1 Epistle to the Ephesians Authorship Analysis Matthew P.

Miller
From its philosophy to its literature, nearly every aspect of the Christian religion has been scrutinized over the past two-thousand years. The Christian Scriptures have not been immune to this criticism. The Bible has been the subject of much literary controversy over the past few centuries. Such criticism falls on these texts because of two main points which Christianity asserts about them: 1) The Scriptures are the very words of God; 2) In their modern form, the Scriptures are reliable and have not changed in theological content or consistency since the time when they were received by the prophets and apostles. From Genesis to Revelation, critics have raised questions and objections to nearly every author, book, and historical account. Some criticism has been insubstantial or outright polemical, while some of the textual criticism has been honest and has led to significant, scholarly research and insight. It is not wrong to ask the questions, and it is right to answer them. This research paper will investigate the claims of textual critics regarding the authenticity of the authorship of the Epistle to the Ephesians and II Timothy. Traditionally, the Apostle Paul is considered to have penned both letters. These two books are included in the New Testament and are, therefore, regarded as divinely-inspired texts which are suitable for guiding Christian faith and practice. This paper will 1) summarize the textual criticisms raised against Pauline authorship of Ephesians, 2) detail the lines of reasoning on both the critical and traditional sides, and 3) address some additional criticisms which are unique to Pauline authorship of II Timothy.

EPHESIANS: DEVELOPMENT OF THE CRITICAL VIEW: A BRIEF HISTORY

Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Ephesians came under the scrutiny of textual criticism during the 18th century. Before this time, it was universally agreed, generally without question, that Paul wrote the letter (ESV 2257). The debate began in the year 1792 in England by Edward Evanson and travelled to Germany, the proverbial motherland of higher criticism, in the 19th century for further critique by de Wette and Schleiermacher (Bromiley 109). From Germany, the debate crossed the Atlantic to the States and has since become an international discussion.

EPHESIANS: LINES OF REASONING FOR THE CRITICAL STANCE

The claims raised by critics have fallen into four categories, which Bromiley lists on pages 112-113: Linguistic and Stylistic Differences; Literary Arguments; Historical Arguments; Doctrinal Arguments. Mitton and Goodspeed have outlined the main arguments found within these categories. Here is a summary of their work: 1) Ephesians is written to a non-specific recipient which is in stark contrast to Pauls other, more personal greetings to specific congregations; 2) The authority and importance of the apostles is presupposed in such a way that is not found in the other epistles; 3) The full inclusion of the Gentiles into the church is presupposed; 4) The return of Christ in Ephesians lacks the sheer imminence of Pauls other exhortations concerning the Second Coming; 5) Ephesians contains a more developed understanding of marriage and its relationship to the marriage of Christ and the Church; 6) Ephesians contains a more developed understanding of the importance of child-rearing (109-110). This section will attempt a fair, unbiased treatment of three primary critical arguments. The four main categories of criticism will also be addressed in the arguments treatment, as each of the

3
arguments is built upon criticisms regarding the stylistic, literary, historical, and/or doctrinal elements of the text. The following section will address the traditional response to each.

Criticism Concerning the Addressees. Of the epistles which Pauline authorship is accepted by traditionalists and critics alike, each contains a very personal introduction by Paul in which he addresses the believing community of a certain city and writes with the purpose of answering a particular question or treating a certain dilemma or topic. This is clearly demonstrated in his letters to Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Philippi, and Thessalonica, as well as in his letters to Timothy and Philemon. These letters are not the focus of the criticism but provide the contrast for it: What is being debated is that Ephesians lacks Pauline authenticity simply because its missing the signature feature of Pauls personal introduction to a specific audience (Bromiley 109). The critics say that Ephesians does not depict a tangible controversy in an actual congregation; the reasoned argument necessary in the other letters is missing and along with it one of the strongest characteristics of Pauline authenticity (Douglas 335). The critics have juxtaposed the personal nature of Pauls other letters with the lyrical style of Ephesians, with its piling up of similar or related expressions full of participles and relatives (335). The critic can point to Acts 19:10, establish a biblical fact that Paul was in Ephesus for at least two years, and conclude that the impersonal nature and unfamiliar or ambiguous tone of his supposed letter to Ephesus is borderline bizarre and without internal justification (ESV 2257). Bromiley cites references to the writers audience from Ephesians 1:5, 2:11, 3:2, and 4:21 (111). Each of these references is a generalization and none of them seem to imply a personal correspondence;

