The Interpretation of Ephesians 5:21-33

Dawes, Gregory W.

doi:10.1163/9789004497788_013

Cited by 1 publication

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…25 The objection that the content of 5.21 does not cohere with the content that precedes may also be tempered by the objection made by other commentators that a reference to ‘submitting to one another’ is not consistent with the hierarchies presented in the verses that follow, either. 26 The tenuous relationship 5.21 has with both of the sections that surround it may be explained by the observation that it is a ‘hinge verse’ bridging the two sections (Eadie 1861: 416; Sampley 1971: 10; Barth 1974: 608; Tanzer 1994: 333–34; Seim 1995: 175; Dawes 1998: 19; MacDonald 2000: 489; Hering 2007: 130 n. 65; Merkle 2016: 177). In light of this, the minor discrepancies observed by commentators may be explained by the possibility that the verse is more functional than informational.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 5. E.g., Sampley (1971), Dawes (1998), and Hering (2007). Shorter studies that will be relevant to our discussion here include Tanzer (1994), Seim (1995), and Merkle (2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 6. Dawes treats this as the initial problem to be resolved in his study on the Haustafel (Dawes 1998: 18–21). It is the subject of Merkle’s article (Merkle 2017), and it provides the occasion for Gurry’s text-critical study of the variant in question (Gurry 2021: 560–68). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 21. See, for instance, Abbott (1897: 164); Best (1998: 516); Robinson (1909: 204); Schnackenburg (1991: 231); Dawes (1998: 19); and Hering (2007: 130–31). Despite its marking of punctuation variants in 5.20 and 21, NA unequivocally prints the shorter reading in 5.22.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 22. See Meyer (1880: 288); Ellicott (1884: 130); Sampley (1971: 10); Tanzer (1994: 333); Seim (1995: 175); Best (1998: 515); Dawes (1998: 19); Hoehner (2002: 716); Cohick (2020: 548); and Gurry (2021: 522). Some commentators have objected on the grounds of the passage’s structure that the end of Eph. 5.20 is a doxological close to the sequence of exhortations, which precludes the addition of 5.21 to the sequence (Hodge 1856: 309; Schnackenburg 1991: 231; Muddiman 2001: 256).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Intrinsic Probability of τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὑποτασσέσθωσαν in Eph. 5.22

McCollum

2024

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study revisits a contested textual variant concerning the presence, placement, and person of an imperative directed at wives in Eph. 5.22. Most previous treatments of this variant have decided the matter (typically in favor of the reading without an imperative) on the basis of manuscript support and transcriptional arguments about how readers and copyists of the text would have changed it, but the intrinsic probabilities of what the author would have written based on his argument and style have generally been neglected. This study fills this gap by assessing the intrinsic probabilities of the variant readings in Eph. 5.22 using discourse and information structure, the pragmatics of the Greek imperative, and stylistic observations in Ephesians. As a result of this analysis, the reading with the highest intrinsic probability is shown to be τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, which bolsters the recent case made by Gurry (2021) for the same reading.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 5. E.g., Sampley (1971), Dawes (1998), and Hering (2007). Shorter studies that will be relevant to our discussion here include Tanzer (1994), Seim (1995), and Merkle (2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations