Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Philemon

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David Inglis" <david AT colonialcommerce.com>
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Philemon
  • Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 17:36:13 -0400


> David Inglis wrote:
>
> > ... I believe that the evidence is clear that Ephesians, Colossians, and
> > Philemon were all
> > written at about the same
> > time, and were all taken to their various destinations by Onesimus and
> > Tychicus as part of the
> > same 'mail run'.
>
> David, perhaps you are presently more interested in the Phil. issues, but
> this claim is what got
> my attention. I do not agree that Col and Phlm were written "at about the
> same time" and
> delivered "as part of the same 'mail run.'"

Sheila,

Sorry for the rather late reply....

I think there are two issues to resolve. The first is in regard to which
of the Pauline letters you (or anyone) consider to be genuine, and the
second is then the ordering of the genuine ones (I consider questions
regarding ordering of the pseudonymous ones to be not worth discussing,
because if they are not genuine then when they appear to have been
written, on the basis of internal evidence, has to be considered a
fabrication).

Now, my starting point is to take the evidence of the Bible at face value,
and assume that the Bible is true unless it can be shown to be false.
Therefore, I assume that the Pauline letters were written by Paul unless
the balance of probability suggests otherwise. For example, I believe
there is enough evidence to indicate that Paul did not write Hebrews, but
nevertheless I believe Hebrews is genuine in the sense that it was not
written with any intent to deceive. I believe that the Paulines
(excluding Hebrews) can be grouped as follows:

· Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, and 1 & 2 Thessalonians;
· Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians;
· 1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy.

These groups are arranged in what I think of as 'descending order of
authenticity', based (mainly) on external evidence. First, all the
letters in the first two groups are listed by Marcion and the Muratorian
canon, and (with the exception of 2 Thess), are in P46, placing their
existence certainly no later than 150 AD, and (given time for Marcion to
recognize them for what they were and include then in his canon) quite
probably 20-30 years earlier than that.

Other external references (from Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,
Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Ignatius, Polycarp and others) make the
genuine status of all the letters in the first group very hard to assail,
and so I will assume for the purpose of this discussion that they are
genuine (even 2 Thess, for which I consider the contrary arguments based
on internal evidence to be unconvincing). Assuming Pauline authorship, I
think we are safe to say that all the letters in the first group were
written before Paul went to Rome, and as a result the evidence from Acts
can be used when attempting to determine an ordering within the group.

Based on external evidence the letters in the second group (Eph, Col, Phm,
and Php) are virtually as secure as those in the first. Eph, Col, and Php
are quoted from or alluded to by many fathers, and while Phm does not have
such wide support, there is no external evidence to suggest it is anything
other genuine. Perhaps the only significant external problem regarding
these four letters is their relationship to Acts. According to the most
obvious reading of the text (Roman imprisonment) all the letters post-date
the action in Acts, but some believe in an Ephesian imprisonment, and
therefore that these letters could have been written while Paul was
traveling round the Mediterranean and Aegean during the Acts period.

However, this latter view is, I believe, difficult to reconcile with the
references to Paul’s companions as found in Acts. Barnabus (Acts 9:27 –
15:39), Mark (Acts 12:25 – 15:39), Silvanus/Silas (Acts 15:22 – Acts
18:5), Timothy (Acts 16:1 – 20:5), Gaius (Acts 19:29 – 20:4), Aristarchus
(Acts 19:29 – Acts 27:2), Tychicus (Acts 20:4), and Trophimus (Acts 20:4 –
21:29) all travel with Paul at one time or another, and are with Paul when
many of the letters were written. Timothy in particular has more
references than anyone else, being found in 1 & 2 Cor, Rom, 1 & 2 Thess,
Col, Phm, Php, and hence missing only in Gal (Paul hadn’t met him yet),
Eph, and the pastorals (although 1 & 2 Tim are of course sent to him!).
In fact, I regard the fact the Eph only mentions Tychicus as a strong
point in favor of it’s authenticity, since if Eph was not by Paul then the
author would be sure to mention more of Paul’s companions in order to make
it look as though it was!

