Pauline Authenticity of Ephesians

I've been reading recent discussions on Paul's authorship of Ephesians with some interest, because it seems to me that merely being stylistically different is insufficient if other evidence for authenticity is strong enough.

After all, Picasso has gone through widely different styles from cubism to his blue period, but the evidence for the authenticityof his paintings, both internal (e.g., signature) and external (e.g.third-party verification), is so strong that no difference in style is enough to disprove it.
Therefore, I think it is important to consider whether the cumulative argument against Pauline authorship of Ephesiansis sufficient to rebut the natural presumption in favor of it arising from both the internal and external evidence of authenticity.

A. There is a Strong Presumption that Ephesians is Pauline, Arising from Both the Internal and External Evidence of Authenticity.

Ephesians claims to be written by Paul (Ep1:1) and further invokes Paul's name (3:1). A substantial amount of it is in the first person. The author makes personal prayers (1:16 3:14), requests for prayers abouthis evangelistic activities (6:19-20), exhortations to unity on his own authority (4:1ff), autobiographical references (3:1-6 7-13), etc. It is certainly not a case of a anonymous letter acquiring an attribution.While there is some debate to what extent pseudonymity was acceptable in the first century, the network of personal references argues againstthe view that Ephesians was merely some sort of a tribute by a student of Paul. If written pseudonymously after Paul's lifetime, the asking for prayers for Paul's ministry and other details would amount to a deliberate act of deception. Unlike other known forgeries (e.g. Acts of Paul and Thecla) or even canonical books like 2 Peter, no rumors of its inauthenticity ever surfaced.

Furthermore, the external evidence for Pauline authorship of Ephesiansis about as good as it gets for Paul's letters. It is early and wide-spread. It is unmistakably used by Ignatius and Polycarp, and there are allusions to it found in 1 Clement and Hermas. The inference from Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesians that he considered it Pauline is quite strong (IEph incipit, 1:1, 12:2), and in the sub-apostolic generationonly 1 Corinthians and Philippians enjoy a more explicit statement ofPauline authorship (1Cl47:1 PPhp11:2 and PPhp3:2 9:1 11:3, respectively). It was deemed Pauline by the early canons, both Marcionite and Muratorian. The quality of this external evidence is vastly superior that of known or even suspected apocryphal Pauline literature (e.g. Hebrews, Pastorals, the short Laodiceans, 3 Corinthians, Acts of Paul, Ascension of Paul,Apocalypse of Paul, Prayer of Paul, etc.). In fact, the evidence is stronger than for undisputed epistles like Romans. The onus must be upon those who would argue for pseudonymity to explain why

(a) how itcould ever be acceptable to write Ephesians with that kind of personal touches, and

(b) how the early church so quickly could have accepted it as genuine.

B. The Cumulative Argument Against Pauline Authorship is Insufficient to Rebut the Strong Presumption of Authenticity Arising from the Internal and External Evidence.

The argument against Pauline is cumulative, but cumulative arguments have two weaknesses. First, the separate arguments must be truly independent, or otherwise we are just double counting. Second, the individual arguments may be weaker upon closer examination, and therefore the force of the cumulative argument is accordingly weakened. There are four basic arguments employed against Pauline authorship (takenfrom Tyson's textbook):
1. Unlike the others, there is no specific occasion or purpose to this letter.
2. It appears to be an expansion of Colossians.
3. Style: e.g. it uses Pauline terminology uncharacteristically.
4. Theology: It includes theologically different ideas.

Nevertheless, Tyson sees enough characteristic theological emphases to argue that a student of Paul crafted Ephesians (salvation by grace, body of Christ, unity, and ethical emphasis on patience and humility).

Ephesians appears to be a circular letter as suggested by the textual evidence, which could explain why there is no specific occasion. Paul violated no law in deviating from his typical practice to write ageneral epistle, a genre present or potential in his lifetime (e.g.James, 1 Peter, Jude, 1 John, 2 Peter etc.)

Being a circular letter, some aspects of the allegedly non-Pauline theology, such as the advanced ecclesiology, make a good deal of sense. Moreover, the loftier style (already potential in Rm8:38-39 11:33-36) could well be due to being a circular letter. Therefore, these arguments are not quite independent, undercutting the cumulative argument.

Other points have quite reasonable explanations, which make it a weak cumulation of even weaker arguments. The difference in style is also largely confined to the first half of the epistle and may incorporates ome traditional (non-Pauline) material as it has happened in the other prison letters (the hymns in Philippians and Colossians). As for theology, the cosmic christology seems to be a natural development ofPaul's principalities and powers doctrine found elsewhere. The realized as opposed to future eschatology is somewhat overstated but in any event related to the delayed parousia we see in Paul's other letters. A delay in the parousia will also explain the difference in teaching on marriage. Finally, the use of Colossians is far from certain to be of much probative value.

C. Conclusion

It is important to recognize that there is a cumulative argument against Pauline authorship. If genuine, Ephesians would not be a typical Pauline letter; nevertheless, many of its concepts are not outside the ambit of his thinking. The fact remains that we have excellent evidence for its authenticity, so we should consider Ephesians to be yet another testament to Paul's versatility.