Sharing in the Inheritance: Identity and the Moral Life in Colossians

Sharing in the Inheritance: Identity and the Moral Life in Colossians. By Allan R. Bevere. JSNTSup 226. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003, x + 294 pp., $120.00.

The professor, seminary student, or pastor who wants an intelligible survey of recent scholarship on Colossians will find Bevere's work a helpful companion. This revision of a 1998 doctoral thesis (supervised by James D. G. Dunn at Durham University) specifically examines the nature of the "Colossian philosophy" (Col 2:8) and the paraenesis of the letter. Bevere finds the new perspective on Paul (championed by Dunn) a helpful key in understanding Colossians.

Timothy is presumed to be the author of Colossians, but the document reflects authentic Pauline theology (p. 59). Bevere variously identifies the writer of Colossians as "Paul," "Paul and Timothy," or simply "the authors." Specific date and place of origin are not discussed, but Bevere thinks the epistle to be among the later letters of the NT. Colossians furnished the writer of Ephesians with language for his discussion of JewGentile relations. Controversy that involves the Christian and marks of Jewish identity is at the heart of Colossians, as it is in Galatians.

After a survey of Dunn, Sappington, and Wright (all of whom posit a Jewish background to Colossians), Bevere conducts his own inquiry. He concludes that "it would appear that those in the synagogue, the advocates of the Colossian philosophy, wanted to disqualify the Colossian Christians from sharing in Israel's heritage because they were not playing by the rules necessary to obtain the prize of that heritage (2.16)" (p. 258). Various theories suggesting that the Colossian heresy is some sort of syncretism fail to dissuade Bevere that Paul addresses a question that is essentially one of Jewish identity. While not denying that first-century Judaism was affected by various other influences, Bevere maintains that the Colossian philosophy fundamentally is nothing more than opposition from the synagogue. He rejects suggestions that the Colossian philosophy is Jewish-Pythagoreanism (E. Schweizer, A. Wedderburn), Jewish-Christian Middle Platonism (R. DeMaris), magical angel-veneration (C. Arnold), or a Cynic critique of the church (T. Martin). According to Bevere, the emphasis in the letter on circumcision (Col 2:8-15), Sabbath and special days (2:16), and food laws (2:16, 21-22) demonstrates that the controversy focuses on these badges of Jewish identity. Paul and Timothy argue that, since Christ is sufficient for the Colossians, no such badges are needed in order for the readers fully to share in the heritage of God's people. The new-perspective reading of Galatians informs Bevere's interpretation of Colossians here.

Throughout the work, Bevere exhibits an admirable command of the OT, of Jewish intertestamental literature, and of the secondary literature on Colossians. His argument, however, that the Colossian philosophy should be traced to the synagogue (and that it is thus not some form of syncretism) is, in my opinion, unconvincing. Most of Bevere's interlocutors would agree that Jewish elements appear in the Colossian philosophy and that obviously Jewish characteristics are inherent in the moral instruction of the letter. The question arises whether the Colossian Jewish philosophy has excluded elements from other sources to the degree that Bevere asserts. I agree that the paraenesis is tied to the situation of the Colossians, reflects Jewish morality, and is not merely a conventional set of vices and virtues. Christianized Jewish ethical instruction, however, would be extremely valuable in combating any form of syncretism that promotes extreme asceticism, licentiousness, or both. These two moral poles apparently are represented in the Colossian heresy (2:23; 3:5). Jewish ethics in the epistle do not necessarily demonstrate that the philosophy confronting the Colossians is essentially Jewish and not syncretistic.

Surprisingly, Bevere fails to consider seriously the possibility of a philosophy with Gnostic tendencies, although he is aware of others who do consider it (p. 13-15, 150-51). Petr Pokorny (Colossians: A Commentary [trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991] 113-21) argues that the veneration of angels (Col 2:18) reflects Gnostic concerns for the archons. Bevere does not discuss Pokorny's view.

Numerous typographical errors, especially in Greek spelling and punctuation, detract from the quality of the book. The price of $120.00 will prevent many individuals from purchasing the volume. Despite the flaws and the exorbitant price, the volume is noteworthy. Although it is by no means a solution to the problem of the Colossian heresy, Bevere's work helpfully outlines and augments recent discussion of the question.

Barth L. Campbell

Simpson College, Redding, CA

Copyright Evangelical Theological Society Sep 2004
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved