It’s my pleasure to introduce a guest post from my New Testament colleague, John DelHousaye. John is Associate Professor of New Testament at Phoenix Seminary where he has taught for over 15 years. Many of those included Greek exegesis courses based on Ephesians. Now, he has distilled the fruit of that labor into a new guidebook for students. Since John took special note of textual variants in his book, I asked if he would share some of that with us. (By the way, you can enter to win a copy of the book here.)
![]()
In Engaging Ephesians: An Intermediate Reader and Exegetical Guide (GlossaHouse, 2018), I had the opportunity to review many of the recorded variants from our witnesses to the letter. Educated with a bias against the Byzantine tradition, I wanted to be more sympathetic, especially because of the softening to the readings in the Nestle-Aland 28th edition, but concluded they comprised glosses and expansions. In the end, I did not adopt a single uniquely Byzantine reading. Ephesians is also attested in the papyri:
I was not especially impressed by these witnesses: the transcription is often sloppy (see, for example, the P46 reading at 4:30). Also problematic were the variants in Codex Claromontanus (see 3:1). Variants in Claromontanus were also derivative (see 3:1). In my opinion, Codex Sinaiticus, our oldest complete copy of the New Testament, is the least derivative. I may be wrong, but I do not judge that the evidence is on the side of those seeking another point of departure. Of course, Sinaiticus seems to be filled with derivative readings and transcription errors.
My bias was confirmed, but then immediately challenged in the opening line. Sinaiticus reads:
Concerning the first variant, variation in the order of Jesus’s name and primary epithet, the Christ (Messiah), is very common in the manuscripts. We also find both orders in the immediate context without variants. On the one hand, Sinaiticus and most of the Byzantine tradition read Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. On the other, most printed editions (Nestle-Aland, SBLGNT) follow the earlier reading in P46 (c. 175–225), which is also reflected in Vaticanus, Claromontanus, and other witnesses. I favor this reading because it is earlier and (slightly) more difficult—“Jesus Christ” being the default. The order also fits a couplet pattern:
Therefore, I judge the reading in Sinaiticus to be derivative and not a contender for the earliest reading in our manuscript tradition. In any case, the sense is little affected.
But the second variant, [ἐν Ἐφέσῳ], is more meaningful and difficult to resolve. Our earliest manuscripts (P46, the original hand of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Origen) do not mention the city. ἐν Ἐφέσῳ is written by a different hand in a different color of ink in the margin of Sinaiticus; the words are also in the margin of Vaticanus.[2] We may interpret these facts at least two ways. The scribes noted an omission or made an emendation.
On the one hand, some argue the letter was intended to be an encyclical.[3] The content of the letter is more general, suggesting a broader application, perhaps with Tychicus serving as its carrier and reader throughout Asia Minor (6:21–22). Perhaps a scribe (or pseudonymous author) wanted to harmonize the letter with Colossians, which is closely related in style and substance and reads ἐν Κολοσσαῖς (1:1). If we omit τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, we have a seemingly more harmonious τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ πιστοῖς (see Col 1:2).
On the other, the first copyist of Sinaiticus, or more likely because of the absence of ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in the earlier P46 someone else, might have omitted the phrase by accident or in order to generalize the letter. A clearer example of this pattern is the omission of τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ at Rom 1:14 in some later witnesses. Do these readings presuppose an early catholicity to the Pauline letters?
The use of οὖσιν without a predicate is anomalous (see Rom 1:7; Phil 1:1; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1). Origen, a native speaker, struggled to make sense of it.[4] Also, as William Larkin notes, all extant manuscripts have the superscript or heading ПРОΣΕΠΕΣΙΟΥΣ.[5] The association with the city is not arbitrary. Our witnesses do not provide an alternative location.[6]
The wording and arrangement also suggest a parallelism, conveying a dual citizenship:
My study of Ephesians led to a deeper appreciation of the letter’s elegance. Overall, Codex Sinaiticus is the best witness to this rhetorical beauty. In some cases, along with other considerations, the more elegant reading should be preferred. Of course, the original copyist of Sinaiticus inherited a flawed text and added further infelicities. Nevertheless, in my opinion, this codex remains the best point of departure.
In Engaging Ephesians: An Intermediate Reader and Exegetical Guide (GlossaHouse, 2018), I had the opportunity to review many of the recorded variants from our witnesses to the letter. Educated with a bias against the Byzantine tradition, I wanted to be more sympathetic, especially because of the softening to the readings in the Nestle-Aland 28th edition, but concluded they comprised glosses and expansions. In the end, I did not adopt a single uniquely Byzantine reading. Ephesians is also attested in the papyri: | Text | Witness |
|---|---|
| Eph 1:1–23 | P46 |
| Eph 1:11–13, 19–21 | P92 |
| Eph 2:1–7, 10–22 | P46 |
| Eph 3:1–21 | P46 |
| Eph 4:1–32 | P46 |
| Eph 4:16–29, 31–32 | P49 |
| Eph 5:1–6, 8–33 | P46 |
| Eph 5:1–13 | P49 |
| Eph 6:1–6, 8–18, 20–24 | P46 |
I was not especially impressed by these witnesses: the transcription is often sloppy (see, for example, the P46 reading at 4:30). Also problematic were the variants in Codex Claromontanus (see 3:1). Variants in Claromontanus were also derivative (see 3:1). In my opinion, Codex Sinaiticus, our oldest complete copy of the New Testament, is the least derivative. I may be wrong, but I do not judge that the evidence is on the side of those seeking another point of departure. Of course, Sinaiticus seems to be filled with derivative readings and transcription errors.
My bias was confirmed, but then immediately challenged in the opening line. Sinaiticus reads:
Παῦλος ἀπόστολος ΙΥ ΧΥ διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ ἸησοῦThe Nestle-Aland 28 reads:
Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν [ἐν Ἐφέσῳ] καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ·The edited text dispenses with the nomina sacra and places Χριστοῦ before Ἰησοῦ; the preposition phrase ἐν Ἐφέσῳ is included with brackets.
Concerning the first variant, variation in the order of Jesus’s name and primary epithet, the Christ (Messiah), is very common in the manuscripts. We also find both orders in the immediate context without variants. On the one hand, Sinaiticus and most of the Byzantine tradition read Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. On the other, most printed editions (Nestle-Aland, SBLGNT) follow the earlier reading in P46 (c. 175–225), which is also reflected in Vaticanus, Claromontanus, and other witnesses. I favor this reading because it is earlier and (slightly) more difficult—“Jesus Christ” being the default. The order also fits a couplet pattern:
- Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (1:1)
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (1:1) - Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ (1:2)
Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ (1:3)
A Opening Greeting (1:1–2)
1) The faithful (1:1)
2) Prayer for “grace” and “peace”
3) Directed to “God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:2)
B Prayer on “mystery” of God’s will and spiritual warfare (1:3–23)
C Christ’s Family: Gentiles and Jews (2:1–3:21)
D Walking with God (4:1–5:21)
1. “Walk” (4:1, 17; 5:2, 8, 15)
2. Trinity (4:1–6 // 5:18–20)
C’ Christ’s Family: Spouses, Children, Slaves (5:21–6:9)
B’ Spiritual warfare and prayer on “mystery” of the gospel (6:10–20)
A’ 6:21–23: Closing Greeting
1’) The faithful Tychicus (6:21)
2’) Prayer for “peace” and “grace” (6:23–24, inverse order)
3) Directed to “God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (6:23)
Therefore, I judge the reading in Sinaiticus to be derivative and not a contender for the earliest reading in our manuscript tradition. In any case, the sense is little affected.
But the second variant, [ἐν Ἐφέσῳ], is more meaningful and difficult to resolve. Our earliest manuscripts (P46, the original hand of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Origen) do not mention the city. ἐν Ἐφέσῳ is written by a different hand in a different color of ink in the margin of Sinaiticus; the words are also in the margin of Vaticanus.[2] We may interpret these facts at least two ways. The scribes noted an omission or made an emendation.
On the one hand, some argue the letter was intended to be an encyclical.[3] The content of the letter is more general, suggesting a broader application, perhaps with Tychicus serving as its carrier and reader throughout Asia Minor (6:21–22). Perhaps a scribe (or pseudonymous author) wanted to harmonize the letter with Colossians, which is closely related in style and substance and reads ἐν Κολοσσαῖς (1:1). If we omit τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, we have a seemingly more harmonious τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ πιστοῖς (see Col 1:2).
On the other, the first copyist of Sinaiticus, or more likely because of the absence of ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in the earlier P46 someone else, might have omitted the phrase by accident or in order to generalize the letter. A clearer example of this pattern is the omission of τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ at Rom 1:14 in some later witnesses. Do these readings presuppose an early catholicity to the Pauline letters?
The use of οὖσιν without a predicate is anomalous (see Rom 1:7; Phil 1:1; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1). Origen, a native speaker, struggled to make sense of it.[4] Also, as William Larkin notes, all extant manuscripts have the superscript or heading ПРОΣΕΠΕΣΙΟΥΣ.[5] The association with the city is not arbitrary. Our witnesses do not provide an alternative location.[6]
The wording and arrangement also suggest a parallelism, conveying a dual citizenship:
τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ἘφέσῳAlthough the reading ἐν Ἐφέσῳ is uncertain, I find no compelling reason to drop it.
καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
My study of Ephesians led to a deeper appreciation of the letter’s elegance. Overall, Codex Sinaiticus is the best witness to this rhetorical beauty. In some cases, along with other considerations, the more elegant reading should be preferred. Of course, the original copyist of Sinaiticus inherited a flawed text and added further infelicities. Nevertheless, in my opinion, this codex remains the best point of departure.
Notes
- Adapted from see John Paul Heil, Ephesians: Empowerment to Walk in Love for the Unity of All in Christ (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 38-42.
- Eadie, Ephesians, xviii.
- John Eadie attributes the theory to Usher (A Commentary on the Greek Text of The Epistle of Paul to The Ephesians, 2nd ed. [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1861], xxiv).
- Eadie, Commentary, xix.
- William J. Larkin, Ephesians: A Handbook on The Greek Text (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), 2.
- Marcion may have claimed the letter was intended for the Laodiceans, but no extant witness supports this.