EPHESIANS
I ended my previous blog entry referring to the author of Ephesians as “Paul,” i.e., in quotes. Why the quotes? Before getting into Ephesians I think it’s worth pausing to discuss briefly the idea of Pauline authorship of NT letters.
If you take the NT at face value, Paul wrote Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1–2 Thessalonians, 1–2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon: 13 canonical letters in total. But most mainstream NT scholars hold that while all of these letters bear Paul’s name, he only wrote—for certain—7: Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Pauline authorship of the rest is doubtful, they say, and these were probably written by disciples of Paul but not by the apostle himself.
Without boring you with too much of the details, the essential criteria for determining authenticity are format (Does the text match the literary pattern of known texts?), internal data (Are there internal clues as to the text’s authorship?), style (Are the writing styles similar/dissimilar?), vocabulary (Is there a repository of shared words? Is there a repository of different words?), theology (Do the author’s religious presuppositions or beliefs match with that of known texts?), and external data (Has the text’s authorship been attested by early church leaders?). Many mainstream NT scholars put the Pauline letters through this grid and come out with the results mentioned above. So, for example, some scholars doubt the veracity of Pauline authorship for Ephesians b/c its overall tone is quite general with few historical details describing the situation in Ephesus, compared with the specificity of historical context in 1 Corinthians, Philippians, Galatians, etc.
I, for one, think there are numerous reasons which could account for these sorts of differences, so I don’t necessarily see a need to play the non-Pauline authorship card. Let me offer one reason. It’s clear that Paul (like many other early authors) used an amanuensis, i.e., a personal “secretary” (e.g., Rom 16:22; cf. 1 Cor 16:21). The question would then be: How much freedom to write did Paul grant his secretary? If he granted him only a little, then the letter would sound very Pauline in style, vocabulary, etc. If, however, Paul used a secretary in whom his trust was great, then he could have given him a lot more freedom and latitude in recording the apostle’s thoughts, in which case, the letter would not sound so Pauline in style, vocabulary, etc. But Paul would still have read and signed off on it b/c the letter correctly recorded his thoughts/ideas! Question: In what way/s would this idea of a secretary affect the doctrines of divine revelation, inspiration, and inerrancy?
Anyways, when we come to Ephesians, b/c it’s more general sounding in tone it’s harder to discern the social-historical context and occasion (i.e., the reason) for the letter. The general tone and lack of historical specificity maybe suggests that this first-century letter was meant to circulate beyond Ephesus to nearby congregations (e.g., Col 4:16) to instruct these churches in some of the foundational truths of Christianity.
The basic structure of the letter would be as follows: Opening Greeting (1:1-2), Praise and Prayer (1:3-23), The Mystery of Salvation and its Results (2:1-3:21), Exhortations to Unity and Virtue (4:1-6:9), Concluding Remarks (6:10-22), and Final Benediction (6:23-24).
We’ll get to the text next.