tion that the Epistle to the Ephesians is the one addressed to the Laodiceans, because this epistle is of similar purport, in general, with that to the Colossians, and the Laodiceans could have no particular interest, after the more detailed epistle directed to them, in reading the shorter one to the Colossians, which was calculated for particular circumstances. The epistle mentioned Col. iv. 16 must rather be considered as lost, since, as will be immediately shewn in detail, to the assumption of the Marcionites, that the Epistle to the Ephesians was intended for the Christians in Laodicea, no exclusive importance can be ascribed, since this circumstance admits of a simple explanation in another way, without supposing any corruption of the text. We can adopt, therefore, for the solution of the difficulty as to the destination of our epistle only this one assumption, viz., that the Epistle to the Ephesians was an encyclical one, i. e., that it was meant to circulate among a number of churches, and to be read in their assemblies. For this supposition, which completely explains the character of the epistle, the greater number, and the most eminent, of the modern critics have accordingly decided. However, it is still a question, even supposing the correctness of this general view, how the Ephesians were exactly situated with regard to this number of churches, for whom this epistle was intended, and how we are to establish the original reading in the salutation. The Epistle to the Ephesians can by no means be understood so encyclical as not to include in the number of the churches, for which it was especially intended, the Ephesian church itself; on the contrary, it must be regarded as the first church in that number; as the one to which the epistle was given first of all by Tychicus that they might forward it to the others (vi. 21, 22). This appears from the fact, that in all the Fathers without exception, even in Basil, our epistle is taken as an Epistle to the Ephesians. Marcion alone interprets it as an Epistle to the Laodiceans, as we saw; but even in him it remained. doubtful, whether he read &v Aaodikɛía in the salutation, or, as is more probable, had no name of a city at all in the text, just like Basil's MSS. That this variation of Marcion's does not express the general view of the ancient church is irrefragably established by the fact, that, before Marcion, Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, mentions our epistle as one addressed to the Ephesian church. (Ignat. ad Eph. cap. xii. in the shorter recension of these epistles, which, according to the latest investigations, is to be considered as genuine.) This universal concord would be completely inexplicable, if the epistle had not been especially addressed to the church in Ephesus, much more if this was entirely excluded. On the other hand, it is quite comprehensible (unless we choose to suppose that it was merely Col. iv. 16 that was the cause of this supposition), that if our epistle was addressed, among others, to the Christians in Laodicea, it could be occasionally considered as an Epistle to the Laodiceans (from, which, however, the one mentioned Col. iv. 15 must still be supposed different), of which view a vestige seems to have remained among the Marcionites. Tertullian's charge of a designed corruption of the text is in this point clearly without any probable ground. Thus, then, there only remains this further question, how the original text in Eph. i. 1, may have stood. According to the above-cited passage of Basil, the oldest MSS. known to him seem to have left out the ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, so that τοῖς οὖσι καὶ πισToic were closely united; for he deduces from this passage, as we already remarked, that he supposes the readers to have been thus called ovτεs, because they stood in connexion with Christ, the only truly existing (T ÖVTI). But this interpretation, as similar ones attempted in later times by Schneckenburger, Matthies and Meyer (see Harless p. xlvii.), cannot possibly be recommended. The analogy of the exordia of Paul's epistles is in favour of the name of the city, or province, in which the readers of them are, directly following the participle. But then, how shall the omission of ¿v 'Epéo be explained, which took place in many old MSS.; and, on the other hand, if we regard ¿v 'Epéo as the true reading, how could > an encyclical epistle be designated as addressed to the Ephesians merely, especially as our epistle is addressed to Gentile Christians (ii. 11) whereas the Ephesian church was composed of Gentile and Jewish Christians (Acts xix. 17, xx. 21)? To the latter point, however, but little importance is to be ascribed, because all the churches founded by Paul were predominantly Gentile-Christian, and could not be otherwise from the mission which he undertook (Gal. ii. 9); even if there were individual Jews among them, still Paul might properly