Thursday, November 17, 2016

Dunn, Colossians 1:15-20, and Hymnic Structures

James D.G. Dunn examines features that identify hymnic or poetic form in his NIGT Commentary on Colossians and Philemon. Like other commentators, Dunn proposes that the "hymn" in Colossians 1:15-20 manifestly includes poetic elements and uses exalted language about the Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover, he points to hymnic clues like the relative clause beginning with hOS, a sequence of clauses and phrases falling easily into matching "rhythmic units," and a "clear structure of two strophes (1:15-18a, 18b-20)," inter alia. See Dunn 83-85.


Duncan said...

Edgar Foster said...

Good article, but one downside is the date it was written. I believe the article predated Dunn's commentary and other similar works. Not that I have a strong opinion about the hymnic nature of Col. 1:15-20, but that's one thing to keep in mind about the article. Dunn's commentary was published in 1996.

Duncan said...

The wisdom link on PG 22 is un-compelling. Note that a number of transactions used to say, for by him all things were created. Many newer translations now say, for in him all things were created, as it does here which IMO is the only correct way of translating it. The connection is lost.

Edgar Foster said...

Colossians 1:16 has ἐν αὐτῷ or EN + the dative case. We must not only consider the preposition, but how the writer uses EN with the dative.

From Murray J. Harris:

The prep. phrase ἐν αὐτῷ may be instr. (“by him,” NASB, HCSB, ESV), comparable in sense with δἰ αὐτοῦ (“ through him,” v. 16d; so BDF § 219[ 1]; Zerwick, Analysis 448) or even causal (“because of”) (T 253; but cf. later Turner, Insights 124), but a locat. or local sense is to be preferred. “All things in heaven and on earth” were created in God's beloved Son (v. 13), not in the sense that he was the preexistent or ideal archetype of creation but in the sense that creation occurred “in association with” Christ (BDAG 327d) or, better, “within the person of” Christ. In his person resided the creative energy that produced all of creation (Vincent 897; cf. R 587– 88); in the work of creation God did not act apart from Christ. But Barth-Blanke 198 regards the ἐν as explained by the following διά and εἰς (v. 16d).

Harris, Murray J. Colossians and Philemon (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament) (Kindle Locations 1664-1667). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Harris, Murray J. Colossians and Philemon (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament) (Kindle Locations 1659-1664). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Duncan said...

Paul's use of the term "in him" refers to position in the risen Christ throughout Paul's writings.

A new creation - the first born from the dead.

Hebrews 1:3,4

Having become.

1 Peter 3:22


Colossians 2:10-14

In him - under Jesus feet.

Murray J. Harris (born August 18, 1939) is professor emeritus of New Testament exegesis and theology at >> Trinity Evangelical << Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois

Does this have no bearing?

Edgar Foster said...

It's not clear that Col. 1:15-17 is referring to a new creation, and you'll find robust arguments against this position in the literature on the verse. Either way, we have other uses of "in him" that include Col. 1:19; 2:9. 2 Cor. 5:19 has ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ . . .

I don't see what Harris' affailiation has to do with the information I provided above. He never said that "in him" means X, Y, Z . . . but rather, "it could mean," etc. Harris outlines the possibilities, but he did not take a dogmatic position. Regardless of his affiliation, en + dative cannot be ignored; nor can the translational possibilities be overlooked.

Duncan said...

Yes he gives SOME possibilities.

And more knowledgeable people than myself appear to be struggling with this one. Even as far as slating BDAG.

Creating things IN the heaven.

This gives a clue.

Duncan said...

Ephesians 2:10

NIV For we are God's handiwork, CREATED in Christ Jesus


A very typical Trinitarian error is to confuse the language of Scripture, especially the words of John. For example, they choose to suppose that since the language of Scripture says Jesus was "sent into the world" that we can therefore imagine that a pre-existing divine Son came down from heavenly realms and "into the world." However,we can quickly see the error of their interpretation when we realize that Jesus said he sent his disciples "just as" the Father had sent him (John 20:21) and even further that just as Jesus had been sent "into the world," he sent his disciples "into the world" (John 17:18). Indeed, we even read that many deceivers have gone out "into the world" and we do not suppose that means they came from heaven and into the world. being from God means that one has come down

Similarly, Jesus said he was from above and not below. He said he was not "of this world." But Jesus also said that his disciples are those who are born from above and they too are not "of this world." And indeed, there are those who are "from God" and those who are not.


