!
! ! ⁴ウ㏏㢇䠓䡽䠓⢿
ㄭᾏ䱯 1 䵏䢚ℕ虇⁴ウ㏏㢇㞾 ᶳᒴᑋ᎔Ꮫᙰᅗᑋἲᡷ⎯
ᾝᙜ፬ᛵὧ᥌䠓Ҹ╾㞾虇㢘」₌捜嬐䠓㐓㢻僉ⶠ┮㜖ᑋ᎔Ꮫᙰ ‛⳦Ҹ 1ʳ 桥䋅Ӂ」῝㏏㢘㐓㢻☛╳冐峾㢻虇抌㢘Ӄ⢷⁴ウ㏏ӄ憨」 ↚⳦虖│ℎ㸡㢘憨」↚⳦䠓㐓㢻虇΅㢘Ӄ厃⁴ウ㏏⁉ӄ䠓㮨槛ӂ虇 2ʳ ⃕㞾㢏╳冐䠓ᾘ₌㐓㢻ᾏ弆㕟K―㢘䠓⪥峘虇姷䫉┮ℕ䠓崏㜖 䊰 ᑋ᎔Ꮫᙰ ‛⳦Ҹ 3 憨仟履‵厖㢻㢇䠓⋶峘䢇䲵蘅㳳ⅰ䠓⋶ⵈᾜ ╜㞯ⴒ㞾仵Ⅼ儔㢍⢷⌅ᾼ⽴⃫ ጃᑧጴጊ虃ㄡ‛ⓐ 31虄䠓⁴ウ㏏㛨 㢒䠓蘅Ӂⅰᾙ㸡㢘㕟⎿㛅ⅰ⁉䜅ᾼ䠓↚⁉㎥儳仓虇㎥㛅ⅰ⁉㏏⢷⢿ 䠓䐈吁㎥⛞槛ӂ虖⚾ᾏ㕟⎿䠓↚⁉虃柳―Ⅼ儔虄ⷀ╹㢘㔷⦉╳虇Ⅼ
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1
HM Q (IHY V Z ‛⳦㸡㢘⢷⁴ウ㏏㢇㢏╳冐䠓⾛卧㜖㐓㢻虃ᾘᾥ亏䠓 46 ☛⡪ᾥ亏䠓
a,
B虄╙
⌅䠓捜嬐㐓㢻虃424 c 1739虄ᾼ⎉䖍虇‵ᾜ嬚㝋虃封㘡⎸䠓虄⾃嬎㻐虃╒ҿ凥䫭Ӏ85b虄 㕟⎿䠓㏚䯎⁴╙⅓⎸㧈虃╒ҿ凥䫭Ӏ395b虄㏏䚷䠓伢㜖Ҹ欻▘ⴘ虃╒ҿ凥䫭Ӏ345b-46a虄䯀 ⁴ウ㏏㢇䉉ҽ厃冐〤➘⁉䠓ⅰҾ虇䐈⢮叾虃╒ҿ凥䫭Ӏ505b虄☛虃㛧⎸⁉虄⁴㹤噽虃╒ҿ凥 䫭Ӏ190b虄䠓イ慿΅㸡㢘㞝䩉⢿イ䚷封‛⳦ҸSee TextC 532虖佷冔ⶖ‛⳦㛍⢷㝈㑻埮⋶虇 㐙ⴒ寤䉉 C 亩虇姷䫉佷⭣↠ㄗ桲㸉嬐㔴╦♹↚崏㜖䉉┮ℕ䠓虃14虄Ҹ 2
⓰㩽虈䯕䏍處ҽ⁴ウ㏏㢇Ҿ469-70ҸӁ⪩㜇╳㐓㢻ᾜ⒔㑻 “⢷⁴ウ㏏” 憨」↚⳦ӂ虃㜿㟽榐 戙寊虄憨╴尀厖ᾙ慿‚⏪⬌䢇╜虖Ӂ⪩㜇╳㐓㢻ӂ῝㞾ⶖ ‘The most ancient manuscripts’ 虃NLT margin虄尳孲虊尳崏䉉 ‘most ancient manuscripts’ 䠓仟㤫蘼
3
Schnackenburg 40 㒖⎉虇㧈㙩伢㜖无⎴ⴇ䠓㏏㢘┮⏖虇㎠↠ㅔ榗㐎尜 HM Q (IHY V Z ‛⳦㬄╾ 劌ᾜ㞾┮ℕ䠓Ҹ柳―ᾏ捜嬐䠓╳┆僉 HM Q (IHY V Z ‛⳦憨‚Ὶ⪥虇㢘㳳‛⳦䠓崏㜖㞾 桲⁴䖕孲䠓虇⡯憨‛⳦䠓⃜僽ⶖ㛅ⅰ⁉⎕䉉Ӂ⢷⁴ウ㏏䠓凥ㄡӂ☛Ӂ⢷⦉䣲凅䯛婰䠓ⅰㄡӂ ⋸䕼⁉虃䔚 2 ⷀ尜䉉虇ㄛᾏ䕼⁉Ӂᾜ㞾⢷⁴ウ㏏虇军㞾⎕㛲⢷▓⢿ӂ虄虖⏜ᾏ䕼⁉䠓㏏ ⢷⢿㞾⢿䖕ᾙ䠓 ᎔Ꮫᙰ虇ㄛᾏ䕼⁉䠓㏏⢷⢿┊㞾䫭ⴇㆶ䠓 ἲᡷ⎯虇憨䮽Ⓩ⎴΅㞾䊰䖕䠓虖 军ᾣ虇憨ⅰ῝ᾜ㞾捬㥟ᾏ㛨㢒䠓䐈⎴埤⨒军䠓虇军㞾ᾏⶐ㟽憩㢇ⅰ虃‘a general letter’虄虇 ⌅ ⋶ ⵈ 䠓 ㆶ 幹 ᾜ 䩉 ⎖ 虃 ‘non-specific’ 虄 Ҹ ⡯ 㳳 虇 ⊧ 䴰 ⪶ ⪩ 㜇 ╳ ┆ 㢘 Ӂ ⢷ ⁴ ウ ㏏ ӂ ‛ ⳦ 虃WRL D- J LY R L WRL RX? V LQ HM Q (IHY V Z NDL SLVWRL 虄 虇憨ᾜ⪶╾劌㞾┮ℕ䠓崏㜖ҸSo Best II 20, Best III 98; cf. Best, ‘Ephesians 1.1 Again’ 275. Cf. also Talbert 33, 34: 尹┮㜖‛⳦㞾ㄛℕᾙ 䠓虇㵣尹‛⳦㞾ㄛℕ䢐䛴䠓悒㞢孲捚Ҹ
!
!䏗㲙㏏㢘虉屚⒎冊⓿☛⪥≂
4
᎔Ꮫᙰᦀᷳ⛭虃┆ᾙ虄!
儔䀥∨㏢䠋⎿㛅ⅰ⁉戲婰虇ℎ↠╾⁴䥴懢䠓㟾㹐虃⋼ 21蚙 22虄Ҹ 4 ᾜ懝虇Ӂ䖍⳧㢏㝸䠓伢㜖㸡㢘Ӄ⢷⁴ウ㏏ӄ虇军憨㞾▵ⷀ㞾 ┮⭚伢㜖虇ⴇ冔厂⁙⁜䊰⌀峧Ҹ㢘杫⁴ウ㏏㢇ᾏ䱯 1 䵏䠓⛞槛厂⁙ ⁜䊰履ӂҸ 5ʳ
ȐҘ Aȑ⬌捚伢冔䢇ⅰ虇⁴ウ㏏㢇䩉㞾仵⁴ウ㏏㛨㢒䠓Ҹ 6
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4
O’Brien 85, citing Bruce II 250虃㳟䠌ㇸ 177-78虄Ҹ虃1虄⋚㑘⎸虃Kreitzer I 31 = Kreitzer II 9虄 㕟⎿Ӂ仵⁴ウ㏏ӂῚ尹䠓厃☌ダ灭蘅‘one major problem . . . which may be described as the proposal’s “Achilles’ heel”. This concerns the lack of details about the church which are to be found within the letter itself, something which is quite inexplicable given that the church at Ephesus was one which Paul himself had founded and one in which he was intimately involved for several years.’虃2虄Thielman 16 㐎尜虇㔴╦┮ℕ崏㜖㢘 ᑋ᎔Ꮫᙰ ‛⳦䠓㢏⪶栫䪨虇⢷㝋 ‘the assumption throughout the letter that Paul and his readers are not personally acquainted with each other.’ 尜䉉虃33虄Ⅼ儔ⅰ㟑⾁桱朚⁴ウ㏏ᾒ〃Ὶ虇㢮朢封埤䠓⦉䣲ㄡ儳汣虃‘Christian groups’虄弆―㏁␖ㆶ䠓崙⒥虇ᾜ劌⇖⁴⏜㏏尜峧䠓ⅰㄡ⁜⃞⢷封⥝虇㎥⁜䋅厖⦉䣲ㄡ懚 ⑤尜▛Ҹ虃3虄Klein虃Review of Thielman 856虄憨㮲㐈寤䑓䏍㢋䠓䢚㹤蘅‘Thielman gives no concrete answers as to why a letter to churches in a city in which Paul spent two to three years would be so impersonal. His only reply: “The answer lies in understanding the circumstances of Paul and the Ephesians at the time of the letter’s composition,” [16] which is hardly an explanation.’ ⋚⮐じ㞾▵ㆌ䛴―ᾙ慿 Thielman 33 䠓孲捚◱虚
5
M. W. Holmes,ҿ愼⌇Ӏ1335bҸ虃Ӂ⁜䊰⌀峧ӂ咀㜖┮⃫ ‘it is a matter of continuing debate’; Ӂ⁜䊰履ӂ┮⃫ ‘the last word . . . has not yet been spoken’ [DPL 932a]虄Ҹ桥䋅憨╴尀嬚㝋 1993 〃㏏䠋姷䠓㜖䱯虇⃕⢷‛ⓐ⪩〃ㄛ䠓⁙⪸⁜䋅懸䚷Ҹ」῝ⓙ↚ᾥ亏Ὶ⏜虇Buck虈Taylor 虃‘Ephesians’ 139虄㕟⎉↠㏏尜䉉㢏䶰✽☛㢏⬌䠓㝈㧗蘅┮㢻䠓⛞ⴘ⒔㑻㛅ⅰ⁉㏏⢷⢿䠓▜ ⳦虇⃕㞾 ‘the text had become corrupted and the name omitted, either deliberately or by accident, in the copy that came into the editor’s hands when the letters were collected and published.’
6
虃1虄寀♗㺪愾虇⪥峘☛⋶峘抌㚾㒐 HM Q (IHY V Z ‛⳦㞾┮ℕ䠓崏㜖虃Hoehner II 144-48; cf. 22, 78, 79, 140虄Ҹ㒖⎉虇㚾㒐䥼崏㜖䠓╳┆䠕ⷻ㴆⸀⪹伢㜖槭⤚虃‘the Alexandrian text type’虄虇⃕㚾㒐朆崏㜖䠓╳┆⏖姷㏏㢘䠓伢㜖槭⤚虃146; cf. Arnold III 27; Thielman 14, 36虄Ҹ虃2虄Heil虃 ‘Ephesians’ 121, with reference to Hoehner II 140虄▛㮲刁䯀虇‘the best available evidence supports their inclusion.’ Cf. Heil 7: ‘the primary destination and implied audience of the Letter are all of the various local churches within the great Asia Minor metropolis of Ephesus’; Barentsen, Leadership 145: ‘considering that even the Alexandrian text is divided in its witness, the textual evidence favors the words as original’; Towns, ‘Ephesians’ 181.虃3虄Cohick 10 尜䉉虇╳┆䠓峘㙩ᾜ㞾㸉ㆶ䠓Ҹ厂㝋⋶峘㝈棱虇桥䋅Ӂ悒桲㞝䠓崏㜖虃the more difficult reading虄ӂ憩⿇㍘娺嬥䉉┮ℕ䠓崏㜖虇⃕╵ᾏ嬞⏖懸䚷㝋憨婰蘅呴㤫㥟ᾏ崏㜖㞾䊰㊞儸䠓㎥ ⇞桱⃫冔䠓樷㧋虇ⷀ㍘㔰亜╵ᾏ崏㜖虃cf. Hoehner II 147, Hoehner III 16虄Ҹ⢷ウᾏ 1虇僉 HM Q (IHY V Z ‛⳦䠓崏㜖㞾╳ㆹ䠓虃⃫冔冊峾䉉 ‘to the saints, to those who are, and believers in Christ Jesus’虄虖Ⅼ儔憩⿇⢷ ‘to those who are’ Ὶㄛ㢒㒖㞝㏏⢷⢿虃╒蘅儔ᾏ 7虖㤦ㄛᾏ 1虖 Ҹ㛔㳳虇䥼崏㜖悒╾劌㞾㐓♰䂞㐓― HM Q (IHY V Z ‛⳦䠓仟㤫ҸCf. Cohick 39: ‘a solid 勢ᾏ 1虄 case can be made for their original inclusion.’ ╾㞾虇憨Ӂ䂞㐓ӂ㞾⬑⃤䠋䚮䠓◱虚⡯䉉ㄗ桲䢚 ⎉㐓♰㞾╦―㢻䵏ᾙ㜖䠓♹ᾏ↚㎥♹ᾏ⳦䠓榎军ᾜ㋝ⶖ‛⳦䢐䛴Ҹ虃4虄Black 㐎尜虇 ‘accidental omission is ruled out as a plausible explanation for the shorter reading’虃 ‘Peculiarities’ 67虄虖尜䉉┮ℕ䠓 HM Q (IHY V Z ‛⳦㞾ㄛℕ娺⏊㊞⎹╊䠓虇䉉嬐ⶖ仵㥟ᾏ䐈㛨㢒䠓ⅰ虇
!䏗㲙㏏㢘虉屚⒎冊⓿☛⪥≂
履 䲻 ⪈䵏 處⁴ ウ ㏏ 㢇䠓 䡽䠓 ⢿
!
