Chapter 33

It follows to say a few words concerningMacedoniusII., patriarch of Constantinople [a.d.496-511], of whom it has been absurdly declared that he wasthe inventorof the reading for which I contend. I pointed out on a former occasion[pg 471]that it would follow from that very circumstance, (as far as it is true,) that Macedonius“is a witness forΘεός—perforce.”1040Instead 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 thedistinct belief of Latin writersas early as the VIth century that the reading of this passage had been corrupted by the Greeks.”1041How 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 (andevery other) century believed that—notὅς, 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[pg 472]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 Θεόςwas found in copies of S. Paul's epistles put forth at Constantinople by archiepiscopal authority betweena.d.496anda.d.511. To say the least,—Macedonius, by his writings or by his discourses, certainly by his influence,must have shown himself favourable toΘεός (notὅς) 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 ofChrist) had been depraved, was careful that those copies should be corrected in conformity with the best exemplars.”1042But, in fact, I suspect you completely misunderstand the whole matter. You speak of“thestory.”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? Youmentionthe first,—youreason fromthe 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).1043If Macedonius did, he preferredΘεόςtoὅς.... But the story which Liberatus promulgated is quite different.1044Let 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,[pg 473]‘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“quiaapparuit 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 Councila.d.649),—having to translate the Pope's quotation from the Vulgate (“quod manifestatus est,”)—exhibits ὡς ἐφανερώθη in this place.1046High 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 thatthismust be the reading to which Liberatus refers.1047Such codices exist still.One, is preserved in the library of the Basilian monks at Crypta Ferrata,[pg 474]already spoken of at pp.446-8: another, is at Paris. I call them respectively“Apost. 83”and“Paul 282.”1048This 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.1049And although during the last century several writers of the unbelieving school (chiefly Socinians1050) revived and embellished the silly story, in order if possible to get rid of a text which witnesses inconveniently to theGodheadofChrist, 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[pg 475]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 anAnonymouswriter(a.d.430),—ofEpiphanius(a.d.787),—ofTheodorus Studita(a.d.795?),—ofScholia,—ofŒcumenius,—ofTheophylact,—ofEuthymius.The evidence of anAnonymousAuthor 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 codexaitself: and Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη is clearly what he found written in this place.1051Why do you make such a fuss about Cod.a, and yet ignore this contemporary witness? We do not knowwho wrotethe Epistle in question,—true. Neither do we know who wrote Codexa. Whatthen?Another eminent witness for Θεός, whom also you do not condescend to notice, isEpiphanius, deacon of Catanain 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,1052and 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 Studitaof CP, [a.d.759-826,] is also a witness[pg 476]for Θεός.1053How does it happen, my lord Bishop, that you contend so eagerly for the testimony of codicesfandg, which are butoneIXth-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 ancientScholiasts, expressing themselves diversely, deserve enumeration here, who are all witnesses for Θεός exclusively.1054Lastly,—Œcumenius1055(a.d.990),—Theophylact1056(a.d.1077),—Euthymius1057(a.d.1116),—close this enumeration. They are all three clear witnesses for reading not ὅς but Θεός.[o]The testimony ofEcclesiastical 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.1058It was also read, in not a few Churches, on the 34th Saturday of the year.1059Unfortunately, the book which[pg 477]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.1060Thus, 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;1061while 41 are declared—(sometimes, I fear, through the unskilfulness of those who profess to have examined them),—not to contain 1 Tim. iii. 16.1062Of 7, I have not been able to obtain tidings.1063Thus, there are but 32 copies of the book called“Apostolus”available for our present purpose.But of these thirty-two,twenty-sevenexhibit Θεός.1064You will be interested to hear thatonerejoices in the unique[pg 478]reading Θεοῦ:1065while another Copy of the 'Apostolus' keeps“Paul 282”in countenance by reading ὅς Θεός.1066In 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:1067being exclusively in sympathy with the very suspicious Western document at Paris, already described at page446.Ecclesiastical Traditionis therefore clearly againstyou, in respect of the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. Howyouestimate 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 byan 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[pg 479]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 ofVersions,Copies,Fathers,in favour of readingμυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθηin1 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 demandsVarietyas well asLargeness of attestation. It should be able to exhibit in support of its claims the additional witness ofCopiesandFathers. But,(β) On the contrary, ὅ is found besides inonly one Greek Manuscript,—viz. the VIth-century codex Claromontanus,D.And further,(γ)Two ancient writersalone bear witness to this reading, viz.Gelasius of Cyzicus,1068whose date isa.d.476;1069and theUnknown Authorof a homily of uncertain date in the[pg 480]Appendix to Chrysostom1070.... 