Why do many scholars think that the epistle to the Ephesians was likely written in Pauls name by someone else?

Why is the language and style of the writing in Ephesians so different to that in other Pauline epistles?

“Sanday and Headlam analysed the stylistic differences by noting that Paul’s style could normally be described as marked by “energy and vivacity”, a “rush of words”, and the language which is “rapid, terse and incisive”. By contrast, in Ephesians we meet sentences which are abnormally long and slow-moving”. This factual observation has led to many scholars doubting the authorship of Paul. The average sentence length in Romans is 1.4 lines, for Ephesians it is 3 lines. Furthermore, there are 116 words in Ephesians which are not found in Pauline letters elsewhere as the vocabulary seems to be quite unique. The author also uses words differently to previous letters, for example, when Paul uses the word “Church” he is referring to an individual congregation, in contrast in Ephesians “Church” is referring to “the church collectively, a universal institution encompassing all communities of life”.  Schnackenburg said that in Ephesians “there is scarcely anything comparable to Paul”, a view held by many modern scholars and hence supporting a non-Pauline author.

However, those against non-Pauline authorship argue that, again, this is not a strong enough argument. Morgenthaler argues that Paul uses unusual vocabulary in all of his works; Paul uses “to destroy” (Gal 1:13, 23) only once in Galatians whilst it occurs 12 times in the other letters and ninety times in the New Testament. Even Mitton who is against Pauline authorship admits that “several of the undoubtedly genuine epistles have an even greater percentage of words which are not found in other Pauline writings”. A statistician named Yule claimed that to make a true comparison you need an article of 10,000 words or more. The longest Pauline letter is Romans at 7094 words resulting in an inability to distinguish the characteristics of Paul’s letters. Hence “much of the debate surrounding Pauline language must be viewed with caution” . Again, this response to the argument still gives strength to the possibility of Pauline authorship.

Why does Ephesians rely so much on the other Pauline letters, especially that of Colossians?

No one can deny that Ephesians and Colossians both share a lot in common. A third of the words in Colossians are also in Ephesians and a quarter of the words in Ephesians appear in Colossians. For Lincoln, “most decisive against Paul as author of Ephesians is its dependence on Colossians and its use of Pauline letters, particularly Romans”.  Scholars say that the relationship of Ephesians and Colossians is similar to that of the synoptic gospels (it is widely believed that the authors of Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source) and Mitton states that 26.5% of Ephesians is parallel with Colossians and 34% of Colossians with Ephesians.  Close parallels between Ephesians and Colossians can be found at Eph. 1:4=Col 1.22, Eph. 1.7=Col 1:14 and Eph. 2.5=Col 2.13.

Ephesians also has close parallels with other Pauline letters and often ideas from various letters are used in a single teaching, for example “Of this gospel I have become a servant according to the gift of God’s grace that was given me by the working of his power” (Eph. 3:7) borrows ideas from Rom 5:15, and 1 Corinthian’s 3:10. These overlapping features support the idea of a later Paulinist author trying to take the theology of Paul from his letters and forming it into a new letter for a new generation of Christians in order that they understand it.

Furthermore, it has been suggested by scholars such as F. C. Baur that Ephesians reflects 2nd century gnostic culture. Eph. 4:8-10 for example not only reflects Psalm 68:18 but also the gnostic idea of heavenly ascent of the redeemer. However, the problem of this for Pauline- authorship supporters is that the gnostic literature is later than Paul; hence Paul could not have taken ideas from it. A next generation Paulinist could have on the other hand.

In response, as Mitton states, even when there is an imitation from Colossians or another letter “never more than seven or eight identical words, at most, are repeated in the same sequence, and only rarely so many”. Hence it can be argued that, if Ephesians was written by an imitator like some scholars suggest, it would be an even closer imitation for “an imitator would feel more compelled to use the same vocabulary and expressions than would an author”. If an imitator had written it surely he would try to make it as Paul-like as possible in order to hide the characteristics of his own hand. Besides, “why would an imitator choose Colossians, a relatively unimportant letter, for this special degree of attention?”  There is no reason why Paul, having just written Colossians and hence having it in his head, could not have written similar things or followed the same style in Ephesians. For them it is natural for Ephesians to have close links to Colossians as they were written so closely in time to each other. But are Ephesians and Colossian closely linked in all senses?

Why are there so many theological differences when comparing Ephesians with the other Pauline letters?

Kummel says that “the theology of Ephesians makes the Pauline composition of the letter completely impossible” and he is right in the sense that much of the teaching in Ephesians is different to the other letters. To begin with, the local congregational church of Paul’s letters has become one universal Church in Ephesians. What's more, the second coming of Christ which is “Paul’s major topic” and “theologically the most important” (15:1-57) is absent in Ephesians. Instead, Eph. 3:21 presumes “that the form of this world is not passing away and that the end of the age is not at hand” (2:7, 4:13, 3:12). This view is regarded as a later development linked with the theology of post Pauline Christians and is therefore evidence that the author was not Paul but a Paulinist writing for a new generation. Lastly, Ephesians changes the focus from Christ as the churches foundation (1 Corinthians 3:3) to “apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20) which seems odd not only because of the change in theology but also because it is unlikely that Paul, himself an apostle, would put himself at a greater level as he is portrayed in chapter 3. Ephesians’ portrayal of Paul is very contrasting to the other letters for example, “I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it" (Galatians 1:13). Here Paul highlights the fact that he is “the very least of all the saints” (1 Timothy 1:15).

