Is The Epistle To The Ephesians A Forgery?

[Drewm777]

PS. Martin Luther's rendition of Romans 3:28 is somewhat (in)famous.

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faithalonewithout the deeds of the law"

What is so interesting about this is that Joseph Smith made the same change in the JST on the same verse. It's not in our footnotes, but he did make the change. (See Inspired Version, Harold House)

Does this add to the question at all?

Is the concept of salvation by faith ALONE really foreign to Paul? (and if it were, is it to us?)

[rameumptom]

This isn't just a problem for evangelicals. Mormons believe the bible to be "the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly." The problem with pseudepigraphal texts is not that they are translated incorrectly; the problem is they're made up. And this problem extends further than a single epistle; I don't have a list handy, but modern scholarship indicates the amount of pseudepigraphal work in the bible is substantial. The gospels could even be included in that list, since it is virtually certain they were not written by the authors traditionally attributed to them. (Although I'm not sure if they fit the description of pseudepigraphy in the strictest sense, since the authors themselves didn't claim to be Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.)

In any case, it is known that the bible is full of forgery. Is that forgery still "the word of God"? Is it, as some have suggested, inspired forgery?

The issue isn't whether the book is a forgery, but whether it is inspired of God. Joseph Smith only noted one book as being wholly uninspired: the Songs of Solomon (though it is still a nice form of ancient poetry). All the rest of scripture is to be taken in through the guidance of modern prophetic teaching and the Gift of the Holy Ghost. As with the Apocrypha, there is much truth in Ephesians (we have two scripture memory verses in there, for example Eph 2:19, 4:11-14) and so we should not discard it.

However, we should consider the teachings concerning grace in Ephesians in light of ALL of Paul's writings. I have noted over the years to study his letters as letters. He is focusing on specific issues to specific groups. Sometimes his audience is primarily Jews (as in Hebrews, another possible forgery) and he speaks in Jewish terms. Other instances he is focusing on the Gentile teachings, against the practices in the Law of Moses that Jewish Christians often sought to impose upon the Gentiles (like circumcision). Still, there is a letter or two wherein he addresses both Jew and Gentile, and he discusses benefits of both grace and works.

When considered letters, rather than complete discourses given to the entire Christian Church, we can see that the information may not be as complete in one letter as some would want. Then again, we must also remember that most Christians are very ignorant of the Bible. One scholar, Harold Bloom, called the evangelical Baptists the "Know Nothing Baptists" for that specific reason of taking one verse and building an entire faith upon it, ignoring all the rest of the holy writ.

[ED500]

Thank you for your demonstration of how verses taken out of context can be made to sound the opposite of what was intended.

Nice work.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

What???????

[Neighbor]

It appears that the majority of New Testament scholars agree that Ephesians is a forgery; and that one of the primary reasons for this consensus is because of this very passage, which contradicts what Paul wrote in his other epistles.

The following comes from The New Testament--A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, by Bart D. Ehrman, (2000), p. 353.

What do you think?

Should we shelve Ephesians when attempting to get to the heart of the original, authentic gospel message?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I've been a Bible student all my life. To say 'the majority of NT Scholars agree that Ephesians is a forgery' is par with Gore claiming that all, or the majority of scientists agree that global warming is caused by SUVs:-)

It is the misunderstanding of what Paul wrote that is problematic. If Jesus said we are to be judged by what He said, then Paul's remarks must be reconciled with the teachings of Jesus Christ to be properly framed for understanding. The view we approve of says much about who and where we are as disciples.

To get to the heart of the gospel you have to be a student of Jesus Christ Himself, not Paul. Paul was commissioned to take the gospel to the Gentiles, but if God be true, the gospel of Jesus Christ must be the same for the Jews as it was for the Gentiles - for how else would the two be made one and equal to God in Christ as the brotherhood of believers? They evidently worshipped together, so the gospel as taught had to be the same or there would have been confusion and division by the very nature of the situation.

Too many people take simple verses or even deep verses and turn comments out of context to the whole and come up with doctrines that Jesus never taught. I think this is wrong and wonder why so many people do it. Most who do it don't even recognize they are also guilty of it. To show my point, just look at what Paul said of baptism for the dead. If Jesus taught not to die in your sins because you are judged immutably at death would prevent opportunity of repentance in turning to God after death - witness the rich man and Lazarus.

[juliann]

It is the misunderstanding of what Paul wrote that is problematic. If Jesus said we are to be judged by what He said, then Paul's remarks must be reconciled with the teachings of Jesus Christ to be properly framed for understanding. The view we approve of says much about who and where we are as disciples.

Exactly....and the view you choose under this formula has little to do with what the authors wrote. You can't "reconcile" different authors. You can't even reconcile Jesus with himself. To think that you can do this without the foundation the Bible calls for...prophets...is what is referred to as "adding to the Bible".

[juliann]

This isn't just a problem for evangelicals. Mormons believe the bible to be "the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly." The problem with pseudepigraphal texts is not that they are translated incorrectly; the problem is they're made up.

No, it merely means they don't know who wrote them. I think it is well understood that the term "translated" covers more than sitting down and changing one word to another. Even Joseph mentioned changes by careless or designing translators. That is a spot on description of the transmission of the biblical texts from a man who had no familiarity with textual criticism. In defense of translators, however, it is impossible to not make mistakes no matter how careful you are.

[Neighbor]

Exactly....and the view you choose under this formula has little to do with what the authors wrote. You can't "reconcile" different authors. You can't even reconcile Jesus with himself. To think that you can do this without the foundation the Bible calls for...prophets...is what is referred to as "adding to the Bible".

