For my hermeneutics class this semester I did some work of the book of Ephesians. Among the papers I wrote was one on the background of the book. I wanted to share it with you all. It took many hours and some hard thinking but the result was wonderful, so was the grade!
Footnotes and a bibliography are included at the bottom.
I cant post it all, its too long (so says CC).So if for some reason you would like to download you can with the link i provide after the portion of the paper I have provided.
The Background of Ephesians
Authorship
Despite the salutation of the letter (“Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ” 1:1), the authorship of the Ephesians has been a hotly debated issue in critical scholarship. The majority of New Testament scholarship today writes persuasively for Pauline authorship of Ephesians.[1] Such is an authorship that was universally accepted in the early Church[2] and even acknowledged by Marcion as a genuine letter written by Paul, though written to Laodicea instead of Ephesus.[3] In fact, it is not until the end of the 18[SUP]th[/SUP] century that any challenge arose against the traditional view of Pauline authorship. Nevertheless, in spite of this long tradition there are some who have come to different conclusions about the letter and have reasoned that Paul did not write Ephesians. It is believed today that a follower of Paul, one who knew and imitated his style, wrote the letter. The following is a summary of the main arguments against Pauline authorship:
An Impersonal Letter[4]
The implied author who claims his apostolic authority and describes himself as a suffering prisoner for Christ, the gospel, and the Gentiles (3:1, 13; 4:1, 6:19, 20) gives no details of his suffering or his imprisonment in the letter. He appears to have only a general knowledge of his readers (1:13, 12, 16), and he questions whether they have ever heard of his ministry to the Gentiles (3:2). Moreover, the lack of personal greetings to the audience of the letter to the church at Ephesus is telling, especially when he had sent such to Christians in Rome, a place he had not visited previously. This reinforces the picture that the author is without any connection to his readers.
language and Style[5]
The writer of Ephesians introduces many words and phrases that are unique to this letter, and thus does not parallel with any other of Paul’s writing. Ephesians contains forty Hapax Legomena for the New Testament and fifty-one further words that are not found in the undisputed Pauline letters. More importantly there seem to be words in the letter that have greater familiarity with post-apostolic literature.[6]
The Relationship Between Ephesians and Colossians[7]
Scholars who argue that Ephesians is pseudonymous contend that it heavily depends on Colossians as its primary source. Lincoln believes that such is the main reason for rejecting Pauline authorship of Ephesians. His arguments in a short summary are as follows:
Ephesians builds on the overall structure and theme of Colossians, such as the first parts of the letter, the prologue, the thanksgiving period, the intercessory prayer report, and the reminder of the reader’s previous alienation and their current reconciliation to Christ. While it is recognized that each letter treats these forms and subjects in a slightly different fashion, even in those sections that appear distinct there are parallels found elsewhere (e.g., Col. 1:13–14 in Eph. 2:1–10; cf. the use of Col. 1:23–28 and Eph. 3:1–13; and Eph. 3:14–21 and Col. 1:29–3:10). Both letters contain exhortatory material about putting off the old man and putting on the new, both contain similar household codes of conduct for husbands and wives, and both close with a similar exhortation. It is therefore inadequate to believe that both letters simply reproduced common traditions.
The close verbal links within parallel sections of the two letters all point to one-way dependence of Ephesians on Colossians. There are various keywords (e.g., redemption, reconciliation, body, flesh), in Ephesians 3:1–13, which clearly come from Colossians 1:24–29 (e.g., affliction, ministry, mystery, riches, and power). There are also connections in terminology in relation to the old and new humanity language, as well as a vice and virtue list (Col. 3:5–17; Eph. 4:17–5:20), which show the dependence of Ephesians on the earlier epistle. In fact, it is said that the author of Ephesians not only modeled his letter after Colossians but clearly modified and improved its theology at certain points, particularly in the household code of Colossians (Col. 3:18–4:1; Eph. 5:21–6:9).
The connections not only appear in major sections, but also in sections such as the doxology of Ephesians 1:3-14. Such has no exact counterpart to anything in Colossians, yet it is said to contain many parallels with the earlier letter (cf. ‘holy and blameless before him’, Eph. 1:4 with Col. 1:22; ‘in whom we have redemption’, Eph. 1:6, 7 with Col. 1:13, 14, 20; ‘in all wisdom and insight’, Eph. 1:8 with Col. 1:9; ‘all things … things in heaven and things on earth’, Eph. 1:10 with Col. 1:20; ‘having heard the word of truth, the gospel’, Eph. 1:13 with Col. 1:5).[SUP][SUP][8][/SUP][/SUP] This is also true of the thanksgiving and intercessory prayer sections of each introduction (such as Eph. 1:18 with Col. 1:27; Eph. 1:19, 20 with Col. 2:12).
It is thus concluded by some that the author of Ephesians has shown a free and creative dependence on Colossians, but dependence nonetheless. In summary, it is said that there is too much commonality between the letters and that the better explanation of the commonality between Colossians and Ephesians is that the one served as the model for the other. Thus the author of Ephesians who was not Paul, copied heavily from Colossians.
A Response[9]
As we have seen there is much that is said from those who believe that Paul did not write Ephesians. However, I think that a better case can be made for the authenticity of the letter by showing the inadequacy of their presuppositions. The following is a summary of general and technical reasons that have been given for Pauline authorship of Ephesians:
Ephesians contains a substantial amount of material presented in the first-person as the apostle to the readers.[SUP][SUP][10][/SUP][/SUP] It would be a foolish thing, would it not, to think that a student of Paul could purposely fool everyone for many centuries into thinking that his writing was really from Paul the Apostle?
There is early attestation of Paul as the author of Ephesians. The letter was quoted, used by, or alluded to by early church fathers, including Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all cite sections of Ephesians as having been written by the Apostle Paul.[11]
Paul was capable of writing with a range of styles and exhibiting his own literary flair.[SUP][SUP][12][/SUP][/SUP] Opponents of Pauline authorship claim that there are too many stylistic differences in Ephesians. Arnold is helpful when he says that this view “unfairly restricts Paul to a preconceived mold of how he should write based on some of his other letters.[SUP][SUP][13][/SUP][/SUP] Are they who hold this view really prepared to put on the Apostle of Christ such a burden?
An impersonal letter: Such an impersonal letter can only be made sense of in one of two ways. Either Paul is not the author, and therefore the author is truly ignorant of his audience, or Paul is the author and has written the letter to many churches in Ephesus. At this point one’s interpretation of Ephesians 1:1 is critical and could soundly solve the issue at hand.
Language and style: Though it is said that many words and phrases are unique to the letter of Ephesians (such as the long sentences in the praise of Paul), is it not the case that other Pauline literature has some of the same, particularly long sentences? Even if Ephesians does have more long sentences than any other Pauline literature, A. van Roon has pointed out that Paul chose to use long sentences frequently in his doxologies and prayers (Eph. 1:3–14, 15–23; 3:14–19; cf. Rom. 8:38–39; 11:33–36; 1 Cor. 1:4–8; Phil. 1:3–8; 1 Thess. 1:2–5; 2 Thess. 1:3–10), in statements that contained heavy doctrinal content (Eph. 2:1–7; 3:2–13; cf. Rom. 3:21–26; 1 Cor. 1:26–29; 2:6–9), and in exhortatory material (Eph. 4:1–6, 11–16; 6:14–20; cf. 1 Cor 12:8–11; Phil. 1:27–2:11). Although there are some differences in language and style between Ephesians and other Pauline literature, it is surprising that if the author was just a disciple of Paul, no one in the early centuries of the church knew about it or were concerned enough to question it, even with the insurmountable number of differences that are claimed by some.
The Literary Relationship between Ephesians and Colossians: The influential study of H.J Holtzmann has suggested that the evidence of the parallels points more in the direction of a Colossian dependence upon Ephesians, in spite of what others have argued for. Indeed, A. van Roon has brought such a hypothesis into question, saying that there is no sure indication of initial dependence either way regarding the available evidence. Ernest Best has concluded that “There is … insufficient evidence to enable us to come down firmly in favour of the priority of either letter, though there is a slight probability in favour of the use of Ephesians by A/Col [i.e., the author of Colossians]’[SUP][SUP][14][/SUP][/SUP] He contends that his research has removed one main argument from those who believe non-Pauline authorship can be firmly established on the basis of the use of Colossians by Ephesians.
The following are more observations that have been noted:
1. The similarities in the overall structure and theme of the letters should not be surprising, especially if both were written at about the same time to Christians who experienced similar circumstances. This would include the introduction, the body, the reader’s previous alienation, current reconciliation, and the discussion of Paul’s suffering in his ministry for the gospel. Although there are similarities, there are also differences. Ephesians 1 contains a Hebrew blessing [berakah] of considerable length along with a thanksgiving and intercessory prayer report. But by inserting an introductory thanksgiving after the opening berakah, the author has not only made this letter different from Colossians, but also any other letter in the Pauline corpus. Moreover, if it is merely a student of Paul why is there no mention of a hymn, or a reference to heresy as we see in Colossians?
2. The close verbal links do not point to one-way dependence. In fact, “Ephesians 1:1–2 may resemble Colossians 1:1–2 because both employ the normal epistolary Pauline formulae and not because either depends on the other”,[SUP][SUP][15][/SUP][/SUP]
3. The sections in the two letters which use the household table gives no certain knowledge of the dependence of one letter on the other. There are differences between them. While in Colossians, directly after the table the text moves into prayer (Col 3:18–4:1; Col. 4:2–4), in Ephesians the text moves from the table to a discussion of battling spiritual powers at work in the world (Eph 5:21–6:9; 6:10-17), before getting to the topic of prayer (Eph 6:18-20). And again, slaves are to fear their masters in Ephesians (Eph 6:5), but are to fear the lord in Colossians (Col 3:22). All of this has brought one scholar to the conclusion that “The variations suggest that both letters may be using traditional material independently.”[SUP][SUP][16][/SUP][/SUP]
In summary those who oppose Pauline authorship make major issues out of minor details and miss the many evidences of Pauline authorship. They attempt to freeze the author of Ephesians into a world of literary dependence or of stylistic difference, making it almost impossible for anything he writes to be genuine by their own standards. In the end I agree with Cadbury, who asks, “Which is more likely—that an imitator of Paul in the first century composed a writing ninety or ninety-five percent in accordance with Paul’s style or that Paul himself wrote a letter diverging five or ten per cent from his usual style?”[SUP][SUP][17][/SUP][/SUP]
Paul The Man
It is therefore the consensus of many that Paul was the writer. Formerly Saul of Tarsus, a tent maker by trade (Acts 18:3) and a student of Gamaliel,[18] the apostle was radically transformed from a persecutor of the Christian church to a follower of Jesus Christ himself (Acts 9:1–9). The ministry of Paul has been of great influence upon the history of Christianity. He was the first recorded apostle of Christ to argue for the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15) as well as the inclusion of the Gentiles into salvation with the Jews, making one new man (Eph 2:11-22). He was imprisoned multiple times by the Roman authorities for his religious agitation, shipwrecked on the island of Malta, wrote several theological letters in the New Testament, and died sometime between ad 62–64, probably in Rome.
Destination and Date
In Ephesus?
It is commonly held as the best option that the Apostle Paul wrote Ephesians during his imprisonment in Rome around A.D. 61-62. Though traditionally it has been thought that the original destination of the letter was at Ephesus, today a good number of scholars feel that the letter was in fact circular, not meant for Ephesus alone but for many churches in Asia Minor. Many have thought this because of the missing place name [ἐν Ἐφέσῳ] in some important manuscripts[19]. Combining this fact with the impersonal language of the letter, it is not a stretch then that such may be true.
However, scholars such as O’Brien and Arnold have provided another attractive example. They maintain that the place name in the letter is original, since, it is the only place name that we have in any existing manuscripts, but that indeed the letter was circular in and around Ephesus to many different house churches.[20] To them this makes the best sense of the evidence.
This seems to be a satisfactory answer to the impersonal nature of Paul’s words in the letter, and also identifies quite well with similar instances of 1 Corinthians and Romans, in which a few manuscripts were also altered in their introduction by a scribe, so as to provide more flexibility and application in public reading during service.[21]
Download pdf.
Bibliography
Arnold, Clinton E. Ephesians . Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2010.
Black, Thomas Lea and David Alan. The New Testament: Its Background and Message. 2nd ed. Nashville , TN : Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003.
deSilva, David. An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation . Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Myers, Allen C. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987.
O’Brien, Peter. The Letter to the Ephesians . Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1999.
[HR][/HR][1]. Some very persuasive arguments can be found in O’Brien, Hoehner, and Thielman.
[2]. Peter O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). It was known for being quoted with familiarity by fathers such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp.
[3]. Ibid. It was listed in the Muratorian Canon in a.d. 180.
[4]. Peter O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 5.
[5]. Ibid.,5-7
[6]. (e.g., ἄθεος [2:12], ἄσοφος [5:15], ἑνότης [4:3], εὔνοια [6:7][SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][/SUP]
[7]. Peter O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 10-13.
[8]. Ibid., 12.
[9]. Ibid., 14-20 for the technical material
[10]. Clinton E. Arnold, Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 46–47.
[11]. Ibid, 47.
[12]. Ibid., 48.
[13]. Ibid.
[14]. O’Brien 14–15.
[15] Ibid., 16.
[16]. Ibid., 17.
[17]. Thomas D. Lea and David Alan Black, The New Testament: Its Background and Message, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 436.
[18]. Allen Meyers, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 801.
Footnotes and a bibliography are included at the bottom.
I cant post it all, its too long (so says CC).So if for some reason you would like to download you can with the link i provide after the portion of the paper I have provided.
The Background of Ephesians
Authorship
Despite the salutation of the letter (“Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ” 1:1), the authorship of the Ephesians has been a hotly debated issue in critical scholarship. The majority of New Testament scholarship today writes persuasively for Pauline authorship of Ephesians.[1] Such is an authorship that was universally accepted in the early Church[2] and even acknowledged by Marcion as a genuine letter written by Paul, though written to Laodicea instead of Ephesus.[3] In fact, it is not until the end of the 18[SUP]th[/SUP] century that any challenge arose against the traditional view of Pauline authorship. Nevertheless, in spite of this long tradition there are some who have come to different conclusions about the letter and have reasoned that Paul did not write Ephesians. It is believed today that a follower of Paul, one who knew and imitated his style, wrote the letter. The following is a summary of the main arguments against Pauline authorship:
An Impersonal Letter[4]
The implied author who claims his apostolic authority and describes himself as a suffering prisoner for Christ, the gospel, and the Gentiles (3:1, 13; 4:1, 6:19, 20) gives no details of his suffering or his imprisonment in the letter. He appears to have only a general knowledge of his readers (1:13, 12, 16), and he questions whether they have ever heard of his ministry to the Gentiles (3:2). Moreover, the lack of personal greetings to the audience of the letter to the church at Ephesus is telling, especially when he had sent such to Christians in Rome, a place he had not visited previously. This reinforces the picture that the author is without any connection to his readers.
language and Style[5]
The writer of Ephesians introduces many words and phrases that are unique to this letter, and thus does not parallel with any other of Paul’s writing. Ephesians contains forty Hapax Legomena for the New Testament and fifty-one further words that are not found in the undisputed Pauline letters. More importantly there seem to be words in the letter that have greater familiarity with post-apostolic literature.[6]
The Relationship Between Ephesians and Colossians[7]
Scholars who argue that Ephesians is pseudonymous contend that it heavily depends on Colossians as its primary source. Lincoln believes that such is the main reason for rejecting Pauline authorship of Ephesians. His arguments in a short summary are as follows:
Ephesians builds on the overall structure and theme of Colossians, such as the first parts of the letter, the prologue, the thanksgiving period, the intercessory prayer report, and the reminder of the reader’s previous alienation and their current reconciliation to Christ. While it is recognized that each letter treats these forms and subjects in a slightly different fashion, even in those sections that appear distinct there are parallels found elsewhere (e.g., Col. 1:13–14 in Eph. 2:1–10; cf. the use of Col. 1:23–28 and Eph. 3:1–13; and Eph. 3:14–21 and Col. 1:29–3:10). Both letters contain exhortatory material about putting off the old man and putting on the new, both contain similar household codes of conduct for husbands and wives, and both close with a similar exhortation. It is therefore inadequate to believe that both letters simply reproduced common traditions.
The close verbal links within parallel sections of the two letters all point to one-way dependence of Ephesians on Colossians. There are various keywords (e.g., redemption, reconciliation, body, flesh), in Ephesians 3:1–13, which clearly come from Colossians 1:24–29 (e.g., affliction, ministry, mystery, riches, and power). There are also connections in terminology in relation to the old and new humanity language, as well as a vice and virtue list (Col. 3:5–17; Eph. 4:17–5:20), which show the dependence of Ephesians on the earlier epistle. In fact, it is said that the author of Ephesians not only modeled his letter after Colossians but clearly modified and improved its theology at certain points, particularly in the household code of Colossians (Col. 3:18–4:1; Eph. 5:21–6:9).
The connections not only appear in major sections, but also in sections such as the doxology of Ephesians 1:3-14. Such has no exact counterpart to anything in Colossians, yet it is said to contain many parallels with the earlier letter (cf. ‘holy and blameless before him’, Eph. 1:4 with Col. 1:22; ‘in whom we have redemption’, Eph. 1:6, 7 with Col. 1:13, 14, 20; ‘in all wisdom and insight’, Eph. 1:8 with Col. 1:9; ‘all things … things in heaven and things on earth’, Eph. 1:10 with Col. 1:20; ‘having heard the word of truth, the gospel’, Eph. 1:13 with Col. 1:5).[SUP][SUP][8][/SUP][/SUP] This is also true of the thanksgiving and intercessory prayer sections of each introduction (such as Eph. 1:18 with Col. 1:27; Eph. 1:19, 20 with Col. 2:12).
It is thus concluded by some that the author of Ephesians has shown a free and creative dependence on Colossians, but dependence nonetheless. In summary, it is said that there is too much commonality between the letters and that the better explanation of the commonality between Colossians and Ephesians is that the one served as the model for the other. Thus the author of Ephesians who was not Paul, copied heavily from Colossians.
A Response[9]
As we have seen there is much that is said from those who believe that Paul did not write Ephesians. However, I think that a better case can be made for the authenticity of the letter by showing the inadequacy of their presuppositions. The following is a summary of general and technical reasons that have been given for Pauline authorship of Ephesians:
Ephesians contains a substantial amount of material presented in the first-person as the apostle to the readers.[SUP][SUP][10][/SUP][/SUP] It would be a foolish thing, would it not, to think that a student of Paul could purposely fool everyone for many centuries into thinking that his writing was really from Paul the Apostle?
There is early attestation of Paul as the author of Ephesians. The letter was quoted, used by, or alluded to by early church fathers, including Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all cite sections of Ephesians as having been written by the Apostle Paul.[11]
Paul was capable of writing with a range of styles and exhibiting his own literary flair.[SUP][SUP][12][/SUP][/SUP] Opponents of Pauline authorship claim that there are too many stylistic differences in Ephesians. Arnold is helpful when he says that this view “unfairly restricts Paul to a preconceived mold of how he should write based on some of his other letters.[SUP][SUP][13][/SUP][/SUP] Are they who hold this view really prepared to put on the Apostle of Christ such a burden?
