¹ Engelmann, Th. W., De Echtheid van de Brieven aan de Kolossers en de Epheziers (Utrecht: Van Huffel, 1877).Google Scholar

² For an outline of such attempts see, for example, Kiley, M., Colossians as Pseudepigraphy (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986) 37ff.Google Scholar

³ Harrison, P. N., ‘The Author of Ephesians’, SE 2 (TU 87) 595–604.Google Scholar

⁴ Masson, C., L'Épître de saint Paul aux Colossiens (CNT 10; Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1950) 158.Google Scholar His Pauline Colossians consisted of 1.1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8; 2.6, 8, 9,11a, 12a, 16, 20, 21; 3.3, 4, 12, 13a, 18–22a, 25; 4.1, 2, 3ab, 5, 6, 7, 8a, 9, 10–12a, 14 (15), 17–18. Paul had written his letter while a prisoner. For detailed criticism of Masson's position see Kirby, J. C., Ephesians: Baptism and Pentecost (London: SPCK, 1968) 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Munro, W., ‘Col.iii.18–iv.1 and Eph.v.21–vi.9: Evidence of a Late Literary Stratum?’, NTS 18 (1971/1972) 434–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Coutts, J., ‘The Relationship of Ephesians and Colossians’, NTS 4 (1957–1958) 201–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ Synge, F. C., St Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. A Theological Commentary (London: SPCK, 1941).Google Scholar

⁸ Mitton, C. L., The Epistle to the Ephesians: Its Authorship, Origin and Purpose (Oxford: Clarendon, 1951).Google Scholar Other detailed treatments can be found in Schmid, J., Der Epheserbrief des Apostels Paulus (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1928) 384–455Google Scholar; Goodspeed, E. J., The Meaning of Ephesians (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1933) 79–165Google Scholar; Ochel, W., Die Annahme einer Bearbeitung des Kolosser-Briefes im Epheser-Brief (Würzburg: Konrad Triltsch, 1934)Google Scholar; Percy, E., Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbrief (Lund: Gleerup, 1946) 362–419Google Scholar; Roon, A. van, The Authenticity of Ephesians (Suppl NT 39; Leiden: Brill, 1974) 413–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ Merklein, H., ‘Paulinische Theologie in der Rezeption des Kolosser- und Epheserbriefes’, Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spätschriften (ed. Kertelge, K.; QD 89; Freiburg-Basel-Wien: Herder, 1981) 25–69Google Scholar, appears to fall into this trap. He draws attention to the places where A/Eph may have used Col 1.15–20 but the instances he puts forward show resemblance in idea rather than in wording and therefore cannot indicate A/Eph's dependence on Colossians.

¹⁰ See Pelletier, A., Flavius Joséphe adaptateur de la Lettre d'Aristée (Paris: Klingksieck, 1962).Google Scholar

¹¹ On the use of conflation in the ancient world see, Downing, F. G., ‘Redaction Criticism: Josephus' Antiquities and the Synoptic Gospels’, JSNT 8 (1980) 46–65 and 9 (1980) 29–48Google Scholar; and his ‘Compositional Conventions and the Synoptic Problem’, JBL 107 (1988) 69–85.Google Scholar

¹² Haupt, E., Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe (KEK 8, 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902) ad loc.Google Scholar

¹³ Gaugler, E., Der Epheserbrief (Zürich: EVZ, 1966) ad loc.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Bouttier, M., L'Épître de saint Paul aux Éphesiens (CNT 9b; Genève: Labor et Fides, 1991) ad loc.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Belser, J. E., Der Epheserbrief des Apostels Paulus (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1908) ad loc.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Gnilka, J., Der Epheserbrief (HTK 10.2; Freiburg–Basel–Wien: Herder, 1971) ad loc.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Merklein, H., ‘Eph 4,1–5,20 als Rezeption von Kol 3,1–17 (zugleich ein Beitrag zur Problematik des Epheserbriefes)’, Kontinuität und Einheit (Mussner, FSF.; ed. Müller, P.-G. und Stenger, W.; Freiburg: Herder, 1981) 194–210.Google Scholar

¹⁸ On the origin of the Haustafel form see Best, , ‘The Haustafel in Ephesians’, Irish Biblical Studies 16 (1994) 146–60.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Probleme, 400.

²⁰ ‘Eph 4,1–5,20 als Rezeption von Kol 3,1–17’.

²¹ Eph 5.6–8 is one of those passages where Coutts, The Relationship of Ephesians and Colossians' argues for the priority of Ephesians. Dahl, N. A., ‘Der Epheserbrief und der verlorene erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther’, Abraham unser Vater (FS Michel, O. ed. Betz, O., Hengel, M., Schmidt, P.; Leiden/Köln: Brill, 1963) 65–77Google Scholar, argues for a connection with the non-extant first letter to the Corinthians (which he sees as also reflected in 2 Cor 6.14–7.1) regarding the Ephesian passage as based on a piece of Pauline catechetical instruction.

²² Kritik, 52–4.

²³ The Epistle to the Ephesians, 61.

²⁴ Ephesians, 61.

²⁵ Cf. Holtzmann, , Kritik, 51–2.Google Scholar

²⁶ See the commentaries on Colossians, e.g. those of Lightfoot, Lohse, O'Brien.

²⁷ Kritik, 47–8.

²⁸ Ephesians, 65.

²⁹ Ephesians, 283.

³⁰ Ephesians, 65 and 283, 285.

³¹ Ephesians, 285.

³² Ephesians, 285.

³³ Ephesians, 285, 287.

³⁴ See Best, , ‘Dead in Trespasses and Sins (Eph. 2.1)’, JSNT 13 (1981) 9–25.Google Scholar It will be seen that I have modified my views on the dependence of Ephesians on Colossians as expressed there.

³⁵ Cf. Haupt, , Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe, 91, n. 2.Google Scholar

³⁶ Wengst, K., Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums (SNT 7; Gtersloh: Mohn, 1971) 186ff.Google Scholar; cf. Burger, C., Schöpfung und Versöhnung (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukir-chener, 1975) 84.Google Scholar

³⁷ Benoit, P., ‘Rapports HttéYaires entre les épitres aux Colossiens et aux Éphésiens’, Neutestamentliche Aufsätze (FS Schmidt, J.; ed. Blinzler, K, Kuss, O., Mussner, F.; Regensburg: Pustet, 1963) 11–22.Google Scholar

³⁸ It is read by κ A C D¹ F G H I ψ lat sy bo, but omitted by ⁴⁶ B D*^vid b sa; CI Cyp Ambst.

³⁹ Ephesians, 291.

⁴⁰ Cf. Holtzmann, , Kritik, 48–9.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Kritik, 50–1.

⁴² Klijn, A. J. F., An Introduction to the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1967) 102.Google Scholar

⁴³ The Authenticity of Ephesians, 430.

⁴⁴ We must reject the suggestion of Kiley, Colossians as Pseudepigraphy, 41, that Ephesians shows greater divergence from the normal pattern of the Pauline letter and therefore must be later than Colossians; the divergence arises simply out of the nature of the envisaged recipients; unlike Colossians which is directed at a particular situation Ephesians is a general letter.