Constantinople [A.D. 496-511], of whom it has been absurdly declared that
he was _the inventor_ of the reading for which I contend. I pointed out on
a former occasion that it would follow from that very circumstance, (as
far as it is true,) that Macedonius “_is a witness for_
Θεός—_perforce_.”(1040)
Instead of either assenting to this, (which is surely a self-evident
proposition!),—or else disproving it,—you are at the pains to furbish up
afresh, as if it were a novelty, the stale and stupid figment propagated
by Liberatus of Carthage, that Macedonius was expelled from his see by the
Emperor Anastasius for falsifying 1 Timothy iii. 16. This exploded fable
you preface by announcing it as “_a remarkable fact_,” that “it was the
_distinct belief of Latin writers_ as early as the VIth century that the
reading of this passage had been corrupted by the Greeks.”(1041) How you
get your “remarkable fact,” out of your premiss,—“the distinct belief of
Latin writers,” out of the indistinct rumour [“_dicitur_”] vouched for by
a single individual,—I see not. But let that pass.
“The story shows” (you proceed) “that the Latins in the sixth century
believed ὅς to be the reading of the older Greek manuscripts, and regarded
Θεός as a false reading made out of it.” (p. 69.)—My lord Bishop, I
venture to declare that the story shows nothing of the sort. The Latins in
the VIth (and _every other_) century believed that—_not_ ὅς, but—ὅ, was
the right reading of the Greek in this place. Their belief on this subject
however has nothing whatever to do with the story before us. Liberatus was
not the spokesman of “the Latins of the VIth,” (or any other bygone)
“century:” but (as Bp. Pearson points out) a singularly ill-informed
Archdeacon of Carthage; who, had he taken ever so little pains with the
subject, would have become aware that for no such reason as he assigns was
Macedonius [A.D. 511] thrust out of his bishopric. If, however, there were
at least thus much of truth in the story,—namely, that one of the charges
brought against Macedonius was his having corrupted Scripture, and notably
his having altered ὅς into Θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16;—surely, the most
obvious of all inferences would be, that Θεός _was found in copies of S.
Paul’s epistles put forth at Constantinople by archiepiscopal authority
between_ A.D. 496 _and_ A.D. 511. To say the least,—Macedonius, by his
writings or by his discourses, certainly by his influence, _must have
shown himself favourable to_ Θεός (_not_ ὅς) ἐφανερώθη. Else, with what
show of reason could the charge have been brought against him? “I suppose”
(says our learned Dr. John Mill) “that the fable before us arose out of
the fact that Macedonius, on hearing that in several MSS. of the
Constantinopolitan Church the text of 1 Tim. iii. 16 (which witnesses
expressly to the Godhead of CHRIST) had been depraved, was careful that
those copies should be corrected in conformity with the best
exemplars.”(1042)
But, in fact, I suspect you completely misunderstand the whole matter. You
speak of “_the_ story.” But pray,—_Which_ “story” do you mean? “The story”
which Liberatus told in the VIth century? or the ingenious gloss which
Hincmar, Abp. of Rheims, put upon it in the IXth? You _mention_ the
first,—you _reason from_ the second. Either will suit me equally well.
But—_una la volta, per carità!_
Hincmar, (whom the critics generally follow,) relates that Macedonius
turned ΟΣ into ΘΕΟΣ (_i.e._ _ΘΣ_).(1043) _If Macedonius did, he preferred_
Θεός _to_ ὅς.... But the story which Liberatus promulgated is quite
different.(1044) Let him be heard:—
“At this time, Macedonius, bp. of CP., is said to have been
deposed by the emperor Anastasius on a charge of having falsified
the Gospels, and notably that saying of the Apostle, ‘_Quia
apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu._’ He was charged
with having turned the Greek monosyllable ΟΣ (_i.e._ ‘_qui_’), by
the change of a single letter (Ω for Ο) into ΩΣ: _i.e._ ‘_ut esset
Deus apparuit per carnem._’ ”
Now, that this is a very lame story, all must see. In reciting the passage
in Latin, Liberatus himself exhibits neither “_qui_,” nor “_quod_,” nor
“_Deus_,”—but “QUIA _apparuit in carne_.” (The translator of Origen, by
the way, does the same thing.(1045)) And yet, Liberatus straightway adds
(as the effect of the change) “_ut esset Deus apparuit per carnem_:” as if
that were possible, unless “_Deus_” stood in the text already! Quite plain
in the meantime is it, that, according to Liberatus, ὡς was the word which
Macedonius introduced into 1 Tim. iii. 16. And it is worth observing that
the scribe who rendered into Greek Pope Martin I.’s fifth Letter (written
on the occasion of the Lateran Council A.D. 649),—having to translate the
Pope’s quotation from the Vulgate (“_quod manifestatus est_,”)—exhibits ὡς
ἐφανερώθη in this place.(1046)
High time it becomes that I should offer it as my opinion that those
Critics are right (Cornelius à Lapide [1614] and Cotelerius [1681]) who,
reasoning from what Liberatus actually says, shrewdly infer that there
must have existed codices in the time of Macedonius which exhibited ΟΣ
ΘΕΟΣ in this place; and that _this_ must be the reading to which Liberatus
refers.(1047) _Such codices exist still._ One, is preserved in the library
of the Basilian monks at Crypta Ferrata, already spoken of at pp. 446-8:
another, is at Paris. I call them respectively “Apost. 83” and “Paul
282.”(1048) This is new.
Enough of all this however. Too much in fact. I must hasten on. The entire
fable, by whomsoever fabricated, has been treated with well-merited
contempt by a succession of learned men ever since the days of Bp.
Pearson.(1049) And although during the last century several writers of the
unbelieving school (chiefly Socinians(1050)) revived and embellished the
silly story, in order if possible to get rid of a text which witnesses
inconveniently to the GODHEAD of CHRIST, one would have hoped that, in
these enlightened days, a Christian Bishop of the same Church which the
learned, pious, and judicious John Berriman adorned a century and a-half
ago, would have been ashamed to rekindle the ancient strife and to swell
the Socinian chorus. I shall be satisfied if I have at least convinced you
that Macedonius is a witness for Θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16.
[n] _The testimony of an_ ANONYMOUS _writer_ (A.D. 430),—_of_ EPIPHANIUS
(A.D. 787),—_of_ THEODORUS STUDITA (A.D. 795?),—_of_ SCHOLIA,—_of_
ŒCUMENIUS,—_of_ THEOPHYLACT,—_of_ EUTHYMIUS.
The evidence of an ANONYMOUS Author who has been mistaken for
Athanasius,—you pass by in silence. That this writer lived in the days
when the Nestorian Controversy was raging,—namely, in the first half of
the Vth century,—is at all events evident. He is therefore at least as
ancient a witness for the text of Scripture as codex A itself: and Θεὸς
ἐφανερώθη is clearly what he found written in this place.(1051) Why do you
make such a fuss about Cod. A, and yet ignore this contemporary witness?
We do not know _who wrote_ the Epistle in question,—true. Neither do we
know who wrote Codex A. What _then_?
Another eminent witness for Θεός, whom also you do not condescend to
notice, is EPIPHANIUS, DEACON OF CATANA in Sicily,—who represented Thomas,
Abp. of Sardinia, at the 2nd Nicene Council, A.D. 787. A long discourse of
this Ecclesiastic may be seen in the Acts of the Council, translated into
Latin,—which makes his testimony so striking. But in fact his words are
express,(1052) and the more valuable because they come from a region of
Western Christendom from which textual utterances are rare.
A far more conspicuous writer of nearly the same date, THEODORUS STUDITA
of CP, [A.D. 759-826,] is also a witness for Θεός.(1053) How does it
happen, my lord Bishop, that you contend so eagerly for the testimony of
codices F and G, which are but _one_ IXth-century witness after all,—and
yet entirely disregard living utterances like these, of known men,—who
belonged to known places,—and wrote at a known time? Is it because they
witness unequivocally against you?
Several ancient SCHOLIASTS, expressing themselves diversely, deserve
enumeration here, who are all witnesses for Θεός exclusively.(1054)
Lastly,—
ŒCUMENIUS(1055) (A.D. 990),—THEOPHYLACT(1056) (A.D. 1077),—EUTHYMIUS(1057)
(A.D. 1116),—close this enumeration. They are all three clear witnesses
for reading not ὅς but Θεός.
[o] _The testimony of_ ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION.
Nothing has been hitherto said concerning the Ecclesiastical usage with
respect to this place of Scripture. 1 Tim. iii. 16 occurs in a lection
consisting of nine verses (1 Tim. iii. 13-iv. 5), which used to be
publicly read in almost all the Churches of Eastern Christendom on the
Saturday before Epiphany.(1058) It was also read, in not a few Churches,
on the 34th Saturday of the year.(1059) Unfortunately, the book which
contains lections from S. Paul’s Epistles, (“_Apostolus_” it is
technically called,) is of comparatively rare occurrence,—is often found
in a mutilated condition,—and (for this and other reasons) is, as often as
not, without this particular lesson.(1060) Thus, an analysis of 90 copies
of the “Apostolus” (No. 1 to 90), is attended by the following result:—10
are found to have been set down in error;(1061) while 41 are
declared—(sometimes, I fear, through the unskilfulness of those who
profess to have examined them),—not to contain 1 Tim. iii. 16.(1062) Of 7,
I have not been able to obtain tidings.(1063) Thus, there are but 32
copies of the book called “Apostolus” available for our present purpose.
But of these thirty-two, _twenty-seven_ exhibit Θεός.(1064) You will be
interested to hear that _one_ rejoices in the unique reading Θεοῦ:(1065)
while another Copy of the ’Apostolus’ keeps “Paul 282” in countenance by
reading ὅς Θεός.(1066) In other words, “GOD” is found in 29 copies out of
32: while “who” (ὅς) is observed to survive in only 3,—and they, Western
documents of suspicious character. Two of these were produced in one and
the same Calabrian monastery; and they still stand, side by side, in the
library of Crypta Ferrata:(1067) being exclusively in sympathy with the
very suspicious Western document at Paris, already described at page 446.
ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION is therefore clearly against _you_, in respect of
the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. How _you_ estimate this head of Evidence, I
know not. For my own part, I hold it to be of superlative importance. It
transports us back, at once, to the primitive age; and is found to be
infinitely better deserving of attention than the witness of any extant
uncial documents which can be produced. And why? For the plain reason that
it must needs have been once attested by _an indefinitely large number of
codices more ancient by far than any which we now possess_. In fact,
ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION, when superadded to the testimony of Manuscripts
and Fathers, becomes an overwhelming consideration.
And now we may at last proceed to sum up. Let me gather out the result of
the foregoing fifty pages; and remind the reader briefly of the amount of
external testimony producible in support of each of these rival
readings:—ὅ,—ὅς—Θεός.
[I.] _Sum of the Evidence of_ VERSIONS, COPIES, FATHERS, _in favour of
reading_ μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη _in_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.
(α) The reading μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη,—(which Wetstein strove hard to
bring into favour, and which was highly popular with the Socinian party
down to the third quarter of the last century,)—enjoys, as we have seen,
(pp. 448-53,) the weighty attestation of the Latin and of the Peschito,—of
the Coptic, of the Sahidic, and of the Æthiopic Versions.
No one may presume to speak slightingly of such evidence as this. It is
the oldest which can be produced for the truth of anything in the inspired
Text of the New Testament; and it comes from the East as well as from the
West. Yet is it, in and by itself, clearly inadequate. Two characteristics
of Truth are wanting to it,—two credentials,—unfurnished with which, it
cannot be so much as seriously entertained. It demands _Variety_ as well
as _Largeness of attestation_. It should be able to exhibit in support of
its claims the additional witness of COPIES and FATHERS. But,
(β) On the contrary, ὅ is found besides in _only one Greek
Manuscript_,—viz. the VIth-century codex Claromontanus, D. And further,
(γ) _Two ancient writers_ alone bear witness to this reading, viz.
GELASIUS OF CYZICUS,(1068) whose date is A.D. 476;(1069) and the UNKNOWN
AUTHOR of a homily of uncertain date in the Appendix to
Chrysostom(1070).... It is scarcely intelligible how, on such evidence,
the Critics of the last century can have persuaded themselves (with
Grotius) that μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη is the true reading of 1 Timothy iii.
16. And yet, in order to maintain this thesis, Sir Isaac Newton descended
from the starry sphere and tried his hand at Textual Criticism. Wetstein
(1752) freely transferred the astronomer’s labours to his own pages, and
thus gave renewed currency to an opinion which the labours of the learned
Berriman (1741) had already _demonstrated_ to be untenable.
Whether THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA (in his work “_de Incarnatione_”) wrote ὅς
or ὅ, must remain uncertain till a sight has been obtained of his Greek
together with its context. I find that he quotes 1 Tim iii. 16 at least
three times:—Of the first place, there is only a Latin translation, which
begins “QUOD _justificat_US _est in spiritu_.”(1071) The second place
comes to us in Latin, Greek, and Syriac: but unsatisfactorily in all
three:—(_a_) The Latin version introduces the quotation thus,—“Consonantia
et Apostolus dicit, _Et manifeste magnum est pietatis mysterium_,
QUI(1072) (or QUOD(1073)) _manifestat_US (or TUM) _est in carne,
justificat_US (or TUM) _est in spiritu_:”—(_b_) The Greek, (for which we
are indebted to Leontius Byzantinus, A.D. 610,) reads,—Ὅς ἐφανερώθη ἐν
σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι(1074)—divested of all preface.(1075) Those
seven words, thus isolated from their context, are accordingly printed by
Migne as _a heading_ only:—(_c_) The Syriac translation unmistakably
reads, “Et Apostolus dixit, _Vere sublime est hoc mysterium_,
QUOD,”—omitting τῆς εὐσεβείας.(1076) The third quotation, which is found
only in Syriac,(1077) begins,—“_For truly great is the-mystery
of-the-fear-of_ GOD, _who was manifested in-the-flesh and-was-justified
in-the-spirit_.” This differs from the received text of the Peschito by
substituting a different word for εὐσέβεια, and by employing the emphatic
state “the-flesh,” “the-spirit” where the Peschito has the absolute state
“flesh,” “spirit.” The two later clauses agree with the Harkleian or
Philoxenian.(1078)—I find it difficult from all this to know what
precisely to do with Theodore’s evidence. It has a truly oracular
ambiguity; wavering between ὅ—ὅς—and even Θεός. You, I observe, (who are
only acquainted with the second of the three places above cited, and but
imperfectly with _that_,) do not hesitate to cut the knot by simply
claiming the heretic’s authority for the reading you advocate,—viz. ὅς. I
have thought it due to my readers to tell them all that is known about the
evidence furnished by Theodore of Mopsuestia. At all events, the utmost
which can be advanced in favour of reading μυστήριον; ὅ in 1 Timothy iii.
16, has now been freely stated. I am therefore at liberty to pass on to
the next opinion.
[II.] _Sum of the Evidence of_ VERSIONS, COPIES, FATHERS _in favour of
reading_ μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη _in_ 1 Timothy iii. 16.
Remarkable it is how completely Griesbach succeeded in diverting the
current of opinion with respect to the place before us, into a new
channel. At first indeed (viz. in 1777) he retained Θεός in his Text,
timidly printing ὅς in small type above it; and remarking,—“_Judicium de
hâc lectionis varietate lectoribus liberum relinquere placuit_.” But, at
the end of thirty years (viz. in 1806), waxing bolder, Griesbach
substituted ὅς for Θεός,—“_ut ipsi_” (as he says) “_nobis constaremus_.”
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers,
under your guidance, have followed him: which is to me
unaccountable,—seeing that even less authority is producible for ὅς, than
for ὅ, in this place. But let the evidence for μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη ἐν
σαρκί be briefly recapitulated:—
(α) It consists of _a single uncial copy_, viz. the corrupt cod. א,—(for,
as was fully explained above,(1079) codd. C and F-G yield uncertain
testimony): and _perhaps two cursive copies_, viz. Paul 17, (the notorious
“33” of the Gospels,)—and a copy at Upsala (No. 73), which is held to
require further verification.(1080) To these, are to be added three other
liturgical witnesses in the cursive character—being Western copies of the
book called “_Apostolus_,” which have only recently come to light. Two of
the codices in question are of Calabrian origin.(1081) A few words more on
this subject will be found above, at pages 477 and 478.
(β) _The only Version_ which certainly witnesses in favour of ὅς, is the
Gothic: which, (as explained at pp. 452-3) exhibits a hopelessly obscure
construction, and rests on the evidence of a single copy in the Ambrosian
library.
(γ) Of Patristic testimonies (to μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη) _there exists
not one_. That EPIPHANIUS [A.D. 360] _professing to transcribe_ from an
early treatise of his own, in which ἐφανερώθη stands _without a
nominative_, should prefix ὅς—proves nothing, as I have fully explained
elsewhere.(1082)—The equivocal testimony rendered by THEODORE OF
MOPSUESTIA [A.D. 390] is already before the reader.(1083)
And this exhausts the evidence for a reading which came in,—and (I venture
to predict) will go out,—with the present century. My only wonder is, how
an exhibition of 1 Tim. iii. 16 so feebly attested,—so almost _without_
attestation,—can have come to be seriously entertained by any. “Si,”—(as
Griesbach remarks concerning 1 John v. 7)—“si tam pauci ... testes ...
sufficerent ad demonstrandam lectionis cujusdam γνησιότητα, licet obstent
tam multa tamque gravia et testimonia et argumenta; _nullum prorsus
superesset in re criticâ veri falsique criterium_, et _textus Novi
Testamenti universus plane incertus esset atque dubius_.”(1084)
Yet _this_ is the Reading which you, my lord Bishop, not only stiffly
maintain, but which you insist is no longer so much as “_open to
reconsideration_.” You are, it seems, for introducing the _clôture_ into
Textual debate. But in fact you are for inflicting pains and penalties as
well, on those who have the misfortune to differ in opinion from yourself.
You discharge all the vials of the united sees of Gloucester and Bristol
on _me_ for my presumption in daring to challenge the verdict of “the
Textual Criticism of the last fifty years,”—of the Revisers,—and of
yourself;—my folly, in venturing to believe that the traditional reading
of 1 Tim. iii. 16, (which you admit is at least 1530 years old,) is the
right reading after all. You hold me up to public indignation. “He has
made” (you say) “an elaborate effort to shake conclusions _about which no
professed Scholar has any doubt whatever_; but which an ordinary reader
(and to such we address ourselves) might regard as _still open to
reconsideration_.”—“Moreover” (you proceed) “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.”(1085)
Will you permit me, my lord Bishop, as an ordinary writer, addressing
(like yourself) “ordinary readers,”—respectfully to point out that you
entirely mistake the problem in hand? The Greek Text of the N. T. is not
to be settled by MODERN OPINION, but by ANCIENT AUTHORITY.(1086) In this
department of enquiry therefore, “_complete isolation_” is his, and _his
only_, who is forsaken by COPIES, VERSIONS, FATHERS. The man who is able,
on the contrary, to point to an overwhelming company of Ancient Witnesses,
and is contented modestly to take up his station at their feet,—such an
one can afford to disregard “_The Textual Criticism of the last fifty
years_,” if it presumes to contradict _their_ plain decrees; can even
afford to smile at the confidence of “professed Scholars” and “Critics,”
if they are so ill advised as to set themselves in battle array against
that host of ancient men.
To say therefore of such an one, (as _you_ now say of _me_,) “If he is
right, all other Critics are wrong,”—is to present an irrelevant issue,
and to perplex a plain question. The business of Textual Criticism (as you
state at page 28 of your pamphlet) is nothing else but to ascertain “_the
consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities_.” The office of the
Textual Critic is none other but to interpret rightly _the solemn verdict
of Antiquity_. Do _I_ then interpret that verdict rightly,—or do I not?
The whole question resolves itself into _that_! If I do _not_,—pray show
me wherein I have mistaken the facts of the case. But if I _do_,—why do
you not come over instantly to my side? “_Since_ he is right,” (I shall
expect to hear you say,) “it stands to reason that the ‘professed Critics’
whom he has been combating,—myself among the number,—must be wrong.”... I
am, you see, loyally accepting the logical issue you have yourself raised.
I do but seek to reconcile your dilemma with the actual facts of the
problem.
And now, will you listen while I state the grounds on which I am convinced
that your substitution of ὅς for Θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16 is nothing else
but a calamitous perversion of the Truth? May I be allowed at least to
exhibit, in the same summary way as before, the evidence for reading in
this place neither ὅ nor ὅς,—but Θεός?
[III.] _Sum of the Evidence of_ VERSIONS, COPIES, FATHERS, _in favour of
reading_ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη _in_ 1 Tim. iii 16.
Entirely different,—in respect of variety, of quantity and of
quality,—from what has gone before, is the witness of Antiquity to the
Received Text of 1 Timothy iii. 16: viz. καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ
τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; ΘΕῸΣ ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, κ.τ.λ.... I proceed to
rehearse it in outline, having already dwelt in detail upon so much of it
as has been made the subject of controversy.(1087) The reader is fully
aware(1088) that I do not propose to make argumentative use of the first
six names in the ensuing enumeration. To those names, [enclosed within
square brackets,] I forbear even to assign numbers; not as entertaining
doubt concerning the testimony they furnish, but as resolved to build
exclusively on facts which are incontrovertible. Yet is it but reasonable
that the whole of the Evidence for Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη should be placed before
the reader: and _he_ is in my judgment a wondrous unfair disputant who can
attentively survey the evidence which I thus forego, without secretly
acknowledging that its combined Weight is considerable; while its
Antiquity makes it a serious question whether it is not simply contrary to
reason that it should be dispensed with in an enquiry like the present.
[(_a_) In the Ist century then,—it has been already shown (at page 463)
that IGNATIUS (A.D. 90) probably recognized the reading before us in three
places.]
[(_b_) The brief but significant testimony of BARNABAS will be found in
the same page.]
[(_c_) In the IInd century,—HIPPOLYTUS [A.D. 190] (as was explained at
page 463,) twice comes forward as a witness on the same side.]
[(_d_) In the IIIrd century,—GREGORY THAUMATURGUS, (if it be indeed he)
has been already shown (at page 463) probably to testify to the reading
Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη.]
[(_e_) To the same century is referred the work entitled CONSTITUTIONES
APOSTOLICÆ: which seems also to witness to the same reading. See above, p.
463.]