This commentary provides an interesting mix of literary and historical approaches, although the tension between the two remains unresolved. The author raises a number of interesting questions, for example regarding what it means for Ephesians to be both literature and history. There is an extended discussion of non-Pauline authorship, addressing the issue of pseudonymity. Unfortunately, some of the standard solutions in terms of OT precedents and supposed parallels in the ancient world are too easily accepted, and the issue of deception and work revealing the precarious status of ancient pseudepigraphal literature is not sufficiently confronted. There is also the odd inclusion of a word study on the Greek word often translated ‘to sum up’. The commentary itself wisely follows the rough outline of the ancient letter form.

---