keep the mass especially in view, and remind them of their former idolatry. For it must be supposed in the case of all the epistles, and therefore here also, that Paul wrote to whole churches, not to individuals of those churches, because he would by the latter course have himself dissolved their unity in faith and love. But there could scarcely have been any churches without some Jewish Christians. The two other arguments, however, the omission of the iv 'Epéow in some, and again the retention of the words in other MSS., can surely be only explained, considering the encyclical destination of the epistle, by the assumption, that either Tychicus was provided with several copies of the epistle, and that in them the space for the proper city was left blank for filling up; or that copies of the epistle were made in Ephesus for different places, and, as it was known to be an encyclical epistle, the iv 'Epéow was put, not in all, but * The author of this hypothesis is Usher, the famous Archbishop of Armagh, in his. Annal. Mundi ad ann. 64, p. 686. only in the copies intended for Ephesus and its neighbourhood; while as Ephesus was the chief city of Asia, most copies naturally went out from it, which therefore spread that reading. The objection has been made (see Harless, p. xlv.) to this hypothesis (as to which it is immaterial whether it be received thus or modified), "that it transfers the usages of modern times to the ancient world," incorrectly, as it appears to me. Copies must have been taken, as much in olden time as in the present day, of an epistle addressed to several churches, whether by the bearer himself, or by those to whom the epistle came first; and that in these copies the name of the place either was wanting at first, or was afterwards left out by the copyists, who knew the encyclical destination of the epistle, seems also to be entirely analogous to the state of things at all times. This supposition therefore of Usher, Hug, and others, has ever seemed to me the most suitable solution of the difficulty, which, if we reject it, we are obliged to leave unsolved. § 2. OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. While our epistle maintained the character of an apostolical production, as well throughout the early church as in later ages, without any dispute, the critics of our days have attempted to cast doubts on the correctness of this tradition. Schleiermacher expressed himself doubtful as to the origin of our epistle, but his reasons have not as yet been published. De Wette also (Introd. p. 221, seq.), is just as doubtful, but confesses that the reasons are as yet insufficient for rejecting it. Meanwhile we need not apprehend that plausible reasons will fail the sharp-sighted hyper-criticism of other theologians,* in order to reject this epistle also, along with others, as not Paul's. Let us examine cursorily, since the publication of the reasons for the non-genuineness of this epistle has not yet taken place, what may be considered as arousing suspicion. Historical arguments of the sort are entirely wanting, with the exception of the one which (§ 1) was adduced as to its destination. But uncertainty as to the first readers of an epistle can only then excite suspicion as to the declared author, when corroborated by some other important points. Such the internal character of the epistle is said to suggest. De Wette (ubi suprâ p. 220) expresses himself on these points in the following fashion: "In the Epistle to the Ephesians we are surprised by a style which when compared with that of others of Paul's epistles, is quite too loose (this sounds as if looseness were, in general, a * According to Baur in his work against Rothe, Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians, are alone decidedly genuine; all the others are spurious, or more or less suspicious. characteristic of Paul's mode of discussion), overladen with parenthetical and subordinate clauses, disjointed, rich in words, but poor in new ideas, and varying in particulars, as also by many things in its conceptions, opinions, and mode of teaching. Certainly, these reasons are not sufficient for rejecting the epistle, which contains so much which is worthy of Paul, and scarcely to be expected of an imitator, and, which antiquity has always acknowledged as genuine." The arguments here cited as arousing suspicion, are, however, of such a description that very little, if any, stress is to be laid on them. As to the remarks, first of all, on the form of our epistle, it is true that anas λeуóueva occur in it; but it has been long ago remarked that, considering the small extent of Paul's epistles all together, such must occur in each. Its style is also very rich and full; but, when De Wette sees in it a mere "copia verborum, without new ideas," this is, as Harless (Introd. § 3) has shewn in detail, an entirely unfounded charge; the richness of style, the fulness of the sentences, is rather