So just how robust are the arguments?

Duncan said...

Col1:19 2:9 - 12:27.

A short survey:-

Edgar Foster said...

While Harris gives different possibilities, he prefers the locative/local sense for EN + the dative in Col. 1:16. He says that all things were cr4eated "in him," then Harris explains what the language might mean, and he mentions BDAG. To say that things were created "within his sphere of influence" is to give a locative/local meaning to the construction. I don't see what the problem with Harris' remarks is: you and him appear to be saying roughly the same thing.

Col. 1 and Eph. 2 are obviously two different contexts. The first account is discussing TA PANTA and not just the new creation. Been down that road before too, so not trying to repeat the whole affair. :)

I think you'll agree that one doesn't have to be a Trinitarian to accept the preexistence of Christ. Christ's followers might be born from above/again, but they are not initially from the realms above. Nor is it possible for disciples of Christ to ascend from they initially came.

For articles on Colossians 1 and the new creation, see

Note especially what this link states about "in him" and so forth. Not that I'm endorsing or agreeing with everything asserted there.

Tried to retrieve mostly free sources.

Edgar Foster said...

Edgar Foster said...

To reiterate, M.J. Harris does understand or "prefers" to understand EN + dative (Col. 1:16) as locative or local use.

Duncan said...

So TA PANTA cannot possibly be hyperbole in light of creation IN the heavens as opposed to creating THE heavens?

Duncan said...

Duncan said...

At Colossians 3:8 TA PANTA is also used - and qualified.

In Genesis GOD did not create "IN the heavens" and the earth.

Duncan said...

Compare acts 17:24.

Edgar Foster said...

I would not say that TA PANTA (Col. 1:16) cannot possibly be hyperbole, but the verse is not saying God created "in the heavens" anyway, but all things (TA PANTA) were created "in him" (i.e., Christ); then Paul writes about TA PANTA "in the heavens" and "on the earth . . ."

That's why it's important to note the syntax in the verse. As we've discussed previously, TA PANTA must be read in context. It's certainly qualified at Col. 3:8 and another interesting verse is the variant lectio for Col. 3:11. See also 1 Cor. 15:28; 1 John 2:20, 27.

Duncan said...

The second qualifies the first.
God created heavens and earth gen 1:1 lxx

Whatever is being referred to here is not necessarily the same. Its IN the heavens and ON the earth. This terminology comes later in the Genesis account.

Also can έκτισται be translated as transformed?

As the image of the UNSEEN God is he not that which is seen - the foremost of all created.

In verse 15, Paul refers to Christ in the present tense. This should lead us to understand he is referring to the risen Christ?

This language must also be squared with 1 Peter 3:22. Colossians 2:10,14 cf 1:13.

Ephesians 1:20-21.

2 Corinthians 5:14-19.

Doesn't the above passage illustrates that anything which has been reconciled to God in Christ, is understood to be that which has been created in Christ Jesus?

Ephesians 1:9-10

"He is before all things and in him all things stand together" (1:17)

Edgar Foster said...

I think this whole discussion needs to be clarified. At first, we talked about EN + the dative "him." That is what I meant by EN refers to the datival pronoun in the first instance (i.e., "because all things were created in/through him"). So the "in" is connected with "him" (i.e., Christ).

However, as the verse progresses, we then read: "[all things] in heaven and on the earth . . . " I agree that this language qualifies the first. No problem there.

The major difference I see between Col. 1:16 and Gen. 1:1 is that the latter account stresses God's creation of the whole material universe, whereas the former Pauline account is discussing what kinds of things (TA) exist in heaven and on earth (celestial and terrestrial contents). It's also possible that Gen. 1:1 is restricted to physical things, whereas Col. 1:16 is referring to spiritual and physical/material things. Compare John 1:3.

In the abstract and based on some contexts, one could render έκτισται with "transformed," but we have to ask if that's the best rendering in this particular setting.

Yes, he's possibly seen, but by whom? By humans or spirit beings?

To be on the cautious side, one might argue that the present tense might suggest the referent of Col. 1:15 is the risen Christ--it doesn't necessarily seal the deal, but I believe that's one point in favor of the interpretation.

Maybe what you say about reconciliation is true, but that doesn't mean everything created in/through Christ will be reconciled to God.

"in him" (EN AUTWi) could also be understood as "through" (DIA) him based on Col. 1:16. Compare Heb. 1:2-3.

Please explain how the verses in 1 Peter, Colossians or Ephesians subvert the preexistent understanding of Col. 1:15-16.

Edgar Foster said...

This link might have been posted before, but it may not be in this thread. See

Duncan said...

Thanks for the link but I cannot get it to work.

The thing is "the pre-existent understanding" is constructed from conclusions based on a number of writers and passages.I am only referring to THIS passage now and how it might be understood in the overall context of Pauline writings, but more specifically Collosians.

"Yes, he's possibly seen, but by whom? By humans or spirit beings?" - I think this is the wrong question - how is he seen and recognized?

Much of my investigation has hinged on Matthew 19:28.

Just a few points to clarify first on my understandings:-

John 1:3 - through it all thing were made. (we have been here before so I will leave it at that).

Heb 1:2 is "ages" but in the Hebrew language context would be translated "AGE".

(at this point I should state that as an example - Solomon Schechter draws attention to the titles for God in relation to the world, noting among others: "the only [unique] one of the world". This is found in Bereshit/Genesis Rabbah 21, which in Hebrew reads: יחידו של עולם (yechido shal 'olam),2 where ʿôlām is translated "world". (This is also very common in Jewish prayers, so not at all unusual.) - a later interpretation, which needs to be linked to the period if it is to be claimed)

Col 2:10 does not subvert, but is does contextualize "authority structures". v14 posted in error.

2 Corinthians 5:14 - all die and then live - a new creation.

Outside of the pauline:-

The 1 Peter 3:22 links to Hebrews 1:4 - So he became as much superior to the angels as the CHARACTER he has inherited (Logos) is superior to theirs. CF Col 2:9,19

1 Pe 2:13,14 Submit then to every human CREATION for the sake of the Lord! whether to king as being superior; or whether to governors as [by him being sent] for punishment indeed on ones doing evil, and high praise on ones beneficial. - authority structures as creation.

Edgar Foster said...

1) I have no problem with understanding a text within the braoder context of Pauline/Colossians verses, but the immediate setting (surrounding verses) also play a large role in this whole process. Key terms cannot be avoided as well.

2) I don't think you'd balk at the fact that Heb. 1:2 can be rendered in different ways. Additionally, while the "Hebrew" context may account for the language of Hebrews or Colossians 1:15-17, I don't discount the Greco-Roman influence either.

3) Col. 1:16 (etc.) is likely discussing "authority structures," (as you say) although said structures could be spiritual, physical or a combination of both categories. Either way, the preexistent understanding could survive this interpretation of Col. 1:16.

4) Yes, 1 Pet. 3:22 links to Heb. 1:4. On the other hand, I think ONOMA should be glossed as "name," but understood to mean "authority, office." Compare Isa. 9:6; Philippians 2:5-11.

Other argue that he inherits the name "Lord" or YHWH.

We've talked about 1 Pet. 2:13-14 before; the passage qualifies which "creation" is being discussed. There are cases where the "creation" is manifestly not human (i.e., in Revelation).

Edgar Foster said...

As we discuss passages potentially related to Col. 1:15-18, don't forget Rom. 11:36 with its use of Greek prepositions and TA PANTA, although the referent is God the Father instead of Christ.

Duncan said...

δι αυτου - This in both verses - I think you have a problem here. Are we talking about the same thing or two different things?

Duncan said...

1) But what about the theme of the whole letter? The local context is embedded within the overall them. This is why I think the interpretation is forced and why they NEED it to be a hymn because other wise the interpretation does not fit - It stands out of place.

2) Point taken - but do you believe it is actually a letter to Hebrews? There are many problems with this book in terms of authorship.

3) point taken - bit IF it is in a present tense context.

4) However you interpret Isaiah 9:6 is should still mean character (functionally), all traits that can be observed. The traits include authority.

Phil 2:9
As a result God highly exalted him
and gave him the CHARACTER
that is above every CHARACTER,
10 so that at the CHARACTER of Jesus
every knee will bow

Luke 3:22 & John 1:14. Mat 5 & 6

"Other argue that he inherits the name "Lord" or YHWH." - ?

