a deutero-pauline mystery? 185
surprising that Paul could also see such a wide-reaching significance of his
sufferings. it is to be expected that he would do so in a letter to a church
that was personally unknown to him, and in a letter where he also univer-
salized the meaning of the term “church.”
Ephesians
as for the letter to the ephesians, many scholars express more certainty
regarding the pseudonymity of this letter than of Colossians.27 neverthe-
less, a diverse group of scholars also argues that the letter was written by
the apostle Paul.28 the close relationship between ephesians and Colos-
sians means that similar arguments figure in the discussion of authorship
27 Joachim gnilka, Der Epheserbrief (htKnt; Freiburg: herder, 1971), 13–21; helmut
Merklein, Das kirchliche Amt nach dem Epheserbrief (sant 33; Munich: Kösel, 1973),
19–45; Kümmel, Introduction, 357–63; Collins, Letters, 132–70; andrew t. lincoln, Ephesians
(wBC 42; dallas: word, 1990), lix–lxxiii; rudolf schnackenburg, Ephesians: A Commentary
(3rd ed.; trans. helen heron; edinburgh: t&t Clark, 1991), 24–28; Michael gese, Das Ver-
mächtnis des Apostels: Die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie im Epheserbrief (wunt
2.99; tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 1997); hübner, Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon, 10–12; ernest
Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians (iCC; edinburgh: t&t Clark, 1998),
6–36; schnelle, The New Testament Writings, 300–303; nils alstrup dahl, “einleitungsfra-
gen zum epheserbrief,” in his Studies in Ephesians: Introductory Questions, Text- & Edition-
Critical Issues, Interpretation of Texts and Themes (wunt 131; tübingen: Mohr siebeck,
2000), 48–60; Macdonald, Colossians and Ephesians, 15–17; Paul J. achtemeier, Joel B.
green, and Marianne Meye thompson, Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and
Theology (grand rapids: eerdmans, 2001), 379–80; Pheme Perkins, “ephesians,” in The New
Interpreter’s Bible (vol. 11; nashville: abingdon, 2000), 351–54; annemarie C. Mayer, Sprache
der Einheit im Epheserbrief und in der Ökumene (wunt 2.150; tübingen: Mohr siebeck,
2002), 23–34; holladay, Introduction, 409–12; larry J. Kreitzer, Hierapolis in the Heavens:
Studies in the Letter to the Ephesians (lnts 368; london: t&t Clark, 2007), 1–8; sellin,
Epheser, 57–58. John Muddiman proposes that ephesians consists of a Pauline letter that
has been edited and expanded by one his disciples (The Epistle to the Ephesians [BntC;
london: Continuum, 2001], 2–41).
28 Percy, Die Probleme, 179–466; heinrich schlier, Der Brief an die Epheser: Ein Kommen-
tar (3rd ed.; düsseldorf: Patmos, 1962), 22–28; Markus Barth, Ephesians: Introduction, Trans-
lation, and Commentary on Chapters 1–3 (aB 34; new york: doubleday, 1974), 36–50; a. Van
roon, The Authenticity of Ephesians (novtsup 39; leiden: Brill, 1974); Michael d. goulder,
“the Visionaries of laodicea,” JSNT 43 (1991): 15–39; Clinton e. arnold, “ephesians, letter
to the,” in DPL, 240–43; Porter and Clarke, “Canonical-Critical Perspective,” 78–81; Johnson,
The Writings, 407–12; Peter t. o’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (PntC; grand rapids:
eerdmans, 1999), 4–47; harold w. hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (grand
rapids: Baker, 2002), 20–61; Carson and Moo, An Introduction, 480–86; John Paul heil,
Ephesians: Empowerment to Walk in Love for the Unity of All in Christ (studies in Biblical
literature 13; atlanta: society of Biblical literature, 2007), 4–5; Frank thielman, Ephesians
(BeCnt; grand rapids: Baker, 2010), 1–5. M.-É. Boismard thinks an existing genuine letter
may have been edited by a disciple of Paul (L’énigme de la lettre aux Éphésiens [eBib 39;
Paris: gabalda, 1999], 15). desilva is undecided (Introduction, 716–21).