Loading...Now that I have summarized the major themes and emphases of Ephesians (in the previous post), I can move to the issues of who wrote it, when, and why.
The “Who” is the big question in this case, with the “when” and “why” depending on our answer.
As I indicated in the earlier post, broadly speaking Ephesians sounds like something that Paul could have written, since it addresses a number of themes known from Paul’s seven undisputed letters: salvation coming by the death and resurrection of Jesus, the unity of Jew and gentile in the church, the need for strong ethical standards and behavior, etc. There would, of course, be differences with a letter of this sort, since unlike Paul’s other letters that are addressed to specific situations of specific churches, and this appears to be a circular letter in which the author addresses no specific problem, such as moral improprieties or false teachings, and therefore offers no specific resolutions.
But even taking into account the different kind of letter it is, is it likely Paul wrote it?
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
What could possibly rule out that Paul was the original author,
but the Greek texts we have now are paraphrases of the original that were made to match the current Greek language like a 1560 Geneva compared to a 1611 KJV both in the original typeface?
I’mnot sure what you’re asking. Nothing would rule it out — we’re talking bout what is most probable, not what can be proved. In any event, no, we do not have any Greek manuscripts of the NT that are paraphrases of the text.
my bad, I’m not quite there yet with a complete thought in mind.
I see footnotes in some KJV and Geneva after Ephesians 6:24 that it was written by Tychicus. The Tychicus footnote was not included in the American Standard Version 1901, nor does the Revised Standard Version 1965. (I have several old and fragile bibles that belonged to my grandfathers and mother.)
The 1560 Geneva before Ephesians 1 has an opening that explains there was a False Apostle corrupting the Church in Ephasus with false teachings. Ephesians was written to correct everything. That opening was not included in the 1611 KJV.
Tychicus was the author?
Read it and see! (Look at 1:1) He is mentioned in 6:21.
What you’re saying is that the passage in Ephesians is not specifically focused on Jewish boundary markers but rather emphasizes ethical behaviors, which are not reasons for granting salvation. Do you think it doesn’t necessarily exclude the Jewish boundary markers, especially in light of what the author states in verses 11 through 15? The author talks about the dividing wall being torn down, so I’ve always interpreted verse 9 in the context of verses 11 through 15. However, if we read verse 9 in light of verses 1 through 4, then your interpretation makes a lot more sense. You are definitely smarter than I am—LOL! Interestingly, you pointed out the “us” in verse 3; I always thought it was a generalization, but your take on it makes a lot of sense. Thank you!
He certainl ythought there had been a “wall” between Jews and Gentiles that had been broken down; but when he talks about justificatoin, it his point is not that Gentiles do not need to keep the prscriptions of Jewish law, but that they have do good deeds, and my point is that that sounds like aPaul until you look at what he means, which is not at all what Paul means.
I want to share a second comment here. I purchased Paula Frederickson’s book, *Ancient Christianity*, after reading a few of her blog posts here on your blog. In the first chapter, she discusses how anti-Semitism began to rise as early as the second century. This insight made me reconsider the purpose of the Book of Ephesians, which interestingly relates to the last paragraph of your post.
The Book of Ephesus seems to be the strongest letter of predestination. Is the purpose of the author’s proposal of predestination to maintain church unity, which is in line with the main theme of Ephesians? Therefore, by discussing the theory that both Jews and Gentiles are predetermined by God, he illustrates the equality among believers? And is this emphasis on equality among believers also based on hatred towards non believers? For example, Ephesians 4:17-24
I’m not sure which passage of Ephesians you’re referring to about predstination. It’s not the topic of 4:17-24.
Professor, I have a feeling that the author uses the concept of predestination in Ephesians 1:4-5 to emphasize that the dignity of believers is equal, based on predestination rather than bloodline. In the second and third chapters, the author certainly further discusses this equal relationship based on the foundation of the first chapter. Does the author’s explanation of the difference between believers and non believers in Ephesians 4:17-24 imply that the destruction of non believers is also predetermined? I think this logic is coherent, from the beginning to the fourth chapter. As you said, ‘All members of the Christian church should respond to their new standing in Christ by embedding and promoting the unity provided from above.’ ‘Above’ means God’s predestination. My English is not very good, I don’t know if the “Above” you mean is synonymous with me.
Overall, I speculate that the author of the Book of Ephesus was emphasizing the unity of believers of different bloodlines within the church, which led to the inclusion of predestination in this book, and this unity is a complete denial to the outside world. Just like some secular governments, when conflicts arise domestically, they always shift outward.
