Читать книгу Portrait of an Apostle - Gregory S. MaGee - Страница 5

An Untested Theory

This book challenges the popular theory that in Colossians and Ephesians a well-meaning imitator, perhaps as part of an informal “school of Paul,” attempts to speak using Paul’s authoritative voice. This is a hypothesis that is so often restated in recent scholarship that it is arguably the default position in the field, even though the theory is relatively untested. The widely held judgment is that Paul is portrayed as an exalted, idealized apostle and prisoner in Colossians and Ephesians. Intrinsic to this position is that Paul himself did not write Colossians and Ephesians, at least not in their canonical forms. Rather, according to this view, admirers of Paul adopted a stereotyped picture of Paul in order to speak with his perceived authority in current settings. This theory, which in this book will be referred to as the “Exalted Apostle Theory,” has been propagated in a variety of studies in recent decades.

J. Christiaan Beker, for instance, points to the “exalted view of Paul” and his “heroic status” in Colossians, while in Ephesians Paul is “a figure whose authority and stature have increased enormously over time” since Paul’s death.1 According to Martinus de Boer, the persona of Paul in both Colossians and Ephesians arises out of “a developing legend of Paul.”2 David Meade contends that the Paul in Ephesians has been presented as “an archetypical figure,”3 and Andrew Lincoln sees Eph 3:1–13 as “a device” used in order to “boost claims for the authority of the apostle’s teachings for a later time.”4 According to Leander Keck, Paul “strikes an Olympian pose” in Ephesians.5 For Colossians, Eduard Lohse provides this assessment: “[T]he concern is only with Paul’s office, and no indication exists of a mention of the rest of the apostles, neither Peter nor the Twelve. Paul is, as the Apostle to the nations, the one and only Apostle.”6 Charles Nielsen contends that the author of Colossians is “elevating the status of Paul to astonishing heights.”7 These excerpts are representative of a perspective that has been gaining a foothold in modern studies on Colossians and Ephesians.

This book seeks to answer the claim that Colossians and Ephesians present an elevated image of Paul and employ this image to buttress the letters’ authority. It will be proposed that such a view does not stand up to close scrutiny. Instead, Colossians and Ephesians reflect Paul’s own understanding of his apostolic identity and ministry in a way that is consistent with the earlier letters that bear his name.

The test of any viable theory of authorship for these letters lies in the credibility of the interpretations it yields for the letters. This monograph seeks to show that interpretations based on the assumption of Paul’s authorship of Colossians and Ephesians are consistently superior to interpretations positing that an admirer of Paul wrote the letters. The book thus reflects the method of historical interpretation, accompanied by an analysis of the literary relationship between works (specifically, identifying or ruling out literary dependence).

This study will look at how texts correlate with other texts that preceded them. Selected works are divided into three distinct categories. The first group consists of Paul’s undisputed letters, which are Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon. Certain letters universally recognized as being written in Paul’s name but after the time of Paul constitute the second group. The two pseudepigraphal works Epistle to the Laodiceans (Ep. Lao.) and Third Corinthians (3 Cor.) are examples of letters from early Christianity that draw on Paul’s perceived authoritative status and allot a significant percentage of the material to relaying a credible identity for Paul. The incorporation of Paul’s identity in these letters is thus comparable to what proponents of the Exalted Apostle Theory allege for Colossians and Ephesians. The third category is comprised of the letters in question, Colossians and Ephesians. The approach of this study is to use the first group to establish Paul’s understanding of his ministry and then to compare and contrast how the second and third groups adopt or reflect the themes and language of the letters from the first group.8

The focal point of investigation lies in the sections of discourse in which Paul’s self-understanding as a minister is put forward. A successful pseudepigrapher would need to speak convincingly as Paul in those sections in order to gain a hearing in the rest of the letter. As a result, unsuccessful attempts to imitate Paul usually flounder here, as in the case of the pseudepigraphal Epistle to the Laodiceans and 3 Corinthians. Passages describing Paul’s ministry and calling in Colossians and Ephesians, on the other hand, stand up to rigorous scrutiny and reflect the creative and authoritative mind of Paul himself.

Comparisons among letters in the three different categories will involve attention to connections in themes, language, and context. Thematically, the complex interplay between Paul’s authority and suffering in the undisputed letters will be analyzed, along with the formative influence of the Old Testament and Paul’s Damascus experience on his sense of calling. Then, letters from the second and third categories will be examined to see whether they conform to the complex overall picture of Paul’s apostleship as found in the undisputed letters. For language, wording from letters in the second and third groups will be measured against possible parallels from the undisputed letters. Contextually, determination will be made as to whether borrowed wording from older contexts fits naturally in new contexts.

It will be demonstrated in these comparisons that works from the second category betray their post-Pauline character in a number of ways, including incorporating only overt themes and direct language while missing more subtle connections and foundations, applying original Pauline language into contexts that are not fully suitable to the original wording, and communicating ideas that may be situated at a later point on the trajectory of developing Christian thought and expression. In contrast, the picture found in Colossians and Ephesians exhibits continuity with the complex presentation of Paul found in Paul’s earlier letters, aligns well within the earliest period of Christianity in which Paul is located, and is fully appropriate to the distinct contexts of Colossians and Ephesians.

The projected significance of this investigation lies in two areas: historical and theological. First, it is expected that the book will make a contribution to the question of authorship in Colossians and Ephesians, though there are still many other factors that must be considered when assessing the character of these letters.9 Second, the book is designed to shed light on Paul’s rich comprehension of his apostolic calling, which entails ministry primarily to the Gentiles, by means of proclaiming the revealed mystery of the gospel and embodying the power of the gospel through sacrificial suffering. Many scholars exclude Colossians and Ephesians when determining the essentials of Paul’s theology or treat the letters as no more than an afterthought. The undisputed letters of Paul set the foundations of Paul’s self-understanding, but Colossians and Ephesians supplement this picture in significant ways.

A Survey of Works Relevant to this Study

In this section important past research will be surveyed in several general areas, followed by special consideration given to the emergence of the Exalted Apostle Theory. The general areas include the authorship of Colossians and Ephesians, the development of a Pauline school, and the motivations behind pseudepigraphy in the early centuries of Christianity.

Challenges to the Authorship of Colossians and Ephesians

The authorship question for these two captivity epistles has usually been approached by exploring the vocabulary, style, literary parallels, and theology of the letters. As early as 1838, Ernst Mayerhoff challenged the authenticity of Colossians, seeing it as dependent on the authentic Ephesians.10 Comprehensive treatments of the early evolution of positions on authorship for these epistles may be found elsewhere.11 The arguments in these studies were often characterized by appeals to theological or stylistic discrepancies between the recognized works of Paul and the letter in dispute. Works that have had an enduring place in the discussion in the question of the authorship will now be surveyed.

Edgar Goodspeed, having accepted the verdict that Ephesians was not written by Paul, offers what he believes to be a plausible historical scenario for the circumstances that gave rise to the letter. His suggestion is that Ephesians, written by a later admirer of Paul, served as an introductory work to the rest of the Pauline corpus. Ephesians was penned to help reorient people to Paul’s theology and authority after a generation of Christians had neglected his works.12 Goodspeed’s explanation has acted as a catalyst for others to further examine the motives and intents of the writers of Ephesians and Colossians and thus constituted a key step in the emergence of the Exalted Apostle Theory.

Ernst Percy’s book presents thorough support for Paul’s authorship of Colossians and Ephesians, resisting the theories of Goodspeed and others.13 In particular, Percy provides a response to arguments that in Eph 3:1–13 the imitator’s hand is revealed. He gives alternate explanations for why Paul described his apostleship, revelation, humility, and suffering as he did.14 With respect to Colossians, Percy devotes extensive discussion to Paul’s theology of suffering in 1:24 and contends for the Pauline origin of this verse as well as for the letter as a whole.15

C. L. Mitton’s pivotal work on the authorship of Ephesians concludes that Paul did not write Ephesians. Mitton, envisioning a scenario similar to Goodspeed’s, proposes that Ephesians was penned shortly after the author, who already had access to Colossians and Philemon, came into possession of Paul’s other surviving letters.16 Mitton’s argument is that the author assimilated Pauline material, most notably Colossians, in a way that is best explained by positing a post-Pauline writer. Mitton is skeptical for two major reasons of the alternative theory that Paul himself wrote Ephesians shortly after Colossians.17 First, sentences in Ephesians sometimes appear to be composed of fragments that occur in detached sections of Colossians (“conflation”).18 Second, Ephesians adopts terms from Colossians without carrying over the original meaning of the words.19

Goodspeed’s and Mitton’s books on Ephesians also stand out in the way they seek to identify literary affinities between Ephesians and the letters that preceded them by looking at potential parallels for every verse.20 E. P. Sanders adopts a similar approach in his seminal article on Colossians.21 Working within space constraints, however, Sanders limits himself to representative passages in Colossians instead of looking at every passage in the epistle. In his definition of “literary dependence” Sanders allows for “quotation from memory” as well as actual incorporation of material from a written document in the writer’s possession.22 He focuses on the use of language from the earlier writings and asks whether the language in Colossians betrays the marks of someone writing in Paul’s name. His conclusion is that the passages under investigation do indeed suggest the work of a well-meaning pseudepigrapher.23

Unlike Sanders’s article, A. van Roon’s book The Authenticity of Ephesians challenges the paradigm forged by Goodspeed and Mitton.24 Van Roon concludes that both Ephesians and Colossians were constructed using an earlier “blueprint” written by Paul.25 Van Roon does not suppose, however, that a later imitator was responsible for Ephesians in its final form, preferring to credit Paul with the authorship, since the letter emerged from his sphere of influence.26 For van Roon’s argument, the portrait of Paul in the epistle plays an insignificant role. He mentions only briefly the “idealized picture of Paul” of Eph 3:5 that is appealed to in unnamed studies. He does not proceed to delve into this topic in any detail.27

In recent years there has been a call for greater objectivity in the evaluation of the authorship of Colossians and Ephesians. The use of statistically-refined models has signaled an important trend in the quest for more controlled results in the area, but it is recognized that even these studies have their limitations.28

In the end, research involving theological discrepancies, style variances, and literary dependence has proved persuasive to many for rejecting Pauline authorship for both Colossians and Ephesians. Today, some studies even begin with the presupposition of non-Pauline authorship for these letters. Because of the focused nature of this book and the correspondingly small sample size of the data, statistically valid measurements of linguistic style are unattainable. On the other hand, theological or literary analysis is often pertinent to the discussion. Such analysis of the material is restricted in scope to passages related to the apostolic calling and ministry of Paul.

