Was This Epistle Written to the Ephesians?

Such peculiarities of the Epistle, together with certain expressions in it, cause some to wonder and waver as to whether it was written to the Ephesians. That it was written by St. Paul is doubted by almost no one, or the doubters are so few and the grounds of their unbelief so trifling that they do not merit attention. But many say: this Epistle was written by the Apostle Paul—only it was not written to the Ephesians.

A) St. Paul had recently left Ephesus, where he had stayed so long, where he was so sincerely loved and honoured, and where he himself, in turn, certainly had many persons toward whom he bore a special affection. Is it possible that in writing an Epistle to them, he would not say a word to any one of them? — But this is sufficiently explained by the state of spirit in which St. Paul found himself while writing this Epistle, as noted above. And it is conclusively explained by the circumstance that the Epistle was written from Caesarea, where the bonds were more confining and the enemies nearer and more bitter. For the first time St. Paul found himself in such prolonged and severe bonds. Enemies furious with him surrounded him on every side. Humanly speaking, he could not but fear various injustices and unpleasantnesses from them. The Jews were surely watching him sharply and were ready to do anything to cause him harm in some way. Knowing this, he, in writing the Epistle, mentions no one from among either the Jews or the Gentiles, fearing that the Epistle might fall into the hands of his enemies and they would cause trouble to him and to those mentioned—whether these were Jews or Gentiles: Jews, because they still remained hierarchically dependent on the authorities of Jerusalem; Gentiles, because with regard to them, the Jews could say to the governor: “He is seducing even your people, drawing them away from Caesar and subjecting them to a certain Christ.” Moreover, the governor was already expecting a ransom from the Apostle Paul (Acts 24:26), and upon learning how wide was the circle of his admirers and how influential they were, would have resorted to something even more than idle waiting. For all these reasons, St. Paul considered it necessary not to mention in the Epistle any persons from the Ephesian Church to which he was writing. If the Epistle were seized, no one could be singled out except the Apostle Paul and Tychicus, who were present and well known to all as to their character. The same need to convey special greetings to individuals could be fulfilled verbally by Tychicus, who was there with the Apostle and knew everyone well.

B) By this same circumstance one can also explain the second difficulty, which is drawn from the Apostle’s words: “having heard” “of your faith” (Eph. 1:15). How, they say, could he have written this to the Ephesians, whom he himself had converted and whose faith and works he knew personally? Surely he was not writing to them but to some others—the Laodiceans, for example, or elsewhere. — But—apart from the fact that this “having heard” can be understood not as referring to the initial conversion, but to steadfastness and growth in faith and love, as Theodoret also interprets that passage—and apart from the fact that in the word “having heard” one may discern the sense of “being assured”—this manner of expression may be supposed to have been compelled from the Apostle by the same circumstance of the severity of his bonds and the proximity of evil enemies. For the same reason that he made no greetings, he said “having heard,” so as to keep all at a distance and give no occasion for interrogations and questions. If these had been put to him, St. Paul could now say: I wrote to all those whom I have not even seen. If you need them, seek them yourselves, if you wish.

C) A third difficulty arose from the fact that in certain manuscripts the superscription of the Epistle lacks the phrase “in Ephesus”—in the words: “to the saints who are in Ephesus”—and reads only: “to the saints who are and faithful in Christ Jesus.” If this indication of Ephesus is absent from the text, then the Epistle was surely not written there, but rather to all Christians. This, they say, is a circular epistle to the Greeks or Asians, like the Epistle to the Hebrews. — In content it is indeed of such a character; but if its original destination from the Apostle had been of such a kind, then the superscription would have used quite a different form: “to the saints who are and faithful,” but rather: “to the saints who are everywhere,” or, as in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, “‘who are in all’ Asia”, or as in the First to those same Corinthians—“to all who call on the name of the Lord Jesus,” or as in the Epistle to the Galatians: “‘to the churches’ of Asia” (2Cor. 1:1; 1Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:2). In the form as it stands in the manuscripts cited—“to the saints who are,” without designation of place—the word “who are” hangs in the air. Upon hearing it, one immediately expects an indication of location, as in all other Epistles—for example, “who are in Rome, who are in Philippi, who are in Colossae,” and so forth. — And when such an indication is absent, one cannot escape the desire to fill this gap with a similar indication. The words “in Ephesus” fill it and restore proper order to the flow of the text.

