WHO WROTE COLOSSIANS?

Most Christians will have no problem accepting the Epistle to the Colossians as a composition of Paul. However, that does not imply that this authorship has been universally accepted. Dunn asks, “Who wrote Colossians? This is probably the most contentious of the introductory issues facing the student of Colossians.” I actually doubt that there is a single book in the Bible whose authorship has not been questioned at one time on another by some scholar. Here is a quick overview of the reasonings pro and con regarding that issue. These are generally broken down into discussions of the separate factors highlighted below. But first, a brief summary by Brevard Childs of how the book has been viewed over time is in order:

“The authorship was first seriously questioned by Mayerhoff in 1838 whose theory was then developed by F. S. Baur and his school in the mid-nineteenth century. In the late nineteenth century various attempts were made to support some form of indirect Pauline authorship, either by a hypothesis of subsequent interpolations (Holzmann), or by an appeal to Paul's use of an amanuensis [i.e. secretary]. Although in the period before World War II, Bultmann and his school continued to characterize Colossians with Ephesians as part of the non-genuine 'deutero-Pauline' corpus, there was an impressive group of critical scholars who defended the book's authenticity...However, within the most recent period it would seem that those who support the non-Pauline authorship form a new majority...Naturally there remains a impressive minority voice (Kummel, Moule, etc.).”

 And getting back to Dunn's question above, he answers it himself in the following manner: “I have to confirm the strong likelihood that the letter comes from a hand other than Paul's.” He bases this on “the subjective appreciation of manner and mode of expression” but admits that it may be due to any of a number of factors, including a change in Paul's style over the years or his reliance on a secretary such as Timothy to do the actual writing (either during Paul's life and with his approval of the final product or very soon after Paul's death) based on Paul's rough guidelines. In any case, Colossians should still be considered a Pauline Epistle.

You might ask whether this whole subject warrants such undue scrutiny and whether it really matters one way or another, but Barth and Blanke point out: The question of Pauline authorship is not a matter of antiquarian curiosity, scholarly pedantry, or idle luxury. Ever since, on literary and historical grounds, the secondary and spurious origin of Colossians was 'discovered' or 'demonstrated,' cumulative experience has shown that the verdict 'inauthentic' leads to a depreciation and devaluation of some elements, at times even of the essential substance and character of this letter.” So it remains an important issue for all believers.

Historical Considerations

Pro- O'Brien states, “The character of Paul, as we known it from the other letters, shines throughout the letter. There was no dispute over the authority of Colossians in the early period of the church, and the letter was included in Marcion's canonical list [AD 130-140] as well as in the Muratorian canon [AD 180-200].”

Similarly, R. Martin says, “The later Church Fathers [such as Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian] accepted it and there was no dispute over its authorship in the early decades...”

Con- The only real criticism against Colossians on historical grounds is explained by several commentators as due to its antagonism against Gnosticism, a movement which only came to prominence years after Paul's death. But this is by no means a foolproof argument, as explained below.

Pro- Martin responds: “The heresy combated in the letter is not the fully developed gnosticism of the second century systems but a proto-gnostic synchretism which may well have arisen in the apostolic age (seen most obviously at Corinth as von Dobschutz as early as 1904 was quick to recognize and recently demonstrated with thoroughness by W. Schmithals) and for which there are parallels in heterodox Judaism in the Phygian diaspora.”

Linguistic Issues

“There are 28 words not found elsewhere in Paul, and 34 other words not represented elsewhere. These rare words, moreover, are largely technical or quasi-technical terms, which Paul may well have borrowed from his opponents, especially if he is quoting their actual language or using phrases suitable in debate. In addition he does incorporate the hymnic period (1:15-20) where a proportion of the special vocabulary is found.” (Martin)

Even Raymond Brown, with his somewhat liberal stance on the subject, states that “Phil[ippians], genuinely written by Paul and of comparable length, uses 79 words that do not appear in the other undisputed Pauline letters (including 36 that appear nowhere else in the NT). Thus the percentages of unusual words prove nothing; and even if they were much higher in Col, that would not be decisive because the writer might be drawing on the false teaching present at Col for some of his distinctive terminology. Another verbal objection to Pauline writing is the absence in Col of favorite Pauline phrases...Again this statistic becomes less impressive when we realize that 'to justify' is not found in I Thess, Phil, and II Cor; nor is 'law' found in I Thess and II Cor; nor 'save/salvation' in Gal. Moreover, once more the vocabulary of Col may have been shaped by the problem at hand.”

Similarly, although Brevard Childs' main emphasis of analysis is not on the exact authorship itself, he states the following: “Consistent with Paul's practice and fully obvious for this letter is the recognition that the apostle did not write a timeless theological tractate. Rather, the letter to the Colossians was evoked by a false teaching which had made inroads into the church and posed a serious threat...It seems increasingly clear that much of the basic theological language by which the false teaching as contested by the writer has its roots within the heresy itself.”