4
respectively: he predestined us; you Gentiles; Gods grace that was given to me for you; you have heard about him. Compared with more intimate references in Pauls other epistles, such as referring to believers by name in 1 Corinthians 1:11 or by dilemma in Galatians 1:6, Ephesians seems a little cold and presents the critic with a substantial argument against Pauline authorship.

Criticism Concerning the Apostolic Foundation. The second argument in Mittons summary of the critical viewpoints is the apparent contradiction or unexplained, irrational rapid development of theological understanding which underpins Pauls understanding of the foundation of the church (Bromiley 109). This argument falls into the aforementioned doctrinal category: The argument is primarily focused on drawing out a contradiction in Pauls ecclesiology, or theology of the nature of the church. Ephesians 2:20 is the passage in question: *The church is+ built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (ESV). The contradiction lies in Pauls earlier comment on this topic in 1 Corinthians 3:11: For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ (ESV). The contradiction is apparent, say the critics, because in the earlier letter Paul says no other foundation can be laid besides Jesus Christ, while in the latter letter Paul would be positing another foundation (the apostles and prophets) and modifying Jesus position to the cornerstone. Bromiley states that Hort, a faithful apologist for Pauline authenticity in Ephesians, admitted that this variation is embarrassing to the defense (109).

Criticism Concerning the Lack of Parousia Imminence. A theological characteristic within the universally

5
accepted Pauline Corpus is the imminence, or nearness, of the Lords return: From one of his earliest correspondences, with the Thessalonians, to one of his latest epistles, to the Philippians, the sense of urgency about the Second Coming, or Parousia, is an undeniably important factor in Pauls faith, practice, and exhortation. Strangely, say the critics, this Pauline trademark is missing in Ephesians. It is timely and appropriate to etch a rabbit trail and mention the parallels and lack thereof between Ephesians and Colossians. Bromiley, on page 110, echoes critical claims that similar words and phrases are employed to express completely different concepts between these two epistles. If Paul wrote both Ephesians and Colossians, and together they should form a sort of beautiful theological unity (as the traditionalists claim), then surely the style and vocabulary would be more similar, say the critics. The differences between Ephesians and Colossians are relevant to the criticism of the lack of Pauls Parousia-urgency in Ephesians because Colossians contains Pauls trademark urgent tone in 3:4: When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory (ESV). Since Colossians, like Ephesians, is an epistle under Pauline authorship scrutiny, it would seem that the urgency found in Col. 3:4 would support Pauline authenticity of Ephesians. Yet, the opposite is true: Colossians includes the Pauline tone of urgency regarding the imminent return of Christ, while Ephesians seems to suspend the urgent tone by extending the expectation of Christs return in 3:21 to all generations, forever and ever (Bromiley 109). This can potentially detach Pauline intimacy from Ephesians when considering that Paul uses the urgent tone of the Parousia to comfort, teach, and exhort his audience to hope, love, and holy living, as exampled in his epistles to the Thessalonians and elsewhere, such as 1 Corinthians 15.

Further Evidence for the Critical View. Douglas provides some additional facts that cast doubt on Pauline

6
authorship. First, Ephesians contains 42 words which arent used anywhere else in the New Testament writings and an additional 44 words which arent used in any of the other Pauline letters (335). Douglas also mentions, as does Bromiley and other scholars, how the writer of Ephesians places a greater emphasis on ecclesiology than he does on eschatology, which is not a characteristic of any other Pauline works (335). Also mentioned is how Ephesians vocabulary has more in common with NT texts outside of the Pauline Corpus than Pauline epistles (335).

