The more probable theorv, then, is that of simultaneous author- ship by one writer ; and that such a similarity is not unworthy of St. Paul may be seen by comjiaring instances of similar though less marked resemblance between Ko and Gal (cf. Lighttoot, Gaialiam, Introd. cap. iii.), and between 1 Ti and Titus.
(e) The indications of the personal character of the writer are naturally lew in so general an Ep. ; yet such as they are, they are quite true to the character ol St. Paul as revealed in the earlier letters. The spirit ol thankfulness bursting out into doxologies (13 321), the courteous recognition ol good in his con- verts (115), the proverfulness lor them (116 3IS. 14), the longing lor their intercession (6i»). the tonrlncss for applying great principles to the details of daily life (.V-^"), the sense ol his own personal unworthiness (a sense which has grown stronger with advancing years, but yet was destined to grow stronger still, 38, cl. 1 Co 159, 1 Ti ji ), combined with the bold apjieal to his authority as based ui>on revelation and upon his sufferings lor the trutii (31 4I).— all these may indeed be the accidenul out- come of borrowing from the early letters, hut far more proljably are they the natural outcome of the work ol the same man.
There can, then, be little doubt that the >vrit«r is St. Paul. The alternative is a .Jewish-Christian Paulinist, steeped in St. Paul's lanfoui^'e, doctrine, and cliaiactcr, coiniidsin^ ' a mosaic out of the material of the ratiliiio Epistles' (Von Soden), (jiving a slightly wiilcr scope to his conceptions of Christ and of the Church, emphasizing the uni- versal character of the Church as a part of God's eternal jmrpo.se, 'in the spirit of the Fourth fiospel' (Uort, p. 120). It would be a tenable view that the writer was the author of the Kotirth (Jospel, writing in the name of St. Paul, liut if our altenuitives are limited so narrowly as this. the witnes.s of the early Church may be regarded as absolutely decisive. We have seen how early the evidence is of the existence of the Ep., and evidence of existence is in this case evidence of
• There are scarcely any Interrogatory sentences ; one only In Eiih, as coni|>ared with 88 in llo 1-11, and 4 in Ro 12-16. (Sanday and lleadlam, Inlernalional Commfniari/ on Iht yfontaiis, the best discussion In English ol tie difference al style between Ro and Eph.)
718 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO
EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO
belief in the Pauline authorship. The work is not anonymous (like the Fourth Gospel or the Ep. to the Hebrews) ; it has not merely a salutation easily separable from the Ep. ; the claim to Pauline authr"-ship is knit into the very fabric of the letter, and some of the earliest reminiscences of its language are of the parts which imply the autlior- ehip. It was, then, written by St. Paul himself.
iii. Destination.— The readers to whom the letter was addressed were mainly Gentiles (1" 2" 31 417 58) . i,„j jjjjg does not, any more tlian Ro 1 1 ", exclude the presence of some J ewish Christians. Indeed, 2" seems to require the presence of Jewish Christians as forming a minority in the Church. St. Paul is laying dovra guidance to tlie Gentiles in their treatment of the Jewish Christians. Hence some commentators have treated the Ep. as a general encyclical to bU GentUe converts throughout the world.
But there are personal bonds between him and them ; lie has had recent news of their faith and love (1"); they have heard of his imprisonment and are sad at heart about it (3"), and are anxious as to the issue of it (6^') ; they seem acquainted with Tychicus (6^'- ^) ; and they are distinguished from other Christians (1" 3'* 6'*). There is little doubt, then, that the destination must be localized. But in 1' the words ^i" 'E(pi(r(fi are of very doubtful authority. They are absent in the first hand of t< and B, and are marked as an interpolation in 67 ; but found in all other MSS. Further, BasU (c. Eunom. ii. 19) says that there was a tradition of their absence, and that he found them omitted in the old copies known to him. Again, the interpre- tation of Toi! oiai as 'those who have true life,' 'those who really are,' — an interpretation which presupposes the omission of the words, — is quoted by Basil as a traditional interpretation, and is found in Origen (Cramer, Cat. ad loc), and is repeated by Victorinus Afer, Jerome, and Hilary. Further, Tertullian, in arguing against Marcion that the Ep. was addressed to the Eph., does not appeal to the salutation. It is, then, a fair inference that the words were absent from some copies in the 2nd cent., as it is a certainty that they were absent from many in the 3rd and 4th centuries.
The title rpbs 'E(f>e(riovi gives us surer ground, and yet not quite sure. It is universally found in all MSS and versions, and all Church tradition has connected the Epistle with Ephesus. But Tertullian tells us that some heretics, and notably Marcion {adv. Marc. v. 11 and 17, cf. Epiphanius, Hcer. 42), had a different title ' ad Laodieenos ' : now this may have been a mere critical conjecture bj Marcion, based upon the obvious likeness of this Ep. with the Col, and the indication of Col 4" that there was a letter written to Laodicea at this time. If so, this at least implies the absence of iv "&<jiiaif from the copies : but it is equally probable that the alternative title is a real fact, and that the Ep. was originally sent to Laodicea.