Ephesians

I believe Paul was the author.

Eph 1:1 ¶ Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

(emphasis mine)

 

I too say it is Paul. Now I haven't been in school for a long time, but I don't ever recall a conservative scholar saying any thing different.

 

I think there is a very good reason Ephesians reflects a Pauline style. Anybody wanna guess why?

 

I had no idea there was controversy over who wrote Ephesians. So I googled it and sure enough . . .

 

There really is no controversy about who wrote the letter. There is only a few knuckle heads that seek to disrupt and confuse what is has been accepted for generations. They raise questions to disrupt rather then seek understanding of truth. Paul wrote the letter.

 

'Cause Paul wrote it?

 

Weird how one sect of liberals can pen a book and ever after the rest of us need to discuss their work...

We see the same thing with the authorship of the Pentateuch, etc. The problem is, an earlier dating scheme changes the perspective of the words in the text, making them more powerful and authoritative (instead of "borrowed" from some other Greek philosophy, as is the common liberal view).

I also say Paul.

Now, if we were having this discussion about Hebrews, it might be more interesting... :smilewinkgrin:

 

Probably from the same crew who say that Peter didn't write II Peter.

 

Why should there be any debate about it since his name is right at the beginning of the epistle?

 

Today, Evangelicals have become alot more comfortable with the concept of pseudonymity having an affect on the writing of the New Testament letters. One author summarizes the views as 1) Paul is the author; 2) Paul is responsible for the original content but that it has been redacted; 3) Paul is not the author; 4) and finally those who think there is not enough evidence to decide one way or the other. (See Carson and Moo; 486)

I don't know that this is as much of an Evangelical debate as it is a debate between Evangelical and Liberal scholars.

Personally, I feel that it is best (as do the authors cited above) to view the letter as having come from Paul's pen. Pseudonymity does not seem to be an acceptable practice among the early Christians.

Of course, there is an honest question among Evangelicals of whether the letter was originally addressed to Ephesus.

Randy

 

Very good post!!!

For a good source, Harold Hoehner's commentary on Ephesians (the best commentary in the world by the way) did a great job defending Pauline authoriship.

Thanks to the continued Tubingen school of thought and liberal scholarship, we are still talking about Baur and his ideas. I don't know any inerrantist who holds to pseudonymity in Ephesians. So it comes down to one's view of Scripture. If it is inspired, then Paul must be the writer b/c the text claims that to be the case. Psuedopigrapha was not as accepted a practice as some like to insist.

 

Originally Posted by Tom Butler
I think there is a very good reason Ephesians reflects a Pauline style. Anybody wanna guess why?

Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding, we have a winner!!!! Contact Andrew, the board owner, about the microwave you won.

 

Do microwaves even work in Ireland?

 

So far no one has said why some "scholars" doubt that Paul wrote Ephesians. Does anyone know the rationale they are using?

 

Until someone tries to heat at in cup of grog... :laugh:

 

The rationale comes from the overall gist of the Tübingen School which seemed to have as a primary operating principle, "Doubt everything."

They started by dumping anything that required a supernatural connection and went from there. Any epistle that had a prophecy or that spoke to highly about Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit, etc., must have been other than what was purported by authorial intent, for such "just could not be." that eventually led to late dating and the suggestion that many parts of the Scriptures were not penned by the ones suggested by the context of the text itself.

Now, we just get to deal with the fallout forever after.

 

Here are the basic arguments. Keep in mind this is only a basic summary of very technical arguments. But all in all, here are the conclusions.

1. The theology is said to be too advanced. While there are some clear Pauline themes (Eph. 2.8-9), but the dominate issues in the letter are only weakly attested in the other Pauline letters (which they contest).

2. Of course, they always through in words and phrases not used in other acknowledged Pauline letters. (This has always seemed like a silly argument to me, but they insist that this is a factor. I suppose in some places, it could be a little strange not to find common terminology, such as the end of Mark, but it is beyond me why they suppose authors cannot have different vocabulary, especially in letters that emphasize issues and themes that are not emphasized in other letters)

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. Even acknowledging that this is not Paul's normal style is not necessarily a problem, because the theme of this letter is different than themes found in Paul's other letters.

4. The other major argument is to compare Ephesians to Colossians. This is a major argument but I am not that familiar with it. Any good Evangelical NT Introduction will have a good summary of it. I'll check it out in some of my resources later if no one else is familiar with it.

Hope this helps.

Randy

 

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

 

In the Greek, the writing in Ephesians is different from the certified Pauline letters. In the proven Pauline letters, Paul writes with short sentences (in the original Greek). In Ephesians many passages are long winded, using long sentences. There are also doubts that Paul wrote some other letters, including both of those to Timothy, the one to Titus and 2 Thessalonians.

EDIT: jrscott said it better than me.

I only came across this stuff myself from recently reading a book by Bart Ehrman (can't remember the title, but it was about New Testament authorship). Ehrman is chronically sceptical of everything in the Bible, and very "liberal" as you Americans like to say.