sufficient reason for Paul’s departure in this case from his usual habit of designating by their locality the readers he addresses.
But it is of more importance to see how different an aspect the textual question assumes when it is more closely examined. For the weighty fact presents itself that the words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ are not found in our two oldest and best manuscripts, $B. They have also been struck out of cursive 67 by a second hand which may have some affinity with B. This is a fact of essential importance in view of what these two great uncials have been proved to be in respect of value as well as age. It is reinforced by transcriptional probability, it being far less likely that a local designation so much in Paul’s way, if it belonged to the original text, should have been dropped out or deleted by a succession of scribes than that, not forming part of the original inscription, it should have been inserted by later hands. Nor can the witness of the ancient Versions outweigh this textual evidence. For, important as that witness is, it is the witness of documents, the extant manuscripts of which are not equal in an- tiquity to the Greek uncials.
But the textual case does not end here. It is supported by Patristic testimony of great significance. From Tertullian we learn that Marcion and his followers spoke of the Epistle as addressed to the Laodicenes. The relevant passages are these two: (1) Praetereo hic et de alia epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios praescriptam habemus, haeretici vero ad Laodicenos (Adv. Ματο., v., 11) ; and (2) Ecclesiae quidem veritate epistolam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos, sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator ; nihil autem de titulis interest, cum ad omnes apostolus scripserit, dum ad quosdam (ib. 17). In face of this statement it is difficult indeed to suppose that Marcion could have had the words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ in his text.
Then it appears from what is reported of Origen’s commentary that he, too, had not the words in his text. The passage runs thus : ᾿Ωριγένης δέ φησι, ἐπὶ μόνων ᾿Εφεσίων εὕρομεν κείμενον τὸ “τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι," καὶ ζητοῦμεν εἰ μὴ παρέλκει προσκείμενον τὸ “τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι" τί δύναται σημαίνειν - ὅρα οὖν εἰ μὴ ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ ᾿Εξόδῳ ὄνομά φησιν ἑαυτοῦ ὁ χρηματίζων Μωσεῖ τὸ ὤν, οὕτως οἱ μετέχοντες τοῦ ὄντος, γίνονται ὄντες, καλούμενοι οἱονεὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι εἰς τὸ εἶναι, “ἐξελέξατο γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς τὰ μὴ ὄντα ᾿ φησὶν ὁ αὐτὸς Παῦλος, “iva τὰ ὄντα καταργήσῃ, etc. (Cramer, Catena). Here Origen states distinctly that the phrase was without ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ, and that this was peculiar to the case of Ephesians; and he proposes a particular way of getting a suitable meaning out of the phrase, giving it a metaphysical sense.