Authorship of Ephesians

Critical scholars argue that Paul didn’t actually write Ephesians. Instead, critics of Pauline authorship hold that one of Paul’s disciples forged the letter after his death. This, of course, would mean that the author was a hypocrite when he tells his readers to “speak truth” (Eph. 4:15, 25) and to avoid “deceitful scheming” (Eph. 4:14). The forger would also be asking his audience to pray for a dead man (Eph. 6:19), because Paul would’ve already been deceased according to this theory. Finally, this would also implicate Tychicus as a co-conspirator because he was the letter-carrier (Eph. 6:21-22).

We reject this view, and hold that Paul wrote this letter. This view carries the strongest support from both the (1) internal evidence and (2) external evidence.

(1) Internal evidence for Pauline authorship

Unless we have sufficient reasons to think otherwise, we should take this ancient letter as we would any other: on face value. The letter itself claims to be written by Paul (Eph. 1:1; 3:1), so the burden of proof rests with the person who suggests otherwise. It would be quite odd for a forger to write that he is “the least of all saints” (Eph. 3:8). Wood asks, “Is it conceivable that an admirer of Paul, writing in his name to enhance his reputation in the late-first-century church, would ascribe such a self-demoting confession to him?”

(2) External evidence for Pauline authorship

Ephesians was quoted by the Christian community very early, and it was accepted as an authentic letter from Paul very early on.

• Clement of Rome (AD 95) cited Ephesians 4:4-6 (1 Clem. 46:6) Ephesians 1:17-18 (1 Clem. 59:3).

• Ignatius (AD 108) alludes to Ephesians 5:1-2 (To the Ephesians 1:1-2) and Ephesians 6:11-17 (To Polycarp2).

• Polycarp (AD 130) cites Ephesians 4:26 as “Scripture” (To the Philippians1). This makes Ephesians “the first NT book to be called Scripture by the early church fathers.”

• Marcion (AD 140), who was an early heretic, includes the letter in his canon, though he titled it the letter to the “Laodiceans.”

• The Muratorian Canon (AD 170) includes Ephesians as Scripture.

• Irenaeus (AD 180) repeatedly quoted from Ephesians.

• Clement of Alexandria (AD 200) and Tertullian (AD 200) both understood the letter to have been written by Paul.

In fact, Ephesians was accepted as coming from the apostle Paul for seventeen centuries. It took until 1792 before we find any recorded author doubting the authenticity of this letter. Before this time, “scholars were almost unanimously in favor of Pauline authorship.” This is simply a mountain of external evidence in support of Pauline authorship and authenticity. Even critics of the authenticity of this letter admit this fact. One critical scholar writes, “The external evidence is wholly on the side of those who maintain Pauline authorship. Among all the early writers of the Christian Church there is never the slightest hint that questions it. Moreover, the epistle seems to be known and quoted as Paul’s as early as any of the other Pauline epistles. One of the most difficult tasks for those who reject the tradition of Pauline authorship is to find a satisfactory explanation of this acknowledged fact.”

Consequently, critics need to argue from a different basis. They typically offer two central arguments against the authenticity of Ephesians.

ARGUMENT #1. The language, vocabulary, and style are so different in Ephesians that this letter couldn’t have been written by Paul

Ephesians contains 2429 total words with a total vocabulary of 530 words. Out of these totals, 41 words appear nowhere else in the NT, and 84 words do not appear anywhere else in Paul’s writing. From this, critics charge that this couldn’t have been written by Paul because the vocabulary is too different from Paul’s other written work. Yet, a number of factors can account for this dissimilarity of language:

First, this sample size is too small to create a strong statistical argument. One statistician argues that that we need at 10,000-word samples in order to compare the similarity of language between authors. Yet none of Paul’s letters are this big: Romans (7094 words), 1 Corinthians (6807 words), 2 Corinthians (4448 words), and Ephesians (2429 words).

