kata ta biblia

a blog exploring Christian origins, biblical studies, social/cultural history, method, education and the journey through academia

Greek Question: "to the ones being [in Ephesus?]"

We were translating the first part of Ephesians in my Greek Reading class the other day and I was suddenly struck by the words τοῖς οὖσιν (Greekish: “to the ones being”) in verse 1. You may know that there is a debate about whether Paul wrote Ephesians, and related to that question is whether the epistle was in fact written to the Ephesians. You find the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ (“in Ephesus”) in brackets in our modern editions of the Greek text (UBS4 and NA27) because the committee deciding on the most accurate Greek text had a difficult time deciding on whether it was truly in the original document. The evidence for “in Ephesus” is not born out in some of the most important manuscripts of the Greek text from the early church. Here is Metzger’s entry for the verse in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (to my non-Bible-geeky friends: don’t worry too much about the technical stuff):

The words ἐν Ἐφέσῳͅ are absent from several important witnesses (P46 א* B* 424c 1739) as well as from manuscripts mentioned by Basil and the text used by Origen. Certain internal features of the letter as well as Marcion’s designation of the epistle as “To the Laodiceans” and the absence in Tertullian and Ephraem of an explicit quotation of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ have led many commentators to suggest that the letter was intended as an encyclical, copies being sent to various churches, of which that at Ephesus was chief. Since the letter has been traditionally known as “To the Ephesians,” and since all witnesses except those mentioned above include the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, the Committee decided to retain them, but enclosed within square brackets.

So the way it looks is: τοῖς οὖσιν [ἐν Ἐφέσῳ] (“to the ones being [in Ephesus]“). I haven’t done much research into this Ephesians authorship debate, so my curiosity about this phrase will, I hope, be answered by someone who has. We had read the beginning of 1 Corinthians the week just prior to this in Greek Reading, so I recalled that in that letter Paul indicates the recipients of his letter by using the same kind of phrasing: τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ (Greekish: “to the church of God, to the one being in Corinth”). See also 2 Corinthians 1:1, Romans 1:7, and Philippians 1:1. So in Ephesians, what would happen if we lost “in Ephesus”? The author states that it is: “To the saints (holy ones), to the ones being ___ and faithful in Christ Jesus.” I suppose this could mean: “to the ones being also faithful in Christ Jesus.” Given the other standard letter openings, though, that seems unlikely. It would seem that either it was written to the ones being “in Ephesus” or the author forgot to specify the city in which the “ones” “were”. I suppose this could fit into the idea, mentioned above by Metzger, that this was an “encyclical“. So maybe the missing specified city could be thought of as: “to the ones being [in "fill in the blank with your city here"]“.

Anybody have an opinion or some more information about this element of the first verse of Ephesians?

Update (05/07/07): Jim mentions in his comment that my “the ones being” is a little too formal here and suggests that “those who are” would be more appropriate. I thought that enough people would have a question about this that I should make a comment in the original body of the post. I completely agree! I wouldn’t keep “the ones being” in a final, smooth translation. But I like to start my translating as wooden, and as my Greek Reading instructor puts it, “Greekish” as I can. After I figure out settle on an opinion of what’s going on grammatically, I smooth it out. That’s just my personal style. Sometimes the transition is instantaneous or within seconds; in a case like this, it takes longer for me.

By the way, I recommend you check out Chris Spinks’ response in the comments. Chris recently taught the book of Ephesians, so this stuff is fresh in his mind.

Post to Facebook Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Google Buzz Post to LinkedIn Post to StumbleUpon

8 Comments by Patrick George McCullough  /  May 6, 2007  /  Posted in: ephesians, greek, textual criticism
« Previous post
Next post »
  • Jim

    Howdy. Like M., I take the absence of the city name to indicate the “place your name here, reader” notion. But even without that there’s nothing difficult or odd about the Greek sentence as it stands in the oldest manuscripts.

    One could (and probably should) translate it “to those who are faithful… etc” tois ousin simply being “are” or “those who are”. Being is a bit formal in this particular sentence.

