464, must be held to witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη in 1 Tim. iii. 16: though
his testimony, like that of the five names which go before, being open to
cavil, is not here insisted on.]—And now to get upon _terra firma_.
(1) To the IIIrd century then [A.D. 264?], belongs the Epistle ascribed to
DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA, (spoken of above, at pages 461-2,) in which 1
Tim. iii. 16 is distinctly quoted in the same way.
(2) In the next, (the IVth) century, unequivocal Patristic witnesses to
Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη abound. Foremost is DIDYMUS, who presided over the
Catechetical School of Alexandria,—the teacher of Jerome and Rufinus. Born
A.D. 309, and becoming early famous, he clearly witnesses to what was the
reading of the first quarter of the IVth century. His testimony has been
set forth at page 456.
(3) GREGORY, BISHOP OF NAZIANZUS [A.D. 355], a contemporary of Basil, in
_two_ places is found to bear similar witness. See above page 457.
(4) DIODORUS, (or “Theodorus” as Photius writes his name,) the teacher of
Chrysostom,—first of Antioch, afterwards the heretical BISHOP OF TARSUS in
Cilicia,—is next to be cited [A.D. 370]. His testimony is given above at
pages 458-9.
(5) The next is perhaps our most illustrious witness,—viz. GREGORY, BISHOP
OF NYSSA in Cappadocia [A.D. 370]. References to at least _twenty-two_
places of his writings have been already given at page 456.
(6) Scarcely less important than the last-named Father, is CHRYSOSTOM
[A.D. 380], first of Antioch,—afterwards PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE,—who
in _three_ places witnesses plainly to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη. See above, page
457.
(7) And to this century, (not later certainly than the last half of it,)
is to be referred the title of that κεφάλαιον, or chapter, of St. Paul’s
First Epistle to Timothy which contains chap. iii. 16,—(indeed, which
_begins_ with it,) viz. Περὶ θείας σαρκώσεως. Very eloquently does that
title witness to the fact that Θεός was the established reading of the
place under discussion, before either cod. B or cod. א was produced. See
above, pages 457-8.
(8) In the Vth century,—besides the CODEX ALEXANDRINUS (cod. A,)
concerning which so much has been said already (page 431 to page 437),—we
are able to appeal for the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, to,
(9) CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, [A.D. 410,] who in _at least two_
places witnesses to it unequivocally. See above, pp. 464 to 470. So does,
(10) THEODORET, BISHOP OF CYRUS in Syria, [A.D. 420]: who, in at least
_four_ places, (see above, page 456) renders unequivocal and important
witness on the same side.
(11) Next, the ANONYMOUS AUTHOR claims notice [A.D. 430], whose
composition is found in the Appendix to the works of Athanasius. See
above, page 475.
(12) You will be anxious to see your friend EUTHALIUS, BISHOP OF SULCA,
duly recognized in this enumeration. He comes next. [A.D. 458.] The
discussion concerning him will be found above, at page 459 to page 461.
(13) MACEDONIUS II, PATRIARCH OF CP. [A.D. 496] must of necessity be
mentioned here, as I have very fully explained at page 470 to page 474.
(14) To the VIth century belongs the GEORGIAN Version, as already noted at
page 454.
(15) And hither is to be referred the testimony of SEVERUS, BISHOP OF
ANTIOCH [A.D. 512], which has been already particularly set down at page
458.
(16) To the VIIth century [A.D. 616] belongs the HARKLEIAN (or
PHILOXENIAN) Version; concerning which, see above, page 450. “That Θεός
was the reading of the manuscripts from which this Version was made, is
put beyond reach of doubt by the fact that in twelve of the other places
where εὐσέβεια occurs,(1089) the words ܩܦܝܕܘܐ ܕܗܬܐ (or ܐܬܗܕ ܐܘܕܝܦܩ)
(‘_beauty-of-fear_’) are found _without_ the addition of ܐܠܚܐ (or ܐܚܠܐ)
(‘GOD’). It is noteworthy, that on the thirteenth occasion (1 Tim. ii. 2),
where the Peschito reads ‘_fear of_ GOD,’ the Harkleian reads ‘_fear_’
only. On the other hand, the Harkleian margin of Acts iii. 12 expressly
states that εὐσέβια is the Greek equivalent of ܩܦܝܕܘܐ ܕܗܬܐ (or ܐܬܗܕ
ܐܘܕܝܦܩ) (‘_beauty-of-fear_’). This effectually establishes the fact that
the author of the Harkleian recension found Θεός in his Greek manuscript
of 1 Tim. iii. 16.”(1090)
(17) In the VIIIth century, JOHN DAMASCENE [A.D. 730] pre-eminently claims
attention. He is _twice_ a witness for Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, as was explained at
page 457.
