_I_,—who seeks for the truth of Scripture “in _the consentient testimony
of the most ancient authorities_”? On _my_ side there have been adduced in
evidence _six_ witnesses of the IInd century:—_six_ of the
IIIrd:—_fifteen_ of the IVth:—_nine_ of the Vth:—_eight_ of the VIth and
VIIth,—(44 in all): while _you_ are found to rely on codices B and א (as
before), supported by a single _obiter dictum_ of Eusebius. I have said
nothing as yet about _the whole body of the Copies_: nothing about
_universal, immemorial, Liturgical use_. Do you seriously imagine that the
testimony on your side is “decidedly preponderating”? Above all, will you
venture again to exhibit our respective methods as in your pamphlet you
have done? I protest solemnly that, in your pages, I recognize neither
myself nor you.
Permit me to declare that I hold your disallowance of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 to
be the gravest and most damaging of all the many mistakes which you and
your friends have committed. “The textual facts,” (say you, speaking of
the last 12 Verses,)—“have been placed before the reader, because Truth
itself demanded it.” This (with Canon Cook(918)) I entirely deny. It is
because “the textual facts have” NOT “been placed before the reader,” that
I am offended. As usual, you present your readers with a one-sided
statement,—a partial, and therefore inadmissible, exhibition of the
facts,—facts which, fully stated and fairly explained, would, (as you
cannot fail to be aware,) be fatal to your contention.
But, I forbear to state so much as _one_ of them. The evidence has already
filled a volume.(919) Even if I were to allow that in your marginal note,
“the textual facts _have been_ [fully and fairly] _placed before the
reader_”—what possible pretence do you suppose they afford for severing
the last 12 Verses from the rest of S. Mark, in token that they form no
part of the genuine Gospel?... This, however, is only by the way. I have
proved to you that it is _I_—not _you_—who rest my case on an appeal to
CATHOLIC ANTIQUITY: and this is the only thing I am concerned just now to
establish.
I proceed to contribute something to the Textual Criticism of a famous
place in S. Paul’s first Epistle to Timothy,—on which you have challenged
me to a trial of strength.
[19] “GOD was manifested in the flesh” Shown To Be The True Reading Of 1
Timothy III. 16.
_A Dissertation._
In conclusion, you insist on ripping up the discussion concerning 1 Tim.
iii. 16. I had already devoted eight pages to this subject.(920) You reply
in twelve.(921) That I may not be thought wanting in courtesy, the present
rejoinder shall extend to seventy-six. I propose, without repeating
myself, to follow you over the ground you have re-opened. But it will be
convenient that I should define at the outset what is precisely the point
in dispute between you and me. I presume it to be undeniably _this_:—That
whereas the Easterns from time immemorial, (and we with them, since
Tyndale in 1534 gave us our English Version of the N. T.,) have read the
place thus:—(I set the words down in plain English, because the issue
admits of being every bit as clearly exhibited in the vernacular, as in
Greek: and because I am determined that all who are at the pains to read
the present DISSERTATION shall understand it also:)—Whereas, I say, we
have hitherto read the place thus,
“GREAT IS THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS:—GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH,
JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT, SEEN OF ANGELS, PREACHED UNTO THE GENTILES,
BELIEVED ON IN THE WORLD, RECEIVED UP INTO GLORY:”
_You_ insist that this is a “_plain and clear error_.” You contend that
there is “_decidedly preponderating evidence_” for reading instead,
“GREAT IS THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS, WHO WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH,
JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT,” &C.:
Which contention of yours I hold to be demonstrably incorrect, and proceed
to prove is a complete misconception.
(_A_) _Preliminary explanations and cautions._
But English readers will require to have it explained to them at the
outset, that inasmuch as ΘΕΟΣ (GOD) is invariably written _ΘΣ_ in
manuscripts, the only difference between the word “GOD” and the word
“_who_” (ΟΣ) consists of two horizontal strokes,—one, which distinguishes
Θ from Ο; and another similar stroke (above the letters ΘΣ) which
indicates that a word has been contracted. And further, that it was the
custom to trace these two horizontal lines so wondrous faintly that they
sometimes actually elude observation. Throughout cod. A, in fact, the
letter Θ is often scarcely distinguishable from the letter Ο.
It requires also to be explained for the benefit of the same English
reader,—(and it will do learned readers no harm to be reminded,)—that
“_mystery_” (μυστήριον) being a neuter noun, _cannot_ be followed by the
masculine pronoun (ὅς),—“_who_.” Such an expression is abhorrent alike to
Grammar and to Logic,—is intolerable, in Greek as in English. By
consequence, ὅς (“_who_”) is found to have been early exchanged for ὅ
(“_which_”). From a copy so depraved, the Latin Version was executed in
the second century. Accordingly, every known copy or quotation(922) of
_the Latin_ exhibits “quod.” _Greek_ authorities for this reading (ὅ) are
few enough. They have been specified already, viz. at page 100. And with
this brief statement, the reading in question might have been dismissed,
seeing that it has found no patron since Griesbach declared against it. It
was however very hotly contended for during the last century,—Sir Isaac
Newton and Wetstein being its most strenuous advocates; and it would be
unfair entirely to lose sight of it now.
The two rival readings, however, in 1 Tim. iii. 16, are,—Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη
(“GOD _was manifested_”), on the one hand; and τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον,
ὅς (“_the mystery of godliness, who_”), on the other. _These_ are the two
readings, I say, between whose conflicting claims we are to adjudicate.
For I request that it may be loyally admitted at the outset,—(though it
has been conveniently overlooked by the Critics whom _you_ follow,)—that
the expression ὂς ἐφανερώθη in Patristic quotations, _unless it be
immediately preceded by_ the word μυστήριον, is nothing to the purpose; at
all events, does not prove the thing which _you_ are bent on proving.
English readers will see this at a glance. An Anglican divine,—with
reference to 1 Timothy iii. 16,—may surely speak of our SAVIOUR as One
“_who_ was manifested in the flesh,”—without risk of being straightway
suspected of employing a copy of the English Version which exhibits “_the
mystery of godliness who_.” “Ex hujusmodi locis” (as Matthæi truly
remarks) “nemo, nisi mente captus, in contextu sacro probabit ὅς.”(923)
When Epiphanius therefore,—_professing to transcribe_(924) from an earlier
treatise of his own(925) where ἐφανερώθη stands _without a
nominative_,(926) writes (if he really does write) ὂς ἐφανερώθη,(927)—we
are not at liberty to infer therefrom that Epiphanius is opposed to the
reading Θεός.—Still less is it lawful to draw the same inference from the
Latin Version of a letter of Eutherius [A.D. 431] in which the expression
“_qui manifestatus est in carne_,”(928) occurs.—Least of all should we be
warranted in citing Jerome as a witness for reading ὅς in this place,
because (in his Commentary on Isaiah) he speaks of our SAVIOUR as One who
“was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit.”(929)
As for reasoning thus concerning Cyril of Alexandria, it is demonstrably
inadmissible: seeing that at the least on two distinct occasions, this
Father exhibits Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη. I am not unaware that in a certain place,
apostrophizing the Docetæ, he says,—“Ye do err, not knowing the
Scriptures, nor indeed the _great mystery of godliness_, that is CHRIST,
who (ὅς) _was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit_,”(930) &c.
&c. And presently, “I consider _the mystery of godliness_ to be no other
thing but the Word of GOD the FATHER, who (ὅς) Himself _was manifested in
the flesh_.”(931) But there is nothing whatever in this to invalidate the
testimony of those other places in which Θεός actually occurs. It is
logically inadmissible, I mean, to set aside the places where Cyril is
found actually to write Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, because in other places he employs
1 Tim. iii. 16 less precisely; leaving it to be inferred—(which indeed is
abundantly plain)—that Θεός is always his reading, from the course of his
argument and from the nature of the matter in hand. But to proceed.
_(B) Bp. Ellicott invited to state the evidence for reading ὅς in_ 1 Tim.
iii. 16.
