P. Derek Overfield PhD Thesis - Research@StAndrews:FullText

Schlier's methodology is also open to
criticism on two counts.
Firstly, his use of the Odes
of Solomon.
As we have seen already it is not possible
to prove that ?tA.f)pCl.lla.
in Ephesians derives from the
tradition deposited in the Odes.
Schlier appears to
recognise·this when he writes 149 "Vor allem sind die
Oden Salomos ffir die Verbreitung des Begriffes relativ
gute Zeugen", but yet he can still appeal to the fact
that the term is found in the Odes and in Valentinianism
as 'proof' that the term carries the same connotation
in Ephesians.
The fact that these sources are post-
Ephesians must count decisively against their being
used in this manner. The second criticism involves
Schlier's interpretation of Eph 1:23. H e wrl
. t
es
150
"So ist Christus im Epheser - (und Kolosser - ) Brief
und ~a. und beides zusamrnen = "
This of course follows directly from his assumption
that ?tA. -npCl.llOo
has the same content here (the fulness
which God is) as in developed Gnosticism, an assumption
which we believe to be untenable.
Irrespective
of whether or not this is so his equation is very
difficult to maintain. He assumes that 'to. mv'ta.
and ~v ?t&"1. v in 1: 23 are separate entities, though
he in fact never quite explains what the significance
of this latter term is; we, on the other hand, have
is an adverbial phrase
equivalent to the classical ?ta.v't6.?ta.o-"v Again, it
-248-