Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Historical pin with the motto of the German Baptists taken from the letter to the Ephesians - One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism ( Eph 4,5  LUT )
New Testament
Gospels
Acts of the Apostles
Paul's letters
Catholic letters
epiphany

The Epistle to the Ephesians (short Ephesians , abbreviation Eph ) is a book of the New Testament , the second part of the Christian Bible . In German-language exegesis, a broad consensus has developed since the middle of the 20th century, according to which the letter to the Ephesians is not one of the seven authentic Pauline letters , but is the work of a student of Paul. This consensus does not hold true in English-speaking New Testament science; Here a part of the experts advocate the Pauline authorship of the letter, which in the German-speaking area is mainly taken up by conservative evangelical exegetes . The consequences for the history of early Christianity and the theology of Paul are considerable, depending on whether the letter to the Ephesians is considered Pauline or not.

The letter to the Ephesians is a theological treatise that is clothed in letter form. The ethical instruction ( parenesis ) in the second part of the letter takes up significantly more space than the didactic statements in the opening part. Writing has been divided into six chapters since the Middle Ages .

Introductory questions

Place and time of origin

If one considers the letter to the Ephesians to be the work of a student of Paul, one can assume that it originated after the letter to the Colossians , but before the letters of Ignatius of Antioch . This is how one arrives at the following dating attempts:

In western Asia Minor, where the authority of Paul of Tarsus counted, the place where the writing was written should also be sought. The letter to the Ephesians was therefore written in the region, the center of which was the ancient metropolis of Ephesus . Eberhard Faust , who was the first to devote a detailed socio-historical study to the letter to the Ephesians, sees this letter against the background of the lost First Jewish War , which resulted in the humiliating re-integration into the Pax Romana for the Jews and Jewish Christians of Asia . In contrast, the letter to the Ephesians emphasizes the lasting importance of the Jewish Christian tradition in the church for a Gentile Christian readership.

Exegetes who hold fast to the Pauline authorship date him to the last years of the apostle's life. According to Jacob Thiessen , Paul wrote the letter at the end of his first captivity in Rome, in the spring (March?) Of the year 62. The apostle in Roman custody promptly wrote the letters to the Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon, and a few days or weeks later the letters to the Philippians.

Addressees

When it comes to the address of the letter to the Ephesians, a distinction is made between the heading (Inscriptio), which the text only received when the New Testament collection of letters was attached, and the addressee information (Adscriptio) at the receipt of the letter ( prescript ):

  • The Inscriptio Πρὸς Ἐφεσίους Pròs Ephesíous “To the Ephesians” occurs in all manuscripts.
  • The Adscriptio ἐν Ἐφέσῳ en Ephésō “in Ephesus” ( Eph 1,1  LUT ) is offered by most manuscripts, but not by the oldest and best witnesses (among others: P 46 , Vaticanus , Sinaiticus ). Several ancient Christian authors did not read the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in the prescript in their copy of the Letter to the Ephesians. Instead of the majority text (“the saints who are in Ephesus and [the] believers in Christ Jesus”) they read: “the saints who are also believers in Christ Jesus”, perhaps just: “the saints and believers in Christ Jesus".

Vielhauer concluded from this: “The text 1.1 without a location is the best attested, reachable oldest and certainly also the original; because there is no reasonable reason why a location ... should have been deleted, whereas it is understandable that one remedied the lack of a location, which was perceived as a defect. "

Since the prescript does not make sense without specifying the location and the text offered by Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is grammatically impossible, B. Ulrich Luz that the letter was a circular and had a gap at this point in which the name of the respective recipient community could be entered. In favor of a circular is that one does not learn anything from the letter about the situation of the recipient, or that the author does not seem to know it better. This is contradicted by the fact that no New Testament manuscript is known that contains a place name other than Ephesus at this point. Peter Stuhlmacher thinks that Paul gave a colleague, possibly Tychicus (Eph 6:21), a circular to read out in the newly founded Christian communities in Asia Minor; the copy in the "Congregational Archives of Ephesus" has been preserved, revised after the death of the apostle and designed as a kind of program of the Pauline School - the letter to the Ephesians before us.