[a] _“__The state of the evidence,__”__ as declared by Bp. Ellicott._
When last the evidence for this question came before us, I introduced it
by inviting a member of the Revising body (Dr. Roberts) to be spokesman on
behalf of his brethren.(932) This time, I shall call upon a more
distinguished, a wholly unexceptionable witness, viz. _yourself_,—who are,
of course, greatly in advance of your fellow-Revisers in respect of
critical attainments. The extent of your individual familiarity with the
subject when (in 1870 namely) you proposed to revise the Greek Text of the
N. T. for the Church of England on the _solvere-ambulando_ principle,—may
I presume be lawfully inferred from the following annotation in your
“_Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles_.” I quote
from the last Edition of 1869; only taking the liberty—(1) To break it up
into short paragraphs: and—(2) To give _in extenso_ the proper names which
you abbreviate. Thus, instead of “Theod.” (which I take leave to point out
to you might mean either Theodore of Heraclea or his namesake of
Mopsuestia,—either Theodotus the Gnostic or his namesake of Ancyra,)
“Euthal.,” I write “Theodoret, Euthalius.” And now for the external
testimony, as _you_ give it, concerning 1 Timothy iii. 16. You inform your
readers that,—
“The state of the evidence is briefly as follows:—
(1) Ὅς is read with A1 [_indisputably_; after minute personal
inspection; see note, p. 104.] C1 [Tischendorf _Prol. Cod.
Ephraemi_, § 7, p. 39.] F G א (see below); 17, 73, 181;
Syr.-Philoxenian, Coptic, Sahidic, Gothic; also (ὅς or ὅ) Syriac,
Arabic (Erpenius), Æthiopic, Armenian; Cyril, Theodorus Mopsuest.,
Epiphanius, Gelasius, Hieronymus _in Esaiam_ liii. 11.
(2) ὅ, with D1 (Claromontanus), Vulgate; nearly all Latin Fathers.
(3) Θεός, with D3 K L; nearly all MSS.; Arabic (Polyglott),
Slavonic; Didymus, Chrysostom (? see Tregelles, p. 227 note),
Theodoret, Euthalius, Damascene, Theophylact, Œcumenius,—Ignatius
_Ephes_. 29, (but very doubtful). A hand of the 12th century has
prefixed θε to ος, the reading of א; see Tischendorf _edit.
major_, Plate xvii. of Scrivener’s Collation of א, facsimile (13).
On reviewing this evidence, as not only the most important uncial
MSS., but _all_ the Versions older than the 7th century are
distinctly in favour of a _relative_,—as ὅ seems only a Latinizing
variation of ὅς,—and lastly, as ὅς is the more difficult, though
really the more intelligible, reading (Hofmann, _Schriftb._ Vol.
I. p. 143), and on every reason more likely to have been changed
into Θεός (Macedonius is actually said to have been expelled for
making the change, _Liberati Diaconi Breviarium_ cap. 19) than
_vice versâ_, we unhesitatingly decide in favour of
ὅς.”—(_Pastoral Epistles_, ed. 1869, pp. 51-2.)
Such then is your own statement of the evidence on this subject. I proceed
to demonstrate to you that you are completely mistaken:—mistaken as to
what you say about ὅς,—mistaken as to ὅ,—mistaken as to Θεός:—mistaken in
respect of Codices,—mistaken in respect of Versions,—mistaken in respect
of Fathers. Your slipshod, inaccurate statements, (_all_ obtained at
second-hand,) will occasion me, I foresee, a vast deal of trouble; but I
am determined, now at last, if the thing be possible, to set this question
at rest. And that I may not be misunderstood, I beg to repeat that all I
propose to myself is to _prove_—beyond the possibility of denial—that the
evidence for Θεός (in 1 Timothy iii. 16) _vastly preponderates over the
evidence for either_ ὅς _or_ ὅ. It will be for _you_, afterwards, to come
forward and prove that, on the contrary, Θεός is a “_plain and clear
error_:” _so_ plain and _so_ clear that you and your fellow-Revisers felt
yourselves constrained to thrust it out from the place it has confessedly
occupied in the New Testament for at least 1530 years.
You are further reminded, my lord Bishop, that unless you do this, you
will be considered by the whole Church to have dealt unfaithfully with the
Word of GOD. For, (as I shall remind you in the sequel,) it is yourself
who have invited and provoked this enquiry. You devote twelve pages to it
(pp. 64 to 76),—“compelled to do so by the Reviewer.” “Moreover” (you
announce) “this case is of great importance as an example. It illustrates
in a striking manner the complete isolation of the Reviewer’s position. If
he is right all other Critics are wrong,” &c., &c., &c.—Permit me to
remind you of the warning—“Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast
himself as he that putteth it off.”
[b] _Testimony of the __MANUSCRIPTS__ concerning_ 1 Tim. iii. 16: _and
first as to the testimony of __CODEX_ A.