But is it worth paying attention to this omission in two or three manuscripts? — If only in these two or three manuscripts was this word missing, one truly could pass over the case without dwelling on it, especially given the universal testimony of antiquity that this Epistle is the Epistle of St. Paul and was written by him specifically to the Ephesians. But in antiquity itself there are found oscillations regarding the reading of this word in the text, and this circumstance especially requires explanation. Indeed, antiquity presents two instances from which it is apparent that some even then wavered as to whether to read “in Ephesus” in the text. — But in those same instances, by the very persons who mention this, it is attested with full assurance that both they and the whole Church regard this Epistle as unquestionably written by St. Paul to the Ephesians. The conclusion from this will be: the Epistle was unquestionably written to the Ephesians, but for some reason certain copies do not have “in Ephesus” in the superscription. The question reduces not to whether the Epistle was written to the Ephesians, but to how it came about that in some copies “in Ephesus” does not appear after “who are,” when all of antiquity acknowledges this Epistle as written to the Ephesians, and the form of expression in the text is such that it necessarily makes one expect an indication of place.

It thus turns out that the whole dispute here is over a letter. And one can, without detriment to the cause of truth, answer the proposed question: how this came about, we do not know.

Some insist on proving that this word was in the original Apostolic Epistle, not noticing that it is far harder to explain how it, having been in the original, subsequently fell out in certain copies, than how it, not having been in the original, came later to be inserted into it—and moreover in such a way that eventually this manner of writing became the dominant one. The possibility of the latter case is easily explained by the same circumstance that helps to resolve the other difficulties—namely, that the Epistle was written from the bonds of Caesarea, under fear lest the enemies, by means of an indication of the locality of its destination, cause harm to those to whom the Epistle was written. The Apostle Paul instructed the copyist of the Epistle not to write “in Ephesus” after “who are,” explaining the reason for this to Tychicus and entrusting him, along with other verbal commissions (the conveyance of greetings to the most distinguished persons), to explain also why this was done—and leaving the Ephesians free to insert this word or not. Of those who copied this Epistle, those who knew of such an arrangement of the Apostle inserted “in Ephesus,” while those who did not know omitted it. Thus the general conviction spread that this Epistle is addressed to the Ephesians, while in the copies some had “in Ephesus” and others omitted it.

The first hint of the absence of this word in certain ancient copies is seen in the words of Tertullian against Marcion, the well-known distorter and bold corruptor of the New Testament Scriptures. In Book 5 against Marcion, chapter 2, he says that the Epistle which among us bears the superscription—“to the Ephesians”—the heretics inscribe as addressed to the Laodiceans. And below, in chapter 17, he adds: “By the indubitable testimony of the Church, that Epistle was written to the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans, but Marcion changed its superscription.” — From this it is inferred that neither Marcion nor Tertullian had the words “in Ephesus” in the text of their copies of the Epistle. If Marcion had “in Ephesus” in the text, he could not have placed above it the superscription “to the Laodiceans.” If he did this, it was surely by taking advantage of the circumstance that he had come upon a manuscript without this word in the text. If Tertullian had “in Ephesus” in the text of his copy of the Epistle, he would have attacked Marcion not as one who had altered the title, but as one who had corrupted the text of the Scriptures. This last inference is not entirely strict. Tertullian mentions this in passing and may have limited himself to a light indication of the change of title without entering into detailed examination of the whole matter. Tertullian used the Latin translation Itala, in which one reads “in Epheso.” In this circumstance what is precious to us is Tertullian’s testimony about the universal voice of the Church regarding the Epistle. As for Marcion’s action—and it is well known how arbitrarily he treated God’s Scripture—it is of no great importance and only hints that he had a manuscript without Εν Εφεσω.

The second instance that gives occasion to suppose that in antiquity there were copies in which “in Ephesus” was not read is found in the words of St. Basil the Great against Eunomius. Eunomius denied the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Having gathered against him a great number of proofs from Scripture that the Lord Jesus Christ is the true God, without beginning, eternally living—the “I AM” (Ex. 3:14)—he among other things adduces the following: “In one place the Apostle calls the Gentiles non-being, because they lacked knowledge of God: ‘God chose what is not’ (1Cor. 1:28). Indeed, since God is the One Who Is, and Truth, and Life, people not united by faith with God Who Is, and having become akin to the non-existence of falsehood through their error regarding idols, are rightly called, as I think, non-being—for lack of truth and for alienation from life. On the other hand, the same Apostle, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, named them, in a special sense, those who are, as those sincerely united by means of knowledge with the One Who Is, saying: ‘to the saints who are, and faithful in Christ Jesus’ (Eph. 1:1). Thus did those who came before us transmit this, and we ourselves found it in ancient copies. So even the servants of Christ share in this name; but Eunomius refused to grant this name to our very God, and called Him non-being—Him Who brought creation from nothing into being.” (Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian Translation. Vol. 3. Against Eunomius. Book 2.)