However, in defense of Pauline authorship it can be argued that, if Pauls’ letter was circulated around the churches a more universal sense of Church is appropriate. In regards to the lack of an eschatological emphasis “it is not irrational to assume that Paul himself could bring further development to his own ideas”. Those that defend Pauline authorship believe that the letter was written when Paul was in prison. He would have had plenty of time to reflect, pray and think about his beliefs. Guthrie famously suggested that it was the “circumstances of Paul’s imprisonment or his mood” that affected his development of ideas and the way he wrote and Mitton says it could be argued that “Paul was older; he was spending a long period of enforced inactivity in a Roman prison and in consequence his mind adopted a more contemplative mode”. It is therefore fair to suggest that during this time his theology might have changed or developed. However, for some, the theological differences are so extensive that it is not enough to say that Paul’s theology is simply more developed. Again the arguments seem to balance out in my view and neither has more strength than the other.

Can we really ignore eighteen centuries of a belief in Pauline authorship?

It wasn’t until the last two centuries that Pauline authorship was questioned. The early works of Iranaeus and Clement of Alexandria both assume Pauline authorship and in the Muratorian Canon Ephesians is listed as one of the apostle’s letters. To deny Pauline-authorship would mean to ignore centuries of belief. If earliest specific references to Ephesians in Iranaeus and Clement did not question the author then why should we eighteen centuries later? Scholars argue that if Ephesians wasn’t written by Paul early scholars would have questioned its authorship as they had greater access to recent sources and a better knowledge of where the letter came from.

If we are going to assume Ephesians was written by a different author then are there too many problems?

Percy says “The assumption of post-Pauline origin will present us with greater difficulties than the assumption of its genuineness” although he confesses his embarrassment to the modification of some words from Colossians to Ephesian’s. Is it fair to say therefore that the reason why some ignore the obvious difficulties of Pauline authorship is because they worry that it reduces the importance of Ephesians? As it is put in The Oxford Bible Commentary, “Since the letter claims to be written by Paul, does the denial of Pauline authorship not amount to a questioning of the letter’s integrity?”. Today copyright and plagiarism is thought of as fraud and unacceptable, we therefore assume that when someone copies they intend to deceive the one who is reading. This results in some not wanting to deny Pauline authorship because of the connotations that lie with this. However, on the other hand, it is important to remember that our view on copyright is very modern and that actually, in the time that Ephesians was written, this was a normal occurrence and was accepted. Surely it is acceptable to assume the author of Ephesians as a close follower of Paul who wanted to keep his teachings going sometime shortly after his death?

So who did write Ephesians if it wasn’t Paul?

The general thought is that Ephesians was written by a close follower of Paul who wanted to guide the current generation in the right direction using Paul’s teaching and theology but making it relevant to their lives. “Most think the writer was of the Pauline School or a disciple or secretary who was familiar with Paul’s thinking”. Goodspeed suggested Onesimus as the author but his theories are not considered to be foolproof; there have also been theories that the writer was a Gentile convert or a Jewish Christian of some official standing. Trobisch holds the view that Ephesians was a collection of unpublished and published letters “collected and revised after Paul’s death”. There is not therefore a unanimous decision on the author of Ephesians if not Paul but many scholars hold the same view that it was “published about a generation after Paul’s death, it is as it were, “Paul’s Message for Today””.

Did Paul write Ephesians or was it a post-Pauline author?

I conclude that there are various valid reasons for modern scholars denying Pauline authorship of Ephesians: the impersonal nature, the language and style, the close links Ephesians has with Colossians and other sources and the change in theology in Ephesians since the other letters. I have assessed the argument for non-Pauline authorship of Ephesians but does this get us any closer to a conclusion? I think not. Brown famously states that “A fair estimate might be that at the present moment about 80% of critical scholarship holds that Paul did not write Ephesians” but Hoehner sets out a clear table and comes to the conclusion that it is evidently 50% either way. Hoehner also points out that many scholars have repeatedly changed their minds in response to new arguments, for example Schlier and Martin originally asserted that Ephesians was not Pauline; “later they considered it Pauline, and finally they reverted to their first position”. This evidence supports my claim that the argument seems very balanced. In writing this essay I repeatedly changed my mind, resulting in me feeling very confused and unsure about my view on the problem. For every argument against Pauline authorship there seems to be an equally valid argument for Pauline authorship and vice versa resulting in a vicious circle and no ultimate conclusion.  I therefore agree with Peake that, although the argument against Pauline authorship is very strong “the conclusion must be that the arguments for and against Pauline authorship are balanced”.

Bibliography

Arnold, C. E. Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, Intervarsity Press, 1993        

Barton, John and Muddiman, John. The Oxford Bible Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2001

Brown, Raymond E. The Churches the Apostles Left Behind, Geoffrey Chapman, 1984

Chadwick, H. Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, Van Reinhold Co Ltd, 1982.

 Furnish, Victor Paul. Anchor Bible Dictionary vol 2, Doubleday, 1992

Harris, Stephen L. Understanding the Bible, 7th Edition, The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2007

Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary, Baker Academic, 2006.

Mitton, C Leslie. New Century Bible Commentary: Ephesians, Marshal, Morgan & Scott, 1973.

The Bible-New Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version Bible, 1989

---