The Dating of Colossians
Anyone with a photographic memory with occasional interaction with me will remember that I have been flirting this last year with a dating of Colossians to a supposed imprisonment of Paul at Ephesus.
It occurred to me today why this is very unlikely. Colossians 1:23 proclaims that the gospel has been preached to every creature under heaven. Paul would not likely have said this until he reached Rome. Further, since Colossae was probably destroyed by an earthquake around 61, we seem to have a very narrow window for dating the book if we take Paul truly to be its author, since Paul would scarcely have reached Rome before 61.
posted by Ken Schenck @ 3:24 PM
6 Comments:
Ken,
Do you then conclude that it is more plausible to attribute Colossians to someone other than Paul?
Brian, because I don't think the issue is worth the bother in Wesleyan circles, I submit in terms of faith to the majority evangelical position that there are no pseudonymous writings in the New Testament. Speaking from academic to academic, I also have an evidence-meter that doesn't map exactly to my faith positions.
Sorry for the preface. All of that is important prolegomena for me...
I have not concluded that the balance of evidence is against Paul as literal author of Colossians. Dunn thinks Timothy may have been the principal composer in order to explain differences in "style." He also concludes at the end of writing his commentary that the "style" (very broadly speaking) of Colossians is not that of Paul as he has found it in his work on other commentaries (Romans, Galatians, 1 Corinthians).
Some of these evidentiary issues have been simmering in my mind for years without a real sense of conclusion (e.g., pistis Christou did until last year...). Yet I still fall off the log of evidence on the side of Colossians written during Paul's lifetime.
Please excuse the long explanation...
You've obviously thought a lot more about this than I have, Woody. I'm not sure where I got 61 from--probably Dunn. I remember getting the sense that the destruction of Colossae was taken more from silence than positive evidence. I don't believe the site has been excavated much at all.
I may be missing something but 61 doesn't seem too soon to me for Paul to arrive in Rome. I've never found any really firm evidence for when Festus took over from Felix, although I think Festus' term ended in 62.
As far as pseudonymity, I think there is really a significant difference between, say, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, and 2 Peter, where I think someone might easily argue they are pseudonymous without any deception being involved. But a second group of candidates--Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 2 Timothy, 1 Peter--seem far more concrete. There are far more details regarding persons and places. I agree that if any of these were pseudonymous, we would seriously have to consider deception.
These are at least the kinds of things I continue to mull over...
What fascinates me (but which I don't feel I should do much with beyond coffee talk) are little comments in Ephesians, 1 Timothy, and 2 Peter that strike me as "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" verses:
Eph. 3:2: "Surely you have already heard of the commission of God's grace that was given to me..."
"Tychicus will tell you everything..."
If Eph were pseud, I would wonder if Tychicus were the author writing under Paul's name to his community/ies.
1 Tim. 3:14: "I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that if I am delayed..."
And the audience smiles because they know he was.
2 Pet. 3:1: "This is now the second letter I am writing to you..."
Since 1 Peter was not addressed to the same audience as 2 Peter, and since it seems to me Romans is the most likely referent of 3:15, you could argue that this is a "knowing comment" to a Roman audience.
If it weren't such a touchy issue and I had an infinite amount of time on my hands, I might explore this possibility of "knowing comments" in non-deceptive pseudonymity. I suppose it's all already been done.
I know of Richards but haven't dived in yet. He's my poster child in teaching, though, when defending the literal authorship of these books in my teaching.
This conversation is good for my soul. It is a privilege to have as colleagues and friends scholars who evaluate evidence carefully for the believing Church. Although I play part-time NT scholar via Matthew (IBS) at Asbury, I am too far out of the loop of Pauline studies to be able to contribute substantively to this conversation. But I am reading with interest.
Do you guys have any solutions for the authorship of the Pentateuch? 8^)
Brian, they should have paid you instead of me that summer I stood up front and you asked questions about obscure Hebrew accents. (meanwhile Jeff Finger laid with his back on his desk and his Hebrew book held high above his head)... In short, dare I not say anything about the Pentateuch.
But as I understand it Sandra Richter has a few thoughts :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home