Colossians
Home > New Testament > Colossians Colossians At a Glance Letter Genre: (3/5) *** Reliability of Dating: (2/5) ** Length of Text: Greek Original Language: Ancient Translations: Modern Translations: English Estimated Range of Dating: 50-80 A.D. Chronological List of Early Christian Writings Discuss this text on the Early Writings forum. Text American Standard Version King James Version World English Bible Perseus NT (English/Greek/Latin) Resources e-Catena: References to the New Testament in the Church Fathers Patristic References to Colossians, Chapters 1 2 3 4 Edgar Goodspeed: The Letter to the Colossians Catholic Encyclopedia: Epistle to the Colossians Offsite Links Christ Has Everything that You Need: An EasyEnglish Commentary NAB Introduction Daniel Wallace's Introduction Jeanie C.
Crain's Introduction to Colossians IVP Commentary Books Burton L. Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? : The Making of the Christian Myth (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1996), pp. 183-188. Raymond Edward Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), pp. 599-619. Udo Schnelle, translated by M. Eugene Boring, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), pp. 281-298. W. H. Griffith Thomas, Studies in Colossians and Philemon (Kregel Publications 1986). Henry A. Ironside, Colossians (Loizeaux Brothers 1997). Recommended Books for the Study of Early Christian Writings Information on Colossians Several scholars dispute the authenticity of Colossians.
According to Raymond Brown (An Introduction, p. 610), "At the present moment about 60 percent of critical scholarship holds that Paul did not write the letter." Norman Perrin adduces several considerations against authenticity (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 121-123): language and style, the absence of Pauline concepts, and the presence of concepts not found in the earlier letters. However, since there are several stylistic idiosyncrasies of Paul in the letter, Perrin must admit that the "the argument from language and style seesaws back and forth." The argument from silence on certain theological concepts is rather weak unless it is explained why Paul would be supposed to mention them.
Perrin seeks to show that there are some concepts of christology and of the church in Colossians that might be better understood as deutero-Pauline. However, Werner Georg Kummel attempts to demonstrate that these concepts are within the boundaries of authentic Pauline thought (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 342-345). Kummel adduces several considerations in favor of authenticity (op. cit., p. 345): If the substantive differences of Col can be understood on the basis of the concrete polemical argument of the letter, then there are substantive matters which support the assumption of Pauline authorship as well. (a) The assumed relationship of the writer to the readers corresponds in several points to Phlm: in both letters there are greetings from Epaphras, Aristarchus, Mark, Luke, Demas (Col 4:10 ff; Phlm 23 f); both letters mention the sending of Onesimus (Col 4:9; Phlm 12) and have special words for Archippus (Col 4:17; Phlm 2).
These agreements do not occur in the same relationships and formulations, however, so that the thesis is unconvincing that the indubitably Pauline Phlm has been imitated by a non-Pauline writer only in these personal remarks. (b) The household admonitions in Col 3:18-4:1 show a remarkably small christianizing, especially in compraison with Eph 5:22-6:9, which is much less easily understood for a non-Pauline writer than for Paul himself. (c) In contrast to Eph, the use of the formulas en cristo and en kurio in Col correspond completely to Paul's usage. (d) J. Knox has pointed out that the letter, which was intended for Laodicea (4:16a) was probably addressed to the smaller city Colossae because Onesimus was from Colossae and Paul sought contact with the community in which Onesimus' master lived, since it was he to whom Phlm brought so grave a request.