Eph 1:1 - An example of eisegesis

by leaving_quietly 12 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  leaving_quietly

  Eisegesis (formed from the Greek preposition εἰς "into" and the ending from the English word exegesis, which in turn is derived from ἐξηγεῖσθαι "to lead out") is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that it introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. (source: Wikipedia)

  Eph 1:1: "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through God’s will, to the holy ones who are [in Eph′e·sus] and faithful ones in union with Christ Jesus."
  
  It is has been noted here previously that "in Ephesus" was added, and NWT admits that in a footnote when it mentions several manuscripts that omit it. This is not relevant to what I'm about to point out.

  Again:

  Eph 1:1: "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through God’s will, to the holy ones who are [in Eph′e·sus] and faithful ones in union with Christ Jesus."

  The word "ones" does NOT exist in the original text. This changes the meaning of the verse completely. It is an example to show that there are two groups (e.g. 144,000 and great crowd). However, the original text translates to "and faithful in Christ Jesus" (even the words "union with" are not present in the Greek) thus showing that the holy ones are faithful, not that there's holy ones and faithful ones as if there are two separate groups.

  This is egregious!

  Edit: I quoted the above from the old NWT. The Revised NWT has it right! "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through God's will, to the holy ones who are in Ephesus and are faithful in union with Christ Jesus."
• 

  Bobcat

  Here are other renderings of the verse.

  Ephesians - An Exegetical Commentary (Harold W. Hoehner, pp. 141-42) has this:

  Kai pistis en Xristo Insou, "that is, believers in Christ Jesus." Without the repeat of the article before pistis, the phrase is somewhat difficult to interpret. The exact form is unparalleled in Pauline greetings. In Col. 1:2 the same basic words are used, but the structure is different (tois en Kolossais ayiois kai pistis adelphois en Xristo; [literally "to the in Colossae saints and faithful brothers in Christ" - Bobcat]) where the one article unites the two terms. Although in Col. 1:2 no verb "to be" (ousin) is used, it is utilized in Rom. 1:1 and Phil 1:1, but neither of these passages have it followed by the conjunction (kai) with an anarthrous descriptive phrase as in Eph 1:1. Thus, what did Paul mean by this phrase?

  The conjunction kai could be translated "and," which could mean that two groups were being addressed, that is, to the saints who were in Ephesus and to those who were faithful. However, the other greetings of Paul do not support this idea. Rather, the picture is that the two appellations refer to one and the same group. In Col. 1:1 the one article unites the two. In Rom 1:7 it is "to all in Rome beloved of God, called saints." The church and the saints refer to the same group. Thus, in the present context it is better to see kai used as epexegetical or explicative, indicating that both adjectives refer to the same group and is to be translated "that is" or "namely" or omitted in the translation.

  [End of quote]

  As the commentary acknowledges, there is some controversy in the possible way of rendering the verse. As the BibleHub link above shows, translators have come up with a number of possibilities. A few argue that "the saints" refer to Jewish Christians, and the "faithful" refer to Gentile Christians. But the majority of comentators seem to take the phrasing to refer to the same group, especially since the letter itself discusses the removal of Jewish/Gentile distinctions. (Cmp 2:11-18)

  The rendering "holy ones" is simply the NWT way of rendering hagios. Others render it as "holy people" or "saints." "Holy ones" is probably just a Franz-ism, although, to be fair, I doubt he is the only one to use that type of phraseology.

  Take Care
• 

  sir82

  It is an example to show that there are two groups (e.g. 144,000 and great crowd).

  To my knowledge, the WTS has never used Eph. 1:1 to support the idea of 2 groups. If you have a citation demonstrating it, I'd like to see it.

  Of course there are dozens of examples of eisegesis in the NWT, but I don't think this is one of them.
• 

  Island Man

  So that text should really say something like:

  " Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through God’s will, to those who are holy and faithful in Christ Jesus." ?
• 

  Bobcat

  Here is another scholarly reference to Eph 1:1. It is in the BECNT-Ephesians commentary (Frank Thielman, p. 34):

  This division of the readers into two groups, however, is without precedent in Paul's other letters, and it is difficult to see what the difference between the two groups could be. . . (with discussion here about how some view the two as Jewish and Gentile Christians) . . .

  What, then, of the grammatical problem? Paul probably intended the first tois to go both with hagiois and with pistois en Xristo Insou (Alford 1857: 66; Wallace 1996: 282; Hoenher 2002: 142 [quoted above - Bobcat]). This is unusual, but native speakers of ancient Greek, such as Chrysostom (Hom. Eph., hom. 1; NPNF 13:51), Theodoret (R. Hill 2001: 2.33), and Theophylact (PG 124:1033) took the construction to mean that Paul was calling his readers in Ephesus both "saints" and "faithful" (or "believers") and seemed to see nothing unnatural in it. The grammatical difficulties, then, are not insuperable, and this makes it likely that Paul addresses his readers as a single group of Christians in Ephesus who are both hagioi and pistoi.

  [End quote]

  Checking with the WT-Library CD:

  The SI and Insight Volumes do not seem to address the phrasing (beyond whether "in Ephesus" belongs). I couldn't find any other reference that addresses this particular subject in the rest of the Library CD ("In Ephesus" is addressed in a Questions From Readers article in the w53 2/15 pp.126-27).

  The Revised NWT renders it: ". . . to the holy ones who are in Ephesus and are faithful in union with Christ jesus." This would seem to indicate that the Society takes the phrasing to refer to one and the same group. (As noted by the OP.)
• 

  Doug Mason

  Bobcat,

  I suggest one reason that the reference in Ephesians to "two groups ... is without precedent in Paul's letters" happened because Paul did not write that letter.

  To address this expression, one would need to consider the context at the time when it was written - what was the contemporary situation within the Pauline and other Christian communities? How far had it moved in its anti-Semiticism? Did this influence the writer(s)?

  Doug
• 

  leaving_quietly

  To my knowledge, the WTS has never used Eph. 1:1 to support the idea of 2 groups. If you have a citation demonstrating it, I'd like to see it.

  No, they have not used this one to support it. I did research that before I posted, but one can see how easy it would have been in the old NWT to attempt to. I was surprised to see it this morning when doing other research using the CD Library. I was happy to see it was properly corrected in the revised version.
• 

  leaving_quietly

  So that text should really say something like:

  " Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through God’s will, to those who are holy and faithful in Christ Jesus." ?

  Island Man, if I were paraphrasing it, this would probably be the closest, yes. It seems to be the correct intent of the greeting.
• 

  Bobcat

  Doug:

  I suggest one reason that the reference in Ephesians to "two groups ... is without precedent in Paul's letters" happened because Paul did not write that letter.

  There is extensive writing in the forwards of both commentaries quoted above about that issue. This was surprising (to me) as I was previously unfamiliar with that controversy. I will say that the question (and its answer) are by no means cut and dry. Prior to about the 18th century Pauline writership was mostly assumed. But it is also interesting the tentative approach the BECNT commentary takes. There is several pages of discussion about psuedo-writers right off the bat in the sub-section on the books author. (This was curious) It still holds to Pauline writership but seems to leave the door open (or at the least, be un-dogmatic about it). The choice seems to be either Paul or some unknown. (That is in interesting contrast to Hebrews which has a number of plausible writers including Paul, Luke, Barnabas, and others.)

  I agree that, supposing Paul didn't write the letter, the phrasing would lend itself more to that idea. Paul himself writes of 'Judaizers' (for lack of a better word) who felt the Jews were still to be a prominent and distinctive sub-group within Christianity.

  Take Care
• 

  Doug Mason

  Hi Bobcat,

  Broadly speaking, scholars accept 7 letters as genuinely by Paul. Since they are placed in order of their length, this is one argument agaiinst Hebrews.

  Other writings incorrectly attributed to Paul includes the Pastorals (Timothy, Titus, and 2 Thessalonians), while Peter did not write either letter attributed to him, with 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Hebrews and Revelation having great difficulty being included in the NT canon.

  There were any number of Gospels, Acts, and Apocalypses circulating during those early centuries, and the decisions on which to accept was made by those having allegiance to Paul. Not that there has been universal acceptance of the 27 books.

  In my view, the Judaizers would have been aligned with the Jerusalem Church, which was headed by James. Paul was at odds with the Jerusalem Church, to put it mildly.

  Regards,

  Doug