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 alreadydemonstratedto be untenable.WhetherTheodore 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“Quodjustificatusest in spiritu.”1071The 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,qui1072(orquod1073)manifestatus(ortum)est in carne, justificatus(ortum)est in spiritu:”—(b) The Greek, (for which we are indebted to Leontius Byzantinus,a.d.610,) reads,—Ὅς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι1074—divested of all[pg 481]preface.1075Those seven words, thus isolated from their context, are accordingly printed by Migne asa headingonly:—(c) The Syriac translation unmistakably reads,“Et Apostolus dixit,Vere sublime est hoc mysterium,quod,”—omitting τῆς εὐσεβείας.1076The third quotation, which is found only in Syriac,1077begins,—“For truly great is the-mystery of-the-fear-ofGod,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 withthat,) 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[pg 482]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 ofVersions,Copies,Fathersin favour of readingμυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθηin1 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 ofa single uncial copy, viz. the corrupt cod. א,—(for, as was fully explained above,1079codd.candf-gyield uncertain testimony): andperhaps 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.1080To 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[pg 483]light. Two of the codices in question are of Calabrian origin.1081A few words more on this subject will be found above, at pages477and478.(β)The only Versionwhich 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. ThatEpiphanius[a.d.360]professing to transcribefrom an early treatise of his own, in which ἐφανερώθη standswithout a nominative, should prefix ὅς—proves nothing, as I have fully explained elsewhere.1082—The equivocal testimony rendered byTheodore of Mopsuestia[a.d.390] is already before the reader.1083And 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 almostwithoutattestation,—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, ettextus Novi Testamenti universus plane incertus esset atque dubius.”1084Yetthisis the Reading which you, my lord Bishop, not only stiffly maintain, but which you insist is no longer so[pg 484]much as“open to reconsideration.”You are, it seems, for introducing theclôtureinto 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 onmefor 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 conclusionsabout which no professed Scholar has any doubt whatever; but which an ordinary reader (and to such we address ourselves) might regard asstill 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.”1085Will 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 byModern Opinion, but byAncient Authority.1086In this department of enquiry therefore,“complete isolation”is his, andhis only, who is forsaken byCopies,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 contradicttheirplain[pg 485]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, (asyounow say ofme,)“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 rightlythe solemn verdict of Antiquity. DoIthen interpret that verdict rightly,—or do I not? The whole question resolves itself intothat! If I donot,—pray show me wherein I have mistaken the facts of the case. But if Ido,—why do you not come over instantly to my side?“Sincehe 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 ofVersions,Copies,Fathers,in favour of readingΘεὸς ἐφανερώθηin1 Tim. iii 16.Entirely different,—in respect of variety, of quantity and[pg 486]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.1087The reader is fully aware1088that 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: andheis 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 page463) thatIgnatius(a.d.90) probably recognized the reading before us in three places.][(b) The brief but significant testimony ofBarnabaswill be found in the same page.][(c) In the IInd century,—Hippolytus[a.d.190] (as was explained at page463,) twice comes forward as a witness on the same side.][(d) In the IIIrd century,—Gregory Thaumaturgus, (if[pg 487]it be indeed he) has been already shown (at page463) probably to testify to the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη.][(e) To the same century is referred the work entitledConstitutiones Apostolicæ: which seems also to witness to the same reading. See above, p.463.][(f)Basil the Greatalso [a.d.355], as will be found explained at page464, 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 uponterra firma.(1) To the IIIrd century then [a.d.264?], belongs the Epistle ascribed toDionysius of Alexandria, (spoken of above, at pages461-2,) 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 isDidymus, who presided over the Catechetical School of Alexandria,—the teacher of Jerome and Rufinus. Borna.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 page456.(3)Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus[a.d.355], a contemporary of Basil, intwoplaces is found to bear similar witness. See above page457.(4)Diodorus, (or“Theodorus”as Photius writes his name,) the teacher of Chrysostom,—first of Antioch, afterwards the hereticalbishop of Tarsusin Cilicia,—is next to be cited [a.d.370]. His testimony is given above at pages458-9.