EPHESIANS
238
EPHESIANS
the apostle. 3. The close resemblance of this epistle to the epistle to the Colossiaiis, suggesting that the former is only an enlargement of the latter. The first of these objections may be passed bj' here, as the alle- gations on which it rests will be particularly consid- ered wlien we come to the question of the destination of tlie epistle : at present it may suffice to cite the re- mark of I!euss in reference to tlie unreasonableness of sucli objections: "If Paul writes simple letters of friendship, they are pronounced insignificant, and so spurious, because there is a want of the didactic char- acter in them ; and, on the other hand, if this prevails, there is proof of the spuriousiiess of the writing in the absence of the other. What! must both elements al- ways be united according to some definite rule.' is it so witii us ? or are any two of Paul's epistles alike in this respect?" (Die Gesc/dchte d. H. Schr. Neuen Test. p. 104, b'd cd.) The second of the above objections lias reference to such passages as i, 21; ii, 7; iii, 21, where it is alleged the Gnostic doctrine of £eons is recognised; and to the expression TrXz/pw/ia, i, 23, as conve^'ing a purely Gnostic idea ; and to such words as iivn-i'](itoi', (jotpia, yvioatc, (pioQ, aicoria, etc. On tills it seems sufficient to observe, without denying the existence of Gnostic allusions in this epistle, that, on tlie one hand, the olijection assumes that, because Gnostic schools and s)/slems did not make their appear- ance till after the age of the apostles, the ideas and icords in favor with the Gnostics were unknown at an earlier period, a position which cannot be maintained [see Gnostics] ; and, on the otlier, that, because the apostle uses phraseology which was employed also bj' the Gnostics, he uses it in the same sense as they did, •which is purely gratuitous and indeed untrue, for to confound the cihovtQ and 7rA)'/pw/(« of the apostle with the aimng and 7r\)]owj.ia of the Gnostics, as Baur does, only proves, as Lange has remarked, that "a man iiiiiy write whole books on Gnostics and Gnosticism without detecting the characteristic difference between the Christian principle and Gnosticism" {AjMstol. Zeit- alt. i, 124). "With regard to the resemblance between this epistle and that to the Colossians, it can surprise no one that, written at the same time, they should in mail}' respects resemble each other (see Klopper, De origine Kpp. ad Eph. et Col. Gryph. 1853) ; but it does not require mucli penetration to discover the manv points of difference between them, especially in the point of view from wliicli tlie writer contemplates his main sul)ject, the Lord Jesus Christ, in each; in the one as the prehistoric, prc-existent, supreme source of all things ; in the other as tlie incarnate, historical, exalted, glorified head of the Cliurch, to whom all things are subjected (comp. Eph. i, 20-23, with Col. i, 15-20 ; and Lange, Ap. Zeit. i, 118). As for tlie al- l,\ged "copious expansion," that may be left to the judgment of the reader, as \7cll as the counter notion of Schneckenbnrger, that the epistle to the Colossians is an e()itome of that to the Ephesians made by Paul himself. On such objections in general, we may saj' witli Keuss that " rasli Iiypotheses, whatever accept- ance tliey ma}- liave received, tell hy their deficiency or strangeness, not against the epistle, but against them- selves ; and, in opposition to all cavils, the many traits which disprove the presence in the thoughts of a deceptive imitation by a foreign hand stand as valid arguments in its defence" (Gesch. p. 101). For a de- tailed reply to the arguments of De Wette and Baur, tlie student mav be referred to Meyer, Einleif. z. Eph. p. 19 sq., ed. 2; Davidson, Introd. to N. T. ii, 352 sq,, and Alford, Prolegomena, p. 8.
II. lyie Renders for vham. this Epistle was designed, —^n the opening words, "Paul, an apostle of Chri^'l Jesus by the will of God, to the saints that are in Eph- esus and faithful in Christ Jesus," tlie words in Epke- sus, tj/ 'V,<l,'c(ji;), are omitted l>y tjie Vatican and Sinaitic MSS., the cursive numbered 07, bj' Basil (expressly), probably by Origen, and possibly by Tertullian. This,
combined with the somewhat noticeable omission of all greetings to the members of a church with which the apostle stood in such affectionate relation, and some other internal objections, have suggested a doubt whether these words reallj' formed a part of the orig- inal text. On the subject of the persons addressed, therefore, two Iiypotheses have been principall}' enter- tained, besides the common opinion wliicli, following the (disputed) reading in i, 1, regards the party to whom it was sent as the Church at Ephesus. (See the Jahrh.f. deutsche Theol. 1866 p. 129 sq., 742 sq.)