Was Ephesians written first or Colossians?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Was Ephesians written first or Colossians?

Post by gryan »

According to scholarly consensus, "Ephesians was almost certainly written later than Colossians, and is literarily dependent upon it."
https://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Pa ... esians.htm

I doubt it. I would like to explore the contrary hypothesis: Ephesians was written first, and Colossians is literarily dependent upon it.

Is there evidence to support my contrary hypothesis? I think so, since I see evidence that Ephesians, understood as an interpretation of Galatians, is closer to Galatians. Colossians, understood as an interpretation of Galatians, seems to me to pick up where Ephesians leaves off. Ephesians is a rough and ready response to interpretive issues raised by readers of Galatians and Colossians is a later refinement of Ephesians.

But first, I'd like to know the best arguments for the standard hypothesis that Colossians was first, and Ephesians was literarily dependent upon it.

What are the best arguments in favor of the scholarly consensus?
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Was Ephesians written first or Colossians?

Post by DCHindley »

gryan wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 3:18 am According to scholarly consensus, "Ephesians was almost certainly written later than Colossians, and is literarily dependent upon it."
https://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Pa ... esians.htm

I doubt it. I would like to explore the contrary hypothesis: Ephesians was written first, and Colossians is literarily dependent upon it.

Is there evidence to support my contrary hypothesis? I think so, since I see evidence that Ephesians, understood as an interpretation of Galatians, is closer to Galatians. Colossians, understood as an interpretation of Galatians, seems to me to pick up where Ephesians leaves off. Ephesians is a rough and ready response to interpretive issues raised by readers of Galatians and Colossians is a later refinement of Ephesians.

But first, I'd like to know the best arguments for the standard hypothesis that Colossians was first, and Ephesians was literarily dependent upon it.

What are the best arguments in favor of the scholarly consensus?
Here is a table of the Ephesians vs Colossians overlap. I have identified the overlap in boldface, and have bracketed what I believe are intrusive Lord-Jesus-Christ language and highlighted them in red. From this, it seems that overlapping section of Colossians has fewer intrusions, while Ephesians has extensive expansions. This suggests - to me at least - that Ephesians is later than Colossians.

Eph 3:2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you, Col 1:25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known,
3:3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 1:26a the mystery
3:4 [When you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ],
3:5a which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations 1:26b hidden for ages and generations
3:5b as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 1:26c but now made manifest to his saints.
3:6 that is, how the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise [in Christ Jesus] through the good news. -- 1:27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, [which is Christ in you], the hope of glory.
4:14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. 2:18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,
4:15a Rather, speaking the truth in love,
4;15b we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, [into Christ], 2:19a and not holding fast to the head,
4:16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love. 2:19b from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
4:22 Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, 3:9 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old nature with its practices
23 and be renewed in the spirit of your minds,
24 and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. 10 and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.
5:22 Wives, be subject to your husbands, [as to the Lord]. 3:18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in (the) LORD.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands].
25a Husbands, love your wives, 19a Husbands, love your wives,
25b [as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28a Even so husbands should love their wives]
28b as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 19b and do not be harsh with them.
29 For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, [as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body]. 31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” (Gen 2:24)
32 [This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church; 33 however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband].
6:1 Children, obey your parents in (the) LORD, for this is right. 3:20 Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases (the) LORD.
2 "Honor your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with a promise),
3a "that it may be well with you and that you may live long on the earth." (Ex 20:12b)
3b Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, 21 Fathers, do not provoke your children,.lest they become discouraged
4 but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of (the) LORD.
5a Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, 22a Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters,
5b with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, [as to Christ];
6a not in the way of eye-service, as men-pleasers, 22b not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers,
6b but as servants [of Christ], doing the will of God from the soul, 22c but in singleness of heart, fearing (the) LORD.
7 rendering service with a good will as to the lord and not to men, 23 Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the lord and not men,
8 knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from (the) LORD, 24a knowing that from (the) LORD you will receive the inheritance as your reward;
whether he is a slave or free.
24b [you are serving the Lord Christ].
25a For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done,
(See 9c) 25b and there is no partiality.
9a Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, 4:1a Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly,
9b knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, 4:1b knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.
9c and that there is no partiality with him. (See 25b)
6:21 Now that you also may know how I am and what I am doing, Tychicus the beloved brother and faithful minister in (the) LORD will tell you everything. 4:7 Tychicus will tell you all about my affairs; he is a beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow servant in (the) LORD.
6:22 I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are, and that he may encourage your hearts. 4:8 I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are and that he may encourage your hearts,

gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Was Ephesians written first or Colossians?

Post by gryan »

Re: "bracketed what I believe are intrusive Lord-Jesus-Christ language"

Thanks for this close reading of some textual parallels!

Could you say a bit more about your intrusive language thesis in relation to the use of such language in Galatians (I regard Galatians as an earlier text which influenced both Ephesians and Colossians)?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Ephesians written first or Colossians?

Post by Secret Alias »

Two relevant references. Tertullian's citation of Ephesians has 3:8 - 10:
As our heretic is so fond of his pruning-knife, I do not wonder when syllables are expunged by his hand, seeing that entire pages are usually the matter on which he practises his effacing process. The apostle declares that to himself, "less than the least of all saints, was the grace given" of enlightening all men as to "what was the fellowship of the mystery, which during the ages had been hid in God, who created all things."811 The heretic erased the preposition in, and made the clause run thus: ("what is the fellowship of the mystery) which hath for ages been hidden from the God who created all things."812 The falsification, however, is flagrantly813 absurd. [2] For the apostle goes on to infer (from his own statement): "in order that unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might become known through the church the manifold wisdom of God."814 Whose principalities and powers does he mean? If the Creator's, how does it come to pass that such a God as He could have meant His wisdom to be displayed to the principalities and powers, but not to Himself? For surely no principalities could possibly have understood anything without their sovereign Lord. Or if (the apostle) did not mention God in this passage, on the ground that He (as their chief) is Himself reckoned among these (principalities), then he would have plainly said that the mystery had been hidden from the principalities and powers of Him who had created all things, including Him amongst them. [3] But if he states that it was hidden from them, he must needs be understood815 as having meant that it was manifest to Him. From God, therefore, the mystery was not hidden; but it was hidden in God, the Creator of all things, from His principalities and powers.
Ephesians 4.8 and 25, 26:
"He led captivity captive," says the apostle.818 With what arms? In what conflicts? From the devastation of what Country? From the overthrow of what city? What women, what children, what princes did the Conqueror throw into chains? For when by David Christ is sung as "girded with His sword upon His thigh,"819 or by Isaiah as "taking away the spoils of Samaria and the power of Damascus,"820 you make Him out to be821 really and truly a warrior confest to the eye.822 [6] Learn then now, that His is a spiritual armour and warfare, since you have already discovered that the captivity is spiritual, in order that you may further learn that this also belongs to Him, even because the apostle derived the mention of the captivity from the same prophets as suggested to him his precepts likewise: "Putting away lying," (says he, ) "speak every man truth with his neighbour; "823 and again, using the very words in which the Psalm824 expresses his meaning, (he says, ) "Be ye angry, and sin not; "825 "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath."826
Ephesians 5.11, 18. 19. 22, 24, 23, 25, 28, 29. 31, 32:
"Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness; "827 for (in the Psalm it is written, ) "With the holy man thou shalt be holy, and with the perverse thou shalt be perverse; "828 and, "Thou shalt put away evil from among you."829 [7] Again, "Go ye out from the midst of them; touch not the unclean thing; separate yourselves, ye that bear the vessels of the Lord."830 (The apostle says further: ) "Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess,"831 ----a precept which is suggested by the passage (of the prophet), where the seducers of the consecrated (Nazarites) to drunkenness are rebuked: "Ye gave wine to my holy ones to drink."832 This prohibition from drink was given also to the high priest Aaron and his sons, "when they went into the holy place."833 The command, to "sing to the Lord with psalms and hymns,"834 comes suitably from him who knew that those who "drank wine with drums and psalteries" were blamed by God.835 Now, when I find to what God belong these precepts, whether in their germ or their development, I have no difficulty in knowing to whom the apostle also belongs. [8] But he declares that "wives ought to be in subjection to their husbands: "836 what reason does he give for this? "Because," says he, "the husband is the head of the wife."837 