A third area of concern for those who postulate Ephesians as pseudo-apostolic is the historical context of the letter, or more accurately, the apparent lack of historical context. In other letters, Paul is responding to intruders in the congregation (Galatians, 2 Corinthians), a letter sent by the community (1 Corinthians), a false teaching (Colossians), or even a gift sent by the community (Philippians). With Ephesians, nothing of the sort immediately presents itself. Additionally, alleged glimpses of the church suggest to some a congregation of a generation or more after Paul. Specifically, the church is described as fully integrated, with Jew and Gentile now one in the peace of Christ (2:14–18). Such a scene is markedly different from the tensions between Jew and Gentile that seem to permeate the Galatian churches or the Roman community. While these points have some merit, not all churches struggled with such tensions; for example, 1 and 2 Thessalonians as well as 1 and 2 Corinthians rarely mention the law or Jews or Judaism. It may be because the communities were mainly Gentile, but if Acts can be used to shed light here, we might suggest that some allied with the synagogue (Jews and God-fearers) began to associate with followers of Christ. Moreover, history does not support the assumption that a generation or two after Paul the church had sorted out the Jew/Gentile situation. Thus pushing the epistle into the second century does not help the problem. A close reading of Eph 2:11–21 suggests Paul is not describing the current state on the ground, as it were, in his congregation. Instead, he is declaring what the cross and resurrection have done to bring Gentiles, those formerly alienated from the true God, into fellowship with God’s people (2:19). Indeed, it is precisely this truth that presents the historical setting for the epistle, namely the urgency for living out this unity within the congregations. And, we might add, interpreters have struggled to discern Paul’s overarching reason for writing Romans (beyond his personal introduction and request for aid in his planned visit to Spain), but have accepted the letter as genuinely Pauline. Furthermore, the description of Paul in 3:1–11 raises problems for some. They note that the description of Paul as less than the least of the saints (3:8) is too harsh. Yet Paul describes himself elsewhere as one who was like an aborted fetus (1 Cor 15:8)—hardly a flattering picture. Others suggest that Paul would not identify apostles as holy (Eph 3:5), as this was a later, post-apostolic appellation. But Paul is quite complimentary when speaking of apostles as gifted by God (1 Cor 12:28). Could the same writer be both highly critical of Paul, and warmly sympathetic to the apostles (which included Paul, Eph 1:1)? Another problematic aspect of 3:1–11 is the apparent assumption by the author that the audience has not seen Paul, but has heard of him (see 3:1, which notes that they heard of Paul, implying that they did not know him directly). Presumably if Paul spent over two years in Ephesus (Acts 19:10), then many in that city would have known Paul personally. If this is an encyclical letter, however, then Paul could not assume that he has met with each of the churches who will hear this letter read in their congregations. A second possibility is to understand Paul’s remarks as referring narrowly to his current imprisonment. If he is writing from Rome, the majority in Ephesus would be aware of his circumstances but not know them from personal encounter. Paul’s point, then, in these verses would be to set his current situation in context: he is a prisoner for the sake of Gentiles (3:1) and rather than that news dismay or shame them, his sufferings are a source of glory for them (3:13). In sum, the biographical details of chapter 3 need not indicate an author other than Paul himself.
In conclusion, the results of the internal evidence point to including Ephesians as one of Paul’s genuine letters, with the admitted distinctive language and content varying within an acceptable range from the undisputed letters. We proceed under the assumption that this letter was commissioned directly by Paul and was executed under his guidance and authority.
Pseudonymity in the Greco-Roman World
and the Early Church
Historical Survey of Pseudonymity
Having examined much of the evidence put forward in support of understanding Ephesians as deutero-Pauline, a brief exploration of the notion of pseudonymity (borrowing a well-known author’s name for one’s own work) in the ancient world merits our attention. Until about 300 years ago, most readers of the Pauline corpus assumed all letters attributed to Paul were penned by him or his scribe. But with the rise of the modern criticism of the Bible, and a renewed interest in ancient literary practices, various scholars today assert that pseudonymity was an accepted and common literary convention in the ancient world. Some even assert that only four of Paul’s epistles can be certified as genuine: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. To evaluate these conclusions, several points should be taken up, including the nature of the claims about ancient pseudepigraphic letters, expectations of intellectual property, and the way the early church addressed pseudepigraphy and pseudonymity. We should note at the start that pseudepigraphic letters were popular in the Greco-Roman world, and Jews of this time also produced and read pseudepigraphic works. Both of these claims, however, require careful nuance if they are to inform the discussion over the authorship of Ephesians. When we think about the range of letters today, we imagine official letters sent between diplomats wherein every word is carefully parsed, as well as grade school children writing home from summer camp to parents or grandparents eager for some news (and perhaps in this latter case the contents would be likewise carefully edited!). In the ancient world, letters likewise served to unite friends, accomplish tasks, keep in touch with family, or simply entertain. In the latter category we find collections of letters presented as written by the ancient philosophers such as Plato (philosopher of the fourth century BCE who studied under Socrates) or Diogenes (Cynic philosopher of fourth-century BCE Athens). While no one doubts that the capabilities of those two men certainly extended to writing letters, the collections of their letters, produced in the Hellenistic period, were understood for the most part to be pseudepigraphic, that is, written by someone other than the claimed author. These collections served to entertain and edify, they offered another window into the imagined life of the great men (and a few women in their circles). Today they also are cited by some as an analogue to the deutero-Pauline material, so it is important that we explore the world of pseudonymity on the ancient landscape.
The definition of pseudonymity in modern scholarship varies widely, at times being conflated with the category of “anonymous.” A genuine letter is one written (directly or indirectly through a scribe) or commissioned by the author named in the text. An anonymous letter does not contain within the text an attribution to authorship; however, such a text might later have an author falsely attributed to it. For our purposes, a pseudepigraphic letter is one written by a person other than the one named in the text, and thus the text’s author could be categorized as pseudonymous. A key concern when speaking of pseudonymity is the intention of the authors; namely, are they intending to deceive their audience, or are they using an accepted literary device? Intentions are not always easy to determine, but two were commented upon in the ancient world: greed and admiration for the author. Some writers were anxious to have their own ideas propagated, and so used a well-known name to forward the writer’s cause, while others genuinely appreciated the person whose name they used, and sought to promote that person’s ideas out of love, respect, and personal humility. Forgery is another category; here the author intentionally deceives his audience for some perceived gain, which might be wealth, or the downfall of his opponent. In the case of pseudonymous authorship, the audience is not deceived; rather it recognizes without censure the false authorship attribution.
A quick summary of the pseudepigraphic epistolary collections in the Greco-Roman world reveals that they were the product of several authors, or at least an accumulation of material surrounding an authentic core. These collections developed in the first and second centuries CE, perhaps because of the general, widespread interest in classical Greek thought and literary expression. The figures chosen had well-known reputations, and the letter collections might be read alongside their corpus of work. In almost all cases the letters were written to a single individual, another well-known person of the past. Moreover, composing letters in the name of famous philosophers, tyrants, and kings was standard rhetoric training for students. “The goal of the pseudonymous epistolographer was thus to work the bare bones of a biography into a compelling life story. He was both scholar and creative artist, researching historical materials in order to define the bounds of the tradition, and using his imagination to elaborate creatively and dramatically on that tradition.”27