An impersonal letter: Such an impersonal letter can only be made sense of in one of two ways. Either Paul is not the author, and therefore the author is truly ignorant of his audience, or Paul is the author and has written the letter to many churches in Ephesus. At this point one’s interpretation of Ephesians 1:1 is critical and could soundly solve the issue at hand.
Language and style: Though it is said that many words and phrases are unique to the letter of Ephesians (such as the long sentences in the praise of Paul), is it not the case that other Pauline literature has some of the same, particularly long sentences? Even if Ephesians does have more long sentences than any other Pauline literature, A. van Roon has pointed out that Paul chose to use long sentences frequently in his doxologies and prayers (Eph. 1:3–14, 15–23; 3:14–19; cf. Rom. 8:38–39; 11:33–36; 1 Cor. 1:4–8; Phil. 1:3–8; 1 Thess. 1:2–5; 2 Thess. 1:3–10), in statements that contained heavy doctrinal content (Eph. 2:1–7; 3:2–13; cf. Rom. 3:21–26; 1 Cor. 1:26–29; 2:6–9), and in exhortatory material (Eph. 4:1–6, 11–16; 6:14–20; cf. 1 Cor 12:8–11; Phil. 1:27–2:11). Although there are some differences in language and style between Ephesians and other Pauline literature, it is surprising that if the author was just a disciple of Paul, no one in the early centuries of the church knew about it or were concerned enough to question it, even with the insurmountable number of differences that are claimed by some.
The Literary Relationship between Ephesians and Colossians: The influential study of H.J Holtzmann has suggested that the evidence of the parallels points more in the direction of a Colossian dependence upon Ephesians, in spite of what others have argued for. Indeed, A. van Roon has brought such a hypothesis into question, saying that there is no sure indication of initial dependence either way regarding the available evidence. Ernest Best has concluded that “There is … insufficient evidence to enable us to come down firmly in favour of the priority of either letter, though there is a slight probability in favour of the use of Ephesians by A/Col [i.e., the author of Colossians]’[SUP][SUP][14][/SUP][/SUP] He contends that his research has removed one main argument from those who believe non-Pauline authorship can be firmly established on the basis of the use of Colossians by Ephesians.
The following are more observations that have been noted:
1. The similarities in the overall structure and theme of the letters should not be surprising, especially if both were written at about the same time to Christians who experienced similar circumstances. This would include the introduction, the body, the reader’s previous alienation, current reconciliation, and the discussion of Paul’s suffering in his ministry for the gospel. Although there are similarities, there are also differences. Ephesians 1 contains a Hebrew blessing [berakah] of considerable length along with a thanksgiving and intercessory prayer report. But by inserting an introductory thanksgiving after the opening berakah, the author has not only made this letter different from Colossians, but also any other letter in the Pauline corpus. Moreover, if it is merely a student of Paul why is there no mention of a hymn, or a reference to heresy as we see in Colossians?
