application of chemicals has rendered no longer decipherable in this
place. Tischendorf (of course) insists, that the original reading was
ΟΣ.(949) Wetstein and Griesbach (just as we should expect,) avow the same
opinion,—Woide, Mill, Weber and Parquoi being just as confident that the
original reading was _ΘΣ_. As in the case of cod. A, it is too late by
full 100 years to re-open this question. Observable it is that the
witnesses yield contradictory evidence. Wetstein, writing 150 years ago,
before the original writing had become so greatly defaced,—(and Wetstein,
inasmuch as he collated the MS. for Bentley [1716], must have been
thoroughly familiar with its contents,)—only “_thought_” that he read ΟΣ;
“because the delicate horizontal stroke which makes Θ out of Ο,” was to
him “_not apparent_.”(950) Woide on the contrary was convinced that _ΘΣ_
had been written by the first hand: “for” (said he) “though there _exists
no vestige_ of the delicate stroke which out of Ο makes Θ, _the stroke
written above the letters is by the first hand_.” What however to Wetstein
and to Woide was not apparent, was visible enough to Weber, Wetstein’s
contemporary. And Tischendorf, so late as 1843, expressed his astonishment
that the stroke in question had hitherto escaped the eyes of every one;
“_having been repeatedly seen by himself_.”(951) He attributes it, (just
as we should expect) to a corrector of the MS.; partly, because of _its
colour_, (“_subnigra_”); partly, because of _its inclining upwards to the
right_. And yet, _who_ sees not that an argument derived from _the colour_
of a line which is already well-nigh invisible, must needs be in a high
degree precarious? while Scrivener aptly points out that the cross line in
Θ,—the ninth letter further on, (which has never been questioned,)—_also_
“ascends towards the right.” The hostile evidence collapses therefore. In
the meantime, what at least is certain is, that the subscribed musical
notation indicates that _a thousand years ago, a word of two syllables_
was read here. From a review of all of which, it is clear that the utmost
which can be pretended is that some degree of uncertainty attaches to the
testimony of cod. C. Yet, _why_ such a plea should be either set up or
allowed, I really see not—except indeed by men who have made up their
minds beforehand that ΟΣ _shall be_ the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. Let the
sign of uncertainty however follow the notation of C for this text, if you
will. That cod. C is an indubitable witness for ΟΣ, I venture at least to
think that no fair person will ever any more pretend.
[d] _Testimony of_ CODICES F _and_ G _of S. Paul, concerning_ 1 Tim. iii.
16.
The next dispute is about the reading of the two IXth-century codices, F
and G,—concerning which I propose to trouble you with a few words in
addition to what has been already offered on this subject at pp. 100-1:
the rather, because you have yourself devoted one entire page of your
pamphlet to the testimony yielded by these two codices; and because you
therein have recourse to what (if it proceeded from any one but a Bishop,)
I should designate the _insolent_ method of trying to put me down by
authority,—instead of seeking to convince me of my error by producing some
good reasons for your opinion. You seem to think it enough to hurl
Wetstein, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and (cruellest of
all) my friend Scrivener, at my head. Permit me to point out that this,
_as an argument_, is the feeblest to which a Critic can have recourse. He
shouts so lustily for help only because he is unable to take care of
himself.
F and G then are confessedly independent copies of one and the same
archetype: and “both F and G” (you say) “exhibit _ΟΣ_.”(952) Be it so. The
question arises,—What does the stroke above the _ΟΣ_ signify? I venture to
believe that these two codices represent a copy which originally exhibited
_ΘΣ_, but from which the diameter of the Θ had disappeared—(as very often
is the case in codex A)—through tract of time. The effect of this would be
that F and G are in reality witnesses for Θεός. Not so, you say. _That_
slanting stroke represents the aspirate, and proves that these two codices
are witnesses for ὅς.(953) Let us look a little more closely into this
matter.
Here are two documents, of which it has been said that they “were
separately derived from some early codex, in which there was probably no
interval between the words.”(954) They were _not immediately_ derived from
such a codex, I remark: it being quite incredible that two independent
copyists could have hit on the same extravagantly absurd way of dividing
the uncial letters.(955) The common archetype which both employed must
have been the work of a late Western scribe every bit as licentious and as
unacquainted with Greek as themselves.(956) _That_ archetype however may
very well have been obtained from a primitive codex of the kind first
supposed, in which the words were written continuously, as in codex B.
Such Manuscripts were furnished with neither breathings nor accents:
accordingly, “of the ordinary breathings or accents there are no
traces”(957) in either F or G.
But then, cod. F occasionally,—G much oftener,—exhibits a little straight
stroke, nearly horizontal, over the initial vowel of certain words. Some
have supposed that this was designed to represent the aspirate: but it is
not so. The proof is, that it is found _consistently_ introduced over the
same vowels _in the interlinear Latin_. Thus, the Latin preposition “a”
_always_ has the slanting stroke above it:(958) and the Latin interjection
“o” is furnished with the same appendage,—alike in the Gospels and in the
Epistles.(959) This observation evacuates the supposed significance of the
few instances where ἃ is written _Α_:(960) as well as of the much fewer
places where ὁ or ὃ are written _Ο_:(961) especially when account is taken
of the many hundred occasions, (often in rapid succession,) when nothing
at all is to be seen above the “ο.”(962) As for the fact that ἵνα is
always written _Ι_ΝΑ (or ΪΝΑ),—let it only be noted that besides ιδωμεν,
ιχθυς, ισχυρος, &c., Ιακωβος, Ιωαννης, Ιουδας, &c., (which are all
distinguished in the same way,)—_Latin words also beginning with an_ “I”
are similarly adorned,—and we become convinced that the little stroke in
question is to be explained on some entirely different principle. At last,
we discover (from the example of “sī,” “sīc,” “etsī,” “servītus,”
“saeculīs,” “idolīs,” &c.) that the supposed sign of the rough breathing
_is nothing else but an ancient substitute for the modern dot over the
_“I.”—We may now return to the case actually before us.
It has been pointed out that the line above the ΟΣ in both F and G “is not
horizontal, but rises a little towards the right.” I beg to call attention
to the fact that there are 38 instances of the slight super-imposed “line”
here spoken of, in the page of cod. F where the reading under discussion
appears: 7 in the Greek, 31 in the Latin. In the corresponding page of
cod. G, the instances are 44: 8 in the Greek, 36 in the Latin.(963) These
short horizontal strokes (they can hardly be called _lines_) generally—not
by any means always—slant upwards; and _they are invariably the sign of
contraction_.
The problem before us has in this way been divested of a needless
encumbrance. The suspicion that the horizontal line above the word ΟΣ may
possibly represent the aspirate, has been disposed of. It has been
demonstrated that throughout these two codices a horizontal line slanting
upwards, set over a vowel, is either—(1) The sign of contraction; or
else—(2) A clerical peculiarity. In the place before us, then, _which_ of
the two is it?
_The sign of contraction_, I answer: seeing that whereas there are, in the
page before us, 9 aspirated, and (including _ΟΣ_) 8 contracted Greek
words, not one of those _nine_ aspirated words has _any mark at all_ above
its initial letter; while every one of the _eight_ contracted words is
duly furnished with the symbol of contraction. I further submit that
inasmuch as ὅς is _nowhere_ else written _ΟΣ_ in either codex, it is
unreasonable to assume that it is so written in this place. Now, that
almost every codex in the world reads _ΘΣ_ in 1 Tim. iii. 16,—is a plain
fact; and that _ΟΣ_ (in verse 16) _would be_ Θεός if the delicate
horizontal stroke which distinguishes Θ from Ο, were not away,—no one
denies. Surely, therefore, the only thing which remains to be enquired
after, is,—Are there _any other_ such substitutions of one letter for
another discoverable in these two codices? And it is notorious that
instances of the phenomenon abound. The letters Σ, Ε, Ο, Θ are confused
throughout.(964) And what else are ΠΕΝΟΟΥΝΤΕΣ for πενθουντες (Matth. v.
4),—ΕΚΡΙΖΩΟΗΤΙ for εκριζωθητι (Luc. xvii. 16),—ΚΑΤΑΒΗΟΙ for καταβηθι (xix.
