Marcion. It is hardly credible that the Epistle should have received this title, either in a text followed by Marcion or at his own hands, if the words ejn jEfevsw/ had been present. It does not follow that ejn Laodikiva replaced it: a change of the address in the body of the Epistle itself would hardly have been passed over in silence; and it seems more likely that the title was supplied from a misapplication of Col. 4:16 in the absence of any indication of address in the text of the Epistle. Text a cAD 2G 3K 2L 2P 2 later MSS consulted by Bas. (see above) cu pl vv omn Cyr. al. Thes. 280 pp ser pp lat.
Transcriptional evidence strongly supports the testimony of documents against ejn jEfevsw/ . The early and, except as regards Marcion, universal tradition that the Epistle was addressed to the Ephesians, embodied in the title found in all extant documents, would naturally lead to the insertion of the words in the place that corresponding words hold in other epistles; and on the other hand it is not easy to see how they could come to be omitted, if genuine. Nor again, when St Paul's use of the term oiJ a{gioi (e.g.,, 1 Cor. 16:1) and his view of pivsti" in relation to the new Israel are taken into account, is it in itself improbable that he should write to the saints who are also faithful (believing) in Christ Jesus. The only real intrinsic difficulty here lies in the resemblance to the phrases used in other epistles to introduce local addresses.
The variation need not however be considered as a simple case of omission or insertion. There is much probability in the suggestion of Beza and Ussher, adopted by many commentators, that this Epistle was addressed to more than one church. It is certainly marked by an exceptional generality of language, and its freedom from local and personal allusions places it in strong contrast to the twin Ep. to the Colossians, conveyed by the same messenger. St Paul might naturally take advantage of the mission of Tychicus to write a letter to be read by the various churches which he had founded or strengthened in the region surrounding Ephesus during his long stay, though he might have special reasons for writing separate letters to Colossae and Laodicea. Apart from any question of the reading in 1:1, this is the simplest explanation of the characteristics of the Epistle; but, if it represents the facts truly, it must have a bearing on the reading. An epistle addressed to a plurality of churches might either be written so as to dispense with any local address, or it might have a blank space, to be filled up in each case with a different local address. The former supposition, according to which
kai; pistoi'"
would be continuous with
toi'" aJgivoi"
, has been noticed above. In this case
ejn jEfevsw/
would be simply an interpolation. On the other view, which is on the whole the more probable of the two,
ejn jEfevsw/
would be a legitimate but unavoidably partial supplement to the true text, filling up a chasm which might be perplexing to a reader in later times. Since it is highly probable that the epistle would be communicated to the great mother church first, and then sent on to the lesser churches around, there is sufficient justification both for the title
PROS EFESIOUS
and for the retention of
ejn jEfevsw/
in peculiar type in the text itself. Whether Marcion's title was derived from a copy actually sent to Laodicea, or, as seems more likely, was a conjectural alteration of
PROS EFESIOUS
, Ephesus must have had a better right than any other single city to account itself the recipient of the Epistle.
II. Thanksgiving for faith realized: prayer for deeper knowledge: general
exposition of the work of Christ for men
(Eph. 1:15-2:22).
1. Thanksgiving for the faith of the Ephesians (1:15, 16a).