Timeline for What arguments are given that Ephesians was not written by Paul?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 12, 2021 at 3:26 | answer | added | Jodi Forrester | timeline score: -2 | |
| Nov 20, 2020 at 3:59 | vote | accept | Andrew | ||
| Apr 6, 2016 at 21:25 | comment | added | Andrew | @warren But those disciples had not received the baptism of Christ, so they probably did not have contact with any apostolic church before Paul initiated them. There may have been some (twelve) who believed, but they weren't a church of Christ until after Paul's visit. Paul stayed until the church there began to grow (vv.17-20), then he left for Jerusalem. | |
| Apr 6, 2016 at 21:14 | comment | added | Andrew | @Susan well, every time you open it I learn something, so I can hardly hold it against you. | |
| Apr 6, 2016 at 21:12 | comment | added | Susan | @Andrew Got it, thanks. I probably should just keep my mouth shut since I haven't read the source. | |
| Apr 6, 2016 at 21:09 | comment | added | Andrew | @susan the quote is from a citation, not from the article, so it's not Wikipedia that is surveying commenters but Harold W. Hoehner in Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001). | |
| Apr 6, 2016 at 18:58 | comment | added | warren | @Susan - Paul didn't found the church in Ephesus. When he came to the city, there were already disciples (Acts 19). | |
| Apr 6, 2016 at 7:03 | comment | added | Pavel | I think it is acceptable here as well, but this question would fit hermeneutics.stackexchange.com better. | |
| Apr 6, 2016 at 6:56 | comment | added | Dick Harfield | Aside (#3): @Susan : You don't really rely on Wikipedia as a primary source on scholarship, do you? | |
| Apr 6, 2016 at 4:55 | comment | added | Susan | Aside (#2): Wikipedia's summary of scholarship strikes me as absurd. Who counts as a commentator? Are all commentators created equal? Are those from 1519 given equal weight as those from 2001? .... Barth (see ref. in my answer below) gives a fairly extensive compendium of scholarly views including names. (Although I myself favor Pauline authorship, my impression is that in modern critical academic circles Ephesians is generally considered non-Pauline.) | |
| Apr 6, 2016 at 3:49 | comment | added | Dick Harfield | @curiousdannii The absence of an introduction is seen as pointing to Ephesians as an encyclical. | |
| Apr 6, 2016 at 3:47 | comment | added | Susan | @curiousdannii I had been under the impression that the lack of specific greetings to particular people (a la Rom 16) was considered one of the arguments against Pauline authorship of Ephesians (seeing as how he founded that church), an issue which is resolved by the "circular letter" hypothesis, which would make it more than an "aside" here. In the sources I looked at it didn't come up at all, though. | |
| Apr 6, 2016 at 3:39 | answer | added | Susan | timeline score: 14 | |
| Apr 6, 2016 at 0:55 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackChristian/status/717516164151304192 | ||
| Apr 6, 2016 at 0:43 | history | edited | curiousdannii♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 6, 2016 at 0:43 | comment | added | curiousdannii♦ | Aside: there are some manuscripts which don't name the recipients as the church of Ephesus. So many people theorise that it was a kind of form letter. I think that is likely, but still think the primary author was Paul. | |
| Apr 6, 2016 at 0:02 | history | edited | Andrew | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 329 characters in body; edited title
|
| Apr 5, 2016 at 23:26 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Apr 5, 2016 at 23:44 | |||||
| Apr 5, 2016 at 23:03 | history | asked | Andrew | CC BY-SA 3.0 |