6),—but instances of the _self-same mistake_ which (as I contend) has in
this place turned _ΘΣ_ into _ΟΣ_?
My lord Bishop, I have submitted to all this painful drudgery, not, you
may be sure, without a sufficient reason. _Never any more must we hear of
_“breathings”_ in connexion with codices_ F _and_ G. The stroke above the
ΟΣ in 1 Tim. iii. 16 has been proved to be _probably the sign of
contraction_. I forbear, of course, to insist that the two codices are
witnesses _on my side_. I require that you, in the same spirit of
fairness, will abstain from claiming them as certainly witnessing _on
yours_. The Vth-century codex C, and the IXth-century codex F-G must be
regarded as equivocal in the testimony they render, and are therefore not
to be reckoned to either of the contending parties.
These are many words about the two singularly corrupt IXth-century
documents, concerning which so much has been written already. But I
sincerely desire,—(and so I trust do you, as a Christian Bishop,)—to see
the end of a controversy which those only have any right to re-open (_pace
tuâ dixerim_) who have _something new to offer on the subject_: and
certain it is that the bearing of F and G on this matter has never before
been fully stated. I dismiss those two codices with the trite remark that
they are, at all events, but one codex: and that against them are to be
set K L P,—_the only uncials which remain_; for D (of “Paul”) exhibits ὅ,
and the Vatican codex B no longer serves us.
[fe] _Testimony of the_ CURSIVE COPIES: _and specially of_ “Paul 17,” “73”
_and_ “181,” _concerning_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.
Next, for the cursive Copies. You claim without enquiry,—and _only because
you find that men have claimed them before you_,—Nos. 17, 73, 181, as
witnesses for ὅς. Will you permit me to point out that no progress will
ever be made in these studies so long as “professed Critics” will
persevere in the evil practice of transcribing one another’s references,
and thus appropriating one another’s blunders?
About the reading of “Paul 17,” (the notorious “33” of the Gospels,) there
is indeed no doubt.—Mindful however of President Routh’s advice to me
always “to verify my references,”—concerning “Paul 73” I wrote a letter of
enquiry to Upsala (July 28, 1879), and for all answer (Sept. 6th) received
a beautiful tracing of what my correspondent called the “1 Thim. iii. 16
_paraphe_.” It proved to be an abridged exhibition of 21 lines of
Œcumenius. I instantly wrote to enquire whether this was really all that
the codex in question has to say to 1 Tim. iii. 16? but to this I received
no reply. I presumed therefore that I had got to the bottom of the
business. But in July 1882, I addressed a fresh enquiry to Dr. Belsheim of
Christiania, and got his answer last October. By that time he had visited
Upsala: had verified for me readings in other MSS., and reported that the
reading here is ὅς. I instantly wrote to enquire whether he had seen the
word with his own eyes? He replied that he desired to look further into
_this_ matter on some future occasion,—the MS. in question being (he says)
a difficult one to handle. I am still awaiting his final report, which he
promises to send me when next he visits Upsala. (“Aurivillius” says
nothing about it.) Let “Paul 73” in the meantime stand with a note of
interrogation, or how you will.
About “Paul 181,” (which Scholz describes as “vi. 36” in the Laurentian
library at Florence,) I take leave to repeat (in a foot-note) what (in a
letter to Dr. Scrivener) I explained in the “Guardian” ten years ago.(965)
In consequence however of your discourteous remarks (which you will be
gratified to find quoted at foot,(966)) I have written (not for the first
time) to the learned custos of the Laurentian library on the subject;
stating the entire case and reminding him of my pertinacity in 1871. He
replies,—“Scholz fallitur huic bibliothecæ tribuendo codicem sign. ‘plut.
vi. n. 36.’ Nec est in præsenti, nec fuit antea, neque exstat in aliâ
bibliothecâ apud nos.”... On a review of what goes before, I submit that
one who has taken so much pains with the subject does not deserve to be
flouted as I find myself flouted by the Bp. of Gloucester and Bristol,—who
has not been at the pains to verify _one single point_ in this entire
controversy for himself.
_Every other known copy of S. Paul’s Epistles_, (written in the cursive
character,) I have ascertained (by laborious correspondence with the
chiefs of foreign libraries) concurs in exhibiting Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν
σαρκί. The importance of this testimony ought to be supremely evident to
yourself who contend so strenuously for the support of Paul 73 and 181.