2. The close verbal links do not point to one-way dependence. In fact, “Ephesians 1:1–2 may resemble Colossians 1:1–2 because both employ the normal epistolary Pauline formulae and not because either depends on the other”,[SUP][SUP][15][/SUP][/SUP]
3. The sections in the two letters which use the household table gives no certain knowledge of the dependence of one letter on the other. There are differences between them. While in Colossians, directly after the table the text moves into prayer (Col 3:18–4:1; Col. 4:2–4), in Ephesians the text moves from the table to a discussion of battling spiritual powers at work in the world (Eph 5:21–6:9; 6:10-17), before getting to the topic of prayer (Eph 6:18-20). And again, slaves are to fear their masters in Ephesians (Eph 6:5), but are to fear the lord in Colossians (Col 3:22). All of this has brought one scholar to the conclusion that “The variations suggest that both letters may be using traditional material independently.”[SUP][SUP][16][/SUP][/SUP]
In summary those who oppose Pauline authorship make major issues out of minor details and miss the many evidences of Pauline authorship. They attempt to freeze the author of Ephesians into a world of literary dependence or of stylistic difference, making it almost impossible for anything he writes to be genuine by their own standards. In the end I agree with Cadbury, who asks, “Which is more likely—that an imitator of Paul in the first century composed a writing ninety or ninety-five percent in accordance with Paul’s style or that Paul himself wrote a letter diverging five or ten per cent from his usual style?”[SUP][SUP][17][/SUP][/SUP]
Paul The Man
It is therefore the consensus of many that Paul was the writer. Formerly Saul of Tarsus, a tent maker by trade (Acts 18:3) and a student of Gamaliel,[18] the apostle was radically transformed from a persecutor of the Christian church to a follower of Jesus Christ himself (Acts 9:1–9). The ministry of Paul has been of great influence upon the history of Christianity. He was the first recorded apostle of Christ to argue for the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15) as well as the inclusion of the Gentiles into salvation with the Jews, making one new man (Eph 2:11-22). He was imprisoned multiple times by the Roman authorities for his religious agitation, shipwrecked on the island of Malta, wrote several theological letters in the New Testament, and died sometime between ad 62–64, probably in Rome.
Destination and Date
In Ephesus?
It is commonly held as the best option that the Apostle Paul wrote Ephesians during his imprisonment in Rome around A.D. 61-62. Though traditionally it has been thought that the original destination of the letter was at Ephesus, today a good number of scholars feel that the letter was in fact circular, not meant for Ephesus alone but for many churches in Asia Minor. Many have thought this because of the missing place name [ἐν Ἐφέσῳ] in some important manuscripts[19]. Combining this fact with the impersonal language of the letter, it is not a stretch then that such may be true.
However, scholars such as O’Brien and Arnold have provided another attractive example. They maintain that the place name in the letter is original, since, it is the only place name that we have in any existing manuscripts, but that indeed the letter was circular in and around Ephesus to many different house churches.[20] To them this makes the best sense of the evidence.
This seems to be a satisfactory answer to the impersonal nature of Paul’s words in the letter, and also identifies quite well with similar instances of 1 Corinthians and Romans, in which a few manuscripts were also altered in their introduction by a scribe, so as to provide more flexibility and application in public reading during service.[21]
Download pdf.
Bibliography
Arnold, Clinton E. Ephesians . Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2010.
Black, Thomas Lea and David Alan. The New Testament: Its Background and Message. 2nd ed. Nashville , TN : Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003.
deSilva, David. An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation . Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Myers, Allen C. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987.
O’Brien, Peter. The Letter to the Ephesians . Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1999.
[HR][/HR][1]. Some very persuasive arguments can be found in O’Brien, Hoehner, and Thielman.
[2]. Peter O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). It was known for being quoted with familiarity by fathers such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp.
[3]. Ibid. It was listed in the Muratorian Canon in a.d. 180.
[4]. Peter O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 5.
[5]. Ibid.,5-7
[6]. (e.g., ἄθεος [2:12], ἄσοφος [5:15], ἑνότης [4:3], εὔνοια [6:7][SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][/SUP]
[7]. Peter O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 10-13.
[8]. Ibid., 12.
[9]. Ibid., 14-20 for the technical material
[10]. Clinton E. Arnold, Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 46–47.
[11]. Ibid, 47.
[12]. Ibid., 48.
[13]. Ibid.
[14]. O’Brien 14–15.
[15] Ibid., 16.
[16]. Ibid., 17.
[17]. Thomas D. Lea and David Alan Black, The New Testament: Its Background and Message, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 436.
[18]. Allen Meyers, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 801.
Last edited: