Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:01:09.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Used Whom? The Relationship of Ephesians and Colossians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

E. Best
E. Best
Affiliation:
13 Newmill Gardens, St Andrews, Fife, Scotland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The much greater similarity of Colossians and Ephesians to each other than of either to any other Pauline letter has been recognized since the beginning of the historical critical movement, and been seen to require explanation. In this paper we shall be concerned to examine only the purely literary aspect of the problem of their relationship leaving aside their theological similarities and dissimilarities; nor shall we attempt to draw theological conclusions from our discussion of individual phrases or verses. To do this would require setting them in their context in Ephesians and vastly increase the length of the paper.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , January 1997 , pp. 72 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Engelmann, Th. W., De Echtheid van de Brieven aan de Kolossers en de Epheziers (Utrecht: Van Huffel, 1877).Google Scholar

2 For an outline of such attempts see, for example, Kiley, M., Colossians as Pseudepigraphy (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986) 37ff.Google Scholar

3 Harrison, P. N., ‘The Author of Ephesians’, SE 2 (TU 87) 595–604.Google Scholar

4 Masson, C., L'Épître de saint Paul aux Colossiens (CNT 10; Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1950) 158.Google Scholar His Pauline Colossians consisted of 1.1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8; 2.6, 8, 9,11a, 12a, 16, 20, 21; 3.3, 4, 12, 13a, 18–22a, 25; 4.1, 2, 3ab, 5, 6, 7, 8a, 9, 10–12a, 14 (15), 17–18. Paul had written his letter while a prisoner. For detailed criticism of Masson's position see Kirby, J. C., Ephesians: Baptism and Pentecost (London: SPCK, 1968) 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Munro, W., ‘Col.iii.18–iv.1 and Eph.v.21–vi.9: Evidence of a Late Literary Stratum?’, NTS 18 (1971/1972) 434–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Coutts, J., ‘The Relationship of Ephesians and Colossians’, NTS 4 (1957–1958) 201–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Synge, F. C., St Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. A Theological Commentary (London: SPCK, 1941).Google Scholar

8 Mitton, C. L., The Epistle to the Ephesians: Its Authorship, Origin and Purpose (Oxford: Clarendon, 1951).Google Scholar Other detailed treatments can be found in Schmid, J., Der Epheserbrief des Apostels Paulus (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1928) 384–455Google Scholar; Goodspeed, E. J., The Meaning of Ephesians (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1933) 79–165Google Scholar; Ochel, W., Die Annahme einer Bearbeitung des Kolosser-Briefes im Epheser-Brief (Würzburg: Konrad Triltsch, 1934)Google Scholar; Percy, E., Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbrief (Lund: Gleerup, 1946) 362–419Google Scholar; Roon, A. van, The Authenticity of Ephesians (Suppl NT 39; Leiden: Brill, 1974) 413–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Merklein, H., ‘Paulinische Theologie in der Rezeption des Kolosser- und Epheserbriefes’, Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spätschriften (ed. Kertelge, K.; QD 89; Freiburg-Basel-Wien: Herder, 1981) 25–69Google Scholar, appears to fall into this trap. He draws attention to the places where A/Eph may have used Col 1.15–20 but the instances he puts forward show resemblance in idea rather than in wording and therefore cannot indicate A/Eph's dependence on Colossians.

10 See Pelletier, A., Flavius Joséphe adaptateur de la Lettre d'Aristée (Paris: Klingksieck, 1962).Google Scholar

11 On the use of conflation in the ancient world see, Downing, F. G., ‘Redaction Criticism: Josephus' Antiquities and the Synoptic Gospels’, JSNT 8 (1980) 46–65 and 9 (1980) 29–48Google Scholar; and his ‘Compositional Conventions and the Synoptic Problem’, JBL 107 (1988) 69–85.Google Scholar

12 Haupt, E., Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe (KEK 8, 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902) ad loc.Google Scholar

13 Gaugler, E., Der Epheserbrief (Zürich: EVZ, 1966) ad loc.Google Scholar

14 Bouttier, M., L'Épître de saint Paul aux Éphesiens (CNT 9b; Genève: Labor et Fides, 1991) ad loc.Google Scholar

15 Belser, J. E., Der Epheserbrief des Apostels Paulus (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1908) ad loc.Google Scholar

16 Gnilka, J., Der Epheserbrief (HTK 10.2; Freiburg–Basel–Wien: Herder, 1971) ad loc.Google Scholar

17 Merklein, H., ‘Eph 4,1–5,20 als Rezeption von Kol 3,1–17 (zugleich ein Beitrag zur Problematik des Epheserbriefes)’, Kontinuität und Einheit (Mussner, FSF.; ed. Müller, P.-G. und Stenger, W.; Freiburg: Herder, 1981) 194–210.Google Scholar

18 On the origin of the Haustafel form see Best, , ‘The Haustafel in Ephesians’, Irish Biblical Studies 16 (1994) 146–60.Google Scholar

19 Probleme, 400.

20 ‘Eph 4,1–5,20 als Rezeption von Kol 3,1–17’.

21 Eph 5.6–8 is one of those passages where Coutts, The Relationship of Ephesians and Colossians' argues for the priority of Ephesians. Dahl, N. A., ‘Der Epheserbrief und der verlorene erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther’, Abraham unser Vater (FS Michel, O. ed. Betz, O., Hengel, M., Schmidt, P.; Leiden/Köln: Brill, 1963) 65–77Google Scholar, argues for a connection with the non-extant first letter to the Corinthians (which he sees as also reflected in 2 Cor 6.14–7.1) regarding the Ephesian passage as based on a piece of Pauline catechetical instruction.

22 Kritik, 52–4.

23 The Epistle to the Ephesians, 61.

24 Ephesians, 61.

25 Cf. Holtzmann, , Kritik, 51–2.Google Scholar

26 See the commentaries on Colossians, e.g. those of Lightfoot, Lohse, O'Brien.

27 Kritik, 47–8.

28 Ephesians, 65.

29 Ephesians, 283.

30 Ephesians, 65 and 283, 285.

31 Ephesians, 285.

32 Ephesians, 285.

33 Ephesians, 285, 287.

34 See Best, , ‘Dead in Trespasses and Sins (Eph. 2.1)’, JSNT 13 (1981) 9–25.Google Scholar It will be seen that I have modified my views on the dependence of Ephesians on Colossians as expressed there.

35 Cf. Haupt, , Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe, 91, n. 2.Google Scholar

36 Wengst, K., Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums (SNT 7; Gtersloh: Mohn, 1971) 186ff.Google Scholar; cf. Burger, C., Schöpfung und Versöhnung (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukir-chener, 1975) 84.Google Scholar

37 Benoit, P., ‘Rapports HttéYaires entre les épitres aux Colossiens et aux Éphésiens’, Neutestamentliche Aufsätze (FS Schmidt, J.; ed. Blinzler, K, Kuss, O., Mussner, F.; Regensburg: Pustet, 1963) 11–22.Google Scholar

38 It is read by κ A C D1 F G H I ψ lat sy bo, but omitted by 46 B D*vid b sa; CI Cyp Ambst.

39 Ephesians, 291.

40 Cf. Holtzmann, , Kritik, 48–9.Google Scholar

41 Kritik, 50–1.

42 Klijn, A. J. F., An Introduction to the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1967) 102.Google Scholar

43 The Authenticity of Ephesians, 430.

44 We must reject the suggestion of Kiley, Colossians as Pseudepigraphy, 41, that Ephesians shows greater divergence from the normal pattern of the Pauline letter and therefore must be later than Colossians; the divergence arises simply out of the nature of the envisaged recipients; unlike Colossians which is directed at a particular situation Ephesians is a general letter.