Second, critics accept Galatians—even though it possesses nearly identical statistics. Galatians has a total of 2220 words (rather than 2429 in Ephesians) with a total vocabulary of 526 words (rather than 530). Galatians contains 35 unique words to Paul (rather than 41) and 90 unique words to the NT (rather than 84). Hoehner rightly observes that the vocabulary in “both Ephesians and Galatians are almost identical even though Galatians is about 10 percent shorter. Yet would this demonstrate that Paul did not write Galatians? Most agree that it does not.” To be clear, some of the unique words in Ephesians are far from obscure. For instance, Paul uses the term “devil” (diabolos, Eph. 4:27; 6:11), which is found throughout the NT. Can we seriously count this as line of evidence against Paul as the author? After all, every universally accepted letter of Paul contains unique words as well (i.e. hapax legomena). Indeed, critical scholar P.N. Harrison states that Ephesians contains the same amount of unique words as the other epistles of Paul.

Critics state that Ephesians contains the greatest number of run-on sentences in any of Paul’s letters. However, we can turn this argument on its head once again. Galatians contains the shortest, “punchy” sentences of any NT epistle. But no critic sees this as evidence that Galatians was written by a forger. But if long, run-on sentences disqualify Ephesians as authentic, then do short sentences render Galatians inauthentic? The critic cannot have it both ways.

Third, Paul wrote this letter from prison (Eph. 3:1; 4:1; 6:20). A letter written from prison would probably sound different than a letter written from home.

Fourth, Paul wrote this letter later in life. Writing at age 30 would be different than writing at age 50. Year to year, our writing style changes.

Fifth, Paul intended this letter to be circular. We hold that Ephesians was not written to the church in Ephesus (see below under “Audience”). Instead, this was a circular letter that was meant to be copied and passed around the churches in Asia Minor. When we write personal letters, we might use certain language. But, when we write informal letters, we will likely use different language, vocabulary, and style.

Conclusion. It doesn’t at all seem odd that Ephesians would contain different language than Paul’s other letters. Stott concludes, “Why should we expect such an original mind as Paul’s to stay within the confines of a limited vocabulary and an inflexible style? Different themes require different words, and changed circumstances create a changed atmosphere.” Another author asks, “Which is more likely—that an imitator of Paul in the first century composed a writing ninety or ninety-five per cent in accordance with Paul’s style or that Paul himself wrote a letter diverging five or ten per cent from his usual style?” If Ephesians was not written by Paul, then it must have been written by “someone equal or superior to him.”

ARGUMENT #2: Ephesians has too many parallels with Colossians.

Some critics of the authenticity of Ephesians (like Andrew T. Lincoln) argue that Ephesians couldn’t have been written by Paul because it depends too much on Colossians (whose authenticity is rarely questioned). It is argued that a forger copied content from Colossians to make Ephesians sound authentic. While Ephesians has some overlap with Paul’s other letters, there are many similarities between Ephesians and Colossians. One scholar asserts that 26.5% of Ephesians is parallel to Colossians. At the very least, several concepts are addressed side-by-side in these two letters:

Yet, we can make a number of responses to this objection as well:

First, the similarity of the vocabulary is due to repetition of common Greek words. Only 246 words are shared between Ephesians (2429 total words) and Colossians (1574 total words). Many of these words are prepositions, pronouns, conjunctions, and proper nouns like “God” and “Christ.”

Second, Ephesians and Colossians do not share a considerable amount of unique vocabulary. These letters only share 21 words that are unique to Paul and only 11 words that are unique to the NT. If a forger wrote Ephesians, “far more verbal correspondence would exist between the two epistles, especially when much of the content is similar.”

Third, Ephesians and Colossians were written to the same general region facing the same general problems. This would surely explain why many of the same themes and motifs arise in both letters.

Fourth, this objection is at odds with the earlier objection above. Critics don’t seem to be aware of the fact that they want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they argue that Ephesians is too different from Paul’s other writings to be genuine, but on the other hand, Ephesians is too similar to Colossians to be genuine. Which is it? These are not formal contradictions, but they are mutually competing claims.

Conclusion

The internal and external evidence favor the historical view that Paul authored this letter. For a more robust study, read the late Harold Hoehner’s masterful defense of Pauline authorship in his technical commentary on Ephesians (2002). Harold Hoehner was a top-notch scholar, who received his Ph.D. from Cambridge and did postdoctoral study at the University of Tübingen. His writing on this subject is considered by many to be the strongest defense of Pauline authorship in print today.