5
唺捛㜾ⷀ尜䉉虇桥䋅㎠↠ᾜ㡘ㄦ䉉䚩灋Ӂ⁴ウ㏏ӂ憨⢿▜㸡㢘⢷ᾏ ╳┆ᾼ⎉䖍虇⃕戓㞾悒㔴╦⪩㜇╳┆䠓嬚峘虇ⶖ㳳ⅰ嬥䉉仵 ⁴ウ㏏䠓㛨㢒Ҹ 7 㦱⪶姪΅尜䉉虇ⅰᾙ桥䋅㢘ᾏ䐈吁虇⁉㎆䜠 㳳ⅰ㞾▵Ⅼ儔㏏虇⃕抌ᾜ彂⁴㔷冊㢘䠓伢㜖☛㴆▁峘㙩虇峘㞝 㳳ⅰ䠓䡽䠓⢿㞾⁴ウ㏏Ҹ8 ⓰㩽☛䯕䏍宝履懝Ӂ䡽䠓⢿ӂ䠓⛞槛ㄛ虇 憨㮲ᾚ仟履蘅Ӂ㎠↠ᾜ劌䩉䥴憨ⶐ㢇ⅰ䠓┮⎬⃫巰Ҹ⃕⪶捞䠓 㐓㢻峘㙩虇⁴╙⌅䢚㹤抌桲⁴㎟䱚虇⡯㳳╹劌比ℎ㎠↠䢇ⅰ虇ⴒ 㞾仵⁴ウ㏏㛨㢒Ҹ㎠↠呴䋅孉ㄦ虇ⅰᾼ僉῞Ⅼ儔䠓㾀㉔㻐棁虃无 㝋Ⅼ儔⢷⁴ウ㏏⃞―悒朆㟑朢虇㎠↠㢮㢪仵封㛨㢒䠓ⅰ虇㢒㢘㢃 㾀䠓㉔㊮姷懣虇΅㞾▗䖕䠓虄虇☛㸡㢘㕟╙ᾏ⌆汣㉔㹐虇㞾⁉ 幹䜠䠓Ὴ嬐䖕䛀虖戲灋虇㎠↠⪶╾⁴㊂≞ⴒ㞾ᾏⶐ≂杀䠓㢇ⅰҸ⃕ 䊰履㎠↠㔰亜♹↚䢚㹤虇抌㢒懖⎿ᾏ⡿桲Ҹӂ 9
ȐҘ Bȑ ╵ᾏ䮽䢚㹤㞾虇㳳ⅰ㞾仵⁴ウ㏏㛨㢒䠓虇⃕⌅䚷㊞ 㞾仵亿䢐₌䠓㏏㢘㎥㥟㛨㢒Ҹ㋤䏍尜䉉虇Ⅼ儔军宏虇⁴ウ ㏏姷ⴒ㏏ⷻ䠓䢐₌虖桥䋅ⅰ⎌䠓朚欥╹尹Ӂ仵⢷⁴ウ㏏䠓凥ㄡӂ虇 军㳳ⅰ‵娺䖕孲䉉⁴ウ㏏㛨㢒㏏㙐㢘虇⃕⁴ウ㏏㛨㢒㞾䉉嗦封䢐军 ╦宦㙐㢘ⴒ䠓Ҹ 10 寀♗㺪憨㮲愾峘蘅㔴╦Ӂ⢷⁴ウ㏏ӂ䉉┮ℕ崏㜖 ⁴㳳ⅰ䉉≂杀ⅰ⎌虇‛冔䊰姬䰐虇⡯䉉㳛儔嬎㢇桥䋅㞾仵㳛 儔嬎㛨㢒䠓虇Ⅼ儔䠓⡠☟┊㞾虇㳛儔嬎㢇☛ ᒘᙑ″ᛵᖻអᝂ 嬐″㕪 ℕⴲ崏虃嬎⡪ 16虄Ҹ㳳⪥虇⁴ウ㏏㞾Ⅼ儔⢷亿嬎扷⽴⃫䠓ᾼ ㅒ⢿灭虇封⢿Ⓩ䠓⌅㛨㢒ㄗ╾劌΅㞾䛀Ⅼ儔㎥⌅朏ㄡ㝋Ⅼ儔⢷⁴
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 崙㎟仵㏏㢘ⅰㄡ䠓ⅰ虃67-69, 73; cf. van Roon 81-82虄ҸArnold III 28 ΅尜䉉㳳‛⳦㞾娺⏊ ㊞⎹╊虇ⷀ≞㢘╳┆ⶖ儔ᾏ 7 䠓 ᑋ♉᪑ 虃HM Q - 5 ZY P K 虄 ‛⳦⎹╊ᾏ㮲虃╒ҿ儔Ӏ1.194-95虄Ҹ 䛀㝋⁴ウ㏏㢇䠓⋶ⵈ䐈⎴懸▗ひ⪶崏冔虃‘a broad readership’虄虇⡯㳳ㄗ╾劌㢘㐓♰㛔㊞䢐 䛴㳳‛⳦虇䉉ℎ憨ⶐⅰ╾⁴⢷╵ᾏ⢿灭虃ℚ⬑⥒╙虄仵ⴲ崏⎉ℕ虃Arnold II 305b虄Ҹ 7
Morris 12.
8
Black, ‘Peculiarities’ 73. Cf. Heil 6: ‘the preponderance of text-critical evidence, both external and internal, favors their [HM Q (IHY V Z ] retention as the original reading.’
9 10
⓰㩽虈䯕䏍處ҽ⁴ウ㏏㢇Ҿ471Ҹ Moule 28-29 (‘in trust for the Province’). Cf. Cozart 4: ‘Ephesus and perhaps other cities of Asia Minor.’
!
!䏗㲙㏏㢘虉屚⒎冊⓿☛⪥≂
6
᎔Ꮫᙰᦀᷳ⛭虃┆ᾙ虄!