(18) Next to be mentioned is EPIPHANIUS, DEACON OF CATANA; whose memorable
testimony at the 2nd Nicene Council [A.D. 787] has been set down above, at
page 475. And then,
(19) THEODORUS STUDITA of CP. [A.D. 790],—concerning whom, see above, at
pages 475-6.
(20), (21) _and_ (22). To the IXth century belong the three remaining
uncial codices, which alike witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί:—viz. the
“COD. MOSQUENSIS” (K); the “COD. ANGELICUS” (L); and the “COD.
PORPHYRIANUS” (P).
(23) The SLAVONIC VERSION belongs to the same century, and exhibits the
same reading.
(24) Hither also may be referred several ancient SCHOLIA which all witness
to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, as I explained at page 476.
(25) To the Xth century belongs ŒCUMENIUS [A.D. 990], who is also a
witness on the same side. See page 476.
(26) To the XIth century, THEOPHYLACT [A.D. 1077], who bears express
testimony to the same reading. See page 476.
(27) To the XIIth century, EUTHYMIUS [A.D. 1116], who closes the list with
his approving verdict. See page 476.
And thus we reach a period when there awaits us a mass of testimony which
transports us back (_per saltum_) to the Church’s palmiest days;
testimony, which rightly understood, is absolutely decisive of the point
now under discussion. I allude to the testimony of EVERY KNOWN COPY OF S.
PAUL’S EPISTLES except the three, or four, already specified, viz. D of S.
Paul; א, 17, and perhaps 73. A few words on this last head of Evidence may
not be without the grace of novelty even to yourself. They are
supplementary to what has already been offered on the same subject from
page 443 to page 446.
The copies of S. Paul’s Epistles (in cursive writing) supposed to exist in
European libraries,—not including those in the monasteries of Greece and
the Levant,(1091)—amount to at least 302.(1092) Out of this number, 2 are
fabulous:(1093)—1 has been destroyed by fire:(1094)—and 6 have strayed
into unknown localities.(1095) Add, that 37 (for various reasons) are said
not to contain the verse in question;(1096) while of 2, I have been
hitherto unsuccessful in obtaining any account:(1097)—and it will be seen
that the sum of the available cursive copies of S. Paul’s Epistles is
exactly 254.
Now, that 2 of these 254 cursive copies (viz. Paul 17 and 73)—exhibit
ὅς,—you have been so eager (at pp. 71-2 of your pamphlet) to establish,
that I am unwilling to do more than refer you back to pages 443, -4, -5,
where a few words have been already offered in reply. Permit me, however,
to submit to your consideration, as a set-off against those _two copies_
of S. Paul’s Epistles which read ὅς,—the following _two-hundred and
fifty-two copies_ which read Θεός.(1098) To speak with perfect accuracy,—4
of these (252) exhibit ὁ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη;(1099)—1, ὅς Θεός;(1100)—and 247,
Θεός absolutely. The numbers follow:—
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 16. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.
24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.
43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 52. 55. 56. 57. 59. 62. 63. 65. 67. 68. 69.
70. 71. 72. 74. 75. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 90. 91.
92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107.
108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 120. 121. 122. 123. 125.
126. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141.
142. 143. 144. 145. 149. 150. 151. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 164.
165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180.
182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 188. 189. 190. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198.
199. 200. 201. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 211. 212. 213. 215. 216. 217.
218.(1101) 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231.
232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246.
247. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 255. 256. 257. 258. 260. 262. 264. 265. 266.
267. 268. 269. 270. 272. 273. 274. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281.
282.(1102) 283. 285. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298.
299. 300. 301.
Behold then the provision which THE AUTHOR of Scripture has made for the
effectual conservation in its integrity of this portion of His written
Word! Upwards of eighteen hundred years have run their course since the
HOLY GHOST by His servant, Paul, rehearsed the “mystery of Godliness;”
declaring _this_ to be the great foundation-fact,—namely, that “GOD WAS
MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH.” And lo, out of _two hundred and fifty-four_
copies of S. Paul’s Epistles no less than _two hundred and fifty-two_ are
discovered to have preserved that expression. Such “Consent” amounts to
_Unanimity_; and, (as I explained at pp. 454-5,) unanimity in this
subject-matter, is conclusive.
