The Textual Problem of Ephesians 1:1

            The city of Ephesus was one of the greatest cities of the Roman Empire.  It was there that the Temple of Artemis, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, was located.  Ephesus was a center of politics, medicine, money, and magic.  Because of the distinct character of this city, it would aid us in understanding the book of Ephesians to study the setting which prompted Paul to write. [1]   Or would it?  In studying ancient manuscripts an interesting issue arises.  In several of the manuscripts the words ‘en Efesw’ are not there, prompting some to re-examine the nature of the letter, and the occasion and purpose for its being written.  In this brief paper, I will examine the issues involved, looking first at the external manuscript evidence, and second at the internal evidence and questions which may help us to better gauge the authenticity of this short phrase.  Although short, this phrase does have an impact on our understanding of the Epistle to the Ephesians, indeed on whether it should even be called the ‘Epistle to the Ephesians’ at all.

            If the determination of the originality of this phrase was based on the number of witnesses there would be no question as to its authenticity.  Virtually every extant manuscript has this reading.  In fact, there are only six manuscripts, plus a couple of early church references, which would support the exclusion of ‘en efesw’.  The problem, however, arises on account of which six manuscripts these are.  Although both a and B have this phrase, it is apparent that ‘en efesw’ was added by a later corrector, and that the original copies did not include these words.  In addition to the originals of a and B, ‘en efesw’ is missing in P⁴⁶, 6, a corrected 424, and 1739.  There is also some support for this reading in Origen and in Marcion as quoted by Tertullian.  We find then, that although the great number of manuscripts support including this phrase, the few which do leave it out are normally considered among the earliest and best of the extant manuscripts.  This causes some difficulties.  

            The question then arises whether these few important manuscripts carry with them enough weight so as to throw out the readings of the majority of manuscripts.  Although  a strong argument can be made which would support this act, there are some issues which must be raised in the contrary.  The readings which have ‘en efesw’ include a wide geographical distribution of manuscripts, including some Alexandrian witnesses, [2]   and references by a number of early church writers.  There does not seem to exist any manuscript witnesses other than Alexandrian which support leaving this phrase out.  It appears, then, that this disagreement is not with the manuscripts as a whole, but more specifically within the tradition of Alexandrian witnesses.  Because of this, it would be hasty to claim that this reading is not original.  But, the weight of the witnesses do, however, urge us to look more closely at the text in order to determine how this reading came about.  To do this, we must look now at the internal evidence.

            It would behoove us to first look at the letter as a whole.  Unlike most of the Pauline epistles, Ephesians does not seem to be addressing specific issues or problems within a specific church setting.  Rather, it seems to be a rather broad overview of Pauline theology, expressing some major points of Pauline thought, and laying out some general guidelines for proper Christian behavior and relationships.  There is not a section or even a sentence in which Paul addresses or refers to any individual in the church, the church body of that local setting, or makes any reference to a commonly understood situation.  This departure from the usual practice of Paul to make his letter personal for the community to which he is writing has led many scholars to look at Ephesians as an encyclical letter, meant for churches throughout Asia Minor.    The Epistle to the Ephesians appears to be a general writing, expressing Paul’s current state of thought and situation, to encourage and reinforce the churches of Asia Minor which he had founded and developed during the course of his ministry, not a specific letter sent to a single church.

            Yet, there are some more issues we must look at.  The grammar of Ephesians 1:1 seems to suggest the originality of the address.  Without the phrase, Paul is writing his letter to the “agioi toi ousin kai pistoi en Cristow Ihsou.” A look at Paul’s use of ‘toi ousin’ in other letters, however, shows us that this type of phrase is always followed by a specific place name. [3]   Although, this phrase can be translated in such a way as to make sense without ‘en efesw’, the structure of the sentence and Paul’s wording seems to suggest that a place name was originally located in the first verse.   The great, and very early, tradition of including ‘en efesw’ in this letter, as well the grammatical structure which appears to require it, seems to be a strong indicator that this reading is in fact an original.

How then can we explain the lack of ‘en efesw’ in the several manuscripts which do not include it?  One explanation is that there was not one single copy of this letter, but rather because it was a circular letter meant for various cities, there were multiple copies originally written, and that each copy bore the name of the city in which it was to be directed.  However, because of the prestige and size of the church at Ephesus, the copy of the letter bearing its name tended to be copied the most, and most widely distributed.  Over time, this became the text to the exclusion of the letters sent to other cities in Asia Minor, such as Laodicea. [4]   Thus, copies were corrected so as to include the ‘en efesw’ as the tradition cemented.  So, while some original copies may have had  ‘en efesw’, several may not have, thus leading to our current dilemma.

Another explanation is the tendency of early scribes to understand the letter as being truly circular.  In copying this letter, they left out the phrase ‘en efesw’ in their copies realizing that this is not necessary, and might confuse those who read it.  This would explain the awkwardness of the phrasing without the place name, and would show why the tradition of its originality is so very strong.  Early scribes may not have had the dogmatic intent to copy word for word, and thus felt that this phrase was an unneeded addition.  Essentially, this is what most readers in our own time do in their heads, glossing over the salutations of every epistle, understanding the general and universal nature that these letters possess.  In contrast, however, it would be unusual for a scribe to add the name of a city to a letter which did not imply a specific destination.  

Although the manuscripts which  support the absence of ‘en efesw’ are very reliable and trustworthy, the evidence of including this phrase seems to be strong enough to support its continued inclusion in our text.  The wide geographical distribution, including many Alexandrian texts, and the sheer volume of manuscripts which support this reading, lean the external evidence towards this conclusion.  In addition, the grammatical structure of 1:1 seems to indicate that a place name is required, and that since there is no extant evidence to support any other city, Ephesus is an appropriate choice for this spot.  The tendency of scribes would suggest that the circular nature of this letter gave some early copiers license to remove the place name when it was realized the universality of the letter for all believers, not just those in Ephesus.  There might also be other explanations for the exclusion of this phrase in some manuscripts, but it is more likely that this phrase was indeed excluded rather than included by a scribe, whose copy then became an authoritative copy.  The tradition of this letter as being destined for the Ephesians is too strong to adequately dismiss.  So, while this letter may not have been just to the Ephesians, the evidence, external and internal, suggests that ‘en efesw’  is in fact an original reading.  It is useful, however, to realize that this letter may have been understood by its original recipients as a letter pertaining to Christians in general rather than to a specific setting and, thus, to adjust our exegesis of Ephesians so as to realize its universality.

---

[1] Questions of authorship are outside the scope of this paper and so it will be assumed that Paul was  the author.

[2] Including not only a corrected a, B, and y, but also the originals of 33, 81, 104, 1175, and possibly the original of y.  Interestingly, 424 originally included this phrase, but ‘en efesw’ was later removed by a corrector.

[3] See Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col. 1:2.

[4] Which appears to be the destination that Marcion understood the letter to be addressed