ウ㏏朆㢮≂懢㟑㏏ら䱚䠓虇⡯㳳㢘䖕䛀尜䉉虇仵⁴ウ㏏㛨㢒䠓ⅰ ⎌‵㢒≂⎿封⢿Ⓩ䠓姪㞮㛨㢒Ҹ 11 柎岍ㅆ▛㮲尜䉉虇嬐孲㸉⁴ウ㏏ 㢇䡽䠓⢿䠓⛞槛虇㢏ⵈ㞢☛㢏⬌䠓㝈㹤㞾㔴╦Ӂ⢷⁴ウ㏏ӂ䉉┮ℕ 䠓崏㜖虇▛㟑㐎尜㳳ⅰ䠓巰⒔㑻ᾘ↚ⷳ㲰蘅⋗㞾⁴ウ㏏⥝⋶䠓▓ ↚⢿㝈㛨㢒虇䋅ㄛ㞾抿慠䠓折㣠㛨㢒虇12 㢏ㄛ╾劌㞾懯厂⬑⩺㵞㒎ҷ 丂⎸抌虇⁴╙Ӂⵕⴘㅆ☛⎸╳㜾㹂巆ӂ䳘⥝⾑䠓㛨㢒Ҹ 13
ȐΌȑ╗㢘捚伢冔尜䉉虇⁴ウ㏏㢇㞾仵冐〤➘㛨㢒䠓Ҹ14 䐈 亜尜䉉虇⁴ウ㏏㢇Ὴ嬐㞾仵冐〤➘㛨㢒䠓虇ㄛ冔嬐㐙㳳ⅰ☛㳛儔 嬎㢇ᾏ弆ⴲ崏虃嬎⡪ 16虄虖㳳ⅰ厖㳛儔嬎㢇㢘ᾏ⌀憩䠓Ὴ槛虇姷 㞝㳳ⅰ䠓䚷㞾榟柁㛨㢒╦⎿㳛儔嬎䠓⇖㛨儸㏏⅄ⵂ虃㳛儔嬎厖冐 〤➘䢇彬≔ᾏ⪸䠓彾䮚虄Ҹ 15 ΅寀冐〤➘㞾≂憐㳳ⅰ䠓䲻ᾏ䱨虇军 ⁴ウ㏏⏖㞾⋻朚ⴲ崏㳳ⅰ䠓㢺䱨虖憨㎥寀ⷀ㞾⁙⪸㎠↠䯀㳳ⅰ䉉 Ӂ⁴ウ㏏㢇ӂ䠓┮⡯Ҹ 16 ⃕憨䢚㹤虃Ῠ虄イ弆―ᾏ↚⛞槛蘅Ⅼ儔
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 11
Hoehner II 141. Cohick虃11-12, 40虄Ո尜䉉虇Ⅼ儔㢒㐙⁴ウ㏏◷戙⾑攽䠓⦉䣲ㄡ⒔㑻⢷⁴ウ㏏㢇 䠓㛅ⅰ⁉Ὶ⋶虖桥䋅⁴ウ㏏㢇㞾仵⁴ウ㏏㛨㢒䠓虇⃕㞾无㝋Ⅼ儔炢⒄㳛儔嬎⁉彮冐〤➘⁉⎕ ›㳛儔嬎㢇虃嬎⡪ 16虄虇⿅ⅰ⁉㔷⦉╳虃ウ⋼ 21虄ㄭ⁴ウ㏏⏜ㄏ㳛儔嬎憣ᾼ虇■⁴ウ㏏◷⢜䠓 姪㞮⦉䣲ㄡ儳汣虃‘satellite Christian communities’虄ⴲ崏⁴ウ㏏㢇虇㞾ⴛ⋷╾劌䠓‚虃cf. 33虄Ҹ
12
柎岍ㅆ尜䉉虇Ⅼ儔⢷⁴ウ㏏≂懢㢘⋸〃ⓙῚ虇ᾙ䜅㟑⁴ウ㏏䠓⁉╲╾劌⁚῝‛ⓐ喻⎿⡪ ⓐ喻Ὶ朢虇⡯㳳⁴ウ㏏╾劌㢘ᾜ㳱ᾏ㏏㛨㢒虃Arnold I 164-65θArnold II 301a ࡉ Arnold III 69a ⶖ䜅㟑䠓⁉╲㛅䰓䉉亓 25 喻ӊ虄虖ㄗ╾劌㵞↚Ὴ㝴虇⢷⁴ウ㏏⥝⋶䠓ᾜ▛⢿Ⓩ╙䜅⢿ 䠓折㣠虇抌㢘㎟儳䠓ⅰㄡ⢷ᾜ▛䠓ⵅ〼ᾼ凩㢒虃Arnold II 302b虄Ҹ
13
Arnold III 29.虃 イ╴咀㜖┮⃫ ‘the Meander and Lycus valleys’.虄Cf. Arnold III 69a: ‘the letter is probably intended for dozens of house churches throughout the city of Ephesus and in many nearby villages and cities.’
14
E.g., Goulder, ‘Visionaries’ 15-16; Moritz 5-6; van Kooten 195-201. Cf. OrthodoxSB 1597: ‘It is possible Ephesians is the “letter to the Laodiceans” mentioned in Colossians 4:16.’ ‵╒ҿ嬎ʬ朏Ӏ 767 寊 20 Ὶ虃2虄Ҹ
15
Turner, ‘Letter to the Ephesians’ 272b; ‘Spiritual Gifts’ 197 n.31虃‘a copy of the letter, addressed to the Ephesian churches, was left there by Tychicus’; ㊞│㔷⦉╳ⶖ憨ⶐ┮㞾仵冐〤➘㛨㢒 䠓ⅰ㐓―ᾏ↚⏾㢻虇ᾙ⁴ウ㏏㛨㢒䠓▜⳦虇䋅ㄛ䛨ᾚℕ仵⁴ウ㏏㛨㢒虄 ҸCf. idem, ‘Ephesians’ 190 with n.11.
16
Bevere, ‘Cheirograph’ 206.ʳ ◷凾啾ʳ 207 刁䯀蘅ӁⅬ儔㏏尹䠓冐〤➘䠓ⅰӉ嬎⡪ 16ӊ槾䋅ⷀ 㞾⁴ウ㏏㢇虇⡯䉉冐〤➘☛㳛儔嬎彬桱慠虇亱ㆶⷀ㐙憨≂杀䠓ⅰ╺冐〤➘㢇―Ҹӂ◷㶞 ᾜ㞾尜䉉虇⁴ウ㏏㢇䠓䡽䠓⢿ⷀ㞾冐〤➘虖╹㞾⁴冐〤➘䉉Ӂ憨≂杀䠓ⅰӂ≂憐ᾼ䠓ᾏ䱨Ҹ 尹蘅Ӂ⁴ウ㏏㢇┮⋗䉉Ӄ≂杀ӄ䠓㢇ⅰʫʫ⡯㳳虇Ⅼ儔㛔㊞ᾜ㛅ⅰ⁉䠓⢿⣏Ҹ䜅憨ⅰ⢷ 㥟ᾏ↚⥝⾑杀崏䠓㟑↨虇崏ⅰ⁉╾⁴㐙㢻⥝䠓▜⳦崏懁╊Ҹㄛℕ⡯䉉憨ⶐⅰᾼ㏏⎦䠓Ⅼ儔䠓 䫭ⴇㆬ㊂䐈⎴汧弔虇寀⪩㛨㢒抌㐓ᾏ₌䛨⢷卹⾀䠓㛨㢒ᾼҸ欻▘ⴘ㏏岑䠓冐〤➘㢇虇ⷀ㞾
!䏗㲙㏏㢘虉屚⒎冊⓿☛⪥≂
履 䲻 ⪈䵏 處⁴ ウ ㏏ 㢇䠓 䡽䠓 ⢿
!
