Colossians and Philemon. Michael F. Bird

Pauline expressions throughout Colossians (e.g., “in Messiah”). We also find conceptual similarities in terms of letter structure and theological content (e.g., freedom from Jewish practices).23

(3) There are cogent reasons why the language of Colossians is different to the other Pauline letters, such as the fact that Paul seems to be citing a lot of early traditional Christian material (Col 1:12–20; 3:5–14; 3:18–4:1; and perhaps 2:9–15)24 and mirroring some of the language of the philosophy that had become controversial in Colossae (e.g., Col 1:19; 2:9, 18). From a rhetorical vantage point, the letters to Ephesus and Colossae, cities in Roman Asia, may deliberately contain an Asiatic rhetoric that was often more flowery, ornamented, poetic, and slightly pompous compared to its Greek counterpart, thus accounting for the more descriptive and expansive nature of the language.25 Rhetorical training itself urged the necessity of adapting one’s style, language, and content to fit the occasion depending on the persona needed for the speaker or author.26

(4) Colossians does not properly fit the genre of a pseudepigraphal letter, which is ordinarily attributed to a famous figure of the past to one of his contemporaries and is intended to be of interest to its real readers only in a general sense. The problem in Colossae seems to be quite specific and there is no attempt to bridge the divide between fictive readers and real readers by means of a “testament” or other literary device.27 Ultimately, there is nothing about the language, style, and form that is wildly anachronistic or cannot be plausibly placed within the context of Paul’s own lifetime, and much of the structure and language sounds evidently genuine.

Second, regarding the theology of Colossians, Lohse claims that the thought of Colossians exhibits Pauline features but is an example of a Pauline theology that has undergone a profound change in many respects.28 To begin with, on ecclesiology, in the undisputed letters the “church” is always the church local (e.g., Gal 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:2) whereas in Colossians (and Ephesians) the ekklēsia is both the “church” local (Col 1:2; 4:15–16; cf. Eph 1:1) and the “Church” universal (Col 1:18, 24; cf. Eph 1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23–25, 27, 29, 32).29 Still, Paul viewed the churches as a pan-Roman Empire movement who were in close association with one another; there is nothing inconceivable about him referring to “Church” in this more trans-local sense. Concerning baptism and eschatology, Colossians refers to the baptized as those not only buried with Christ but risen with him as well (2:11–12; 3:1; cf. Eph 2:5–6), whereas in Romans the resurrection of Christians is still future (Rom 6:4–5). Yet in Romans, Paul can also refer to believers having been “glorified” in the past tense (Rom 8:30) and glory also relates to a present experience of the new covenant (2 Cor 3:18), which is not too many steps away from Col 2:11–13; 3:1. What is more, Col 2:11–12 is not saying that the resurrection has already taken place (as attributed to Hymenaeus and Philetus in 2 Tim 2:17–18), but as Todd Still notes it merely employs resurrection language to speak of a “believer’s conversion to, union with, and transformation through Christ.” A future resurrection of believers is implied by 1:18 where Jesus is the “firstborn from among the dead,” which suggests that Christians will follow in his train (see 1 Cor 15:20).30 Even with a strong emphasis on realized eschatology in several places (1:12–13; 2:11–12, 15, 20; 3:1), the future horizon has not disappeared completely in Colossians (1:5, 22, 24, 27–28; 3:4, 6, 10, 24–25) and it retains a reasonable amount of congruity with the undisputed Pauline letters.31 Likewise, the Christology of 1:15–20 and 2:9–10 may sound grandiose, yet it is not out of order with 1 Cor 8:4–6; 2 Cor 8:9; and Phil 2:5–11, which contain traditional material as well. The motif of victory in 2:15 is analogous to 1 Cor 15:54–57 and Rom 8:29–39, 16:20 too. Similarly, the household code of 3:18—4:1 is not the sexist regulations of a Pauline disciple who did not share the apostle’s egalitarian view of women, but stands as part of a natural trajectory from other elements of Paul’s letters about women and households (e.g., 1 Cor 7:1–40; 11:3–16; 14:33–35). In sum, the question of how much difference and development it takes to illegitimate Pauline authorship is unquantifiable and is therefore grossly subjective. What a later disciple of Paul theologically inferred from Paul’s writings fifteen years after his death might not be any different to what Paul and his coworkers inferred themselves while writing to believers from a position of captivity that naturally gave over to exercises of reflection.

There is of course no getting away from the valid perception that Colossians does sound a little different from, say, Galatians and First Thessalonians in language. Colossians develops motifs which, though genuinely Pauline, are emphasized and explored in new ways. What are we to make of this then? James Dunn regards Colossians as a “bridge” between the Pauline and post-Pauline periods and contends that it was composed at the end of Paul’s lifetime, but by somebody other than Paul at Paul’s own behest and approval, hence the autograph.32 The plausibility of this scenario is enhanced by the observation of Margaret MacDonald: “If we think of the authorship of Pauline works as a communal enterprise undertaken by Paul and his entourage, the sharp distinction between authentic and unauthentic epistles is significantly reduced.”33 I would add that this does not make Paul merely the authorizer rather than the author! He may have had varying degrees of input into his various letters ranging from writing them himself (Philemon), writing them with a coauthor (Colossians), dictating them (Romans), or authorizing their composition based on an earlier piece of correspondence (Ephesians). Given those qualifications, I have no hesitation in affirming Colossians as authentically Pauline and written in association with others such as Tychicus, Epaphras, Onesimus, Luke, and especially Timothy.34

      Provenance of Colossians and Philemon

Given the qualified assumption of Pauline authorship of Philemon, Colossians, and (more loosely) Ephesians, when and where were the former two epistles written? What we can say is that Colossians and Philemon were probably written in relatively close temporal proximity to each other because the five same persons are mentioned in Paul’s greetings in both letters, namely, Luke, Mark, Demas, Aristarchus, and Epaphras (Col 4:10–14; Phlm 23–24). Timothy is named as coauthor in both letters (Col 1:1; Phlm 1), a sending of Onesimus is referred to in both letters (Col 4:9; Phlm 10, 12, 17), Archippus is mentioned in both (Col 4:17; Phlm 2), and the two letters are undersigned with Paul’s own hand (Col 4:18; Phlm 19). One peculiar fact is that Colossians makes no reference to any potential conflict between Onesimus and Philemon, which one might expect on the return of a runaway slave to his owner which could adversely affect relations within the community (see Paul’s exhortation for unity and reconciliation among Euodia and Syntyche in Phil 4:2). Rather, in Col 4:9 Onesimus is also regarded as a faithful and experienced coworker. The letter to Philemon does not mention Tychicus. It would seem that there was a gap between the composition of Philemon and Colossians,35 in which case the sending back of Onesimus in Phlm 12 and the sending of Onesimus with Tychicus in Col 4:9 may reflect two different journeys of Onesimus to Colossae separated by several months or even up to a year. I surmise that Paul first sent Onesimus back to Philemon. Philemon was reconciled to Onesimus and subsequently returned Onesimus to Paul’s service as requested by Paul. Sometime later, the news of an encounter with a certain “philosophy” in Colossae was relayed to Paul and his coworkers who responded by writing Colossians and sending Tychicus and Onesimus to deliver the letter to Colossae and a circular letter (Ephesians) to the other churches of Asia and principally to Laodicea. I find this scenario plausible, though