Post-Modernism and Liberal Christianity

GenetoJean said:

Yes

Click to expand...

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

So when you were a liberal Christian, you didn't believe Christianity was true but you were a Christian anyway?

Click to expand...

Sayre said:

Click to expand...

hedrick said:

You will note that I responded to your quotations. I don’t just ignore John. I do, however, recognize his specific emphases...You might want to go back and respond to my actual answers to your questions, which you didn’t do.

Click to expand...

Sayre said:

The entire tone of your thread is judgmental.

Click to expand...

Colossians is a genuine letter.

In my opinion, Colossians is a genuine letter for the following reasons:

Failure of Liberal Theologians to Put Colossians Theology into Question

One tactic liberal theologians have tried to use in order to assert the pseudigraphical nature of Colossians is to say that its theology differs from the “genuine” epistles. We will discuss and disprove all of their theological arguments.

-One criticism is that Paul calls Jesus: (Col 1:18) “the head of the body, the church.” In Romans, Paul says that the saints (followers of the Gospel) are the Church’s body. I am surprised that scholars are so bothered that Paul would alter the metaphor and add Jesus to it. After all, after reading the verse before it, it makes sense in the context.

To be clear, Paul several times in the genuine letters brings up notions that are considered “not Pauline” in isolated instances. One such example is the pre-existence of Christ and His creative power as the Word of God. Paul extends the metaphor of Jesus’ wisdom of God to being the image of God, existing before creation compare Colossians 1:16, Ephesians 1:4, and Hebrews 1:2 to 1 Corinthians 8:6).

So Christ’s head-of-church metaphor is different than the other body part metaphors in genuine letters, it by no means contradicts them (especially 1 Corinthians 11:3). It is not a contradiction and it is not problematic. Thus, it is a poor criticism.

-Scholars also question the idea Paul writes in Col 2:13: “He forgave us all our sins,” because Paul elsewhere preaches freedom from the law, not forgiveness of sins. This too is a bad criticism, because scholars are being overly critical of one line. Read in the correct context, it sounds genuinely Pauline:
“He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.”

The underlined is in line with the “freedom from sin” idea. Implicit in forgiveness of sin is the idea that the sin condemns everyone to death. This, as seen in Romans, is a very Pauline concept. The use of “sin” as the plural “sins” is also found in genuine letters (1 Corinthians 15:3, 1 Cor 15:17, 2 Cor 5:19, and Galatians 1:4).

-Scholars seem to jump on anything Paul says that can be misogynist. However, Paul was a 1st century man, so this should not surprise us. Scholars believe that Colossians 3:18 reveals that the letter is not authentic. However, read the full context:

“18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.”

How is this much different from 1 Corinthians 7:3-4, 34, 39? Furthermore, for first century standards, there is a gender equality implied by that quotation. Of course, scholars will claim that 1 Corinthians 7:3-4 is a later interpolation. However, the lack of textual evidence to support this makes that less than likely and merely a baseless presumption.

-Lastly, scholars take issue with Colossians 2:13:
“13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,”

Scholars believe that the idea that the resurrection happens after repentance is not Pauline. They would be right. Paul frequently refers to an end of times when the resurrection only then will occur (example: 1 Thess 4:13-18.)

However, I believe scholars are misunderstanding Paul’s point. The Christian repentant according to Paul “live in Christ,” and more importantly are not “dead in sin.” These ideas are repeated in Romans 8:6, 8:10-11. Romans 8:11 goes as far as to say “he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit.” Does this mean that the resurrection was in the present? No, not according to Paul.

Paul believes the resurrection is spiritual (1 Corinthians 15:50,) so what does he mean in Romans 8:11? The same exact thing he means in Colossians—that repentance also improves one’s Earthly life. No one disagrees that Paul states this, so what is the problem with Colossian 2:13?

Furthermore, Paul speaks of a separate resurrection that will happen in the future:
(Col 3:4)
“4When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.”

This criticism is also weak.

Failure of Liberal Theologians to Put Colossians’ Written Nature Into Question

Liberal scholars claim “textual evidence” reveals Colossians was not written by Paul. Their evidence is sorely lacking.

One claim is that the Greek is too long and flowy instead of short and concise. However, this could be due to an unnamed scribe or the way Timothy was writing. Furthermore, Colossians is a short letter so while other longer letters have both short and concise, and long winded parts; Colossians is a short letter. That means, the lack of space decreases the possible diversity is Paul’s writing, so all you see are the long sentences (while if Paul wrote a longer letter, shorter sentences would find their way in perhaps).


Incorrect Historical Assumptions from Liberal Theologians

Liberal theologians have asserted that Colossians has evidence of post-Pauline Church practice. The Pastoral Epistles are good examples of this.

However, Colossians does not concern itself with Church hierarchy like the Pastoral epistles or even the unquestionably genuine Philippians. Instead, it is much more in line with 1 Corinthians, which describes worship as random singing and people teaching each other by the spirit. This is evident in the Colossae church:

(Col 3:16)
“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.”

The letter is also very concerned with Judiazers, a sect that was an enemy of Paul’s in almost every “genuine” letter he written. Contrawise, in the Pastoral Epistles, the Judiazers are non-existent. This is discussed in more detail later.

Odd Use of Specific Details Found in Genuine Epistles

For a “fake” letter, the supposedly fraudulent writer sure puts a lot of effort into making pointless fake details. Colossians 2:1 shows Paul’s concern for possibly losing authority in Laodicea, because he did not found their Church.

Colosians 4:7-18 is chock full of details. The letter was sent by Tychicus, only mentioned in Ephesians (which almost ad verbatim rips off parts of Colossians, which means that Colossians existed before Ephesians and was considered worthy enough to copy), Acts, and all three of the pastoral Epistles. Tychicus either got around a lot, Colossians copies Acts and mentions no other details that reveal a late date, or the most likely, Acts copied Colossians/Acts was written by someone who knew of accurate historical details reflected in Colossians.

4:9 mentions that Onesimus, the slave from Philemon, is coming with Tychius. This is a strange detail, because from reading Philemon, one is lead to believe that Onesimus went directly back to his master. Did the “real” writer of Colossians think it was funny to add such a detail? Did Onesimus earn freedom from his master and return to Paul? Did Paul write Philemon about the same time as Colossians, because he is imprisoned and has contact with Onesimus? This would make sense, because Onesimus could have been making a 2 stop journey, and Tychius could have as well, taking a separate letter to Laodicea (Col 4:15, which in itself is a strange detail.) To make it even more complicated, Paul states in 4:16 that there is a different letter he sent to Laodicea that he would wants those at Colosse to read. Why mention yet another letter? Why has the fraudulent author failed to make a fake Laodicea letter too?

Back to Onesimus. In Philemon, Paul writes “23Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings. 24And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers.” In Colossians Paul calls Aristarchus a fellow prisoner and says the Epaphras is praying for them. Did he withhold information off Epaphras’ imprisonment so as not to worry the Colissians or did he not say it because it was already yesterday’s news?

Paul mentions a guy names Jesus Justus in Colossians. The fact he calls him by his last name shows that Paul did not want people to get confused between Jesuses. Again, for a fake detail, this would be very original. He calls Luke a doctor. He mentions that Barnabas’ cousin Mark might stop by, and that the Colossians have instructions on how to treat him. Paul even adds a personal message to a guy named Archippus.

Some scholars have concluded, which I agree, that Philemon’s church was the Church at Colossae. Onesimus was making an one-stop trip with 2 letters. This explains Paul’s identical (but different) greetings and the fact that Archippus, though not owner of the slave, is the only guy specially picked out in both letters. He was no doubt important to Paul. Thus, the letters were written during Paul’s same imprisonment.

The letters lack a copycat feel of a forger, have different but non-contradictory details, and the details are typical of someone who is trying to orchestrate the exchange of several different letters between several different people while trying to avoid punishment for Onesimus. It is far too intricate to be the work of a creative author.

Paul attacks Jewish Christians (Col 2:11-17)

In 5 of 8 Paul's letter that we know to be genuine (if Colossssians is included,) Paul seems to be under constant attack from Jewish Christians. This seems to mean that the "False Teachers" are more mainstream than Paul lets on.

Romans (Disagreement with dietary law(Romans 14:14),) 1 Corinthians (General disagreement with the applicability of the law,) 2 Corinthians (General disagreement with the applicability of the law,) Galatians (Circumcision and dietary rules,) Phillipians (Circumcision).

1 Thessalonians lacks such concern. However, Paul was there only briefly (1 Thes 2:1-2 and 17) and Timothy (who founded the Church) just returned to give good news of the Church’s success (1 Thes 3:6.) This leads me to believe that this is an early letter, composed just after Timothy’s founding of it. Thus, word of the Jewish-Christian version of the Gospel did not reach them yet and Paul would have no reason to denounce them. Scholars generally agree that Thessalonians is the earliest of Paul’s writings.

Philemon is Paul begging a rich Christian to be merciful to a returning slave. The purpose of the letter does not cover Church business generally.

Colossians thus shares much more in common historically with genuine Pauline epistles than epistles such as the Pastorals, or those from other writers.

Click to expand...

In depth rebuttal of E. P. Sanders, "Literary Dependence in Colossians" JBL 85, no. 1 (1966): 31, 35-44.

I found the article very interesting and in my mind, it certainly increases the probability of an additional editor altering Colossians. However, the article is has methodological errors or room for such.

First, the scholar did not analyze any of the other Pauline letters using his method, meaning any of his findings lack any sufficient context regarding significance. He concedes that he only assumes his analysis applies to other letters without testing the hypothesis later: i.e. “This probably indicates an amount that would not occur in a letter actually written by Paul.”

Second, he crosses textual parallels when there are three, two, and even ONE Greek word in common. Furthermore, he does this on the subjective basis of the word(s) being “significantly unusual.” Without presenting evidence of this, what we have are significantly questionable “verbatim agreement,” because he is assessing this agreement on shaky grounds.

