Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Haplography in Ephesians 1:1?

Expand Messages
  • Drew Longacre
    Hi all,   I ve been having a discussion recently amongst some of my colleagues on EN EFECW in Ephesians 1:1. I offered the possibility of haplography in the
    Message 1 of 7 , Feb 8, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi all,
       
      I've been having a discussion recently amongst some of my colleagues on EN EFECW in Ephesians 1:1. I offered the possibility of haplography in the P46, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus tradition, but everyone seems hesitant to accept it as viable. So I figured I would open the discussion to the group. Is haplography a viable explanation for the minus in these significant MSS? I am inclined to think that the endings CIN and CW are similar enough to trigger an omission.
       
      TOICOUCIN
        ENEFECW
       
      -Drew Longacre
    • Daniel Buck
      I suppose we could divide the question into a series of Pro s and Cons. Resolved: The readings of Eph 1:1 in p46, 01, and 03 are a result of haplography,
      Message 2 of 7 , Feb 10, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I suppose we could divide the question into a series of Pro's and Cons.

        Resolved:
        The readings of Eph 1:1 in p46, 01, and 03 are a result of haplography, jumping from OUSIN to KAI and skipping over EN EFESW.
        Pro's:
        1. The endings CIN and CW are similar.
        2. p46 skips the first part of v. 3 due to h.t.

        Cons:
        1. The endings CIN and CW are not similar.
        2. The texts of these mss are varied enough that something else would have to account for the same specific omission in all of them.

        Well, that wasn't much help. Before we go any further, let's look at the evidence.

        p46:
        παυλος αποστολος χρυ ιηυ δια θεληματος θυ τοις αγιοις ουσιν και πιστοις εν χρω ιηυ

        01*:
        παυλος αποστολος ιυ χυ δια θεληματος θυ τοις αγιοις τοις ουσι και πιστοις εν χω ιυ (01 corrected to = 02)

        02:
        παυλος αποστολος ιυ χυ δια θεληματος θυ τοις αγιοις πασιν τοις ουσιν εν εφεσω και πιστοις εν χω ιυ
         
        03*:
        παυλος αποστολος χυ ιυ δια θεληματος θυ τοις αγιοις τοις ουσιν και πιστοις εν χω ιυ (03 corrected to = NA27)


        Daniel Buck

        From: Drew Longacre <drewlongacre@...>

         
        Hi all,
         
        I've been having a discussion recently amongst some of my colleagues on EN EFECW in Ephesians 1:1. I offered the possibility of haplography in the P46, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus tradition, but everyone seems hesitant to accept it as viable. So I figured I would open the discussion to the group. Is haplography a viable explanation for the minus in these significant MSS? I am inclined to think that the endings CIN and CW are similar enough to trigger an omission.
         
        TOICOUCIN
          ENEFECW
         
        -Drew Longacre


      • Jake
        I don t think haplography is the answer. It seems to me that a scribe is more likely to add EN EPHESW than to remove it. Also, the TSKS construction of
        Message 3 of 7 , Feb 10, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          I don't think haplography is the answer.  It seems to me that a scribe is more likely to add EN EPHESW than to remove it. Also, the TSKS construction of τοις αγιοις ουσιν και πιστοις in P46 is characteristic of the style of the letter; if I remember correctly there are 4 or 5 similar phrases in the letter; off the top of my head none of them conform to Granville Sharp's Rule exactly. I came to the conclusion that P46 most likely reflected the original (hardest reading), the other variants you listed can all be explained as scribal additions meant to clarify the phrase.


          Jake Horner

          On 2/10/2012 2:33 PM, Daniel Buck wrote:  
          I suppose we could divide the question into a series of Pro's and Cons.

          Resolved:
          The readings of Eph 1:1 in p46, 01, and 03 are a result of haplography, jumping from OUSIN to KAI and skipping over EN EFESW.
          Pro's:
          1. The endings CIN and CW are similar.
          2. p46 skips the first part of v. 3 due to h.t.

          Cons:
          1. The endings CIN and CW are not similar.
          2. The texts of these mss are varied enough that something else would have to account for the same specific omission in all of them.

          Well, that wasn't much help. Before we go any further, let's look at the evidence.

          p46:
          παυλος αποστολος χρυ ιηυ δια θεληματος θυ τοις αγιοις ουσιν και πιστοις εν χρω ιηυ

          01*:
          παυλος αποστολος ιυ χυ δια θεληματος θυ τοις αγιοις τοις ουσι και πιστοις εν χω ιυ (01 corrected to = 02)

          02:
          παυλος αποστολος ιυ χυ δια θεληματος θυ τοις αγιοις πασιν τοις ουσιν εν εφεσω και πιστοις εν χω ιυ
           
          03*:
          παυλος αποστολος χυ ιυ δια θεληματος θυ τοις αγιοις τοις ουσιν και πιστοις εν χω ιυ (03 corrected to = NA27)


          Daniel Buck

          From: Drew Longacre <drewlongacre@...>

           
          Hi all,
           
          I've been having a discussion recently amongst some of my colleagues on EN EFECW in Ephesians 1:1. I offered the possibility of haplography in the P46, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus tradition, but everyone seems hesitant to accept it as viable. So I figured I would open the discussion to the group. Is haplography a viable explanation for the minus in these significant MSS? I am inclined to think that the endings CIN and CW are similar enough to trigger an omission.
           
          TOICOUCIN
            ENEFECW
           
          -Drew Longacre


        • james_snapp_jr
          Drew, I don t see how EN EFESW could be omitted accidentally. You might want to look over Douglas Petrovich s 1998 thesis, EN EFESW and the Destination of the
          Message 4 of 7 , Feb 11, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Drew,

            I don't see how EN EFESW could be omitted accidentally.

            You might want to look over Douglas Petrovich's 1998 thesis, "EN EFESW and the Destination of the Ephesian Letter," which focuses on this variant. It can be read and downloaded at the Academia.edu site. (A considerable portion of this thesis isn't about the variant mentioned in its title, but some of it is.)

            Yours in Christ,

            James Snapp, Jr.



            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Drew Longacre <drewlongacre@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hi all,
            >  
            > I've been having a discussion recently amongst some of my colleagues on EN EFECW in Ephesians 1:1. I offered the possibility of haplography in the P46, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus tradition, but everyone seems hesitant to accept it as viable. So I figured I would open the discussion to the group. Is haplography a viable explanation for the minus in these significant MSS? I am inclined to think that the endings CIN and CW are similar enough to trigger an omission.
            >  
            > TOICOUCIN
            >   ENEFECW
            >  
            > -Drew Longacre
          • Drew Longacre
            Jake,   If P46 is interpreted as a TSKS construction, how do you make sense of the participle? It seems like with this text the participle would be hard to
            Message 5 of 7 , Feb 11, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Jake,
               
              If P46 is interpreted as a TSKS construction, how do you make sense of the participle? It seems like with this text the participle would be hard to explain ("those who are saints"? seems unwieldy and unusual in the NT at least), unless you made πιστοισ not parallel to αγιοισ (i.e., "who are also believing...").
               
              Also, scribes would certainly be more likely to add EN EPECW intentionally than remove it intentionally. But if haplography provides an accidental explanation, you're really comparing apples and oranges.
               
              -Drew

              From: Jake <bikerxtrash@...>
              To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 2:19 AM
              Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Haplography in Ephesians 1:1?

               
              I don't think haplography is the answer.  It seems to me that a scribe is more likely to add EN EPHESW than to remove it. Also, the TSKS construction of τοις αγιοις ουσιν και πιστοις in P46 is characteristic of the style of the letter; if I remember correctly there are 4 or 5 similar phrases in the letter; off the top of my head none of them conform to Granville Sharp's Rule exactly. I came to the conclusion that P46 most likely reflected the original (hardest reading), the other variants you listed can all be explained as scribal additions meant to clarify the phrase.


              Jake Horner

              On 2/10/2012 2:33 PM, Daniel Buck wrote:
               
              I suppose we could divide the question into a series of Pro's and Cons.

              Resolved:
              The readings of Eph 1:1 in p46, 01, and 03 are a result of haplography, jumping from OUSIN to KAI and skipping over EN EFESW.
              Pro's:
              1. The endings CIN and CW are similar.
              2. p46 skips the first part of v. 3 due to h.t.

              Cons:
              1. The endings CIN and CW are not similar.
              2. The texts of these mss are varied enough that something else would have to account for the same specific omission in all of them.

              Well, that wasn't much help. Before we go any further, let's look at the evidence.

              p46:
              παυλος αποστολος χρυ ιηυ δια θεληματος θυ τοις αγιοις ουσιν και πιστοις εν χρω ιηυ

              01*:
              παυλος αποστολος ιυ χυ δια θεληματος θυ τοις αγιοις τοις ουσι και πιστοις εν χω ιυ (01 corrected to = 02)

              02:
              παυλος αποστολος ιυ χυ δια θεληματος θυ τοις αγιοις πασιν τοις ουσιν εν εφεσω και πιστοις εν χω ιυ
               
              03*:
              παυλος αποστολος χυ ιυ δια θεληματος θυ τοις αγιοις τοις ουσιν και πιστοις εν χω ιυ (03 corrected to = NA27)


              Daniel Buck
              From: Drew Longacre <drewlongacre@...>

               
              Hi all,
               
              I've been having a discussion recently amongst some of my colleagues on EN EFECW in Ephesians 1:1. I offered the possibility of haplography in the P46, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus tradition, but everyone seems hesitant to accept it as viable. So I figured I would open the discussion to the group. Is haplography a viable explanation for the minus in these significant MSS? I am inclined to think that the endings CIN and CW are similar enough to trigger an omission.
               
              TOICOUCIN
                ENEFECW
               
              -Drew Longacre




            • Jake
              Drew, Re: participle. take a look at Dan Wallace s [Blue] Grammar pp 270ff. Specifically p275 ref. 1 Tim 5:5. There is considerable flexibility to the TSKS
              Message 6 of 7 , Feb 12, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Drew,

                Re: participle. take a look at Dan Wallace's [Blue] Grammar pp 270ff. Specifically p275 ref. 1 Tim 5:5. There is considerable flexibility to the TSKS construction.  I realize there is some question regarding Paul's authorship of the pastoral letters, but I also think we have to consider Paul's use of different emanuenses in different cities. Although, who knows how much influence an emanuensis had on the final form of a letter ....  I am assuming that if Ephesians was written in Rome that Paul would have had access to the best emanuenses in the empire (at least among the community of believers).

                My translation: Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, to those [or: the ones] who are holy and faithful in Christ Jesus.

                Re: EN EPHECW.  You are right about Apples and Oranges; there is no way to prove definitively that it isn't a haplography, esp. with the omission of v3a in P46 (I haven't studied P46 in much detail yet). Haplography is certainly a possibility we have to take seriously.

                I do think we have to take the general tenor of the letter into account. It's also really hard for me to imagine Paul not including personal greetings in a letter intended specifically for Ephesus. My working hypothesis at this point is that the letter is a general epistle. It's entirely possible that Ephesus was the first stop on its way to the churches in Asia that Paul founded. If we assume that the letter traveled along the main trade routes from Rome, it could have gone Rome > Corinth > Ephesus > Alexandria [or Antioch
                > Judea] ... Who knows?  : ) Not provable, but fun to
                speculate...

                Disclosure: I'm not a text critic -- except maybe an armchair TC  : )

                Jake

                On 2/11/2012 5:29 AM, Drew Longacre wrote:  
                Jake,
                 
                If P46 is interpreted as a TSKS construction, how do you make sense of the participle? It seems like with this text the participle would be hard to explain ("those who are saints"? seems unwieldy and unusual in the NT at least), unless you made πιστοισ not parallel to αγιοισ (i.e., "who are also believing...").
                 
                Also, scribes would certainly be more likely to add EN EPECW intentionally than remove it intentionally. But if haplography provides an accidental explanation, you're really comparing apples and oranges.
                 
                -Drew

                From: Jake <bikerxtrash@...>
                To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 2:19 AM
                Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Haplography in Ephesians 1:1?

                 
                I don't think haplography is the answer.  It seems to me that a scribe is more likely to add EN EPHESW than to remove it. Also, the TSKS construction of τοις αγιοις ουσιν και πιστοις in P46 is characteristic of the style of the letter; if I remember correctly there are 4 or 5 similar phrases in the letter; off the top of my head none of them conform to Granville Sharp's Rule exactly. I came to the conclusion that P46 most likely reflected the original (hardest reading), the other variants you listed can all be explained as scribal additions meant to clarify the phrase.


                Jake Horner

                On 2/10/2012 2:33 PM, Daniel Buck wrote:
                 
                I suppose we could divide the question into a series of Pro's and Cons.

                Resolved:
                The readings of Eph 1:1 in p46, 01, and 03 are a result of haplography, jumping from OUSIN to KAI and skipping over EN EFESW.
                Pro's:
                1. The endings CIN and CW are similar.
                2. p46 skips the first part of v. 3 due to h.t.

                Cons:
                1. The endings CIN and CW are not similar.
                2. The texts of these mss are varied enough that something else would have to account for the same specific omission in all of them.

                Well, that wasn't much help. Before we go any further, let's look at the evidence.

                p46:
                παυλος αποστολος χρυ ιηυ διαθεληματος θυ τοις αγιοις ουσιν και πιστοις εν χρω ιηυ

                01*:
                παυλος αποστολος ιυ χυ διαθεληματος θυ τοις αγιοις τοις ουσι και πιστοις εν χω ιυ (01 corrected to = 02)

                02:
                παυλος αποστολος ιυ χυ διαθεληματος θυ τοις αγιοις πασιντοις ουσιν εν εφεσω και πιστοις εν χω ιυ
                 
                03*:
                παυλος αποστολος χυ ιυ διαθεληματος θυ τοις αγιοις τοις ουσιν και πιστοις εν χω ιυ (03 corrected to = NA27)


                Daniel Buck

                (Message over 64 KB, truncated)
              • Daniel Buck
                http://utoronto.academia.edu/DouglasPetrovich/Papers/1097768/_En_Epheso_and_the_Destination_of_the_Ephesian_Letter is the website. It asks you to log in but
                Message 7 of 7 , Feb 13, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  http://utoronto.academia.edu/DouglasPetrovich/Papers/1097768/_En_Epheso_and_the_Destination_of_the_Ephesian_Letter
                  is the website. It asks you to log in but you don't necessarily have to; the thesis pops up eventually.

