Ephesians. Lynn H. CohickЧитать онлайн книгу.
from a different angle in Eusebius’ discussion of Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (ca. 170 CE), who commented that his epistles had been defaced. “As the brethren desired me to write epistles, I wrote. And these epistles the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, cutting out some things and adding others. For them a woe is reserved. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at if some have attempted to adulterate the Lord’s writings also, since they have formed designs even against writings which are of less account.”37
One might argue that such late evidence does not help us with Ephesians, which is an early work. In an interesting twist, some scholars have suggested that the earliest church followed the Jewish practice of accepting pseudepigraphic works, and that second-century Gentile Christians condemned the practice.38 Some of the Jewish pseudepigraphic texts cited to defend the theory, however, are from the apocalyptic genre, which might as part of its literary technique attribute the text to a worthy ancient such as Enoch or Ezra. The Christian biblical texts were written in the apostolic age and use apostles’ names, not names of the distant past. Additionally, 1 Baruch and its final chapter, the Epistle of Jeremiah, while part of the LXX and the Vulgate, were not included in the Jewish canon. It is difficult, then, to state definitively from this example that Jews accepted pseudepigraphy. The Epistle of Jeremiah does not begin with the sender’s salutation, but the narrator indicates that this was a letter the prophet sent to the exiles in Babylon. The lack of salutation limits its usefulness as a direct comparison to Ephesians. Generally speaking, the pseudepigraphic works use the names of ancient patriarchs or heroes of the faith, which increases the possibility that the Jewish authors mirrored the Gentile writers. Both looked back with admiration at their historical past, and wished to have those great figures speak anew in their day. We might bring the book of Hebrews into the discussion here. This work was ultimately put into the Christian canon by connecting it with the Apostle Paul, though the letter itself is anonymous. Origen’s discussion of Hebrews is instructive. He recognizes that the style of speech is much better than Paul’s rough wording. But he also observes that the content is Pauline, and suggests that someone who was very familiar with Paul’s ideas, who perhaps even took notes from the master, wrote the piece. Origen acknowledges that those who claim it comes from Paul are right to say so. But as for him, he declines to make any specific judgment, instead admitting that only God knows who wrote it. That does not stop him quoting Hebrews as though it were Paul’s work.39 From this evidence two points should be emphasized. First, Origen was well aware of the Greek style and grammar of the Pauline corpus, and was comfortable discussing questions of authenticity based on that data. Second, Origen does not say anything similar about the disputed Pauline epistles as he does about Hebrews. That is, he does not offer that the style, grammar, or theology of any of the Pauline letters might have been that of a disciple of Paul who used Paul’s name to extend Paul’s thought for a new day or situation.
A related issue is that of apostolic authority. Paul insists that his apostolic authority is of a special type: it is directly from God (Gal 1:1). We have no evidence that Paul seconded that authority to his coworkers; indeed, that would not be possible, for only God could appoint apostles (1 Cor 12:4, 28). And the early church also regarded the era of the apostles, and the apostles themselves, as divinely commissioned to communicate the word of God. Yet Hebrews shows that authoritative material need not have within its text the name of an apostle (the canonical Gospels are another example; the author’s name is found in the title page). What does seem off limits is assuming apostolic authority without having been given that responsibility by God.40
Conclusion
In closing, I justify the time spent reviewing the evidence concerning pseudonymity in the Greco-Roman world and early church because the issue is often treated as a fait accompli: the Ephesians letter is pseudepigraphic, but not deceptive both because the early church accepted the wider conventions of pseudonymity, and because the ancients had little sense of intellectual property. This survey has cautioned against accepting these claims. Instead, the evidence suggests the church did not accept (knowingly) pseudepigraphic letters or works. If Ephesians is determined to be pseudepigraphic, then the use of Paul’s name and personal data were included in an effort to pass off the letter as genuine. In that case, it was an attempt, in the end successful, to deceive the audience.41 This conclusion must then be processed with issues of canon (a difficult subject in its own right) and of apostolic authority.
