(b) Relation to 1 Peter. — There is a considerable amount of resemblance of thought, structure, and language between Eph. and 1 Peter. This is especially obvious in the directions for family life (note the curious phrase ' your own husbands ' in 1 P 3\ which seems to depend on Eph 5--). Other parallels quoted are P with 1 P P, 3^'- with 1 P I'of. (where it is quite unnecessary to argue that 1 Pet. is prior : the two passages may be inde- pendent), P with 1 P 119-20, 2-1 with 1 P 2S 1" with 1 P 2" (the use of irepnroiriais in Ejjh. is not dependent on that in 1 Pet. , being quite diff"erent ; the former is concrete, the latter not), 1-"'- with 1 P 3^-^ ; 6i»'- with 1 P 5^- » ; 4^ with 1 P y^ 4«. These analogies are not unnatural, on the assump- tion that St. Peter knew Eph., and certainly do
not demand the priority of 1 Pet., as Hilgenfeld and others have argued.
(c) Relation to the Lucan and Johannine writ- ings. — Numerous analogies, mainly of thought, have been found in Eph. to almost every book of the NT, but esi)ecially to those connected with the names of St. Luke and St. John. Parallels of language and idea have been seen in the farewell address at Miletus (Ac 20^^-'^^; cf. Mottatt, op. cit. p. 384) ; and Lock [loc. cit.) draws out the parallels of thought with the Eucharistic prayer in Jn 17. It is true that many of the conceptions of Eph. are found in the Fourth Gospel, but this is not at all unnatural. The parallels of language are by no means striking. The connexion with Rev., empha- sized by Holtzmann, is very slight, and that with Heb. is not much more definite (details in Salmond, 'Ephesians,' in EOT, p. 212ff-.).
The general impression made on the present writer by the study of these various affinities is the outstanding resemblance in general thought, and even in expression, between Eph. and Romans — a resemblance which the difference of style does not obscure. This in itself is a strong witness to the authenticity of the Epistle.
Literature. — The following is only a small selection from a very voluminous literature. L Commentaries. — Besides the older Commentaries, such as E. W. E. Reuss (1878), H. Alford (71874), and C. J. EUicott (31864), the most notable are those of A. Klopper (18'.n), G. G. Findlay {Expos. Bible, 1892), H. von Soden {Haiid-Koiiiittentnr, 1893, also artt. in JPTh, 1887, and Hint, nf Early Christian Literature. The W riling sof the NT, Eiig. tr., lyuo), T. K. Abbott {ICC, 1897, largely linguistic), E. Haupt (in Meyer's Krit.-exeg. Eommentar iiber das HT, 1902, very valuable" exegetically), J. Armitage Robinson (1903, exegetical and philological, no introduction), S. D. F. Sal- mond {EGT, 1903), B. F. Westcott (190G), P. Ewald (in Zahn's Konnnentar zum iVr, 1910). Fundamental for modern critical studies is H.J. Holtzmann's Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserhriefe, 1872.
IL Against Pauline authorship. — Besides Baur, Schwegler, Hitzig, are S. Davidson, Introd. to iVT^, 1894 ; C. v. Weiz- sacker,2'Ae^po.sto/tc^//<', Eng.tr., 1894-95; E. von Dobschiitz, Christian Life in the Primitine Church, Eng. tr., 1904 ; O. Pfleiderer, Primitive Christianity, Eng. tr. , 190G-11 ; R. Scott, The Pauline Epistles, 1909; J. Moffatt, Z/A'T-, 1912.
in. For Paulinr authorship. — F. J. A. Hort, I'rolegomena to Romans and Ei'/ii'siaiis,\>i'.)5 \ A. Robertson, art. ' Ephesians' in Smith's DB-, is'.ci ; W. Lock, art. ' Ephesians' in HDB; T. Zahn, Introd. to J\'T, Eng. tr., 1909 (a storehouse of facts); A. S. Peake, Crit. Introd. to NT, 1909.
L. W. Grensted.
EPHESUS ("E^eo-os, a grsecized form of a native Anatolian name). — The town of Ephesus was a little south of latitude 38° N., at the head of a gulf situ- ated about the middle of the western coast of Asia Minor. It lay on the left bank of the river Cayster, at the foot of hills which slope towards the river. In ancient times the river reached to the city gates, but its mouth has gradually silted up so that the city is now some four to six miles from the sea. The effect of the river's action has been to raise the level of the land all over. The ruins, the most extensive in Asia Minor, give an idea of how large the ancient city was. The extent of the area covered by it cannot now be exactly estimated ; but, as the population in St. Paul's time was probably about a third of a million, and in ancient times open spaces were frequent and ' sky-scrapers ' unknown, the city must have been large, even according to our standards. Tlie temi^le of Artemis (see Diana), the ruins of which were discovered by Wood, lies now about five miles from the coast, and was the most imposing feature of the citj'. Its site must have been sacred from very early times, and successive temples were built on it. Other notable features of tlie city were the fine harbour along the banks of the Cayster, the aqueducts, and the great road following the line of the Cayster to Sardis, with a branch to Smyrna. The heat in summer is very great, and fever is prevalent. The harvest rain
350
EPHESUS