I have posted WM 138: Text Note: Ephesians 3:9. Listen here.
A popular internet apologist (PIA) has recently suggested that
Ephesians 3:9 is a “blatant error” in the TR, and, therefore, this poses a
supposedly insurmountable “defeater” for the Confessional Text position.
Is this, in fact, the case? Is defense of the TR, in general,
and the TR reading in Ephesians 3:9, in particular, completely irrational?
Let’s look at the evidence by posing a series of five questions
and responses:
First: What is the supposed
“blatant error” in the TR of Ephesians 3:9?
The
controversy in Ephesians 3:9 involves the TR reading η κοινωνια του μυστηριου, “the fellowship of the
mystery” (as translated in Tyndale, Geneva, KJV). In the modern critical text
the reading is η οικονομια του
μυστηριου, “the plan of the mystery” (ESV) or “the administration of the mystery”
(NASB).
The controversy here is really about one single
word:
TR: η κοινωνια
MCT: η οικονομια
We can immediately see that the words are very similar
in form to one another, and we can see how there might easily have been scribal
confusion between the two words. One has 8 letters and the other 9 letters.
Every letter in κοινωνια appears in οικονομια, except one: omega. Both words end in iota
alpha.
Second: Why is it
argued that the MCT reading is superior to the TR reading in Ephesians 3:9?
A friend shared a FB post from the aforementioned PIA which
begins:
There
is no evidence to my knowledge (manuscript, patristic, versional, inscriptional)
within the first 1000 years of church history of anyone reading Ephesians 3:9
as "the fellowship of the mystery" (ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ μυστηρίου). The
reading is unquestioned: it is "the administration/plan of the
mystery" (ἡ οἰκονομία τοῦ μυστηρίου).
We should note that
this argument against the TR reading is entirely based on the external evidence.
Let’s begin with some
analysis of the Greek manuscript evidence, which is generally the most
important.
Among current extant
Greek manuscripts, of all eras, the Majority reading is indeed η οικονομια. In fact, the external evidence is so
overwhelming that the NA28 does not even list any variants at this point in its
critical apparatus.
Bruce
Metzger, however, offers the following comments on this variant in his Textual Commentary, Second Edition
(1994): “The Textus Receptus, in company with a scattering of late minuscules,
replaces οἰκονομία with the interpretive gloss κοινωνία (hence AV “fellowship”). The true reading is supported by p46,
all known uncials, almost all minuscules, all known versions, and patristic
quotations” (535).
Though Metzger,
unsurprisingly, dismisses the Greek ms. support for the traditional reading as
confirmed only by “a scattering of late minuscules”, he does, at least, acknowledge
that this reading is present in the Greek ms. tradition.
This brings up an
important related point, which the intrepid PIA seems always to overlook in throwing
out random objection passages to the TR like this one. Namely, those who prefer
the TR readily and openly acknowledge that it is an eclectic text. It is not based
on the Majority text. Many of its readings are found in the Majority text (like
the traditional ending of Mark), but some are based on a minority tradition.
The PIA seems completely oblivious to this point.
It seems particularly
odd for the PIA to reject the TR reading at Ephesians 3:9 based on the fact that
it is not the Majority reading since, supposedly, he is not himself an advocate
for the Majority text but, instead, embraces an eclectic method (reasoned
eclecticism). We might call the TR “providential eclecticism.”
Side Note: There
is another variant in Ephesians 3:9 that involves the prepositional phrase at
the end of the verse, “through Jesus Christ.” In this case the Majority text
and the TR both include the phrase while the MCT rejects it. If the PIA
supports the Majority text in the case of the “fellowship/plan” variant, why
not accept it here also? Why not follow the Majority text in passages like Mark
16:9-20?
Furthermore,
the PIA expresses great confidence in the new CBGM, despite the fact that in
the NA28 it favors a reading in 2 Peter 3:10 based on NO extant Greek mss.!
There seems to be a problem with consistency.
Third: What about the Greek manuscript evidence
for Ephesians 3:9?
