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

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Eph. 1:1--The effects of peer pressure on textual transmission?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 7 , Feb 13, 2012
      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?


      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.
      >   ENEFECW
      > -Drew Longacre

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