Laodiceans, and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea.” It cannot, however, be inferred that “the epistle from Laodi- cea” was an epistle which Paul wrote to Laodicea; much less that the epistle intended was the one addressed to the Ephe- sians. Paul may have written to the Laodiceans a letter which is no longer extant. 3. It is urged that on this hypothesis all the peculiarities of the epistle can be readily explained. But those peculiarities can be explained without resorting to a hy- pothesis destitute of all historical foundation.
The assumption that this epistle was not designed specially for any one church, but intended equally for all the churches in that part of Asia Minor, has met with more favour. This view, first suggested by Archbishop Usher, has been adopted, variously modified, by Bengel, Benson, Michzelis, Hichhorn, Koppe, Hug, Flatt, Guericke, Neander, Olshausen and many others. The great objection to it is the overwhelming authority in favour of the reading ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in the salutation, and the unanimous testimony of the early church. Perhaps the most probable solution of the problem is, that the epistle was written to the Ephesians and addressed to them, but being intended specially for the Gentile Christians as a class, rather than for the Ephe- sians as a church, it was designedly thrown into such a form as to suit it to all such Christians in the neighbouring churches, to whom no doubt the apostle wished it to be communicated. This would account for the absence of any reference to the peculiar circumstances of the saints in Ephesus. This seems to have been substantially the opinion of Beza, who says: Suspicor non tam ad Ephesios ipsos proprie missam epistolam, quam ad Ephesum, ut ad ceeteras Asiaticas ecclesias transmitteretur.
§ V. The relation between this Epistle and that to the Colossians.
This relation is, in the first place, one of remarkable simi- larity. This similarity is observable, 1. In the occurrence in both epistles of the same words and forms of expressions. 2. In passages which are identical in thought and language. 3.