Pray tell me, Marcion, does your god build up the authority of his law on the work of the Creator? This, however, is a comparative trifle; for he actually derives from the same source the condition of his Christ and his Church; for he says: "even as Christ is the head of the Church; "838 and again, in like manner: "He who loveth his wife, loveth his own flesh, even as Christ loved the Church."839 You see how your Christ and your Church are put in comparison with the work of the Creator. How much honour is given to the flesh in the name of the church! [9] "No man," says the apostle, "ever yet hated his own flesh" (except, of course, Marcion alone), "but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord doth the Church."840 But you are the only man that hates his flesh, for you rob it of its resurrection. It will be only right that you should hate the Church also, because it is loved by Christ on the same principle.841 Yea, Christ loved the flesh even as the Church. For no man will love the picture of his wife without taking care of it, and honouring it and crowning it. The likeness partakes with the reality in the privileged honour. I shall now endeavour, from my point of view,842 to prove that the same God is (the God) of the man843 and of Christ, of the woman and of the Church, of the flesh and the spirit, by the apostle's help who applies the Creator's injunction, and adds even a comment on it: "For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, (and shall be joined unto his wife), and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery."844 [10] In passing,845 (I would say that) it is enough for me that the works of the Creator are great mysteries846 in the estimation of the apostle, although they are so vilely esteemed by the heretics. "But I am speaking," says he, "of Christ and the Church."847 This he says in explanation of the mystery, not for its disruption. He shows us that the mystery was prefigured by Him who is also the author of the mystery. Now what is Marcion's opinion? The Creator could not possibly have furnished figures to an unknown god, or, if a known one, an adversary to Himself. The superior god, in fact, ought to have borrowed nothing from the inferior; he was bound rather to annihilate Him.
And then chapter 6:
"Children should obey their parents."848 Now, although Marcion has erased (the next clause), "which is the first commandment with promise,"849 still the law says plainly, "Honour thy father and thy mother."850 Again, (the apostle writes: ) "Parents, bring up your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord."851 For you have heard how it was said to them of old time: "Ye shall relate these things to your children; and your children in like manner to their children."852 Of what use are two gods to me, when the discipline is but one? If there must be two, I mean to follow Him who was the first to teach the lesson. But as our struggle lies against "the rulers of this world,"853 what a host of Creator Gods there must be!854 [12] For why should I not insist upon this point here, that he ought to have mentioned but one "ruler of this world," if he meant only the Creator to be the being to whom belonged all the powers which he previously mentioned? Again, when in the preceding verse he bids us "put on the whole armour of God, that we may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil,"855 does he not show that all the things which he mentions after the devil's name really belong to the devil----"the principalities and the powers, and the tillers of the darkness of this world,"856 which we also ascribe to the devil's authority? Else, if "the devil" means the Creator, who will be the devil in the Creator's dispensation?857 As there are two gods, must there also be two devils, and a plurality of powers and rulers of this world? [13] But how is the Creator both a devil and a god at the same time, when the devil is not at once both god and devil? For either they are both of them gods, if both of them are devils; or else He who is God is not also devil, as neither is he god who is the devil. I want to know indeed by what perversion858 the word devil is at all applicable to the Creator. Perhaps he perverted some purpose of the superior god----conduct such as He experienced Himself from the archangel, who lied indeed for the purpose. For He did not forbid (our first parents) a taste of the miserable tree,859 from any apprehension that they would become gods; His prohibition was meant to prevent their dying after the transgression. But "the spiritual wickedness"860 did not signify the Creator, because of the apostle's additional description, "in heavenly places; "861 [14] for the apostle was quite aware that "spiritual wickedness" had been at work in heavenly places, when angels were entrapped into sin by the daughters of men.862 But how happened it that (the apostle) resorted to ambiguous descriptions, and I know not what obscure enigmas, for the purpose of disparaging863 the Creator, when he displayed to the Church such constancy and plainness of speech in "making known the mystery of the gospel for which he was an ambassador in bonds," owing to his liberty in preaching----and actually requested (the Ephesians) to pray to God that this "open-mouthed utterance" might be continued to him?864