You begin then with the _Manuscript_ evidence; and you venture to assert
that ΟΣ is “indisputably” the reading of Codex A. I am at a loss to
understand how a “professed Critic,”—(who must be presumed to be
acquainted with the facts of the case, and who is a lover of Truth,)—can
permit himself to make such an assertion. Your certainty is based, you
say, on “minute personal inspection.” In other words, you are so good as
to explain that you once tried a coarse experiment,(933) by which you
succeeded in convincing yourself that the suspected diameter of the Ο is
exactly coincident with the sagitta of an _epsilon_ (Ε) which happens to
stand _on the back of the page_. But do you not see that unless you start
with _this_ for your major premiss,—“_Theta_ cannot exist on one side of a
page if _epsilon_ stands immediately behind it on the other side,”—your
experiment is _nihil ad rem_, and proves absolutely nothing?
Your “inspection” happens however to be _inaccurate_ besides. You
performed your experiment unskilfully. A man need only hold up the leaf to
the light on a very brilliant day,—as Tregelles, Scrivener, and many
besides (including your present correspondent) have done,—to be aware that
the sagitta of the _epsilon_ on fol. 145_b_ does not cover much more than
a third of the area of the _theta_ on fol. 145_a_. Dr. Scrivener further
points out that it cuts the circle _too __ high_ to have been reasonably
mistaken by a careful observer for the diameter of the _theta_ (Θ). The
experiment which you describe with such circumstantial gravity was simply
nugatory therefore.
How is it, my lord Bishop, that you do not perceive that the way to
ascertain the reading of Codex A at 1 Tim. iii. 16, is,—(1) To investigate
_not_ what is found at _the back_ of the leaf, but what is written on _the
front_ of it? and (2), Not so much to enquire what can be deciphered of
the original writing by the aid of a powerful lens _now_, as to ascertain
what was apparent to the eye of competent observers when the Codex was
first brought into this country, viz. 250 years ago? That Patrick Young,
the first custodian and collator of the Codex [1628-1652], read _ΘΣ_, is
certain.—Young communicated the “various Readings” of A to Abp.
Ussher:—and the latter, prior to 1653, communicated them to Hammond, who
clearly knew nothing of ΟΣ.—It is plain that _ΘΣ_ was the reading seen by
Huish—when he sent his collation of the Codex (made, according to Bentley,
with great exactness,(934)) to Brian Walton, who published the fifth
volume of his Polyglott in 1657.—Bp. Pearson, who was very curious in such
matters, says “we find not ὅς _in any copy_,”—a sufficient proof how _he_
read the place in 1659.—Bp. Fell, who published an edition of the N. T. in
1675, certainly considered _ΘΣ_ the reading of Cod. A.—Mill, who was at
work on the Text of the N. T. from 1677 to 1707, expressly declares that
he saw the remains of _ΘΣ_ in this place.(935) Bentley, who had himself
(1716) collated the MS. with the utmost accuracy (“_accuratissime ipse
contuli_”), knew nothing of any other reading.—Emphatic testimony on the
subject is borne by Wotton in 1718:—“There can be no doubt” (he says)
“that this MS. always exhibited _ΘΣ_. Of this, _any one may easily
convince himself who will be at the pains to examine the place with
attention_.”(936)—Two years earlier,—(we have it on the testimony of Mr.
John Creyk, of S. John’s Coll., Cambridge,)—“the old line in the letter θ
was plainly to be seen.”(937)—It was “much about the same time,” also,
(viz. about 1716) that Wetstein acknowledged to the Rev. John Kippax,—“who
took it down in writing from his own mouth,—that though the middle stroke
of the θ has been evidently retouched, yet the fine stroke which was
originally in the body of the θ is discoverable at each end of the fuller
stroke of the corrector.”(938)—And Berriman himself, (who delivered a
course of Lectures on the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, in 1737-8,)
attests emphatically that he had seen it also. “_If therefore_” (he adds)
“_at any time hereafter the old line should become altogether
undiscoverable, there will never be just cause to doubt but that the
genuine, and original reading of the MS. was_ _ΘΣ_: and that the new
strokes, added at the top and in the middle by the corrector were not
designed to corrupt and falsify, but to preserve and perpetuate the true
reading, which was in danger of being lost by the decay of
Time.”(939)—Those memorable words (which I respectfully commend to your
notice) were written in A.D. 1741. How _you_ (A.D. 1882), after surveying
all this accumulated and consistent testimony (borne A.D. 1628 to A.D.
1741) by eye-witnesses as competent to observe a fact of this kind as
yourself; and fully as deserving of credit, when they solemnly declare
what they have seen:—how _you_, I say, after a survey of this evidence,
can gravely sit down and inform the world that “_there is no sufficient
evidence that there was ever a time when this reading was patent as the
reading which came from the original scribe_” (p. 72):—_this_ passes my
comprehension.—It shall only be added that Bengel, who was a very careful
enquirer, had already cited the Codex Alexandrinus as a witness for Θεός
in 1734:(940)—and that Woide, the learned and conscientious editor of the
Codex, declares that so late as 1765 he had seen traces of the θ which
twenty years later (viz. in 1785) were visible to him no longer.(941)
That Wetstein subsequently changed his mind, I am not unaware. He was one
of those miserable men whose visual organs return a false report to their
possessor whenever they are shown a text which witnesses inconveniently to
the GOD-head of JESUS CHRIST.(942) I know too that Griesbach in 1785
announced himself of Wetstein’s opinion. It is suggestive however that ten
years before, (N. T. ed. 1775,) he had rested the fact _not_ on the
testimony borne by the MS. itself, but on “_the consent of Versions,
Copies, and Fathers_ which exhibit the Alexandrian Recension.”(943)—Since
Griesbach’s time, Davidson, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and
Ellicott have announced their opinion that _ΘΣ_ was never written at 1
Tim. iii. 16: confessedly only because _ΘΣ_ is to them invisible _one
hundred years after_ _ΘΣ_ _has disappeared from sight_. The fact remains
for all _that_, that the original reading of A is attested so amply, that
no sincere lover of Truth can ever hereafter pretend to doubt it. “Omnia
testimonia,” (my lord Bishop,) “omnemque historicam veritatem in
suspicionem adducere non licet; nec mirum est nos ea nunc non discernere,
quæ, antequam nos Codicem vidissemus, evanuerant.”(944)
The sum of the matter, (as I pointed out to you on a former
occasion,(945)) is this,—That it is too late by 150 years to contend on
the negative side of this question. Nay, a famous living Critic (long may
he live!) assures us that when his eyes were 20 years younger (Feb. 7,
1861) he actually discerned, _still lingering_, a faint trace of the
diameter of the Θ which Berriman in 1741 had seen so plainly. “I have
examined Codex A at least twenty times within as many years” (wrote
Prebendary Scrivener in 1874(946)), “and ... seeing (as every one must)
with my own eyes, I have always felt convinced that it reads _ΘΣ_”.... For
_you_ to assert, in reply to all this mass of positive evidence, that the
reading is “indisputably” ΟΣ,—and to contend that what makes this
indisputable, is the fact that behind part of the _theta_ (Θ), [but too
high to mislead a skilful observer,] an _epsilon_ stands on the reverse
side of the page;—strikes me as bordering inconveniently on the
ridiculous. If _this_ be your notion of what does constitute “sufficient
evidence,” well may the testimony of so many _testes oculati_ seem to you
to lack sufficiency. Your notions on these subjects are, I should think,
peculiar to yourself. You even fail to see that your statement (in
Scrivener’s words) is “_not relevant to the point at issue._”(947) The
plain fact concerning cod. A is _this_:—That at 1 Tim. iii. 16, two
delicate horizontal strokes in _ΘΣ_ which were thoroughly patent in
1628,—which could be seen plainly down to 1737,—and which were discernible
by an expert (Dr. Woide) so late as A.D. 1765,(948)—have for the last
hundred years entirely disappeared; which is precisely what Berriman (in
1741) predicted would be the case. Moreover, he solemnly warned men
against drawing from this circumstance the mistaken inference which _you_,
my lord Bishop, nevertheless _insist_ on drawing, and representing as an
“indisputable” fact.
I have treated so largely of the reading of the Codex Alexandrinus, not
because I consider the testimony of a solitary copy, whether uncial or
cursive, a matter of much importance,—certainly not the testimony of Codex
A, which (in defiance of every other authority extant) exhibits “_the body
of _GOD” in S. John xix. 40:—but because _you_ insist that A is a witness
on your side: whereas it is demonstrable, (and I claim to have
demonstrated,) that you cannot honestly do so; and (I trust) you will
never do so any more.
[c] _Testimony of_ CODICES א _and_ C _concerning_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.