The “School of Paul” Idea

An area that is related to authorship but not confined to Colossians and/or Ephesians is the possible existence of a “school of Paul.” The hypothesis of a Pauline school has played an important role in the development of the Exalted Apostle Theory. If it is likely that disciples of Paul continued his mission after his death and that part of their work included careful study and re-appropriation of his theology, then the writing of new letters in Paul’s name becomes a more reasonable scenario.

Ernst Käsemann ventured the thesis in 1949 that Col 1:12—2:3 was constructed after Paul’s time in order to preserve orthodoxy by means of appeal to Paul’s apostolic authority. Käsemann implies that followers of Paul were the ones responsible for insisting on both an authoritative Christian doctrine and an authoritative apostolic office that preserved and explained that doctrine.29 Käsemann thus gives the portrayal of Paul in Colossians a rhetorical purpose and lays the groundwork for the idea of a school of Paul.

A key proponent of the Pauline school hypothesis is Hans Conzelmann. For Conzelmann, though, the idea of a Pauline school is quite broad. It encompasses the formal Jewish schooling Paul may have experienced, the formation of a similar Christian school under his direction, and the ongoing operation of a school after Paul’s death. Conzelmann believes that disciples after Paul’s death were responsible for writing letters such as Colossians and Ephesians. Though different authors were behind the different letters, their portraits of Paul share the common factors of divine calling and suffering.30 Authors who endorse the Exalted Apostle Theory regularly cite Conzelmann’s articles.

Scholars likewise use Hans-Martin Schenke’s article on the Pauline school to support their positions. Schenke envisions a more complex and decentralized school of Paul in which disciples continued Paul’s ministry as part of a vibrant mission carried out in various locales. The death of Paul was the catalyst for collecting his letters and preserving his legacy. These disciples wrote in response to diverse problems in varying contexts. Paul’s surviving letters, combined with the developing legend of his life and ministry, formed the material from which letters such as Colossians and Ephesians were created.31

The hypothesis of a school of Paul now surfaces regularly in studies on Colossians and Ephesians.32 Proponents suppose that early disciples of Paul, either before or after his death, congregated in order to preserve and study the teachings of Paul and to reformulate those teachings in new settings. Sometimes the school proposal is tied to the image of the apostle in Colossians and Ephesians. For instance in his dictionary article on the Pauline school, James Dunn makes this connection for Ephesians, claiming that Paul comes across as “the archetypal apostle,” and that the letter “sounds more and more like a eulogy penned by an admirer.”33 The school of Paul theory attempts to provide a credible historical setting in which Paul’s theological legacy could be preserved through the creation of new letters in his name. This leads us to the topic of pseudepigraphy.

Pseudepigraphy

Pseudepigraphy is a term that describes the phenomenon of writing in another person’s name, while authors of pseudepigraphal documents are typically referred to as pseudonymous writers. One specific question about pseudepigraphy that is relevant to this book is whether intentional deception is involved in ancient pseudepigraphy.

Ascertaining the presence of intentional deception in pseudepigraphal literature has significant relevance to the topic of Paul’s persona in his disputed letters. The presence or absence of deception has a direct bearing on the discourse function of the material portraying the assumed author.

Some scholars seek to minimize the significance of apparent deception in the earliest instances of Christian pseudepigraphy, offering alternative suggestions for why some writers would adopt the name of a recognized authority figure. Karl Fischer identifies the time period of the writings as the decisive factor for assessing deceptive intent. He creates separate categories for New Testament pseudepigraphy and later pseudepigraphy and then exonerates the earlier pseudepigraphy from charges of ethical wrongdoing. Fischer maintains that the anonymous and pseudonymous writers of New Testament works were attempting to speak with an ecumenical perspective at a time when authoritative voices were lacking.34

W. J. Dalton takes a similar approach, separating “extended authorship” from “real pseudepigraphy,” with the former arising shortly after the death of the implied author and the latter occurring at a later date. For Dalton, Ephesians is an example of extended authorship, since it aims simply to propagate Paul’s perspective without elaborate and deceptive biographical reconstruction.35

David Meade’s assessment of the benign motives of early Christian pseudepigraphers resembles Fischer’s and Dalton’s perspectives. Meade looks to Jewish canonical and apocryphal works for models of how Christian authors appropriated the authority of a prior religious figure in a contemporary setting.36 Though Meade contends for the post-Pauline character of Ephesians (and the Pastoral Epistles) on other grounds, he uses the Jewish works to discern a possible motive for why the author presented Ephesians as Paul’s work.37 Meade concludes that “the literary attribution of Ephesians and the Pastorals must be regarded primarily as an assertion of authoritative Pauline tradition, not of literary origins.”38 Meade thus suggests that the author of Ephesians was promoting and clarifying Paul’s authority rather than making a deceptive claim supporting Paul’s authorship of the letter.

On the other side of the debate are scholars who emphasize the deception of early Christian pseudepigraphy. Wolfgang Speyer investigates the question of intent by differentiating among types of pseudepigraphy. Speyer first distinguishes between religious and non-religious pseudepigraphy and looks to the former as the best guide for understanding New Testament pseudepigraphy. Speyer then draws from examples of religious pseudepigraphy from the Greco-Roman world and the Jewish second temple period. Using these examples he specifies whether different types of literature were designed to deceive or simply to convey inspired thoughts through the mouthpiece of a revered religious figure. Speyer determines that most pseudepigraphal letters in early Christianity fit in the former category.39

Additional support for this contention is found in how pseudepigraphal documents were received in early Christianity. Early witnesses indicate that writing Christian documents under false names was denounced in early Christianity.40 Most likely a mix of doctrinal and authorial objections to pseudepigraphy was in play among early church leaders.41

The growing consensus, despite residual objections, is that if there are pseudepigraphal works in the New Testament, they reflect purposeful falsehood.42 Terry Wilder’s recent book provides the most comprehensive argument for this position.43

What does the presence or absence of deceptive motive suggest for the portrayal of Paul in pseudepigraphal or disputed letters? First, if deception is assumed, then Paul’s image in the so-called Deutero-Pauline letters would be expected to align as closely as possible to the standard features of Paul’s own self-expression, in order to persuade readers that Paul is the author. Second, if the pseudepigraphal letters simply extend the voice and authority of Paul beyond his own generation (and are not simply intended to deceive readers), then the likely function of the presentation of Paul would be to remind readers of Paul’s authority and his relevance to their lives. Third, in the case of any letter originating from Paul, the autobiographical material would be in accord with Paul’s overall agenda in the letter.

The Rise of the Exalted Apostle Theory

Despite extensive research delving into authorship, the school of Paul, and pseudepigraphy, nothing approaching a sustained, identifiable theory on Paul’s post-death idealization existed in the middle of the twentieth century. Several studies in Ephesians used language suggestive of Paul’s exalted status, but the references were fleeting, and nothing comparable was emerging in studies on Colossians. Lohse’s relatively brief mention of the depiction of Paul’s apostleship in Colossians as a possible indicator of inauthenticity served as an important catalyst for further investigation. Soon more authors published studies about Paul’s image in Colossians and Ephesians as well as about the significance of Paul’s portrayal in the perpetuation of his theological and sociological influence after his death. The following section tracks how the Exalted Apostle Theory has made advances in research on Ephesians, Colossians, and the broader phenomenon of Paul’s legacy.

Initial Expressions of the Theory in Studies of Ephesians

Language reflecting an Exalted Apostle Theory was employed as early as 1939 by Wilfred Knox, who concurs with Goodspeed’s assessment that Ephesians was crafted to introduce believers to Paul’s letters and theology. Knox claims that post-Pauline writers such as the author of Ephesians were inclined “to borrow a name in order to give sanction to documents.”44 According to Knox, Eph 3:1–13 reflects “veneration” of Paul, stemming from a response to Paul’s martyrdom.45 Despite this suggestive language, Knox’s work did not spark much additional discussion about the significance of the image of Paul in Ephesians.

For Mitton, the portrayal of Paul enters the discussion not as a separate category by which to evaluate the legitimacy of the work but in the course of discussing the data from Eph 3:1–13 and other sections. Mitton detects an artificial “heightening of effect” and “insincerity” in the characterization Paul in Eph 3:4 and 3:8.46 After these fleeting comments by Knox and Mitton, interest in the possible post-Pauline esteem of Paul’s ministry and authority in Ephesians lay dormant for several decades.47

Initial Expressions of the Theory in Studies of Colossians

The publication of Lohse’s Colossians commentary in 1968, followed by a related article in 1969, marked a significant turning point in how Paul’s representation relates to the problem of the authenticity of Colossians. Lohse identifies the understanding of Paul’s ministry as one of the theological discontinuities between Colossians and Paul’s earlier letters. According to Lohse, Paul is granted an artificial position of exclusivity as an apostle in Colossians.48

Also in 1968, Donald Hobson detected a portrayal of Paul “as the apostle par excellence” in Colossians.49 In Hobson’s view, the author of Colossians enhanced Paul’s authority by artificially highlighting his suffering for the church, with the desired goal of speaking with a heightened authority to a post-Pauline setting.50 Hobson’s dissertation did not have the influence that Lohse’s commentary did, but it revealed the growing momentum of the Exalted Apostle Theory.

In the wake of Lohse’s work in particular, the presentation of Paul’s ministry became a more significant factor in discussions of the authorship of Colossians. For instance, shortly after Lohse’s commentary publication, Günther Bornkamm echoed Lohse’s conclusion on Colossians, without further elaboration or support.51 The status of Paul, already noted as significant in Ephesians, was beginning to attract comment in studies on Colossians as well.

The Development of a More General Exalted Apostle Theory

Interest in Paul’s portrayal has expanded beyond discussions of authorship in individual letters to an exploration of how Paul’s authority and teaching were reapplied to believing communities after his death. The common thread in many of these works is that the Exalted Apostle Theory is never defended systematically but rather is presupposed as part of the goal of shedding light on the process and results of the idealization of Paul.