An examination of Colossians follows. There is an instance (highlighted in yellow below) where Tertullian (or his source) reaches into Ephesians:
I am accustomed in my prescription against all heresies, to fix my compendious criterion865 (of truth) in the testimony of time; claiming priority therein as our rule, and alleging lateness to be the characteristic of every heresy. This shall now be proved even by the apostle, when he says: "For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; which is come unto you, as it is unto all the world."866 For if, even at that time, the tradition of the gospel had spread everywhere, how much more now! [2] Now, if it is our gospel which has spread everywhere, rather than any heretical gospel, much less Marcion's, which only dates from the reign of Antoninus,867 then ours will be the gospel of the apostles. But should Marcion's gospel succeed in filling the whole world, it would not even in that case be entitled to the character of apostolic. For this quality, it will be evident, can only belong to that gospel which was the first to fill the world; in other words, to the gospel of that God who of old declared this of its promulgation: "Their sound is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world."868 [3] He calls Christ "the image of the invisible God."869 We in like manner say that the Father of Christ is invisible, for we know that it was the Son who was seen in ancient times (whenever any appearance was vouchsafed to men in the name of God) as the image of (the Father) Himself. He must not be regarded, however, as making any difference between a visible and an invisible God; because long before he wrote this we find a description of our God to this effect: "No man can see the Lord, and live."870 [4] If Christ is not "the first-begotten before every creature,"871 as that "Word of God by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made; "872 if "all things were" not "in Him created, whether in heaven or on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers; "if "all things were" not "created by Him and for Him" (for these truths Marcion ought not to allow concerning Him), then the apostle could not have so positively laid it down, that "He is before all."873 For how is He before all, if He is not before all things?874 How, again, is He before all things, if He is not "the first-born of every creature"----if He is not the Word of the Creator?875 Now how will he be proved to have been before all things, who appeared after all things? Who can tell whether he had a prior existence, when he has found no proof that he had any existence at all? [5] In what way also could it have "pleased (the Father) that in Him should all fulness dwell? "876 For, to begin with, what fulness is that which is not comprised of the constituents which Marcion has removed from it,----even those that were "created in Christ, whether in heaven or on earth," whether angels or men? which is not made of the things that are visible and invisible? which consists not of thrones and dominions and principalities and powers? If, on the other hand,877 our false apostles and Judaizing gospellers878 have introduced all these things out of their own stores, and Martian has applied them to constitute the fulness of his own god, (this hypothesis, absurd though it be, alone would justify him; ) for how, on any other supposition,879 could the rival and the destroyer of the Creator have been willing that His fulness should dwell in his Christ? To whom, again, does He "reconcile all things by Himself, making peace by the blood of His cross,"880 but to Him whom those very things had altogether881 offended, against whom they had rebelled by transgression, (but) to whom they had at last returned?882 Conciliated they might have been to a strange god; but reconciled they could not possibly have been to any other than their own God. [6] Accordingly, ourselves "who were sometime alienated and enemies in our mind by wicked works"883 does He reconcile to the Creator, against whom we had committed offence----worshipping the creature to the prejudice of the Creator. As, however, he says elsewhere,884 that the Church is the body of Christ, so here also (the apostle) declares that he "fills up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in