For those who accept Ephesians as an authentic letter of Paul, it is difficult for them to assert that the language in the two letters differs considerably. I will not bother comparing such language exhaustively. However, as a small demonstration, consider just the center sections of each epistle, which I have earlier determined by literary characteristics to consist of Ephesians 3:1-21 and Colossians 2:8-23:

    Eph. 3:5 – humankind                                                     Col. 2:8 – human condition

    Eph. 3:7,16,18,20 – power                                             Col. 12 – power

    Eph. 3:10 – rulers and authorities in heavenly places     Col. 2:10 – every ruler and authority

    Eph. 3:10 – wisdom of God                                            Col. 2:23 – appearance of wisdom

    Eph. 19 – fullness of God Col. 2:9 – fullness of deity

And for those who do not accept Ephesians as an authentic writing of Paul, there is still the short book of Philemon to consider since it is universally accepted as being by Paul:

    Col. 1:1 – Timothy our brother                                      Phe. 1 – Timothy our brother

    Col. 1:2 – for his body's sake                                         Phe. 9 – for love's sake

    Col. 1:3 – I give thanks to God                                      Phe. 4 – we give thanks to God

    Col. 1:4 – We heard of...the love you have to all the saints

                                            Phe. 5 – hearing of the the love and faith which you have toward...the saints

Col. 1:5,23 – gospel                                                          Phe. 13 – gospel

Col. 2:4 – I say                                                                 Phe. 21 – I say (different Greek words)

Col. 2:6; 4:10,17 – receive                                               Phe. 12,17 – receive (different Greek words)

Col. 2:13 – forgiven (charisamenos)                               Phe. 22 – granted (charisthasomai)

Col. 3:13 – forgiven (charizomenoi                                 Phe. 22 – granted (charisthasomai)

Col. 3:20,22 – obey                                                         Phe. 21 – obedience

Col. 3:22; 4:1,12 – servant                                               Phe. 16 – servant

Col. 3:24; 4:1 – knowing that...you                                 Phe. 21 – knowing that you

Col. 3:25 – to wrong (2x)                                                Phe. 18 – to wrong

Col. 4:2,12 – prayer(s)                                                     Phe. 4,22 – prayer(s)

Col. 4:3 – withal (nema)                                                  Phe. 22 withal (nema)

Col. 4:7,9,14 – beloved                                                    Phe. 2,16 – beloved

Col. 4:8 – whom I have sent (pempo) to you                  Phe. 12 – whom I have sent (anapempo) to you

Col. 4:9 – Onesimus                                                        Phe. 10 – Onesimus

Col. 4:10,12,15 – greet                                                    Phe. 23 – greet

Col. 4:12 – laboring fervently for you in prayers

                                                                            Phe. 4 – making mention of you always in my prayers

Col. 4:15 – church in his house                                       Phe. 2 – church in your house

Col. 4:17 – Archippus                                                     Phe. 2 – Archippus

Col. 4:18 – bonds                                                            Phe. 10,13 – bonds

Col. 4:18 – hand                                                              Phe. 19 – hand

Colossians – “flesh” in a positive sense (5x)                  Phe. 16 – “flesh” in a positive sense

This sort of verbal agreement is truly amazing and goes a long way toward confirming Paul's authorship of Colossians.

Stylistic Considerations

Con – “Characteristic features of style, as distinct from vocabulary, include liturgical material with long clauses introduced by relative pronouns, inserted causal and participial phrases, combined and synonymous expressions ('strengthened with all power,' Col 1:11; 'praying and asking,' Col 1:9), a series of dependent genitives ('the word of truth, of the gospel,' Col 1:5) and loosely joined infinitival construction ('who walk worthily of the Lord,' Col 1:10).” (O'Brien)

Pro – O'Brien accounts for these deviations from Paul's usual manner of writing which have given rise to the theory of another author in the following way: “But such a judgment appears to be unduly negative and presupposes an almost infallible understanding of what Paul could or could not have written. Further, it does not explain the close similarities between Colossians and the generally accepted Pauline letters. Rather, the stylistic peculiarities would seem to have their basis in the letter's content which is clearly connected with the particular situation which necessitated the letter.”

Next, a few comments concerning the overall form of the letter to the Colossians are in order. O'Brien says, “Many of the formal features of Colossians show similarities with the other Pauline letters, including its structure (the introduction, Col 1:1-2; conclusion, Col 4:18; and thanksgiving prayer, Col 1:3-8), connecting words and phrases (Col 2:1,6,16; 3:1,5) as well as the list of messages and greetings (cf. Col 4:8,10,12,15).” Additionally, in regard to the overall shape of the letter, my own researches have demonstrated that Colossians takes the form of a chiasm (detained symmetrical structure) in common with all of Paul's later letters.