Building upon Walter Bauer’s thesis on orthodoxy and heresy in the early church52 Georg Strecker surveys the various ways in which later authors after Paul’s lifetime were responsible for expressing and defending his doctrine and image. Perceived innovations in how Paul’s person and theology are portrayed in Colossians and Ephesians receive brief treatment alongside those found in the Pastoral Epistles, 2 Thessalonians, and Acts as part of an attempt to reconstruct the effects of Paul’s influence in the decades following his life and ministry.53

C. K. Barrett refers briefly to Lohse’s work in his contention that Ephesians is the product of a later disciple or school.54 Barrett identifies in Ephesians what appears to be uncontested authority for Paul in the universal church, with the Jewish-Gentile conflict an already settled matter.55 He sees this as a portrait that accords well with a developing “legend” of Paul and his ministry. This legend also surfaces in the Pastoral Epistles and Acts,56 but Colossians is still assumed to be an authentic work of Paul.57

Martinus de Boer’s article has contributed significant fodder to the discussion of Paul’s persona and legacy. De Boer identifies the major distinctives of Paul’s image as reflected in allegedly post-Pauline works, including Colossians and Ephesians. Paul is set apart as the sole apostle, who verifies his calling through suffering and whose teaching is to be heeded unwaveringly.58 De Boer operates from a descriptive standpoint, first assuming the late date of these works and then delving into the characterization of Paul and the motives behind that characterization.59 The direction of his study is shaped by, among others, Barrett and Schenke.

D. N. Penny allots sections in different chapters of his dissertation to the portrayal of Paul in various so-called Deutero-Pauline letters. He concurs with the growing consensus that Paul comes across in Ephesians in a glamorized way.60 Penny’s thesis is that the imitation of Paul was skillful and purposeful, not merely benign, and that the activity of speaking in the name of Paul is not to be attributed to the operations of a school, since the letters ascribed to Paul pursue different goals from varying theological perspectives.61

Raymond Collins devotes a special section to Paul’s persona in his treatment of Colossians and Ephesians as pseudepigraphy.62 According to Collins, Paul is elevated as an exemplary prisoner, an apostle without peer, and a privileged recipient of God’s mysteries in Ephesians.63 Less overtly in Colossians, Paul comes across as an unchallenged authority figure and a memorialized martyr.64 De Boer’s article has exerted an influence in Collins work as well.

Margaret MacDonald likewise builds upon de Boer’s position, interacting with his article in great detail in her study of Paul’s enduring influence.65 She is interested in seeing how Paul’s followers direct the work in Paul’s churches after his death. For her, Colossians and Ephesians exhibit sociological traits of movements that reorient themselves after the death of the founder.66 In her commentary on Colossians and Ephesians, MacDonald reiterates her earlier opinion of the post-Pauline origin of both letters. The elevation of Paul’s status in the letters is one of the deciding factors, especially as viewed from a sociological perspective. MacDonald detects a “desire to enhance Paul’s position and reputation” in Col 1:24–2:7.67 A similar verdict is put forward for Eph 3:1–13, which “contains idealized images of the apostle that are present in Acts and other deutero-Pauline writings.”68

Peter Müller also devotes substantial attention to the preservation and application of Paul’s teaching after his death, particularly as found in 2 Thessalonians and Colossians. Müller’s vision of the Pauline school spotlights its varied and unorganized character. The different branches of the “school” began with the shared pillars of Paul’s own theology but then adapted them to the pressing needs of the day.69 In Müller’s discussion of what the transition period from Paul to his students looked like, the description of Paul’s identity in the letters plays a central role. The portrayal in Colossians reveals the expansion of Paul’s authority, which corresponds to an expanding community of believers throughout the world. Paul’s status and ministry influence are enlarged so that his message and his suffering become relevant to the universal church.70 Echoing those before him, Müller designates Paul as an apostle without peer for those in the Pauline school, because the validity of the gospel is tied to his teaching and stature.71

Beker engages in extended study regarding the legacy of Paul. He reiterates the assessment that the authors of Ephesians and Colossians have elevated the status of Paul. Beker believes that this portrayal of Paul conforms to what is seen in other places, such as Acts and the Pastoral Epistles, but that the authors of Ephesians and Colossians have been more successful in aligning their portrait with the authentic Paul of the earlier letters.72

According to Daniel Marguerat, the deutero-Pauline letters represent one of three avenues for continuing Paul’s influence after his death. While Paul’s authentic letters preserve his instruction and the canonical Acts and the apocryphal Acts of Paul reflect the memory of Paul’s exploits apart from his letters, letters such as Colossians and Ephesians draw upon the image and voice of Paul from both his letters and memory to promote orthodoxy for a new generation. These deutero-Pauline letters were the product of later impersonators’ extensive interaction with Paul’s authentic letters.73 The resulting picture of Paul is that of “le proclamateur par excellence” and “le destinataire privilégié” of the divine mystery in Colossians and one divinely appointed to unify Jews and Gentiles in Ephesians.74

Additional Research about Paul’s Status in Colossians

The attention directed to the study of Paul’s image in the generation following Paul is rivaled by the interest in Paul’s portrayal in Colossians. Charles Nielsen shows a specific interest in Paul’s image in Colossians. He takes for granted the pseudepigraphal character of the book and proceeds to articulate how the later author constructs the identity of Paul.75 Like other scholars, Nielsen contends that the author has removed the other apostles from the picture and has accorded Paul an unchallenged position of authority.76 The author’s abrupt inclusion of Paul’s self-identification in Col 1:23, the extreme assessment of Paul’s suffering in 1:24, and the comprehensive scope of Paul’s ministry implied in 1:25 all point to an insistence on Paul’s lofty position.77