When
the PIA proclaims that the TR reading does not appear in any manuscripts in the
course of over 1,000 years of church history that initially sounds quite
overwhelming.
But
we should remember the wisdom of Solomon, who said, “He that is first in his own cause seemeth
just; but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him” (Proverbs 18:17).
This leads
us to another major problem with the PIA’s analysis of this textual variant at
Ephesians 3:9: His analysis (or failure to provide sufficient analysis) of the Greek
manuscript evidence regarding this reading.
To
begin, can we ask the PIA to list for us the minority of minuscules (acknowledged
by Metzger) which include the TR reading, along with their suggested dates in
order to verify that none of these appear before the eleventh century? If the
PIA cannot list these, does this indicate that he has offered this challenge
without first doing a proper analytical study of this variant?
Even
if he can substantiate his claim, would he not agree that even late mss.
sometimes contain the earliest readings? On this see Greg Lanier’s chapter “Dating
Myths, Part Two: How later manuscripts can be better manuscripts” in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual
Criticism (110-131).
Again,
we are not denying that the TR reading is a late minority reading at this point,
but this does not mean ipso facto
that it is a “blatant error”?
To continue,
we might ask for specific information about the earliest Greek manuscript evidence
for Ephesians 3:9. When we look more closely, in fact, we find that the total early
Greek manuscript evidence for Ephesians 3:9 is extremely thin.
A
quick check of the INTF online Liste
for Ephesians 3:9 reveals that there are only 6 extant Greek manuscripts containing
this verse that are dated pre-AD 800. See this table:
Early mss. containing Eph 3:9
|
Mss. estimated dates by century
|
P46
|
III
|
01
|
IV
|
02
|
V
|
03
|
IV
|
04
|
V
|
06
|
VI
|
So, according
to the INTF date estimates, there are 0 mss. pre-AD 225, and there is only one
ms. pre-AD 300 (p46). The earliest ms. we have of Ephesians is at best c. 250-300
years after the letter was written.
To
push a little further regarding the early mss. evidence, I took a look at James
R. Royse’s chapter on “The Early Text of Paul (and Hebrews)” in Charles E.
Hills & Michael J. Kruger, eds., The
Early Text of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 2012, 2014):
175-203.
Royse
notes that there are only 20 extant mss. (19 papyri and 1 majuscule) from the
Pauline corpus that are plausibly date before AD 350 (175).
He provides
a table of these mss., most of which are highly fragmentary (Table 10, 176-177).
Of
these 20 mss. only 3 have any portion of Ephesians:
Mss. with Ephesians
|
Date according to Royse
|
content
|
p46
|
c. 200
|
all
|
p49
|
III
|
Eph 4:16-19, 4:32-5:13
|
p92
|
III/IV
|
Eph 1:11-13, 1:19-21
|
Regarding
p46 Royse describes its textual quality as “free” (Table 10, 177). Later Royse
says the text of p46 is “basically Alexandrian, but it often supports readings found
in D F G and even the occasional Byzantine reading (such as Eph. 5:9)” (181).
Royse suggests “one aspect of a scholarly concern for the text” of p46 is found
in its “corrections” (181). He adds: “These number 183, of which possibly 109
are by the scribe, 56 are by the second hand, 14 by the third hand, and 4 by
the fourth hand” (181-182). He also notes that it contains 639 “singular
readings”, adding, “The overall tendency to omit is clearly evidenced in these
numbers” (183). Royse adds that another important aspect of the p46’s copying
is “a tendency to harmonize to the content” (183).
So, to
sum up, let’s break down the Greek ms. evidence for this variant at Ephesians
3:9 for the first three centuries of early Christianity:
In the first century (up to AD 100): no extant
Greek mss. support η κοινωνια, and none support η οικονομια.
In the second century (up to AD 200): no extant
Greek mss. support η κοινωνια, and none support η οικονομια.
In the third century (up to AD 300): no extant
Greek mss. support η κοινωνια, while one ms. supports η οικονομια.
