The Rise of the Exalted Apostle Theory
Despite extensive research delving into authorship, the school of Paul, and pseudepigraphy, nothing approaching a sustained, identifiable theory on Paul’s post-death idealization existed in the middle of the twentieth century. Several studies in Ephesians used language suggestive of Paul’s exalted status, but the references were fleeting, and nothing comparable was emerging in studies on Colossians. Lohse’s relatively brief mention of the depiction of Paul’s apostleship in Colossians as a possible indicator of inauthenticity served as an important catalyst for further investigation. Soon more authors published studies about Paul’s image in Colossians and Ephesians as well as about the significance of Paul’s portrayal in the perpetuation of his theological and sociological influence after his death. The following section tracks how the Exalted Apostle Theory has made advances in research on Ephesians, Colossians, and the broader phenomenon of Paul’s legacy.
Initial Expressions of the Theory in Studies of Ephesians
Language reflecting an Exalted Apostle Theory was employed as early as 1939 by Wilfred Knox, who concurs with Goodspeed’s assessment that Ephesians was crafted to introduce believers to Paul’s letters and theology. Knox claims that post-Pauline writers such as the author of Ephesians were inclined “to borrow a name in order to give sanction to documents.”44 According to Knox, Eph 3:1–13 reflects “veneration” of Paul, stemming from a response to Paul’s martyrdom.45 Despite this suggestive language, Knox’s work did not spark much additional discussion about the significance of the image of Paul in Ephesians.
For Mitton, the portrayal of Paul enters the discussion not as a separate category by which to evaluate the legitimacy of the work but in the course of discussing the data from Eph 3:1–13 and other sections. Mitton detects an artificial “heightening of effect” and “insincerity” in the characterization Paul in Eph 3:4 and 3:8.46 After these fleeting comments by Knox and Mitton, interest in the possible post-Pauline esteem of Paul’s ministry and authority in Ephesians lay dormant for several decades.47
Initial Expressions of the Theory in Studies of Colossians
The publication of Lohse’s Colossians commentary in 1968, followed by a related article in 1969, marked a significant turning point in how Paul’s representation relates to the problem of the authenticity of Colossians. Lohse identifies the understanding of Paul’s ministry as one of the theological discontinuities between Colossians and Paul’s earlier letters. According to Lohse, Paul is granted an artificial position of exclusivity as an apostle in Colossians.48
Also in 1968, Donald Hobson detected a portrayal of Paul “as the apostle par excellence” in Colossians.49 In Hobson’s view, the author of Colossians enhanced Paul’s authority by artificially highlighting his suffering for the church, with the desired goal of speaking with a heightened authority to a post-Pauline setting.50 Hobson’s dissertation did not have the influence that Lohse’s commentary did, but it revealed the growing momentum of the Exalted Apostle Theory.
In the wake of Lohse’s work in particular, the presentation of Paul’s ministry became a more significant factor in discussions of the authorship of Colossians. For instance, shortly after Lohse’s commentary publication, Günther Bornkamm echoed Lohse’s conclusion on Colossians, without further elaboration or support.51 The status of Paul, already noted as significant in Ephesians, was beginning to attract comment in studies on Colossians as well.
The Development of a More General Exalted Apostle Theory
Interest in Paul’s portrayal has expanded beyond discussions of authorship in individual letters to an exploration of how Paul’s authority and teaching were reapplied to believing communities after his death. The common thread in many of these works is that the Exalted Apostle Theory is never defended systematically but rather is presupposed as part of the goal of shedding light on the process and results of the idealization of Paul.
Building upon Walter Bauer’s thesis on orthodoxy and heresy in the early church52 Georg Strecker surveys the various ways in which later authors after Paul’s lifetime were responsible for expressing and defending his doctrine and image. Perceived innovations in how Paul’s person and theology are portrayed in Colossians and Ephesians receive brief treatment alongside those found in the Pastoral Epistles, 2 Thessalonians, and Acts as part of an attempt to reconstruct the effects of Paul’s influence in the decades following his life and ministry.53
C. K. Barrett refers briefly to Lohse’s work in his contention that Ephesians is the product of a later disciple or school.54 Barrett identifies in Ephesians what appears to be uncontested authority for Paul in the universal church, with the Jewish-Gentile conflict an already settled matter.55 He sees this as a portrait that accords well with a developing “legend” of Paul and his ministry. This legend also surfaces in the Pastoral Epistles and Acts,56 but Colossians is still assumed to be an authentic work of Paul.57
Martinus de Boer’s article has contributed significant fodder to the discussion of Paul’s persona and legacy. De Boer identifies the major distinctives of Paul’s image as reflected in allegedly post-Pauline works, including Colossians and Ephesians. Paul is set apart as the sole apostle, who verifies his calling through suffering and whose teaching is to be heeded unwaveringly.58 De Boer operates from a descriptive standpoint, first assuming the late date of these works and then delving into the characterization of Paul and the motives behind that characterization.59 The direction of his study is shaped by, among others, Barrett and Schenke.
D. N. Penny allots sections in different chapters of his dissertation to the portrayal of Paul in various so-called Deutero-Pauline letters. He concurs with the growing consensus that Paul comes across in Ephesians in a glamorized way.60 Penny’s thesis is that the imitation of Paul was skillful and purposeful, not merely benign, and that the activity of speaking in the name of Paul is not to be attributed to the operations of a school, since the letters ascribed to Paul pursue different goals from varying theological perspectives.61
Raymond Collins devotes a special section to Paul’s persona in his treatment of Colossians and Ephesians as pseudepigraphy.62 According to Collins, Paul is elevated as an exemplary prisoner, an apostle without peer, and a privileged recipient of God’s mysteries in Ephesians.63 Less overtly in Colossians, Paul comes across as an unchallenged authority figure and a memorialized martyr.64 De Boer’s article has exerted an influence in Collins work as well.