Textual Variants as Commentary: Philemon as a Test Case

Textual Variants as Commentary: Philemon as a Test Case S. Matthew Solomon ETS SW Regional Meeting April 10, 2015 New Orleans, Louisiana

Introduction At some point, every ancient and Medieval Greek manuscript (MS) was a Bible used in a real church in a real community. Over the years, though, textual variants arose through the copying process of MSS of the New Testament (NT) by hand. Regardless of how these variants arose, churches who read from these MSS may not have known of any different readings. Our question, then, becomes: once the task of establishing the original text is complete, what are we to do with the leftover variants? Additionally, can textual variants shed light on how an ancient community understood the text of the NT? In the same way, can textual variants help in modern interpretation of the text of the NT? This paper will explore a selection of exegetically significant variants from the Greek text of Paul’s epistle to Philemon, drawing upon comprehensive collations of all extant, continuous Greek MSS of the epistle (meaning: I looked at every MS of Paul’s letter to Philemon). This paper is concerned mainly with those places of variation that can shed light on meaning and interpretation throughout the centuries. This morning we will explore those places of variation in the text of Philemon that help with interpretation, both for the ancient person and the modern. Exegetically Significant Variants Verse 2: A Change from “Sister” to “Beloved” The first exegetically significant variant to be explored is found in verse 2. While the majority of MSS read “beloved” (αγαπητη), 31 MSS read “sister” (αδελφη) as a descriptor for

Apphia, including the earliest and best witnesses. Two MSS combine the readings: MS 629 reads “beloved sister” (αδελφη τη αγαπητη) and MS 1735 reads “beloved and sister” (τη αγαπητη και αδελφη). The earliest and best witnesses attest to “sister” (αδελφη) as being the preferred reading, making “beloved” the secondary reading and possible commentary for the verse. Turning to scribal and authorial evidence, though, the change from “sister” (αδελφη) to “beloved” (αγαπητη) is easier to explain than vice versa, but the reason for the change is slightly more complicated. A likely explanation of the change from “sister” to “beloved” is in the similar spelling of the Greek words αδελφη and αγαπητη. So, the change could simply be a slip of the eye when looking back to the exemplar MS from which they were copying. Also, scribes could have assimilated (whether consciously or not) Apphia’s descriptor to Philemon’s descriptor (which is αγαπητῳ) mentioned in the previous verse. If the reading were “beloved” initially, then the change to “sister” could have been made to avoid repetition with Philemon’s descriptor, which is a highly unlikely change.i Another possible scenario includes a change from “sister” (αδελφη) to “beloved” (αγαπητη) in order to diminish somehow Apphia’s role in the church. Joseph Fitzmyer suggested that Paul used αδελφος in describing Christians in general but also noted that Paul used the term for Timothy, who clearly has co-sender status.ii While not much is known of Apphia outside the letter, she is assumed to be the lady of the house and perhaps the wife of either Philemon or Archippus.iii As such, her appearance in the greeting points toward her involvement in the running of the house and demonstrates the need for her to be involved in the process of reconciliation between slave and master. While Apphia clearly occupied an important role in the church and the household, Fitzmyer argued that the use of “sister” (αδελφη) does not point toward Apphia occupying a position of leadership.

Others, however, have argued that Apphia did occupy a special role in both the church and Paul’s ministry. Bonnie Thurston and Judith Ryan have argued that the use of “sister” (αδελφη) in a position so close to “brother” (αδελφος) for Timothy in verse one points to “parity with respect to importance and/or influence within the community.”iv As such, Apphia could be seen as one of Paul’s co-workers. Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke argued that Paul used “sister” (αδελφη) in the same way he would use “brother” (αδελφος), suggesting that Paul gave both men and women the same honor and respect. They also argued that Apphia shared an important role in the church on the same level as Philemon by comparing the use of αδελφη in Philemon for Apphia with the use of αδελφη in Rom 16:1 for Phoebe.v W. E. Oesterley indicated that Apphia holds at least a quasi-official position in the church, especially in light of being included in a list with a fellow worker and a fellow soldier.vi If Apphia’s description as “sister” points to a special status on par with Timothy, Phoebe, and other of Paul’s co-workers, then the change from “sister” to “beloved” could be seen as an intentional change meant to diminish her role in the church. The role of women in positions of leadership declined as Christianity became more of a public enterprise in the third and fourth centuries A.D. Tertullian spoke out against women teaching, baptizing, and engaging in any type of public discourse, which represented the conservative attitude that the proper place of women was strictly the private home sphere.vii Tertullian found himself in a time period when the church seemed to be transitioning from the household model to a model that reflected the Roman culture.viii According to inscriptional evidence, the end of the sixth century saw the highest levels of church office for women on the decline.ix In the Greek MS tradition, the first appearance of αγαπητη or “beloved” as a descriptor for Apphia occurs in the ninth century, a time period when evidence is split fairly evenly. The reading could have arisen sometime between the sixth and

ninth centuries as leadership roles for women continually declined in the church. As such, the reading could be seen as an intentional corruption due to orthopraxy.x The change, then, could be seen as an alternative way to view Apphia’s role in the church. Although the shift from “sister” (αδελφη) to “beloved” (αγαπητη) could be viewed as an intentional change to subordinate or diminish Apphia’s role in the church, we must remember that the change could also simply be due to a mechanical error (i.e., a slip of the eye). Another way in which we can view this variant as ancient or Medieval commentary on the text of Philemon is in connecting her with Philemon himself. Sharing the same descriptor as Philemon could point to the two being married, an idea that has been shared by some throughout the centuries, perhaps earliest by John Chrysostom.xi The likelihood of this relationship is debatable, but many who read these MSS and used them in worship and study could have understood the two to be married based on the descriptors and the order. In any case, many commentaries do not comment on the variant reading here while many more do not even acknowledge that a different reading exists. While “beloved” is almost certainly secondary, many readers of the Bible (ancient and modern, e.g., KJV) read “beloved” here. Proper exegesis must acknowledge this tradition. Verse 6: A Change from “Participation” to “Ministry” Our next variant to cover is in verse six. Verse six is by far the most difficult verse in Philemon to understand in terms of vocabulary and syntax. As Paul continued his thanksgiving section, he provided a purpose clause that gives an object to his ambiguous prayer from the second half of verse four, stating “so that the fellowship of your faith may become effective in the knowledge of every good thing which is in us in Christ.” Most MSS in the Greek tradition read “participation” or “fellowship” (κοινωνια). Some MSS (01c, 0150, 1874, 1881, et al.), though, read “ministry” or “service” (διακονια) in place of “fellowship” or “participation”

(κοινωνια). The overwhelming support of early and reliable witnesses gives precedent to κοινωνια over διακονια, making the second reading the focus of our discussion presently. Looking at the MS tradition, though, is not the only way to analyze textual variants. Transcriptional considerations must be examined as well. The specific meaning of κοινωνια here has been the subject of some debate. Modern scholars have provided a range of meanings for the term: association, communion, sharing, participation, partnership, contributions, fellowship, and others.xii Modern difficulties in understanding the meaning of κοινωνια may shed light on why διακονια can be found in some MSS. Perhaps ancient and medieval readers and scribes shared the same difficulty with κοινωνια and sought to clarify the meaning of the verse by changing κοινωνια to διακονια to avoid ambiguity. Another important aspect to consider is strictly a copying issue: the two terms share several common letters. A careless scribe initially could have made the change from κοινωνια to διακονια unintentionally. In this case, διακονια could have stayed in the tradition, as the noun makes sense in the flow of Paul’s letter. However the variant arose, the presence of διακονια in the textual tradition points to difficulties in interpretation throughout the centuries. Perhaps this variant reading can help us in interpretation. In this particular instance, past readers struggled with the word κοινωνια (which should make us feel better about struggling with interpretation sometimes). Some readers, though, were comfortable with the term “ministry” or “service” of faith here. This variant reading helps us to understand that this activity of faith that Paul was praying would become effective was certainly connected to the church and involved an act of service or ministry not simply a passive type of fellowship.

Verse 6: The Addition of “Works” Continuing in verse six, Paul prayed that the participation of Philemon’s faith would be effective “in the knowledge of every good thing.” The ambiguous use of αγαθου (every good what?) here led to the addition of a clarifying noun: εργου or “work.” In this case, “every good” became “every good work.” Once the reading made its way into the tradition, it remained, being found in more than 120 MSS.xiii Although found in a significant number of MSS, the variant reading can be found in only three of the major witnesses for Philemon: 010, 012, and 1841. The addition appears to be secondary in light of external evidence. Scribal and authorial considerations must be examined as well. In terms of inscriptional probabilities (i.e., what Paul might have written), the addition of “work” (εργου) might appear to go against the grain in terms of what Paul usually communicated to his congregations. Although Paul emphasized salvation being free from works of the law, good works is not a concept foreign to his teachings. Paul used the phrase εργον αγαθος twelve times in his letters, each time in a positive sense.xiv In this instance, therefore, Paul could have penned “every good work” (εργου αγαθου) initially. In terms of transcriptional probabilities, scribes might have added εργου to clarify the somewhat ambiguous αγαθου. “Of all good” or “of every good thing” is open ended, which could have led some scribes to insert a clarifying noun. Conversely, if εργου were present initially, its deletion (thus creating a more ambiguous phrase at the end of an already awkward verse) seems less likely. Also, six of the twelve instances of the phrase “good works” occur in the Pastoral Epistles, located right before Philemon in most MSS. Due to close proximity, scribes could have added εργου to αγαθου to correct the perceived error of its absence because they were accustomed to seeing the phrase.

