What would be more natural than to cite common acquaintances? Ephesians lacks both a sense of intimacy with the congregation, as well as names of specific church members, which are unexpected, given that he spent over two years there according to Acts. However, Paul’s communications to the Thessalonians has no personal references, even though Paul founded that church only a few months before writing his letters from Corinth (Acts 18:5; 1 Thess 3:6). Any explanation about Pauline authorship of Ephesians must take into account the relative lack of statements of personal knowledge about the addressees. Most explain this as indicating either that the letter was not written by Paul, or that the letter was intended as an encyclical letter to be read by various churches in the vicinity of Ephesus.
External Evidence for Authorship
The latter possibility is reinforced by a particular textual variant. In some of the most reliable manuscripts, the words “in Ephesus” are not found in 1:1 as one would expect. Several questions immediately come to mind, such as whether Paul would write a letter that would be read to various churches. In Col 4:15–16, Paul requests that his letter to them be shared with the nearby city of Laodicea, and the letter he sent to the latter city (not extant) be read by the Colossians. Again, Galatians is also written to the churches in that province. From these examples we could at least conclude that Paul is not opposed to having several churches read each other’s letters. Interestingly, an ancient writer, Marcion (declared a heretic for his views on the Jewish Bible/Old Testament and the person of Jesus) is reported by Tertullian to have identified Ephesians as Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans, but it is unclear, however, whether Tertullian is speaking of the letter itself or the superscription (title page, if you will), and whether Marcion is supplying a missing text or changing an existing text.12
Further questions include whether the manuscripts without “in Ephesus” are accurate in their rendering, or whether there is some corruption whereby the relevant locale was omitted. The oldest sources, including P46 (third century CE), Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (both fourth century CE), omit “in Ephesus” in the actual letter, but do include “to the Ephesians” in the superscription. These three manuscripts are of the Alexandrian text type, which suggests a local variant. The rest of the reliable manuscripts, from a variety of regions, including the early Coptic (Egyptian language) translation, incorporate the phrase “in Ephesus.” This list includes the earliest editorial changes in both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Thus we have excellent external evidence for both readings. Finally, Origen, who lived both in Alexandria and in Caesarea Maritima, in his commentary on Ephesians seems not to have used a manuscript that had the words “in Ephesus.” However, he makes it clear in the text that he believes Paul is writing to the Ephesians, as his opening line in the discussion of Eph 1:1 reads “In the case of Ephesians alone we find the phrase ‘to the saints who are.’”13 He has a remarkable interpretation of the awkward Greek, namely that Paul is describing the Ephesians as those who once were not, but now are, through God. He takes his cue from Moses’ encounter with God in the desert, when God reveals who he is by saying “I AM.” In both cases, the verb for “to be” is used. Although we have only fragments of Origen’s commentary on Ephesians preserved, Jerome clearly used it in composing his own commentary.14 And he probably also used Origen’s prologue as well, wherein Origen makes clear that the letter in question is addressed to the Ephesian church, suffering from an overwhelming attraction to magic and the goddess Diana (drawing on Acts 19:1–20).
If the manuscript evidence is inconclusive, the internal evidence might shift the balance. Usually textual critics prefer the more difficult reading and the shorter reading. If these rules are followed, the omission of the phrase in the original seems assured. In this case, the copyists, aware of the difficult reading, stayed true to the text in front of them, not smoothing out the reading. They would have no apparent reason for omitting the city’s name. In fact, they might have assumed Paul was following the Hellenistic custom whereby a royal decree was often lacking a specific addressee because the declaration was to be read in numerous cities.15
However, a further critical rule suggests that if a variant reading is nonsensical or uncharacteristic of the author’s work, the longer reading should be supported. In this case, the omission creates an odd reading in Greek and is uncharacteristic of Pauline letters. Normally we find Paul using “to those who are” followed by a place name in his introduction and greetings. Those manuscripts that omit the place name read awkwardly, “to the saints, to those who are, and believers in Christ Jesus.” The problematic reading might be better explained as a copyist error than coming from the original text. Some suggest, however, that the omission indicates this letter was intended as an encyclical epistle to be read in several churches. It was up to Paul’s envoy and letter carrier, Tychicus, to insert the city’s name as he read it to the several churches in small cities in the vicinity of Ephesus. Although no copy of the letter has either a space in the manuscript for a city’s name to be inserted or the preposition “in” followed by a blank space, nonetheless, if Tychicus was instructed to insert the name of the city when he read it to the churches, there would be little need to leave a space in the actual text. We might pause for a moment and note that Paul gives Tychicus the responsibility to inform the listeners of his situation (this is true as well in Colossians). It seems that Paul instructed his envoys to communicate more than what was on the page, for example when he reveals in 2 Cor 7:6–16 that he expected Titus to reassure the Corinthians of Paul’s concern for them. Again, the custom of reading the letter publicly to the church was apparently consistent throughout Pauline churches. Even a letter as personal as Philemon was read to the entire church, as indicated by the plural “you” at the beginning and end of the letter. Furthermore, the instructions that Tychicus give details of Paul’s situation (in chains) suggests that the apparent lack of personal details in Ephesians itself might be counterbalanced by Tychicus and by Paul’s personal knowledge of individual communities surrounding Ephesus. Paul’s situation in prison might have prevented him from writing individual letters, but would not prevent Tychicus from passing along specific greetings and encouragements directed orally by Paul through him. An intriguing, but limited parallel could be drawn with contemporary papyrus invitations, many of which lack the name of the addressee. These one-line invitations to a birthday party, wedding, or other festivity depended upon the messenger to include the guest’s name at the time the invitation was read to them.16 In the end, it seems the evidence is weighed slightly in favor of the letter being addressed to the church in Ephesus, but given Paul’s encouragement to the Colossians to share their letter with the Laodiceans, it is entirely possible that Tychicus, as he traveled from Ephesus to Colossae, read Paul’s letter to the Ephesians to the satellite Christian communities orbiting around the central city of Ephesus.
Support for this possibility might come from 1 Corinthians, which was penned in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8). In 1 Cor 16:19, Paul extends greetings from the churches in the province of Asia, which may signal that he sees the Ephesian Christian community not limited to the city limits, but extending to the towns beyond. “Paul here seems to imply . . . that the Christian community of Ephesus was the central Christian community of the province. . . . This suggests that the Ephesian Christian community was a missionary centre, and maintained contact with Christians in other parts of the province.”17 This follows the Roman assumption concerning the polis or city, which understood its influence to cover extensively the surrounding territory outside its walls. For example, even before Paul’s time, most of Italy was seen as part of Rome, broadly speaking. Freeborn Italians had a form of Roman citizenship known as Latin rights citizenship. A similar attitude towards large urban centers outside of Rome continued in the imperial period.18 This allows for the possibility that someone living even twenty miles (a day’s journey) from the Ephesus city center might be considered (and consider themselves) an Ephesian. Clearly the limit did not extend to Colossae, one hundred miles from Ephesus, or Smyrna, thirty-five miles away.
Internal Evidence
Literary Character of Ephesians
The main internal concerns that surface in any conversation about Pauline authorship of Ephesians focus on the literary character, the theological emphases, and the historical setting implied in the letter. Turning to the