to be referred to the thronging ideas, which sought for simultaneous expression. As to the matter, in the second place, many variations in "conceptions, opinions, and doctrine" are said to occur in the Epistle to the Ephesians. But this assertion too amounts to nothing substantial. Thus De Wette remarks among others, that the dæmonological conceptions in our epistle are singular, for which assertion the words ὁ ἄρχων τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος, the prince of the power of the air (ii. 2), τὰ πνευματικά τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις, spiritual wickedness in heavenly places (vi. 12) are quoted. But, since the doctrine of evil spirits occurs in all Paul's epistles, it cannot possibly be said with reason that there are here deviations from the genuine Pauline dæmonology, simply because a subordinate trait is here brought out, which we, accidentally, do not find elsewhere. Such are to be looked upon as mere äπаž vooúμɛva, and these have per se just as little power of demonstration as the ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, unless they appear in conjunction with decisive arguments. The only thing that might be looked upon as such is the relation of our epistle to the Epistle to the Colossians; this requires, therefore, a nearer investigation. That between the Epistle to the Ephesians and that to the Colossians a great affinity exists was known long ago; but the conviction was that the composition of both epistles at the same time, and * Of what nature the other pretended variations are which De Wette says he has remarked, is plain from the fact that he reckons among them the exposition of Ps. lxviii. 19, the allegory of the church and marriage (iv. 8, 28, v. 18); passages which certainly, according to 1 Cor. x., Gal. iv., seem quite in Paul's style. But the exhortation in iv. 28, v. 18, De Wette finds gross (1) Whence this prudery comes I know not how to explain. VOL. V.-2 under like circumstances, was quite sufficient to account for it. But in later times it has been attempted to dispute that, because the affinity is so great that at bottom the Epistle to the Ephesians appears only a copious amplification of the Epistle to the Colossians, and is wanting in everything distinctive as to aim and object." (See De Wette, ubi suprâ, p. 223.) That is to say, the more definite character of the Epistle to the Colossians is taken to prove its originality at the expense of the Epistle to the Ephesians. (Ibid., p. 230, note a.) Now, as an argument for this alleged quality of the Epistle to the Ephesians, De Wette gives us (pp. 224-228) a comparison of the two epistles (in which all those passages even which contain like words only are set down as parallel passages), careless whether the connexion in which they occur is the same or a totally different one.* Harless (p. lxix.) has already shewn in detail how very differently the comparison of the two epistles results, if we look to their connexion and tendency. With all the concord between them they still both exhibit an independent character. That is to say, whilst the Epistle to the Colossians has a perfectly definite polemical bearing, since an heretical party, characterized by peculiar features, is combatted in it, this is totally wanting in the Epistle to the Ephesians. True, some passages are found which at first sight appear to have a polemical tendency (see iv. 3, 4, 14, 20, 21; v. 6); but, on a more accurate consideration, even in these all properly polemic allusion disappears, and the epistle stands, as a warning, it is true, against possible errors, but, on the whole, as merely a lively effusion of the heart, full of faith and joy, by which the readers are to be strengthened in the faith, encouraged to the practice of love, and stirred up to patience in hope. Schneckenburger's assumption that (Introd. p. 135, seq.) our epistle relates to the theosophic system, which had spread in Asia Minor, is, at all events, completely inadmissible. Why should that polemical reference be so veiled here, when it is so openly expressed in the Epistle to the Colossians? The only thing in the Epistle to the Ephesians which must be considered as having a special regard to the circumstances of the first readers is the manner in which Paul speaks of his knowledge of Christianity (iii. 4), and especially of the position of the Gentiles towards the Jews with reference to the gospel (sce. ii. 2, seq., ii. 11–22, iii. 6, seq.), in to which our epistle seems to have a greater affinity to those written to the Galatians and Romans than to that written to the Colossians. If we compare with those copious and impressive representations as to the right of the Gentiles to an immediate entrance into the kingdom of God the exhortations to con *The separate parallels will, in every case, meet with a closer examination in the exposition, and so we do not go into them more closely here. |