But because, in my judgment, this practical unanimity of the manuscripts
is not only “important” but _conclusive_, I shall presently recur to it
(viz. at pages 494-5,) more in detail. For do but consider that these
copies were one and all derived from yet older MSS. than themselves; and
that the remote originals of those older MSS. were perforce of higher
antiquity still, and were executed in every part of primitive Christendom.
How is it credible that they should, one and all, conspire to mislead? I
cannot in fact express better than Dr. Berriman did 140 years ago, the
logical result of such a concord of the copies:—“From whence can it be
supposed that this general, I may say this universal consent of the Greek
MSS. should arise, but from hence,—That Θεός is the genuine original
reading of this Text?” (p. 325.)
In the meantime, you owe me a debt of gratitude: for, in the course of an
enquiry which I have endeavoured to make exhaustive, I have discovered
_three_ specimens of the book called “_Apostolus_,” or “_Praxapostolus_”
(_i.e._ Lections from the Epistles and Acts) which also exhibit ὅς in this
place. One of these is Reg. 375 (our “Apost. 12”) in the French
collection, a _Western_ codex, dated A.D. 1022.(967) The story of the
discovery of the other two (to be numbered “Praxapost.” 85, 86,) is
interesting, and will enliven this dull page.
At Tusculum, near Rome,—(the locality which Cicero rendered illustrious,
and where he loved to reside surrounded by his books,)—was founded early
in the XIth century a Christian library which in process of time became
exceedingly famous. It retains, in fact, its ancient reputation to this
day. Nilus “Rossanensis” it was, who, driven with his monks from Calabria
by invading hordes, established in A.D. 1004 a monastery at Tusculum, to
which either he, or his successors, gave the name of “Crypta Ferrata.” It
became the headquarters of the Basilian monks in the XVIIth century.
Hither habitually resorted those illustrious men, Sirletus, Mabillon,
Zacagni, Ciampini, Montfaucon,—and more lately Mai and Dom Pitra. To
Signor Cozza-Luzi, the present learned and enlightened chief of the
Vatican library, (who is himself “Abbas Monachorum Basiliensium Cryptæ
Ferratæ,”) I am indebted for my copy of the Catalogue (now in process of
publication(968)) of the extraordinary collection of MSS. belonging to the
society over which he presides.
In consequence of the information which the Abbate Cozza-Luzi sent me, I
put myself in communication with the learned librarian of the monastery,
the “Hieromonachus” D. Antonio Rocchi, (author of the Catalogue in
question,) whom I cannot sufficiently thank for his courtesy and kindness.
The sum of the matter is briefly this:—There are still preserved in the
library of the Basilian monks of Crypta Ferrata,—(notwithstanding that
many of its ancient treasures have found their way into other
repositories,(969))—4 manuscripts of S. Paul’s Epistles, which I number
290, -1, -2, -3: and 7 copies of the book called “Praxapostolus,” which I
number 83, -4, -5, -6, -7, -8, -9. Of these eleven, 3 are defective
hereabouts: 5 read Θεός: 2 (Praxapost.) exhibit ὅς; and 1 (Apost. 83)
contains an only not unique reading, to be mentioned at p. 478.
Hieromonachus Rocchi furnishes me with references besides to 3 Liturgical
Codices out of a total of 22, (Ἀποστολοευαγγέλια), which also exhibit
Θεός.(970) I number them Apost. 106, 108, 110.
And now, we may proceed to consider the VERSIONS.
[f] _Testimony of the_ VERSIONS _to the reading of_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.
“Turning to the ancient Versions” (you assert) “we find them almost
unanimous against Θεός” (p. 65). But your business, my lord Bishop, was to
show that some of them witness _in favour of_ ὅς. If you cannot show that
several ancient Versions,—besides a fair proportion of ancient
Fathers,—are clearly on your side, your contention is unreasonable as well
as hopeless. What then do the VERSIONS say?
