Wisdom in Col 1:15-20: Contribution and Significance

JEFFREY S. LAMP*

[UNCONVERTABLE FOREIGN TEXT OMITTED]

Colossians 1:15-20 has been the occasion of voluminous literature and scholarly attention. Questions surrounding the formal structure, composition, and sources of the Christological affirmations of the passage are continually rehashed, with each offering frequently differing from those preceding it on virtually each of the noted heads. Nevertheless we will examine the passage once again.

The purpose of this study will be to examine the viability of wisdom as a backdrop, or a hermeneutical lens of sorts, for the form, content, and categories of thought employed in Col 1:lS-20. This is not to argue for direct literary reliance of the author(s) of the epistle/pericope, or even for conscious literary influence, but rather to suggest that wisdom categories and genres so prevalent in first-century Judaism contributed to the religious framework of Paul so that these data would naturally be present in his concept bank at the time of composition. Put more succinctly, this discussion will attempt to show that wisdom contributes to the fabric of thought out of which the presentation flows.

This discussion will not be an exegetical treatment of the passage, though that would be a valuable approach to take. Rather, in focus here will be the broader issues of theological emphasis with an eye toward the significance of this formulation to Paul's point in the passage. Due to the proliferation of literature on our text, only a representative sampling of positions can be given in the space of this discussion. Attention will be directed to three issues: formal structure, the source of the passage, and the categories of thought utilized in the pericope.

I. FORMAL STRUCTURE

1. Hymn/liturgical unit. The majority opinion among scholars is that the passage is hymnic or liturgical in form. In terms of its hymnic structure, however, the basis of agreement crumbles. Stemming from the work of E. Norden,1 scholarship has focused attention upon analysis of the poetic structure of Col 1:15-20. But it was from C. Masson's reconstruction of the hymn that more recent study has gained its impetus. Masson argues that the hymn, more Semitic than Greek in its parallelism, consists of five strophes of four lines each (v. 18a being an interpolation into the primitive hymn).2 J. M. Robinson suggests that the hymn consists of two units that have been conflated and supplemented with lists of and allusions to the Church and the cross.3 P. Ellingworth opts for a structure of two strophes (vv. 15-17 and 18-20, with v. 18a inserted by the author of Ephesians),4 as do R. P. Martin and J.-N. Alleti5 (vv. lS-18a and 18b20). Several scholars see two strophes of three lines each with an intermediate strophe (vv. 17-18a) and significant commentary inserted by the author of the epistle.6 Of additional note is the proposal put forth by S. M. Baugh and N. T. Wright, who see the poetic structure in terms of simple chiasmus rather than in strophic delineation.7 E. Lohse, arguing for the improbability that a primitive Christian hymn would have regularly constructed verses and strophes, sees the song consisting of two unevenly constructed strophes with significant editorial insertions.8

2. Midrash. C. F. Burney, in an important if somewhat overlooked article,9 proffered the thesis that in Col 1:16-18 Paul was giving an elaborate midrashic exposition of the first word in Gen 1:1 (n) as it had come to be connected with nfl as applied to personified wisdom in Prov 8:22, to which Col 1:15 is an obvious allusion ( ). It is to be noted that Burney's thesis has garnered support in more recent scholarship. Of special recognition in this regard is W. D. Davies, who furthered Burney's work by relating it to the rabbinic background of Paul's thought.10 F. Manns suggests that the Sitz of this midrash was that of Passover, suggesting that the possibility of Col 1:15-20 being a paschal hymn gave rise to significant reaction against this process from Jews.ll Wright has modified Burney's thesis to take into account the broader context of Jewish thought. 12

3. Other suggestions. J. C. O'Neill3 has reacted against the idea that the author of the epistle cited an extant hymn (arguing that the passage fails all of his criteria for identification of the passage as liturgical) or that the author was a creative theologian who drew from time to time on a store of theological ideas that he made his own. Rather, he argues that the author has "put together a great number of distinct but related statements which already existed in his sacred traditional sources."14 In a more moderating tone, several scholars have classified the passage as rhythmic prose, highlighting the poetic elements of the hymn while noting that no established forms of either Hebrew or Greek poetry are recognized. 15

II. SOURCE OF THE PASSAGE

While discussion of this issue is closely related to the issue of categories of thought behind the passage, it will be addressed separately for simplicity's sake.