AUTHOR
AUTHOR
That Ephesians is an authentic Pauline letter is the traditional view, but in modern times this is widely denied. The view that Paul wrote it is supported by such arguments as the following: 1
1. The letter claims to have been written by Paul, not only in its opening (Eph. 1:1) but also in the body of the letter (3:1). Any letter coming down from antiquity, it is said, should be held to be by the author it mentions unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. There are many personal notes: for example, the writer has heard of the readers’ faith and love (1:15), and he gives thanks and prays for them (1:16); he calls himself "the prisoner of Christ Jesus” (3:1; 4:1); he asks the readers’ prayers (6:19-20). This sort of thing is not proof, but it indicates that the man who claims to be Paul was known to the readers and was confident that his claim would not be overthrown.
2. From early days the letter was in wide circulation, and its authenticity does not seem to have been doubted. It was accepted by Marcion (as the letter to the Laodiceans); it is in the Muratorian Canon and was used by heretics as well as the orthodox. No one seems to have queried Pauline authorship.
3. Pauline features abound. The structure is like that of the undisputed epistles, and there is a good deal of Pauline language, including words that occur in this letter and the undisputed writings of Paul but nowhere else in the New Testament. 2H. J. Cadbury has asked an interesting question: "Which is more likely—that an imitator of Paul in the first century composed a writing ninety or ninety-five per cent in accordance with Paul’s style or that Paul himself wrote a letter diverging five or ten per cent from his usual style?” 3Robert M. Grant noticed this question and posed one of his own: "'Which is more likely,’ we might well ask '—that we can determine the authenticity of a letter written ninety or ninety-five per cent in accordance with Paul’s style, and his outlook, or that we cannot?’ This question, it would appear, can be answered. We are not in a position to judge, and since the authenticity of the letter cannot be disproved it should be regarded as genuine.” 4
4. The relationship to Colossians may be argued in more ways than one. Those who reject Pauline authorship hold that it would not be possible for one person to write two letters with such resemblances (e.g., the words about Tychicus; see Eph. 6:21-22 and Col. 4:7-8), but also with such significant differences (e.g., the "mystery” is the unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ in Eph. 3:3-6, whereas it is Christ in Col. 2:2). But those who see Paul as the author "are equally emphatic that two minds could not have produced two such works with so much subtle interdependence blended with independence.” 5Ephesians is not so much a copy of parts of Colossians as a development of it. There may be similar vocabulary, but there are also curious differences. It is not unreasonable to think of Paul as producing Colossians with a specific situation in mind, and not long after as writing Ephesians with broader purposes. It is also possible that he made use of an amanuensis and allowed him some freedom in one or other of the letters. But against this is the fact that the other Pauline letters give no evidence of secretarial latitude, or at least of such secretarial latitude as this theory requires. Why should Paul treat this letter differently from the others? 6
5. Paul is not mentioned in Revelation, which was addressed to the church at Ephesus among others (see Rev. 2:1; cf. 2 Peter 3:15). The question may be asked: Why should an author, writing pseudonymously, select the name of Paul in writing to an area where, granted the failure of Revelation to mention Paul, there is no evidence that the apostle was still highly revered? 7In any case, the practice of writing letters in the name of someone else does not seem to have been as widely practiced in the early church as some claim. (See the section Pseudonymity in chap. 15.)
6. Many of the themes of Ephesians have the closest parallels in the undisputed Pauline epistles—for example, justification by faith, the place of grace, the dominance of flesh in the unredeemed, the work of Christ as reconciliation, the place of the Jews and of the law. Those who oppose Pauline authorship argue that this results from imitation, but that is to be proved. There is undoubtedly Pauline teaching in this letter.
7. Paul was a prisoner when he wrote the letter (Eph. 3:1; 4:1) which accords well with this claim. There is development from the earlier letters, but this is natural enough as the apostle gets closer to the end of his life. The letter is very naturally understood as Paul’s words to a church he sees as needing instruction on some of the important aspects of the faith, some of which he has not enunciated previously, at least in the form he now uses. Such an understanding seems to many scholars a better way of seeing the letter than the alternatives that are suggested. No suggested pseudepigraphical situation has anything like the aptness of the view that Paul is writing from his final imprisonment.
But many modern scholars are not persuaded by such considerations. They hold that the evidence points to someone other than Paul as the writer.
