In the end, research involving theological discrepancies, style variances, and literary dependence has proved persuasive to many for rejecting Pauline authorship for both Colossians and Ephesians. Today, some studies even begin with the presupposition of non-Pauline authorship for these letters. Because of the focused nature of this book and the correspondingly small sample size of the data, statistically valid measurements of linguistic style are unattainable. On the other hand, theological or literary analysis is often pertinent to the discussion. Such analysis of the material is restricted in scope to passages related to the apostolic calling and ministry of Paul.
The “School of Paul” Idea
An area that is related to authorship but not confined to Colossians and/or Ephesians is the possible existence of a “school of Paul.” The hypothesis of a Pauline school has played an important role in the development of the Exalted Apostle Theory. If it is likely that disciples of Paul continued his mission after his death and that part of their work included careful study and re-appropriation of his theology, then the writing of new letters in Paul’s name becomes a more reasonable scenario.
Ernst Käsemann ventured the thesis in 1949 that Col 1:12—2:3 was constructed after Paul’s time in order to preserve orthodoxy by means of appeal to Paul’s apostolic authority. Käsemann implies that followers of Paul were the ones responsible for insisting on both an authoritative Christian doctrine and an authoritative apostolic office that preserved and explained that doctrine.29 Käsemann thus gives the portrayal of Paul in Colossians a rhetorical purpose and lays the groundwork for the idea of a school of Paul.
A key proponent of the Pauline school hypothesis is Hans Conzelmann. For Conzelmann, though, the idea of a Pauline school is quite broad. It encompasses the formal Jewish schooling Paul may have experienced, the formation of a similar Christian school under his direction, and the ongoing operation of a school after Paul’s death. Conzelmann believes that disciples after Paul’s death were responsible for writing letters such as Colossians and Ephesians. Though different authors were behind the different letters, their portraits of Paul share the common factors of divine calling and suffering.30 Authors who endorse the Exalted Apostle Theory regularly cite Conzelmann’s articles.
Scholars likewise use Hans-Martin Schenke’s article on the Pauline school to support their positions. Schenke envisions a more complex and decentralized school of Paul in which disciples continued Paul’s ministry as part of a vibrant mission carried out in various locales. The death of Paul was the catalyst for collecting his letters and preserving his legacy. These disciples wrote in response to diverse problems in varying contexts. Paul’s surviving letters, combined with the developing legend of his life and ministry, formed the material from which letters such as Colossians and Ephesians were created.31
The hypothesis of a school of Paul now surfaces regularly in studies on Colossians and Ephesians.32 Proponents suppose that early disciples of Paul, either before or after his death, congregated in order to preserve and study the teachings of Paul and to reformulate those teachings in new settings. Sometimes the school proposal is tied to the image of the apostle in Colossians and Ephesians. For instance in his dictionary article on the Pauline school, James Dunn makes this connection for Ephesians, claiming that Paul comes across as “the archetypal apostle,” and that the letter “sounds more and more like a eulogy penned by an admirer.”33 The school of Paul theory attempts to provide a credible historical setting in which Paul’s theological legacy could be preserved through the creation of new letters in his name. This leads us to the topic of pseudepigraphy.
Pseudepigraphy
Pseudepigraphy is a term that describes the phenomenon of writing in another person’s name, while authors of pseudepigraphal documents are typically referred to as pseudonymous writers. One specific question about pseudepigraphy that is relevant to this book is whether intentional deception is involved in ancient pseudepigraphy.
Ascertaining the presence of intentional deception in pseudepigraphal literature has significant relevance to the topic of Paul’s persona in his disputed letters. The presence or absence of deception has a direct bearing on the discourse function of the material portraying the assumed author.
Some scholars seek to minimize the significance of apparent deception in the earliest instances of Christian pseudepigraphy, offering alternative suggestions for why some writers would adopt the name of a recognized authority figure. Karl Fischer identifies the time period of the writings as the decisive factor for assessing deceptive intent. He creates separate categories for New Testament pseudepigraphy and later pseudepigraphy and then exonerates the earlier pseudepigraphy from charges of ethical wrongdoing. Fischer maintains that the anonymous and pseudonymous writers of New Testament works were attempting to speak with an ecumenical perspective at a time when authoritative voices were lacking.34
W. J. Dalton takes a similar approach, separating “extended authorship” from “real pseudepigraphy,” with the former arising shortly after the death of the implied author and the latter occurring at a later date. For Dalton, Ephesians is an example of extended authorship, since it aims simply to propagate Paul’s perspective without elaborate and deceptive biographical reconstruction.35
David Meade’s assessment of the benign motives of early Christian pseudepigraphers resembles Fischer’s and Dalton’s perspectives. Meade looks to Jewish canonical and apocryphal works for models of how Christian authors appropriated the authority of a prior religious figure in a contemporary setting.36 Though Meade contends for the post-Pauline character of Ephesians (and the Pastoral Epistles) on other grounds, he uses the Jewish works to discern a possible motive for why the author presented Ephesians as Paul’s work.37 Meade concludes that “the literary attribution of Ephesians and the Pastorals must be regarded primarily as an assertion of authoritative Pauline tradition, not of literary origins.”38 Meade thus suggests that the author of Ephesians was promoting and clarifying Paul’s authority rather than making a deceptive claim supporting Paul’s authorship of the letter.
On the other side of the debate are scholars who emphasize the deception of early Christian pseudepigraphy. Wolfgang Speyer investigates the question of intent by differentiating among types of pseudepigraphy. Speyer first distinguishes between religious and non-religious pseudepigraphy and looks to the former as the best guide for understanding New Testament pseudepigraphy. Speyer then draws from examples of religious pseudepigraphy from the Greco-Roman world and the Jewish second temple period. Using these examples he specifies whether different types of literature were designed to deceive or simply to convey inspired thoughts through the mouthpiece of a revered religious figure. Speyer determines that most pseudepigraphal letters in early Christianity fit in the former category.39
Additional support for this contention is found in how pseudepigraphal documents were received in early Christianity. Early witnesses indicate that writing Christian documents under false names was denounced in early Christianity.40 Most likely a mix of doctrinal and authorial objections to pseudepigraphy was in play among early church leaders.41
The
