Ephesians Introductory Material In Response to a Request by a Dear Friend A Basic Bibliography When we met recently, you asked me a few

w questions about Ephesians to which I wish now to respond in writing. Your first question pertained to which commentary/commentaries one should purchase. Below, you will find an abbreviated, and quite basic, bibliography. Some of the commentaries are very good; some are moderately good. I have included two shorter works (by Black & Petrovich) since they both do a good job of addressing the two major conflicting views relative to the important issue of the epistles destination. Pursuant to your request, I suggest that you begin by purchasing the following four commentaries: a balance of older and newer ones. [1] Robinson, J. Armitage. St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. (1903) a definite favorite [2] Abbott, T. K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians and to the Colossians. ICC. (1897) [3] Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. (2002: almost 100 years after Robinson) [4] OBrien, Peter T. The Letter to the Ephesians. (1999: over 100 years after Abbott) *Abbott, T. K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle the Ephesians and to the Colossians. ICC. Edinburgh. T&T Clark. 1897, 1974. Best, Ernest. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians. ICC. Edinburgh. T&T Clark, 1998. (He questions the Pauline authorship of Ephesians & Colossians.) Black, David Alan. The Peculiarities of Ephesians and the Ephesian Address. Grace Theological Journal 2:1 (1981), 59-74. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians (NICNT), ed. F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984, 227-416. Eadie, John. Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d. *Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Academic, 2002. Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol 42. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990. Moule, H. C. G. Studies in Ephesians. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1977. *OBrien, Peter T. The Letter to the Ephesians. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999.

Petrovich, Douglas N. jEn jEfevsw/ and the Destination of the Ephesian Letter. Th.M. Thesis, The Masters Seminary, 1998. *Robinson, J. Armitage. St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. N.Y.: Macmillan, 1909. Westcott, Brooke Foss. Saint Pauls Epistle to the Ephesians. (London: Macmillan,1906) Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979. Wood, A. Skevington. Ephesians. In The Expositors Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978. The Authorship of this Epistle We also briefly discussed the authorship of Ephesians. Some very good scholars reject Pauline authorship. For example, Best in explaining why he uses AE (author of Ephesians) writes: I have become increasingly convinced that Paul did not write Ephesians For similar reasons for my use of AE for the author of the text I have used A/Col for the author of Colossians.1 The support from both sides is quite extensive. If you wish to read a detailed discussion in support of Pauline authorship by a recent author, I would suggest that you consider Hoehners treatment of the issue in the introduction to his commentary on Ephesians.2 Hoehner concludes: Although Ephesians differs from other Pauline literature, the differences do not sufficiently argue for the rejection of Pauline authorship of this letter. Variations can be accounted for due to differences of content and differences in the character and needs of the recipients of the letter. Furthermore, it must be argued that a genius such as Paul is not sterile in his expressions; allowances must be made for development in his own thinking.3 For a brief discussion of this issue, you can pick up a copy of Everett F. Harrisons Introduction to the New Testament. Following is a brief resume of his discussion in support of Pauline authorship. 1. Vocabulary One of the reasons that some question Pauline authorship centers on the vocabulary. Moffat notes that Ephesians contains thirty-eight words which are not elsewhere used in the NT4 and no fewer than 44 words which are never used by Paul.5 Harrison responds: The problem revolves around the estimation of the effect of the theme upon the diction. For example, five or six words occur here, peculiar to this book, beginning with the preposition suvn. Who can doubt that those terms were called forth by the necessity of stating the union between Christ and His people and their union with one another?6 2. Style Harrison sums up his discussion of style by stating that the features of
1 2

Ernest Best. Ephesians (ICC). Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998, p. xiv. Harold W. Hoehner. Ephesians. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2002, pp. 2-61. 3 Ibid, pp. 60-61 4 James Moffatt. An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament. New York: Scribners, 1929. p. 385 5 Ibid, 386 6 Everett F. Harrison. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eeerdmans, 1982. p. 333

Ephesians that give trouble are observable to some degree in Pauls acknowledged letters.7 3. The Use of Colossians. The problem is not that Paul uses Colossians but that he seems to use the same terms with different meanings or emphases. Scott writes: It may be confidently said that there is nothing in Ephesians which Paul might not have written. Some ideas are more highly developed in this than in the other epistles, but they are always Pauls ideas, and it is difficult to see how anyone but himself could have so drawn out their deeper implications.8 Harrison concludes, If Paul did not write Ephesians, the man who wrote it ought to be recognized as a theological genius.9 He further states: In summary, the difficulties for Pauline authorship, though numerous (Goodspeed lists as many as 21), do not seem sufficient to overthrow the traditional position or to render false such favorable judgments as these: the crown of St. Paul's writings (J. Armitage Robinson); the greatest and maturest of all Paul's writings (John Mackay).10 He quotes Henry J. Cadburys telling statement from his article entitled The Dilemma of Ephesians which summarizes the issue very well: Which is more likely that an imitator of Paul in the first century composed a writing ninety or ninety-five per cent in accordance with Pauls style or that Paul himself wrote a letter diverging five or ten per cent from usual style?11 The Destination of this Epistle There is a great deal of debate over the destination of the epistle. Two works are included in the bibliography: one by David Alan Black, the other by Douglas Petrovich. Both of them wrote theses on the subject under my supervision and both came to a different conclusion. I believe that there are several things that throw doubt on Ephesus being the sole destination of this epistle. [1] There is an absence of in Ephesus in some of the leading MSS. [2] There is Patristic testimony that suggests it was not written exclusively to Ephesus. [3] Internal evidence One of the most significant issues is that although Paul labored in Ephesus for years, this is his most impersonal epistle. In this regard, Best makes an important observation: Since I do not think Ephesians was written primarily to a congregation in the city of Ephesus I have not concentrated on detailing the religious, social, economic and political situation of that city12 Some Beneficial Sources for Background Reading [1] Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, pp. 472-521 [2] D. Edmond Hiebert, An Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, pp. 254-271
7 8