Against the weight of P 46 , Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, Rainer Schwindt , Harold Hoehner and Clinton E. Arnold represent in more recent works the thesis that ἐν Ἐφέσῳ “in Ephesus” belonged to the original text of the prescript; the latter connects this with the circular thesis: the letter circulated in the Pauline congregations in the area of ​​Ephesus. Also Andreas Lindemann , who attributes the Ephesians Paul a student advocates originality geographic location Ephesus; Since Paul's close relationship with this church was known, the author gave his work the fictitious address “Ephesus”.

author

Erasmus of Rotterdam was the first scholar to question the Pauline authorship of the letter to the Ephesians. He wrote in his Notes on the New Testament in 1519: The style is certainly so different from other Pauline letters that it could have come from another . ( Hans Holbein the Younger : Desiderius Erasmus, 1530, Kunstmuseum Basel )

Luz noted a far-reaching and cross-denominational consensus in historical-critical exegesis, according to which the letter to the Ephesians was not written by Paul, but by a student of the apostle. The minority opinion that the letter to the Ephesians was an age letter from Paul was represented by Heinrich Schlier , but could not assert itself in German-speaking New Testament scholarship against the arguments that speak against Pauline authorship:

  • Style: The author loves long sentences and verbosity (plerophoria), although the syntactic structure often remains unclear. Association takes the place of argument. In the opinion of most exegetes this is not an age style of Paul, but it is similar to the letter to the Colossians. "If the letter to the Colossians had been written by Paul himself, the question would have to be reopened in the letter to the Ephesians."
  • Theology: If one considers the doctrine of justification, as it is presented in Romans , to be the center of Pauline theology, then Ephesians appears to be non-Pauline. However, Luz warns against a circular argument.
  • Dependence of Ephesians on Colossians. For Hans Conzelmann and Andreas Lindemann , both texts cannot possibly have been created independently of one another. However, priority must be given to the Letter to the Colossians, because it specifically refers to a single community whose situation can be recognized from the letter; the letter to the Ephesians represents the fundamental revision and further development of the letter to the Colossians. Hans Huebner calls the author of the letter to the Ephesians "Tritopaul" because of his dependence on the "Deuteropaulus" of the Colossians.

According to Luz, literary works that students wrote in the spirit and under the name of their teachers were well accepted in antiquity, in contrast to forgeries, in which literary means attempted to feign authenticity. He points out that the author of the letter to the Ephesians does nothing to pretend to be Paul. So it is a typical student work. Bart D. Ehrman rejects such a differentiation between student work and pseudepigraphy : “The author tries several times to make believable that he is Paul. But he was not Paul. He was a follower of Paul, represented non-Pauline views, wrote later. "

Pauline School

Basically, the letter to the Ephesians faced the problem that Paul was dead and the Christian communities of Asia had thus lost their unifying reference value. The letter to the Ephesians answered this - in the name of Paul. He offered something new to enable a common Christian identity: the universal church as the mystical body of Christ.

If the author of the letter to the Ephesians is assigned to the Pauline School, this means that he came from a context in which important things from Pauline theology remained alive. Conzelmann went so far as to imagine an organized teaching enterprise in Ephesus, which already existed during the apostle's lifetime. Other exegetes refer to the group that collected and handed down the Pauline letters as the Pauline School.

Relation to the Letter to the Colossians

The consensus is that Colossians and Ephesians are close in vocabulary and writing style. Examples for this are:

  • The formula for being in Christ, en ho (“in that”). It occurs in Col 1.14  LUT , Col 2.3.12  LUT and in Eph 1.7.11.13  LUT , Eph 2.21-22  LUT , Eph 3.12  LUT . Both letters use this formula only in the theological teaching part of the letters (Col 1–2; Eph 1–3).
  • The identifying ho estin ("that is").
  • Overly long sentences with only a few conjunctions and particles used by Paul in other letters.
  • Genitive chains like Col 1,5  LUT “in the word of the truth of the gospel”.

