Some special cases have been thought suspicious The phrase ' holy apostles ' (3') has been dealt with above (§ i). The use of Sid^oXos (42' 6'i ; cf. 1 Ti 3\ 2 Ti 22") is curious, as St. Paul elsewhere employs the name ' Satan ' (also in the Pastorals, 1 Ti 1'-'"). But there is no reason why he should not have varied in his usage in this way (as happens in 1 Tim.). And, indeed, the reference in 42^ may not be to Satan but to human calumniators ; or perhaps both ideas may be present, and the usage here may also have affected 6''. The phrase 'in the heaven- lies,' which occurs 5 times, is curious, but might well have been coined by St. Paul in working out the theme of Eph. (cf. 1 Co 15*'- '•s- ***). The word ' mysterj' ' is difficult in 5*2, but is used in the ordinary Pauline manner in P 3*- ■*• *. oiKovofxla has a somewhat changed sense in 3". The unique use of irepnroir](7is in P"* is paralleled by other trans- ferences of words from an abstract to a concrete sense. On the whole, then, the peculiarities of language are no more than might be expected in any one short document.
(2) Style. — This problem presents more difficul- ty. The sentences are unusually long and cum- brous, subordinate clauses being strung together in a loose connexion which is frequently difficult to analj'ze, e.g. P"" 2^-'^ 3^'"'. Yet they are most carefully wrought and in places are almost poetical in form and balance (esp. P"i^, which falls into three 'stanzas'). There are one or two elaborate parentheses (2'^'^- ^- 3-'^'^). These features are only partially paralleled in Col., and present a wide con- trast to the impassioned rhetoric of the earlier letters. In this respect Eph. stands by itself. To many critics the general impression produced by the style and tone of the letter is the strongest argument against its authenticity. Yet it is very rash to make assumptions as to the possibilities of so mobile and powerful an intellect as that of St. Paul. In none of his other writings is the clash of controversy or the appeal of friendship wholly absent. At leisure in his prison he may well have looked Vjack over the triumphs of his life and have sat down to write in a mood of quiet yet profoiind thanksgiving for which his earlier career had seldom given opi)ortunity.
8. Relation to other NT writings. — (a) Relation to Colossians. — The relation of E]ih. to Col. is, from the point of view of literary criticism, its most striking feature. It has been estimated that 78 out of the 155 verses of Eph. contain phraseology which occurs in Colossians. This is not merely due to the connexion of ideas, which is also close (see above), but is of a character to show tliat the two Epistles are closely connected in their com- position. The details have been elaborately worked
EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE
EPHESUS
349
out by Holtzmann, De Wette, and others (for a good summary of the facts see Mofiatt, op. cit. pp. 375-381 ; Holtzmann's results are criticized by Sanday, art. ' Colossians ' in Smith's Z)£^ and by von Soden in JPTh, 1887 ; cf. his Hist, of Early Christian LiteraUire. The ivritings of the NT). Results differ widely. Holtzmann's discussion Avent to show that neither Epistle could be regarded as wholly prior, and therefore he postulated a Pauline Col., expanded at a later date by a writer who also composed Eph. upon its basis. But the evidence for the division of Colossians has very largely broken down, with the wider view of the Pauline angelology (see art. Colossians). The tendency among scholars is now to assert the authenticity of Col. (so, among those who reject Eph., von Soden [in the main], Klopper, von Dobschiitz, Clemen, Wrede, Moff'att). This, if Holtzmann's results are accepted, proves the authenticity of Eph. also. The two Epistles must have been written by one author at about the same time. The alternative is to regard Eph. , with De Wette, as a weak and tedious compilation from Col. and the earlier Epistles — a position which will appeal to few — or, more sympatlietically, with Moff'att, ' as a set of variations played by a master hand upon one or two themes suggested by Colossians ' (op. cit. p. 375). But this does no justice to the real independence of thought in Ephesians. The two main themes — tlie reconciliation of Jew and Gentile in the Church, and the fact of the Church as influencing Christian life — do not appear in Colossians at all, or only by allusion. The theology is the same, the applica- tion very different. Further, it is hard to tliink that so original a writer would have followed the very structure of Colossians. The rules for family life, e.g., are an integral part of Eph., but have no very clear connexion with the rest of Colossians. It is most natural to suppose, e.g. in Col 3^*'-\ that the writer is summarizing what he has written in Eph 5^^-6^, even at the risk of some obscurity. So, too. Col 2''' has no clear connexion with its context, and must depend upon the fuller Eph 4'^- ^^ for its explanation.
No parallel for the curious inter-connexion of language is to be found in the employment of sources by Matthew and Luke or of Jude liy 2 Peter. There we have frank copying. Here there is nothing of the kind. Again and again phrases are used in Eph. to express or illustrate ideas with which they are not connected at all in Col. (cf. Eph. 2'5- 16 II Col 2''' l-», Eph. S'^ 4^3 || Col 29, Eph 2'« 1-* 5^ II Col 1-'*). The writer's mind is steeped in the language and thought of Col., but he is writing quite indeijendently. The only probable psychological solution of the problem is that one writer wrote both Epistles, and at no great interval. And if so, that writer must have been St. Paul. It is quite likely, indeed, that Col. was composed while Eph. was still untinished, since the latter is clearly the careful work of many hours, perhaps of many days.