the manuscript evidence is inconclusive, the internal evidence might shift the balance. Usually textual critics prefer the more difficult reading and the shorter reading. If these rules are followed, the omission of the phrase in the original seems assured. In this case, the copyists, aware of the difficult reading, stayed true to the text in front of them, not smoothing out the reading. They would have no apparent reason for omitting the city’s name. In fact, they might have assumed Paul was following the Hellenistic custom whereby a royal decree was often lacking a specific addressee because the declaration was to be read in numerous cities.15
However, a further critical rule suggests that if a variant reading is nonsensical or uncharacteristic of the author’s work, the longer reading should be supported. In this case, the omission creates an odd reading in Greek and is uncharacteristic of Pauline letters. Normally we find Paul using “to those who are” followed by a place name in his introduction and greetings. Those manuscripts that omit the place name read awkwardly, “to the saints, to those who are, and believers in Christ Jesus.” The problematic reading might be better explained as a copyist error than coming from the original text. Some suggest, however, that the omission indicates this letter was intended as an encyclical epistle to be read in several churches. It was up to Paul’s envoy and letter carrier, Tychicus, to insert the city’s name as he read it to the several churches in small cities in the vicinity of Ephesus. Although no copy of the letter has either a space in the manuscript for a city’s name to be inserted or the preposition “in” followed by a blank space, nonetheless, if Tychicus was instructed to insert the name of the city when he read it to the churches, there would be little need to leave a space in the actual text. We might pause for a moment and note that Paul gives Tychicus the responsibility to inform the listeners of his situation (this is true as well in Colossians). It seems that Paul instructed his envoys to communicate more than what was on the page, for example when he reveals in 2 Cor 7:6–16 that he expected Titus to reassure the Corinthians of Paul’s concern for them. Again, the custom of reading the letter publicly to the church was apparently consistent throughout Pauline churches. Even a letter as personal as Philemon was read to the entire church, as indicated by the plural “you” at the beginning and end of the letter. Furthermore, the instructions that Tychicus give details of Paul’s situation (in chains) suggests that the apparent lack of personal details in Ephesians itself might be counterbalanced by Tychicus and by Paul’s personal knowledge of individual communities surrounding Ephesus. Paul’s situation in prison might have prevented him from writing individual letters, but would not prevent Tychicus from passing along specific greetings and encouragements directed orally by Paul through him. An intriguing, but limited parallel could be drawn with contemporary papyrus invitations, many of which lack the name of the addressee. These one-line invitations to a birthday party, wedding, or other festivity depended upon the messenger to include the guest’s name at the time the invitation was read to them.16 In the end, it seems the evidence is weighed slightly in favor of the letter being addressed to the church in Ephesus, but given Paul’s encouragement to the Colossians to share their letter with the Laodiceans, it is entirely possible that Tychicus, as he traveled from Ephesus to Colossae, read Paul’s letter to the Ephesians to the satellite Christian communities orbiting around the central city of Ephesus.
Support for this possibility might come from 1 Corinthians, which was penned in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8). In 1 Cor 16:19, Paul extends greetings from the churches in the province of Asia, which may signal that he sees the Ephesian Christian community not limited to the city limits, but extending to the towns beyond. “Paul here seems to imply . . . that the Christian community of Ephesus was the central Christian community of the province. . . . This suggests that the Ephesian Christian community was a missionary centre, and maintained contact with Christians in other parts of the province.”17 This follows the Roman assumption concerning the polis or city, which understood its influence to cover extensively the surrounding territory outside its walls. For example, even before Paul’s time, most of Italy was seen as part of Rome, broadly speaking. Freeborn Italians had a form of Roman citizenship known as Latin rights citizenship. A similar attitude towards large urban centers outside of Rome continued in the imperial period.18 This allows for the possibility that someone living even twenty miles (a day’s journey) from the Ephesus city center might be considered (and consider themselves) an Ephesian. Clearly the limit did not extend to Colossae, one hundred miles from Ephesus, or Smyrna, thirty-five miles away.
