Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Colossians Pauline?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.ca>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Colossians Pauline?
  • Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 00:24:12 -0700


Listers,

enough of the appeals to authority! They cut no ice with me, anyway.

Bob wrote:
>Is the epistle to the Colossians considered by Paul?

Almost all the names in Colossians are common to Philemon. In both letters
we have Onesimus, Aristarchus, Mark, Epaphras, LOUKAS, Demas, Archippus,
and Timothy. What I find curious is that the FORMS of these names are
identical in the two letters. In no case do we get a shortened form of the
same name in one letter, and its longer form in the other letter. It looks
suspiciously like the author of Colossians has taken the names directly
from the text of Philemon.

Epaphras, LOUKAS and Demas are all abbreviated forms and their occurrence
in Philemon is no surprise since that letter was written primarily to an
individual, so informal names are to be expected. It would, however, be
surprising for Paul to use the abbreviated forms when writing to the church
of Colossae, especially as he was not intimate with that church. When
writing to the church of Rome Paul refers to a LOUKIOS, whom he does NOT
abbreviate to LOUKAS; and when writing to the church of Philippi he refers
to an Epaphroditus, whom he does NOT abbreviate to Epaphras. Why, then,
would he abbreviate both names when writing to the Colossians?

The names supply two further arguments against Pauline authorship. It is
intrinsically likely that the Epaphras of Philemon was the Epaphroditus of
Philippians. But whereas in Philippians he appears to be from Philippi, in
Colossians he appears to be from Colossae. It is also intrinsically likely
that the LOUKAS of Philemon was the LOUKIOS of Romans (and surely the
author of Acts). But whereas in Romans he appears to be a Jew, in
Colossians he appears to be a Gentile. In both cases Colossians seems to
get it wrong.

The simplest explanation of the data is surely that the author of
Colossians copied the names from the text of Philemon, and did not bother
with historical research. This is not so surprising. I suspect that the
author of the Pastorals followed the same practice. He seems to have taken
the name 'Titus' from one of Paul's letters, without realizing that the
name belonged to Timothy.

Has anyone else offered these arguments for psuedonymity? I have not found
them in the commentaries.


Richard Fellows






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page