Third, let’s look at his percent verbatim agreement numbers using his own methodology. He has Philippians at 7.8 percent verbatim agreement versus the six other genuine epistles and Colossians at 14.8 percent versus the seven genuine epistles.

Now if you adjust Philippians to have its verbatim agreement with the amount in 7 letters, it would have 8.3 percent verbatim agreement. However, this number is derived purely by proportion and not by “verbatim agreement” with Colossians itself, so it is purely guesswork and not very methodologically sound.

Nonetheless, the way he came to these numbers should be called into question. For example, he includes the hymn found between Colossians 1:15-20. Now, a pre-Pauline hymn can easily be expected to be invoked by Paul and make meaningless verbatim agreements per this analysis. He derives 22 words from these 5 verses alone, about 10 percent of all of Colossian’s verbatim agreement. Therefore, if we subtract just these “agreements” from his analysis, the percentage using his methodology is closer to 13.3 percent.

So we have 8.3 percent in Philippians to 13.3 percent in Colossians using the same rough and imprecise methodology that the scholar used. This is hardly far above twice the verbatim agreement which he claims. Colossians has 37.5 percent more verbatim agreement. Now, does this mean it is 37.5 percent more likely to have been altered and put together? Is it within the realm of error and chance? When we take into account the fact his subjective methods, sometimes creating verbatim agreements from as little as one word, and who knows how he approached verbatim agreements in the extremely similar greetings and ending between Colossians and Philemon! He could have easily increased Colossians percentage for the sake of argument on unsound methodological grounds.

Fourth, the scholar discusses the fact that though Colossians has 34 words found no where in the New Testament (he several times points out the amount of original words in Colossians,) he ignores the fact that Galatians (31) and Philippians (36) have like amounts. So, this is a rather weak textual criticism.


New words in different letters come from a change in circumstance and slight alterations in theological ideas between the letters.

Lastly, let me touch on briefly some of the verbatim agreements he actually presents (because for the sake of length, he does not present all of his evidence, though I suppose he presents his best which is pretty poor to say the least.)

-1 Col 26
that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints,

to musthrion to apokekrummenon (5772) apo twn aiwnwn kai apo twn genewn nun de efanerwqh (5681) toiv agioiv autou,

and

1 Cor 2:7
but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;

alla laloumen (5719) qeou sofian en musthriw|, thn apokekrummenhn, (5772) hn prowrisen (5656) o qeov pro twn aiwnwn eiv docan hmwn;


So, we have “aiwnwn” (ages) used in both, but different words for “hidden” (apokekrummenon: apokekrummenhn.) The theological idea is that of the “mystery” being hidden in the past, a Pauline idea which concerns itself with Jesus’ revelation. Why is it strange if Paul repeated this idea more than once. Now I admit, I am not literate in ancient Greek, but outside a few words, in different order, it does not look like a parallel verbatim in language. It just looks like Paul repeating an idea he has, being a similar idea it will share the same words. The same would be true if I were writing a cook book and I had one recipe for Apple Crisp and another for Apple Pie.

-1 Col 3:2
Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth.

ta anw froneite, (5720) mh ta epi thv ghv;

Phil 3:19
whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things.

wn to telov apwleia, wn o qeov h koilia kai h doca en th| aisxunh| autwn, oi ta epigeia fronountev.

The only verbatim word in both passages is “froneite,” with 2 different words for Earth… the word Earth (ghv versus epigeia) is different. This looks much more like Paul talking about an idea he has in different words than a copycat taking that idea ad verbatim.

Col 3:15 and Phil 4:7, an “ad verbatim quotation” he draws, are not even close. If these are the examples that are “good” enough to present as valid evidence, I am not impressed. How bad is the “evidence” that is not presented?

The scholar concedes “the evidence for literary dependence is clear only in relatively few verses of Colossians,” and boasts, “but there it is indisputable.” Is it? Are one to two word parallels found in up to 8 different verses in some cases for Colossians verse really indisputable. Did the “real” writer of Colossians have 5 scrolls on his desk at the same time, looking in odd place for just two or one word(s) to sound Paul like?

With the more objective forms of textual criticism failing to make the grade, our best evidence against Pauline scholarship of Colossians is the subjective measure that “the Greek looks different.” This is why anybody might become suspicious enough to tear apart Colossians for one word parallels.

However, I wonder if we could find the same in genuine letters if we were so critical. So, why does the Greek look so different? Is it because Paul did not write it? Was he using a different scribe? Did it get edited afterwards? Who knows. However, due to close theology and close enough language, plus the arguments made by Paul against Jewish Christians (and not Gnostics,) it looks like a genuine Pauline letter to me at least.

Click to expand...

GenetoJean said:

From what I was taught and the Bible. I do believe the Bible has some truth but not all of the Bible was inspired by God. How do I make my decision about what to believe? By looking at the whole message of the Bible and weighing each part against the other parts.

Click to expand...