his flesh for His body's sake, which is the Church."885 But you must not on this account suppose that on every mention of His body the term is only a metaphor, instead of meaning real flesh. For he says above that we are "reconciled in His body through death; "886 meaning, of course, that He died in that body wherein death was possible through the flesh: (therefore he adds, ) not through the Church887 (per ecclesiam), but expressly for the sake of the Church (proper ecclesiam), exchanging body for body----one of flesh for a spiritual one. [7] When, again, he warns them to "beware of subtle words and philosophy," as being "a vain deceit," such as is "after the rudiments of the world" (not understanding thereby the mundane fabric of sky and earth, but worldly learning, and "the tradition of men," subtle in their speech and their philosophy),888 it would be tedious, and the proper subject of a separate work, to show how in this sentence (of the apostle's) all heresies are condemned, on the ground of their consisting of the resources of subtle speech and the rules of philosophy. But (once for all) let Marcion know that the principle term of his creed comes from the school of Epicurus, implying that the Lord is stupid and indifferent;889 wherefore he refuses to say that He is an object to be feared. Moreover, from the porch of the Stoics he brings out matter, and places it on a par with the Divine Creator.890 He also denies the resurrection of the flesh,----a truth which none of the schools of philosophy agreed together to hold.891 [8] But how remote is our (Catholic) verity from the artifices of this heretic, when it dreads to arouse the anger of God, and firmly believes that He produced all things out of nothing, and promises to us a restoration from the grave of the same flesh (that died) and holds without a blush that Christ was born of the virgin's womb! At this, philosophers, and heretics, and the very heathen, laugh and jeer. For "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise"892 ----that God, no doubt, who in reference to this very dispensation of His threatened long before that He would "destroy the wisdom of the wise."893 Thanks to this simplicity of truth, so opposed to the subtlety and vain deceit of philosophy, we cannot possibly have any relish for such perverse opinions. [9] Then, if God "quickens us together with Christ, forgiving us our trespasses,"894 we cannot suppose that sins are forgiven by Him against whom, as having been all along unknown, they could not have been committed. Now tell me, Marcion, what is your opinion of the apostle's language, when he says, "Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath, which is a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ? "895 We do not now treat of the law, further than (to remark) that the apostle here teaches clearly how it has been abolished, even by passing from shadow to substance----that is, from figurative types to the reality, which is Christ. The shadow, therefore, is His to whom belongs the body also; in other words, the law is His, and so is Christ. If you separate the law and Christ, assigning one to one god and the other to another, it is the same as if you were to attempt to separate the shadow from the body of which it is the shadow. Manifestly Christ has relation to the law, if the body has to its shadow. [10] But when he blames those who alleged visions of angels as their authority for saying that men must abstain from meats----"you must not touch, you must not taste"----in a voluntary humility, (at the same time) "vainly puffed up in the fleshly mind, and not holding the Head,"896 (the apostle) does not in these terms attack the law or Moses, as if it was at the suggestion of superstitious angels that he had enacted his prohibition of sundry aliments. [11] For Moses had evidently received the law from God. When, therefore, he speaks of their "following the commandments and doctrines of men,"897 he refers to the conduct of those persons who "held not the Head," even Him in whom all things are gathered together;898 for they are all recalled to Christ, and concentrated in Him as their initiating principle899 ----even the meats and drinks which were indifferent in their nature. All the rest of his precepts,900 as we have shown sufficiently, when treating of them as they occurred in another epistle,901 emanated from the Creator, who, while predicting that "old things were to pass away," and that He would "make all things new,"902 commanded men "to break up fresh ground for themselves,"903 and thereby taught them even then to put off the old man and put on the new.
If Tertullian was working from Irenaeus's Against Marcion (which I know he was) then the "he says elsewhere" may have been a late addition. The reference runs:
883 Col. i. 21.

