the source of cosmic peace (Col. 1.20). The consequence for believers is that they can be viewed as already having been raised with Christ (Col. 3.1), and thus their true life is already hidden with Christ in the divine sphere (Col. 3.3). These affirmations are not made in a vacuum. They stand as the positive teaching that responds to a perceived challenge to an exclusively Christ-based faith.

The author states that in Christ one may have access to all knowledge and wisdom (Col. 2.3). Immediately following on from this statement, the author affirms that he makes this declaration in order to protect the Colossians against any individual who attempts to convince them otherwise: ‘this I say that no-one may delude you with persuasive speech’ (Col. 2.4). Therefore, this is the first indication that the author is responding to one or more people whose teaching is considered to be a deluding influence. A few verses later the author even more clearly issues a warning to believers against threats to their faith introduced with the ‘beware’ or ‘watch out’ formula (Col. 2.8). The warning is framed as being against ‘somebody who takes you captive through philosophy and vain deceit according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ’ (Col. 2.8). These specific details describe the opposing religious system as being based upon seeing elemental forces as spiritual powers that still exercise power over Colossian believers. Instead, according to the author, the Colossians should rely exclusively on Christ as the basis of redemption and heavenly blessing. It is difficult to determine from the fleeting reference here to ‘the elements of the world’ (and equally terse use of the same phrase in Col. 2.20) whether this denotes impersonal or personal forces. While the term τὰ στοιχεῖα, ‘the elements’, is used predominantly to denote the impersonal material that constitutes the world, the cosmogonies of early gnostic texts or of mystery religions could attribute personal force to the archontic powers that were constituted from primordial matter. Consequently, it is best not to create a rigid dichotomy between these options. Moreover, given the fact that ‘the rulers’ have already been described as deriving their existence from Christ (Col. 1.16), it seem be the case that the author is envisaging a scenario where the Colossians are allowing themselves to become subject again to powers that have been vanquished in Christ (Col. 2.10, 15).

It may have been the case that the recipients of the letter might not have initially recognized the charge against them, that they were allowing themselves to be taken captive by forces from which they had been released in Christ. The fullest description of the problem that the author is confronting is described in Col. 2.16-19. This description would have probably made much more sense to the recipients of the letter who were likely aware of the background to these statements. Whether or not the recipients accepted the author’s critique of their ‘defective’ christology, presumably the description of angelic worship (Col. 2.18) would have been more recognizable to the Colossians than it is for those removed from the original context.

Notwithstanding the difficulty for modern readers in interpreting these verses, there are sufficient clues to provide a basic sense of the issues being confronted. Initially the author critiques a number of practices that are either ascetic in nature, or seem to reflect a commitment to differing religious systems. While the instruction not to let anybody pass judgment on believers in regard to food or drink (Col. 2.16) might be understood more as a religious scruple than as an ascetic act, when this is read in light of the comment a few verses later that some believers are living in accordance with the worldly dogmas ‘do not handle, do not taste, do not touch’ (Col. 2.21), it becomes apparent that restrictive ascetic practices are among the issues at stake for the author. However, the concern is not limited to ascetic practices, it also encapsulates the observance of religious ceremonies such as ‘a festival or new moon or Sabbath’ (Col. 2.16). There is a tendency to read the first two terms, ‘festival’ and ‘new moon’, through the lens of the last term, Sabbath. This has resulted in commentators asserting with certainty that the issue being confronted was pressure on Gentiles to conform to Jewish practices (Dunn 1996: 176). While there is no doubt that Sabbath observance was a distinctively Jewish practice, the observance of festivals and new moon ceremonies was far from being exclusively Jewish. Given that the believers in Colossae apparently had not been drawn from a Jewish background, but had formerly been uncircumcised Gentiles (Col. 2.11), and that in distinction to the subject matter of Galatians Jewish issues do not come to the fore in Colossians, it is not satisfactory to read these terms as exclusively reflecting a tendency towards accepting Jewish practices.

