Scholarly Notes
Winger, Thomas M. "Introduction: Addressees." Ephesians. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2014, 77-96.
Not only the authorship, but also the recipients of Ephesians, has been called into question. Winger notes that some manuscript evidence omits "in Ephesus" from Ephesians 1:1 (Winger 2014, 77). The addressees are important in our attempts to interpret the letter, since we normally understand it in the context of other knowledge we have about Ephesus and Paul's work there.
The oldest extant portion, P46, omits "in Ephesus" but bears a header, "To the Ephesians" (Winger 2014, 78-79). Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit "in Ephesus" but have the words inserted in another hand (Winger 2014, 80). The scholarly debate has led to some uncertainty about the authenticity of the reading. However, Winger finds the sentence to be "nonsensical" (I would suggest merely clumsy and out of character) without "in Ephesus" (Winger 2014, 81).
Winger briefly reviews patristic evidence, noting that while Origen took the manuscript available to him to have an omission, Marcion affirmed the letter was really to the Laodiceans. Tertullian complained that Marcion falsified the title. Irenaeus, the Muratorian Canon, and Clement of Alexandria agreed with Tertullian. Of significance to Winger is that they didn't object on the grounds of the text, but the title, which suggests their texts didn't contain "in Ephesus" in verse one (Winger 2014, 84).
Winger describes several means by which "in Ephesus" could have dropped out of the text (Winger 2014, 85ff). Accidental inattention would have been very unlikely in the first sentence of a letter. A scribal change due to the impression that it was not meant for Ephesus is also highly unlikely. The omission of a place name in a copy of a circular letter going to a different place is much more likely. However, this theory has a number of problems as well, particularly as it violates the way circular letters were presented as a rule in antiquity (Winger 2014, 86). A theory that it was created on the basis of Colossians but assigned to Ephesus by a later disciple also breaks down rather easily (Winger 2014, 87), as does the idea that the text was used as a selection in a lectionary, so lost its personalization (Winger 2014, 88-89).
As to internal evidence for the addressees of Ephesians, Winger notes that there is no direct statement of a problem in Ephesus, that there are no greetings by name, and that Paul does not always seem to have personal knowledge which we would expect due to his time in Ephesus (Winger 2014, 91). Yet Winger observes a time of turmoil in Ephesus which may have prevented Paul from knowing the current situation (Winger 2014, 92).
Winger finally ties Paul's letter writing to that of John in Revelation and to the letters of Ignatius (Winger 2014, 93). Ignatius' letter to the Ephesians has numerous parallels, particularly in style, to Paul's letter. Winger details numerous parallels in content as well, illustrating that Ignatius apparently considered Ephesians to be written to Ephesus (Winger 2014, 94-96).