7
―ᾏⶐⅰ仵冐〤➘⁉虃虘⁴ウ㏏㢇虄虇╗―ᾏⶐⅰ仵㳛儔嬎⁉ 虃虘㳛儔嬎㢇虄虇⃕㞾冐〤➘⁉䠓⛞ⴘ㸡㢘⢷仵↠䠓ⅰᾙ ⎉䖍虇╜军⢷㳛儔嬎㢇虃嬎⡪ 15虄⎉䖍Ҹ 17 㢃捜嬐䠓╜䖕䛀㞾虇 䊰₊⃤╳┆⁴Ӂ冐〤➘ӂ㢎Ӂ⁴ウ㏏ӂҸ 18
ȐЧȑ⋚㑘⎸尜䉉虇⁴ウ㏏㢇㞾仵⾛㑘㹱䱚㛨㢒䠓Ҹ19 㳳㛨 㢒㞾㳛儔嬎㛨㢒䠓⎕㚾虇军⁴ウ㏏㢇䠓⃫冔㞾㳛儔嬎㵜㢒䠓㢒╚虇 ⾛㑘㹱䱚憨》ⱸ䠓㛨㢒䐈⎴㊮⎿厗弲虇⡯军ⅰ仵↠虇㒖䫉 ↠⬑⃤⢷崙⒥ᾼ䠓䫍㢒懝⦉䣲ㄡ䠓䚮㻊Ҹ 20 ⃫冔㐎尜虇䠓ら峿 ╹㞾⦉㝋ㄗⶠ䠓ҷᾣ㞾桀㟵䠓伢㜖虃⡪ 9蚙10 䠓Ӂⓖᾙӂ☛Ӂ柜ᾚӂ虄虇 ⡯军╹㞾单㾻军⾁Ҹ 21
Ȑȑ⪶⪩㜇捚伢冔尜䉉虇⁴ウ㏏㢇㞾ᾏⶐ㟽憩㢇ⅰ虖22 䛀㝋
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ⢷冐〤➘㏏崏⎿䠓憨ⶐⅰ虖军㛅桕⢷㜿亓㳲⌇ᾼ䠓㞾⁴ウ㏏䠓㛨㢒㏏㐓䠓Ҹӂ⃕㞾㒘 Best III 100 䠓䖕孲虇‘Marcion either inserted [the word] Laodicea or found it in the manuscript he used.’ 17
Van Roon 72. 嬎⡪ 15 䠓 ᫆ᣦ 虃DM V SDY ] RPDL虄ᾏ⳦㸡㢘⢷⁴ウ㏏㢇⎉䖍Ҹ
18
╒ҿ嬎ʬ朏Ӏ767 寊 20 Ὶ虃2虄虃ii虄Ҹ
19
Kreitzer II vii:
‘This book . . . contends that the letter was originally intended for the Christian
church in the city of Hierapolis in the Lycus valley.’ 専嬚 Kreitzer I 31-48 = Kreitzer II 9-25 虃which has a final additional paragraph on 25虄虖⋸埤䠓㮨槛䠕䉉 ‘Provenance’虃 弆䀟ҷ⎉埤虄虇 ⃕㏏宝履䠓㞾䡽䠓⢿虃destination虄䠓⛞槛Ҹ 20
Kreitzer I 48 = Kreitzer II 25; Kreitzer II vii.
21
Kreitzer I 37 = II 16: ‘the suggestion, based as it is on these few tantalizingly obscure references, . . . must remain speculative’. ╒⡪ 9蚙10 寊捚寊 49 Ὶ虃3A虄虃3B虄= ᾚ棱 566Ҹ ⃫冔㢃⪩䠓单㾻嬚蘅ʳ ᾏ 13 寊捚寊 6 Ὶ虃2虄= ᾚ棱 189虖
‛ 3 寊捚寊 11虃ᾚ棱 278虄虖
‛ 14 寊捚寊 15 Ὶ虃3虄= ᾚ棱 339虖
‛ 22 寊捚寊 6 Ὶ虃2虄= ᾚ棱 394虖
ᾘ 8 寊捚寊 5 Ὶ虃6虄= ᾚ棱 435虖
ᾘ 15 寊捚寊 6 Ὶ虃2虄= ᾚ棱 469虖
⡪ 11 寊捚寊 17虃ᾚ棱 575虄虖
⡪ 25 寊捚寊 6 Ὶ虃3虄= ᾚ棱 666虖
‣ 4 寊捚寊 8 Ὶ虃2虄= ᾚ棱 719Ҹ 22
Cf. Cadbury, ‘Dilemma’ 94: ‘the letter once began, whoever wrote it, without any geographical notation in either text or title, like Hebrews, Jude and Second Peter’; Perkins I 17 = II 353: ‘the epistle appears to be addressed to Christian churches in general, not to a particular situation.’ Talbert 34 㒖⎉虇仵⪩↚㛨㢒䠓憩⎌㞾 ‘an early Christian phenomenon’虃ℚ蘅ㄡⓐ‣ 23虖 桔ᾏ 1虖ㄋ⏜ᾏ 1蚙2虖⛮ᾏ 4虄Ҹ ᾜ▛䠓䯀岑⒔㑻虃i虄‘a catholic epistle’虃Sampley I 13 n.3虄虇虃ii虄‘a general letter’虃Snodgrass 21; Best II 139虄虇虃iii虄‘a general epistle’虃Sampley I 13; O’Brien 86虄虇虃iv虄‘a circular’ 虃Schnackenburg 29虄虇虃v虄‘a circular document’虃Witherington 219虄虇虃vi虄‘a circular letter’ 虃Martin II 127b, Martin III 5; Snodgrass 21; Trites, ‘Ephesians’ 44b; Longenecker, ‘Paul’ 90; O’Brien 183Ӊ㳟䠌ㇸ 331蘅Ӂ⽰憃≂杀䠓㢇ⅰӂӊ虖Mouton 109; Viola, Story 151; Asumang,
!
!䏗㲙㏏㢘虉屚⒎冊⓿☛⪥≂
8
᎔Ꮫᙰᦀᷳ⛭虃┆ᾙ虄!