Ibid, 334 Ernest F. Scott. The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians (The Moffatt New Testament Commentary). New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1930, p. 121. 9 Harrison, op. cit., 335 10 Ibid, 337 11 Henry J. Cadbury. The Dilemma of Ephesians New Testament Studies: 1959: Vol. 5, pp. 91-102: p. 100. 12 Best, op. cit., xiii

[3] Everett F. Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 293-301; 310-319 [4] H. C. Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 239-247 [5] Bruce Manning Metzger, The New Testament, Its Background, Growth, and Content, pp. 235-237 [6] Carson, Moo & Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 305-316 [7] Peter T. O'Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (The Pillar NT Commentary), pp. 1-82 [8] J. Armitage Robinson, Commentary on Ephesians, pp. 1-14 [9] K. Abbott, The Epistle to the Ephesians and Colossians (ICC), pp. i-xxxiv [10] A. Skevington Wood, Ephesians, The Expositors Bible Commentary, pp. 3-21 [11] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians (NIC), pp. 229-246 [12] John Eadie, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, pp. v-lv [13] Andrew T. Lincoln. Ephesians. WBC. Vol 42. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990. I thought it might be informative to include some introductory statements by A. T. Robertson that you can find in his Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament, Vol. IV. He begins by stating that the Epistle was written from Rome in A.D. 63.13 He further writes: There are some problems of a special nature that confront us about the so-called Epistle to the Ephesians.14 He then proceeds to address a number of very significant issues. The Authorship: It is not admitted by all that Paul wrote it, though no other adequate explanation of its origin has ever been given. So far as subject matter and vocabulary and style are concerned, if Colossians is Pauline, there is little or nothing to be said against the Pauline authorship of this Epistle.15 (Although I find that argument compelling, it does not prove to be a strong support to some, who like Best [cited above from the introduction to his commentary on Ephesians] have doubts about the Pauline authorship of Colossians as well.) Relation to Colossians: As we have seen, the two Epistles were sent at the same time, but clearly Colossians was composed first. Ephesians bears much the same relation to Colossians that Romans does to Galatians, a fuller treatment of the same general theme in a more detached and impersonal manner.16

13
14

A. T. Robertson. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Nashville: Broadman Press, n.d. (1930). IV, 514 Ibid 15 Ibid 16 Ibid

The Destination: The oldest documents (Aleph and B) do not have the words ejn Efesw/ [en Ephes] (in Ephesus) in 1:1 (inserted by a later hand). Origen did not have them in his copy. Marcion calls it the Epistle to the Laodiceans. We have only to put here Col. 4:16 the letter from Laodicea to find the probable explanation. After writing the stirring Epistle to the Colossians Paul dictated this so-called Epistle to the Ephesians as a general or circular letter for the churches in Asia (Roman province). Perhaps the original copy had no name in 1:1 as seen in Aleph and B and Origen, but only a blank space. Marcion was familiar with the copy in Laodicea. Basil in the fourth century mentions some MSS. with no name in the address. Most MSS. were copies from the one in Ephesus and so it came to be called the Epistle to the Ephesians. The general nature of the letter explains also the absence of names in it, though Paul lived three years in Ephesus.17 The Date: The same date must be assigned as for Philemon and Colossians, probably 18 A.D. 63. The Place of Writing: This would also be the same, that is Rome, though Deissmann and Duncan argue for Ephesus itself as the place of writing. Some scholars even suggest Caesarea.19 The Character of the Epistle: The same Gnostic heresy is met as in Colossians, but with this difference. In Colossians the emphasis is on the Dignity of Christ as the Head of the Church, while in Ephesians chief stress is placed upon the Dignity of the Church as the Body of Christ the Head. Paul has written nothing more profound than chapters 1 to 3 of Ephesians. Stalker termed them the profoundest thing ever written. He sounds the depths of truth and reaches the heights. Since Ephesians covers the same ground so largely as Colossians, only the words in Ephesians that differ or are additional will call for discussion.20 Since you asked about older commentaries, I thought you might be interested in Robertsons list of Special Books on Ephesians, which includes the following: One may note Abbott (Int. Crit. Comm. 1897), Gross Alexander (1910), Beet (1891), Belser (1908), Candlish (1895), Dale (Lectures on Ephesians), Dibelius (Handbuch, 1912), Eadie (1883), Ellicott (1884), Ewald (Zahn Komm., 2 Auf. 1910), Findlay (1892), Gore (Practical Exposition, 1898), Haupt (Meyer Komm., 8 Auf. 1902), Hitchcock (1913), Hort (Intr. 1895), Knabenbauer (1913), Krukenberg (1903), Lidgett (1915), Lock (1929), Lueken (1906), Martin (New Century Bible), McPhail (1893), McPherson (1892), Meinertz (1917), Moule (1900), Mullins (1913), Murray (1915), Oltramare (1891), Robinson (1903), Salmond (1903), E. F. Scott (Moffatt Comm., 1930), Stroeter (The Glory of the Body of Christ, 1909), Von Soden (2 Aufl. 1893), F. B. Westcott (1906), Wohlenberg (1895). 21

17 18

Ibid, 514-515 Ibid, 515 19 Ibid 20 Ibid 21 Ibid