Ben C Smith

I daresay most modern scholars think that the epistle to the Ephesians is pseudonymous; many also think that the epistle to the Colossians is pseudonymous (I tend to belong to this latter group).

However, never mind for a moment whether Paul wrote either one of them. What is the evidence for and against the same author, whoever he may be, having penned Colossians and Ephesians?

Thanks.

Ben.

dog-on

Like Eusebius?

Ben C Smith

Sure. Or Jerome. Or Photius. Or the Medici. Or Joan of Arc. Or my aunt Janice. Anybody you like.

Ben.

dog-on

I knew you would appreiciate it...

Re: Your OP

There are similarities between the two, just in the expositions themselves. I see no reason why these two epistles could not have come from the same pen or maybe the same "school".

andrewcriddle

IMO Ephesians rewrites the material in Colossians in a way that is both more theologically developed and more 'Gnostic' in the sense of speculations about heavenly worlds and concern about spiritual evil in the heavens.

Hence I don't think they are by the same author.

Unless one dates Ephesians later than I would (IMVHO the author of 1 Clement knew Ephesians) this poses difficulties for the idea that Colossians is non-Pauline. There may not be time for Colossians to be both substantially post-Pauline and substantially pre-Ephesians.

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley

Ben,

I'm going to send you a file privately that compares Eph & Col where they seem to have common material (Eph 3:2-6 = Col 1:25-27; Eph 4:15-16 = Col 2:19; Eph 4:22-24 = Col 3:9-10; Eph 5:22-6:9 = Col 3:18-4:1; and Eph 6:21-22 = Col 4:7-8). It contains some material marked by brackets that correspond to my hypothesis which must not be named, but you can ignore them if you so desire.

I do not think that this corelation is by coincidence, but for sure Eph is the fuller of the two texts. They for the most part follow the same order of subjects. However, as many professional critics have noted, it is difficult to decide whether Eph is an expansion of Col, or Col an epitome of Eph, or if both are children of a common parent.

If you find it illuminating, feel free to post it somewhere. I do not have a web page to which I can upload it conveniently at this point.

DCH

Ben C Smith

That would be great. Thanks.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Do you have some examples?

It is hard for me to imagine Colossians as Pauline. Everything Paulish, as it were, seems to come out different. But of course I may be wrong.

Do you have some examples of Clementine knowledge of Ephesians?

Thanks, Andrew.

Ben.

DCHindley

Ben,

Are you suggesting that anything other than the "big four" (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Galatians) are pseudonomyous? On what basis?

Now I am influenced by David Trobisch's interpretation from preserved mss collections, that these letters formed a group, perhaps a primary group, to which was appended Ephesians.

A second group of books addressed to congregations would be Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians. These are sometimes disputed, but generally not the entire group.

A third group were the books addressed to individuals, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus & Philemon. These are usually all considered pseudonymous.

Hebrews is inconsistantly associated with group 1, 2 or 3 in different mss.

Within these groupings, the books are ordered by size:

Book, # of Words in Book, % of Words in Corpus

ROM 34,410 18.4%
1CO 32,767 17.5%
2CO 22,280 11.9%
GAL 11,091 5.9%
EPH 12,012 6.4% (appended to group 1?)

PHI 8,009 4.3%
COL 7,897 4.2%
1TH 7,423 4.0%
2TH 4,055 2.2%

1TI 8,869 4.7%
2TI 6,538 3.5%
TIT 3,733 2.0%
PHM 1,575 0.8%

HEB 26,382 14.1%

TOTAL 187,041 100%

(Statistics per David Trobisch Paul's Letter Collection (or via: amazon.co.uk))

What does this order suggest about the relationship between Colossians (group 2) and Ephesians (appendix to group 1)?

DCH

Ben C Smith

Not sure I understand this question.

I am undecided on most of this.

I myself tend to accept Philippians and both Thessalonian letters (though 2 Thessalonians is pretty commonly deemed pseudonymous).

I dispute that Philemon is usually considered pseudonymous.

That is interesting, of course, but why not move Ephesians down from the end of group 1 to the beginning of group 2? That way, each group would be completely in order by size. (I feel sure some reason must be given for grouping Ephesians against the pattern.)

Ben.