Verbs out in Ephesians 5

Looking at Ephesians 5:22 and its textaul variances. I have read a few commentaries (PNTC, NAC, NICNT, BST, and Heine Ronald E. 2002 The Commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (ICC; Oxford: Oxford University Press). Why do some important text witnesses leave this verse's imperative verb out entirely, others have an unambiguous imperative telling wives to "be subject" to their own husbands? When a witness uses an imperative in a verse, they put the word "their own husbands" (τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀvδράσιν) before or after the verse. Furthermore, a third-person imperative (ὑποτασσέσθωσαν) is present in some of these testimonies, while a second-person imperative (ὑποτάσσεσθε) is present in others. How can I tell whether there has been a shift in how this is interpreted? If this is not a good question on the forum, let me know and I will delete it.

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

MJ. Smith

You are asking a question that has no answer. Read a couple of textbooks on Textual Criticism and they will supply you with a list of reasons why hand-copied manuscripts may differ. They include:

Scribal errors
Scribal conventions
Editorial changes
Accumulated changes over time resulting in regional differences in original manuscript being copied
Manuscript problems - holes, fading, dirt - making manuscript unreadable so best guess is used

For certain types of variation, certain causes are more likely than others ... but it is still just and educated guess (speculation) not a proven fact.

Again, learning to use some type of argument mapping to collect what commentators say about the variations is the best way to dig out what others think. I think I've already suggested the Rationale site. The chances that anyone in the forum knows more than the commentators collectively, is extremely small. So, in that sense, this is not a useful question for the forums.

As for shifts in interpretation, that is the domain of reception history.

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1291696#Comment_1291696

Thanks for the information. I am working on Myths and Mystakes in New Testament Textual Criticsm. I am trying to figure out what I should read next in this area? What are your favorite commentaries on Ephesians?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1292187#Comment_1292187

I am trying to figure out what I should read next in this area?

Someone with text criticism training should answer this. I've only read elementary introductions and computer applications.

What are your favorite commentaries on Ephesians?

My tradition is far less enthralled with commentaries than yours so my tastes are probably very different. But I would chose from Logos:

Ambrosiaster. Commentaries on Galatians–Philemon. Edited by Thomas C. Oden and Gerald L. Bray. Translated by Gerald L. Bray. Ancient Christian Texts. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2009.
Wintle, Brian, and Ken Gnanakan. Ephesians. Edited by Andrew B. Spurgeon, Steve Chang, and Brian Wintle. Asia Bible Commentary Series. Carlisle, Cumbria; Manila, Philippines: Langham Global Library; Asia Theological Association, 2020.
Theodore of Mopsuestia. Theodore of Mopsuestia: The Commentaries on the Minor Epistles of Paul: Text. Translated by Rowan A. Greer. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010.
S. John Chrysostom. Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, and Homilies on the Epistle to the Ephesians. Vol. VI. A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church. Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; J. G. F. and J. Rivington, 1840.
Talbert, Charles H. Ephesians and Colossians. Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.
Thurston, Bonnie Bowman. Reading Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians : A Literary and Theological Commentary. Reading the New Testament Series. Macon, GA: Smith & Helwys Publishing, 2007.
MacDonald, Margaret Y. Colossians and Ephesians. Edited by Daniel J. Harrington. Vol. 17. Sacra Pagina Series. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2000.
Witherington, Ben, III. The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007.
Dibelius, Martin, and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972.

Dave Hooton

Why do some important text witnesses leave this verse's imperative verb out entirely

A Search for a Verb in v.22 shows that it appears only in TR versions of the Greek Bible (from 1550 to 1894).

A Search for a Verb in v.24 shows that it (submits) is directly associated with the Church in all Greek Bibles. It is applied to wives in translations because a comparison is being made i.e. "As the Church submits....so also the wives....".

Most commentators understand it, but the connection between v21/22 can be lost because of versification and the insertion of pericopes in translations i.e. "...submit to one another in fear of Christ; the wives to your own husbands as to the Lord..." (literal translation from SBLGNT)

"5:22 On the one hand, several early witnesses (𝔓46 B Clement1/2 Origen Greek mssacc. to Jerome Jerome Theodore) begin the new sentence without a main verb, thus requiring that the force of the preceding ὑποτασσόμενοι be carried over... A majority of the Committee preferred the shorter reading, which accords with the succinct style of the author’s admonitions, and explained the other readings as expansions introduced for the sake of clarity,..." Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition.

So the imperative verb (in TR) is not necessarily "left out" of v.22 in modern texts, and the connection is emphasized by v.24.

When a witness uses an imperative in a verse, they put the word "their own husbands"

Not so. A Search for "ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν" (own husbands) will show that it occurs in non-TR Greek bibles as well as TR ones.

Furthermore, a third-person imperative (ὑποτασσέσθωσαν) is present in some of these testimonies, while a second-person imperative (ὑποτάσσεσθε) is present in others. How can I tell whether there has been a shift in how this is interpreted?

Tregelles (c. 1857) is the only GNT of mine with a third person imperative. It is neither TR nor Critical. Consult Factbook for relevant books.