REV 10:6 - who is the oath sworn too? τα εν αυτη

Duncan said...

See Philippians 2:10 - no new "name" (since it is stated - Yeshuah) required, but rather in his CHARACTER.

..every tongue acknowledge that >>Jesus Christ<< is Lord (ruler of all).

In early Hebrew witnesses (DSS etc.) no vowels exist. the Adoni Adonee divide is only evidenced much later. I see no reason to assume that lord here = YHWH.

Hebrews 1:3

The Son is the radiance of God's glory (authority) and the exact representation of his being (in gods image), sustaining all things >>by his powerful word<< (wisdom of solomon). After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Heb 1:4 The Son is the radiance of God's glory (authority) and the exact representation of his being (in gods image), sustaining all things >>by his powerful word<< (wisdom of solomon). After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Ephesians 2:6 And God >>raised<< us up with Christ and >>seated<< us with Him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus

Duncan said...

Edgar Foster said...

My reason for citing Rom. 11:36 was twofold: similar use of prepositions as Col. 1:16, but not exactly the same signification. Secondly, the verses use Ta PANTA. I was not commenting on any larger Christological/Trinitarian issues. Rom. 11:36 also seems applicable to the universe's creation, not to the new creation.

I'm not dogmatic about the hymn idea, and actually tend to believe Col. 1:15-20 might not be a hymn. I don't see how anyone can be dogmatic about this issue, but even if the suggestion turns out to be false, one can still analyze the verses in terms of poetic lines (strophes).

We concur on the authorship problems of Hebrews; most scholars think the letter is not Pauline. At the very least, the letter is anonymous , though tradition impuites the writing to Paul. I do believe the letter was written to Jewish Christians.

Col. 1:16 might say what Christ presently is, but that doesn't have to mean the authority structures weren't brought forth in the past. Besides, Greek tense is a matter of time and aspect (not just time).

For shem/onoma (in this context), you say "character", whereas I understand the terms to mean "authority" or "office" in this context. My comment about "name" referring to YHWH is only to acknowledge that some works in the secondary literature put forth the suggestion. Not that I agree with them. But the oath in Rev. 10:6 is obviously given to Jehovah.

I don't know why you insist that onoma means "character" especially in this context. Maybe you could explain/justify that position. I'm not saying that Lord here = YHWH either, but many do make the claim. That issue aside, there is room for understanding the name in Phil. 2:9ff as a new name. It's certainly not given to Jesus until after his exaltation. This name could be kurios (in a new sense) without meaning YHWH.

Not trying to be overly picky, but it's a very questionable proposition whether "glory" signifies "authority." But I want to clarify that never did I claim Lord = YHWH: I was merely relating the majority view of the text. I'm not a Trinitarian. :)

Edgar Foster said...

Rev. 10:6 is like the English "as God is my witness." Compare Gen. 14:22.

Edgar Foster said...

To also emphasize this point, it's true that shem/onoma can mean "character," but I don't see why onoma would have that meaning/denotation within the context of Jesus' exaltation (anabasis). See

Duncan said...

We agree that Hebrews was written to Hebrew Christians.

What I am about to put forward is highly speculative, but I personally believe the Mathew was original written in Hebrew:-

Mat 1:21 τεξεται δε υιον και καλεσεις το ονομα αυτου Ιησουν αυτος γαρ σωσει τον λαον αυτου απο των αμαρτιων αυτων

HNV She shall bring forth a son. You shall call his name Yeshua, for it is he who shall save his people from their sins. (an interesting side point - who is going to do the saving?)

Hebrew names are meanings:-

Yeshua is a short form of yehoshua (Jehovah is salvation).

The Law of Moses or Torah of Moses (Hebrew תֹּורַת מֹשֶׁה, Torat Moshe, Septuagint Greek: νόμος Μωυσῆ, nomos Moyse, or in some translations the "Teachings of Moses" ) is a biblical term first found in the Book of Joshua 8:31-32, where Joshua writes the Hebrew words of "Torat Moshe תֹּורַת מֹשֶׁה" on an altar of stones at Mount Ebal. The text continues:

And afterward he read all the words of the teachings, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the Torah (Joshua 8:34)

The new saving that Yeshua spoke (not read) is at Mat 5,6 (you hear that it was said ... but I tell you (Logos)).

So what would we be talking about in John 14:14.

Pray (and then act) in the character that saves. I am sure you agree that we are not talking about a magic talisman of a "name". I see no reason to see verses like Romans 10:13 any differently.

A name can be an authority (if it is implying the actions that go with the name). A new name is a new roll to play. (Avram - Avraham)

Mat_24:5 For many shall come in my character (as Jehovah's savior or representing Jehovah's saving power), saying, am the Christ (appointed one). And [many they shall mislead].

Edgar Foster said...

I believe the name (in this case) means "authority" or "office." Another possibility is that "name" refers to the person, who bears the designation (Mt 6:9). I also take MT 24:5 to mean "coming in my authority," like coming in the authority/office of a prophet. See

Consult pages 22-23.

Also from Mounce for onoma:


a name; the proper name, of a person, etc., Mt. 1:23, 25; 10:2; 27:32; a mere name or reputation, Rev. 3:1; in NT a name as the representative of a person, Mt. 6:9; Lk. 6:22; 11:2; the name of the author of a commission, delegated authority, or religious profession, Mt. 7:22; 10:22; 12:21; 18:5, 20; 19:29; 21:9; 28:19; Acts 3:16; 4:7, 12; εἰς ὄνομα, ἐν ὀνόματι, on the score of being possessor of a certain character, Mt. 10:41, 42; Mk. 9:41.

Here's a thorough page on the word:

Neat free source here too:

Duncan said...

Berean Literal Bible -

Rev 3:1

And to the messenger of the church in Sardis write: These things says the One having the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds, that you have the characterization that you are alive, and yet you are dead.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
"To the messenger of the church in Sardis, write: The one who has God's seven spirits and the seven stars says: I know what you have done. You are known for being alive, but you are dead.

Weymouth New Testament
"To the minister of the Church at Sardis write as follows: "'This is what He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars says. I know your doings--you are supposed to be alive, but in reality you are dead.

My translation - "you seem to be alive"

Mat 6:9

My translation based on my understanding of Exodus 20:-

"You shall not represent the character of Jehovah falsely" in to "may your character be kept special".

For Luke 11:2 see MARK 9:38

Whoever welcomes one of these little children in My name (the way I do) welcomes Me, and whoever welcomes Me welcomes not only Me, but the One who sent Me. John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone else driving out demons in Your name (the way you do), and we tried to stop him, because he does not accompany us.” But Jesus replied, “Do not stop him. No one who performs a miracle in My name (the way I do) can turn around and speak evil of Me.

Over time I think we have lost touch with what names used to be:-

smith (smithy), wheeler, butcher - the father to son succession in a trade.

Acts 5:40, 41 - John 14:12

I still do not think we are generally talking about a label but rather an action.

Duncan said...

To reinforce my comment about Mat 1:21 - see Gen 3:29.



Duncan said...

MT 24:5 is interesting but bear in mind that the theory is that the version Of Josephus was probably written for a roman audience.

These are different to the rest of the Mediterranean.

LXX has some interesting examples:-

Gen 21:31 δια τουτο επωνομασε το ονομα του τοπου εκεινου φρεαρ ορκισμου οτι εκει ωμοσαν αμφοτεροι

I interpret this as deciding the character of the place which is then qualified.

As to GLORY see Jude 1:25 - many word, ONE idea.

2Pe 3:18 αυξανετε δε εν χαριτι και γνωσει του κυριου ημων και σωτηρος Ιησου χριστου αυτω η δοξα και νυν και εις ημεραν αιωνος αμην

compare 1 Corinthians 15:24

Edgar Foster said...

I think it's indisputable that Hebrew names have meaning, but SHEM/ONOMA doesn't always refer to a proper name, and actually must be understood contextually. The English "character" is ambiguous like many words. See

Now if you're defining "character" as "office, position, capacity" or authority in Phil. 2:9-11, then okay. But I don't think it means "reputation" or "a defining attribute" in that account.

On the other hand, "name" in Rev. 3:1 likely means "character" in the sense of reputation or "the manner in which people normally judge S," where S refers to a person.

Conversely, in Mt. 6:9, "name" may refer to the person/persona bearing the nomen--not to his character (i.e., reputation) per se. Compare Proverbs 18:10. Others like Craig Keener ascribe the text to God's "honor" (i.e., "let your honor be sanctified"). Cf. Ezek. 38:21-23, and see Mounce above for what ONOMA potentially means in Mt. 6:9.


When you discuss Luke 11:2/Mark 9:38, I don't understand the rationale behind jumping from "in my name" to "the way I do." But with my memory these days, I might have forgotten where that definition fits within the semantic range for ONOMA.

If "name" refers to an action, and not a label or standin for a person (etc.), the suggestion must be demonstrated from the evidence and relevant texts/cotexts.

One other thing to consider for Mt 6:9 is that Craig Evans has pointed to the qadash prayer, which might shed light on the Pater Noster.

See also

Duncan said...

Someone driving out demons in your name?

How many people named Jesus did Josephus reference.

Maybe yeshua ben yosef? But I do not think this fits the account at all.

Would a non disciple have Jesus authority?

It is idiom as far as I can understand it.

Edgar Foster said...

An action can be done in someone's name without the name representing/signifying an action (e.g., "Stop in the name of the law!" or "Stop in the name of love.")

I don't remember how many men named "Jesus" that Josephus references.

I certainly agree that "in the name of" is idiomatic, but an idiom for what? The ancient shaliach used to be an emissary for his principal; as such, he fulfilled the principal's office.

As for the man in Mk 9:38, I've long understood him to be a disciple of Jesus, just one who did not travel with the 12.

See Mk 9:39-40.

Duncan said...

I do not see how mk 9:39,40 supports your conclusion.

How would this fit with Luke 9 and why would the disciples make an issue of it at this point?

Duncan said...

I am looking forward to seeing what brilldag (as some scholars have labeled it) has to say about the words we have been discussing. Should arrive next week.

Edgar Foster said...

I reviewed Luke 9, but don't see how it refutes the understanding I proposed. Really, this way to construe the passage is found in WT literature, but it also makes the most sense to me. In Mk 9:39-40, Jesus urges his disciples not to stop the man from casting out demons. Why would Jesus allow a non-disciple to exorcise in his name? How could the man successfully cast out demons in Jesus' name unless he had God's approval? Finally, Christ implied the man was for him, not against the Messiah.

See Meyer's Commentary on Mark 9:38 and the scriptures he invokes.

I also look forward to seeing what the new Brill work states. I'm going to purchase the book soon.

Duncan said...

"And if I cast out demons by Be-elzebul, >>by whom do your sons cast them out?<< Therefore they shall be your judges."

"Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and >>cast out demons in your name<<"

“I charge you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.”

All disciples??

Duncan said...

Edgar Foster said...

In Mt 12:24-28, the situation is a little different insofar as Jesus is casting out demons (not his disciples), and the would-be "judges" are evidently not exorcising in Jesus' name either.

Regarding Mt 7:21-23, the people whom Jesus rejects claim to drive out demons in his name. Does that mean they legitimately exorcise in his name? They would be unlike the man, whom Jesus told his followers not to rebuke. Many churches today claim to exorcise in the Lord's name. Would the Lord Jesus Christ condone their actions? IMO, very different situation from what we see concerning the anonymous man in the Gospels. Furthermore, we know that other disciples like Joseph of Arimathea existed.

Edgar Foster said...

Here's a brief article concerning onoma and other words, as they appear in Revelation:

Duncan said...

My reference to Luke 9 relates to relative time frames. More than the 12 get the authority and POWER to heal from jesus, but when?

Duncan said...

Authority in name is one thing but the POWER is another.

Duncan said...

I am not the only one to ask this question:-

Edgar Foster said...

I don't know exactly when others received the authority/power to heal and expel demons. I'm not sure that anyone else knows a precise date, but someone who's spent plenty of time investigating Luke's Gospel might be good to consult. Wonder if Larry Hurtado has some insight on these issues.

Power and authority could be linked; for instance, Elijah and Elisha both were given prophetic authority, and with that exousia, they possessed dunamis. Jesus acted in the name of his Father, and he spoke authoritatively while demonstrating power by healing others.

IMO, the question about the Lukan account is worth asking.

Duncan said...


As time permits I will attempt to contact him on this subject.

Coincidentally I came across this:-

It may have something to say regarding some of our recent discussions.