Ephesians

[Crabtownboy]

We either accept Ephesians as scripture or we do not accept it as scripture regardless of who is the author. So, I'm not picking sides. I was curious and did a bit of research and found the following ... which I am quoting only for information only:

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."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ephesians.html

I also read that some believe that a later person who was very familiar with Paul's concepts wrote in Paul's name ... to give it more weight I guess.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

If Paul did not write it the very first word is a lie. How then could we trust the rest?

 

[webdog]

I thought the Holy Spirit wrote it?

 

[glfredrick]

We should consider that Paul often used the services of an scribe -- and that he may have had different scribes which may have written in a slightly different form than some other. Paul makes a big deal out of actually writing one letter in his own hand:

Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand. Gal 6:11

 

[glfredrick]

I thought the Holy Spirit wrote it?

The Holy Spirit guided the very human hands (and thoughts) of the persons who wrote Scripture. Some would hold that God verbally dictated each element of the Scriptures, but that does not actually seem to be the case. It is rather more like the captain of a ship steers through the waters. The course is set, the direction known, but the swells of the ocean move the ship about to and fro just a bit along the journey. In fact, this allusion is scriptural. The same term used for "moved" in 2 Peter 1:21 is used in Acts 27 to describe the movement of the ships at sea.

2 Pet 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

Hebr 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Saying that the Holy Spirit "wrote" the Word is not accurate. More like "guided the writing."

 

[RAdam]

The whole "it's not like other Pauline letters" is a ridiculous argument. Find anyone who's ever written multiple books, stories, letters, etc., and read their works. Is every single book, or letter, or story written by an author exactly identical or bear the same exact style throughout? Consider your posts on this message board. Is every single post of yours in the same exact style? No. Why? A variety of reasons exist, such as the purpose to which you are writing, the subject being addressed, the audience to whom you are writing, etc. It's totally unreasonable to read Romans and the two Corinthian letters and then expect Paul to exactly duplicate that style throughout. Let's not forget that Paul didn't write all these letters at once. The two to Thessalonica came first, then letters like Romans, the two to Corinth, 1 Timothy. Then you have the prison epistles like Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Timothy, Philemon, Colossians.

The epistle says Paul wrote it. If he did not, then the epistle lied to us. If it lied, it is not scripture. It's pretty simple. Of course, many of the same geniuses that argue against Pauline authorship also argue against the Pentateuch and Daniel. If you are going to follow them, you might as well throw your bible in the garbage.

 

[kyredneck]

The whole "it's not like other Pauline letters" is a ridiculous argument. Find anyone who's ever written multiple books, stories, letters, etc., and read their works. Is every single book, or letter, or story written by an author exactly identical or bear the same exact style throughout? Consider your posts on this message board. Is every single post of yours in the same exact style? No. Why? A variety of reasons exist, such as the purpose to which you are writing, the subject being addressed, the audience to whom you are writing, etc. It's totally unreasonable to read Romans and the two Corinthian letters and then expect Paul to exactly duplicate that style throughout. Let's not forget that Paul didn't write all these letters at once. The two to Thessalonica came first, then letters like Romans, the two to Corinth, 1 Timothy. Then you have the prison epistles like Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Timothy, Philemon, Colossians.

The epistle says Paul wrote it. If he did not, then the epistle lied to us. If it lied, it is not scripture. It's pretty simple. Of course, many of the same geniuses that argue against Pauline authorship also argue against the Pentateuch and Daniel. If you are going to follow them, you might as well throw your bible in the garbage.

Thank you. The fact is I've noticed a lot of variance in my own writing, whether it be informal posts on a web forum, or official memoranda and correspondance from my career days. There's many factors that could come into play that could affect the style of one's writing at any given time.

Good post.

 

[Tom Butler]

Do microwaves even work in Ireland?

Don't know, but would a flat-screen TV be an acceptable substitute?

 

[mcdirector]

Don't know, but would a flat-screen TV be an acceptable substitute?

I accept for Roger and am willing to test it until his next visit to the states

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I accept for Roger and am willing to test it until his next visit to the states

Thanks - I'll be sorta close to you in April and will collect it then

 

[jrscott]

If Paul did not write it the very first word is a lie. How then could we trust the rest?

I agree with you! I hold to the traditional authorship of all the New Testament books. I tend to think that if a book says it was written by an author, I hold that it was. (However, there are some traditions in the OT that are questionable; ie. Lamentations, Samuel, Kings - BUT none of those books claim an authorship for themselves.)

