Depending on which scholarship camp a person falls within, the proposed author of Colossians ranges from Paul himself, to Timothy as a credible co-author, to a disciple in the Pauline community who was skilled in pseudepigrapgical writing and intimately familiar with Paul’s prose. This post will give a somewhat short case for why Colossians could very well have been written by Paul and/or Timothy, contrary to the “slight majority” of scholars who see too many stylistic and theological differences between Colossians and the Paul’s undisputed letters (Soards 142).
In fairness to those who have concluded that Paul did not write Colossians, it is difficult not to take some of the glaring inconsistencies into account. Therefore, by following three of most common approaches to analyzing Colossians — vocabulary, style, and theology — here are some facts and counterarguments for each approach:
Vocabulary: Given that Colossians contains forty-eight words exclusive to this letter, and that many of the words are unusual when compared to the vocabulary in Paul’s disputed letters, it can make one wonder why there is such a striking change in word usage.
However, here are a few points to ponder: Paul had most likely already been over twenty years into his ministry when Colossians was written, he was apparently in prison at the time (4:18), and the church communities had evolved in how they participated in the liturgy and the sacraments. Keeping that in mind, was Paul to stay static in his terminology versus the terms that the Christian communities, which were collectively referred to as the ‘Church’ in the latter part of the first century (Soards 151, 152), had incorporated into the faith life and the liturgy? Could the progressively developing liturgy and other Christian practices not have influenced Paul (Meeks and Fitzgerald 107)?
Style: While the unusual use of long sentences (1:9-20), redundant phrases, and other stylistic nuances in Colossians possibly indicate an author different from Paul (Soards 140; Meeks and Fitzgerald 107), it is not the most compelling evidence for why the letter could be pseudepigraphical. Consider this: Paul — who was a swashbuckling evangelist throughout the Mediterranean, founded several churches, had many travelling companions, interacted with a wide swath of different cultures, and all while making tents to pay the bills — could very well have linguistically evolved over time. Or, perhaps considering he wrote or dictated the letter while in chains, the logistics around authoring the letter were already challenging on their own.
Or better yet, to any out there: Has your vocabulary and/or writing style changed much from, say, twenty years ago?
Theology: Compared to his undisputed letters, Paul’s letter to the Colossians presents an even more pronounced Christology — one in which the ‘body’ of Christ not only involves charisms (1 Cor. 12; Rom 12), but is also now identified as the ‘Church’, and with Christ as the ‘head’ (Soards 140, 141).
In addition, with 1 Cor 15 and Roman 6:3-4 proclaiming believers as having been baptized into Christs death, Col. 2:12 and 3:1 go further by proclaiming that believers are both baptized and raised through Christ’s death and resurrection. Further, both the Father and the Son share authority over the kingdom (1:13; Soards 140), the Son is co-eternal with the Father (1:17), and the Son is also “the firstborn of all creation” (1 Col. 15).
Being that the theology in Colossians is dramatically more developed, some scholars suggest that, for example, Paul would never have referred to believers as baptized into *both* the death and resurrection of Christ (Meeks and Fitzgerald 107). Bearing in mind that Paul, years earlier, was instructing Christians to prepare for Christ’s return and their bodily resurrection (1 Thess 4, 1 Cor 15), why would Paul now add being ‘raised’ as part of what believers experience in their salvation?
Then again, doesn’t Paul develop his theology in his undisputed letters as well — or at least does not run through the same set of theological topics in every single letter? For instance, Paul mentions the theological significance of Adam in Romans 5 and 1 Cor. 15, yet he speaks nothing of the sort in 1 Thessalonians or Galatians.
Also, in Galatians, Paul never mentions the resurrection of the body. And though the counterargument to this could be, ‘Well, Paul was responding to a specific audience about a specific issue’ in letters such as Galatians and 1 Thessalonians, the point here is Paul’s preaching of belief in Christ had its own variation and evolution. Furthermore, being that Tim accompanied Paul on many of his journeys, and he is credited for co-authoring several other letters — 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Phil 1:1; Phlm 1, to name a few (Soards 157) — Tim could have been instrumental in ensuring that all letters in question, undisputed or otherwise, were written as intended and then delivered accordingly.
Works Cited
Meeks Wayne A. and Fitzgerald, John T. The Writings of St. Paul, 2d Edition. 2007.
Soards, Marion L. The Apostle Paul: An Introduction to his Writings and Teaching. Paulist Press, 1986.