Walter Wilson perceives marked differences between Paul’s own self-assessment and that of the pseudonymous author of Colossians, owing to the influence of popular non-Christian philosophical ideas.78 In the attempt to relay a “credible persona” for Paul, the author consults not only the prevailing image of Paul in early Christianity but also the Greco-Roman philosophical norms of the day.79 The writer of Colossians elevates Paul’s nobility in suffering and his exclusivity as a recipient of divine revelation. These characteristics adhere well to both Biblical and Greco-Roman standards for religious or philosophical sages.80

Angela Standhartinger interprets the assertion of Paul’s suffering in Col 1:24 and his apostolic presence in 2:5 as two means by which a later student spiritualizes and universalizes Paul’s ministry. Though Paul can no longer exert direct influence on the churches, through Colossians he communicates his unambiguous expectations and exhortations to the churches. The letter reads as Paul’s final testament to the scattered churches that remain after his death.81 The representation of Paul’s imprisonment and suffering in Col 1:23—2:5 and Colossians 4 is best understood with Paul’s martyrdom and post-martyrdom influence in mind.82

Jerry Sumney opts for a post-Pauline writer for Colossians and mentions the characterization of Paul’s sufferings as a key component in the argument against authenticity.83 Sumney proceeds to delve into the interpretation of Col 1:24 from the viewpoint of the letter’s later origin. According to Sumney, the portrayal of Paul’s suffering not only wields rhetorical force by establishing a hearing for Paul’s words in the letter but also gives the readers a pattern of Christian life to mimic.84

Additional Research about Paul’s Status in Ephesians

The degree of elaboration on Paul’s status in Ephesians has not quite approached the pursuit of the similar issue in Colossians. Among those discussing the Exalted Apostle Theory as applied to Ephesians, there are even some dissenting voices who question the merits of the theory.

Rudolf Schnackenburg believes that the pseudonymous author of Ephesians has an agenda for reinforcing the unrivaled standing of Paul as an apostle. The author wishes to propagate his own expansive vision of God’s plans and the church’s role in the advance of God’s purposes.85 Speaking in Paul’s name, the author wants to reiterate Paul’s prominence as a recipient of treasured revelation so that the author’s message in Ephesians will be more readily honored and embraced as the “standard tradition.”86

Robert Wild suggests that even though Ephesians is written falsely under Paul’s name, the intent of the author in his depiction of Paul is not to deceive but to motivate. Paul is highlighted as the ideal prisoner who is not constrained by his captors but bound only to Christ. He thus speaks boldly as a free man, serving as a model for other Christians to do likewise, regardless of opposition.87

In his commentary on Ephesians Lincoln highlights the portrayal of Paul from the vantage point of the literary feature of the “implied author” of a document.88 After surveying the representation of the implied author from select verses in Ephesians, Lincoln concludes that the resulting image is too forced to be the product of Paul himself. Specifically, the implied Paul of Ephesians esteems his own revelation and ministry too highly, and then overcorrects this imbalance by insisting on his own lowly status (Eph 3:8).89

Victor Furnish devotes a significant amount of space to how Paul’s projected image in Ephesians undermines the case for Pauline authorship.90 He believes that language especially from chapter 3 presents Paul as a “mystagogue” who occupies an indispensible position among early church leaders.91 Even language designed to diminish Paul’s status (“the least of all the saints”) reveals the hand of a later imitator who venerated both the authority and the humility of the apostle.92

Klyne Snodgrass, a defender of the Pauline authorship of Ephesians, notes that the content describing Paul’s ministry can be seen either to strengthen or to weaken the case against the authenticity of the letter. Snodgrass observes that the balance of assertion and self-effacement found in Eph 3:1–13 is compatible with testimony from Paul’s earlier letters.93 On the whole, the idea of Paul as an apostle to the Gentiles and a prisoner fulfills Paul’s own rhetorical agenda more reasonably than it does the goals of a later writer.94

Ernest Best, though denying the authenticity of Ephesians, nonetheless avoids using the presentation of Paul as weighty evidence in the discussion on authorship. Slight divergences from Paul’s picture in the authentic letters can be detected, but these are within the bounds of what could be expected from Paul himself.95 Best even rejects outright the idea that the author ascribes to Paul the exalted status of either a “role model” or a “hero of the faith.”96 Best accepts the pseudepigraphal character of the letter, but does not observe the author tipping his hand in the sections that concern Paul’s identity.

Peter O’Brien interacts with Lincoln, Snodgrass, and Best, echoing Snodgrass’ conclusion that Paul’s authorship is supported in the section. The problematic statements that place an exclusive focus on Paul on the one hand and reduce him to a lowly status on the other conform to the complex identity of Paul in his generally accepted letters.97

Similar to Best, John Muddiman does not embrace Pauline authorship for the letter as a whole but does reject the idea of an artificially glamorized Ephesian portrait of Paul. His conclusions stem from the perspective that Ephesians is the product of careful redaction of an authentic Pauline letter to the Laodiceans.98 From this viewpoint, some of the material (for instance, much of Eph 3:1–13) reflects the genuine Paul, while the hand of a later editor can be detected throughout (for instance, in 3:5, 9–11).99 The redaction was not undertaken for the purpose of elevating Paul but nonetheless reflects a “post-apostolic perspective” in some cases.100

Resisting the trend towards skepticism about exalted apostle arguments for Ephesians, Gregory Sterling revisits the issue of how after his lifetime, Paul’s influence is promoted in pseudepigraphal letters.101 He argues that order to construct a credible persona for Paul, the author of Ephesians relied heavily on Colossians, especially in his presentation of the revealed mystery entrusted to Paul and others.102 According to Sterling, the subtle changes the author of Ephesians made to content from Colossians and to prevailing tradition about Paul’s relationship to the other apostles help demonstrate the author’s intention to grant Paul “pride of place in the revelation of God’s mystery.”103

Clinton Arnold finds that the sections of the letter that describe Paul’s calling and ministry are best taken at face value. He summarizes his skepticism towards those who have proposed alternate interpretations for the material related to Paul in the letter: “[E]xplanations I have read of this material by those who affirm pseudepigraphy are not at all compelling.”104

Summary of Studies Pertaining to the Topic

Numerous other authors have made the claim, often without extensive substantiation, that Colossians and/or Ephesians depict an artificially pronounced view of Paul. Often scholars insist that the pseudonymous authors hoped to speak authoritatively under Paul’s name and thus presented Paul according to their idealized memory of him. Unlike Lohse, who used data from biographical sections in Colossians to challenge the origins of the letter, many scholars in recent decades have used the assumption of pseudepigraphy to further illuminate the authors’ shaping of Paul’s image for their purposes. Recent skepticism by Snodgrass, Best, Muddiman, and O’Brien about the strength of exalted apostle arguments in Ephesians may signal a change in perception, though a similar turn has yet to surface in studies on Colossians.105 The debate over Paul’s image in studies on Colossians and Ephesians calls for detailed inspection of the key passages in order to determine whether Paul’s portrait more likely reveals the imprint of an imitator or exhibits the self-perception of Paul himself.

1. Beker, Heirs of Paul, 68, 72.

2. De Boer, “Images of Paul,” 361.

3. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon, 148.

4. Lincoln, Ephesians, lxiii.

5. Keck, “Images of Paul in the New Testament,” 341–51.

6. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 72.

7. Nielsen, “The Status of Paul,” 103.

8. The Pastoral Epistles and 2 Thessalonians have been bypassed as focal points of this study. The authenticity or inauthenticity of the Pastorals and 2 Thessalonians would first need to be established with a high degree of certainty in order to apply evidence gleaned from the letters to the evaluation of Paul’s portrayal in Colossians and Ephesians. Even those proponents of the Exalted Apostle Theory who detect a common effort to preserve Paul’s legacy are willing to admit that Colossians and Ephesians develop this heritage differently than do the Pastorals and 2 Thessalonians.

9. The recent publication of Ehrman’s Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are demonstrates that the issue of authorship in the New Testament has resurfaced as a topic of interest. In the book Ehrman disputes the authenticity of Ephesians (108–12) and Colossians (112–14).

10. Mayerhoff, Der Brief an die Colosser, 105–6.

11. For both books see Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe, 1–15. For Colossians, see Kiley, Colossians as Pseudepigraphy, 37–39. For Ephesians, consult van Roon, Authenticity of Ephesians, 3–36; Hoehner, Ephesians, 6–20.

12. See Goodspeed, The Formation of the New Testament, 20–32; Goodspeed, The Meaning of Ephesians, 10, 41–42, 73–75; Goodspeed, “Ephesians and the First Edition of Paul,” 285–91.

13. Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe.

14. Ibid., 345–47, 351–52, 379–81, 412.

15. Ibid., 128–34.

16. Mitton, Ephesians: Its Authorship, Origin, and Purpose, 45–54, 267.

17. Ibid., 79–81.

18. Ibid., 64–67.

19. Ibid., 83–97.

20. Goodspeed, The Meaning of Ephesians, 82–165; Mitton, Ephesians: Its Authorship, Origin, and Purpose, 118–58, 280–315 .

21. E. P. Sanders, “Literary Dependence in Colossians,” 28–45. Following a similar method as part of her inquiry is Leppä, The Making of Colossians,59–208.

22. E. P. Sanders, “Literary Dependence in Colossians,” 30.

23. Ibid., 44.

24. Van Roon, Authenticity of Ephesians, 435–36.

25. Ibid., 429–32.

26. Ibid., 436–37.

27. Ibid., 389.

28. Studies of this sort include Morton and McLeman, Paul, the Man, and the Myth; Bujard, Stilanalytische Untersuchungen zum Kolosserbrief; Neumann, The Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles. Of these three, Neumann’s work uses the most sophisticated statistical controls and arrives at the most tentative conclusions, demonstrating that with statistical analysis the process must be carried out and the results applied with due caution.

29. Käsemann, “Eine urchristliche Tauftliturgie,” 144.

30. Conzelmann, “Paulus und die Weisheit,” 233–34; Conzelmann, “Die Schule des Paulus,” 85, 88–90.

31. Schenke, “Paulus-Schule,” 512–16.

32. See for instance Kiley, Colossians as Pseudepigraphy, 32, 90–103; Lincoln, Ephesians, lxx; Best, Ephesians, 36–40; Angela Standhartinger, “Colossians and the Pauline School,” 572–73; Hay, Colossians, 20, 23–24; Leppä, The Making of Colossians, 12; R. Wilson, Colossians and Philemon, 34, 167.