ⴒ☛㳛儔嬎㢇䠓凾俺虃⋼ 21蚙22虖嬎⡪ 7蚙8虄虇ⴒ娺尜䉉㞾仵 亿⦉䣲ㄡ䠓≂杀㢇ⅰҸ 23 ⢷憨⪶⏜㕟ᾚ虇Ȑ Aȑ㢘尜䉉⌅ Ὴ嬐 24 ㎥㢏⋗ 25 䠓㛅ⅰ⁉ⷀ㞾⁴ウ㏏㛨㢒Ҹ 26 柎岍ㅆ尜䉉虇㳳ⅰ ㄗ╾劌㞾≂杀䠓ⅰ⎌虇│⌅巰Ὴ嬐㞾⢷⁴ウ㏏╙⌅抿慠⢿Ⓩ虇䚩 厂懯厂亿嬎扷䠓㛨㢒Ҹ 27 ⓰㩽㢍尜䉉虇㳳ⅰ㞾仵亿 ⋷⢿䠓ⅰㄡ䠓虇ㄭ⁴ウ㏏䢃⎿⎸╳㜾㹂巆䠓ᾙ䱾虃│⛮䫉撓䲻‛厂 ᾘ䱯戲Ӂᾒ㛨㢒ӂ㏏㽄噚䠓䵓⢜虄虖军㳳ⅰ⌅ㄛ娺䯀䉉⁴ウ㏏㢇虇 ⷀ㞾䛀㝋戲ⶐ仵䛨⢷欥䱨⁴ウ㏏䠓ⅰᾙ染㢘Ӂ⢷⁴ウ㏏ӂ‛⳦Ҹ 28 Ȑ Bȑ╵㢘尜䉉虇憨≂杀ⅰ⎌䠓䡽䠓⢿⒔㑻⁴ウ㏏Ҹ 29 ⵛ⋚㜾尜
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ‘Vehicles’ 3 n.5; Tellbe 54, 135 n.303; Johnson, ‘Ephesians’ 359b; Verhey虈Harvard 25; Gray, Guide 57, 104; Hagner, ‘Ephesians’ 586虄 虇 虃vii虄‘a circular missive’虃 Carson, Call 229 last n.; Tapp, ‘Ephesians’ 670a虄 虇 虃viii虄‘a circular letter-treatise’虃 Hagner, ‘Ephesians’ 589虄 虇 虃ix虄‘an encyclical’ 虃Arnold I 6; Yorke, ‘Ephesians’ 102; Mouton 86; Asumang, ‘Powers’ 2 n.4虄虇虃x虄‘en encyclical document’虃R. Martin, ‘Reconciliation’ 204虄虇虃xi虄‘an encyclical letter’虃Schreiner, Interpreting 53; Hagner, ‘Ephesians’ 601虄虇虃xii虄‘a homiletical encyclical of sorts’虃Witherington 219虄虇 虃xiii虄‘a pastoral encyclical’虃Trites, ‘Ephesians’ 44b虄Ҹ 23
R. Martin, ‘Reconciliation’ 204; Trites, ‘Ephesians’ 44b: ‘a circular letter, a pastoral encyclical sent by Paul to the Gentile churches in the Roman province of Asia’; Best II 139, 157, 190; Best IV xxv; Matera, ‘Mystery’ 147; Mouton 86, 109; Fee, Christology 339-40; Tellbe 54; Hagner, ‘Ephesians’ 601; J. Smith 9, 14; Gray, Guide 57, 104. Best III 6 尜䉉虇‘One minor feature in Ephesians may support Asia Minor as its provenance [sic]; it is the only area where PHVRY W RLFRQ has been found as an architectural term’. ╒‛ 14 寊捚寊 27 Ὶ虃6虄= ᾚ棱 344Ҹ
24
Hoehner I 613b: ‘the epistle may . . . be considered a circular letter, with Ephesus being the primary church addressed since Paul had stayed there so long and since it was the capital city of the province of Asia.’ 桥 䋅 㳳 ⅰ 㞾 仵 封 Ⓩ 䠓 寀 ⪩ 㛨 㢒 虇 ⃕ ‘congregations in the city of Ephesus would still have been the center of activity and hence the letter was addressed to Ephesus’虃Hoehner III 16虄ҸCf. Liefeld 20: ‘the letter was written to Ephesus and other churches in Asia Minor’; deSilva, ‘Ephesus’ 721b-22a: ‘the letter was at least intended for Ephesus and, if circular, for churches in and around Ephesus’; Keener, ‘Temple’ 78: ‘Ephesians circulated in Roman Asia beyond Ephesus, but that was probably the center of his audience.’
25 26
Arnold I 6, 38. ╒㢍ㆬ䆩 19蘅Ӂ⁴ウ㏏㢇ʫʫ䠓欥㐈刌䣍ⷀ㞾⁴ウ㏏ⅰㄡҸӂ Peterman 1845a-b: ‘it is probably best to view Ephesians as a letter intended for all Christians in Asia Minor, with Ephesus being the primary or first recipient.’
27
虃= idem, ‘Introducing Ephesians’ 8a-9b虄Ҹ Arnold, ‘Ephesians’ 243b-45a (§5)虃ҿ愼⌇Ӏ358b-60b虄 Cf. Schreiner, Interpreting 53:Ӂ⁴ウ㏏㢇┮㞾ᾏⶐ≂杀㢇ⅰ虇憐仵亿呴、朢㛨㢒≂杀虇 军⁴ウ㏏㛨㢒㞾⌅ᾼ㢏捜嬐䠓ᾏ朢㛨㢒ӂ虃㝌広亜處ҿ寽捚Ӏ56虄Ҹ
28
Carson, Call 229 last n.虃 㳳尹⇖㔷⦉╳⿅嗦⁴ウ㏏㢇⪩₌⏾㢻虖╒ᾚ棱寊 30ӉHoehnerӊ虄Ҹ
29
E.g., Robinson, Redating 64: ‘the inclusion of that church in the general circulation is difficult to
╒悒寊 9 ㏏ⷻ㳲㜖虃ᾙ棱 5虄Ҹ deny’; Marshall 1386a: ‘the letter may have been intended for a group of churches including
!䏗㲙㏏㢘虉屚⒎冊⓿☛⪥≂
履 䲻 ⪈䵏 處⁴ ウ ㏏ 㢇䠓 䡽䠓 ⢿
!
9
䉉虇㳳ⅰ呴╹㢘ᾏ₌虇⿅ⅰ⁉㵞⎿ᾏ埤ⅎ⢷ⴲ崏㟑⋴䜅⢿䠓▜⳦虖 㳳ⅰ呴㢘⬌」₌虇ⷀ㞾ᾙ―ᾜ▛䠓⢿⣏Ҹ30 欻櫡⪺㒐槭䠓䢚㹤蘅 嬐灋ⷀ㞾⿅ⅰ⁉ⶖ㳳ⅰㄭᾏ⢿⿅⎿╵ᾏ⢿虇ᾜ䋅ⷀ㞾⃫冔⢷㛅ⅰ⁉ Ὶ埤䛨䠌虇* 崢⿅ⅰ⁉⢷惘″ⅰ₅㟑⧺ᾙ封㛨㢒䠓▜⳦Ҹ 31 㳟㑫ㇸ 䠓仟履㞾虇⁴ウ㏏㢇㞾仵亿嬎ⓦ扷Ὴ嬐䉉⪥戵⁉䠓ⅰㄡ 䠓虇ⴒㄗ㝸ⅎ☛⁴ウ㏏憲仟弆ℕ虇΅寀㞾䛀㝋⁴ウ㏏㛨㢒⌆㎿䛴⢿ ⃜虇㎥㞾䛀㝋㳳ⅰ䠓䡽䠓⢿⒔㑻⁴ウ㏏Ҹ32Ȑ Cȑ㢘尜䉉憨≂杀ⅰ ⎌㞾憐⎿⎸╳㜾㹂巆⋶䠓冐〤➘ҷ⾛㑘㹱䱚☛㳛儔嬎㛨㢒䠓Ҹ33Ȑ Dȑ㜾岍ㅆ尜䉉⪶╾⁴⇖虇㳳ⅰ㞾仵亿嬎ⓦ扷䠓⪥戵ⅰㄡ 䠓虖⌅ㄛ崙㎟⁴ウ㏏㢇虇⡯⁴ウ㏏㞾儔欻☛ⴘ㕟柎Ὶ朢㢏捜嬐䠓⥝ ⾑Ҹ34Ȑ Eȑ㳳ⅰ㢏⎬㞾䉉亿䠓㛨㢒军䠓虇⃫⃕冔䠓䚷㊞ 㞾嬐ⴒ⢷封⢿Ⓩ⁴⪥≂杀Ҹ 35ʳ
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ephesus’虃⃕嬚ᾚ棱寊 38虄虖Asumang, ‘Powers’ 2 n.4, ‘Vehicles’ 3 n.5; Fowl 30: ‘intended . . . to be read widely in the various congregations in and around Ephesus’; Hagner, ‘Ephesians’ 586: ‘Originally a circular letter to churches in Asia Minor, including Ephesus, the main church of the region’; Wendland, ‘Ephesians’ 199 n.1. Wright 4-5 ῝ ΅ 㞾 憨 ↚ 孏 灭 蘅 ‘this letter was originally intended as a circular to various churches in the Ephesus area. . . . If we suppose that he intended the letter to go to several young churches within a hundred miles or so of Ephesus, we shan’t go far wrong.’ 30
Foulkes, ‘Ephesians’ 459c-60a.虃1虄杫㝋⏜ᾏ↚╾劌虇Gundry 757a ΅尜䉉虇‘the geographical location of the saints was to be filled in by the reader in accordance with the city where they were living.’虃 2虄杫㝋ㄛᾏ↚╾劌虇Hoehner II 79 㒖⎉虇‘the cost of making several copies of the same letter would have been prohibitive and the transporting of them by Tychicus would have been difficult.’
