Robert M. Royalty, «Dwelling on Visions.On the Nature of the so-called ‘Colossians Heresy’», Vol. 83 (2002) 329-357
This paper argues that Revelation provides a social-historical, theological, and ideological context for the reconstruction of the Colossian opposition. The proposal is that the author of the Apocalypse arrived in Asia after the Jewish-Roman war; his "dwelling on visions" and prophetic activity challenged the emerging hierarchy within the churches, provoking a response in Paul’s name from the church leadership. Correspondences and parallels between the description of the opposition in Colossians and Revelation are developed exegetically, showing that eschatology and Christology were key issues in the dispute. This paper reexamines the heresiological rhetoric of Colossians, raising methodological questions about other scholarly reconstructions of the opposition as non-Christian.
Asia (cf. ei) ga_r kai_ th=| sarki_ a!peimi, 2,5). Col 2,2-3 conveys a fully realized eschatology in conjunction with a high Christology. The author hopes the recipients might have "all the riches of assured understanding" (pa=n plou=toj th=j plhrofori/aj th=j sune/sewj) and the "knowledge" (e)pi/gnwsij) of God’s mystery, that is, Christ. Col 2,3 develops the Christology further: in Christ "all [pa/ntej again] treasuries of wisdom and knowledge" are hidden (a)po/krufoi, 2,3). 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".
If we read Col 1,24–2,4 as a polemical response to apocalyptic Christian prophets rather than Gnostic philosophers or Jewish syncretists, we see that the author does not want the listeners to be swayed by other Christian teachers who present a more limited view of what Christ has accomplished. 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 this opposition. The issue at stake is not the validity of Christ as opposed to some other teaching, but rather whether Christ provides full access to all the riches (pa=n plou=toj) and full knowledge (e)pi/gnwsij) 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 author emphatically connects the Christological and eschatological statements in 2,2-3 with the warning against those who "deceive by plausible arguments" (paralogi/zhtai e)n piqanologi/a|; note Tou=to le/gw, i#na, 2,4). The arguments of his opponents are piqanologi/a, persuasive but false, because they are arguments by other Christians.
The phrase paralogi/zhtai e)n piqanologi/a| in 2,4 first suggests the opponents. Before continuing with a direct assault, however, the author must lay one more piece of his foundation for the attack: the importance of received tradition. By including and commenting on the Christ Hymn in his letter (Col 1,15-20), the author privileges tradition over revealed knowledge44. He even explicitly refers to the value of