Who Wrote the Book of . . . Ephesians?

Who Wrote the Book of . . . Ephesians?

Posted by Clark Bates
June 13, 2016

      As we continue this series on biblical authorship, we turn our attention to the disputed letters of the apostle Paul. Having been credited with writing approximately 75% of the New Testament and being the source for much of the foundational doctrines of the Christian church, it should be of no surprise that his writings would come under fire. While evidence may exist to support the notion that the majority of skeptical claims against traditional authorship stem from a critical presuppositionalism, that isn't to say that the reasons given are entirely unfounded. Believers should always be willing and eager to engage with positions that challenge traditional perspectives to better understand others as well as bolster their own convictions. That is the purpose of this series in general and particularly here in this article. Now, on to our investigation into the author of the Epistle to the Ephesians.

Pseudepigraphy and the Early Church

       It might seem odd to the average biblical reader that there would be debate over the authorship of a letter like Ephesians which presents itself, unambiguously, as from the apostle Paul (1:1-2). In order to make sense of such a claim, it will be necessary to discuss the practice of pseudonimity in ancient Eastern writings. To say that a text is pseudonymous is to say that it is written by an unknown author, claiming the name of a well-known figure as the author, in an effort to provide more weight to what is written. This was a very common practice in the first and second centuries, and because of its wide spread practice, many scholars have found reason to believe several of the New Testament epistles to be pseudonomic writings. Regarding the pseudonimity, Metzger writes, “There is scarcely an illustrious personality in Greek literature or history from Themistocles down to Alexander, who was not credited with a more or less extensive correspondence.”¹

      For twentieth century writers, it would seem more logical to steal the writing of another author and attach our name to it. This is, of course, known as plagiarism and is considered highly unethical. However, in the first century and beyond a writing would be less likely to gain traction unless it could be attributed to someone of note; therefore the opposite practice to plagiarism (pseudepigraphy) was exercised. While plagiarism is almost unanimously viewed as unethical in the 21^st century West, 1^st century pseudepigraphy was not viewed with the same universal, ethical disdain. Thielman writes that,

“The practical reasons and moral justification for the practice were varied and complex. . . . Some pseudonymous letters were probably innocent fictions. . . . letters were sometimes written to deceive their readers. . . . a number of the pseudonymous Socratic epistles describe networks of specifically named friends and . . . details. . . that look realistic. . . . to make the readers believe they are genuine [causing]. . . the people presented [to] become examples of how the Cynic philosopher should live.”²

      While the evidence for the existence of pseudonymous Christian letters in antiquity is decidedly slim, there is, within what can be found, an existence of intentionally deceptive writings in the early Christian movement. By the second century, letters to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians were being circulated in support of the Marcionite heresy.³ Officially, Greco-Roman society was not more tolerant of forgery than modern society, despite the differences in perspective regarding pseudepigraphy and plagiarism. While the practice was common and not necessarily deemed unethical in popular opinion, if deception was determined to be intended, the consequence could be as extreme as exile.⁴ Because of this there is no reason to see early Christians as more tolerant than others regarding forged documents, leaving the motive behind such productions something of a mystery.

      It has been proposed that Christian authors might have had in mind the Platonic idea of a “noble lie”.⁵ Clement of Alexandria adopted this ethic, making it conceivable that other early Christian writers may have felt the same. In any case, Christian pseudepigraphy of the early church existed for polemical purposes to refute false doctrine steadily increasing within the body. The existence of such work is what has led some to see Ephesians as pseudepigraphal in spite of its attribution to the apostle Paul. The validity of this claim will be assessed later.

Other Detractions From Pauline Authorship

       It is said that the theology of Ephesians reflects non-Pauline characteristics. Apart from the tendency to see the letter to the Ephesians as pseudonymous, multiple other textual persuasions have been leveled against the traditional, apostolic authorship of the epistle. It is assented that the message of justification by faith (2:5-8) is influenced by Paul, but other emphases, such as the cosmic nature of the church (3:10), realized eschatology, and believers foundation being on the “apostles and prophets” (2:20) in contrast to Paul's belief that the foundation of the church was Christ alone (1 Cor. 3:11), are considered to be only weakly attested to in the undisputed letters of Paul. It is also suggested that the use of the Greek Ekklesia (church, assembly) in Ephesians speaks of the universal church, whereas Pauline usage of the same word is normally reserved for the local congregation.

      It is also suggested that the language of Ephesians includes words not found elsewhere in Paul, and that the overall style of the writing is decidedly non-Pauline. Specifically noted is the length of sentences used in the letter. English translations betray this fact by breaking up the sentences into smaller fragments, but in the Greek text passages such as 1:3-14; 15-23, and 3:1-7 are each a singular sentence. This style is often labeled pleonastic (redundant word usage) in the sense that there is a fullness to it. The sentences themselves abound in prepositional phrases, relative clauses, participles, and multiplying synonyms.⁶ It is leveled by critics that, “there is scarcely anything comparable in Paul.”⁷

      Finally, it is also suggested that Ephesians is an early “Catholic” writing, meaning that the author appears to be looking back on the apostles as a closed group from some later date, as well as the relationship of his letter to that of the undisputed , yet strikingly similar, letter to the Colossians. It is widely believed that the letter to the church at Colossae is genuinely Pauline, but the similarity between the two suggests the later author of Ephesians relied upon Colossians for its writing. The similarity is such that it seems anachronistic to write two letters within the same time frame covering the same message. For skeptics, it becomes far more plausible, given the other objections and the existence of pseudepigraphal writings within the Christian church, that this letter was written at a much later date under the auspices of the famed apostle.

A Response in Favor of Traditional Authorship

       With the weight of accusations against Pauline authorship, what response can be given? First, I should note that absolute objectivity in regards to issues such as this can be relatively impossible to achieve. It is disingenuous to believe that one's presuppositions regarding the Christian faith, biblical inerrancy, and preferred textual-critical method do not in some way influence the amount of value one will apply to various evidences for either position. I do not pretend to be distinct from this, and I believe that if you have read my previous articles regarding biblical authorship, you'll notice that I lean toward traditional authorship. I do this primarily from the belief that the weight of evidence (when it can be known) for traditional authorship often outweighs that of the skeptical approach. When evidence is scarce for either position I see no need to affirm one or the other, but find that a theological conviction regarding biblical inerrancy should influence us to accept the traditional view.

    

      Regarding the accusation of pseudonimity, it has already been mentioned that the pseudepigraphal writings of the early church were commonly presented in an effort to combat false doctrine. This is not meant to be an apologetic for the practice but an acknowledgment of the circumstances. As it has been written elsewhere, “Christian pseudepigraphy found its main impetus in doctrinal disputes, the endless argument between orthodoxy and heresy.”⁸ and also, “Ephesians is not a polemical document; there is no theological battle raging behind the text that might justify the extreme measure of a 'noble lie' in violation of the author's otherwise high standards of honesty.”⁹ Neither does Ephesians bare the markings of an innocent fiction as much of the pseudonymous works of the first century were. In contrast, the author claims to be Paul, speaks of himself throughout in the first person and presents a very realistic portrayal of the apostle's suffering for the faith. Therefore, if Ephesians is pseudonymous (which it certainly could be), it is an anomaly among Christian pseudonymous letters.

      While the theology of Ephesians might seem more “forward-thinking” than other letters of Paul, it is an extreme measure to suggest that the theology it contains is something that was outside the reach of the apostle. Neither the epistle to the Galatians nor to the Romans are disputed as being genuinely Pauline, yet the theology of the latter far exceeds that of the former. Given the emphasis on spiritual warfare at the close of the epistle (6:10-20), the cosmic functions of Christ and the realized eschatology at the letter's opening can be seen as tailored to the specific needs of the church, and while the apostles and prophets are spoken of as cornerstones of the church (2:20), so too is Christ mentioned as the “chief cornerstone” in the same verse. This corresponds directly with Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians and should not be seen as a contradiction or future theological evolution. The same could be said for Paul's use of ekklesia in regards to its universal application in Ephesians. While it is true that Paul's use of the term is regularly applied to the local congregation, it would not be odd for the apostle would to apply this term globally if the letter was to be circulated to all the churches in Asia, as many of Paul's letters were designated.

      The language of Ephesians does contain words not normally used by Paul, but to see this as proof of pseudonymous authorship is yet another leap. It can, and should, be readily acknowledged that many of the words in Ephesians bear more similarities to the writings of the apostolic church fathers than to Paul, but it is also known that those same fathers quoted from Ephesians extensively, leading many to believe that Ephesians influenced their writing as opposed to the language indicating a later author. Also, while the pleonastic style of the letter is something marvelous, it would not be accurate to suggest that this “dominates” the letter. The long sentence structure dominates only the first half of the letter, but what follows is traditionally Pauline in style.

       The belief that Paul speaks of the apostles as a past phenomenon in Ephesians is yet another exaggeration, given that there is no direct mention of the apostles having passed, nor is referring to them as “holy” indicative of any past tense formulation given Paul's regular attribution of holy to all believers. While Colossians and Ephesians are remarkable similar, and many point to the copied information as evidence for later authorship, what is not copied is of equal importance. “If Ephesians had been copied from Colossians, why would the author have omitted Timothy's name when he is mentioned in the latter as Paul's co-author? And why are all the other names in Colossians missing in Ephesians except that of Tychicus. . .? No theory of imitation offers a suitable explanation of this incongruity.”¹⁰ To put it briefly, the relationship between these two letters is not determinative of much in the domain of authenticity.

Positive evidence for Pauline authorship is as follows:

1. Both in the body and the opening of Ephesians, the letter claims to have been written by Paul (1:1; 3:1). While obviously not determinative on it's own, any letter coming down from antiquity should be held to be by the author it mentions unless there is strong evidence to the contrary.¹¹ The writer inserts multiple personal flourishes, including knowledge of the readers' faith and love (1:15), he prays for them (1:16), calls himself the “prisoner of Christ Jesus” (3:1; 4:1), asks for the readers' prayers (6:19-20), and the comment regarding Tychicus at the letter's close (6:21) is completely incoherent if the author is not the apostle.
2. In the earliest known circulation of this letter, its authenticity was never doubted. As was mentioned above, the letter was accepted even by the heretic Marcion as authentic; it is in the Muratorian Canon, used by heretics and orthodox alike, and was viewed as Pauline by many apostolic fathers such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, and Hermas. The question of authorship is a modern disputation.
3. Despite the skeptical claims, the letter to Ephesus is replete with Pauline features. There are words and structure throughout that conform directly to that of the undisputed letters, and there are words and phrases found here and nowhere else in the New Testament. What we are left with is best posed in the rhetorical question of H.J. Cadbury, “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 percent from his usual style?”¹²
4. Given the two diverging perspectives regarding the relationship of Colossians to Ephesians, argument can be, and is, made for and against Pauline authorship. Approaching the relationship from a traditional perspective, it would seem that Ephesians can be seen as a development of Colossians rather than a copy. Colossians seems to serve a specific purpose, whereas Ephesians takes similar themes and applies them on a broader scale.
5. Many of the themes in Ephesians are decidedly Pauline. For example, justification by faith, the place of grace, the dominance of the flesh in the unredeemed, the work of Christ as reconciler, and the place of Jews and the law. Opposition may argue that this is merely Pauline imitation, but that is using the conclusion to prove the premises.
6. Paul claims that he was a prisoner at the time of writing Ephesians (3:1) which corresponds to what can be known of Paul historically. The theological development of this letter is not uncommon for a man nearing the end of his life, and even more so as the church at Ephesus is seen as needing further instruction in the faith. In short, no alternative explanation for authorship stands as more likely than that of the apostle Paul writing from his final imprisonment.

“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 percent from his usual style?”

Conclusion

      For many, how you view the evidence above will be filtered by your presuppositions. This serves only as a brief overview of evidences that can be investigated in greater detail. Much of the arguments against Pauline authorship are arguments from inference. In any case, there is no justifiable reason to approach any text of antiquity from a perspective of absolute skepticism. If authorship is claimed, evidence to the contrary must be brought to bear and weighed prior to any positive identification to the contrary. The author is admittedly Pauline, and it is the view of this article that the evidence against the claim is unsatisfactory.

1Bruce Metzger, “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigraphs,” Journal of Biblical Literature, (1972), 10.

2Frank Thielman, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Ephesians, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 1-2.

3Marcion believed Jesus was the savior sent by God, and Paul the Apostle was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and the God of Israel. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament.

4Herodotus, Histories, 7.6

5L.R. Donelson, “Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles,” Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie, 22 (Tubingen: Mohr, 1986), 18-19. Plato's “noble lie” was that a lie does not merit abhorrence if told in an effort to dissuade foolishness or insanity. Essentially, it would be a lie that is told to bring about a greater good.

6D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, “Ephesians” (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 484.

7Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Epistle to the Ephesians, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 26.

8Donelson, “Pseudepigraphy,” 17.

9Thielman, Ephesians, 4.

10Bo Reicke, Re-examining Paul's Letters: The History of the Pauline Correspondence, (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2001), 79.

11Carson and Moo, Introduction, 480.

12H.J. Cadbury, “The Dilemma of Ephesians,” NTS 5, (1958-59): 101.