31
Martin II 127b, Martin III 5-6 (cf. Martin I 1105a-b). *欻㶞䠓岪㹤㞾 ‘the author left a blank
32
O’Brien 86-87虃= 㳟䠌ㇸ 180虄虖cf. O’Brien 47-49虃㳟䠌ㇸ 119-122虄ҸCf. also Brannon 8:
space in the superscription’. ‘Ephesians was addressed to a group of churches in Asia Minor, perhaps the churches along the road from Ephesus to Colossae.’ 33
Yorke, ‘Ephesians’ 102. Cf. Viola, Story 151: ‘A circuit letter to the churches in Asia Minor, particularly those in the Lycus Valley (which are about 4 years old).’ Bruce II 230-31 尜䉉虇⁴ ウ㏏㢇╾劌㞾憐″厖㳛儔嬎▛ⷻᾏ⢿⥮⋶䠓⌅㛨㢒䠓虇⒔㑻⾛㑘㹱䱚☛冐〤➘Ҹ
34
Snodgrass 21虃㜾岍ㅆ 16虄ҸCf. Meeks – Fitzgerald, ‘Ephesians’ 114: ‘The letter . . . was most likely sent to several churches in the southwestern part of the Roman province Asia (the westernmost region of modern Turkey)’, ⃕Ӂ⢷⁴ウ㏏ӂ‛⳦⬑⃤懁⎿伢㜖婰⏖ ‘remains a mystery’.
35
!
Rüdiger, ‘Ephesians, Part 1’ 14b.
!䏗㲙㏏㢘虉屚⒎冊⓿☛⪥≂
10
᎔Ꮫᙰᦀᷳ⛭虃┆ᾙ虄!
䋅军虇呴ᾏ䱯 1 䵏┮ℕ䠓崏㜖䊰Ӂ⢷⁴ウ㏏ӂ‛⳦虇㳳‛⳦ 㞾㆝㮲廿懁ᾏ╳┆㎟䉉㢏㟽懜䠓崏㜖◱虚 36 帬㜾䐈⎦⎉‣↚ ╾劌虇⃕尜䉉㸡㢘ᾏ↚⁉㊮⎿䂎㊞Ҹ Ȑȑ 㳳ⅰ㎟ㄛ虇ⷀ娺 憐⎿⁴ウ㏏媖媌☛⎕䠋虇䋅ㄛ㳳ⅰⅎ厖⁴ウ㏏䠓▜⳦憲俺弆ℕҸ
ȐΒȑ⁴ウ㏏㞾亿䢐₌㢏捜嬐䠓⥝⾑虇⃕䊰仵ⴒ虃䠓㛨㢒虄 䠓ⅰ⎌虇⡯军娺戇䉉憨䊰▜ⅰ⎌䠓䡽䠓⢿ҸȐΟȑ㳳ⅰ㝋⁴ウ㏏虇 ㄭ⁴ウ㏏⎕䠋虇⡯军娺䯀䉉⁴ウ㏏㢇Ҹ ȐѤȑ 㛧⎸ⴘ㕟柎䠓Ὴ 㛨ₙ㧋㒎ᾮ㢍―ᾏⶐⅰ仵⁴ウ㏏㛨㢒虇⌅ᾼ㢘☛⁴ウ㏏㢇䢇Ὶ 埤虖 37 ㅔ㢍ℎ䚷⁴ウ㏏㢇虇⡯军⁴ウ㏏㢇ㅔ㢍娺憐⎿⁴ウ㏏Ҹ
Ȑϖȑ Ⅼ儔㢍―ᾏⶐⅰ仵⁴ウ㏏虇⃕㳳ⅰ⫀╊―虖㸡㢘⢿▜䠓 ⁴ウ㏏㢇ⷀ娺⇖䉉戲戉⫀―䠓⁴ウ㏏㢇Ҹ 38 ╵ᾏら峿⒔㑻蘅
ȐϤȑ ᾜ履㳳ⅰ㻐≂㝋⌅♹⥝⾑虇ⴒ㢏ㄛℕ⎿⁴ウ㏏虇⡯军仵 染ᾙ憨↚▜⳦Ҹ 39ȐΎȑ 㔷⦉╳ㄛℕ⎿―⁴ウ㏏虃㕟ㄛ⡪ 12虄虇ㄗ ╾劌㳳ⅰ䠓ᾏ₌⏾㢻‵⎿―戲婰Ҹ䜅Ⅼ儔䠓㢇ⅰ娺㛅桕㎟⌙㟑虇㳳 ⅰⷀ䛀⁴ウ㏏㛨㢒㏏㕟K虇⡯军厖⁴ウ㏏䠓▜⳦憲俺弆ℕҸ 40 仟㣮㢻䵏䠓伫孌虇䳕冔尜䉉虇⋚㑘⎸㏏㕟⎿Ӂ仵⁴ウ㏏ӂῚ尹 䠓厃☌ダ灭虇41 桥䋅懸䚷㝋虃䛁 A虄虃䛁 B虄⋸槭䢚㹤虇⃕ᾜㅔ▛㟑
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 36
Caird 9-10 尜䉉虇≂伀䠓㮨槛虃‘to the Ephesians’虄ㄗ╾劌╹㞾ᾜ㐈⎳䠓单㾻虇㞾㐙⋼ 21 蚙22 ☛㕟ㄛ⡪ 12虃 ᔾ᥅᠘ድᭆᎶᗭ᎔ᏛᙰᎴ 虄▗℄弆ℕ䠓仟㤫Ҹ╒ᾚ棱寊 38 Ὶ [4]Ҹ
37 38
専嬚ʳ Best III 15-16 (§2.4.3.2). Best III 100, 111. Cf. Best I 14; Best II 7-8. Cf. also Marshall, ‘Ephesians’ 173a: ‘How did the name of Ephesus get attached to it? We cannot be sure. If it was intended for several congregations, [1] a copy may have been sent to Ephesus or [2] otherwise have come into the possession of the church. [3] Or at a later date it was assumed that Paul must have sent a letter to such a major congregation as the one at Ephesus and that this was it. [4] It would certainly have been possible for somebody to relate Eph. 6:21f. to 2 Tim. 4:12 and draw an obvious conclusion.’ 䲻 [3] 灭│㳲㜖Ὶ虃‣虄Ҹ
39
Witherington 3. Cf. already Fee, Presence 659 n.2 [continued]: ‘a strong “Ephesian” tradition (perhaps the letter ended up in the capital?) caused the designation to be added at a later time.’