(_a_) Now, it is allowed on all hands that the LATIN Version was made from
copies which must have exhibited μυστήριον ὅ ἐφανερώθη. The agreement of
the Latin copies is absolute. The Latin Fathers also conspire in reading
“_mysterium quod_:” though some of them seem to have regarded “quod” as a
conjunction. Occasionally, (as by the Translator of Origen,(971)) we even
find “quia” substituted _for_ “quod.” Estius conjectures that “quod” _is_
a conjunction in this place. But in fact the reasoning of the Latin
Fathers is observed invariably to proceed as if they had found nothing
else but “DEUS” in the text before them. They bravely assume that the
Eternal WORD, the second Person in the Trinity, is _designated_ by the
expression “_magnum pietatis sacramentum_.”
(_b_) It is, I admit, a striking circumstance that such a mistake as this
in the old Latin should have been retained in the VULGATE. But if you ever
study this subject with attention, you will find that Jerome,—although no
doubt he “professedly corrected the old Latin Version by the help of
ancient Greek manuscripts,” (p. 69,)—on many occasions retains readings
which it is nevertheless demonstrable that he individually disapproved. No
certain inference therefore as to what Jerome _found_ in ancient Greek
MSS. can be safely drawn from the text of the Vulgate.
(_c_) Next, for the _Syriac_ (PESCHITO) Version. I beg to subjoin the view
of the late loved and lamented P. E. Pusey,—the editor of Cyril, and who
at the time of his death was engaged in re-editing the Peschito. He
says,—“In 1 Tim. iii. 16, the Syriac has ‘_qui manifestatus est_.’ The
relative is indeterminate, but the verb is not. In Syriac however
μυστήριον is masculine; and thus, the natural way would be to take
μυστήριον as the antecedent, and translate ‘_quod manifestatum est_.’ _No
one would have thought of any other way of translating the Syriac_—but for
the existence of the various reading ὅς in the Greek, and the
_possibility_ of its affecting the translation into Syriac. But the
Peschito is so really a translation into good Syriac, (not into
word-for-word Syriac,) that if the translator had wanted to express the
Greek ὅς, in so difficult a passage, _he would have turned it
differently_.”(972)—The Peschito therefore yields the same testimony as
the Latin; and may not be declared (as you declare it) to be
indeterminate. Still less may it be represented as witnessing to ὅς.
(_d_) It follows to enquire concerning the rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 in
the PHILOXENIAN, or rather the HARKLEIAN Version (VIIth cent.), concerning
which I have had recourse to the learned Editor of that Version. He
writes:—“There can be no doubt that the authors of this Version had either
Θεός or Θεοῦ before them: while their marginal note shows that they were
aware of the reading ὅς. They exhibit,—‘_Great is the mystery of the
goodness of the fear_ (feminine) _of _GOD_, who-was-manifested_
(masculine) _in the flesh_.’ The marginal addition [ܗܘ before ܕܐܬܓܠܝ (or
ܘܗ before ܝܠܓܬܐܕ)] makes the reference to GOD all the plainer.”(973) See
more below, at p. 489.
Now this introduction of the word Θεός into the text, however inartistic
it may seem to you and to me, is a fatal circumstance to those who would
contend on your side. It shows translators divided between two rival and
conflicting readings: but determined to give prominence to the
circumstance which constituted the greatness of the mystery: viz. GOD
INCARNATE. “May I suggest” (adds the witty scholar in his Post-script)
“that there would be no mystery in ‘a man being manifested in the flesh’?”
The facts concerning the Harkleian Version being such, you will not be
surprised to hear me say that I am at a loss to understand how, without a
syllable expressive of doubt, you should claim this version (the
“Philoxenian” you call it—but it is rather the Harkleian), as a witness on
your side,—a witness for ὅς.(974) It not only witnesses _against_ you,
(for the Latin and the Peschito do _that_,) but, as I have shown you, it
is a witness on _my_ side.
(_e_) and (_f_). Next, for the Versions of LOWER and UPPER EGYPT.
“We are content” (you say) to “refer our readers to Tischendorf and
Tregelles, who unhesitatingly claim the Memphitic [or Coptic] and the
Thebaic [or Sahidic] for ὅς.”(975) But surely, in a matter of this kind,
my lord Bishop—(I mean, when we are discussing some nicety of a language
of which personally we know absolutely nothing,)—we may never “be content
to refer our readers” to individuals who are every bit as ignorant of the
matter as ourselves. Rather should we be at the pains to obtain for those
whom we propose to instruct the deliberate verdict of those who have made
the subject their special study. Dr. Malan (who must be heartily sick of
me by this time), in reply to my repeated enquiries, assures me that in
Coptic and in Sahidic alike, “the relative pronoun always takes the gender
of the Greek antecedent. But, inasmuch as there is properly speaking no
neuter in either language, the masculine does duty _for_ the neuter; the
gender of the definite article and relative pronoun being determined by
the gender of the word referred to. Thus, in S. John xv. 26, the Coptic
‘_pi_’ and ‘_phè_’ respectively represent the definite article and the
relative, alike in the expression ὁ Παράκλητος ὅν, and in the expression
τὸ Πνεῦμα ὅ: and so throughout. In 1 Tim. iii. 16, therefore, ‘_pi
mustèrion phè_,’ must perforce be rendered, τὸ μυστήριον ὅ:—not, surely, ὁ
μυστήριον ὅς. And yet, if _the relative_ may be masculine, why not _the
article_ also? But in fact, we have no more right to render the Coptic (or
the Sahidic) relative by ὅς in 1 Tim. iii. 16, than in any other similar
passage where a neuter noun (_e.g._ πνεῦμα or σῶμα) has gone before. _In
this particular case_, of course a pretence may be set up that the gender
of the relative shall be regarded as an open question: but in strictness
of grammar, it is far otherwise. No Coptic or Sahidic scholar, in fact,
having to translate the Coptic or Sahidic back into Greek, would ever
dream of writing anything else but τὸ μυστήριον ὅ.”(976) And now I trust I
have made it plain to you that _you are mistaken_ in your statement (p.
69),—that “Ὅς is _supported by the two Egyptian Versions_.” It is
supported by _neither_. You have been shown that they both witness against
you. You will therefore not be astonished to hear me again declare that I
am at a loss to understand how you can cite the “Philoxenian, _Coptic and
Sahidic_,”(977)—as witnesses on your side. It is not in this way, my lord
Bishop, that GOD’S Truth is to be established.
(_g_) As for the GOTHIC Version,—dissatisfied with the verdict of De
Gabelentz and Loebe,(978) I addressed myself to Dr. Ceriani of Milan, the
learned and most helpful chief of the Ambrosian Library: in which by the
way is preserved _the only known copy_ of Ulphilas for 1 Tim. iii. 16. He
inclines to the opinion that “_saei_” is to be read,—the rather, because
Andreas Uppström, the recent editor of the codex, a diligent and able
scholar, has decided in favour of that “_obscure_” reading.(979) The
Gothic therefore must be considered to witness to the (more than)
extraordinary combination;—μέγΑΣ ... μυστήριον ... ὍΣ. (See the footnote 4
p. 452.)
I obtain at the same time, the same verdict, and on the same grounds, from
that distinguished and obliging scholar, Dr. John Belsheim of Christiania.
“But” (he adds) “the reading is a little dubious. H. F. Massmann, in the
notes to his edition,(980) at page 657, says,—‘_saei_ [qui] is altogether
obliterated.’ ”—In claiming the Gothic therefore as a witness for ὅς, you
will (I trust) agree with me that a single _scarcely legible copy_ of a
Version is not altogether satisfactory testimony:—while certainly
“_magnus_ est pietatis sacramentum, _qui_ manifestat_us_ est in
corpore”—is not a rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 which you are prepared to
accept.
(_h_) For the ÆTHIOPIC. Version,—Dr. Hoerning, (of the British Museum,)
has at my request consulted six copies of 1 Timothy, and informs me that
they present no variety of text. _The antecedent, as well as the relative,
is masculine in all._ The Æthiopic must therefore be considered to favour
the reading μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη, and to represent the same Greek text
which underlies the Latin and the Peschito Versions. The Æthiopic
therefore is against you.
(_i_) “The ARMENIAN Version,” (writes Dr. Malan) “from the very nature of
the language, is indeterminate. There is _no grammatical distinction of
genders_ in Armenian.”