Andreas Hyperius had already noticed the similarity of the two letters in 1582. The majority of exegetes assume that the author of the letter to the Ephesians not only knew the letter to the Colossians well, but also used it literarily. This is the only way to explain, according to Luz, that "not only do many echoes of the wording of the Letter to the Colossians appear in the Letter to Ephesians, but ... the order of the Letter to the Colossians in these allusions is largely preserved." Ehrman cites Eph 6 as conclusive evidence of the dependence on the Letter to the Colossians , 21–22  LUT , two verses that take 29 words from Col 4,7–8  LUT . According to Luz, the author of the letter to the Ephesians used the letter to the Colossians, which he believed to be genuine, because as a student of Paul he wanted to stay as close as possible to the words of his teacher. It is not, however, that he did not know the Pauline letters, which are now regarded as authentic. He shows knowledge of the letter to the Romans, the two letters to the Corinthians, the letter to the Galatians and perhaps the letter to the 1st Thessalonians, possibly he also used Rom. 12 literarily. It can only be guessed why the anonymous student of Paul, when he knew several Pauline letters, leaned on the letter to the Colossians. Luz points out that ethical instruction was particularly important to the author of the letter to the Ephesians and that he made particular use of the letter to the Colossians in this part of the letter. In contrast to the ethical part of the epistles of St. Paul, which are genuine according to today's exegetical opinion, the pareneesis of the Epistle to the Colossians was less related to concrete situations and therefore easier to adapt for the readership of the Epistle to the Ephesians.

Other researchers argue that both letters could also come from the same author.

structure

The literary integrity of the letter to the Ephesians is consensus, apart from two possible glosses (Eph 2,5b and Eph 2,8 f.). According to Conzelmann / Lindemann, the letter corpus can be structured as follows:

Chapters 1 to 3: Teaching

  • 1.3 to 23 double prooemium , wherein the lines 3 to 14 as Eulogie are designed, after which follows in a 15 to 23 Eucharist (Acknowledgment).
  • 2.1–10 Consequences of the saving action of Jesus Christ for the individual Christian ( soteriology ). In this section of the letter there is close contact with the Epistle to the Colossians and a "downright catchphrase use of terms from Pauline theology".
  • 2: 11–22 The church is described as a cosmic unit.
  • 3: 1–13 The church is based on the teaching of the apostles.
  • 3: 14–21 A thanksgiving concludes the teaching part of the letter.

Chapters 4 to 6: Ethical instruction (pareneesis)

Chapter 4 is characterized by proverbial ethics. From 5.22 ff. There is a so-called house table , which is expanded compared to the Epistle to the Colossians, and from 6.10 ff. A dualistic combat ethic.

The ethical instructions are not new compared to the Pauline letters, but the justification is. The basis of ethics is not justification, but the incorporation of the individual Christian into the cosmic Christ body, the church.

The “wake-up call” Eph 5:14 is probably a quote from the liturgy of an early Christian baptism. It can be compared with hymns of praise from Qumran (e.g. 1 QH XI 19.21-23), which shows the Jewish background of the text.

Problems of the history of religion

Ephesians and Gnosis

The religious-historical classification was a focus of research on the letter to the Ephesians in the 20th century. Rudolf Bultmann had asked Johannine theology and Pauline Christology about their relationship to the Gnostic myth; However, he had left the possible influences of Gnosis on the Deuteropaulins (Colossians and Ephesians) to his circle of students ( Heinrich Schlier , Ernst Käsemann ). Franz Mußner deserves special mention among the critics of this explanatory model . He submitted a counter-draft that managed without Gnostic elements, but was critically questioned by Käsemann. Mußner especially consulted the Qumran literature to understand the letter to the Ephesians.

The Gnostic interpretation of the Bultmann school is given in the following by Hans Conzelmann and Andreas Lindemann. These two exegetes particularly pointed to the abolition of historical thinking in the letter to the Ephesians, that the place of a temporal continuum had been the idea of ​​a space stretching between earth and heaven.

In antiquity, a three-tier world view was usually assumed (heaven, earth, underworld). The letter to the Ephesians does not share this. He knows no underworld, but the earth below, the zoned skies above. The devil has his sphere of influence in the lowest zone of the sky . People protrude into this area of ​​the sky and are therefore exposed to its influence. In the upper part of the sky God rules. The church as the cosmic body of Christ protrudes into this zone and is thus withdrawn from the power of the devil, as are the individual Christians who are incorporated into this cosmic organism.

According to Conzelmann / Lindemann, the world view of the letter to the Ephesians has parallels in Gnostic literature. Typical of Gnosis is the assumption of a cosmic wall that delimits the upper world of light from below and which only the Gnostic can overcome with the help of the Redeemer. In research it is discussed whether this idea of ​​the cosmic wall is also shared by the letter to the Ephesians ( Eph 2.14  LUT ).

The word ἐκκλησία ekklesía in Ephesians always denotes the universal church, not the local congregation. Its foundation are the apostles and prophets ( Eph 2,20  LUT ). They are recipients of God's revelation ( Eph 3,5  LUT ).

