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

[Archaea]

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

ἐν ᾧ καὶ περιετμήθητε περιτομῇ ἀχειροποιήτῳ ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ

Circumcision of Christ is genitive.

2:19

καὶ οὐ κρατῶν τὴν κεφαλήν ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων ἐπιχορηγούμενον καὶ συμβιβαζόμενον αὔξει τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ θεοῦ

of God.

3:24

εἰδότες ὅτι ἀπὸ κυρίου ἀπολήμψεσθε τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν τῆς κληρονομίας τῷ κυρίῳ Χριστῷ δουλεύετε

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?