We readily acknowledge that there is no early Greek ms.
support for the TR reading η κοινωνια, but we also recognize that there is almost
no early Greek manuscript evidence for the MCT reading of η οικονομια. Yes, η
οικονομια is the reading found in the five early uncials and became the Majority
reading, but this does not mean that the modern critical method can prove it is
the original reading, and, in fact, contemporary text critics would be loathe
to say that they can do any such thing, given the evidence.
This
illustrates a key point in my lecture presentations at the T & CC which has
been completely ignored by the PIA in his responses so far: the fact that we
have very little early manuscript evidence for the NT. So little, in fact, that
it makes the entire “reconstruction” method suspect. As Wasserman and Gurry
state in an illustration I shared in my final lecture at the T & CC, the
evidence from the extant NT mss. is more like a “watercolor” than a
“topographical map” of the NT and you would not want to rely on it to “find
your way out of the forest”!
Aside
from the overall shift from modern to postmodern methodology, this
acknowledgement of the meager and often fragmentary early Greek NT ms. evidence
(including the papyri!) is a major reason that the stated goal of contemporary
text critics is not to find the “original autograph” but merely to approximate
the “initial text” (Augsgangstext) of the first few centuries.
This
makes the PIA’s declaration that the TR reading at Ephesians 3:9 is a “blatant
error” all the more inconsistent with the current academic method he supposedly
embraces.
Fourth, what about the versional and patristic
evidence for the variant at Ephesians 3:9?
Though
we have noted that the key evidence should generally be the Greek mss., we
should also address the PIA’s charge that the versional and patristic witnesses
to this textual variant also serve as a “defeater” for the TR.
Regarding
the versional evidence, we should note several key things to keep in mind:
First,
the PIA never provides any specific examples from the versions for our comparison
and analysis.
Second,
the versions were generally produced later and do not provide earliest or direct
evidence for the text.
Third,
study of the versions also requires more detailed linguistic analysis and
comparison. One thing that should be pointed out is that the Greek words η
κοινωνια and η οικονομια might have some possible overlap in meaning, so that
either word might have been rendered by the same term in the receptor language.
Though η κοινωνια is usually rendered as “fellowship”
in English, the lexicons remind us that it also has the sense of “association”,
“generosity”, or a “gift” given as a “sign of fellowship” (cf. Phil 1:5, etc.).
Likewise, the lexicons remind us that the the noun η οικονομια also has the
meaning of “stewardship”, as it is used in near context at Ephesians 3:2 where Paul
speaks about the οικονομια of the grace of God which has been given to him for
the Ephesians.
A
thorough study of the versional evidence would require an examination of how
each receptor language rendered the Greek terms η κοινωνια and η οικονομια, and
whether they generally used two distinct words for each term (as in Latin) or whether
the same word was ever used for both terms. If the latter is the case, then it
is possible that a version would not, in fact, provide definitive evidence as
to which Greek word undergirds the version.
Regarding
patristics, we can raise similar concerns. Most importantly, no specific examples
are given. How many times do we find references to Ephesians 3:9 in the church
fathers? How do we know if the citation was a direct quotation or a paraphrase?
Was the father citing from the Greek text or from a translation?
Fifth, why did the Protestant Reformed embrace and
affirm the TR of Ephesians 3:9 rather than the Majority reading?
There
can be little doubt that the Protestant Reformed knew that “fellowship” was not
the Majority reading of the Greek mss., but they consistently recognized this
as the true text.
This
is one of those texts where the “which TR” argument does not seem to apply in
that it is the reading found in the family of printed TR editions.
It is
there in the 1516 of Erasmus, the 1550 of Stephanus, and the 1598 of Beza:
Image: Ephesians 3:9 in Erasmus's Greek NT 1516
Image: Ephesians 3:9 in Beza's Greek NT 1598
Interestingly enough, it is also there
in the Colinaeus Greek NT of 1534, a text which very often follows readings found
in today’s modern critical text, and was the text used by Calvin in his early
ministry, before he embraced the TR as his preferred text of the Greek NT.
Image: Ephesians 3:9 in Colinaeus's Greek NT 1534
We
might add that the TR reading also clearly departed from the Latin Vulgate
which followed the Majority Greek text and read “dispensatio sacramenti” (cf. Erasmus’s Latin above: “communio mysterii”).
On
what basis did the Reformed men affirm “fellowship” here as the true reading,
over against the Majority Greek ms. tradition? We do not know. It is certainly possible
that they had access to Greek mss. which are no longer available to us.
Those
who scoff at this notion (like the PIA), should consult Jacob W. Peterson’s recent
contribution to Elijah Hixon and Peter J. Gurry, eds. Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism. Peterson’s
chapter three is titled “Math Myths: How Many Manuscripts We Have and Why More
Isn’t Always Better” (48-69). In a section on the loss of manuscripts, Peterson
notes, “Another factor affecting our manuscript count is loss” (54). He notes
that even in the INTF Liste 136 mss.
are listed as “Besitzer unbekannt” or “owner unknown”, adding, “there are a
number of ways this happens, ranging from accidental to illegal” (54). He also
observes, “Manuscripts are lost through more natural causes such as fires,
floods, and insects” (55). Manuscripts 1257-1259 from a school in Izmir are
listed as “burnt” (55). Manuscripts like 241 and 2039 were damaged or destroyed
in the firebombing of Dresden in WW2 (55). Peterson adds that “numerous early
manuscripts, such as 062, catalogued in Damascus, Syria” are listed as “owner
unknown” (55).
Then
consider that Peterson is only addressing manuscripts that were once known by
modern scholars and appear on the current Liste
that have been lost or destroyed. What about all the ones that were never catalogued
or photographed in modern times?
The
PIA does not seem to acknowledge the fact that the printed editions of the TR
may serve as witnesses to mss. that are no longer extant.
In
the end, we can only be sure that in the providence of God the reading “the
fellowship of the mystery” was that preserved in the TR. It was the Greek text
that became the basis for the Protestant translations of Europe that brought
the Reformed faith to the masses. It was the text studied, taught, and preached
in the Reformation and Post-Reformation eras, and it remains the preferred text
of Scripture embraced by countless thousands of faithful churches and
Christians today.
So
Calvin would write in his commentary on Ephesians 3:9: “The publication of the
gospel is called a fellowship,
because it is the will of God that his purpose, which had formerly been hidden,
shall now be shared by men.”
Conclusion:
It is
only in the modern era that “Reformed” men have abandoned the traditional text
for the modern reconstructed text. In so doing they have embraced a religious
epistemology that abandons stability, continuity, and consistency.
We do
not believe, in the end, that it is irrational or irreligious or irresponsible to
embrace the traditional Protestant text of the Christian Scriptures, rather
than the ever-changing, every-evolving modern critical text based on an empirical method with origins
in the Enlightenment (“Enlightenment Text-Onlyism”).
Summary on Ephesians 3:9
- The
TR is an eclectic text and is not based merely on the reading of the earliest
or the Majority of the extant Greek manuscripts. Therefore, the fact that texts like
Ephesians 3:9, are based on a later minority reading, is not necessarily a “defeater”
for the TR position.
- There
is, in fact, very little early Greek manuscript evidence for the Pauline epistles,
for the book of Ephesians, and, especially, for Ephesians 3:9.
- The
Confessional Text position rejects the reconstructionist method of modern text
criticism, in part, because there is not enough extant Greek manuscript evidence
to justify this approach.
- Reformed
pastors and scholars of the Reformation era, based on evidence and reasoning
that may no longer be available or discernable to us, providentially affirmed “the
fellowship of the mystery” in Ephesians 3:9 as the fitting reading of the received
text.
- The
printed editions of the TR may serve as witnesses to Greek mss. of the NT that
are no longer available to us.
- There
is no compelling reason to abandon the TR in our times and many convincing
reasons as to why it should continue to be affirmed by faithful Christians
instead of the Enlightenment text.
