do we know about the author of this letter?
The opening verses of the letter identify Paul of Tarsus as its author. This self-identification reappears in chapter 3, where the author identifies himself as being “a prisoner for Christ Jesus.” Unlike some other undisputed Pauline letters, the author makes few self-references or references to members of the author’s party or the names of those in the church that is receiving the letter. The only other person mentioned in the text is Tychicus, who appears to have been the bearer of this letter (6:21). Tychicus is also mentioned as the bearer of the Colossian letter (Col. 4:7). Traditionally interpreters have taken the letter’s two statements of identification at face value and have assumed that Paul is the author. If Paul is the assumed author, then the reference to being in prison would lead to the conclusion that this could be one of Paul’s final letters, written from Rome in the mid-60s, along with the Colossian and Philemon letters.
For a number of reasons, many contemporary scholars reject Pauline authorship of the letter (along with the Colossian letter). If Paul isn’t the author, the assumption of many scholars is that it was written sometime after Paul’s death by associates of the late apostle. The clues that have led to this consensus include differences in style between this letter and the undisputed letters. There are also theological differences. For instance, whereas the earlier Pauline letters exude a sense of urgency due to the soon return of Christ, in this letter there is the sense that the church is
hunkering down for the long haul. There is that sense that this is representative of a second generation of leadership. In relationship to leadership and structure, the more free-form structures of the Corinthian letter have given way to a firmer structure of Apostles, prophets, Evangelists, Pastor-Teachers. Finally, if the Book of Acts offers any clues to Paul’s relationship to the churches of Asia Minor, one wonders why there are no personal references to members of the church addressed by the letter – as is seen in the other letters. Even the Roman letter, which is written by Paul to a church he had yet to visit, includes significant references to persons known in common. Although none of these clues rule out Pauline authorship, a majority of scholars consider this the product of a second generation church.
What do we know about the recipients of the letter?
Getting beyond the question of authorship, where some disagreement remains, there is a much broader consensus that this is a general letter addressed to a number of churches and not to the Ephesian church in particular. Evidence here includes the fact that the letter doesn’t address specific questions or issues that had been raised by the recipients. In addition, there is textual evidence from some early manuscripts of the letter that suggest that this is a general letter. This evidence comes in the form of early manuscripts of the letter that do not contain the words “in Ephesus.” Instead, the letter is simply addressed to the “saints who are faithful in Christ Jesus.”
There are other clues. If, for instance, this had been written by Paul to the Ephesian church (two assumptions that are in question), one wonders why the author of the letter seems to have no personal knowledge of the church being addressed. Consider the sentence: “for surely you have already heard of the commission of God’s grace that was given me for you . . .” (Eph. 3:2). Such a statement sounds odd considering that Paul was, according to the account in the Book of Acts, a founder of the Ephesian church. Thus, even if there might be questions about the historicity of the
Acts narrative, it is quite suggestive that Paul spent considerable time in Ephesus — up to three months, perhaps making use of a local academy for his teaching and preaching ministry. If as Acts suggests, Ephesus was a center for Paul’s ministry then not only would the Ephesians know of his calling, but even his successors would likely have been familiar with that congregation (Acts 19). What is true of Ephesians is also true of the Colossian letter, which appears to be an earlier draft of the letter, or at the very least the Ephesian letter appears to be based on the earlier Colossian epistle. This letter follows the same outline as Colossians, but makes modifications that further develop the ideas present in the
earlier letter.
Whether or not Paul is the author, we do not have much if any information about the recipients. This means that we will read it differently than we might the Corinthian letters, which are full of details that are rooted in the addressed community. The sense of context here is very different from these more specific letters.
Pseudonymity and the Bible
Many modern readers find the idea of pseudonymity to be problematic. The idea of a nom de plum is a well understood practice, but writing in the name of a famous person seems unseemly, even fraudulent. The very first syllable is off putting, for “pseudo” means, for us, falsity. Indeed, for me to write a book under the name of a famous theologian, such as Karl Barth, would lead to charges of producing a forgery. How can we accept this text as offering words of truth if it emerges from a false identity. Modern western squeamishness with pseudonymity isn’t something that is shared by every culture, including many cultures living in the early centuries of the Christian era.
It was common practice and considered perfectly acceptable to write a book in the name of another person. Solomon, for example, is the attributed author of most of the Proverbs, while many of the Psalms are attributed to David. There is also a book attributed to Daniel — who may or may not have been a historical figure —
that was written several centuries after the era described. Then we have the various authors whose work comprises the book of Isaiah. Within the New Testament, we know that the gospels were written anonymously, with authorship attributed to the books by later tradition — probably in the second century. At least one, if not both, of the Petrine letters are pseudonymous, as is true of Jude. Among the letters attributed to Paul, the only undisputed letters are those addressed to the Romans, the two Corinthian epistles, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. There is also a whole range of pseudonymous literature that stands outside the biblical canon, but like the canonical texts the reason for writing under the name of a famous person is that the name carried with it a certain sense of authority. As for the letters written in the name of Paul, most scholars believe that the authors represent a theological school of thought that is linked to the person named. Thus, the author of the Ephesian letter is seeking to represent to a second generation church the tradition of Paul’s theology.
One of the questions that lies behind the debate over authorship is the identity of Paul. Especially in regard to issues relating to women and to slavery, the Ephesian letter, along with Colossians and the three pastoral letters, seem to have a more rigid or conservative sense to them. This more culturally rigid position seems to stand in contrast to what one finds in the Galatian letter or even the Corinthian letters. By removing Paul from authorship of these discomforting texts, Paul begins to look more progressive (see the arguments in Borg and Crossan, 29-58).
The occasion for writing the letter
The letter can be broken into two parts, a theological section and a practical one. More specifically, it is a “hortatory discourse,” with the first half offering praise to God for the grace provided so that the recipients — likely Gentiles — might experience salvation in Jesus Christ, while in the second half of the letter (chapters four through six) the author offers encouragement to the readers, that they might persevere through difficult times that lie ahead. In this sense, it is written to address the questions raised by a community of believers who are transitioning from a Gentile (Greek) background into a Christian faith that is deeply rooted in Jewish theological and ethical categories. In the early chapters you have this strong sense that the recipients once were persons subject to God’s wrath because of how they lived according to the passions of their flesh (2:1-3). But now, through Christ they have a new identity: They are heirs with Christ and members of Christ’s body (3:5-6), having established their new identity in Christ, and therefore there are certain expectations for their lives.
Starting