However, in the role of devil's advocate, here is the response to this.

"When a congressional aide or professional speech writer writes a speech in the name of a senator or politician, even if the speech is never delivered, it is still thought of as that politician's speech. No one accuses the politician of falsehood or lying by claiming that speech as their own - because we understand the literary mechanism.

In the same way, someone close to Paul writing in the name of Paul during the first century would not have been seen as a liar or committing a crime, because they understood the literary mechanism of pseudonymity. However, in our day of plagarism, copyright laws, etc, we are bothered by this practice. They would not have been at the time of the NT writings."

My answer to this argument (other that the fact that American politicians are hardly an example of honesty I would point to) is that the burden of proof is not on those who hold traditional views, but on those who don't. They have not shown with any satisfaction that this was an accepted practice among the early church. In fact, there are some glaring statements and facts that seem to point against it.

One case in point:

It seems to me that if this were the case, we'd be reading the Gospel of Peter instead of the Gospel of Mark (in fact, Mark is an enigma they can't answer, given Mark's reputation for leaving Paul and Barnabas). If any NT book would have pseudonymous, it should have been Mark.

Further, several early church fathers specifically state that any book suspected to be written by someone other than an apostle or an authorized agent of an apostle (Luke, Mark, etc), then it was not to be accepted. (Serapion in Eusebius, H.E. 6.12.3; also check out an article by Guthrie called 'Tertullian and Pseudonymity' in "Expository Times")

Hope this helps.

Randy

 

[jrscott]

Eph. 3:20-21 sounds like the end of a letter. Do they also claim that this was really two letters?

This has been suggested. But it has never been widely accepted or argued.

Randy

 

[Dr. Bob]

The only controversy I see is calling a circular letter to a group of churches by the name of only ONE of those churches. In the older Greek texts there is no name of the RECIPIENT.

Common practice was to send general letters to be circulated to churches in an areas (like Galatia) and particular letters dealing with church issues to those specific churches (like Corinthians)

Ephesus was the hub church for that area but this was meant for all the churches in that region. Hence the Greek reads "around (or towards the area) Ephesus"

And it may well be two letters merged for convenience into one. But I've translated Paul and the style, grammar, vocabulary, etc, are evident in Ephesians as much as any other book. And noted some phrasing that he used in writing to a particular church (like Colossae) are used in the circular letter we call Ephesians.

 

[Gold Dragon]

3. The style of the letter is an issue, as this is not Paul's normal style. The sheer length of sentences is especially something to be noticed. The letter is not Paul's normal direct style of written communication.

I'm curious about this point. My preconception is that Paul frequently used long run-on sentences in his writings. I have never looked into whether this was true across all his books or just in Ephesians where a lot of his more famous long run-on sentences exist.

My question is how true is it that Paul does not use long sentences in his other letters besides Ephesians?

 

[jrscott]

I'm curious about this point. My preconception is that Paul frequently used long run-on sentences in his writings. I have never looked into whether this was true across all his books or just in Ephesians where a lot of his more famous long run-on sentences exist.

My question is how true is it that Paul does not use long sentences in his other letters besides Ephesians?

He does, but not to this extent. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Eph. 1.3-14 is the longest sentence in ancient history. (Aslo, 15-23 is probably one sentence) Even acknowledging that there are some differences, it's important to realize that they should not be overstated. (See also Dr. Bob's post below) In my opinion, HC is very good at making mountains out of molehills.

That being said, Guthrie does acknowledge some differences in style. It is more reflective and less logical than other writings. It's also lacking the more direct way of speaking than Paul does in other letters. However, these should not be overstated. The fact of the matter is that this is only true in the first half of the book. Secondly, the whole "the same author could not have written two different ways" argument is very flimsy in my opinion. Thirdly, I seem to remember Carson and Moo pointing out that when Paul deals with similar themes in other books, his style does become more expressive. This makes the entire argument from style a complete non-issue, even from a HC perspective.

Randy

 

[following-Him]

Thank you for all your comments. Thay have been most helpful. Here in the UK there is a view held that Ephesians and Colossians are not the work of Paul. I had hoped to write on Ephesians for my MA dissertation, but I feel somewhat isolated in my views and beliefs that Paul wrote Ephesians and Colossians and feel that this might make it difficult for me to find a supervisor when I can resume my studies. I am also wondering how much work I should devote to stating my position?

following-Him