Conzelmann and Lindemann see a closeness to Gnosis not only in the worldview, but also in the Christology and anthropology of the letter to the Ephesians:

  • Christology : The crucifixion of Jesus and the hope of God's action in the future (futuristic eschatology ) "no longer play a real role and are only mentioned in passing."
  • Anthropology : The Christian is withdrawn from the influence of the powers of this world. While there is still a struggle with the world, Christians are protected by their spiritual armor. They are assured of victory.

Ephesians and Hellenistic Judaism

An alternative or complement to the Gnostic interpretation of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians is the reference to Jewish-Hellenistic literature, especially the writings of Philo of Alexandria . This approach, developed primarily by Harald Hegermann, was followed by German-speaking commentators Joachim Gnilka . In contrast to the unhistory of the letter to the Ephesians, which Conzelmann / Lindemann advocated, Eberhard Faust presented an interpretation of the text that placed it in the reference system of Hellenistic Judaism. This is the source for the "gnoseological understanding of salvation" represented by the letter to the Ephesians - the conviction that through inspiration one can recognize the heavenly being of God's world above the cosmos in the here and now and thus realize it for oneself.

Rainer Schwindt, too, interprets the Letter to the Ephesians primarily against the background of Hellenistic Judaism and thus follows a trend that can be seen in more recent exegesis. “The more convincingly this succeeds, the more questionable a Gnostic interpretation becomes, which has to refer to texts to be added much later.” Udo Schnelle also emphasizes the advantage of the Jewish-Hellenistic interpretation that its representatives can work with sources that are older than the letter to the Ephesians .

Impact history

According to Annemarie C. Mayer, the letter to the Ephesians had a polarizing effect in traditional confessional thought patterns. While the churches of the Reformation relied more on the authentic Pauline letters, the Roman Catholic Church was very interested in the Ephesians and pastoral letters. How suggestive this polarization was can be seen in the biography of the exegete Heinrich Schlier , whose intensive preoccupation with the letter to the Ephesians led to his conversion to Catholicism.

Above all, the doctrine of the universal church as the cosmic body of Christ, developed in the letter to the Ephesians, was received. More precisely: this organism has soteriological significance for the letter to the Ephesians , it is a space of salvation into which Christians enter with baptism and are thus saved. Jürgen Werbick sums up how this was received by Roman Catholic ecclesiology : “This traces the lines of a development that extends through Möhler and the encyclical Mystici corporis Christi to the present day and which formulated the metaphor of the ecclesial body of Christ as if it were the Church is the immediate successor of the Word made flesh ... "

Beyond denominational reading, the letter to the Ephesians also has potential for ecumenical discussion. As the only text of the New Testament, it reflects on the unity of the church and addresses the problem that Christians of different traditions (Jews and Gentiles) come together in the Ekklesia.

literature

General

  • Franz Mußner : Letter to the Ephesians . In: Theologische Realenzyklopädie 9 (1982), pp. 743-753.
  • William W. Klein: The Book of Ephesians. An Annotated Bibliography . Books of the Bible 8. Garland, New York et al. a. 1996 ISBN 0-8153-0364-5 .
  • Watson E. Mills: Ephesians . Bibliographies for Biblical Research, New Testament Series 10. Mellen Biblical Press, Lewiston NY et al. a. 1999 ISBN 0-7734-2472-5 .

Comments

  • Clinton E. Arnold: Ephesians (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), Grand Rapids, Michigan 2010.
  • Markus Barth : Ephesians . The Anchor Bible 34 / 34A. 2 volumes Doubleday, New York, 8th Pr. 1984. ISBN 0-385-08037-9 .
  • Ernest Best: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians . ICC. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh (1998) 2001 ISBN 0-567-08565-1 .
  • Frederick F. Bruce : The Epistle to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians . The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 7th pr. 1999 ISBN 0-8028-2510-9 .
  • Joachim Gnilka : The Letter to the Ephesians . Herder's theological commentary on the New Testament 10/2. Herder, Freiburg i.Br. 2002. ISBN 3-451-16275-X .
  • Eberhard Hahn: Paul's letter to the Ephesians . Wuppertal Study Bible: New Testament, supplementary series 10. Brockhaus, Wuppertal 1996. ISBN 3-417-25025-0 .
  • Hans Huebner : To Philemon, to the Colossians, to the Ephesians . Handbook for the New Testament 12. Mohr, Tübingen 1997 ISBN 3-16-146775-2 .
  • Andrew T. Lincoln: Ephesians . Word Biblical Commentary 42. Word, Waco, et al. a. 1990 ISBN 0-8499-0241-X .
  • Andreas Lindemann : The letter to the Ephesians . Zürcher Bibelkommentare.NT 8. Theological Publishing House, Zurich 1985 ISBN 3-290-14737-1 .
  • Ulrich Luz : The letter to the Ephesians . In: Jürgen Becker, Ulrich Luz: The letters to the Galatians, Ephesians and Colossians . The New Testament German 8.1. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Göttingen 18th edition (1st edition of the new edition) 1998 ISBN 3-525-51340-2 (generally understandable ; digitized version ).
  • John Muddiman: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians . Black's New Testament Commentaries. Continuum, London a. a. 2001 ISBN 0-8264-5202-7
  • Franz Mußner : The letter to the Ephesians . Ecumenical paperback commentary on the New Testament 10. Gütersloher Taschenbücher Siebenstern 509. Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn u. a., Gütersloh 1982 ISBN 3-579-04839-2 .
  • Pheme Perkins: Ephesians . Abingdon New Testament commentaries 10. Abingdon Press, Nashville 1997 ISBN 0-687-05699-3 .
  • Josef Pfammatter : Letter to the Ephesians, Letter to the Colossians . The New Real Bible 10 a. 12. Echter-Verl., Würzburg 2nd edition 1990 ISBN 3-429-01071-3 (generally understandable)
  • Petr Pokorný : Paul's letter to the Ephesians . Theological commentary on the New Testament 10/2. Deichert, Leipzig 1992 ISBN 3-374-01389-9 .
  • Heinrich Schlier : The letter to the Ephesians . Düsseldorf 1957.
  • Rudolf Schnackenburg : The Letter to the Ephesians . Evangelical-Catholic Commentary on the New Testament 10. Benziger, Düsseldorf a. a. (1982) 2nd edition 2003 ISBN 3-7887-0695-3 .
  • Helge Stadelmann : Letter to the Ephesians . Edition C Bible Commentary New Testament 14. Hänssler, Neuhausen-Stuttgart 1996 (generally understandable, application-oriented)

Authenticity debate

  • Klaus Berger : Commentary on the New Testament , Gütersloh 2011, pp. 688–717.
  • Rüdiger Fuchs : The place of the letter to the Ephesians in the Pauline chronology and theology as well as its structure . In: Yearbook for Evangelical Theology 28 (2014), pp. 77–99.
  • Klaus Haacker : Reception history and literary criticism. Inquiries to the communio opinio on the Corpus Paulinum . In: ThZ, 65 (2009), pp. 224–225.
  • Bo Reicke: Re-examining Paul's Letters. The History of the Pauline Correspondence (Trinity Press International), Harrisburg 2001.
  • Jacob Thiessen : The Controversial Epistles of Paul - Copies or Forgeries? Intertextual, literary critical and theological studies. With two additions by Rüdiger Fuchs (= studies on theology and the Bible. Volume 19). LIT Verlag, Münster et al. 2016. ISBN 978-3-643-80239-2 . ( Review )
  • Nicholas Thomas Wright : Paul in Fresh Perspective (Fortress Press), Minneapolis 2009.