O'Brien next enumerates a number of common phrases found elsewhere in Paul's authentic writings including his “superfluous use of 'and' and 'therefore' (Col 1:9; cf. 1 Thess 2:13; 3:5).”

Martin explains, “We cannot say whether Paul gave liberty to a secretary (Timothy? 1:1) to write up the final letter from his rough draft, taken down by dictation. ..On that assumption...the unusual literary style of the epistle could be explained, along with the presence of some terms not found elsewhere in Paul. This is P. Benoit's hypothesis.”

“Finally, the absence of some of the characteristic Pauline stylistic features, especially in the use of particles may be set down to the nature of the letter as a document embodying distinctive material in a litrugio-hymnic style and containing traditional material of a didactic nature relating to a specific occasion...This special occasion required the conscious use of a specialized vocabulary...and gave Paul's scribe a simpler task to compose in a more leisurely, systematic and reflective style.” (Martin)

Con- “There are extraordinarily long sentences in Col hooked together by participles and relative pronouns..., e.g., 1:3-8, 2:8-15. True, there are long sentences in the undisputed Pauline letters (e.g., Rom 1:1-7), but the Col style is marked by pleonastic synonyms piling up words that convey the same idea.” (Brown)

Pro- In rebuttal to this issue, Brown asks himself, “Are such differences reconcilable with Paul's having written Col? Granted that Paul did not personally evangelize Colossae, did he take care to send a message in a style influenced by hymns and liturgical confessions known there, so that his correction of the teaching would not seem alien? Did he employ a scribe who knew Colossae (Epaphras or one influenced by him?) and depend on his cooperation in apposite phrasing? That could explain in part why so many of the minor particles, adverbs, and connective words common to genuine Pauline style are missing.”

Theological Issues

Con- Childs notes “the peculiar theological profile of the letter...appears to reflect strong elements of both continuity and discontinuity with the undisputed letters of Paul.”

Concerning the “discontinuities,” Raymond Brown reviews in more detail the problem areas in Colossians' teachings in the areas of Christology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology.

Pro- But after the above review, Brown concludes, “Many scholars work almost with a dialectic of thesis and antithesis. They are confident of the clarity of Paul's thought, which stemmed from the revelation he received, and they can judge with certainty what would be contradictory to it (We saw an extreme form of that view in the opinion that would reject Rom 9-11 as unauthentic because Paul could not have thought thus about Israel.)..The contention that Paul could not possibly have held the...views advanced in Col is overstated.” Although these theological considerations alone do not convince Brown that Paul did write Colossians, he does feel that they lean in that direction.

Pro- Wright sees definite affinities between Colossians and the universally accepted early writings of Paul in the following areas: Christology (Philippians 2:6-11; I Corinthians 8:6; II Corinthians 4:4; 8:9), critiques against Judaism and viewing Christians as the true people of God (Romans 2:17-29; Philippians 3:2-11; II Corinthians 3; and all of Galatians), and the church as Christ's body (I Corinthians 12 and Romans 12). “Finally, the pregnant and difficult verse about suffering (1:24) can be understood only if we line it up with 2 Corinthians 1:3-11; 4:7-18 and Romans 8:17-25.”...Colossians does not, it is true, mention the doctrine of justification (It is, however, frequently implicit, for instance in 3:10-13)...The real center of Paul's thought, as of his life, is not justification, but that which underlies it and gives it its polemical cutting edge, namely, the crucified and risen Jesus, seen as the revelation in action of the one creator God...”

Con- Barth and Blanke summarize the damning case against Pauline authorship set forth by Bultmann, who accuses the author of espousing “a Christian Gnosis, a tradition-bound authoritarianism and clericalism, a speculative conception of the relation between Christ and the cosmos, a poor form of moralism, and a return to the equivalent of Jewish good works. In other words, the epistle exhibits a “somewhat faded Paulism.” And, according to Bultmann, all of the above indicates that the author had failed miserably to counter the attacks of the Gnostics of his time.

Pro-

The response of Barth and Blanke to such charges is as follows: “Not only is such reasoning questionable, but two of its presuppositions are less than sufficiently confirmed: (1) the assumption that Paul never might have failed and even more (2) the conviction that Colossians is the product of a man victimized by the Colossian Religion.

Additional specific areas of theology under question in Colossians are best treated one at a time, giving both sides of the issue in each case, as discussed by Ralph Martin.

Teachings on Baptism

There are at least three different charges leveled against Colossians by scholars such as Kasemann in regard to its teachings on baptism being different that Paul's comments in the “authentic” Pauline letters. The issue involves a detailed analysis of Colossians 1:15-20 in contrast to Philippians 2:5-11 and other epistles of Paul and is much too complicated to rehearse here, but suffice it to say that Martin sees no overwhelming difficulty with any of the supposed problems, as he explains in his conclusion to the subject.

