Fourth, the accusation that Ephesians is not personal and therefore not
Pauline can be answered in a number of ways. First, Paul’s letters exhibit a
varying level of personal content, and some do not include specific greetings
in the conclusion. For example, although in Galatians Paul discusses himself,
he does not make any personal comments to anyone specifically. Second, if
Ephesians was not written by Paul, one might wish to include such greetings to
make it look more like an authentic letter. Third, the reason that Paul did not
include much personal data about himself may be explained in the letter. Near
the end of the letter the author mentions that he is sending Tychicus in order
to inform the readers of his circumstances (Eph. 6.21-22). There is no need
(and/or other reasons) to duplicate this information in the letter. Finally,
the most persuasive argument may be that the letter was intended to be
circular. The phrase εν
‘Εφεσω is most likely a later addition to the
text. It is lacking in the oldest and most important manuscripts of this
passage (e.g. p46 [c. 200 CE], the original hands of א and B [fourth
century] and the later [tenth century] but important minuscule 1739). However,
the phrase was added by the seventh-century corrector of א and the
sixth-seventh century corrector of B. The earliest extant Greek manuscript with
the phrase is A (fifth century), and it has the support of the Western (D, F,
G) and Byzantine traditions (included within gothic M). The former has a
tendency to include additions, and the latter has a tendency to harmonize.
Also, the omission is favoured because it is the shorter and possibly more
difficult reading. Finally, it is difficult to explain why it would have been
deleted if original. Therefore, given both internal and extant external evidence,
the original text of Ephesians does not identify a destination.
This in itself does not demand that we consider it a circular letter.
In fact, the sending of Tychicus, as noted above (Eph. 6.21-22), seems to imply
an intended audience. Also, one must explain how the location phrase became
inserted into the text. When one considers all the factors, the following
reconstruction seems to account for the details. The letter was intended as a
circular letter for the churches throughout Asia Minor. There are a number of
reasons why Ephesus would be an ideal initial destination for the letter.
First, Ephesus was probably the most important city in the province. Second, it
had a port and thus was an ideal first stop on a trip to Asia Minor. Third, the
church there was probably one of the more established Pauline churches.
Finally, the church was very close personally to Paul. For these reasons
Ephesus probably had the resources and could be trusted to circulate a letter
containing important teaching that Paul desired all to know. Tychicus thus
brought the letter there and explained Paul’s desire and instruction.
Additionally, it may even be speculated that Tychicus, after stopping in
Ephesus, took the letter with him to Laodicea and then went on to Colossae. Tychicus’s
instructions about relating Paul’s circumstances are repeated in Col. 4.7, which
supports the notion that the letters were simultaneously dispatched. Thus, the
letter coming from Laodicea mentioned in Col. 4.16 was in fact our circular
letter. If this is the letter Marcion called the letter to the Laodiceans, this
can explain Marcion’s title (certainly based partially on Col. 4.16), although
he was incorrect if he assumed that the Laodiceans were primary recipients.
Since Colossians was specifically addressed to the church at Colossae, it was
to be read there first. Paul then instructs the church to have the letter
(Colossians) read in Laodicea. The role of the Ephesian church in this process
resulted in its name being attached to the letter. This reconstruction is
highly speculative, and I acknowledge that it also raises a number of problems.
It is also impossible to prove (or disprove). Additionally, our attempt to
trace Tychicus’s travel route is even more tenuous and is not necessary for our
more general reconstruction to be accurate. Nevertheless, this suggestion (with
or without the Colossian connection) is plausible and does provide explanation
for some of the problems raised by those who cannot justify Pauline authorship.
The circular nature of the letter may also explain some of the differences with
the letter to the Colossians, which was primarily directed to a specific
church.
Thus, it is reasonable to maintain Pauline authorship of Ephesians. In
fact, even in present New Testament scholarship there are strong voices for
authenticity. Although the major commentaries by Best in the International
Critical Commentary series and Lincoln in the Word Biblical Commentary series
favour pseudonymity, two other recent commentaries, those by O’Brien and
Hoehner, defend Pauline authorship. Additionally, Hoehner has compiled a list
of commentaries and other important works from ancient to modern times with
their position on Pauline authorship noted. There has been division over this
issue for some time. Nevertheless, even in modern times, although one position
may be slightly favoured over the other from decade to decade, there is
consistently around a fifty-fifty split over this issue. (Joseph F. Fantin, The
Lord of the Entire World: Lord Jesus, a Challenge to Lord Caesar? [New
Testament Monographs 31; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011], 279-81)
