{a) It is suggested that the words ii> 'E^^o-y should be omitted, and that our present text is then correct (so e.g. Moffatt, and the majority of those who reject the Pauline authorship). Un- fortunately, as indeed Origen's attempt at explana- tion shows, the reading so obtained gives rather poor sense. The translation ' the saints who are also believers . . .' (Meyer) is hardly possible, and ' the saints who are also faithful . . .' (Light- foot, Salmond) is still difficult. It is very hard to suppose that St. Paul would make so pointed an allusion at this stage to ' saints ' who were unfaith- ful. The difficulty arises not so much from the meaning of ayiois, which here, as in 3^, has the Jewish sense of ' consecrated,' as from the general force of the passage.
(6) Again, omitting the words iv'E(l)i(x<j), we may supjiose that a blank was left after oSaiv in which Tychicus could insert the names of different churches. This view presupposes, with Beza, that Eph. Avas sent not to any one church, but to the group of churches in Asia founded, like Colossse, Laodicea, and Hierapolis, not by St. Paul, but by such agents as Epaphras. This Avould account for the impersonal tone of the Epistle, and for the absence of any clear trace of special local problems. The view that Eph. is such a Pastoral, with a blank left for the address, is due to Archbishop Ussher, and has been held by most conservative critics {e.(j. Hort). In its broad outline this theory is probably right. The Avhole character of the Epistle shows that it is addressed to a wide circle of readers, and not to any one church. That the readers addressed lived in the neighbourhood of
346 EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE
EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE
Ephesus is suggested (1) by the relations, especially in ti)ought, with Col. ; (2) by the fact that Eph. is sent by the hand of Tychicus ; and above all (3) by tlie tradition associating it with Ephesus, where tlic oi'iginal was probably preserved (Haupt and Zalin). This view relieves the ditiiculty as to the I 'auline authorship due to the impersonal tone of the letter.
It does not, however, solve the problem of P (see Zahn, Introd. to NT, i. 479-483, 488 f.), for (1) there is no parallel for such a method of corre- spondence ; (2) if the blanks had been tilled in with different names in different copies, we should not have had MSS with no name at all ; (3) the order in the Greek is unnatural. The place-name should come elsewhere (cf. Col 1*, Ph V).
(c) These difficulties have driven many scholars to think that the text of 1^ is unsound, whether, as P. Ewald suggests, through the wearing of the papyrus or otherwise. Ewald himself suggests rots ay (xirriTols odcnv Kal ttkttois, ' those who are be- loved and faithful.' Zahn prefers to follow the reading of D, rots ayioi^ odatv Kal TnaToii, ' those who are holy and faitliful.' This is at least easy, but hardly accounts for the corruptions (though dittograpliy miglit have brought in the second Tois). Others think that St. Paul, in accordance with his general custom, must have mentioned some definite destination. The most ingenious conjecture of this kind is that of R. Scott {The Pauline Epistles, p. 182) — iv ^dveaiv ior iv'E(pe<T({3, i.e. 'the saints among the Gentiles.' This, however, is not free from some of the above objections, and is wholly without supporting evidence.
Holtzmann's effort to explain V as a bung- ling attempt by the writer to adapt Col V to his more general purpose is effectively refuted by Zahn {op. cit. p. 517 f.).
As a result of the above discussion, 1^ remains an unsolved problem, but it is clear that the tra- ditional address of Eph. is no part of the text of the Epistle. Its existence is best explained on the hypothesis of a circular letter, sent by the hand of Tychicus to the churches in the neighbour- hood of Ephesus. To explain the early title ' to Ephesians,' as does Baur, from 6^' and 2 Ti 4}^ (' Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus') is far-fetched. Wlietlier, as Harnack thinks, Eph. should be identitied with the letter 'from Laodicea' to be brought, presumably, by Tychicus to Colossse, must remain doubtful (see art. Colossians). Whatever be the exact facts, no objection to the Pauline authorship of Ephesians remains on the score of the destination of the Epistle.
This view of Ephesians as a Pauline pastoral has been held (with varying theories of V) by, e.g., Bengel, Reuss, Lightfoot, Hort, Weiss, Abbott, Salniond, Zahn, Peake. Nevertheless, its authen- ticity has been widely disputed since the time of Schleiermacher, on three main grounds : (a) the doctrinal standpoint ; (&) the vocabulary and style ; (c) the connexion with Col. and with other NT writings.
6. The doctrine of the Epistle. — Few scholars still support the view of the Tubingen School that Eph. sliows traces of both Montanisni and 2nd cent. Gnosticism. Schwegler saw Montanism in the emj)liasis on the Holy Spirit {e.g. V^ 2'*, and especially 3^ 4'*), and in the position given to the ])rophets (2-" 3' 4'^). Gnosticism was said to be the source of such terms as 'pleroma' and 'seon.' Baur argued that Eph. was not written against Gnosticism, but that it showed signs of its early phases. As we now know, the date(A.D. 130-140) which he gave on this hypothesis would be much too late. Gnosticism was fully developed before the middle of the century. Hilgenfeld and 0. Plleiderer see in both Eph. and Col. a polemic