But with Irenzus at least and the Muratorian Canon we reach sure and indisputable ground. Irenzus refers to Paul by name as the author of our Epistle and quotes it as his. He cites Eph. ν. 13 as words of Paul (Adv. Her.,, i., 8,5); and he expresses himself thus—xdOws 6 μακάριος Παῦλός φησιν ἐν τῇ πρός ᾿Εφεσίους ἐπιστολῇ : ὅτι μέλη ἐσμὲν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ, ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ (Adv. Her., ν., 2, 3; cf. Eph. v. 30). The Muratorian Canon mentions the Ephesians as one of the Churches to which Paul wrote Epistles. The testimony of Clement of Alexandria is like that of Irenzus. Thus, after citing 2 Cor. xi. 2 as an injunction of the Apostle’s (ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐπιστέλλων πρὸς Κορινθίους φησίν), he introduces Eph. iv. 13-15 in these ἴεγπις-- σαφέστατα δὲ ᾿Εφεσίοις γράφων . . « λέγων: μεχρὶ καταντήσωμεν οἱ πάντες εἰς τὴν ἑνότητα τῆς πίστεως, κ.τ.λ. (Paed., i., 18). In the same way he quotes 1 Cor, xi. 3 and Gal. v. 16 ff. as words of Paul (φησὶν ὁ ἀπόστολος), and proceeds thus—&é καὶ ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἐφεσίους γράφει - ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Θεοῦ, etc., as in Eph. v, 21-25 (Strom., iv., 65) The testimony of Marcion is to the same effect, although he gave the Epistle the title “ad Laodicenos” (Tert., Adv. Marc., v., 17); while Tertullian, his opponent, mentions Ephesus among the Churches that had original, apostolic Epistles, and corrects Marcion only on the matter of the destination—Ecclesiae quidem veritate epistolam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos (Adv, Marc., v., 17). And from the latter part of the second century the stream of testimony to the fact that the Epistle was recognised as Paul's flows steadily on.
Notwithstanding the strength of the external testimony, however, there have been not a few in modern times, from Schleiermacher and Usteri on to the present day, who have doubted or denied the Pauline authorship. Among these De Wette, Baur and Holtz- mann occupy a conspicuous place. It is to be observed, however, that some who have most strenuously questioned the genuineness of the Epistle still admit it to be of very early date—as early as Α.Ρ. 75 or 80. De Wette, e.g., allows it to be a product of the Apostolic age, the work indeed of some highly gifted scholar of the Apostle’s, and Ewald’s position is something similar. Others take up an indeter- minate position. The conclusion of Jiilicher, ¢.g., is that the Pauline authorship can neither be certainly accepted nor absolutely denied.
The arguments leading up to the doubt or denial of the genuine- ness of the Epistle are based upon internal considerations—style, language, peculiar usages, the nature of the ideas, etc. Thus De Wette regards the composition as unlike Paul’s way of writing—in its