target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_fed746bd-49a0-5cc9-a34d-1c0941fefcc2">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.
