Ephesians
Home > New Testament > Ephesians Ephesians At a Glance Letter Genre: (3/5) *** Reliability of Dating: (2/5) ** Length of Text: Greek Original Language: Ancient Translations: Modern Translations: English Estimated Range of Dating: 80-100 A.D. Chronological List of Early Christian Writings Discuss this text on the Early Writings forum. Text American Standard Version King James Version World English Bible Resources e-Catena: References to the New Testament in the Church Fathers Patristic References to Ephesians, Chapters 1 2 3 4 5 6 Edgar Goodspeed: The Epistle to the Ephesians Catholic Encyclopedia: Epistle to the Ephesians Offsite Links Perseus NT (English/Greek/Latin) Christian Belief and Behaviour: An EasyEnglish Commentary NAB Introduction Daniel Wallace's Introduction Jeanie C.
Crain's Introduction to Ephesians The Plutonium of Hierapolis and the Descent of Christ into the 'Lowermost Parts of the Earth' (Ephesians 4,9) Books Burton L. Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? : The Making of the Christian Myth (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1996), pp. 183-188. Raymond Edward Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), pp. 620-637. Udo Schnelle, translated by M. Eugene Boring, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), pp. 299-314. Recommended Books for the Study of Early Christian Writings Information on Ephesians Kummel provides three arguments that have persuaded most scholars to consider Ephesians to be deutero-Pauline (Introduction to the New Testament, pp.
358-361): language and style, dependence upon Colossians, and theological differences. Many terms in Ephesians aren't found in genuine Paulines but are found in the later NT writings and early patristic writings. Also, the author of Ephesians uses different words for important Pauline concepts. "Although these and related linguistic and stylistic differences alone could not prove the Pauline authorship of Eph to be impossible, they make extremely difficult the supposition that Paul could have written Eph in the form in which it has been handed down."Almost all of Ephesians evinces verbal contacts with Colossians, indicating that the author of Ephesians wrote in imitation of Colossians, and the author also shows contact with the rest of the Pauline corpus (excepting II Thess).
"Decisive against assuming that the same author wrote Col and Eph very quickly one after the other are those instances where Eph manifests clearly (a) literary dependence or (b) at the same time a really substantive difference from Col."Kummel shows five different ways in which Ephesians clearly has a further developed theology than Colossians. Moreover: "If these developments beyond Paul are in any case completely inconceivable in a letter of Paul written at almost exactly the same time as Col, other ideas and formulations in Eph stand in any case in irreconcilable opposition to Paul. In characteristic fashion, Eph 2:10 in reworking Col 1:10 employs the plural erga agatha which Paul always avoids (see 21.4.1).
Equally characteristic is the fact that Eph in contrast with Col uses several en-formulae that Paul does not have: en tw cristo ihson (3:11), en tw ihson (4:21), en tw kurio ihson (1:15). And in 1:15 pistis is linked with kurios, while in Paul it is linked only with cristos. Also it cannot be an accident that only in Eph 1:17; 3:14 (in contrast to all the Pauline letters) do we hear God addressed as Father in petition. Still more essential than these divergences, however, are three other factors which cannot be reconciled with Pauline authorship. First, in contrast to all the Pauline letters including Col 3:4, there is lacking in Eph any mention of the expectation of the parousia. With its formulation eis pasas tas geneas ton aiwnos twn aiwnwn, Eph 3:21 is scarcely counting on a near eschaton.