Corpus-Paul

["Kym Smith" <khs AT picknowl.com.au>]

To Edgar and Dave.

Dear Edgar,

While one might well question which approach should now be considered as
the ‘traditionalist approach’, I must confess that I have not sat down to
read the ‘heavy reasons’ why the epistles under discussion here are
deutero-pauline. I would have read presentations and refutations of such
arguments, but not many, and though I can’t recall any details at the
moment, I cannot recall them being persuasive. I suspect a couple of the
issues revolved around non-compatibility with the events of Acts and
church government as per the pastorals reflecting a later period.

In other posts I have mentioned a reconstruction of the 60s I have
published which is based on an early date for the Revelation (preceding
most of the NT) and which follows on from Acts (in ‘Redating the
Revelation and…’). It provides quite reasonable backgrounds for Ephesians,
Colossians and Philemon as genuinely Pauline and all written from Ephesus.
It does the same for the authorship of the pastorals. The reconstruction
is necessarily speculative, but not wildly so. Even without the
reconstruction and aside from the letters’ acceptance by the early Church,
I think there are enough unknowns about the Acts and post-Acts periods for
Pauline authorship to be more probable than not.


Dear Dave,

I don’t think the lack of any other mention of the people you list is any
indication of the date of the letters (Col & Phm). You may be right, but I
don’t think your reasoning is sufficient justification. Nor does the Roman
imprisonment of Acts preclude a later imprisonment in Ephesus (I suggest
that such did happen prior to a second, final imprisonment in Rome).
Surely we must allow that Paul had quite a number of co-workers who may
never have been mentioned. Under Paul’s oversight, Epaphras founded the
church in Colossae (as he did those in Laodicea and Hierapolis), but it
was considered a Pauline church. Who did the same in Smyrna, Pergamum and
the other Asian cities but to whom the apostle did not write a specific
letter (not that we know of, anyway) and who, therefore, are never
mentioned by name?

I think it is probably generally accepted that Romans was written well
before the letters we are talking about. I think it is even quite well
accepted that Paul wrote Romans! In the last chapter there are numerous
people, some described as co-workers, who are not heard of anywhere else –
Phoebe, Epaenetus, Andronicus, Junias, Urbanus, etc. Because these are not
mentioned anywhere else does not mean that they came into Paul’s life
later on or that Romans should be dated later.

Your inclusion of Mark as one of Paul’s ‘standard companions’ is
interesting. I have my own ideas as to why he was with Paul at the time of
writing Colossians, but I would have thought that Peter’s description of
him as ‘my son’ indicated whose ‘standard companion’ he was. Would you
call Silvanus/Silas a ‘standard companion’ of Peter (1 Pet 5:12)?

Is there evidence, other than the similar name, for Epaphras and
Epaphroditus being the same person? I’m easy either way.

Would not the fact that, of the list of people you mention, two are from
Asia and the others from around the Aegean (i.e. Philippi and
Thessalonica), suggest that somewhere nearby (e.g. Ephesus) might be more
probable than Rome? I ask because you are using the names to suggest that
the letter was written from Rome whereas the origins of these people need
not have any bearing on the place of origin of the letter.

That is enough from me.

Sincerely,

Kym Smith
Adelaide
South Australia
khs AT picknowl.com.au