A Case for the Longer Reading at Ephesians 5.30?

The 5–7th century correction (“Ca”) in Sinaiticus

Last night while reading Ephesians, I came across a variant I don’t remember seeing before. I was surprised that it wasn’t adopted as the main text since it seemed like the obvious choice. I should say that I was reading an edition that gives no manuscript evidence so I could only consider internal evidence.

Here is the context from Eph 5.29–31 (KJV):

29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

The variant in question is the addition of the phrase “of his flesh and of his bones” in verse 30. The main choice is

1. ὅτι μέλη ἐσμὲν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ, ἐκ τῆς σαρκός αὐτοῦ καί ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ
2. ὅτι μέλη ἐσμὲν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ

The longer reading can be explained as an addition from Gen 2.23. We might expect as much given that the next verse quotes Gen 2.24. The only hitch is that the longer reading in Eph 5.30 reverses the order of flesh and bone from Adam’s little poem which has “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” The influence is still there, but it’s not as close as we might expect. The real problem with this explanation, however, is that I can’t see a reason to think that a scribe is more likely to refer to Gen 2.23 than the author himself.

Now, if we didn’t have an explanation for the shorter reading, then a scribal harmonization to Gen 2.23 would have some force here. But we do have a ready explanation. A skip from αὐτοῦ … αὐτοῦ explains the shorter reading nicely. If it weren’t for the combined support of 01* 02 03 P46 for the shorter reading, I suspect more reasoned eclectics would adopt the longer reading. The longer reading is attested by Irenaeus and D F G and there is versional support from vg and syr. Notice too the evidence cited by Tregelles of some Armenian witnesses which attest the same basic mistake except that, instead of omitting the whole phrase, they only omit ἐκ τῆς σαρκός αὐτοῦ.

Apparatus from Tregelles

In fact, it would be hard to imagine that some scribes didn’t make the larger omission. The real question is whether this was also the original mistake that first created the variation. As it is, I like the simpler explanation of parablepsis and would prefer the longer reading.