The following comes from Todd A. Scacewater, The Divine Builder in Psalm 68: Jewish and Pauline Tradition (Library of New Testament Studies 631; London: T&T Clark, 2020, 2022), 12-14:
Objections to Paul’s Authorship of
Ephesians
Four arguments are generally
adduced to argue against Paul’s authorship of Ephesians. First, many claim that
Ephesians has a significant amount of unique vocabulary—some of which occurs
more frequently in post-apostolic literature than in the NT—and that its style
is overly pleonastic. But these objections are all reasonably countered. Much
of the vocabulary is not as odd as is claimed and the relative proportion of hapax
legomena is lower than in some of the undisputed epistles [1]. It is not
rare for Pau’s language to influence the Fathers. Finally, Paul uses a
pleonastic style many times elsewhere [2]. It should also be noted that many
arguments ignore the role of amanuenses, coauthors, and preformed traditions,
and that advances in stylometrics and register demonstrate problems with
arguments from language and style.
Second, many claim that the
theology expressed in Ephesians differs from the undisputed Pauline, or more
strongly, “makes the Pauline composition of the Epistle completely impossible.”
Examples include revealed mysteries, ascension mysticism, religious cosmology,
the nature of the law, the supposed lack of the cross and Christ’s death,
Christ’s cosmic lordship, realized eschatology, and the status of Israel. Some
of these examples rest on debatable exegetical positions of various passages,
while others assume hypothetical religio-historical backgrounds. A few themes
could represent developments in Paul’s thought. Themes such as realized
eschatology and Christ’s cosmic lordship are carried over from Colossians. The
value of theological themes for discussing Pauline authorship is limited since
each theme is developed via debatable exegesis.
Third, parts of Ephesians may
suggest that it was written from a time later than Paul’s ministry. Ephesians
3:4-8 could reveal a pseudepigrapher feigning authority (3:5). But it is
reasonable to see Paul’s self-presentation in Ephesians as coherent with his
self-presentation in the undisputed Paulines. Ephesians 4:7-16 could suggest a
post-Pauline period when a multiplicity of teachings had developed. But the
exhortation to unity alludes back to the “one new man” of 2:13-18, not to
contemporary heresies. The ecclesiastical structure of the church in Ephesians
does not necessitate a late date, since Paul mentions ecclesiastical leader in
his accepted letters (Phil 1:1; 1 Thess 5;12; 1 Cor 12:28; Phlm 2). Nor must
Eph 2:11-22 suggest a unified, second-century Catholic church, since 2:11-22 is
more theological (or ideal) than historical. In sum, nothing in Ephesians must
have been written in a post-Pauline era.
Fourth, Ephesians’ relationship
with the Pastorals and Colossians creates questions. P. Pokorný believes the
portrayal of the church in Ephesians and the Pastorals is late, but he also
stresses the different eschatologies, which makes a conflict argument that the
epistles are too similar and too different [3]. Ephesians’ similarity to
Colossians for many suggests a “changed perspective” in Ephesians, which
“requires for its explanation a lapse of time” (Lincoln, Ephesians,
lxvii; cf. Pokorný, Epheser, 37). But the literary similarities between
Ephesians and Colossians are too overblown (Similarly, Mitton, Ephesians,
55-75. In only four places in Ephesians do the verbal parallels extend beyond
seven words; in two places, five words are parallel [O’Brien, The Letter to
the Ephesians, 9]). And if a pseudepigrapher were copying historical
details from Colossians, why was Timothy not included as a co-author, and why
are all the names in Col 4 except Tychicus omitted? “No theory of imitation
offers a suitable explanation of this inconcinnity” (Bo Reicke, Re-examining
Paul’s Letters: The History of the Pauline Correspondence, ed. David P.
Moessner and Ingalisa Reicke [Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International,
2001], 79). Even the notion of Colossians’s priority has been challenged in
recent years by A. van Roon and E. Best, so that one cannot even be certain
that Colossians could have been the Vorlage of Ephesians (Roon, Authenticity,
413-37; Ernest Best, “Who Used Whom? The Relationship of Ephesians and
Colossians,” NTS 43 [1997]: 72-96).
[1] E.g., on διο λεγει, see 2 Cor 6:2; gal 3:16; Rom
15:10; Paul alternatives επουρανιος with ουρανιος; διαβολος
is only one of several synonyms Paul uses (1 Thess 3:5; 1 Cor 10:10; 2 Thess
3:1); see further the comprehensive study, A. van Roon, The Authenticity of
Ephesians, SNT 39 (Leiden: Brill, 1975). On the hapax legomena in
Ephesians, see P. N. Harris, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (London:
Oxford University Press, 1921), 20.
[2] For pleonastic sentences in
the accepted Paulines, see Rom 3:21-26; 8:28-39; 11:33-36; 1 Cor 1:4-7;
1:26-29; 2:6-9; 1 Cor 12:8-11; Phil 1:3-8; 1 Thess 1:2-5; 2 Thess 1:3-10; Phil
1:27-2:11 (Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, PNTC [Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999], 7). A. van Roon provides fifty sentences in the
accepted Paulines that correspond to the length of the pleonastic sentences in
Ephesians (The Authenticity of the Ephesians, 108).
[3] The relationship includes
liturgical formulas (Eph 6:23; 1 Tim 1:14), concepts (“mystery” in Eph 5:32; 1
Tim 3:16; “word of truth” in Eph 1:13; 2 Tim 2:15), paraenetic forms (household
codes) and “theological accents” (e.g., baptism as a bath of regeneration in
Eph 5:26; Titus 3:5; “works” in Eph 2:10; 1 Tim 2:10; 6:18; 2 Tim 3:17; Titus
3:8). Pokorný, Epheser, 40.
