Ephesians

Both Tertullian and Epiphanius testify that Marcion's Apostolicon contained Ephesians (McEph), but while Epiphanius also includes an epistle (that is not in what we know as the Pauline epistles) called Laodiceans at the end of the Apostolicon, Tertullian stated that Marcion had re-named Ephesians, and called it Laodiceans instead:

We have it on the true tradition of the Church, that this epistle was sent to the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans. Marcion, however, was very desirous of giving it the new title (of Laodicean), as if he were extremely accurate in investigating such a point. But of what consequence are the titles, since in writing to a certain church the apostle did in fact write to all? It is certain that, whoever they were to whom he wrote, he declared Him to be God in Christ with whom all things agree which are predicted.

The NET has this extensive note on the title of the epistle (layout altered for clarification):

The earliest and most important mss omit “in Ephesus” (Ì⁴⁶ א* B* 6 1739 [Mcion^T,E]), yet the opening line of this epistle makes little sense without the phrase (“to the saints who are and are faithful…”? or perhaps “to the saints who are also faithful,” though with this sense the οὖσιν [ousin] is redundant and the καί [kai] is treated somewhat unnaturally). What is interesting is Marcion’s canon list which speaks of the letter to the Laodiceans among Paul’s authentic epistles. This, coupled with some internal evidence that the writer did not know his audience personally (cf. 1:15; 3:2; absence of personal names throughout), suggests that Ephesians was an encyclical letter, intended for more than one audience. Does this mean that the shorter reading is to be preferred? Yes and no.

A plausible scenario is as follows, assuming Pauline authorship (though this is strongly contested today; for arguments on behalf of Pauline authorship, see M. Barth, Ephesians [AB 34], 1:36-50; P. T. O’Brien, Ephesians, 4-47; and H. W. Hoehner, Ephesians, 2-61): Paul sent the letter from Rome, intending it first to go to Ephesus. At the same time, Colossians was dispatched. Going counterclockwise through Asia Minor, this letter would first come to Ephesus, the port of entry, then to Laodicea, then Colossae. Tychicus’ instructions may well have been for each church to “fill in the blank” on the address line. The church at Ephesus would have certainly made the most copies, being Paul’s home base for nearly three years. Hence, most of the surviving copies have “in Ephesus” in v. 1 (so ^א2 A B² D F G Ψ 0278 33 1881 Ï latt sy co). But one might expect a hint of evidence that Laodicea also made a few copies: Both Marcion’s list and Col 4:16 may well imply this. What is to account for the early Alexandrian evidence, then? These mss were perhaps made from a very early copy, one reflecting the blank line before each church filled it in.

Although it is of course only speculation (as is necessary in a historical investigation lacking some of the pieces to the puzzle), this scenario accounts for all of the data: (1) “in Ephesus” in most mss; (2) Laodicea in Marcion’s list and Col 4:16; (3) the lack of an addressee in the earliest witnesses; (4) why the earliest witnesses’ reading must be rejected as too hard; and (5) why the author seems not to know the readership. In sum, is “in Ephesus” original? Yes and no. Some address belongs there; ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ (en Efesw) is the predominant address, but several other churches also received this circular letter as their own. For this reason the phrase has been placed in single brackets in the translation. NA²⁷ also lists the words in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity.

Although Epiphanius only has three comments on Ephesians (and in only one of which does he identify a difference), Tertullian has extensive notes throughout the epistle:

Ephesians 1:9-10

Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: [1:9] That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: [1:10]

Tertullian refers to most of vv. 1:9-10. He interprets gather together in one as recapitulate (although he does later refer to opposites being gathered together), but otherwise appears to see no differences in these verses.

Ephesians 1:12-13

That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. [1:12] In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, [1:13]

Tertullian does not refer to v. 1:11, and suggests that v. 1:12 may have followed directly after v. 1:10 when he writes: "Again, what Christ do the following words announce, when the apostle says," before quoting:

"That we should be to the praise of His glory, who first trusted in Christ?" ... Hence the apostle refers the statement to himself, that is, to the Jews, in order that he may draw a distinction with respect to the Gentiles, (when he goes on to say:) "In whom you also trusted, after that you heard the word of truth, the gospel (of your salvation); in whom you believed, and were sealed with His Holy Spirit of promise."

Ephesians 1:17-22a

That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: [1:17] The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, [1:18] And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, [1:19] Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, [1:20] Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: [1:21] And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, [1:22]

Tertullian refers to all these verses except v. 1:21, although only quoting from some of the text:

Again, "the Father of glory" is He whose Christ, when ascending to heaven, is celebrated as "the King of Glory" in the Psalm ... From Him also is besought "the spirit of wisdom," ... He likewise will grant "the enlightenment of the eyes of the understanding," ... In His gift, too, are "the riches (of the glory) of His inheritance in the saints," who promised such an inheritance in the call of the Gentiles ... It was He who "wrought in Christ His mighty power, by raising Him from the dead, and setting Him at His own right hand, and putting all things under His feet."

Tertullian may have not seen v. 1:21 here, and there is a possibility that he saw this verse before Gal 4:26 instead (see Galatians).

Ephesians 2:1-3

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; [2:1] Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: [2:2] Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. [2:3]

From what Tertullian writes it appears that he saw these verses as we do:

I suppose, forsooth, we find Him, when he speaks of such as "were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein they had walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, who works in the children of disobedience." ... But the apostle, too, had lived in Judaism ... "in which also we all had our conversation in times past," ... Therefore he says: "We also were the children of wrath," but "by nature." ... For when (the apostle) says, "We were by nature the children of wrath," ... he (must have) referred their being children of wrath to nature, and not to the Creator, adding this at last, "even as others," who, of course, were not children of God.

Ephesians 2:10

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. [2:10]

Tertullian refers to "Christ" rather than "Christ Jesus," although as he later refers to both it is likely that he saw "Christ Jesus" here.

"We," says he, "are His workmanship, created in Christ." ... As touching the substance of nature, He "made" him; as touching the work of grace, He "created" him.

Ephesians 2:11-15

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; [2:11] That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: [2:12] But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. [2:13] For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; [2:14] Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; [2:15]

In the first of his three comments on Ephesians, Epiphanius quotes most of vv. 2:11-14a

“Remember that ye, being in time past gentiles, who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus, ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of him. For he is our peace, who hath made of both one,” and so on.(Scholion 1 and 36)

Epiphanius omits the first "in the flesh," and refers to "him" instead of "Christ" at the end of v. 2:13 (and repeats this in his Elenchus). He quotes nothing after v. 2:14a, and so we do not know what he saw when he wrote: "and so on." There is no suggestion that he saw anything different in Marcion's version of Ephesians, and he uses his Elenchus purely to make a point to Marcion. Tertullian also refers to, or quotes from, significant portions of these verses, beginning, like Epiphanius, with a long quote:

Look also at what follows in connection with these words: "Wherefore remember, that you being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which has the name of circumcision in the flesh made by the hand -- that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." ... Now, without what God and without what Christ were these Gentiles? ... "But now in Christ," says he, "you who were sometimes far off are made near by His blood." ... For the Creator's righteousness no less than His peace was announced in Christ, as we have often shown already. Therefore he says: "He is our peace, who has made both one" — that is, the Jewish nation and the Gentile world. What is near, and what was far off now that "the middle wall has been broken down" of their "enmity," (are made one) "in His flesh."

Tertullian complains that Marcion removed "His" from v. 2:15a, a difference that is also seen in some Western mss. He then mentions a number of the commandments (without actually referring to v. 2:15), and says:

it is impossible to make an adversary of the law out of one who so completely promotes it. "For to create in Himself of two," for He who had made is also the same who creates [here there is a reference to v. 2:10] "one new man, making peace."

Ephesians 2:16-20

And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: [2:16] And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. [2:17] For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. [2:18] Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; [2:19] And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; [2:20]

Tertullian refers to most of vv. 2:16-20, but referring only to "access to the Father" in v. 2:18.

"that He might reconcile both unto God" ... "in one body," says he, "having in it slain the enmity by the cross." ... When, therefore, "He came and preached peace to them that were near and to them which were afar off," we both obtained "access to the Father," being "now no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God" ... "built upon the foundation of the apostles" — (the apostle added), "and the prophets." For whence did he learn to call Christ "the chief corner-stone," but from the figure given him in the Psalm ...

Tertulian notes that Marcion had removed: "and the prophets;" in v. 2:20, stating: "these words, however, the heretic erased, forgetting that the Lord had set in His Church not only apostles, but prophets also."

Ephesians 3:8-10

Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; [3:8] And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: [3:9] To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, [3:10]

In Ephesians 3 Tertullian refers only to vv. 3:8-10, primarily to state that Marcion had removed "in" from "in God" in v. 3:9:

The apostle declares that to himself, "less than the least of all saints, was the grace given" of enlightening all men as to "what was the fellowship of the mystery, which during the ages had been hid in God, who created all things." The heretic erased the preposition in, and made the clause run thus: "which has for ages been hidden from the God who created all things." The falsification, however, is flagrantly absurd. For the apostle goes on to infer (from his own statement): "in order that unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might become known through the church the manifold wisdom of God."

Tertullian then expends some energy pointing out that Marcion should also have changed v. 3:10 in order to be consistent. However, this same omission (which exists in three Greek mss) could simply be an error due to homoeoteleuton.

Ephesians 4:4-5

Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to these verses in Ephesians, but Epiphanius notes their presence in Laodiceans, which he saw at the end of the Apostolicon.

Ephesians 4:8

Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. [4:8]

Tertullian quotes a small part of v. 4:8, but only as a 'lead-in' to vv. 4:25-26. He does not refer to vv. 4:9-24.

What figures of speech could the novel god have found in the prophets (fit for himself)? "He led captivity captive," says the apostle. With what arms? In what conflicts? From the devastation of what country? From the overthrow of what city? What women, what children, what princes did the Conqueror throw into chains?

In his commentary on 1 Cor he quotes: "He gave gifts to the sons of men," so adding "to the sons," (possibly a variant of Ps 68:18) and then comments:

... that is, the gratuities, which we call charismata. He says specifically "sons of men," and not men promiscuously; thus exhibiting to us those who were the children of men truly so called, choice men, apostles.

Ephesians 4:25-26

Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. [4:25] Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: [4:26]

Tertullians continues by discussing "spiritual armour and warfare," and then quotes most of vv. 4:25-26:

"Putting away lying," (says he,) "speak every man truth with his neighbour;" and again, using the very words in which the Psalm expresses his meaning, (he says,) "Be angry, and sin not; Let not the sun go down upon your wrath."

Ephesians 4:27-5:10

Tertullian has no comment on these verses. This is in itself not unusual, but he follows his quote of v. 4;26 directly with v. 5:11a, as if it immediately followed v. 4:26. It is therefore conceivable that Tertullian did not see at least some of vv. 4:27-5:10 in McEph.

Ephesians 5:11

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. [5:11]

Tertullian quotes v. 5:11a: "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness;" followed by three quotes from the Old testament.

Ephesians 5:14

Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. [5:14]

Tertullian does not mention v. 5:14, but in Scholion 2 and 37 Epiphanius quotes the verse as above, without in any way suggesting that Marcion had anything different..

Ephesians 5:18-19

And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; [5:18] Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; [5:19]

Tertullian refers to both vv. 5:18-19, but quotes from neither:

"Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess," ... The command, to "sing to the Lord with psalms and hymns," comes suitably from him who knew that those who "drank wine with drums and psalteries" were blamed by God.