Internal Evidence
Literary Character of Ephesians
The main internal concerns that surface in any conversation about Pauline authorship of Ephesians focus on the literary character, the theological emphases, and the historical setting implied in the letter. Turning to the first point, we can be more specific in highlighting the singular turns of phrase that some point to as indicative of a deutero-Pauline hand. For example, instead of the usual term “Satan” in Ephesians, Paul speaks of the “devil” (4:27, 6:11). Again, rather than his usual wording “the heavens,” he speaks of “the heavenlies.” These terms hardly indicate theological shifts, but because they are so insignificant they are thought to expose the author’s automatic reflex. Since Paul would think automatically of the evil one as “Satan,” the author of Ephesians, in using “devil,” exposes himself as other than Paul. However, if we apply this logic to his other letters, we see that it is flawed. Paul can use synonyms for an idea or action, even within the same letter. He is not limited to a single term to express his ideas.19 Again, the lengthy sentences and numerous participial phrases are pointed to as reasons to doubt that Paul composed the letter. For example, his opening thanksgiving runs from 1:3–14 (see also 1:15–23; 2:1–7; 3:2–13, 14–19; 4:1–6, 11–16; 6:14–20). But we find long sentences in other letters, especially when Paul writes doxologically (Rom 1:1–7, 8:38-9, 11:33–39; 1 Cor 1:4–8; Phil 1:3–8; and 2 Thess 1:3–10) or about doctrine (Rom 3:21–26; 1 Cor 1:26–29), or concerning ethical matters (compare Eph 6:14–20; 1 Cor 12:8–11; and Phil 1:27—2:11). In the past, statistical analysis was used to support a deutero-Pauline position. But more recently this method has been called into question, due in no small part to the lack of material by Paul himself. Even though he has written many letters in the New Testament, the actual corpus is relatively small, failing to provide a statistically significant amount of words from which to draw conclusions. Even more, when Ephesians is compared, for example, with the uncontested Galatians, the results are surprising. The letters are about the same length, and each contain about the same number of terms occurring only in that epistle (41 terms out of 2,429 in Ephesians, 35 terms [or 31 if you subtract proper names] out of 2,220 in Galatians) and similar numbers of terms unique to the epistle but found in the New Testament outside of the Pauline corpus (84 in Ephesians, 90 [(80 if you subtract proper names] in Galatians).20 Phrases we readily associate with Paul, such as “fruit of the Spirit” or “present evil age” or “the marks of Jesus,” are found only in Galatians, but these are not used to disqualify that epistle as written by Paul. Instead, it is recognized that Paul’s audience, the situation faced by Paul and the letter’s recipients, as well as Paul’s theological creativity and energy, all play a role in his choice of expression, style, and mood. Finally, some point to the expressions that serve to identify writers, much as a speaker’s tone of voice and idiomatic turn of phrase serve to identify them. In particular, it is suggested that Ephesians has an unusually high number of the prepositions kata (according to or against) and en (in). However, Galatians actually uses kata with the genitive more than any other Pauline letter. Again, Romans uses dia (because of or through) and para (beside) more frequently, while Philippians prefers meta (after or with) and peri (around or concerning). Even more, Ephesians shares with Romans, Galatians, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians the special construction ara . . . oun (therefore . . . therefore).21
Relationship to Colossians
Not only are the literary character, the words chosen (or omitted), and the grammatical forms alleged to be outside Paul’s expressive range, but the letter’s similarity to Colossians raises red flags for many who believe the latter served as a model for the former. The argument concludes that Colossians as well as other letters of Paul was used in composing Ephesians. Both include a similar overall pattern and the household codes, both stress redemption, body, mystery, and power in similar ways, and both include exact parallel descriptions of Tychicus’ instructions in delivering the letter. But these