EPHESIANS: LINES OF REASONING AGAINST THE CRITICAL STANCE

Much work has been done to discredit the traditional view of Pauline authorship of key New Testament writings; Equal is the amount of work put in by the traditional side to answer the criticism and present a coherent and reasonable set of arguments for holding to Pauline authorship. This section is a summary of the traditionalists response to the aforementioned criticisms, as well as some additional facts supporting the traditional view. The following section will provide a short treatment of the how Pauline authorship criticism revolving around II Timothy differs from what has already been presented for the Epistle to the Ephesians.

Response to the Addressees Criticism. The first and, perhaps, most obvious argument against

7
addressee criticism is the very mention of Pauls name in the Epistle to the Ephesians. Put simply by Unger, The writer twice mentions his name (1:1 and 3:1) (316). Although this is a relatively simplistic apologetic in relation to the deep scrutiny of the critical sides argument, it is nonetheless evidence for Pauline authorship. The ESV states that this piece of evidence should weigh heavily in the debate unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary (2257). Bromiley catalogs the various responses put forth by the traditional side to rationalize why Pauls name is attributed to the text while his personal mode of correspondence is absent. It has been proposed by Ussher that Ephesians was written by Paul to a circle of churches, with Ephesians being an intentionally non-specific title meant to address a broad demographic (111). This is a widely-held view and does justice to the seeming paradox. It is not impossible that the personally vague yet theologically rich substance of the letter is due to its purpose of being a sort of creed of Pauline/Christian theology to be spread throughout a certain region. It provides an explanation for why Paul does not address a specific problem or person and also for why the theological concepts seem foreign to his other letters which do address dilemmas or individuals. As a matter of fact, this is a very coherent and reasonable explanation. For example, in the letters which are universally accepted to have been penned by Paul, i.e., 1 Corinthians, the scope of the theology which he expresses is limited to the situation, problem, or question he is addressing! With the possible exception of Romans, the Pauline Corpus is composed of letters which contributed to the whole of a correspondence between Paul and the churches he started. The nature of these correspondences was growth and guidance in areas relative to each churchs needs. Galatian Christians experienced different problems than Corinthian Christians experienced, and so on and so forth, and therefore the theology and reason which Paul answered to

8
each church was specific to their situation but generally applicable to the church. On the other hand, Ephesians is, in a sense, a free epistle free from the boundaries of answering a question, solving a dilemma, or positing a challenge in response to a particular churchs needs. It has also been posited that Ephesians was originally a summary of doctrine written by Paul, which was then copied multiple times and included a blank area in the introduction which the courier would later fill in with the name of the specific church or region he delivered it to (111). This explanation does explain the impersonal and non-specific nature of the letter while preserving Pauline thought and authorship. However, this explanation is problematic in that 1) it forces modern practices of communication onto the first-century dispersion of literature, and 2) it does not take into account the difficulty in duplicating manuscripts in the first-century, a process which required large amounts of both time and money (111). Each of these rationalizations has failed to satisfactorily answer the criticism. What is important, however, is that Ephesians may remain an inspired book regardless of its authorship status. The Holy Spirit was active in the first-century; the content of the book is orthodox.

Response to the Apostolic Foundation Criticism. While this criticism seems to lay bare an irreconcilable contradiction between a sure Pauline work (1 Corinthians 3:11) and an uncertain Pauline work (Ephesians 2:20), such an assertion is not well reasoned. This contradiction can be answered logically and theologically.

9
Logically, the two statements are not contradictory as they do not cancel each other out; one statement does not render the other false and vice versa. Rather, each provides a different perspective of the foundation. One statement says, Nobody can lay a foundation which has already been laid, that being Jesus Christ. Another statement says, The foundation of the church is the apostles and prophets, with Christ being the cornerstone. Does the former state, The foundation is not the apostles and prophets? Does the latter state, Someone else can lay a foundation? Neither statement is a contradiction. Logically, this criticism is non-existent. Theologically, since when are the apostles and prophets not considered to be in Christ? Is there a Scriptural warrant for this? Also, this criticism is does not take into account Jesus own teachings about the foundation of the church in Matthew 16:18, And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. This phrase of Jesus is a Hebrew play on words. Peter means rock. Does Jesus say he will build his church on Peter or on this rock? This rock is Jesus himself, with the play on words showing Peter to be a little rock. Jesus is the rock; Peter is a rock (Ps. 89:26, Isa. 51:1). Harkening back to the Ephesians reference, it becomes clear what both Jesus and Paul are referring to: the apostles and prophets are the little stones in the foundation, and Christ is the cornerstone which holds the foundation together. There is even Old Testament precedent for this very concept (above references, Ps. 118:22). The honest and careful critic will also notice that a lone cornerstone, with nothing to hold together, does not form anything but a cornerstone.

Response to the Lack of Parousia Imminence Criticism. The critical view develops this argument based on the discrepancies in thought between Ephesians and Colossians about the Second Coming of Christ.

10
Indeed, there are stylistic and literary differences between the two epistles, but do they diverge to the point their differences on the Parousia are unexplainable? This has not been exhaustively demonstrated by the critical side. There are good reasons for the differences. First, the tone behind the Parousia in Colossians 3:4, When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory is urgent because the entire letter is urgent. Paul is countering the Colossian heresy with gospel truth, and in doing so he lays down truth claim after truth claim to restore the minds of the Colossians. The supremacy of Christ and the nature of the believers identity in Christ are two of Pauls main points in the epistle. His Parousia interjection is, therefore, timely and the urgent tone is appropriate. On the other hand, less is known as to the writers purpose for penning Ephesians. It has already been established in this work that the Epistle to the Ephesians 1) is written to a non-specific audience and 2) does not address a particular question or dilemma, both of which are characteristics of most other Pauline writings. Therefore, is the extended exhortation of the Parousia to all generations, forever and ever really out of place in Pauline thought? Are there other writings of Paul which disallow for this kind of view? While these questions and considerations do not serve as hard evidence for the traditional view, they do, nonetheless, weaken the critical sides claim that the two differences are proof enough for different authors.

Further Evidence for the Traditional View. There are many more detailed evidences and arguments for the traditional view. Lists of stylistic comparisons and literary data are readily available. This section will summarize some of these additional points. Unger states on page 316 that the organization of material *in Ephesians] is Pauline, beginning

11
with doctrine and ending with experience. This is a formula modeled in most of the other Pauline letters, including Romans and Colossians. This provides evidence for an overall similar structure between Ephesians and the Pauline Corpus. Also noted by Unger is that 78 of the 155 verses found in Ephesians are allusions from Colossians (316). Douglas nuances this insight by stating, With the exception of Ephesians 6:21f and Colossians 4:7f, there is no evidence of direct copying, but in Ephesians the same expressions are often used with a slightly different connotation (335). Therefore, there is literary evidence for a Pauline structure of Ephesians, and there is stylistic evidence for Pauline thought throughout Ephesians. Bromiley, on pages 112-113, summarizes the work of Guthrie and introduces it by calling it the best case for the traditional view of Pauline authorship. There are four main points to Guthries case: 1) The stylistic differences between Ephesians and the Pauline Corpus, while many and diverse, can still be consistently attributed to Paul due to his intellect and stylistic versatility; 2) The literary similarities between Colossians and Ephesians suggest that whoever wrote Ephesians did so with spiritual and intellectual power and wrote without copying the Colossian epistle too strictly; 3) The emphasis of uniting Jew and Gentile into one people of God is a major theme in Ephesians and is also consistent with Pauline thought elsewhere; 4) The doctrinal distinctions and emphases found in Ephesians regarding apostolic authority, Christology, unity of Jews and Gentiles, and the importance of marriage as an analogy to Christ and Church are consistent with historical themes in the church and Pauline thought and practice. Bromiley also makes the point that a pseudo-Pauline author of Ephesians would have had difficulty in compiling Pauls writings to develop a book like Ephesians (113).

12
Works Cited Bromiley, Geoffrey W. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia E-J. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956. Douglas, J. D. New Bible Dictionary. 2nd ed. New York: Tyndale House Pub, 1982. ESV Study Bible. Wheaton: Crossway Bibles (Good News Publishing), 2008. Polhill, John B. Paul & His Letters. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999. Unger, Merrill F. Unger's Bible Dictionary. 3rd ed. Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute, 1963.