Part II, week 6 - Letters to the Colossians and Ephesians

In the “Excursus” de Silva provides a detailed introduction to “pseudepigraphs” – writings attributed to another person. Pseudepigraphs were commonly attributed to prophets, patriarchs and monarchs of the Old Testament period (like Enoch and Solomon) and also for the New Testament period – The Apocalypse of Paul and The Infancy Gospel of Thomas and many others. So the question inevitably arises as to whether some of the New Testament epistles are actually pseudepigraphic. (This doesn’t apply to the Gospels and Acts, since they are anonymous writings.)

De Silva agrees with many other scholars of the New Testament that there are a “cardinal four” of Paul’s epistles, whose authenticity is almost unquestioned. These are: Romans, Galatians, and 1 and 2 Corinthians. There are others whose authenticity is disputed to a greater or lesser degree, including Colossians and Ephesians, and then there are the almost-universally challenged “Pastoral Epistles” of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.

De Silva notes that there are close connections between Colossians and Ephesians. They seem to have been written from the same time and place of imprisonment. They share certain emphases on an exalted Christology which differs somewhat from that in Paul’s other letters. I would point out that there are also close connections between Colossians and Philemon, although the latter of course lacks much of the elaborate theological expression of Colossians and Ephesians as well as the other Pauline letters, which is logical given Philemon’s more personal nature and short length. Again the place and date of writing appear to have been the same, and many of the personages that appear in Philemon also appear in Colossians, including Onesimus, who is said to be traveling with Tychicus to Colossae.

De Silva’s analysis of the authorship of Colossians considers 1) some differences in style and vocabulary from the undisputed letters (which appear to be minor), 2) the fact that the author is writing to a church which he didn’t found, unlike Paul’s usual practice (which overlooks his connection to Epaphras), 3) a perhaps more exalted view of Paul’s own position than he would have expressed of himself (which overlooks his recognition of the importance of his place in apostleship, plus his acknowledgement of the efforts of his companions), and, more importantly, 4) some evolution of Paul’s theology beyond that expressed in his other letters, including exalted Christology, affirmation that the salving effects of Christ’s resurrection have already occurred, with “future eschatology” moving more into the background, and Jesus Christ said to be the head of the church.

Both letters may be authentic Pauline letters, or one or both may have been written by a colleague perhaps shortly after Paul’s death. Lastly, either or both may have been written by a disciple of Paul’s after Paul’s death with no participation by Paul. De Silva indicates that the question of legitimacy of a pseudepigraph might well be if it was intended to deceive. He notes that by that standard, 2 Timothy and Titus are the most nefarious, because “they include so many personal details and fabricate a plausible historical setting.” (pg. 687) If Colossians is a pseudepigraph, by that standard it would be more egregious than Ephesians, because Colossians contains more personal details, including a statement that Paul’s signature appears at the end to attest to its authenticity. “The general nature of Ephesians, however, would give it a better claim to be the benign work of a modest disciple, if it is indeed judged to be pseudonymous.” (Ibid.)

I would like to suggest a possible fairly legitimate rationale if either or both letters are pseudepigraphic. I am imagining a scenario with someone like Onesimus for example – obviously a devoted follower of Paul’s. You will recall that Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus when Ignatius of Antioch traveled that way on his way to martyrdom in Rome in about 117 A.D. I think it is possible that, if a devoted disciple of Paul’s were faced with an incipient heresy, he would be motivated to put down on paper what he could be fairly sure Paul would have said had he been able to do so. And I would think it even possible that Paul might have expressed many of the thoughts to his disciples but perhaps didn’t have a chance to set them down on paper. Perhaps there was no need to do so during his lifetime. But at a time when the challenge arose to the young churches – well, there would have been a powerful motivation to write what the followers could have been fairly sure Paul would have written had he been able to do so.

De Silva does note that more scholars doubt Ephesians’ authenticity than Colossians,’ largely because the tone of the former is relatively impersonal, especially considering that Paul spent between two and three years evangelizing in Ephesus. There is no particular adversary doctrine dealt with in Ephesians; rather it appears to be a vehicle for the fuller expression of the exalted Christology which was expressed in Colossians. The letters are so similar that de Silva notes that some of the material from Colossians (about one-third) is reproduced in Ephesians – or vice versa. The theories of borrowing resemble the theories explaining the “Synoptic Problem” of Matthew, Mark and Luke. In the case of Colossians and Ephesians – the author of one may have relied on the other for his text – or then again, de Silva notes that the similarities might just be a result of the same author writing both at roughly the same time. In that case, these two letters are evidence of the flexibility of Paul’s reasoning and ability to deal with new and varied challenges as they arose.