Some of Paul’s other companions are not mentioned at all in Acts: Titus,
Luke, Epaphras, Onesimus, Archippus, and Demas, and (with the exception of
Titus) all of these are mentioned or are with Paul in Col and Phm. The
most reasonable explanation is that these letters post-date the action in
Acts, and given the prison references, that they were both written during
the same period in Paul’s life. Perhaps the most striking references are
to Luke, who is only mentioned by Paul in Col, Phm and 2 Tim. The only
reasonable explanation is that Paul was sufficiently far away from the
recipients of these letters (in Colosse) that they would not otherwise
know that Luke was still with Paul. This is also most likely the reason
why Paul mentions so many other people in Col (in particular) and Phm – he
is too far away from Colosse for there to be any communication except
through these letters.

These issues and the fact that many of Paul’s other companions are not
even mentioned in these letters are all evidence against an Ephesian
imprisonment, and therefore the most reasonable conclusion is that Col and
Phm were written from Rome. Other evidence points to Col and Phm having
been written at about the same time:

· Both letters are sent from Paul and Timothy (Col 1:1, Phm 1);
· Paul sends greetings from Aristarchus, Mark, Epaphras, Luke, and Demas
in both letters, indicating that all these people are with Paul at the
time (Col 4:10-14, Phm 23-24);
· Paul mentions Archippus in both letters (Col 4:17, Phm 2);
· Onesimus (the subject of Phm) is mentioned in Col 4:9.

Although it is possible that all these people could be mentioned by Paul
in letters not written at about the same time and from the same place, it
is, I contend, very unlikely indeed. The simplest and most reasonable
explanation is that they were both written while Paul was in prison in
Rome.

> I find the theologies of these letters almost
> diametrically opposite to each other. I have argued this case more fully
> elsewhere but, in brief,
> I think that if you compare the treatment of slaves/slavery and lordship
> (esp. that of Christ), it
> becomes quite plausible that Col is a pseudonymous letter intended as a
> _replacement_ of
> Phlm.

I assume you are talking about Col vs. Phm here? Obviously I disagree,
but as I haven’t seen your arguments, I have nothing to say on this issue
at the moment. So, please could you explain your point so that I can
understand your rational for believing that Col is not by Paul. From my
perspective, I fail to see how anyone could write Col and expect to pass
it off as a ‘replacement’ of Phm. The purpose of the two letters is,
IMHO, so different that there is no way anyone could see one replacing the
other.

> In addition, the theology of baptism presented in Col (and Eph) is contrary
> to that of Romans 6
> (where we are buried with Christ but our resurrection is most definitely a
> future hope) -- which
> you recognize to be from roughly the same time as Phil, whether before or
> after is irrelevant to
> this particular point

I’m afraid I’m not sure what point you are making. Are you suggesting
that Rom 6:4 is talking about the future whereas Col 2:12-13 is talking
about the present? If so, then I just don’t agree with your
interpretation. If that is not your point, please can you explain it.

> -- and the eschatology of Col (and Eph) is a fully realized eschatology,
> whereas Paul's view (from his earliest letter, 1 Thess, through his last
> ones, Phil & Rom) is
> consistently a futuristic one (e.g., Col 1:13 v. Phil 3:20-21).

He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the
kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness
of sins. (Col 1:13-14)

But our citizenship is in heaven—and we also await a savior from there,
the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform these humble bodies of ours into
the likeness of his glorious body by means of that power by which he is
able to subject all things to himself. (Php 3:20-21)

I’m afraid I don’t see these statements as being in conflict. Instead, I
think they just present two different parts of the same message. I
believe this is just one example of something Paul appears to do in many
other places, which is simply to present different parts of his message to
different people depending on the circumstances. In fact, I would go so
far as to say that this is one reason why many people claim pseudonymity
for many of Paul’s letters – that he refuses to ‘play fair’ by not always
saying the same thing in the same way, and hence various of his letters
have such different characteristics!

Dave Inglis
david AT colonialcommerce.com
3538 O’Connor drive
Lafayette, CA, USA



  • Philemon, Sheila E. McGinn, Ph.D., 05/18/2002
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • Re: Philemon, David Inglis, 05/23/2002

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page