40
Verhey虈Harvard 26.
41
嬚寊 4 Ὶ虃1虄虃= ᾙ棱 4虄Ҹ
!䏗㲙㏏㢘虉屚⒎冊⓿☛⪥≂
履 䲻 ⪈䵏 處⁴ ウ ㏏ 㢇䠓 䡽䠓 ⢿
!
11
懸䚷㝋Ӂ䡽䠓⢿⒔㑻⁴ウ㏏⢷⋶ӂ䠓戲䢚㹤 =虃ᾐ A虄虃ᾐ B虄Ҹ42 䳕冔▛㊞⋚⮐じ䠓䢚㹤蘅≂杀ⅰ⎌䠓䖕履㵣₊⃤⌅䠓䖕履㢃䱨ㄦ ⃞匂Ҹ 43 㳳ⅰ䠓ᾏ₌㐓㢻虇䚩㎥㞾Ⅼ儔䠓┮䯎虇㢏ㄛ嗌⢷亿 ⢿Ⓩ䠓Ὴ嬐⥝⾑⁴ウ㏏虇军㳳ⅰⅎ娺尜䉉㞾仵⁴ウ㏏䠓ⅰҸ⢷㜖 䯎㐓≂䠓懝䮚ᾼ虇Ӂ⢷⁴ウ㏏ӂ憨⋸↚⾛卧⳦娺⋴―憨㐓㢻虇 㢘⌅㐓㢻䀟卹憨㐓㢻虃⡯军‵►㢘憨⋸↚⾛卧⳦虄Ҹ䊰履⬑⃤虇 㝆㛅ⅰ⁉䠓䀥䩉⃜僽㝋孲捚㳳ⅰ㢻怺ᾜⓐ⎕捜嬐Ҹ 44 ⃫冔㛅ⅰ⁉㞝䩉姷䫉虇 ᓇᣞᬙ៎ᒞ➳ᗔⅉ៦Ꮚ᭠ዷ 虃‛ 11虄虇╗䢃䯀↠䉉 ᓇᣞᏊ᭠ዷ 虃ᾘ 1虄Ҹ岪慿卹⾀䠓ℎㄡ分‚ 㟑虇‵㕟⎿ ѦΓ 䉉⌅巰虃ᾘ 8虄虇军㏏≂岪䠓⫶䫤虇΅㞾杫 ῝ Ꮚ᭠ዷ ╾⁴ ᑋἲᡷ⎯ᾝᅗ►ᷕ⃡ᣇ 厖䓅⪹⦉䣲ㄡ ᐹᓆឹṷᅗ
ᐹᠥዯ➳ᅗᐹ™⑬᰾虃ᾘ 6虄Ҹ╗⒇↠虇Չ٣ࣁΓǴόाӆ ႽѦٖΓ虃⡪ 17虇☛ⅽ虄Ҹ憨ᾏ⎖抌㕟䫉虇㛅ⅰ⁉Ὴ嬐䉉⪥戵ⅰㄡҸ 厖㳳▛㟑虇⃫冔榗䐈⎴㕟⎉⢷⪥戵ⅰㄡ尹尀虃‛ 11虇ᾘ 1虄虇 姷䫉↠䜅ᾼㄗ╾劌‵㢘扷⎕䠓䓅⪹⦉䣲ㄡҸ 45
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 42
Klein 26 㒖⎉虇Ӂ⬑㤫憨㞾仵ᾏ↚⢿Ⓩ⋶䣍㛨㢒≂杀䠓㢇ⅰ虇㎠↠ᾜ榟㢮╹㢒⌅ᾼᾏ
43
憲㜾⦉╜≂杀ⅰ⎌Ὶ尹虇㚾㒐仵⁴ウ㏏Ὶ尹虇䖕䛀⬑ᾚ蘅Ⅼ儔㜿慠㏜―ᾏⶐⅰ仵冐
朢㛨㢒䠓㎟♰⪩⪩⛞ⴘҸӂ 〤➘㛨㢒虃嬎⡪ 16蘅 ᒘᙑ″ᛵᖻអᝂ 虄虖䖍⢷虇㳛儔嬎㛨㢒ⶖ㛅⎿㳛儔嬎㢇虇⌅䠓虃⁴ ウ㏏⁴⪥䠓虄㛨㢒⏖㢒㛅⎿⁴ウ㏏㢇虖╹㢘⁴ウ㏏㛨㢒ᾜ㢒㛅⎿Ⅼ儔䠓ⅰ虇憨㞾ㄗᾜ╾劌䠓虇 ⶳ⌅⡯䉉㔷⦉╳憣伢⁴ウ㏏虇军ᾣⅬ儔㸡㢘嬚⁴ウ㏏䠓ⅰㄡ⾁㢘‣〃Ὶ虃Lenski 335虄Ҹ 憨䖕履⇖虇Ⅼ儔ᾏ―ᾏⶐⅰ仵⁴ウ㏏㛨㢒虇ᾣ㳳ⅰ㞾⢷䖍⳧䠓Ⅼ儔㢇ⅰ䜅ᾼҸ䋅军 │ℎ⇖⏜ᾏ灭䉉ⓐ⎕╾劌虇ㄛᾏ灭΅㞾ᾜ䩉䠓虖ᒘᙑ″ᛵᖻអᝂ ῝ⷀ⾁伢⫀≂―虃╒ ҿ嬎Θ朏Ӏ767-68ʳ 寊 20 ῚӉ4ӊ虄Ҹ╵⪥虇㒘≂杀㢇ⅰῚ尹虇⁴ウ㏏㢇䠓䡽䠓⢿╾劌⒔㑻 ⁴ウ㏏虇憨ⷀ䂎彂―憲㜾⦉䠓⋸灭⇖宼Ҹʳ 44
Klein 35. Cf. Still, ‘Ephesians’ 242: ‘Ephesians was written as a circular letter (an encyclical) for believers in western Asia Minor, and over time, it became associated with Ephesus’; Best III 6: ‘Little difference in fact would be made to the interpretation if it had been written to some other area [than Asia Minor, as proposed by Best].’
45
Cf. Moritz 4, 24-25 n.3, 216; Cozart5. 唺⎸品╗尜䉉虃23-24虄虇⁴ウ㏏㢇⃫冔ℎ䚷厙亓䠓㐏 ⽶虇嬐㷑崏冔厂ⶠ嬐㏏イ䚷伢㜖䠓剛㟾㢘⪩ⶠ尜峧虇㏜╾⁴榧䛴⃫冔㳁姷懣䠓亿ㄽ㊞ㆬ虖 ⡯㳳尜䉉虇‘there was a not insignificant Jewish-minded contingent虈perhaps ethnic Jews or gentile God-fearers虈among the addressees.’
!
!䏗㲙㏏㢘虉屚⒎冊⓿☛⪥≂