884 Eph. i. 23.

885 Col. i. 24.

886 Col. i. 22.
I am not sure he says that it is said "elsewhere":
Ita et nos quondam alienatos et inimicos sensu in malis operibus creatori redigit in gratiam, cuius admiseramus offensam, colentes conditionem adversus creatorem. Sicubi autem et ecclesiam corpus Christi dicit esse, ut hic ait adimplere se reliqua pressurarum Christi in carne pro corpore eius, quod est ecclesia, non propterea et in totum mentionem corporis transferes a substantia carnis. Nam et supra reconciliari nos ait in corpore eius per mortem; utique in eo corpore, in quo mori potuit per carnem, mortuus est, non per ecclesiam, plane propter ecclesiam, corpus commutando pro corpore, carnale pro spiritali.

Thus he restores us, who were once alienated and enemies in the sense of evil works to the Creator, to His grace, whose offense we had admitted, worshiping the condition against the Creator. But if he also says that the church is the body of Christ, as here he says that he fulfills the rest of the pressures of Christ in the flesh for his body, which is the church, not therefore and transfer the entire mention of the body from the substance of the flesh. For even above he says that we are reconciled in his body through death; certainly in that body, in which he could die through the flesh, he died, not through the church, precisely for the sake of the church, exchanging body for body, carnal for spiritual.
It could be that the author originally thought material from Ephesians and Colossians belonged together in one text.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Ephesians written first or Colossians?

Post by Secret Alias »

Actually I see there is another parallel which isn't noted by David above:

Ephesians 1:23 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church

David you can add this to the top of your list.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Was Ephesians written first or Colossians?

Post by gryan »

Eph 1:22
καὶ πάντα ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ,
And he put all things under his feet
καὶ αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν κεφαλὴν
and gave him as head
ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἥτις ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ,
over all things to the assembly, which is His body,

τὸ πληρωμα τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρουμένου.
the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

Col 1:24
Νῦν χαίρω ἐν τοῖς παθήμασιν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν,
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you,
καὶ ἀνταναπληρῶ τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου
and I fill up in my flesh what is lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions
ὑπὲρ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία,
for the sake of His body, which is the assembly.


cf. Col 1:18
καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος, τῆς ἐκκλησία·

cf. 1 Cor 11:13 Re: κεφαλὴ/head
Θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ὅτι παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν, κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνήρ, κεφαλὴ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ Θεός.
https://biblehub.com/greek/kephale__2776.htm

cf. 1 Cor 11:24
Τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σώμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν·
This is my body, the [one] on behalf of you

cf. 1 Cor 12:27
ὑμεῖς δέ ἐστε σώμα Χριστοῦ
but you are Christ's body

----------------

Based on such parallels above, I'd like to see an attempt to reconstruct a hypothetical Q source that existed before both Col and Eph. Has anyone tried to do that?

I can't find a good reason to guess whether Eph 1:22 or Col 1:24 came first.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Was Ephesians written first or Colossians?

Post by gryan »

Ephesians 3:13 offers an addtional parallel to Colossians 1:24

Ephesians 3:13
διὸ αἰτοῦμαι μὴ ἐνκακεῖν
ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσίν μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, ἥτις ἐστὶν δόξα ὑμῶν.
ESV
Therefore I implore you not to lose heart
at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.
vs. literally
Therefore I ask not to lose heart
at the tribulations of me on behalf of you, which is your glory.



Colossians 1:24
Νῦν χαίρω ἐν τοῖς παθήμασιν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν,
καὶ
ἀνταναπληρῶ τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου ὑπὲρ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία...

Now I rejoice in my sufferings on behalf of you,
and
I am filling up what is lacking in the tribulations of Christ in my flesh on behalf of of his body, that is, the assembly...
Last edited by gryan on Tue Dec 06, 2022 1:39 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Ephesians written first or Colossians?

Post by Secret Alias »

You should check to see if Epiphanius cites from both Ephesians and Colossians in his Marcionite section.
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Was Ephesians written first or Colossians?

Post by schillingklaus »

The question is hilariously stupid beyond imaginability as both epistles are corruptions of prior scribbles.
Post Reply