An argument against Colossians being authentic is the unusual use of genitive
 

W. Bujard, Stilanalytische Unterschungen zum Kolosserfrief als Beitrag zur Methodik von Sprachvergleichen (1973) see the commentary in Guthrie p574-5

Or so says this guy. Does anybody have access to it?

And can you explain what's so unusual about it. Here are the verses in question: (1:27, 2:11, 2:19, 3:24).

1:27 οἷς ἠθέλησεν ὁ θεὸς γνωρίσαι τί τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης τοῦ μυστηρίου τούτου ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὅ ἐστιν Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης

In this verse I see the genitive form of mystery and the demonstrative pronoun.

2:11 Circumcision of Christ is genitive.

2:19 of God.

3:24 hoti apo ruioY away from the Lord.


Perhaps I'm just dense but why is this a compelling case against Colossians?

Pelagius once sent me an article by Ehrman which made a case which didn't seem overly compelling.

What am I missing guys and gals?

when your significant other writes you a love letter, do you read commentary on it?

God's talking to you, why are you wasting time determining whether Paul wrote it or not? If it's in there it's inspired.

First, Chino, I'm just curious-- without looking it up, can you quote a single verse from Colossians?

Second, when a letter is written to you that says lots of things that your significant other might say to you, but you're not certain that your significant other is the actual author of the letter, would you try to find out who really wrote it?

To be fair, any effort to determine whether Paul wrote it or not probably IS "wasting time"-- I don't think anybody is going to figure it out anytime real soon-- but unless you believe that every word of the bible was written by God, I would think that an understanding of the authorship debate ought not be so quickly dismissed.

Put it more bluntly, I don't trust the Church Fathers or bishops who rather arbitrarily determined which books to canonize and which ones not to canonize. They were proto-orthodox seeking to exclude others not yet in power.

There are seven epistles attributable to Paul, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philemon, and Philippians.

The remaining six are in varying degrees of dispute, with Hebrews being the least disputed, modern scholarship even wondering how the epistle was ever attributed to Paul.

The others have varying arguments, with Ephesians, focusing upon the long sentences, 9 out of 50 sentences having more than fifty words or more whereas Romans only has 3 out of 580 some sentences that long, theological use of "ekklesia" in a universal form whereas most other letters are a focusing upon the local unit and a lack of eschatological content innate to Paul's writings.

So authorship is vital to see "what was correctly translated."

"In him dwelt the fullness of the godhead bodily." I actually read Colossians late 2007. I believe every book in the standard works is inspired by God.

Why?

Even RCC scholars who often held the traditionalist mode now agree only 7 of the 13 letters are authentic.

Do you believe in the sexist tone of the pastoral letters, which are generally considered unauthentic?

if by unauthentic you mean not Pauline, who cares?

unauthentic <> uninspired

inspiration, not authorship, is what matters.

racist tones are all over the BoM, so what? Authors are a product of their cultures too.

I don't believe the six non authentic letters should be canon.

you still haven't explained why a book should be dismissed just because Paul didn't write it.

Who wrote it, then? Isn't the value of the epistles the fact it was written by an apostle? If we don't know who wrote it, how do we know whether it is authoritative?