  • Chris

    I think it was F.F. Bruce who first championed the fill-in-the-blank hypothesis. But, while it sounds intersting and creative, there is no evidence that a fill in the blank approach was ever practiced. Plus, one would think that if it was practiced we would have MSS with enough space after ‘tois ousiv’ for one to write in a city name. Of all of the MSS missing ‘en Epheso’ none of them show space for writing anything else in. I think we must dismiss the fill in the blank idea. That leaves us with either an awkward grammatical structure – if the ‘kai’ were not there it would be a lot less awkward – or ‘en Epheso’. The former does have solid external MSS support, and we are inclined to accept the more difficult internal reading. However, like Pat notes, the use of the participle form of ‘eimi’ followed by the recipient city is quite common. And, the MSS evidence, though extremely strong, is limited to the Alexandrian text type. The inclusion of ‘en Epheso’ has surprisingly strong MSS evidence that demonstrates a broader geographical range (including Alexandrian!). This evidence makes me about 60% sure that ‘en Epheso’ is original. Not absolutely certain, I know. I’ve gone on long enough. If Pat will permit me, I can summarize the argument of Clinton Arnold, which is equally creative as the fill-in-the-blank hypothesis, but takes into account the evidence menionted above. I’ll hold off until Pat OKs it.

  • Patrick George McCullough

    Thanks, Chris and Jim!

    Jim, I think it is an interesting possibility, but with Chris, it seems odd to me that that the kai is there. And it’s especially suspicious since the participle of eimi with the article was used as a standard way to indicate a location. Though, I do wonder why it would be taken out in copies of the original and copies of those copies. Oh, and on my formal translation (“the ones being” instead of “those who are”), I’ll put an update in the original message because I think enough people would have a question about that.

    Chris, I was hoping I’d get a response from you after you have spent so much time on Ephesians! And of course I would like to get the summary. Have at it! Kiefer (my Greek Reading prof) did mention that without “en Epheso” is the more difficult reading and, of course, one of the principles of text criticism is to go with the more difficult reading. But it does raise strange questions.

    It’s interesting what you say about there needing to be a space. I wonder if this would only be the case in the original autograph? In the copies, maybe scribes would think it a mistake and not include the space. Are there any other examples for “spaces” used like this in Greek epistles? Perhaps it could have been an implied space… if the people who received this letter knew it to be a “fill-in-the-blank” encyclical, perhaps they knew what to do with it without an actual, literal space to fill in. Then that city’s church could make their own copies?

    In any case, yes, please go for the Clinton Arnold summary! :) Thanks.

  • Chris

    I suppose it is possible that the original would have had the blank and subsequent copies would have closed the space. It just seems too speculative. But then again much biblical scholarship is speculation.

    I meant to be clearer in the first response that there is no evidence of a fill-in-the-blank epistle in any other extant Greek literature.

    Noting the strictly Alexandrian MSS that attest to the absence of ‘en Epheso’, Arnold wonders why the omission is limited to an area known for its educational system. He speculates that the epistle, with the ‘en Epheso’ intact made its way to Alexandria where its popularity as a catechetical text led some copysits to take out the place name in order to generalize the text for teaching purposes. This practice continued and proliferated the omission. This too is speculative, but as reasonable as a fill-in-the-blank hypothesis. There are many NT scholars who don’t hold to either hypothesis and simply believe the epistle was originally written awkwardly – no intended blank, no catechetical omission – just awkward grammar.

  • Chris

    By the way, “the ones being” is an acceptable translation. I had no question about it.

  • Patrick George McCullough

    Thanks, Chris. It’s good to get multiple theories. I guess my question for Arnold would be: do we have any other examples of something like this being done? But apparently we don’t have any examples of the fill-in-the-blank theory being done either. Ah, to speculate, the great scholarly endeavor.

  • mike aubrey

    I know that this post was written months ago, but I thought I would say that the circular letter theory was defended long before Bruce.

    The theory occurs at least as early as 1914, in J. O. F. Murray’s commentary on Ephesians in the Cambridge Greek Testament (page 77 of the introduction).

  • http://evepheso.wordpress.com Mike

    I was going through Chris’ blog and I came across your comment about Ephesian authorship (I’m putting this comment here because this one is on authorship too):

    http://dcspinks.com/2007/01/24/the-question-of-authorship/

    Its interesting that you mentioned the New Perspective in your comment. I think it was in the relatively recent interview with NT Wright at SaidatSouthern:
    http://saidatsouthern.com/nt-wright-interview-mp3/
    that Wright mentioned that much of his thought has developed from beginning with Paul’s letter to the Ephesians rather than Romans. My two cents, I thought you might be interested.

    Mike