Have You Ever Read Ephesians?

quote:

---

The church universal, as I used in means the total body of believers in all localities through out all ages since the church's beginning in Jerusalem.

​

It would include living believers as well as departed believers.

---

I don't believe that's what Paul or the author of Ephesians is really presenting.Paul uses literary devices to help visualize his point as does the author of Ephesians.Ephesians is more universal in that it isn't really addressing a problem in one local assembly. That's why some scholars feel it is a general letter applicable to all existing Messianic assemblies.Ephesians seems to present a corporate view encompassing all Messianic assemblies and not just a local view. I feel that is how the scholars are viewing the universal idea. The imagery of a building is a literary device to provide imagery to the point being made. Church: The Body, the Building and the Bride of the Beloved

quote:

---

So when Jesus refered to the church that He would build which the gates of Hades would not prevail against her (though they try), is the universal church.

---

I disagree that this verse supports the invisible universal church. From what I've read I feel his point was more about the inability of the governing powers to stop the spreading of the good news or to wipe out the assemblies built on his teachings. The book of Matthew is also a later writing about the same time frame (80-100CE) as Ephesians according to some scholars.The author of Matthew already knows the Messianic community is still around although it is probably more Greek than Jewish by that time.I feel that the author of Ephesians is still talking about physical assemblies, whether as a overall group made up of all existing assemblies under the heading of "Church" or the local assemblies. I don't feel he is using the term to encompass all believers past, present, and future.

quote:

---

As you get into the disputed epistles, such as Ephesians, and then into the garbage that is the Pastoral epistles, you are looking at a very different Paul. This Paul is more concerned with durable institutions and the day to day mundane issues of life as a Christian. This Paul also just seems to have it in for women and really goes out of his way to make sure that their inferiority is established.

---

I agree the author is more concerned with durable institution and day to day issues, but I don't agree the author has it in for women.Greek and Roman women were already part of a society that deemed men more valuable than women. Women in the Greek and Roman PerspectiveAccording to Rodney Stark's research in "The Rise of Christianity", women fared better within Christianity than the pagan religions. Ephesians 5:21 says "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."I can understand a writer who doesn't want to rock the cultural boat too much, so to speak.I agree that it is inappropriate for churches today. It was meant for an ancient audience. In it's time it was a step up apparently, but today it is a step backwards as some use it.It sounds as though Christianity would have died out if women hadn't embraced it. IMO, gender roles are always going to be a point of contention for those who need to dominate with or without religion. A battle through the ages. Gender Roles in ChristianityIn reality, I don't see that Ephesians 5:22 adversely impacted women in the gender battle. If it had, I would think women would have rejected Christianity instead of embracing it.Those that abused these verses for their own purposes, seem to be the exception and not the rule.Edited by purpledawn, : Added link for "The Rise of Christianity"

quote:

---

I don't think it was with malice of course. But it does have that effect.

---

The point is, it didn't in his time. Blaming the author for what later men do is incorrect. Note that the author says wives are to submit to their husbands, not just any man.The instruction to husbands was probably a great help for women in a time when they were property and didn't get to choose their mate.

quote:

---

Others see Ephesians as the holy word of God delivered through his divinely inspired apostle who's scripture shall ring true and endure until the end of days.

---

That is their mistake, not the author's. How can one help someone see their error by falsely blaming the author?From what I've read, the Protestant Reformation was detrimental to the status of women. The Protestant Reformation and WomenThe Reformation saw no need for convents. Apparently Luther felt that women just needed to stay home and have babies. I agree that clergy should update and make it clear that in today's society, in the US at least, women are no longer property and the words of the Ephesians' author should be understood as mutual love and respect between spouses.They have no problem equating the slave obey master to employee obey employer. (I know slavery is different than employment.) The point is they updated the message to fit the current time and they should do the same concerning women.IMO, men who need to oppress women will do so by whatever means available. Why Men Oppress Women

quote:

---

I don't have any books by Goodspeed so I cannot review his lines of reasoning other than what you mentioned.

---

That's why I provided a link in Message 99. You can read exactly the words I read.

quote:

---

From your Farrar quote:

​

...Impugners of its authenticity must account for its wide and early acceptance, no less than the difficulty of its forgery. It is a simple fact that the Epistle was accepted as unquestionably Pauline from the days of Ingatius to those of Schleiermacher.

---

What is the evidence that Ignatius unquestionably considered the Book of Ephesians to be Pauline? Some say Ignatius quotes Ephesians, but does he really? Does he actually attribute the quote to Paul or something he says Paul wrote?A cursory look doesn't show me that he obviously does.

quote:

---

I mentioned in another post that if this were written to be an introduction to Paul's epistles, the introduction has more revelation than the epistles it introduces. I believe those who 'tear it apart' have not seen these things.

---

Why assume that God did not provide any more revelation to Christians after Paul died. New revelation or inspiration needs to happen for religion to adjust to the needs of the people. That's why we have to understand the point of the lesson or argument to the audience of the time.The early church father's wrote many well written letters. The assumption that no one could write better than Paul or as good as Paul is a weak argument.

quote:

---

But my main goal here is to show that there are cogent and compelling arguments in favor of Pauline authorship of this Epistle and to make it clear that the case is not closed on the subject.

---

Case not closed among scholars or this thread? It has already been mentioned that scholars are about equally divided on the issue.

quote:

---

I checked out that link. It went to Wikipedia. I didn't see anything there that looked like a link to his introduction to the NT. Let me know if I missed something.

---

Try the link on introduction to Ephesians. There's more than one link in the sentence.

quote:

---

I think the force of Farrar's argument regarding the writings subsequent to the New Testament writings, especially, those of Paul, is that none were up to the standard of Paul's writing and no one emerged with the same repute as Paul. You may cite the Epistle to the Hebrews as an example of a high quality anonymous Epistle. I don't believe there are any others subsequent to the New Testament writings. Certainly there are no additional books considered canonical.

---

I don't think you can really make a good argument that Paul's writings were better quality. The New Testament writings represent the foundation of Christianity. It doesn't really mean they were of better quality than other writings of the time or later writings by the early Church Fathers. Origen's reputation continued to spread after his death.

quote:

---

Agreed. I just wanted to list some arguments in favor of Pauline authorship to underline the open nature of the case and to balance what I perceived as an imbalance in arguments in favor of modern skeptical opinion.

---

How is modern textual criticism different than earlier textual criticisms? IMO, much of the criticism today, besides making sure we have the most authentic version possible, is trying to understand the reality behind the ancient texts to see if the text really does support current dogma and/or teachings presented. Some people present some very strange ideas of what the Bible writings support, whether they are trying to promote it or bash it.Find any support for the idea that Ignatius supported Paul's authorship of Ephesians?

quote:

---

I have never read any of 'the fathers' myself.

---

Here is a very handy web site. Now you can read the translations for yourself.
Early Christian Writings: Early Church Fathers

quote:

---

I can give the quotes if you'd like.

---

That would be evidence necessary for this discussion to continue. Saves guessing, although I will try since otherwise I have nothing to write about.

quote:

---

But also, regarding the aspect of 'criticism', at some point one needs to 'take' the words, to take it in. If you spend your life 'criticizing' food without eating any, you miss the point of the food (and there are food critics).

---

You're making an assumption that I haven't eaten the food because my view is different than yours. I've provided support from Bible Scholars, not religion free scholars. Edgar Goodspeed is also one who has tasted the food. My battle is against dogma that tries to manipulate people with the authority of the Bible when the Bible doesn't support what they are selling. External Evidence for Pauline Authorship of EphesiansI'm using the above site for quotes that supposedly support Pauline authorship of Ephesians.Now concerning Ignatius of Antioch. The man was very much a part of beginning time of Christianity. He experienced the early teachings, not just letters or writings.Ephesians has an estimated range of 80-100AD and the life of Ignatius has a range of ca. c 35-110. He was considered one of the Apostolic Fathers which means he probably interacted with the fist apostles and heard their teachings. Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians:The first supposed evidence. Was he quoting a letter he had read or was he expressing a description from what he had learned?If you look at the rest of his writings and search for "said, says, wrote, or written" you will see that these are used when repeating what someone has said or written. Beware the longer versions. Also remember that the Septuagint is the Old Testament used, not what we have today. Second supposed evidence When we look at the translations we have epistles plural, not singular. So now we look at how many times Ephesus or Ephesians were mentioned in our collection of Pauline epistles. I only see Ephesians or Ephesus used in 1 Corinthians and Timothy. So they aren't mentioned in all the epistles that we have. We shouldn't assume that Paul wrote no other letters than the ones we have. This statement only attests that the Ephesians were mentioned in the epistles that Ignatius read from Paul, but we don't have any way of knowing what letters he read. The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp:
These quotes give me the same concern as the first one I showed. I don't see them as definite quotes as opposed to expressing the teaching of the time. Polycarp
I see the same issue in the Polycarp quotes. Rephrasing a teaching is not quoting a letter and isn't evidence of who wrote the letter. There needs to be a way to show they are actually quoting from the letter and not from what was being taught.The last entry under Polycarp is interesting. Polycarp's letter to the Philipians has an estmated date of 110-140AD. He could be quoting Ephesians, but this isn't evidence that Paul wrote it. Also look at the way he gives the statements. It isn't written the same way as in Ephesians. They are separated as though they are from different sources. "Be ye angry..." is from the Septuagint Psalms 4:4. It isn't the same wording as in Ephesians. Seems odd since Ephesians had the whole package right there. Doesn't mean he couldn't have pulled from Psalms and then Ephesians, just odd.Given the timeframe of Polycarp's writing it is possible that he was influenced by Ephesians and quoted one line from it; but it isn't evidence of who wrote the letter.

Richh and I are discussing proof of authorship, not understanding the book, not faith in God, or belief in Jesus.As Paul was fond of pointing out, Abraham was justified by his faith in God. He wasn't justified by his faith in a book or it's author, a doctrine or dogma, a tradition or ritual, the disciples or Paul, or the pope or clergy. Just faith in God.So please stop the "No True Scotsman" approach and address the arguments I've made concerning authorship if you wish to debate with me.

So much for discussion, on to not-what-I-said issues.

quote:

---

I understand that exchange is not with me but with Richh.

​

I think it was already pointed out that absolute"proof" of authorship is not possible.

---

Well we want to debate it anyway.

quote:

---

And it is very perculiar to me that you would say you are not interested in "understanding" the book only to a point when you want to express something about what you think it means. Now, I'll get out of the way if you say that you are not interested in "understanding" Ephesians. But I'll be timing and clocking you. As soon as you do propose some "understanding" and I think it is wrong understanding, I'll point out your change of purpose.

---

My post didn't say I wasn't interested in understanding Ephesians or that I don't understand Ephesians. My post said I wasn't interested in playing the "no true Scotsman" game with you.

quote:

---

Stop saying out of one side of your mouth that you're not interested in understanding Ephesians and from the other side propose your opinions about what it means when it is time for you to push your view.

---

I have discussed the content of Ephesians with you earlier in the thread. (Message 31, Message 47, Message 50, Message 55, Message 57, Message 61, and Message 62)I clearly said my post to Richh was concerning authorship. My post to you clearly stated that I did not want to play the "no true Scotsman" game with you.
I feel that you are trying to use your perception of my personal belief to justify not accepting my arguments instead of actually addressing the arguments I posted.The comment you jumped on in Message 248 concerned Bible Criticism. I didn't feel your response in Message 251 followed that line of thought.

I think digestion is very important when it comes to "food". If it isn't digested well we get some rather funky byproducts.

quote:

---

And I believe that one's attitude toward the Epistle can even be a pitfall for Bible scholars.

---

As I said in Message 81: The Christian canon(s) have been developed through debate and agreement by the religious authorities of the time. Believers consider canonical books to be inspired by God or to express the authoritative history of the religion.The New Testament writings are foundational writings of Christianity chosen from many to preserve the teachings and beliefs of early Christianity, whether we know who the authors are or not. That doesn't change if Paul isn't considered the author. The teachings in the writing haven't changed if we find Paul isn't the author.They do the same type of criticism with the letters of the Church Fathers to discern which are authentic.

quote:

---

Again I offer to reproduce the quotes, but your quotes above have covered what I would have typed from Alford - both from Ignatius and from Polycarp. The only difference I found was that in Alford and in another book on the writings of the Fathers that I found on my shelf, I found the singular 'epistle' in the quote of Ignatius, not the plural 'epistles'.

---

Please just produce any quotes you have or differences at the time you post. I'm not going to guess any more.I pulled the plural version from the translation. If his says "who in all his Epistle" the same as what I quoted in Message 248, then it is incorrect just in its usage. With the word "all" it would have to be plural. Here is another translation version that still presents the plurality of the statement. Since we know it isn't in every letter we know of Paul, it is more likely he is speaking of every letter he has read and we don't have that number, but it does appear to be more than one. That statement isn't a testimony to Paul's authorship of Ephesians.

quote:

---

I agree with your statements that the quotes from Ignatius and Polycarp are not 'conclusive evidence', but perhaps circumstantial evidence.

---

It might be viewed as circumstantial today because we only have the letters; but the early Christian circumstances were very different than ours today and some today prefer not to blindly infer a connection without more information. This doesn't negate the teaching.

quote:

---

I think sublime content of this Epsitle is another piece of circumstantial evidence.

---

How is that evidence for Paul?

quote:

---

I don't agree with his conclusion here. There is an interplay of the pronouns 'you' and 'we', and words like 'both', etc. in chapters 1 - 3 that clearly indicate to me that the writer (Paul I say...) had two groups in mind - the Jews and the Gentiles, and that he grouped himself with the Jews. I think quotes like the following clinch it that the writer is Jewish. The pronouns would have been different if the writer was speaking as a Gentile.

---

I disagree. I feel the writer is being neutral.IMO, Ephesians 2:15 is a good reason not to accept that Ephesians was written by Paul. In the writings considered to be authentically Paul, Paul does not support that God's laws in the Old Testament were abolished. His point was that they were not a means to salvation. He did argue that the Gentile Christian converts should not be burdened with all the laws of Judaism.

quote:

---

I'd say something like this. It is likely that there were not many persons in the early Christian church who could have written like Paul or like the Epistle to the Ephesians. If there were others, their other writings and their identity would have been preserved. But since there is nothing that matches Ephesians, who else could have written such an Epistle. Perhaps that is the reason that the Epistle to the Hebrews is assigned to the Apostle Paul too.

---

Why is it unlikely that anyone else could have written like Paul?Paul supposedly used amanuenses and since Paul's letters were available to read, it wouldn't be difficult for someone to imitate Paul. Even Goodspeed speculated that Onesimus could fit the bill. Edited by purpledawn, : typo correction

quote:

---

That is to comfort your hearts with deceptions, lies, imitations, forgeries, conspiracies ... all very comforting.

---

I've tried very hard to get people to stop assuming lies and deception from these writings. The ghostwriter is paid for the work. Is it unethical? Paul didn't think so apparently.They used ghostwriters and we still use ghostwriters today. Presidents don't necessarily write their own speeches. White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speech WritersPopes don't necessarily write their own Encyclicals. In academia, it is wrong for the student to hire a ghostwriter, but once graduated ghostwriters are used. There are medical ghostwriters. It is used in the music and film industries.
It can also be used as a blacklisting countermeasure. I've even ghostwritten for another. He provided the information and I wrote the story. He even won an award for it from the New Orleans Press Club. The story was the important part, not the writer.Even today we have: Religious Ghostwriting ServiceGhostwriting is still part of our society today and seems to be legal in some instances. The Scandal of Christian GhostwritingSo the tradition continues and not just in religion. Is all of it lies and deception?

quote:

---

The only reason I think you have any consistency with this point is that you don't seem to accept Ephesians on the basis of authority but rather on its content. As I have said many times in this thread thus far, I think that is perfectly fine but there is a cost even to this. That cost is that you are deciding to accept the agenda of someone who decided, perhaps even piously, to go against their forebearers and to justify that agenda with deception.

---

You don't know what I personally have decided or accept. We are debating authorship. Stick to that.My point being that ghostwriters were around back then as they are around now and since Paul did use them, there were people around who could write as well as Paul.As for the lying. Pseudepigraphs are those writings where the real author attributed it to a figure of the past. It only applies to the attribution, not necessarily that the content is false or invalid.Both were common and used in religion with varying results.Just because Ephesians doesn't sync with Paul, doesn't mean it doesn't reflect the teachings of the time.Basically, one doesn't have to throw the baby out with the bath water.