Paragraphing Ephesians 5

Earlier this week there was an interesting post at CoffeeSwirls on problems with verse numbering in our Bibles. The ESV Bible blog picked up on the CoffeeSwirls post and advanced the discussion to include paragraphing of our Bibles, as well. I think you would find both posts worth reading.

Today I would like to discuss paragraphing of Ephesians 5 which has become one of the most divisive (pun intended) issues among those who take the Bible seriously today. The debate for Eph. 5 is over whether a paragraph break should be inserted before or after verse 21:

21. Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22. Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. (ESV)

Egalitarians believe that we should paragraph before 21 to emphasize mutual submission not only within the body of believers but also within marriage. Complementarians do not believe in mutual submission in marriage, so they believe that the paragraph break should appear between verses 21 and 22. If anyone makes translation decisions, including paragraphing, based on such ideological or theological criteria we would be creating interpretive translations, in the pejorative sense of the term as it is used today.

Are there objective linguistic criteria to help us determine paragraphing of Eph. 5? I believe so and I'd like to present evidence for it. I assume that others will be able to suggest that the evidence is not fully determinative, but let's at least examine it.

First, paragraphs, if they are to have any meaning other than being an orthographic convention to make it easier on our eyes to read text, need to be based on discourse parameters which have been traditionally used, at least subconsciously, to paragraph. A paragraph break should occur where there is some kind of cognitive break in the discourse. That cognitive break can be based on a change of scene, time, participants, or topic. Paragraphing needs to pay attention to syntax. Both syntax and semantics, as well as discourse cohesion, reflect cognitive relationships including unity.

We cannot tell it from most Bible versions but Eph. 5:18-21 form a single sentence, and, therefore, likely a single cognitive/discourse unit, in Greek:

καὶ μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνω, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία, ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν Πνεύματι, λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς, ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ Κυρίω, εὐχαριστοῦντες πάντοτε ὑπὲρ πάντων ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρί, ῾Υποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβω Χριστοῦ.

Your Greek text may have a period preceding ῾υποτασσόμενοι at the beginning of verse 21. Mine does, but we know that there were no punctuation marks, let alone word breaks, in the original Greek texts of the New Testament. So I changed that period to a comma, since ῾υποτασσόμενοι is a participle and it seems to me that that is good reason for believing that Paul continued his sentence to the end of verse 21.

Several English versions (including KJV, NKJV, NASB, NET, ESV, and HCSB) reflect the syntax of the finite and participial verbs of the Greek and have no sentence period until the end of verse 21. The ESV revises the finite English translation of RSV "Be subject to one another ..." at the beginning of verse 21 to "submitting to one another ..." which follows the Greek participial syntax precisely:

(18) And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, (19) addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, (20) giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, (21) submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Can we insert a paragraph break between verses 20 and 21? I don't think so. If verse 21 is a continuation of the sentence which begins in verse 18, we cannot insert a paragraph break before the cognitive unit (syntactically a sentence) is completed.

Long sentences like that of Eph. 5:18-11 are more difficult for English speakers to read and process than shorter ones, but the more literal translations do accurately reflect the syntax of the Greek verbs. Some Bible versions, for readability, which is important, break the long sentence up into shorter ones. (There are good reasons for breaking up the long sentence into shorter ones, for some audiences. But if that is done, such versions should include cohesion markers that make it clear that the cognitive flow in the translation continues, reflecting the entire Greek sentence.)

Now here is the Greek for verse 22:

Αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὑποτάσσεσθε ὡς τῷ Κυρίω

A literal translation is:

Wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

What's missing in both the Greek and literal English translation? Right, a verb. Greek, like English and many other languages, can omit some verbs when they are understood from context. Greek scholars often refer to this as ellipsis. The "missing" verb is there semantically in the Greek, just not expressed overtly. What verb has been ellipsized? Well, it's not too difficult to figure out from the context that it is a Greek verb for "submit" which appears overtly in the preceding verse. (Note that the Greek imperative verb, ὑποτάσσεσθε meaning 'Submit!' does appear in verse 22 in some Greek N.T. manuscripts, and the reconstructed text of Westcott-Hort as well as the Textus Receptus underlying the KJV and NKJV.)

The lack of an overt verb in verse 22, supplied according to standard rules of Greek ellipsis from verse 21, is a sign of cohesion. We don't "glue" utterances together with ellipsis which have cognitive divisions, reflected by paragraph breaks. I conclude that there should be no paragraph break between verses 21 and 22.

So, where then do we insert the paragraph break in this debated section of Eph. 5? I suggest, based on the Greek syntax which we have just examined, that there is no paragraph break between Eph. 5:15-33.

Little of what I have posted today is original with me. It was stimulated by my continued reading in the mind-opening book Men and Women In the Church, by Sarah Sumner, professor of theology at the Haggard School of Theology at Azusa Pacific University. Dr. Sumner points out the facts of Greek which resist either of the paragraph breaks which occur in English Bible versions either before or after verse 21.

For me, the possibilities that flow from viewing the Greek of Eph. 5:15-33 as a cognitive/discourse unit are exciting. I personally believe that they can help both egalitarians and complementarians become even more biblical in their interpretation of the Bible's teachings on the roles of women and men in the church and home. But it is time for breakfast and further discussion must be left to another time and place!

