Colossians and Philemon. Michael F. Bird
Читать онлайн книгу.
manumission at a future point, and the prospect of remaining under the master’s patronage and provision as a freedman or freedwoman. (4) In 1 Cor 7:21 (“Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so”) Paul seems to urge slaves not to accept the status quo, but seek to improve their condition and achieve their freedom where possible. Moreover, in the epistle to Philemon, Paul urges Philemon to accept Onesimus in a way that radically alters the slave-master relationship. It is their fictive kinship as brothers in Messiah and coworkers for the kingdom that transcends societal norms and also transforms their attitudes, actions, and responses towards each other with a decidedly Christian ethic. F. F. Bruce notes that the epistle to Philemon “brings us into an atmosphere in which the institution of slavery could only wilt and die.”99 Paul was no William Wilberforce, but without Paul we might never have had William Wilberforce.
1. Deissman 1957: 107.
2. Calvin 1979a: 348.
3. Xenophon Anab. 1.2.6.
4. Strabo Geogr. 12.8.13.
5. Josephus Ant. 12.119, 125.
6. Ibid. 12.147–53; Philo Legat. 245.
7. Cicero Flac. 28.68.
8. Cf. Bruce 1984a: 5; Trebilco 1991: 13–14.
9. Ameling 2004: 398–440.
10. Tacitus Annals 14.27; and according to Eusebius (Chron. 1.21) all three major towns in the Lycus Valley were destroyed. Strabo (Geogr. 12.8.16) wrote that the entire region was known as a centre of repeated catastrophes.
11. Lincoln 2000: 580.
12. See “Colossae,” online: http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/theology/institute/colossae/.
13. See the synoptic parallels provided by Kooten 2003 and further lists of parallels in Talbert 2007: 4–5. I find that a comparison of Eph 6:21–22 and Col 4:7–8 clearly supports some sort of literary relationship between the two writings. Yet F. C. Baur overstates the case when he writes, “The whole contents of the two Epistles are substantially the same,” and asserts that Ephesians and Colossians are so interwoven “that they stand or fall together in their claim to apostolic origin” ([1873–75] 2003: vol. 2, 4, 44).
14. On the independent nature of Colossians from Ephesians, see Ellis 1999: 110–11; and Talbert 2007: 4–6; while Barth and Blanke (1994: 72–114) argue that the problem of literary dependency is unsolved and perhaps unsolvable.
15. Technically, Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles are the so-called “Deutero-Pauline” letters, while Colossians and Second Thessalonians are the proper “Disputed Pauline” letters. Cf. Mead 1986: 118.
16. Cf. recently Lohse 1971: 181; Pokorný 1991: 21; Lincoln 2000: 580; Wilson 2005: 17–19; but against this scenario is Schweizer 1982: 19–21; Wedderburn 1987: 70; Dunn 1996: 37.
17. Käsemann, RGG 3:728.
18. Cf. especially the positive case for Pauline authorship in O’Brien 1982: xli–xlix; Smith 2006: 6–14. In particular, it seems hard to place Col 4:7–17 in a post-Pauline context. Furthermore, deSilva (2004: 701) argues that the contents are exactly what we would expect from an astute pastoral leader concerning: (a) reliance on shared traditions, (b) Paul’s brief reflection on his own calling in God’s purpose, and (c) personal matters like prayer requests, personal greetings, and personal exhortations.
19. Cf. Bujard 1973; Kiley 1986; Collins 2005.
20. Cf. the data listed in Lohse 1971: 84–88; McL. Wilson 2005: 12–13.
21. O’Donnell 2005: 388.
22. Lohse 1971: 87; O’Brien 1982: xliii.
23. Lohse 1971: 84–85, 87, 182–83; McL. Wilson 2005: 14.
24. Cf. Cannon (1983: 49): “Based on the United Bible Societies’ text of Colossians, of the 114 lines of text in the first two chapters, thirty-four (or thirty percent) of them are drawn from traditional material and twenty-five of them are careful applications of the traditional material. This means that over fifty percent of the first two chapters of Colossians are influenced by words, ideas, and modes of expression that were already existing in the early church. Any judgment made about the authorship of the letter must keep this important factor fully in mind.”
25. Cf. Reicke 2001: 75; Bird 2008b, 377–78.
26. Witherington 2007: 1–2, esp. the quote from L. T. Johnson in n. 2.
27. Cf. Bauckham 1988: 492.
28. Lohse 1971: 180 (see all of 177–83); cf. Baur 2003 [1873–75]: vol. 2, 7–8, 35–38 on the apparently developed Christology of Colossians.
29. I am unpersuaded by O’Brien (1982: xlv–xlvi, 57–61) who understands the “church” in 1:18 as a reference to heavenly assembly around the risen Christ.
30. Still 2004: 133.
31. Cf. Sappington 1991: 226; Gorman 2004: 477; Still 2004: 130–35; deSilva 2004: 697–98.
32. Dunn 1996: 38–39.
33. MacDonald 2008: 44.
34.