                  He gives some interesting details on how the relevant uncials were corrected. 02, for instance, originally read TOIS OUSI (line break, in which was inserted the correction) KAI PISTOIS--which disagrees with the information on the Muenster site; it only gives 01 as originally reading OUSI (he mentions on p. 80 that 06 424c 1769 also read OUSI; facsimiles of p46 01 03 are provided at the end of the thesis). I can see how the N could be read as either a miniature letter in the original, or as a correction; it is halfway in size between the original text and the marginal addition.

                  The argument for the original omission of EN EFESW can be summarized as follows:

                  Tertullian accused Marcion of mislabeling the epistle as "To the Laodiceans" when it was known to the True Church that the epistle had in fact been sent "To the Ephesians." This strongly indicates that EN EFESW was, at that point, missing from the text of the epistle--leaving one to assign its recipients on the basis of the title alone. This not only accounts for the readings of p46 01 B 6 424c 1769, but also shows how a desire to fix the recipients of the letter could have led to the insertion of EN EFESW into the text.

                  What's most interesting to me is that Origen and his student Basil (and as probably plagiarized by Jerome), in commenting on the reading of Aleph/B, found special spiritual significance in TOIS AGOIUS TOIS OUSI(N), without seeming to be aware whatsoever that there was another reading out there that would shoot their nice application totally out of the water.  Basilius, writing a little later, seems to give a back-handed acknowledgement of the rival reading as a novelty when he asserts, "For thus also our forbears transmitted it and we ourselves have found it in the old copies."

                  The earliest witness the inclusion of EN EFESW is said to be Ignatius, who states that Paul refers to [the Ephesians] EN TASH EPISTOLH ('throughout [his] epistle). Petrovich seems to miss the obvious here in dismissing Ignatius' testimony: Paul really does refer to his recipients throughout the epistle. So there are really only two possibilities, other than that Ignatius didn't have any clue what he was talking about:
                  1) Both Ignatius and Paul wrote to the same people, but editors later changed the titles of both letters to TO THE EPHESIANS.
                  2) Ignatius really did write to the Ephesians, and assumed, based on the then-current title of Paul's epistle, that their city had contained its recipients.

                  So Ignatius is not specifically a witness to the text of 1:1, any more than Irenaeus and Tertullian were. In either case, they could have had before them a text of Ephesians without EN EFESW, and still called it The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians.  A close look at the evidence shows that the title of Ephesians (about which there is no textual doubt) had early, widespread attestation (Marcion alone dissenting) long before the text of 1:1 (including all Egyptian mss outside the Greek corpus) settled down to include EN EFESW.

                  It's a thorough treatment of the question, and I recommend that anyone interested in the original text of Ephesians 1:1 read it. Leaving out EN EFESW is very much in keeping with the pro-Alexandrian approach to textual criticism--there is nothing in the theory that would argue for its inclusion; that Meztger would leave it in the text, even in brackets, is testament to the power of tradition--and the effect of peer pressure in sustaining it.
                   
                  Daniel Buck

                  From: james_snapp_jr <voxverax@...>
                  To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 4:03 AM
                  Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Haplography in Ephesians 1:1?

                   
                  Drew,

                  I don't see how EN EFESW could be omitted accidentally.

                  You might want to look over Douglas Petrovich's 1998 thesis, "EN EFESW and the Destination of the Ephesian Letter," which focuses on this variant. It can be read and downloaded at the Academia.edu site. (A considerable portion of this thesis isn't about the variant mentioned in its title, but some of it is.)

                  Yours in Christ,

                  James Snapp, Jr.

                  --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Drew Longacre <drewlongacre@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi all,
                  >  
                  > I've been having a discussion recently amongst some of my colleagues on EN EFECW in Ephesians 1:1. I offered the possibility of haplography in the P46, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus tradition, but everyone seems hesitant to accept it as viable. So I figured I would open the discussion to the group. Is haplography a viable explanation for the minus in these significant MSS? I am inclined to think that the endings CIN and CW are similar enough to trigger an omission.
                  >  
                  > TOICOUCIN
                  >   ENEFECW
                  >  
                  > -Drew Longacre



                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.