The copies of which we speak, (you are requested to observe,) were
produced in every part of ancient Christendom,—being derived in every
instance from copies older than themselves; which again were transcripts
of copies older still. They have since found their way, without design or
contrivance, into the libraries of every country of Europe,—where, for
hundreds of years they have been jealously guarded. And,—(I repeat the
question already hazarded at pp. 445-6, and now respectfully propose it to
_you_, my lord Bishop; requesting you at your convenience to favour me
publicly with an answer;)—For what conceivable reason can this multitude
of witnesses be supposed to have entered into a wicked conspiracy to
deceive mankind?
True, that no miracle has guarded the sacred Text in this, or in any other
place. On the other hand, for the last 150 years, Unbelief has been
carping resolutely at this grand proclamation of the Divinity of
CHRIST,—in order to prove that not this, but some other thing, it must
have been, which the Apostle wrote. And yet (as I have fully shown) the
result of all the evidence procurable is to establish that the Apostle
must be held to have written no other thing but _this_.
To the overwhelming evidence thus furnished by 252 out of 254 cursive
_Copies_ of S. Paul’s Epistles,—is to be added the evidence supplied by
the _Lectionaries_. It has been already explained (viz. at pp. 477-8) that
out of 32 copies of the “Apostolus,” 29 concur in witnessing to Θεός. I
have just (May 7th) heard of another in the Vatican.(1103) To these 30,
should be added the 3 Liturgical codices referred to at pp. 448 and 474,
_note_ 1. Now this is emphatically the voice of _ancient Ecclesiastical
Tradition_. The numerical result of our entire enquiry, proves therefore
to be briefly this:—
(I.) In 1 TIMOTHY iii. 16, the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, is
witnessed to by 289 MANUSCRIPTS:(1104)—by 3 VERSIONS:(1105)—by upwards of
20 Greek FATHERS.(1106)
(II) The reading ὅ (in place of Θεός) is supported by a single MS. (D):—by
5 ancient VERSIONS:(1107)—by 2 late Greek FATHERS.(1108)
(III.) The reading ὅς (also in place of Θεός) is countenanced by 6
MANUSCRIPTS in all (א, Paul 17, 73: Apost. 12, 85, 86):—by _only one_
VERSION for certain (viz. the Gothic(1109)):—_not for certain by a single
Greek_ FATHER.(1110)
I will not repeat the remarks I made before on a general survey of the
evidence in favour of ὅς ἐφανερώθη: but I must request you to refer back
to those remarks, now that we have reached the end of the entire
discussion. They extend from the middle of p. 483 to the bottom of p. 485.
The unhappy Logic which, on a survey of what goes before, can first
persuade itself, and then seek to persuade others, that Θεός is a “_plain
and clear error_;” and that there is “_decidedly preponderating
evidence_,” in favour of reading ὅς in 1 Timothy iii. 16;—must needs be of
a sort with which I neither have, nor desire to have, any acquaintance. I
commend the case between you and myself to the judgment of Mankind; and
trust you are able to await the common verdict with the same serene
confidence as I am.
Will you excuse me if I venture, in the homely vernacular, to assure you
that in your present contention you “have not a leg to stand upon”?
“Moreover” (to quote from your own pamphlet [p. 76],) “_this case is of
great importance as an example_.” You made deliberate choice of it in
order to convict me of error. I have accepted your challenge, you see. Let
the present, by all means, be regarded by the public as a trial-place,—a
test of our respective methods, yours and mine. I cheerfully abide the
issue,
(p) INTERNAL EVIDENCE _for reading_ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη _in_ 1 Tim. iii. 16,
_absolutely overwhelming_.
In all that precedes, I have abstained from pleading the _probabilities_
of the case; and for a sufficient reason. Men’s notions of what is
“probable” are observed to differ so seriously. “Facile intelligitur”
(says Wetstein) “lectiones ὅς et Θεός esse interpretamenta pronominis ὅ:
sed nec ὅ nec ὅς posse esse interpretamentum vocis Θεός.” Now, I should
have thought that the exact reverse is as clear as the day. _What_ more
obvious than that _ΘΣ_, by exhibiting indistinctly either of its delicate
horizontal strokes, (and they were often so traced as to be scarcely
discernible,(1111)) would become mistaken for ΟΣ? What more natural again
than that the masculine relative should be forced into agreement with its
neuter antecedent? Why, _the thing has actually happened_ at Coloss. i.
27; where ὍΣ ἐστι Χριστός has been altered into ὅ, only because μυστήριον
is the antecedent. But waiving this, the internal evidence in favour of
Θεός must surely be admitted to be overwhelming, by all save one
determined that the reading _shall be_ ὅς or ὅ. I trust we are at least
agreed that the maxim “_proclivi lectioni præstat ardua_,” does not
enunciate so foolish a proposition as that in choosing between two or more
conflicting readings, we are to prefer _that_ one which has the feeblest
external attestation,—provided it be but in itself almost unintelligible?
And yet, in the present instance,—How (give me leave to ask) will you
translate? To those who acquiesce in the notion that the μέγα μυστήριον
τῆς εὐσεβείας means our SAVIOUR CHRIST Himself, (consider Coloss. i. 27,)
it is obvious to translate “_who_:” yet how harsh, or rather how
intolerable is this! I should have thought that there could be no real
doubt that “_the mystery_” here spoken of must needs be that complex
exhibition of Divine condescension which the Apostle proceeds to rehearse
in outline: and of which the essence is that it was very and eternal GOD
who was the subject of the transaction. Those who see this, and yet adopt
the reading ὅς, are obliged to refer it to the remote antecedent Θεός.
_You_ do not advocate this view: neither do I. For reasons of their own,
Alford(1112) and Lightfoot(1113) both translate “_who_.”
Tregelles (who always shows to least advantage when a point of taste or
scholarship is under discussion) proposes to render:—
“He who was manifested in the flesh, (he who) was justified in the
spirit, (he who) was seen by angels, (he who) was preached among
Gentiles, (he who) was believed on in the world, (he who) was
received up in glory.”(1114)
I question if his motion will find _a seconder_. You yourself lay it down
magisterially that ὅς “is _not emphatic_ (‘He who,’ &c.): nor, by a
_constructio ad sensum_, is it the relative to μυστήριον; but is a
relative to an _omitted_ though easily recognized antecedent, viz.
CHRIST.” You add that it is not improbable “that the words are quoted from
some known _hymn_, or probably from some familiar _Confession of Faith_.”
Accordingly, in your Commentary you venture to exhibit the words within
inverted commas _as a quotation_:—“And confessedly great is the mystery of
godliness: ‘who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit,’ ”
&c.,(1115)—for which you are without warrant of any kind, and which you
have no right to do. Westcott and Hort (the “chartered libertines”) are
even more licentious. Acting on their own suggestion that these clauses
are “a quotation from _an early Christian hymn_,” they proceed to print
the conclusion of 1 Tim. iii. 16 stichometrically, as if it were a
_six-line stanza_.
This notwithstanding, the Revising body _have adopted_ “He who,” as the
rendering of ὅς; a mistaken rendering as it seems to me, and (I am glad to
learn) to yourself also. Their translation is quite a curiosity in its
way. I proceed to transcribe it:—
“He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen
of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world,
received up in glory.”
But this does not even pretend to be a sentence: nor do I understand what
the proposed construction is. Any arrangement which results in making the
six clauses last quoted part of the subject, and “great” the predicate of
one long proposition,—is unworthy.—Bentley’s wild remedy testifies far
more eloquently to his distress than to his aptitude for revising the text
of Scripture. He suggests,—“CHRIST _was put to death_ in the flesh,
justified in the spirit, ... seen _by Apostles_.”(1116)—“According to the
ancient view,” (says the Rev. T. S. Green,) “the sense would be: ‘and
confessedly great is the mystery of godliness [in the person of him], who
[mystery notwithstanding] was manifested in the flesh, &c.’ ”(1117)...
But, with submission, “the ancient view” was not this. The
Latins,—calamitously shut up within the limits of their “_pietatis
sacramentum, quod_,”—are found to have habitually broken away from that
iron bondage, and to have discoursed of our SAVIOUR CHRIST, as being
Himself the “sacramentum” spoken of. The “sacramentum,” in their view, was
the incarnate WORD.(1118)—Not so the Greek Fathers. These all, without
exception, understood S. Paul to say,—what Ecclesiastical Tradition hath
all down the ages faithfully attested, and what to this hour the copies of
his Epistles prove that he actually wrote,—viz. “_And confessedly great is
the mystery of godliness_:—GOD _was manifested in the flesh, justified in
the spirit_,” and so on. Moreover this is the view of the matter in which
all the learning and all the piety of the English Church has thankfully
acquiesced for the last 350 years. It has commended itself to Andrewes and
Pearson, Bull and Hammond, Hall and Stillingfleet, Ussher and Beveridge,
Mill and Bengel, Waterland and Berriman. The enumeration of names is
easily brought down to our own times. Dr. Henderson, (the learned
non-conformist commentator,) in 1830 published a volume with the following
title:—
“The great mystery of godliness incontrovertible: or, Sir Isaac
Newton and the Socinians foiled in the attempt to prove a
corruption in the text 1 Tim. iii. 16: containing a review of the
charges brought against the passage; an examination of the various
readings; and a confirmation of that in the received text on
principles of general and biblical criticism.”
And,—to turn one’s eyes in quite a different direction,—“Veruntamen,”
wrote venerable President Routh, at the end of a life-long critical study
of Holy Writ,—(and his days were prolonged till he reached his hundredth
year,)—
“Veruntamen, quidquid ex sacri textûs historia, illud vero haud
certum, critici collegerunt, me tamen interna cogunt argumenta
præferre lectionem Θεός, quem quidem agnoscunt veteres
interpretes, Theodoretus cæterique, duabus alteris ὅς et ὅ.”(1119)
And here I bring my DISSERTATION on 1 TIM. iii. 16 to a close. It began at
p. 424, and I little thought would extend to seventy-six pages. Let it be
clearly understood that I rest my contention not at all on Internal, but
entirely on External Evidence; although, to the best of my judgment, they
are alike conclusive as to the matter in debate.—Having now
incontrovertibly, as I believe, established ΘΕΌΣ as the best attested
Reading of the place,—I shall conclude the present LETTER as speedily as I
can.
(1) _“__Composition of the Body which is responsible for the __‘__New
Greek Text.__’__ ”_
There remains, I believe, but one head of discourse into which I have not
yet followed you. I allude to your “few words about the composition of the
body which is responsible for the ‘New Greek Text,’ ”(1120)—which extend
from the latter part of p. 29 to the beginning of p. 32 of your pamphlet.
“Among the sixteen most regular attendants at your meetings,” (you say)
“were to be found most of those persons who were presumably best
acquainted with the subject of Textual Criticism.”(1121) And with this
insinuation that you had “all the talents” with you, you seek to put me
down.
But (as you truly say) “the number of living Scholars in England who have
connected their names with the study of the Textual Criticism of the New
Testament is exceedingly small.”(1122) And, “of that exceedingly small
number,” you would be puzzled to name so much as _one_, besides the three
you proceed to specify (viz. Dr. Scrivener, Dr. Westcott, and Dr.
Hort,)—who were members of the Revision company. On the other hand,—(to
quote the words of the most learned of our living Prelates,)—“it is well
known that there are _two opposite Schools_ of Biblical Criticism among
us, _with very different opinions as to the comparative value of our
Manuscripts of the Greek Testament_.”(1123) And in proof of his statement,
the Bishop of Lincoln cites “on the one side”—_Drs. Westcott and Hort_;
“and on the other”—_Dr. Scrivener_.
Now, let the account be read which Dr. Newth gives (and which you admit to
be correct) of the extraordinary method by which the “New Greek Text” was
“_settled_,”(1124) “for the most part at the First Revision,”(1125)—and it
becomes plain that it was not by any means the product of the
independently-formed opinions of 16 experts, (as your words imply); but
resulted from the aptitude of 13 of your body to be guided by the sober
counsels of Dr. Scrivener on the one hand, or to be carried away by the
eager advocacy of Dr. Hort, (supported as he ever was by his respected
colleague Dr. Westcott,) on the other. As Canon Cook well puts it,—“The
question really is, Were the members competent to form a correct
judgment?”(1126) “In most cases,” “_a __ simple majority_”(1127)
determined what the text should be. But _ponderari debent testes_, my lord
Bishop, _non numerari_.(1128) The vote of the joint Editors should have
been reckoned practically as only _one_ vote. And whenever Dr. Scrivener
and they were irreconcilably opposed, the existing Traditional Text ought
to have been let alone. All pretence that it was _plainly and clearly
erroneous_ was removed, when the only experts present were hopelessly
divided in opinion. As for the rest of the Revising Body, inasmuch as they
extemporized their opinions, they were scarcely qualified to vote at all.
Certainly they were not entitled individually to an equal voice with Dr.
Scrivener in determining what the text should be. Caprice or Prejudice, in
short, it was, not Deliberation and Learning, which prevailed in the
Jerusalem Chamber. A more unscientific,—to speak truly, a coarser and a
clumsier way of manipulating the sacred Deposit, than that which you
yourself invented, it would be impossible, in my judgment, to devise.
(2) _An Unitarian Revisionist intolerable._—_The Westminster-Abbey
Scandal._
But this is not nearly all. You invite attention to the constituent
elements of the Revising body, and congratulate yourself on its
miscellaneous character as providing a guarantee that it has been
impartial.