It is likely “that the epistle's editor has utilized an early hymn and suitably redacted it for his purpose to emphasize (a) the eschatological/salvific teaching of an original cosmological tribute, and (b) the application of the cosmic victory of Christ to his readers' lives. If these two considerations are borne in mind it must be granted that that this type of citation and application, set in a baptismal frame, is exactly Paul's manner of joining soteriology and ethics, as in Philippians 2:5-11.”

Martin adds that Kasemann's “understanding of the hymn presupposes two ideas. First, he takes it as axiomatic that the primary purpose of the passage which had an existence independent of and prior to its inclusion in the letter is not to combat the Colossian heresy.”

“Secondly, the surrounding context of 1:12-14 gives substantial support to the view that the hymn was part of a baptismal liturgy.” Martin has no problem with this part of Kasemann's argument, but “it is less persuasive when he proceeds to conclude that the author of the epistle has taken over the introit (1:12-14) and the hymn without modification...and that these modifications do not represent the author's response to the Colossian heresy. Martin then proceeds in the rest of his commentary to thoroughly discredit this second assumption.

The Body of Christ

He says that “It is argued that the term 'body of Christ' is used differently in I Corinthians-Romans, where its usage is figurative of the Church, from Colossians in which the author speaks of the body as a cosmic reality as well as a description of the Church (1:18,24; 2:19; 3:15) of which Christ is the head. But the ecclesiological sense predominates and there are clear adumbrations of Paul's Colossian teachings in his second Adam typology; and the emphatic cosmic dimension of Christ's headship may well have been evoked by Paul's partial agreement with and partial correction of the false teaching on this theme.”

Hope

Bornkamm zeroes in on Colossians 1:5 with its mention of hope 'as prepared for you in the heavenly sphere' and attempts to draw a contrast between that teaching and the subjective sense of hope in the common triad 'faith, hope and love' found in Paul's authentic writings.

Martin responds: “It is true that 'hope' does carry this special meaning in Colossians, occasioned (we may believe) by the need to show that the Church's trust in the gospel is secure 'in the heavenly world' where Christ's lordship was in dispute. It is not to be lost by compromise with the heretics. However, Bornkamm's denial of a temporal aspect to hope in this epistle overlooks the eschatological dimension and the hope of the Lord's parousia which appears in one important section (3:1-4). The present hour (4:5) is one of opportunity as Christians live 'between the times' of the two advents; and the prospect of future reward and judgment is held out (3:24-4:1).”

Final Considerations

Finally, there are those like N.T. Wright who note: “Some of those who doubt Colossians' authenticity build their case on theology, saying that the style of the letter does not provide clear enough indication. Others, happy to say that the theology of the letter is substantially Pauline, think that the style alone forces us to say that someone other than Paul wrote it. This suggests, actually, that neither the style nor the theology is as decisive in mounting an argument against authenticity as some have suggested. More recent work has shown that an excellent case for Pauline authorship can still be made out.”

It is recognized that there are close correspondences between Colossians and Ephesians. Thus, one could be forgiven for simply asking why scholars haven't just used one as a standard of a genuine composition of Paul and compared the other writing to it to determine its authenticity. Barth and Blanke address this possibility but only add to the confusion regarding the whole issue by pointing out that there are scholars who feel that (a) both books are authentic, (b) neither book is authentic, (c) Colossians is authentic but Ephesians isn't, or (d) Ephesians is authentic but Colossians isn't.

And in case you are wondering at this point why Bible scholars sometimes go to such great lengths trying to overturn traditional conclusions regarding issues such as authorship, Melick has some good things to say on the subject:

“While the questions of authorship are quite complex, some general observations about method may be helpful. Many of the recent theories of critical scholarship arise from a procedure of methodological doubt. That is, skepticism becomes the tool of learning. [This has been called a 'hermeneutic of suspicion.'] The result is that, rather than approaching the text with sympathy for its statements and the history of its study some approach the text to see why it cannot be what others decide it is. Doubt has a place in the reasoning process, but it should not overrule good arguments to the contrary. Often good explanations are rejected simply because they are traditional. Along with this is a second methodological principle, that of determining proper standards for comparison. Since the objective data are limited, scholars can easily drift into subjective standards of comparison that are psychological and sociological, as well as theological.”

But the above begs the question as to why mainly liberal scholars should start out with such a negative approach to begin with. It could possibly be done in an attempt to discredit the teachings of the Bible because of the way they might impact their individual lifestyles. However, I believe an even more pervasive motive is found in the common motto in the halls of academia – “Publish or Perish.”It is simply harder to get attention, tenure, promotion, and book sales in a university setting if all one does is agree with the accepted wisdom of the past.