Those with whom God and Jesus Christ make their abode are greater than the prophets.

[Paul D]

Often in my discussions with evangelical Christians regarding the issue of salvation, they will turn to Ephesians 2:8-9 to demonstrate their belief that we are saved by grace alone, and not through any works on our part.

Fair enough, but before we start using proof-texts from Ephesians, should we not first pause to consider whether Paul actually wrote it in the first place?

It appears that the majority of New Testament scholars agree that Ephesians is a forgery; and that one of the primary reasons for this consensus is because of this very passage, which contradicts what Paul wrote in his other epistles.

The following comes from The New Testament--A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, by Bart D. Ehrman, (2000), p. 353.

What do you think?

Should we shelve Ephesians when attempting to get to the heart of the original, authentic gospel message?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

My suggestion is that you read at least a credible source on the subject, say like, Harold Hoehner's book, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. In it he gives an exhaustive treatment dealing with whether or not Paul wrote Ephesians, and concludes with the majority of scholars that Paul did write it. That is, unless you've now gotten into the habit of quoting other atheists and agnostics dealing with Christian matters, or are equating Mormon thought with atheism and agnosticism. Which is it?

[consiglieri]

My suggestion is that you read at least a credible source on the subject, say like, Harold Hoehner's book, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. In it he gives an exhaustive treatment dealing with whether or not Paul wrote Ephesians, and concludes with the majority of scholars that Paul did write it. That is, unless you've now gotten into the habit of quoting other atheists and agnostics dealing with Christian matters, or are equating Mormon thought with atheism and agnosticism. Which is it?

This is not a "Christian matter" in the sense of involving the "Christian religion."

It is a historical matter that happens to deal with texts that ended up being included in the Christian New Testament.

As such, atheists and agnostics should be as well-equipped as any scholar to weigh in on the issue.

It could be posited that atheist and agnostic scholars are more credible than a "Christian" scholar who feels the necessity of arguing a priori for the correctness of including all books that happened to make it into the New Testament.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[ed2276]

Consig--

Even given the underlying premise of your OP, I'd suggest that "forgery" is too strong a term.

Are you suggesting that the letter to the Ephesians, even if not Pauline, should be ousted from he canon? That it is an imposition that should be summarily dropped from any and all consideration of NT biblical expression?

Best.

CKS

Why not , CK? That is precisely how the canon came to be in the first place , is it not? Books were added , dropped and added back again depending on the judgment of the men piecing it together as to whether the book was reliable and authentic. Why can't the same standard of judgment be applied once again when the reliablilty of a book is brought into question in the present-day? I call for another Council of the Catholic Church to decide the matter. Do I hear a second?

[BCSpace]

Often in my discussions with evangelical Christians regarding the issue of salvation, they will turn to Ephesians 2:8-9 to demonstrate their belief that we are saved by grace alone, and not through any works on our part.

Yet there is no such concept in those verses. It simply says that grace is the operation that saves (LDS doctrine) and does saying anything negative about the rest of the biblical context about the requirement for works.

[Lightbearer]

Often in my discussions with evangelical Christians regarding the issue of salvation, they will turn to Ephesians 2:8-9 to demonstrate their belief that we are saved by grace alone, and not through any works on our part.

Fair enough, but before we start using proof-texts from Ephesians, should we not first pause to consider whether Paul actually wrote it in the first place?

It appears that the majority of New Testament scholars agree that Ephesians is a forgery; and that one of the primary reasons for this consensus is because of this very passage, which contradicts what Paul wrote in his other epistles.

The following comes from The New Testament--A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, by Bart D. Ehrman, (2000), p. 353.

What do you think?

Should we shelve Ephesians when attempting to get to the heart of the original, authentic gospel message?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Actually I believe that the book of Ephesians was written by Paul, however I also believe that it may also have been tampered with along with many other Bible passages that are hard to understand or seem to be in error:

(1 Nephi 13:24-29) "And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God. Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God. And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men. Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God. And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seestâ??because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of Godâ??because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them."

I think that is the true answer, and that is why these things seem contradictory or are just made to appear like they could have conflicting interpretations, Satan likes it that way so that people will stumble and harden their hearts against the truth. But that is also why the Lord restored the Gospel and revealed the Book of Mormon so we could learn the truth by the power of His Spirit not through contending over "proof texts" from the Bible.

[consiglieri]

Those with whom God and Jesus Christ make their abode are greater than the prophets.

It sounds suspiciously that you are advocating becoming a law unto yourself.

[consiglieri]

Yet there is no such concept in those verses. It simply says that grace is the operation that saves (LDS doctrine) and does saying anything negative about the rest of the biblical context about the requirement for works.

I hear what you are saying, and I understand that LDS have their own response to this passage, which is usually to advocate taking it in context with verse 10 immediately following.

Nevertheless, I think we should perhaps pay attention when a world reknowned New Testament scholar such as Bart Ehrman says that there is a problem with this passage in that it appears to contradict what Paul taught in other epistles universally accepted as authentic.

There is a shift in the definition of "works" in Ephesians. In other Pauline epistles, "works" is always used to denote "works of the Law of Moses," meaning circumsion and kosher food laws. In these other Pauline epistles, Paul is consistent in stressing the need for doing good works, or good deeds, which he sometimes calls the Law of God, or the Law of Christ, in order to distinguish it from the Law of Moses.

This very shift in definition found in Ephesians 2:8-9 is often relied upon by evangelical Christians to argue their theory of salvation by grace alone.

All I am saying is that, before we start arguing about the meaning of Ephesians (which is generally a fruitless exercise anyway), doesn't it make sense to establish its provenance first?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri