(9 votes, average: 4.78 out of 5)
Loading...Now that I have summarized the major themes and emphases of Colossians, I can talk about who wrote it, when, and why.
The book, as we have seen, claims to be written by Paul. But there are good reasons for doubting it.
In a number of ways, this letter does look very much like those that Paul himself wrote. The prescript written in the names of both Paul and Timothy, the basic layout of the letter, and the closing all sound like Paul; and a number of important Pauline themes are sounded throughout: the importance of suffering in this world, Jesus’ death as a reconciliation, and the participation of believers in Jesus’ death through baptism. On these grounds, one might think that Paul may well have written this letter.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
It still seems awkward to explain how a forged ‘letter from Paul’ could get written to and accepted by a church after Paul had died unless news of Paul’s death did not widely circulate for many months. One would think that the author of Colossians would have some advance knowledge regarding Paul’s death or had some confidence that Paul was heading towards Spain and not returning before attempting to forge a letter that could be directly refuted by a living Paul, but, based on how news from Rome travelled in that era, news could easily take months to reach Colossae, so a skilled forger would have time to create a forgery in a workable timeframe. However, the forger still has a loose end regarding Timothy, unless Timothy is the forger.
One other theme from the Pauline letters, whether written by Paul or one of his lieutenants, is the concern about false teachers. Even in the very early stages of the Christain movement, there is threat of divisions within the Church. I just wonder what Paul would think of the divisions today. I wonder how angry he would be?
Very.
Professor Ehrman, I have a question, that probably you already answered:
Did John get Paul’s idea of salvation or is it his own?
He has a different conception. For John, “believing in Christ” means believing that he is the one who has come down from heaven to reveal the truth to his followers, and that truth, somewhat ironically, is that he is the one who has come down from heaven. If they believe that, they have (not will have) eternal life)
Hello Dr. Ehrman. I had a question on textual variants for 1 Corinthians 10:9. I know you support “the lord” reading over “Christ” but wanted to know your thoughts on two objections to this reading.
1. You argue that Paul here is referring to “God” and not Jesus when he says “The Lord”. However Paul seems to like saving the name “The Lord” for Jesus and is therefore referring to him and not the Father. One solution is that maybe Paul is saying something like “Just as Israelites tested the previous “Lord” who is God we should not test the new “Lord” who is Jesus. Do you think that’s what he may be doing?
2. Some argue that Marcion’s reading of this verse as “Christ” proves its more likely to be original as Marcion was anti-old testament and therefore in unlikely to support a reading of Jesus in the old testament unless it was the original reading.
Thx for all you do.
I’m not sure if Marcion had “Christ” (I don’t have a full apparatus in front of me), but it is the reading of P46, our oldest witness, and a range of ancient texts; so it has merits in terms of external evidence. But it seems much more likely that scribes would have changed it to Christ than to either God or Lord, the two other textual options. I don’t have a slam-dunk argument, but the context does seem to me to suggest “Lord” which scribes took one way even if Paul took to the ohter. It’s been a long time since I studied the issue, and offhand I dn’t recally how often Paul uses “Lord” for God as weo\ll as for Christ. I do think, though, that Paul thought God bestowed “the name” of “kurios” on Jesus at the exaltation (that that’s what Phil 2:6-10 is about)
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
My question pertains to the striking contrast between anonymity of the gospels and the pseudopigraphy of other early Christian writings. If a likely motivation for writing in the name of a well-known, credible figure was to gain a broader platform for having one’s work read and taken seriously, then it seems strikingly odd to me that the gospel authors didn’t claim to be anyone at all but left their works anonymous. Do you have an idea why they wouldn’t have disclosed their identity or claimed to be someone important?
We do of course have other anonymous writings from the time — Acts, Hebrews, Johannine epistles, Didache, Barnabas, etc. My sense is that with the Gospels it was a matter of genre. These authros appear to have understood themselves to be writing a king of continuation of “divine history,” that is, the work of God in the life of his people, continuing on from the Pentateuc, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, etc — and those books are *always* written anonymously, probably because they were divulging what actually happened (in the authors’ views) and so they authors did not want to make anyone think they were simply giving their own version of events. The Gospel writers then followed suit.
Even if you believe Paul didn’t write Colossians, do you think the letter’s early date, the possibility that it was written by someone in Paul’s congregation, and its apparent effort to present itself as Pauline suggest that its claim—that Mark and Barnabas were cousins—is historically reliable?
I don’t think any of that would be evidence, no. My guess is that it was written after all these people were no longer on the scene, and that ancient Christians have the same tendency as modenr ones, to “connect the dots” when they have various names/figures and they want to put them in relation to one another for a neater picture.
Hi rezubler
What if the forger presented his forged letter as a “rediscovery” made many years after Paul’s death?
Bart has made a strong case for The Martyrdom of Polycarp being a forgery written many decades after Polycarp’s death but presented as a first-hand account. The forger explains in a colophon how the letter was copied by two prior generations of Christians until he (Pionius), “in accordance with a revelation of the blessed Polycarp,” decided to make the letter public.
(https://ehrmanblog.org/is-the-martyrdom-of-polycarp-an-authentic-account/).
I believe something similar happened with the Pastorals.
Many scholars consider them second-century forgeries.
In particular, some argue that 1 Timothy 6:17 references Marcion.
While I’m not fully convinced, let’s assume this is an anti-Marcionite passage,
dating the forgery to the 140s of the second century—roughly 80 years after Paul’s death.
Unlike Paul’s other letters, the Pastorals were not addressed to a specific church but to individuals
(Timothy and Titus).
As private correspondence, their absence from early Christian discourse would be easier to explain until
their “rediscovery.”
Though we lack a colophon like The Martyrdom of Polycarp’s to document this rediscovery,
the forger may have invented a backstory to persuade his audience.
chaurra,
That theory is certainly workable. It would still require some risk that no one from Colossae would have been able to authoritatively deny that the letter from Paul was ever received by their church. Each church would certainly have orally retained some level of their more notable local traditions and histories for at least two or three generations, just as most churches still do today. The challenges of “who knew what where and when” remain an insolvable puzzle in this situation. There is also always the temptation to accept (or not deny) anything that elevates the standing of a respected church or individual.
“It would still require some risk.. was ever received by their church.”
Indeed, but apparently no one from Thessalonica or Corinth ever denied that 2 Thessalonians or 3 Corinthians
had never been received by their churches.
But take a look at this link:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249551912_The_AD_60_Denizli_Basin_earthquake_and_the_apparition_of_Archangel_Michael_at_Colossae_Aegean_Turkey
“Colossae … was completely destroyed by the AD 60 earthquake.
After that, it survived only as a small village before being finally abandoned in the eighth century.”
So, the chance of finding someone who could authoritatively deny that the letter had ever been received was very low!
That could mean that:
1) The letter had to be written before 60 AD — obviously during Paul’s lifetime.
or
2) A clever forger chose Colossae as the addressee church to avoid anyone from Colossae denying that the letter had ever been received.
I think the letter was written during Paul’s lifetime AND it was forged.
My theory is that during Paul’s imprisonment in Ephesus, some of his followers abandoned him (Philippians 1:10–17).
This group may have been the ones preaching in the nearby cities of the Lycus Valley (Colossae, Laodicea, Hierapolis).
After Paul was imprisoned, they began writing letters as if they were from Paul.
Professor, your explanations on figuring out a forgery are extremely interesting to me. Thanks for including them.