Individual studies

  • Jacob Adai: The Holy Spirit as the presence of God in each Christian, in the Church and in the world. Studies on the pneumatology of the letter to the Ephesians . Regensburg Studies in Theology 31. Lang, Frankfurt a. M. u. a. 1985 ISBN 3-8204-8211-3 .
  • Clinton E. Arnold: Power and Magic. The Concept of Power in Ephesians . Baker, Grand Rapids 2nd ed. 1997 ISBN 0-8010-2143-X .
  • Ernest Best: Essays on Ephesians . T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh 1997 ISBN 0-567-08566-X .
  • Nils Alstrup Dahl : Studies in Ephesians. Introductory Questions, Text- & Edition-Critical Issues, Interpretation of Texts and Themes , ed. v. David Hellholm et al. a. WUNT 131. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2000 ISBN 3-16-147197-0 .
  • Gregory W. Dawes: The Body in Question. Metaphor and Meaning in the Interpretation of Ephesians 5: 21-33 . Biblical Interpretation Series 30. Brill, Leiden u. a. 1998 ISBN 90-04-10959-5 .
  • Eberhard Faust : Pax Christi et pax Caesaris. Religious history, history of tradition and social history studies on the letter to the Ephesians . (= Novum testamentum et orbis antiquus. Volume 24). Univ.-Verl., Freiburg (CH) a. a. 1993 ISBN 3-525-53926-6 .
  • Karl Martin Fischer : tendency and intention of the letter to the Ephesians (= research on religion and literature of the Old and New Testaments. Volume 111.) Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1973 ( digitized version )
  • Karl-Heinz Fleckenstein: Submit yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ. The marriage pericope in Ephesians 5: 21-33. History of interpretation, analysis and updating of the text . Research on the Bible 73. Echter, Würzburg 1994, ISBN 3-429-01633-9 .
  • Michael Gese: The Apostle's Legacy. The reception of Pauline theology in the letter to the Ephesians . WUNT 2/99. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 1997 ISBN 3-16-146844-9 .
  • Roy R. Jeal: Integrating Theology and Ethics in Ephesians. The Ethos of Communication . Studies in Bible and Early Christianity 43. Mellen Biblical Press, Lewiston NY et al. a. 2000 ISBN 0-7734-7741-1 .
  • Andreas Lindemann: Comments on the addressees and on the occasion of the letter to the Ephesians . In: Paul, Apostle and Teacher of the Church. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 1999. pp. 211-228.
  • Annemarie C. Mayer: The language of unity in the letter to the Ephesians and in ecumenism . WUNT 2/150. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2002 ISBN 3-16-147865-7 .
  • Thorsten Moritz: A Profound Mystery. The Use of the Old Testament in Ephesians . Supplements to Novum Testamentum 85. Brill, Leiden u. a. 1996 ISBN 90-04-10556-5 .
  • Rainer Schwindt : The world view of the letter to the Ephesians. A religious-historical-exegetical study . WUNT 148. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2002 ISBN 3-16-147848-7 .