Paul’s Imprisonment
Proceeding under the conviction that Paul wrote Ephesians, we turn our attention to the significance of Paul’s imprisonment as the backdrop to this letter. Two locations are generally given as the setting for the writing: Ephesus and Rome (with a small minority suggesting Caesarea Maritima). Acts notes Paul’s imprisonment in Rome (and Caesarea Maritima) and Paul makes a comment about facing beasts in Ephesus, which some suggest is an oblique reference to an imprisonment there (1 Cor 15:32). The resolution of this problem is controlled in part by conclusions reached concerning Pauline authorship of Philemon and Colossians, and to a lesser extent, Philippians. Put simply, the problem involves four epistles (known as the prison epistles), three interconnected lists of names, two very similar epistles (Ephesians and Colossians), and one author, Paul. It seems that Paul was in the same location when he composed Philemon and Colossians, because Timothy coauthored the letters and so many of the same people are referenced in both letters, including the slave Onesimus. Additionally, it seems that Paul was in the same location when he wrote Ephesians and Colossians, because both were to be delivered by the same person, Tychicus. That suggests a scenario that allows for a single imprisonment for at least three of the four prison epistles.42
Onesimus’ Status
A key element in the debate is the role played by Onesimus, Philemon’s slave. The general consensus has been that Onesimus was a runaway slave who happened upon Paul while both were imprisoned, and there he came to faith in Christ through Paul’s ministry. Following this fortuitous outcome, Paul seeks Onesimus’ release from Philemon, his owner and Paul’s friend. Decisions about where Paul is imprisoned when he writes to Philemon are thus predicated on where one imagines a runaway slave might flee, or more specifically, how far might he travel from Colossae. The events are reconstructed as follows: Onesimus is imprisoned with Paul and becomes a follower of Christ. Paul is duty bound to send Onesimus back to Philemon, but he urgently desires that Philemon free his slave. He urges Philemon to settle the outstanding debts owed by Onesimus to Paul’s account. The letter is a success; Philemon frees Onesimus, who returns to Paul who is still imprisoned. After some unspecified time elapses, Tychicus and Onesimus return to Colossae with their letter (and presumably the one to the Laodiceans).
The above scenario depends upon Onesimus being a runaway slave, but such a conclusion has rightly come under heavy scrutiny in recent years. First, it assumes that runaway slaves were imprisoned, but why did the person who captured Onesimus not return him to his owner, especially as often rewards were given for returned slaves? Second, it is alleged that Onesimus stole from Philemon, but Paul does not include any mention of Onesimus’ repentance for running away or stealing goods. In fact, Paul does not even mention that he had found Philemon’s runaway slave! This suggests that Philemon knew Onesimus’ location and was aware of his reason for being there.
Another theory suggests that Onesimus was not so much running away as seeking out Paul to mediate a disagreement between himself and Philemon. The argument draws on the figure of the amicus domini, or friend of the master. An ancient example from the early second century CE often cited is Pliny the Younger’s letter to his friend Sabinianus.43 In this exchange, Pliny speaks of Sabinianus’ freedman (a former slave) who begs Sabinianus’ mercy and forgiveness by beseeching Pliny to speak on his behalf. Pliny agrees, and writes to assure his friend Sabinianus that the freedman is reformed, repentant of his past deeds, and ready to make a clean start. None of these details are present, however, in Paul’s letter to Philemon. Moreover, no mention is made of Onesimus repenting and seeking mercy, or of Philemon being angry at his slave’s behavior (Pliny notes Sabinianus’ outrage at his freedman’s behavior). Importantly, Pliny is speaking about a freed slave, not one currently enslaved.
A second, and stronger, argument concerning Onesimus is that he was sent to Paul by Philemon to help the former survive in prison. Onesimus was functioning in a similar way to Epaphroditus, who was the emissary for the Philippian church, bringing aid