Categories: Bible translation, paragraph, egalitarian, complementarian, Eph. 5

The heading in Eph.5

Last week Anonymous pointed out an article by Diana Butler Bass about choosing a Bible translation. At the time I didn't accord it the attention it deserved. However, it raises some intriguing questions about how interpretive formatting can influence the reader.

Butler Bass recounts her reaction to the difference in formatting between the NIV and the NRSV in Eph. 5.

When reading Ephesians, my friends thought it would be funny to have me -- the only woman with a theological degree -- lead the study on chapter 5: "Wives, submit to your husbands." Preparing for that night, I looked up Ephesians 5:21-33, a text that had long riled me, in my new Bible. What I saw stunned me: The version in the NIV was different from the NRSV!

The editors of the NIV had separated Ephesians 5:21, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ," from the rest of the passage, disconnecting the call for mutual submission from the rest of the instructions. To further distance verses 21 and 22, the NIV inserted a heading, "Wives and Husbands," that breaks the flow of the text. Thus, the NIV makes it appear that the teaching begins with the line, "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord."

The NRSV surprised me because no division existed. The text moves smoothly from verse 21 to 22, reframing wifely submission as part of a whole teaching on servanthood as discipleship.

Wayne blogged about the paragraphing in Eph. 5 last year and remarked in conclusion,

So, where then do we insert the paragraph break in this debated section of Eph. 5? I suggest, based on the Greek syntax which we have just examined, that there is no paragraph break between Eph. 5:15-33.

Given the verb constructions in the Greek, it is indeed difficult to put in a paragraph break either before or after verse 21. The participle in verse 21, upotassomenoi, appears to fit well with the preceding participles. More perplexing, however, is verse 22, which lacks a verb altogether, although the verb from verse 21 is almost always reiterated in English translations. In spite of this complex and interconnected discourse structure, most Bibles do have a break and heading placed either before or after verse 21.

In defense of placing a break before verse 21 rather than after, I quote The Anchor Bible *,

In Pauline teaching mutual subordination is neither self-contradictory nor a call to chaos, but a challenge to the conservative and patriarchal concepts of social order which have often been attributed to Paul or derived from his teaching. The unique message of Ephesians is silenced whenever the dominant position of vs. 21 over the Haustafeln and the peculiarly startling content of this verse are neglected. page 610

How is marital love related to love of the neighbour? It is obvious that both are called for and held together (a) by the command of the same Lord, (b) by the employment of the same word "love"; and (c) by the specification "as yourself". page 718

Barth places the individual instructions for the wife and the husband within both the context of mutual subordination and the injunction on the people of Israel to love others as themselves, in this way reinforcing his assertion that verse 22 should be read within the context of verse 21.

Bibles today fall within one of two groups - those that place a heading before verse 21 and those that place the heading after verse 21. This is one of those many times when the difference between Bible versions cannot be measured on a spectrum of more to less literal. I am happy to blog about this because I often feel that discussing the degree to which a translation is, or is not, literal, can be a smoke screen for other issues.

With no further ado, here is how the more popular translations place the heading in Eph 5.

Heading before verse 21 - NRSV, NLT, TNIV, Message, CEV, GNB
Heading after verse 21 - NIV, ESV, NASB, HCSB, NKJV, NET, UBS 1968

Frankly I am surprised at such a clear cut distinction between the two groups of translations in terms of how they treat gender issues. Each of these versions clearly influences the reader in favour of one interpretation or another, based on something that is not in the manuscripts. (I checked out P46 just to make sure of this. No paragraph breaks!)

There are a few questions which one can profitably ask about the translation of verses 21 and 22 in Eph. 5. First, is it legitimate for a literal translation to supply the verb in verse 22? Next, how do headings fit into a literal translation - aren't they interpretation? And doesn't this bring us to the understanding that every Bible translation is in some way shaped by the preconceptions of the translators, by the beliefs that the translators bring to the text, not the ones they gain from the text. How one interprets this passage can have a tremendous impact on one's life, and yet this may hang on a decision made by a team of translators.

One last note with regard to the King James Version - this is a situation where the lack of paragraphs and headings in the King James Version renders it a translation that offers less interpretation to the reader. It is simply more literal. The Geneva Bible, by contrast, marks the beginning of a new paragraph at verse 22 with a pilcrow, and the headings at the beginning of the chapter mark verse 22 as a new section.

Once again the value and durability of the King James version seems to me to be based not only on its literary excellence but also on its relative lack of an interpretive stance. It holds an unique place in Bible translation history and could still be the version most suited to studying the scripture as literature.

Thank you to Anonymous for suggesting I revisit this.

* Barth, Markus. The Anchor Bible: Ephesians 4 - 6. 1974. Doubleday. NY.

----

Update: There is an excellent follow-up post on εν εφέσω: Thoughts and Meditations which concludes with these thoughts.

Simply put, Paul exhorts the husbands and wives of Ephesus to live humbly with equity in their culture, while continuing in the systems already set up. This is key to an accurate application for the twenty-first century. The question of application for Ephesians 5.21-33 for husbands and wives is not how to structure their relationship, but how to live in a Godly manner within their own culture, each submitting and loving the other.

The entire post is well worth reading and responds to comments brought up here. I think it can be argued that this post proposes a mediating position, as does the Barth commentary from which I quoted here.

Update #2 More comments and another good post by Mike here.