Section 12

² If anyone compares the list here printed with that found in the work of C. L. Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians, pp. 316–318, he will discover that the two differ in some important details. Mitton, it must be remembered, denies the Pauline authorship of Ephesians. He sees a resemblance between Col. 1:8 and Eph. 3:5 and 6:18. However, the only item with respect to which all three passages are alike is the phrase “in the Spirit.” This phrase, occurring both in those letters that are ascribed to Paul by almost everyone (Rom 8:9; 9:1; 14:17; I Cor. 12:3), and in the Pastoral Epistles (I Tim. 3:16), is of little value in determining whether Paul himself or an imitator composed Ephesians. Further, it is hard to see any resemblance between Col. 1:17 and Eph. 5:1; between Col. 4:16 and Eph. 3:4, except for the fact that both refer to reading. And as to the closing benediction in Col. 4:18, though it is admitted that the words, “Grace (be) with you” resemble “Grace (be) with all those” of Eph. 6:24, yet when the two benedictions, in their entirety, are compared it is the contrast rather than the similarity that stands out. In certain other details also the list here given differs from that found in Mitton’s work. It was made after careful examination of each individual passage.

³ This reference is, however, disputed, though, as I see it, without good reason. See N.T.C. on Colossians and Philemon, pp. 53, 54.

⁴

It should not be necessary at this point to dwell on the denial by F. C. Baur (b. 1792, d. 1860) and his school. For men of that type the question whether an epistle is characterized by the anti-Judaistic line of argumentation seemed to settle everything. Thus, all of Paul’s thinking was forced into one groove. The historical Paul, as Baur and his disciples saw him, was ever ready for combat. Hence, when, as is the case with Ephesians, a letter is conciliatory in tone, picturing the church universal, Jew and Gentile having become reconciled not only with God but also with each other through the cross, no further mark of its un-Pauline and post-Pauline origin was required. But if any were needed it would be (according to Baur c.s.) the evidence, in both Colossians and Ephesians, of gnostic trends, and in Eph. 4:9, of the doctrine of the descent into Hades. However, the fact that already in Paul’s days incipient gnosticism had raised its head is today undisputed, and as to Eph. 4:9, see on that passage.

After Baur a vigorous attack upon the authenticity of Ephesians, resembling in some of its arguments that of more recent criticism, was made by S. Hoekstra of The Netherlands in his article “Vergelijking van de Brieven aan de Efeziërs en de Colossers, vooral uit het Oogpunt van Beider Leerstelligen Inhoud,” TT (1868), pp. 562–599. Hoekstra viewed Ephesians as an attempt to rephrase the contents of Colossians in such a manner that Ephesians would resemble more closely the doctrine of the real Paul. As Hoekstra saw it, the author, whoever he was, was averse to all those theosophic theories about Christ which were found in Colossians, theories which severed Christianity from its historic foundation and from its abiding connection with the old dispensation.

Among those who more recently have rejected the Pauline authorship of this epistle are the British scholars James Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, New York, 1918, who does not even classify Ephesians with Pauline literature; B. H. Streeter, who discusses “The Pauline Corpus” in his work The Primitive Church, New York, 1929; W. L. Knox, St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles, Cambridge, 1939; and especially C. L. Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians, Its Authorship, Origin and Purpose, Oxford, 1951; see also, by the same author, The Formation of the Pauline Corpus of Letters, London, 1955; “Unsolved New Testament Problems: E. J. Goodspeed’s Theory Regarding the Origin of Ephesians,” ET, 59 (1947–1948), pp. 323–327; “E. J. Goodspeed’s Theory Regarding the Origin of Ephesians,” ET, 60 (1948–1949), pp. 320–321; “Important Hypotheses Reconsidered; VII. The Authorship of the Epistle to the Ephesians,” ET, 67 (1955–1956), pp. 195–198. In America it was especially E. J. Goodspeed who attacked the Pauline authorship and suggested that Onesimus (the fugitive slave for whom Paul interceded in his letter to Philemon), in his later capacity as Bishop of the church at Ephesus, not only made a collection of the Pauline epistles but also himself wrote Ephesians as a covering letter or introductory commentary, The Meaning of Ephesians, Chicago, 1933; cf. also by the same author New Chapters in New Testament Study, New York, 1937, p. 32; and The Key to Ephesians, Chicago, 1956, xvi. F. W. Beare (Toronto, Canada) states his reasons for rejecting Pauline authorship in his commentary, The Epistle to the Ephesians (Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. X, pp. 597–601).

Among the defenders of Pauline authorship the scholarly work of E. Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser-und Epheserbriefe, Lund, 1946, deserves to be mentioned first of all. It is deplorable that C. L. Mitton, in a Preface to his aforementioned work: The Epistle to the Ephesians, Its Authorship, Origin and Purpose, had to admit that his book was already in the printer’s hands before he had been able to gain access to Percy’s dissertation. The traditional view, that Paul wrote Ephesians, is also defended by the following, to mention only a few: Abbott, Barclay, Barry, Bartlett, Bowman, Brown, Bruce, Findlay, Greijdanus, Grosheide, Hodge, Hort, Moule, Robinson, Scott and Westcott. For titles see General Bibliography at end of this volume.

↑ Back to top