a deutero-Pauline hand. For example, instead of the usual term “Satan” in Ephesians, Paul speaks of the “devil” (4:27, 6:11). Again, rather than his usual wording “the heavens,” he speaks of “the heavenlies.” These terms hardly indicate theological shifts, but because they are so insignificant they are thought to expose the author’s automatic reflex. Since Paul would think automatically of the evil one as “Satan,” the author of Ephesians, in using “devil,” exposes himself as other than Paul. However, if we apply this logic to his other letters, we see that it is flawed. Paul can use synonyms for an idea or action, even within the same letter. He is not limited to a single term to express his ideas.19 Again, the lengthy sentences and numerous participial phrases are pointed to as reasons to doubt that Paul composed the letter. For example, his opening thanksgiving runs from 1:3–14 (see also 1:15–23; 2:1–7; 3:2–13, 14–19; 4:1–6, 11–16; 6:14–20). But we find long sentences in other letters, especially when Paul writes doxologically (Rom 1:1–7, 8:38-9, 11:33–39; 1 Cor 1:4–8; Phil 1:3–8; and 2 Thess 1:3–10) or about doctrine (Rom 3:21–26; 1 Cor 1:26–29), or concerning ethical matters (compare Eph 6:14–20; 1 Cor 12:8–11; and Phil 1:27—2:11). In the past, statistical analysis was used to support a deutero-Pauline position. But more recently this method has been called into question, due in no small part to the lack of material by Paul himself. Even though he has written many letters in the New Testament, the actual corpus is relatively small, failing to provide a statistically significant amount of words from which to draw conclusions. Even more, when Ephesians is compared, for example, with the uncontested Galatians, the results are surprising. The letters are about the same length, and each contain about the same number of terms occurring only in that epistle (41 terms out of 2,429 in Ephesians, 35 terms [or 31 if you subtract proper names] out of 2,220 in Galatians) and similar numbers of terms unique to the epistle but found in the New Testament outside of the Pauline corpus (84 in Ephesians, 90 [(80 if you subtract proper names] in Galatians).20 Phrases we readily associate with Paul, such as “fruit of the Spirit” or “present evil age” or “the marks of Jesus,” are found only in Galatians, but these are not used to disqualify that epistle as written by Paul. Instead, it is recognized that Paul’s audience, the situation faced by Paul and the letter’s recipients, as well as Paul’s theological creativity and energy, all play a role in his choice of expression, style, and mood. Finally, some point to the expressions that serve to identify writers, much as a speaker’s tone of voice and idiomatic turn of phrase serve to identify them. In particular, it is suggested that Ephesians has an unusually high number of the prepositions kata (according to or against) and en (in). However, Galatians actually uses kata with the genitive more than any other Pauline letter. Again, Romans uses dia (because of or through) and para (beside) more frequently, while Philippians prefers meta (after or with) and peri (around or concerning). Even more, Ephesians shares with Romans, Galatians, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians the special construction ara . . . oun (therefore . . . therefore).21
Relationship to Colossians
Not only are the literary character, the words chosen (or omitted), and the grammatical forms alleged to be outside Paul’s expressive range, but the letter’s similarity to Colossians raises red flags for many who believe the latter served as a model for the former. The argument concludes that Colossians as well as other letters of Paul was used in composing Ephesians. Both include a similar overall pattern and the household codes, both stress redemption, body, mystery, and power in similar ways, and both include exact parallel descriptions of Tychicus’ instructions in delivering the letter. But these observations need not rule out Pauline authorship, for an examination of the data suggests that many of the similar terms include common prepositions, pronouns, and the words God and Christ. Again, scribes often made copies of their letters, in case the first was inadvertently destroyed or failed to make its destination. For example, Cicero remarks that his letter to Julius Caesar was ruined because the carrier managed to get it wet and the ink ran. But all was not lost, because Cicero had a copy of the letter, and so he re-sent it.22 It was common to keep copies23 and to share letters with friends, as does Cicero when he sends a copy of his letter to Pompey to Atticus.24 It was assumed that people shared their letters, such that