Ephesians 5:22-24

Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. [5:21] Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. [5:22] For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. [5:23]

Tertullian refers to most of v. 5:22-23a, questions Marcion on his god's authority, and then refers to v. 5:23a. He does not suggest that there was any variation here, so presumably saw what he expected to see, both in Eph and McEph:

But he declares that "wives ought to be in subjection to their husbands:" what reason does he give for this? "Because," says he, "the husband is the head of the wife." ... for he says: "even as Christ is the head of the Church;"

It is possible that Tertullian is referring to v. 5:21 as well as v. 5:22, as the NET points out that v. 5:21 may be the beginning of this passage, and also because some mss omit "submit" from v. 5:22:

Many scholars regard Eph 5:21 as the verse which introduces this section, rather than 5:22. This is due in part to the lack of a main verb in this verse (see tc note which follows). This connection is not likely, however, because it requires the participle ὑποτασσόμενοι (Jupotassomenoi, “submitting”) in 5:21 to act as the main verb of the section, and this participle more likely is linked to the command “be filled by the Spirit” in 5:18 as a participle of result... In any case, 5:21 does form a strong link between 5:18-21 and what follows, so the paragraph division which has been placed between 5:21 and 22 should not be viewed as a complete break in the author’s thought.

The witnesses for the shorter reading (in which the verb “submit” is only implied) are minimal (Ì⁴⁶ B Cl Hier^mss), but significant and early. The rest of the witnesses add one of two verb forms as required by the sense of the passage (picking up the verb from v. 21). Several of these witnesses have ὑποτασσέσθωσαν (Jupotassesqwsan), the third person imperative (so א A I P Ψ 0278 33 81 1175 1739 1881 al lat co), while other witnesses, especially the later Byzantine cursives, read ὑποτάσσεσθε (Jupotassesqe), the second person imperative (D F G Ï sy). The text virtually begs for one of these two verb forms, but the often cryptic style of Paul’s letters argues for the shorter reading. The chronology of development seems to have been no verb – third person imperative – second person imperative. It is not insignificant that early lectionaries began a new day’s reading with v. 22; these most likely caused copyists to add the verb at this juncture.

Ephesians 5:25, 28-29

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; [5:25] So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. [5:28] For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: [5:29] For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. [5:30]

Tertullian questions Marcion regarding honouring the flesh his Christ and Church, referring to vv. 5:28-29. He appears to see a different version of v. 5:28, or possibly a combination of v. 5:25 and 28, perhaps suggesting that he did not see vv. 5:26-27.

... and again, in like manner: "He who loves his wife, loves his own flesh, even as Christ loved the Church." ... "No man," says the apostle, "ever yet hated his own flesh" (except, of course, Marcion alone), "but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord does the Church."

There are variants in v. 5:30, as noted in the NET:

Most Western witnesses, as well as the majority of Byzantine mss and a few others (א² D F G Ψ 0278 0285^vid Ï lat), add the following words to the end of the verse: ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ (ek th" sarko" autou kai ek twn ostewn autou, “of his body and of his bones”). This is a (slightly modified) quotation from Gen 2:23a (LXX). The Alexandrian text is solidly behind the shorter reading (Ì⁴⁶ א* A B 048 33 81 1739* 1881 pc).

Tertullian has no mention of v. 5:30, so we do not know that he saw at this point. However, the lack of comment from both him and Epiphanius suggest that both same the same in McEph as in Eph.

Ephesians 5:31-32

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. [5:31] This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. [5:32]

In Scholion 3 and 38 Epiphanius quotes v. 5:31 as above, except "minus the phrase, 'unto his wife'” in the quotation from Gen 2:24. He then comments in Elenchus 3 and 38:

Even if you falsify the phrase “<unto his> wife,” Marcion, it has been shown many times that the contents of the Law are not foreign to the teachings of the apostle. For the whole of your tampering will be evident from the words, “They shall be one flesh.”

It should be noted that "the phrase '<unto his> wife,'" could perhaps be read as "the 'wife' phrase." Tertullian quotes almost all of vv. 5:31-32:

"For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, (and shall be joined unto his wife), and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery." In passing, (I would say that) it is enough for me that the works of the Creator are great mysteries in the estimation of the apostle, although they are so vilely esteemed by the heretics. "But I am speaking," says he, "of Christ and the Church."

Unfortunately this translation of Tertullian's words is very misleading, because he does not actually quote the words shown in brackets, as can be seen from his original Latin text:

Propter hanc relinquet homo patrem et matrem, et erunt duo in carne una.