Is the author of Ephesians adapting Paul’s message of salvation for a Gentile audience, shifting the focus from “works of the law” to “good works” as a means of emphasizing salvation by grace? Is the author aiming to faithfully represent Paul’s theology or offering a distinct interpretation or expansion of his ideas?
What theological implications arise from Paul’s statements in his undisputed letters that we haven’t been raised with Christ, and why does the author of Ephesians present a different perspective? Could the difference be due to Ephesians being written after the temple’s destruction, leading the author to interpret this event in light of Christ’s return (as mentioned in the Olivet Discourse), and thus assume a spiritual realization of Christ’s return and our union with Him?
Yup, both points seem plausible to me.
After I started reading your books and knew what scholars said about Ephesians, Colossians and the “authors” of the Gospels, I was bothered by the fact that my pastor (Episcopal church) continued to allow our lectors to ascribe these documents to their purported authors without any hint of the truth. If they’re not telling us something they learned in Seminary, what else are they not telling us?
Depending on what seminary he went to, he may not have heard that. But you should ask him what he’s not telling! (Most pastors don’t think these kinds of issues matter much for what they are trying to proclaim and embrace; and often they are right!)
Editorial Comment — The URL associated with the reference to the article titled “Why Did Ancient Christian Forgers Commit Forgery?” is bad. It should be https://ehrmanblog.org/why-did-ancient-christian-forgers-commit-forgery/
Thanks.
Paul said that he wrote in different styles for different audiences — to the Jews as a Jew, and to the Greeks as a Greek (1 Cor 9:20-21).
This suggests to me that Paul would also write with different nuances to congregations who believed in a Realized Eschatology than to congregations who believed in a Future Eschatology.
Raymond Brown finds both Eschatology views in Jesus. I see them both in Paul.
If so, then Paul was trying to please the Ephesians and Colossians who preferred the mysteries of Realized Eschatology over Future Eschatology.
Paul certainly wrote in different styles at differnet times, as we all do. But 1 Cor. 9 is indicating his different attitudes toward and obedience to the Jewish law, not his writing style.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
This issue of what constitutes ‘the law’ and what doesn’t constitute it has always intrigued me. Most mainstream Christians Believe that when Paul talks about the ‘law’ being superseded by the doctrine of ‘grace’ that this means that all the old Jewish laws: the sacrifices, the dietary laws, circumcision, women’s purification laws and so on are done away with. The new converts don’t have to observe those restrictions. Again, I refer to the seventh day Adventist groups that seem to believe that only the sacrifices element and circumcision are done away with, but that seventh day worship, dietary laws and purification laws are still (largely) in place.
In addition, I believe in the gospel of John, Jesus says something like. You have heard that which goes into a man defiles him. But I say that which comes out of him defiles him. Therefore, I declare all things clean. This is used by many mainstream Christians as an abrogation of the Jewish dietary laws.
What do you think of all of this?
That’s in teh Gospel of Mark. And yes, it became a standard line in parts of the Christian tradition, going way back to the first and second centuries. But of course there were disputes within Christianity about it all.
Professor, I have a question. The proportion of long sentences in the Book of Ephesus is 10%, while the proportion of true Pauline letters is 1% or less. When it comes to sentence structure, both 10% and 1% are very low content. May I ask the professor, what historical method does this difference follow that can shock New Testament scholars?
I’m not sure what you’re asking. I’m not sure anyone is much shocked by it. It’s simply that it happens normally 1/100 times in Paul but in Ephesians ten times as often.
When it comes to authorship of Gnostic gospels to well-known disciples like Philip or Peter, I understand the reasoning behind it. Attaching a text to a prominent apostle would naturally lend it traction/authority. Even in the case of Titus and 1 Timothy, I suspect after Paul’s death, some Christian leaders may have wanted to establish clearer guidelines for appointing church leaders. If Paul hadn’t already done so, I could imagine elders drafting such instructions and attributing them to him for the sake of continuity/authority.
Ephesians, however, is different. The letter doesn’t diverge significantly from Paul’s core theology—some phrases/expressions are a bit different from his usual style, but there’s nothing that strikes me as evidence of a deceptive motive. That raises the question: what’s the most charitable explanation of these stylistic differences while still affirming Pauline contribution?
For example, the letter claims to be written from prison. Could we imagine a scenario where Paul, unable to access writing materials, dictated his message to visitors? Perhaps they later recorded it in their own words, aiming to preserve Paul’s message but inevitably filtering it through their own style. This could explain why the theology remains consistent with Paul’s, even if the tone/phrasing varies.
I’d say that when you look closely, it is indeed quite different from Paul’s theology, in important ways.