Considering both internal and external evidence, the more likely initial reading is παντος αγαθου. The best and earliest witnesses attest to the absence of εργου. Also, while the phrase εργον αγαθος is present in Paul’s other letters, transcriptional evidence suggests that scribes would have been more likely to add the noun than to delete it. The secondary nature of the phrase “every good work” makes it a prime candidate for a variant that can be used as commentary for this particular verse. The original text “every good” by itself cries out for something to complete the thought. In this case, scribes inserted εργου, which can be translated as “work” or “deed,” giving the otherwise ambiguous phrase some kind of tangible action or result. Paul’s prayer was that the participation of Philemon’s faith would become effective in the knowledge of not just all goodness but specifically good deeds and actions. That this reading found staying power in about 20 percent of the Greek MS tradition indicates its acceptance as a legitimate way to understand the text here. Verse 6: The Difference an Article Makes Directly following “good thing” (αγαθου), most MSS include the article του, which acts as a relative pronoun connecting “in us” (εν ηµιν)xv to “every good thing” (παντος αγαθου) to read all together “all the good that is in us” or “every good thing that is in us.” Manuscripts of good quality (P61, 02, 04, 33, 1950, and 2401), however, do not include the article του, reading “all the good in us” (παντος αγαθου εν ηµιν). In this case, “in us” εν ηµιν could be connected to “the knowledge” (επιγνωσει) or even “the participation” (η κοινωνια) earlier in the verse, although it is best left connected to παντος αγαθου due to proximity. Good quality MSS 1739 and 1881 read the nominative feminine singular ἡ in place of του, which might be an attempt to connect “in you” (note that these two MSS actually include the reading εν υµιν discussed below) back to “the participation” (η κοινωνια). In this instance, the sentence could read “so that the

participation of your faith that is in you may become effective in every good thing.” Although most MSS read του, its absence and substitution in several early and important MSS arouse curiosity. Scribal and authorial evidence, therefore, must be explored. The presence of an article here clarifies the function of “in us” (εν ηµιν). The absence of an article here has the potential to cloud the function of “in us” (εν ηµιν). If the article were present initially, difficulties arise in explaining why it would be omitted intentionally. A scribe who thought the article was redundant could have omitted the article. A slip of the eye, on the other hand, could explain why the article has been omitted in a few instances—του directly follows αγαθου, and both end with the same two letters. A careless scribe could have suffered a slip of the eye and omitted the article. If the article were not present initially, however, its addition to the initial text would clarify the function of “in us” (εν ηµιν). Scribes more likely would clarify a particular place in the text rather than ambiguate relatively clear phrases. In this case, the easier reading that explains the rise of the others is the absence of an article, whether του or ἡ. The absence of an article would explain the rise of articles pointing to different phrases in the verse. Internal evidence is not decisive for this variant. Based on both MS as well as scribal and authorial considerations, the initial text of Philemon more than likely included the article του. Although internal evidence is not decisive for this variation unit, the overwhelming external evidence supports the presence of the article. Its absence or change, therefore, may give us insight into how the verse was understood in some places, especially the change that connects the phrase “in us” to “participation” instead of “good thing.” For MS 1739, the text reads: “so that the participation of your faith that is in (or among) you all may become effective in every good thing in Christ Jesus.” Similarly, the text of 1881

reads: “so that the ministry (or service) of your faith that is in (or among) you all may become effective in every good thing in Christ Jesus.” These two alternative readings were legitimate in these churches, and yet they have a slightly different emphasis. Commentary writers focus on establishing the text first then commenting on the text while disposing of variant readings as simply spurious. Variant readings, though, can often inform us not only of interpretation among readers but also inform us of places where readers struggled to understand the text. In verse six, therefore, slowing down and paying attention to even something as minuscule as an article can help us in understanding and interpreting the text of Philemon. Verse 6: “In Us” or “In Y’all” The second-to-last phrase in verse six includes the phrase “in us” in the text portion of modern Greek critical editions. The textual tradition, though, is split two-thirds to one-third in total number of MSS that read “in us” (ηµιν) and “in you all” (υµιν), respectively, which is an unusual split percentage for this letter.xvi Important MSS also are split almost evenly in number: 02, 04, 06, 044, 048, 0150, 81, 322, 323, 630, 1241, 1319, 1424, 1841, 1874, MT, and SBL read “in us” (ηµιν) while P61, 01, 010, 012, 025, 075, 0278, 33, 35, 69, 104, 256, 365, 442, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1739, 1881, and TR read “in y’all” (υµιν). One MS, GA 38, reads “in me” (εµοι), which is just a strange reading. Only considering MS evidence, the slight edge belongs to “in you” (υµιν), as the MSS that contain the reading are of slightly better quality. With MS evidence slightly favoring one reading over another, scribal and authorial evidence must be considered as perhaps a deciding force. As far as authorial considerations are concerned, Paul used “in y’all” (υµιν) 164 times and used “in us” (ηµιν) 35 times in his letters, which is about an 80 percent to 20 percent split. Interestingly, he used first-person personal pronouns 826 times in his letters and second-person personal pronouns 841 times in his letters,

which is nearly an even split. When he used personal pronouns in the dative case, he preferred to use “in y’all” (υµιν). So Paul more than likely would have used “in y’all” (υµιν) in this instance. As far as scribal considerations are concerned, scribes would have been more likely to change “in us” (ηµιν) to “in y’all” (υµιν) because of the presence of “of you” (σου) earlier in the verse. If “in y’all” (υµιν) were present initially, the shift to “in us” (ηµιν) is difficult to explain. Authorial and scribal considerations in this case are inconclusive.xvii This variant often is discussed in commentaries. The general consensus favors “in us” (ηµιν) as original, mostly due to assimilation. In his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger argued that “in us” (ηµιν) is original due its expressive nature and the fact that scribes would have been more likely to assimilate the text to other second-person personal pronouns in the surrounding verses.xviii Barth and Blanke devoted one and a half pages of their commentary to discussing the implications of both readings, which is far more coverage than any other commentary. They argued that “in y’all” (υµιν) should be the adopted reading based on intrinsic grounds. Referencing Lohmeyer, they pointed out that in Paul’s thanksgiving sections, he normally does not lump himself into unity with the congregation to which he is writing. Further, they argued that Paul never thanked God for granting him love and faithfulness to an outstanding degree. To this end, all good things would be experienced in the congregation, not simply in an ideal and abstract manner. Based on MS, scribal, and authorial considerations, both readings deserve to be read. In other words, here is a place where no major exegetical point should be made solely on this particular word. Both readings have compelling evidence. Both readings have scholars who have adopted either one. Both readings, therefore, should be considered when completing the

exegetical task of verse 6 in Philemon. This particular place of variation among the Greek MS tradition is not simply a place where we decide the original and throw out the variant. Verse 11: “Useless/Useful” vs. “Without Christ/Good With Christ” In verse 11, Paul employed a play on words based on the meaning of Onesimus: “useful” or “profitable one.”xix Since Onesimus can mean “useful,” Paul described Onesimus’s new status as ευχρηστον (“useful”) and his old status as αχρηστον (“useless”). In the Greek MS tradition, however, not a few MSS read αχριστον and ευχριστον. Iota and eta produced such similar sounds in Koine and modern Greek that this change in vowels was more than likely a simple vowel change. Could scribes have taken Paul’s play on words one step further, though? In describing Onesimus’s new and former statuses, scribes could have switched from eta to iota in order to demonstrate in a clever way that Onesimus was once “without Christ” and is now “good with Christ.”xx James D. G. Dunn has allowed for the possibility of αχρηστον and ευχρηστον being used as puns for Χριστος. Arguing that scribes switched the vowels purposefully is impossible and certainly inadvisable. An unconscious shift plausibly could be seen in αχριστον and ευχριστον, though. Verse 16a: “Beloved Brother” In the first half of verse 16, several changes occur in regard to the phrase “beloved brother.” Twenty-five MSS, including a couple of good quality (1739 and 1881), reverse the order in Greek here to read αγαπητον αδελφον. Seven MSS, including the original hand of 01, omit “brother” (αδελφον) to read simply “beloved” or “dear friend” (αγαπητον). Manuscript 629, no doubt influenced by the Latin Vulgate, adds to the description of Onesimus, reading “beloved

son and brother” (αγαπητον υιον και αδελφον). Manuscript evidence solidly supports the reading “beloved brother” (αδελφον αγαπητον). Looking at scribal and authorial considerations, the secondary readings are explainable in terms of scribal activities. The reading in MS 629 is more than likely an embellishment by an eager scribe. The omission of “brother” (αδελφον) could be due simply to a slip of the eye (the words have similar beginnings and endings). What might be a mistake could have exegetical significance, though. If the reading were “beloved” instead of “beloved brother,” then Paul’s argument loses some of its force at this point in the letter. Paul wished for Onesimus to be accepted in a new way by Philemon, which he announces climactically in the next verse. The term “brother” is an important part of his argument, and the letter reads differently at this point without it. Yet, some MSS did not include the reading, possibly leading to a difference in interpretation. Conclusion While we have the luxury of examining nearly two millennia of MSS and critical editions of the Greek NT in order to reconstruct the original text of the NT, churches throughout the centuries used the texts they had for the public reading of scripture. In some instances, awareness of different readings existed (especially in the early period). For the most part though, texts with variations were read and accepted as authoritative in churches. For Philemon, we can see several places where textual variation can act as commentary: in verse 2 where Apphia’s precise role in the church may have been up for debate, in verse 6 where four major variants exist due to ambiguous vocabulary and syntax, in verse 11 where a play on words could have been taken a step further than even Paul may have intended (but probably would have enjoyed), and in verse 16 where the entire argument of Paul’s letter to Philemon could be summed up in a word that is

missing in some MSS. Textual variations can help us to understand how the text was understood in some settings. As such, textual variations that have been deemed as completely secondary should not be jettisoned completely by scholars, pastors, and lay people but should be seen as a part of the interpretive Technicolor tapestry of the church being woven for nearly 2,000 years now. i

Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d ed.; Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2006), 588; and Roger L. Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2006), 449. ii

Fitzmyer, 85. Timothy has co-sender status due to his place in the greeting and because his name is in the nominative case, while Philemon, Apphia, Archippus, and the house church are all in the dative case. Timothy, though, is named brother, while Philemon and Archippus are named beloved and fellow-worker, respectively. iii

Ibid., 87; and Eduard Loshe, Colossians and Philemon (Hermeneia; trans. William R. Poehlmann and Robert J. Karris; ed. Helmut Koester; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 190. iv

Bonnie B. Thurston and Judith M. Ryan, Philippians and Philemon (SP 10; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2005), 212. v

Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, The Letter to Philemon (Eerdmans Critical Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 254-55. vi

W. E. Oesterley, “The Epistle to Philemon,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1979), 211. vii

Tertullian, On Baptism 17 (ANF 3).

viii

Karen Jo Torjesen, When Women Were Priests: Women’s Leadership in the Early Church & the Scandal of Their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity (New York: Harper One, 1995), 160. ix

Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek, Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History (Baltimore: John’s Hopkins University Press, 2005), 205. Madigan and Osiek’s work points to women in positions of deacon and presbyter throughout both the East and the West. x

That is, an orthoprax corruption of Scripture.

xi

Barth and Blanke, 255.

xii

O’Brien, 279; Lohse, 193; Thurston and Ryan, 223; Fitzmyer, 97; and Barth and Blanke, 281. xiii

In their discussion on the variant, Barth and Blanke commented that a very small group of MSS added the noun. That the noun has been added to more than 120 Greek MSS demonstrates the need for full collations of the entire Greek tradition. xiv

Rom 2:7; 2 Cor 9:8; Eph 2:10; Phil 1:6; Col 1:10; 1 Tim 2:10, 5:10; 2 Tim 2:21, 3:17; Titus 1:16, and 3:1. The only letters lacking the phrase are 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and 1-2 Thessalonians. xv

Or εν υµιν, which is discussed below.

xvi

For most of the variants that center on a difference between first-person and secondperson pronouns, the mass quantity of MSS support one over the other, which suggests an orthographical shift. xvii

For a lengthier discussion on Paul’s use of first-, second-, and third-person personal pronouns, see C. E. B. Cranfield, “Changes of Person and Number in Paul’s Epistles,” pp. 28089 in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett (M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson, eds.; London: SPCK, 1982). xviii

Metzger, 588. See also Omanson, 449-50; Thurston and Ryan, 224; O’Brien 275; Lohse, 194; and Fitzmyer, 98. xix

Fitzmyer, 107. See also Thurston and Ryan, 235; and Barth and Blanke, 337-38. Thurston and Ryan demonstrated that Onesimus was a popular name for slaves of the time. Barth and Blanke also demonstrated that Onesimus at some point became a proper name for free male and female persons. xx

James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 329. Although Dunn did not deal with the textual issue, he allowed for the possibility of αχρηστον and ευχρηστον being used as a pun for Χριστος. Barth and Blanke, 345-46, though, argued that no historical evidence points to nonChristians being referred to as αχριστος or of a disciple being called ευχριστος.