Interpretation history

  • Ronald E. Heine: The Commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians . Oxford Early Christian Studies. Univ. Press, Oxford et al. a. 2002 ISBN 0-19-924551-7
  • Peter Kohlgraf : The ecclesiology of the letter to the Ephesians as interpreted by John Chrysostom. An investigation into the history of the impact of Pauline theology . Hereditas 19. Borengässer, Bonn 2001 ISBN 3-923946-53-8 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Udo Schnelle : Introduction to the New Testament . 9th revised edition, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2017, p. 382.
  2. ↑ Philipp Vielhauer: History of early Christian literature: Introduction to the New Testament, the Apocrypha and the Apostolic Fathers , Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1978, p. 215.
  3. ^ Rainer Schwindt: Das Weltbild des Epheserbriefes , Tübingen 2002, p. 45.
  4. ^ Jacob Thiessen: The Controversial Epistles of Paul - Copies or Forgeries? Münster et al. 2016, p. 230.
  5. ^ Jacob Thiessen: The Controversial Epistles of Paul - Copies or Forgeries? Münster et al. 2016, p. 215.
  6. ↑ Philipp Vielhauer: History of early Christian literature: Introduction to the New Testament, the Apocrypha and the Apostolic Fathers , Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1978, p. 205.
  7. ↑ Ulrich Luz: The letter to the Ephesians , in: NTD 8/1. Göttingen 1998 (1st edition), p. 108. 115.
  8. ↑ Peter Stuhlmacher: Biblical Theology of the New Testament , Volume 2: From the Pauline School to the Revelation of John . 2nd edition, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2012, p. 3.
  9. ^ Clinton E. Arnold: Ephesians , p. 29.
  10. ↑ Andreas Lindemann: Comments on the addressees and on the occasion of the letter to the Ephesians , p. 214.
  11. ↑ Philipp Vielhauer: History of early Christian literature: Introduction to the New Testament, the Apocrypha and the Apostolic Fathers , Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1978, p. 207.
  12. ↑ In the 1980s, around 20 percent of New Testament scholars believed the letter to the Ephesians to be Pauline, compared with 80 percent who disagreed with Paul. See Harold W. Hoehner: Ephesians , p. 7. On the basis of his own statistics (p. 19), Hoehner comes to a balanced ratio of authors who speak out for or against Pauline authorship - although, for example, Adrienne von Speyr is among the experts calculates for the New Testament.
  13. ↑ Ulrich Luz: The letter to the Ephesians , in: NTD 8/1. Göttingen 1998 (1st edition), p. 108.
  14. ↑ Ulrich Luz: The letter to the Ephesians , in: NTD 8/1. Göttingen 1998 (1st edition), p. 110.
  15. ↑ Ulrich Luz: The letter to the Ephesians , in: NTD 8/1. Göttingen 1998 (1st edition), p. 109 f.
  16. ^ Hans Conzelmann, Andreas Lindemann: Arbeitsbuch zum New Testament. 9th, revised and expanded edition. Mohr, Tübingen 1988, p. 259.
  17. ^ Rainer Schwindt: Das Weltbild des Epheserbriefes , Tübingen 2002, p. 47.
  18. ↑ Ulrich Luz: The letter to the Ephesians , in: NTD 8/1. Göttingen 1998 (1st edition), p. 109.
  19. ↑ Bart D. Ehrman: Forgery and Counter-forgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics. Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 188.
  20. ↑ Annemarie C. Meyer: Language of unity in the letter to the Ephesians and in ecumenism . Tübingen 2002, p. 39 f.
  21. ↑ Michael Gese: Das Vermächtnis des Apostels , Tübingen 1997, pp. 14-16.
  22. ^ A. van Roon: The Authenticity of Ephesians , Brill, Leiden 1974, p. 4.
  23. ↑ Ulrich Luz: The letter to the Ephesians , in: NTD 8/1. Göttingen 1998 (1st edition), p. 110 f.
  24. ↑ Bart D. Ehrman: Forgery and Counter-forgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics. Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 184.
  25. ↑ Ulrich Luz: The letter to the Ephesians , in: NTD 8/1. Göttingen 1998 (1st edition), p. 111.
  26. ↑ Ulrich Luz: The letter to the Ephesians , in: NTD 8/1. Göttingen 1998 (1st edition), p. 112.
  27. ^ Donald A. Hagner: The New Testament: A Historical and Theological Introduction . Baker Academic, Grand Rapids 2012, pp. 563ff.
  28. ↑ Udo Schnelle : Introduction to the New Testament . 9th revised edition, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2017, p. 385.
  29. ^ Hans Conzelmann, Andreas Lindemann: Arbeitsbuch zum New Testament. 9th, revised and expanded edition. Mohr, Tübingen 1988, p. 257 f.
  30. ^ Hans Conzelmann, Andreas Lindemann: Arbeitsbuch zum New Testament. 9th, revised and expanded edition. Mohr, Tübingen 1988, p. 257.
  31. ^ A b c Hans Conzelmann, Andreas Lindemann: Workbook for the New Testament. 9th, revised and expanded edition. Mohr, Tübingen 1988, p. 258.
  32. ↑ Peter Stuhlmacher: Biblical Theology of the New Testament , Volume 2: From the Pauline School to the Revelation of John . 2nd edition, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2012, p. 29.
  33. ^ Rainer Schwindt: Das Weltbild des Epheserbriefes , Tübingen 2002, p. 17.
  34. ^ Rainer Schwindt: Das Weltbild des Epheserbriefes , Tübingen 2002, p. 21.24.
  35. ^ Rainer Schwindt: Das Weltbild des Epheserbriefes , Tübingen 2002, p. 33.
  36. ^ Hans Conzelmann, Andreas Lindemann: Arbeitsbuch zum New Testament. 9th, revised and expanded edition. Mohr, Tübingen 1988, p. 260.
  37. ^ Hans Conzelmann, Andreas Lindemann: Arbeitsbuch zum New Testament. 9th, revised and expanded edition. Mohr, Tübingen 1988, p. 260 f.
  38. ^ Rainer Schwindt: Das Weltbild des Epheserbriefes , Tübingen 2002, p. 36.
  39. ^ Rainer Schwindt: Das Weltbild des Epheserbriefes , Tübingen 2002, p. 43 f.
  40. ^ Rainer Schwindt: Das Weltbild des Epheserbriefes , Tübingen 2002, p. 46.
  41. ↑ Udo Schnelle: Introduction to the New Testament . 9th revised edition, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2017, p. 387.
  42. ↑ Annemarie C. Meyer: Language of unity in the letter to the Ephesians and in ecumenism . Tübingen 2002, p. 8.
  43. ↑ Jürgen Werbick: Basic questions of ecclesiology. Herder, Freiburg / Br. 2009, p. 70.
  44. ↑ Annemarie C. Meyer: Language of unity in the letter to the Ephesians and in ecumenism . Tübingen 2002, p. 7.