33. Dunn, “Pauline Legacy and School,” 887–93.

34. Fischer, “Anmerkungen zur Pseudepigraphie im Neuen Testament,” 76–81.

35. Dalton, “Pseudepigraphy in the New Testament,” 32–33. According to Dalton the level of biographical detail in Colossians precludes it from being placed in the category of extended authorship. Dalton supposes that Colossians must be either genuinely Pauline or blatantly pseudepigraphal.

36. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon, 103–106.

37. Ibid., 160–61. The rationale for the comparison is that the non-epistolary Jewish works and the disputed Pauline letters share a common desire to preserve authoritative legacy.

38. Ibid., 161.

39. Speyer, Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Alterum, 111–68; Speyer, “Religiöse Pseudepigraphe und literarische Fälschung im Altertum,” 195–263.

40. See examples in Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon, 204–6; Metzger, “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha,” 12–15; Baum, Pseudepigraphie, 99–112; Wilder, Pseudonymity, the New Testament, and Deception, 123–53.

41. Metzger, “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha,” 15.

42. Among recent works that recognize the element of deception in early Christian pseudepigraphy are Carson, “Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy,” 860–63; Baum, Pseudepigraphie, 92–93; Verhoef, “Pseudepigraphy and Canon,” 95; Clarke, “Pseudonymity,” 447.

43. Wilder, Pseudonymity. See especially the summary of his argument in 255–58.

44. W. Knox, St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles, 184–85.

45. Ibid., 189.

46. Mitton, Ephesians: Its Authorship, Origin, and Purpose, 232–33.

47. Van Roon’s passing reference to an “idealized picture of Paul” in Eph 3:5 is characteristic of the relative lack of curiosity about the topic (Van Roon, Authenticity of Ephesians, 389).

48. Lohse, Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon, 116–18, 251–54; Lohse, “Pauline Theology in the Letter to the Colossians,” 215; Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 72–73, 179–81.

49. Hobson, “The Authorship of Colossians,” 148, 157.

50. Ibid., 152, 157.

51. Bornkamm, Paul, 242; Bornkamm also incorporated the idea of a school of Paul in his discussion of the generation that followed Paul (ibid., 86).

52. Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum, 1934.

53. Strecker, “Paulus in Nachpaulinischer Zeit,” 208–16.

54. Barrett, “Pauline Controversies in the Post-Pauline Period,” 239–43.

55. Ibid.

56. Ibid., 243.

57. Ibid., 239: “Ephesians is probably the oldest of the Pauline pseudepigrapha.”

58. De Boer, “Images of Paul in the Post-Apostolic Period,” 363–70, 378–79.

59. Ibid., 359–60.

60. Penny, “The Pseudo-Pauline Letters of the First Two Centuries,” 259–66. Penny offers a similar speculation for Colossians, ibid., 346–47.

61. Ibid., 16–17, 60–61.

62. R. Collins, Letters That Paul Did Not Write, 166–69, 203–7.

63. Ibid., 166–69.

64. Ibid., 203–7.

65. MacDonald, Pauline Churches, 123–26.

66. Ibid., 3, 89, 126–32.

67. MacDonald, Colossians and Ephesians, 8. See also ibid., 89–95.

68. Ibid., 269. See also ibid., 16, 268–73.

69. Müller, Anfänge der Paulusschule: Dargestellt am zweiten Thessalonicherbrief und am Kolosserbrief , 321–22.

70. Ibid., 227–32, 319–20, 323.

71. Ibid., 323.

72. Beker, Heirs of Paul, 64, 67–68, 71–72, 87–88.

73. Marguerat, “Paul après Paul, 321–23.

74. Ibid., 327–28.

75. Nielsen, “Status of Paul,” 103.

76. Ibid., 107–9.

77. Ibid., 110–13.

78. W. Wilson, The Hope of Glory, 21.

79. Ibid., 64–65.

80. Ibid., 72–77.

81. Standhartinger, “Colossians and the Pauline School,” 582–92; Standhartinger, Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte und Intention des Kolosserbriefs, 175, 281–82.

82. Ibid., 158–75.

83. Sumney, “Paul’s Vicarious Suffering Colossians,” 664.

84. Ibid., 666–80.

85. Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 36–37, 130, 136, 143.

86. Ibid., 132.

87. Wild, “The Warrior and the Prisoner,” 288–94.

88. Lincoln, Ephesians, lx.

89. Ibid., lx–lxiii.

90. Furnish, “Ephesians” 2:540.

91. Ibid.

92. Ibid.

93. Snodgrass, Ephesians, 26.

94. Ibid., 27.

95. Best, Ephesians, 40–44.

96. Ibid., 43.

97. O’Brien, Ephesians, 34–36.

98. Muddiman, Ephesians, 20–24.

99. Ibid., 145–64.

100. Ibid., 29, 154.

101. Sterling, “From Apostle to the Gentiles to Apostle of the Church,” 74–98.

102. Ibid., 76–89.

103. Ibid., 88.

104. Arnold, Ephesians, 46–47.

105. Works that post-date the studies of Snodgrass, Best, Muddiman, and O’Brien and are still supportive of the Exalted Apostle Theory include MacDonald, Colossians and Ephesians; Standhartinger, “Colossians and the Pauline School”; Standhartinger, Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte und Intention des Kolosserbriefs; Harding, “Disputed and Undisputed Letters of Paul,” 162; Sumney, “Paul’s Vicarious Suffering Colossians”; Sterling, “From Apostle to the Gentiles to Apostle of the Church”; Marguerat, “Paul après Paul.”