From this passage it is apparent of itself that the attention of St. Basil the Great is occupied not with the question of how to read the superscription of the Epistle—with εν Εφεσω or without it—but with how those of the ancients who did not read this word interpreted the word “who are,” without entering into consideration of whether it ought to be read thus or not. Finding it possible to make use of this interpretation against Eunomius, St. Basil adduces it. But lest it should appear that he believes every rumour, he says that he has seen manuscripts in which the word “in Ephesus” does not stand, but only “who are.” It is not apparent that St. Basil the Great attached any importance to the reading or non-reading of “in Ephesus;” he simply did not miss the opportunity to turn this too into a weapon in his struggle with Eunomius. St. Basil himself is convinced that the Epistle was written to the Ephesians, for he says: “the Apostle Paul writing to the Ephesians.” — And the list of St. Paul’s Epistles in the Church of Caesarea evidently had “in Ephesus,” and likewise all the churches of neighbouring regions read this word: otherwise St. Basil would have appealed to them. — Thus, if one extracts from the words of Basil the Great only what pertains to our subject, the conclusion is: read it or read it not in the text—“in Ephesus;” only hold the conviction that the Epistle was written to the Ephesians.

Blessed Jerome, adducing this interpretation of the word “who are,” calls it too subtle, deriving it from Origen. He himself retains the simple and straightforward understanding of this word: “who are,” that is, “in Ephesus.”

Thus antiquity does clearly attest that in certain copies “in Ephesus” was not read. But this had no effect on the conviction that the Epistle was written to the Ephesians. This conviction remained universally unchanged. And because of it, copies with “in Ephesus” almost entirely displaced copies without this word. This is evident from the most ancient translations—the Peshitta and the Itala—in which “in Ephesus” stands.

Two or three manuscripts have, however, come down to us, from which one may infer vacillation regarding the reading of this word. In the Sinaitic manuscript this word is absent; in the Vatican manuscript it stands in the margin and has been added—some say by the same hand, others by a different one; in the manuscript numbered 67 it stands in the text but has been subsequently crossed out. — One manuscript is definitive; two others are uncertain. But even if all three spoke decisively—what are they in comparison with the entire number of the other reputable manuscripts, in all of which this word is read? Yet since, for all that, one cannot fail to pay attention to this omission in a few manuscripts either, it is sufficiently explained by the supposition we advanced above regarding the possibility of both readings arising, without prejudice to the certainty that the Epistle was written to the Ephesians.

On the basis of this omission of the words “in Ephesus,” some have supposed that this Epistle was an encyclical—not destined for one place, but for all or many. But in that case nothing would have prevented the writing “to those who are everywhere,” or “to all who call upon the name of the Lord,” as has been noted. And as the text stands in those manuscripts—after “who are” a definite place is necessarily required. This is also required by the notification at the end that Tychicus will tell them all that concerns the Apostle. There must have been a definite place to which Tychicus was sent with the Epistle; otherwise such a commission would be difficult to fulfil literally.

Even less tenable is the supposition that after “who are” a blank was left so that Tychicus could write in the place to which he was bringing the Epistle. Several copies of it were written. And one cannot imagine any need for such an absurd procedure.

As for the opinion that this Epistle was written to the Laodiceans—the omission still requires explanation in that case too. But for it to have been written to the Laodiceans, there stands in the way the impossibility of explaining how, if so, the Epistle came to be acknowledged by all of antiquity as an Epistle to the Ephesians—when besides the Laodicean Church, testimony to that effect would also come from the Colossian Church, to which St. Paul wrote that they should read that Epistle. — As for Marcion’s arbitrary action, it is not worth paying attention to.

Let us therefore hold to the thought that the omission of the place did indeed occur, for the reason stated above, but that the Epistle was destined for the Ephesian Church. Such was the recognition given to it by all of antiquity; and copies were made, some with “in Ephesus” written in, and others without it.