WM 138: Text Note: Ephesians 3:9

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.

JTR