1. The theology of Ephesians is said to be such that we cannot ascribe the writing to Paul. There are Pauline features, such as the clear statement of justification by faith (Eph. 2:5-8), but there are some doctrines we do not find in Paul, for example, the cosmic function of the church (3:10). Again, in Ephesians believers are "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (2:20), whereas Paul sees Christ as the one foundation (1 Cor. 3:11). But these are not really in contradiction; in 2:20 Christ is "the chief cornerstone,” which surely accords with the passage in 1 Corinthians. Others note that in Ephesians έκκλησια (ekklesia, G1711) always refers to the universal church, while Paul normally uses the word for the local congregation. Paul refers to the parousia in all his undisputed letters, but it is absent from Ephesians (but is this fair to 1:14; 4:30; 5:6; 6:8?). This letter pictures Paul as commissioned to bring about the unity of Jews and Gentiles in the church (3:2-6), whereas Paul saw himself as the apostle of the Gentiles (but in Rom. 11:17-24 he has both Jews and Gentiles in the one olive tree). Ephesians uses marriage as a picture of the union between Christ and the church (5:2333), which is said to be quite impossible for the author of 1 Corinthians 7. Clearly all of this is subjective. What appears to some as impossible for one mind is for others quite a possibility for such a wide-ranging and inventive mind as Paul’s. 8
2. The language of Ephesians includes words not found elsewhere in Paul, for example, ασώτια (asotia, “wantonness”, G861; but cf. Titus 1:6), πολιτεια (politeia, "citizenship,” "commonwealth”, G4486). 9This argument is somewhat spoiled by Harrison’s examination of the hapax legomena (words that occur in no other writing in the New Testament). He finds that in Ephesians there are on the average 4.6 such words to the page, which is in line with the figures for other letters, such as 5.6 in 2 Corinthians, and 6.2 in Philippians. 10It is also pointed out that in this letter different expressions are used for the same thing. For example, whereas in other writings Paul uses οι ουρανοι (hoi ouranoi, from ουρανος, G4041) for "heaven,” in Ephesians we have εν τοις έπoυράνίoις (en tois epouraniois, from ε^υρα^ος, G2230) as well. So also in this letter we find Christ called ο ήγαπήμενος (ho egapemenos, "the One [God] loves,”, from αγαπαω, G26, Eph. 1:6) and the verb χαριτοω (charitoo, G5923, lit. "to endue with grace”; cf. Eph. 1:6) where Paul normally has χαριν διδωμι (charin didomi, lit. "I give grace”, G5921 + G1443). Paul usually refers to Satan, but in this letter we find "the devil.” Such differences are interesting, but they come far short of proof, especially with a writer as versatile as Paul. 11
3. The style of this letter is very different. The length of the sentences is specially noteworthy. In any modern translation these long sentences tend to be broken up, with the result that the reader does not realize the length. But Eph. 1:15-23 is one sentence, as is 3:1-7 (see KJV). Ephesians often has a quick use of synonyms; thus in 1:19 there are four words denoting power.
4. Ephesians is taken as an "early catholic” writing. It is suggested that the author looks back on the apostles as a closed group (Eph. 2:20; 3:5) and that there is an un-Pauline interest in various orders of ministry (4:11; but should we not bear in mind 1 Cor. 12:28-30?). The use of the name of Paul, it is said, means that the writer is seeking to pass on the genuine apostolic tradition.
5. The relationship to Colossians is considered such that the same writer could not have produced the two. Colossians is usually held to be a genuine Pauline letter, and Ephesians is thought to be the work of an imitator who used Colossians for some of his thoughts and language. Indeed, on occasion the same word is used with different meanings (e.g., μυστήριον [mysterion, G3696]; cf. Eph. 3:2-13 and Col. 1:25-2:3). But as we saw earlier, this line of argument is unconvincing. We must allow any writer some flexibility, and the best explanation to many seems to be that the same man wrote Colossians and Ephesians a little later, with many of the same thoughts running through his head and with a more general application of the ideas he had so recently expressed.
It is possible to regard both Colossians and Ephesians as inauthentic. But in this case Colossians appears to use only Philemon to lead people to think of it as a genuine Pauline product, and Ephesians looks like another work by the same pseudepigrapher. This time, however, he does not bother to use personal references, and he also introduces some curious stylistic differences. All in all, such a procedure seems improbable.
Markus Barth recognizes four schools of thought today: those who accept Paul as the author, those who see Paul as responsible for an original script that has been augmented by an editor, 12those who reject Pauline authorship, and those who think that there is not enough evidence to decide. 13While he recognizes the strength of the other views, he produces an argument "which more than others favors the authenticity of Ephesians and encourages the reader to understand the letter on the basis of its Pauline origin.” 14