The trend of reading the problem addressed in Colossians as pressure to accept Jewish practices may reflect a tendency in New Testament studies to interpret material in light of what scholars know most about, namely first century Judaism. Instead, the multicultural environment of the eastern Mediterranean was a mix of different religious practices and traditions. These various cults often used similar or shared terminology. Moreover, even at the level of practice, there was often cross-fertilization of forms of religious rites. There is no need to reject the possibility that Judaism may have been a factor in this mix, but it needs to be remembered that to date no hard evidence has been found for the existence of a Jewish community in Colossae in the first century. Excavation of the site may unearth the remains of a synagogue in Colossae or inscriptions that are demonstrably Jewish in character, however, if that does become the case this does not negate the more basic observation that pagan religion throughout Phrygia (and the rest of Asia Minor) was largely syncretistic in nature. The material remains at Aphrodisias bear testimony to the way local mystery religions were modified to accommodate imperial worship. Given that the Colossian believers were drawn from the majority Hellenistic culture of the region with syncretistic religious practices, it appears likely that some of the recent believers in Christ at Colossae saw nothing untoward in combining elements of their new faith with their earlier commitment to some of the mystery cults that perhaps offered more ecstatic rites than Christianity. This may have also entailed drawing elements from Judaism, although that remains less certain.

It is against this backdrop, and in response to a syncretistic religious pluralism that the author writes. The author adopts a number of rhetorical strategies to gain the assent of the hearers of the letter to the teaching that is being presented. First, there is a relational strategy whereby figures known to the Colossians are presented as being faithful teachers of the belief system that is contained in the letter. Most notably Epaphras is co-opted by the author, since he is the person that established the Colossians in their faith (Col. 1.7). However, various other well-known figures from the Pauline circle are also named (Col. 4.7-14), both to create links with the Colossians and to show that the type of christology being advocated is widely held by leading Christian teachers. Second, the central teaching of the letter is first presented lyrically and doxologically (Col. 1.15-20) in a manner that gains assent in a potentially non-confrontational manner, before the author challenges the Colossians concerning the deviant teaching circulating in the community. Third, the author uses the figure of Paul to create pathos towards the apostle as a figure who strives (Col. 2.1) and suffers (Col. 1.24) on behalf of the Colossians, and endures incarceration because of fidelity to proclaiming the gospel (Col. 4.3, 18). Fourth, those teaching a syncretistic form of faith are side lined by not naming them and instead only generic references are used: ‘somebody’ (Col. 2.8) or ‘anybody’ (Col. 2.16). Fifth, and perhaps the most intellectually based strategy, the author argues that the Colossians are already in possession of all heavenly blessings so there is no need to appease cosmic rulers and authorities. As those who exist in Christ, they have already been transferred to the heavenly realm (Col. 1.13), they have died to the elements of the world (Col. 2.20), and they have been raised with Christ in the process of becoming blessed with a new mode of existence (Col. 3.14). Together these strategies are presented to rebut the teaching of those who call for the Colossians to engage in other cultic practices that involve the veneration of angels, and betray a concern to appease cosmic powers that are regarded as controlling the believers in Colossae.

You claim that Col. 1.15-20 is neither pre-Pauline nor a hymn, how so?

This section of the letter is widely regarded as being one of the most beautiful statements of Christological expression and praise in the entire New Testament. While I share that view, the arguments for it being both a preformed unit and a ‘hymn’ are, at least to me, less than compelling. In regard to the material being preformed, it is important to note that such early Christian expressions were not formulated in some intellectual vacuum, but indeed drew upon the wider reflections of believing communities from the context of their worship and thought concerning the significance of Jesus. Thus there may be elements in Col 1.15-20 that were taken over into this larger literary composition (in much the same way that the expression ‘kingdom of God’ occasionally surfaces in Paul’s letters). Phrases or ideas contained in Col 1.15-20 are deployed throughout the letter with dexterity and subtlety, in a manner that may suggest that the author composed this unit to anticipate the problems he would address later in the letter. Therefore, Col 1.15-20 appears to make perfect sense as an integrated part of the whole letter, composed to address the concerns that arose from the Colossian context. Moreover, most theories that claim that Col 1.15-20 was a preformed unit, then mutilate that paragraph to cut out all the bits that do not fit the theory. One is left with the impression that such suggestions are more brilliant than they are persuasive.

While the New Testament knows of early Christian hymns or sung worship – as is evidenced in Colossians itself (Col 3.16) – there is nothing to suggest that Col 1.15-20 was composed in order to be sung. At various points New Testament writers break into elevated lyrical or doxalogical language, which appears to be a spontaneous moment of praise. Therefore, it may be preferable simply to see Col 1.15-20 as such a lyrical piece of writing, rather than a hymn sung in worship contexts, and that it was composed as part of the author’s articulation of a heightened Christology that was intended to address issues arising in Colossae.

When Paul talks about God making peace through the blood of the Son shed on the cross, you comment: ‘The subversive nature of the claim that Christ, not Caesar, was the source of universal peace, stood in stark contrast to the expectation that peace was established through military triumph and imperial conquest.’ Do you see much potential for anti-imperial rhetoric in Colossians.

This does not appear to be a major concern in the letter, but anti-imperial rhetoric may appear at this point in the letter. I think I would prefer to speak of the author using imperial imagery, with which the audience may have been familiar, in order to show that Christ is supreme in the cosmos. The author employs language of military conquest to demonstrate that Christ is triumphant over the spiritual powers. It is these power to whom the Colossians are in danger of allowing themselves to made subservient. So I think the author is not so much setting out to be anti-imperial, but instead uses familiar language and imagery to describe Christ as the one who has defeated and nullified the cosmic powers. However, for the author the completeness of Christ’s triumph in not simply confined to the heavenly sphere, but it is also a terrestrial victory: ‘in the heavens and on the earth’ (Col 1.16). Therefore, Christ’s reign is superior to any other claim of authority. Thus, there may be an implicit challenge to imperial authority, but this is not explicitly developed in the letter.

In Col 2.11, how do you understand the “circumcision of Christ”?

Circumcision of Christ. This is not a reference to the story of the physical circumcision of Jesus as narrated in Luke’s gospel (Lk. 2.21-24, 39), but is an alternate way of describing the circumcision not made with hands. However, some have seen the circumcision described here as denoting an act undergone by Christ, in which believers participate. Typically the event is understood to be the crucifixion, when Christ’s physical body was stripped off and he was clothed with a resurrection body. This interpretation may find support in the imagery that follows describing participation in the death and resurrection of Christ (Col. 2.12). However, the sequence reads more like a rapidly shifting chain of images, rather than a single idea replayed through synonymous parallels. If the genitive is not subjective, then it could be an objective genitive describing an activity that Christ performs on believers, as he strips away their former sinful nature using non-physical means. The other major option is that it is a possessive (or even mystical) genitive, referring to a type of circumcision that is experienced by those who now live in the new sphere that is existence in Christ. In this sense it is a circumcision performed by divine agency, that is possessed but not performed by Christ, and is the transformation of the sinful nature into a Christ-like nature through mystic union. This interpretation may align with the wider perspective of the letter where believers are told ‘to strip off the old man’ (Col. 3.9). Therefore in this verse the metaphor of circumcision speaks of the transformation of human nature, and this can only take place through divine agency when believers live in union with Christ.

What is the ‘worship of angels’ in Col 2.18?

I take this to be describing worship directed to angels, rather than participating in worship alongside angels. Here, apart from considering this to be the most likely rendering of the Greek, I am dependent on the work of Clint Arnold. In great detail, Arnold shows that angelic beings were not unique to Judaism, and the veneration of angels is attested in pagan contexts. Apart from magical texts where angels are invoked to protect the suppliant, or to deliver a curse, there are other pagan angel texts that reveal the existence of angel cults in Asia Minor. One of Arnold’s collected examples will suffice to illustrate the veneration of angels (Arnold 1995: 71):

1. To Zeus Most High and the Good Angel, Claudius Achilles and Galatia, with all their household, made a thank offering for deliverance.
2. To Zeus Most High and the Divine Angel, Neon and Euphrosune [give thanks] on behalf of their household.
3. We give thanks to the Angelic Divinity for deliverance.
4. We give thanks to the Angelic Divinity.

In combination with Zeus in the first two lines, and named separately in the final two lines, an angelic being is given an elevated title and venerated and praised for the blessings that have been granted. Given this contextual evidence from the wider area of Phrygia and surrounding regions, it is possible to see evidence for the practice of worship directed towards angelic beings. Therefore, it is plausible that those whom the Colossians were told to resist saw one of their superior religious practices being that of the veneration of angels. Precisely what this denoted is not recoverable, and it may even be the case that the author of the letter has described the practice in this way for polemical purposes. However, what appears to be envisaged is a worship or veneration directed towards angels as the objects or recipients of cultic worship.

Having finished Colossians, what is your next major project?

I seem to have developed a taste for commentary writing. Next is a commentary on Matthew and more work on the non-canonical gospels.