(2) Externdl evidence. — This preliminary inves- tigation, then, rather favours the authenticity of the Epistle than otherwise, and this result is en- tirely borne out by the external evidence of early writers. Epliesians is one of the best-attested books of the NT. By the middle of the 2nd cent, it was widely known. Both the Old Latin and the Syriac Versions had it. The evidence of Hippolytus shows that it was used by the Ophites (PhUos<fphou- mena, v. 8), the Valentinians (vi. 34, 35), and per- haps by Basilides (vii. 25, 26). Marcion included it in his Pauline Canon, under the title 'to the Laodiceans ' (see below). It seems to be quoted by Hennas (cf. 4* with Sim. ix. 13). Earlier still Polycarp quotes 2^- ^ in Phil. i. 3, and, still more definitely, 4-® in Fkil. xii. 1 (Lat.). The evidence of Ignatius is almost equally certain : Polyc. V. 1 is a delinite quotation of 5-^, and allu- sions may be seen to P^ and 2^^ in Sinyrn. i. 4, to 4^-3 in Polyc. i. 2, to 5^ in Ejih. i. 1, x. 3. The passage in Eph. xii. ' Paul . . . 6^ iv irdar] €iri(TTo\y jiivTjfjLoveiiei ' caimot be translated as a definite refer- ence to our Epistle, and is indeed evidence (see below, §5) tliat the traditional address is in error. Traces of Ej)!!. have been found in Clement of Rome and in the Didache, but they cannot be called certain.
This evidence is sufficient to throw the Epistle into the 1st cent., and provides at least a strong presupposition that it is Pauline.
5. Destination. — An immediate difficulty arises with the acceptance of Eph. as the work of St. Paul. He was very well known in Ephesus. He had spent over two years of his ministry there (Ac 298-io)_ f\^Q leaders of the Church there had been his close friends, and had parted from him at Miletus with every display of affection (20^^"^^). And yet Eph. conveys no personal greetings. There is no hint that St. Paul was known to the readers, or they to him. All that we can gather from the letter is that they are Gentile Christians (Eph V^ 21. 11. 13. 17 31). St. Paul has heard of their faith in Christ (1'^). He does not seem certain whether they all know how delinitely and specially he had been commissioned to preacli to the Gentiles (3-, and hence the whole digression 3-"'^). If the letter was actually sent to Ephesus (so Schmidt in Meyer^ ; Alford), this is incredible. And even if the Pauline authorship is given up it remains quite impossible to think that a disciple of St. Paul should have written in his master's name so cold a letter to St. Paul's friends. The evidence of Ignatius raises a further difficulty, since he definitely writes to Ephesus about 'all the letters' of St. Paul (Eph. xii.), without any hint that the most sublime of tliem all had been definitely addressed to the Ejihesians themselves.
This being so, it is a relief to find that the ad- dress is very doubtful. The title ' to the Ephesians,' though known toTertullian {adv. Marc. v. 11) and
given in the Muratorian Canon, does not go far back into the 2nd century. There is very little doubt that the original text of 1' had no allusion to Ephesus at all. The vast majority of MSS have Tols aylois Tois odcriv iv 'E<p^(rti} Kai iricrroLS iv Xpicrri^ 'Irjaov, but the words iv 'E^^aqi are absent in the first hand of K and B. They are cancelled by the corrector of 67, who had access to very good textual material. The more ancient copies known to Basil omitted the words. Origen evidently did not read them in his text, since he translates rots oda-iv ' those that have real existence,' illustrating the meaning from the use by Christ of the phrase ' I am.' Jerome and others repeat this interpretation, which was also known to Basil. Most important of all, Marcion's copy evidently lacked the words, since he regarded the Epistle as addressed to the Laodi- ceans. And that Tertullian's text was the same is shown by the fact that Tertullian only abuses Marcion for changing the title, but says nothing about corruption of the actual text {adv. Marc. v. 11, 17).
This evidence makes it almost impossible to think that any place-name, whether Ephesus, or Laodicea, or another, stood in the original text of 1^ since no reason is apparent for its wide-spread omission and corruption. The evidence of Basil shows that our present reading grew up only shortly before A.D. 370. And in any case it is most unnatural Greek. Harnack {Die Adresse des Epheserbriefs des Paid/iis, 1910) has recently argued that Eph. was originally addressed to Laodicea, being in fact the letter 'from Laodicea' of Col 4^®. He conjec- tures that the change in the address took place about the beginning of the 2nd cent., with the de- cline of the Church of Laodicea (Rev 3'^* '®), on the grounds that such a church had no claim to own a Pauline letter. The conjecture is certainly bril- liant, but there is no parallel for such treatment of the NT books, and the MSS with no place-name at all remained unexplained (see Moffatt, Expositor, 8th ser. ii. [1911] 193 f.). What then maybe in- ferred from the textual evidence ? Three alterna- tives are possible.