Cicero’s friend Curius specifically asks Cicero not to show this particular letter to anyone.25 And Cicero, Atticus, and others saved copies of what they wrote to use the text in other, similar circumstances. At one point Cicero blushes at this practice, for he admits that he used the same preface in two works. He clarifies that he was not paying attention when he sent the work in question to his friend Atticus, and it was only a bit later when he was reading another work that he saw it had the same preface. He explains that he keeps a volume of his prefaces from which he chooses suitable beginnings for his projects. In this case he was writing a new preface, and requests that Atticus cut out the old preface and glue the new one in place.26
Thus if Paul wrote Ephesians and Colossians within the same basic time frame, which fits with the note that Tychicus delivered both letters, then one might comfortably assume Paul used the same scribe, and might have wished to stress similar ideas to churches in the same general region. Moreover, it seems ironic to declare that Ephesians is not by Paul because it uses language found in other Pauline material. Why assume a second author instead of asserting that the same author reused much of his material to address a similar circumstance? What is really at stake is not the vocabulary per se, but the alleged meaning of those terms. For that we turn in the next section to the theological arguments against Pauline authorship. In summary, the literary analysis does not show conclusively that Paul could not have written the epistle. Indeed, the evidence points to Pauline authorship inasmuch as it highlights the creativity of Paul to tailor his language to the audience and occasion. The number of hapax legomena or unique occurrences of terms in Ephesians are no more than we find in the undisputed letter to the Galatians, for example. Two options are left to consider: either Paul wrote the epistle which varied from his other letters by about 5 percent, or someone was able to match Paul’s writing by 95 percent. These percentages suggest that Paul wrote Ephesians, but it is not on literary analysis alone that most render their judgments concerning Paul’s authorship.
Theological Emphases in Ephesians
More troubling for many who argue a pseudepigraphic status for Ephesians are the theological and ideological statements permeating the letter that seem at odds with Pauline thought. For example, it is often said that Ephesians assumes a realized eschatology, with salvation having been accomplished fully in the past with no future implications (2:8–9). For example, Paul uses the perfect tense when speaking about believers being saved, rather than talking about the hope which looks forward. The cross is not emphasized, nor is justification; instead the exaltation of Christ and his cosmic superiority over all powers take center stage. Again, the emphasis on the church universal rather than the local body strikes many as deutero-Pauline. A closer look at the theology in Ephesians, however, suggests close connections with theology expressed in the undisputed letters. For example, although the term “cross” is found only once (2:16), this reference forms the platform upon which is built the arguments for reconciliation of humanity to God and between human groups (Jews and Gentiles). A similar case is made in 2 Cor 5:18–21 concerning reconciliation, where, interestingly, we also find Paul describing himself as God’s ambassador, a term used in Eph 6:20 (“ambassador in chains”). Justification is a central concept in Romans and Galatians, but Paul does not use it in Colossians or the Thessalonian correspondence, and in 1 Corinthians the noun occurs only once (1:30), and the verb “to justify” twice (4:4, 6:11). The absence, then, of this particular word group should not disqualify Ephesians as Pauline. Additionally, the claim that Ephesians holds a realized eschatology fails to consider adequately both the future expectations noted in the epistle, as well as the use of the past tense by Paul in other letters when dealing with salvation. In 4:30, we find reference to the coming day of redemption, a future event (see also 1:10), as well as mention of the age to come in 1:21 and 2:7. Additionally, in Romans we discover Paul explaining the hope by which a believer is saved (past tense, 8:24) as well as declaring, also in the past tense, Christian brothers and sisters predestined, called, justified, and glorified (8:30). Speaking more broadly about eschatology, some suggest that in Ephesians Christ’s imminent second coming has receded to the background, and shoved to the forefront is Paul’s concern with the here and now. To substantiate
