Grace Theological
Journal 2.1 (Spring, 1981) 59-73.
Copyright © 1981 by Grace
Theological Seminary. Cited with permission.
THE PECULIARITIES OF
EPHESIANS AND THE
EPHESIAN ADDRESS
DAVID ALAN BLACK
An important argument in
favor of the encyclical theory of the
epistle to
the Ephesians is based upon the peculiarities found in the
epistle
itself. Yet these unusual features (e.g., the lack of personal
greetings, the
unusual statements in
be satisfactorily
explained in the light of an original Ephesian destina-
tion.
After an examination of early scribal habits and the theme of
the epistle, the author
concludes that the peculiarities of the letter are
not conclusive reasons for
rejecting the strong textual and historical
testimony in
favor of the Ephesian address.
* * *
INTRODUCTORY
REMARKS
THE epistle
which is commonly known as "Ephesians" has in
recent
years been the subject of much critical discussion. The
chief
question about the Ephesian letter is its
authenticity: Did the
apostle Paul
write the letter, as the epistle claims, or is it the work of
an
imitator? Of lesser importance, but related to the previous ques-
tion, is the problem of the address of the Ephesian epistle. To whom
was the
letter written?
Since the second century, the letter has been universally known
as the
Epistle of the Ephesians. Many modern scholars, however, in
view of
the omission in several manuscripts of the words “in
(e]n ]Efe<sw) in
1: 1, have rejected the Ephesian destination. A
widely
held
view, initially proffered by Beza and popularized by Ussher, is
that the Ephesian epistle was not written to any particular church,
but
rather was an encyclical letter to a group of churches in
Minor. The
apostle Paul, therefore, when he penned the letter, left a
blank in
the preface (1:1) which was to be filled in by Tychicus
as he
distributed
copies to the various churches. In this scheme, the reading
60 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
of the Textus Receptus goes back to a
copy sent to
the
Alexandrian manuscripts p46, א, and B stem from a
copy in which
the
blank had never been filled up. It is hypothesized that since the
epistle was
distributed from
sians, and the words “in
their way
into the majority of manuscripts.1
Arguments in favor of this view are presented in various ways by
its
proponents. When condensed and combined, the main lines of
evidence
appealed to in support of the encyclical theory are the
following:
1. The omission of e]n ]Efe<sw in 1: I is supported by the oldest
Greek
manuscripts of the Pauline epistles: p46, א, and B. These
Alexandrian
codices are generally considered to be the most reliable
authorities to
the text of the NT, and to many, almost always
preserve the
original reading.
2. Several early Church Fathers can be cited in support of the
omission of e]n
]Efe<sw. Origen did not know of the words in his text.
Marcion
attributed the epistle to the Laodiceans. Basil said
that he
was aware of
old manuscripts which did not contain e]n ]Efe<sw.
Though there
is disagreement on the point, the Latin Father Tertul-
lian may not have known the words in his text.2
3. The impersonal style of the letter is inexplicable if the
epistle
was
addressed to the Ephesian church. This argument is
based on
internal
evidence from the epistle itself. Thiessen gives the
evidence
for it
in detail:
The internal
evidence strongly supports Aleph, B, and 672. It
would be strange indeed for Paul to say to the
Church at
he knew of their conversion only by report (
spent three years with them (Acts
strange for him to say that
this church knew him only by hearsay (3:2)
and that they must judge by what he had
written as to whether or not
God had
given him a revelation of the truth (3:2-4). It would also seem
strange that he should send no
greetings to a church that he knew so
1E. Gaugler, Der Epheserbrief(Zürich: EVZ-Verlag,
1966) 4. Cf. H. C. Thiessen,
Introduction to the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969) 243-44.
2The actual statements of these Fathers may be found in T. K.
Abbott, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the
Ephesians and to the
Colossians (ICC; Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1897) ii-iii. As far as
the testimony of
Tertullian goes,
the problem is his use of the word titulum. Did he intend for it to
refer to the superscript of
the epistle or to the prescript of 1: I? A good discussion
of this question is offered
by G. Stoeckhardt, Commentary on
the Ephesians, trans. Martin S. Sommer
(St. Louis: Concordia, 1952) 14-17.
BLACK: EPHESIANS AND THE EPHESIAN ADDRESS 61
intimately. As Findley says: “Not
once does he address his hearers as
‘brethren’ or ‘beloved’; ‘my brethren’ in Eph.
copyists. There is not a single
word of familiarity or endearment in the
whole letter. The benediction at the end (
person, not in the second as
everywhere else.”3
Metzger adds
that the epistle does not deal with the mistakes, needs,
or
personalities of one individual congregation.4
These writers main-
tain that a letter written by Paul to his
beloved
contain
personal references and greetings. Since these features are
absent, the
epistle could not have been intended solely for the church
at
The arguments in support of the encyclical theory at first appear
to be
very convincing. However, the view is open to numerous
objections. Of
major importance is the fact that there is absolutely no
textual
evidence to support the suggestion that Paul left a blank space
for the
addresses of the various churches after the words “who are”
(toi?j ou#sin). The reading preserved in p46, א, B, and others shows
only an
uninterrupted sequence of words. This reading, however, is
most
unnatural, and it is obvious by comparison with the other
Pauline
epistles that after toi?j ou#sin a geographical designation is
intended to
be read. Unless one is willing to resort to an emendation
of the
text,5 the only candidate with textual attestation for the
original
address is the reading e]n ]Efe<sw supported by the great
majority of
Greek manuscripts (including Alexandrinus and several
other
Alexandrian witnesses), the entire phalanx of ancient versions,
and most
early Fathers. It is, furthermore, the only address supported
by
ecclesiastical tradition. No other church (or group of Asian
churches)
ever claimed the epistle for itself. The only
exception to this
3Thiessen, Introduction, 243.
4Bruce M. Metzger, The New Testament: Its
Background, Growth, and
Content (New York: Abingdon, 1965) 235.
5 James P.
1949] 225-26) suggests that after toi?j ou#sin the numeral e]ni is to be read. Other
conjectures are the following: A. van Roon (The
Authenticity of Ephesians, trans. S.
Prescod-Jokel [
kai>
Laodikei% pistoi?j e]n Xrist&? ]Ihsou? ("The Text of
Ephesians 1:1, “NTS 15
[1968-1969]
248). Richard Batey
thinks ou#sin is a corruption of ]Asi<aj (“Critical—
The
Destination of Ephesians,” JBL 82. [1963] 101). Though none of these emendations are
unreasonable, the principal objection is over the validity of such a procedure in a
passage where a reading with good documentary support is extant. A good
critique of
the conjectural readings in 1:1 is found in a recent article by
Ernest Best, “Ephesians
1:1” (Text
and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament presented to Matthew
Black, eds. Ernest Best and R. McL. Wilson [
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL 62
tradition is
the claim of the heretic Marcion that the letter was
addressed to
the Laodiceans, an assertion that Tertullian
insisted was
attributable to Marcion’s propensity to “tamper” (interpolare) with
the
text.6 Thus if the words “in
view that
the epistle was addressed and sent to the church at
is
correct and must be accepted, regardless of whatever interpretive
problems this
may produce.
What of these frequently cited internal objections to the Ephe-
sian address? Can they be answered if the
traditional view is upheld?
Those who
favor the reading of the Chester Beatty papyrus and early
uncials are
convinced that the general nature of the epistle is the final
argument for
their position. There are, however, many scholars who
see no
contradiction at all between the epistle’s unusual features and
the inclusion of the words “in
article the
writer would like to suggest simple alternative interpreta-
tions for the lack of personal greetings, the
peculiar statements in
address in
the hope of showing that there is no necessary
contradic-
tion between these features and the
traditional view, and that, in fact,
these
peculiarities may possibly best be
understood in the light of an
Ephesian destination.
THE UNUSUAL FEATURES OF
EPHESIANS
On the surface, it appears strange indeed that Paul would include
no
greetings in an epistle addressed to a church in which he had
served for
nearly three years. The facts, however, seem to present us
with a
different situation. Lenski, for instance, calls the
arguments
from the
impersonal style of the letter “unconvincing.”7 He
points out
that 2
Corinthians, Galatians, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians all lack
personal
greetings, yet all were written to congregations founded by
Paul, as was
the church at
the
Romans has more greetings than any other epistle of Paul, yet
this
church was not founded by the
apostle. Of the nine Pauline
epistles
which are addressed to churches (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and
Philemon
being excluded), five lack personal greetings (2 Corin-
thians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and
Ephesians), and four
contain them
(Romans, 1 Corinthians, Colossians, and Philippians,
this
latter epistle not mentioning any individuals by name). Lenski
writes:
6Adv. Marc., V 17, quoted by Brook Foss Westcott,
Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950) xxiii.
7R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of
Ephesians
and to the Philippians (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1951) 334.
BLACK: EPHESIANS AND THE EPHESIAN ADDRESS 63
Why this difference? This is the real question and not the one
regarding Ephesians alone. A
blanket answer regarding the five cannot
be given. Each letter stands by itself
whether it is with or without
greetings from or to individuals
or from churches. That means that we
can give only very tentative and partial
answers to the questions as to
why five letters are minus greetings, why
four have greetings, and why
these greetings are what they are, in one
letter (Romans) a long list, in
one only a summary (Philippians), both of
these letters being different
from the other two as far as greetings are
concerned. As regards
Ephesians,
personal greetings are not missed by those who see the
exalted subject and tone of the
epistle.8
Lenski, in
another place, concludes:
Therefore, the presence or absence of greetings determines neither
whether a congregation was
founded by Paul nor whether a letter
written by him is intended for
only one or for several congregations
whether these were founded by
him or not.9
In a similar vein, Guthrie discusses the remarkable number of
personal
greetings in the Roman epistle, a phenomenon which has
prompted some
scholars to conclude that chapter 16 of Romans was
originally sent
to
In the
course of that discussion he makes the following observation:
There would be no parallel if this long series of greetings were
sent
to a church such as
occasion when he appended many
personal greetings was when writing
to
policy to single out any
individuals in churches that he knew well since
he considered all the Christians to be his
friends. But in a church like
commendation that so
many of the Christians there were his former
acquaintances.11
In other
words, it seems that the better Paul knew a church to which
he was
writing, the fewer personal greetings he included.
If Guthrie's observation is correct, and there is no reason to
doubt it,
one should expect a noticeable lack
of personal greetings in
8Ibid., 684-85.
9Ibid., 334.
10Donald Guthrie, New
Testament Introduction (Downers Grove: InterVarsity,1975)
400-404.
11Ibid., 401. Harry Gamble, Jr. (The
Textual History of the Letter to the Romans [
Eerdmans, 1977] 48) writes: “Are these greetings not rather the exception which prove the rule:
Individuals are not greeted in letters to
churches with which Paul is personally acquainted.”
64 GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
an
epistle written by Paul to a church he had founded and in which
he had
served for three years. Thus the argument for the encyclical
theory
based on the lack of personal greetings in Ephesians can be
logically used
to yield the opposite result.
The other features of the epistle are also explainable. The fact
that Paul
“heard” of their faith (
intelligence.12 Years had gone by since Paul had been in
the
meantime, the congregation no doubt had grown, and there were
probably many
new members whom Paul did not know personally
when he
wrote this epistle. This verse may be a reference to them. Yet
another
possibility exists. Paul could write to people whom he had
never met
that he had heard of their faith (
say to
his friend and co-worker (sunergo<j) Philemon, “I hear of your
love, and
of the faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus, and
toward all
the saints” (Philemon 5). Lenski writes in this
regard: “One
may hear
about persons whom one has never met (the Colossians) as
well as
about persons whom one has met (the Ephesians, Phile-
mon).13 For Paul, therefore, to say that he had
“heard” of these
believers’
faith and love does not necessitate the conclusion that he
had not
previously known them. The verse can easily be interpreted
as a
reference to the progress of the Ephesian Christians
since Paul's
departure from
Eph 3:2 is another verse which is often used to support the
circular
hypothesis, where Paul writes, “…if indeed you have heard
of the
stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you.”
The focus
here is upon the words “if indeed you have heard” (ei@ ge),
which seem
to imply that the recipients of this letter had
not heard all of this. The force of ei@ ge, however, is not doubt, but
certainty. Hendriksen writes:
A strict literal translation of what Paul
actually writes is perhaps
impossible in English. The nearest to it would be
something like this:
“If, indeed, you have heard.” Cf. A. V., “If ye have heard”; A.R.V., “If
so be that ye have heard.” However, that type of rendering will
hardly
do, since it might suggest that Paul is questioning whether or not
the
Ephesians, by and large, have ever heard about the
task committed to
him by his Lord.14
12Charles Hodge, A Commentary
on the Epistle to the Ephesians (
Presbyterian
Board of Publication, 1856) xii.
13Lenski, Ephesians, 388.
14William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Ephesians
(Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1967) 151.
BLACK:
EPHESIANS AND THE EPHESIAN ADDRESS 65
Lenski
agrees:
It is difficult to imitate the little intensifying ge in English; our
“indeed” is a little too strong. The condition of reality
with its gentle
particle [sic] states the matter
in a mild and polite form: “if, indeed,
you have heard” (the Greek is satisfied with
the aorist “heard,” the
simple past fact), meaning: I know that you have.15
Therefore, Hendriksen prefers to translate the words ei@ ge h]kou<sate
“for surely you have heard”,16 so
as to avoid implying that they had
not
heard the apostle. Or, as Vincent says, “the words are a reminder
of his
preaching among them.”17
The words ei@ ge
… h]kou<sate appear again in
you have
heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in
Jesus.” To
some, this verse indicates that the readers of this epistle
had not
learned Christian truths through Paul and therefore shows
that Paul
could not have been writing to the Ephesians. Yet here
again,
Paul is net implying doubt, but certainty, in his remark.
Vincent
says: “The indicative mood implies the truth of the supposi-
tion