Tertullian does not suggest that Marcion had anything different here, so indicating that he saw this short form in v. 5:31 in both Eph and McEph, making it very unlikely that this was an omission by Marcion. This appears to be confirmed in John Eadie’s Commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, in which he comments on several variants in this verse:

There are some variations of reading. Some MSS. of superior weight omit the articles τόν and τήν, as well as αὐτοῦ, but the longer reading has A, D³, E, K, L in its favour, with many Codices, and the Syriac and Coptic versions. It is, however, rejected by Lachmann and Tischendorf as a conformation to the Seventy. The critical note of Origen seems to confirm the suspicion. Instead of πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα found in B, D³, E, K, L, τῇ γυναικί is read in D¹, E¹, F, G, and is introduced by Lachmann. The words are a free quotation from Genesis 2:24, though the formula of quotation is wanting. This want of such a formula was not unfrequent. Surenhusius, Bib. Katal. p. 21. ῎ανθρωπος is without the article (not used for ἀνήρ), but having “its general aphorismatic sense”-an argument in itself against Alford's interpretation. These future verbs indicate prophetically the future impulse and acting of the race which was to spring from Adam and Eve. Winer, § 40, 6. The Septuagint has ἕνεκεν τούτου changed by the apostle into ἀντὶ τούτου, “on this account” (Winer, § 47, a; Donaldson, § 474, a, dd), and these words are in this place no introduction to the quotation, but simply a portion of it; and therefore Estius, Holzhausen, Meier, and Matthies labour to no purpose in endeavouring to affix a special meaning to them.

Ephesians 6:1-4

Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. [6:1] Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; [6:2] That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. [6:3] And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. [6:4]

Tertullian quotes from v. 6:1a, comments that Marcion "erased" v. 6:2b, and then paraphrases v. 6:4, referring to "parents" rather than "fathers:"

Now what is Marcion's opinion? ... "Children should obey their parents." Now, although Marcion has erased (the next clause), "which is the first commandment with promise," still the law says plainly, "Honour your father and your mother." Again, (the apostle writes:) "Parents, bring up your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord."

Although Tertullian notes that McEph did not include v. 6:2b, it did still contain the commandment in v. 6:2a. As removing just v. 6:2b would not help Marcion in any way it is very unlikely that he actually made this change. Because Epiphanius does not comment on this verse we do not know what he saw here in either Eph or McEph.

Ephesians 6:11-12

Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. [6:11] For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. [6:12]

Tertullian paraphrases v. 6:12b in order to make a point. but then quotes all of v. 6:11 and most of v. 6:12.

But as our struggle lies against "the rulers of this world," what a host of Creator Gods there must be! ... Again, when in the preceding verse he bids us "put on the whole armour of God, that we may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil," does he not show that all the things which he mentions after the devil's name really belong to the devil -- "the principalities and the powers, and the rulers of the darkness of this world," which we also ascribe to the devil's authority? ... But "the spiritual wickedness" did not signify the Creator, because of the apostle's additional description, "in heavenly places;" for the apostle was quite aware that "spiritual wickedness" had been at work in heavenly places, when angels were entrapped into sin by the daughters of men.

Ephesians 6:18-20

Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; [6:18] And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, [6:19] For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak. [6:20]

Tertullian mentions only that Paul was:

"making known the mystery of the gospel for which he was an ambassador in bonds," owing to his liberty in preaching -- and actually requested (the Ephesians) to pray to God that this "open-mouthed utterance" might be continued to him.

Summary

Although both Tertullian and Epiphanius note a few small differences between Eph and McEph, both the differences themselves and their very small number argue strongly against these being deliberate changes by Marcion. The main issue revolves around the designation of the letter itself, as discussed in Laodiceans.

As noted in The Order of the Paulines modern bibles have the first seven Pauline epistles in descending order of size, with Galatians appearing immediately before Ephesians. However, as we see them Eph is actually about 8.3% longer than Gal, and one way this discrepency could have occured is that it is possible that Eph may have originally been shorter, and closer in size to Col.

Next: Colossians