The eighth verse of Ephesians 4 has sparked considerable scholarly attention. Various morphological differences exist between the text attested in Eph 4:8 and Ps 68:18 [v. 19 MT, Hebrew versification used hereafter]. However, the greatest interpretive problem is the apparent lexical alteration from λαμβάνω/לָקַח in Ps 68:19b to δίδωμι in Eph 4:8b. This presentation will argue that Ephesians 4:8 is a composite citation that directly connects Ps 68:19a with the conclusion of the psalm, v. 36b, drawing from the pioneering investigative work of Composite Citations in Antiquity (2 vols, edited by Sean Adams and Seth M. Ehorn). Scholars have offered two primary solutions to this problem: the source text was intentionally altered by a theologically motivated author (e.g., Mitton, Ephesians {New Century Bible Commentary}) or the Ephesian citation draws from a textual tradition that differs from the Masoretic Text, likely similar to the Targum of Psalms (e.g., Scacewater, The Divine Builder). The presentation will demonstrate the thesis by 1) evaluating Ephesians 4:8 for features of a composite citation, 2) assessing potential objections to classifying the verse as a composite citation, and then 3) suggesting implications of this finding upon the interpretation of the discreet paragraph 4:7-16 as well as the whole letter.
The argument of the paper will proceed as follows. First, the classification of a composite citation in ancient literature involves the close recitation of a recognizable donor text and a lack of conventional signals of differentiation between source materials (e.g., asyndeton or shift in grammatical style). Ephesians 4:8 amply exhibits these features, and the presentation will briefly survey the evidence, and divide Eph 4:8 into citation A (Ps 68:19a) and citation B (Ps 68:36b).
Second, the presentation will assess potential objections to the composite citation theory. Potential objections for citation A include the text’s closeness to the Targum of Ps 68 and the morphological substitution for a new literary context. Potential objections for Citation B include: 1) Christological imprecision in the attribution of a NT text about Jesus’ actions ascribed to the “God of Israel” (Ps 68:36), 2) lexical corruption between λαμβάνω/לָקַח and δίδωμι, 3) synecdoche alteration between two terms in Ps 68:36 (δύναμιν καὶ κραταίωσιν/עֹז וְתַעֲצֻמֹות) and one term in Ephesians 4:8 (δόματα), and 4) the identification of τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ/לָעָם rendered as τοῖς ἀνθρώποις in Eph 4:8.
Finally, the presentation will suggest implications for the presentation’s thesis. The impact of these findings include 1) a conservative defense of the passage’s inerrancy, 2) a refined understanding of the correlation between OT passages referenced in NT contexts, 3) one source of evidence for the global perspective of the Church in Eph. If the gifts given in Eph 4:8 are gifted people (as the psalm seems to conclude), then the perspective of the Church in the letter is not a local gathering, but a global unified body, building itself up in love as apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers work together to build up the Church through missions, evangelism, enrichment, and soul care in evangelical contexts around the world.