[pg 488](5) The next is perhaps our most illustrious witness,—viz.Gregory, bishop of Nyssain Cappadocia [a.d.370]. References to at leasttwenty-twoplaces of his writings have been already given at page456.(6) Scarcely less important than the last-named Father, isChrysostom[a.d.380], first of Antioch,—afterwardsPatriarch of Constantinople,—who inthreeplaces witnesses plainly to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη. See above, page457.(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, whichbeginswith 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.bor cod. א was produced. See above, pages457-8.(8) In the Vth century,—besides theCodex Alexandrinus(cod.a,) concerning which so much has been said already (page431to page 437),—we are able to appeal for the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, to,(9)Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, [a.d.410,] who inat least twoplaces witnesses to it unequivocally. See above, pp.464to 470. So does,(10)Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrusin Syria, [a.d.420]: who, in at leastfourplaces, (see above, page456) renders unequivocal and important witness on the same side.(11) Next, theAnonymous Authorclaims notice [a.d.430], whose composition is found in the Appendix to the works of Athanasius. See above, page475.[pg 489](12) You will be anxious to see your friendEuthalius, bishop of Sulca, duly recognized in this enumeration. He comes next. [a.d.458.] The discussion concerning him will be found above, at page459to page 461.(13)Macedonius II, Patriarch of CP.[a.d.496] must of necessity be mentioned here, as I have very fully explained at page470to page 474.(14) To the VIth century belongs theGeorgianVersion, as already noted at page454.(15) And hither is to be referred the testimony ofSeverus, bishop of Antioch[a.d.512], which has been already particularly set down at page458.(16) To the VIIth century [a.d.616] belongs theHarkleian(orPhiloxenian) Version; concerning which, see above, page450.“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,1089the words ܩܦܝܕܘܐ ܕܗܬܐ (or ܐܬܗܕ ܐܘܕܝܦܩ) (‘beauty-of-fear’) are foundwithoutthe addition of ܐܠܚܐ (or ܐܚܠܐ) (‘God’). It is noteworthy, that on the thirteenth occasion (1 Tim. ii. 2), where the Peschito reads‘fear ofGod,’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[pg 490](17) In the VIIIth century,John Damascene[a.d.730] pre-eminently claims attention. He istwicea witness for Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, as was explained at page457.(18) Next to be mentioned isEpiphanius, deacon Of Catana; whose memorable testimony at the 2nd Nicene Council [a.d.787] has been set down above, at page475. And then,(19)Theodorus Studitaof CP. [a.d.790],—concerning whom, see above, at pages475-6.(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) TheSlavonic Versionbelongs to the same century, and exhibits the same reading.(24) Hither also may be referred several ancientScholiawhich all witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, as I explained at page476.(25) To the Xth century belongsŒcumenius[a.d.990], who is also a witness on the same side. See page476.(26) To the XIth century,Theophylact[a.d.1077], who bears express testimony to the same reading. See page476.(27) To the XIIth century,Euthymius[a.d.1116], who closes the list with his approving verdict. See page476.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,[pg 491]is absolutely decisive of the point now under discussion. I allude to the testimony ofevery known copy of S. Paul's Epistlesexcept the three, or four, already specified, viz.dof 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 page443to 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 302.1092Out of this number, 2 are fabulous:1093—1 has been destroyed by fire:1094—and 6 have strayed into unknown localities.1095Add, that 37 (for various reasons) are said not to contain the verse in question;1096while of 2, I[pg 492]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.

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 thedistinct belief of Latin writersas early as the VIth century that the reading of this passage had been corrupted by the Greeks.”1041How 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 (andevery other) century believed that—notὅς, 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[pg 472]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 Θεόςwas found in copies of S. Paul's epistles put forth at Constantinople by archiepiscopal authority betweena.d.496anda.d.511. To say the least,—Macedonius, by his writings or by his discourses, certainly by his influence,must have shown himself favourable toΘεός (notὅς) 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 ofChrist) 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“thestory.”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? Youmentionthe first,—youreason fromthe 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).1043If Macedonius did, he preferredΘεόςtoὅς.... But the story which Liberatus promulgated is quite different.1044Let 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,[pg 473]‘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“quiaapparuit 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 Councila.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 thatthismust be the reading to which Liberatus refers.1047Such codices exist still.One, is preserved in the library of the Basilian monks at Crypta Ferrata,[pg 474]already spoken of at pp.446-8: another, is at Paris. I call them respectively“Apost. 83”and“Paul 282.”1048This 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.1049And although during the last century several writers of the unbelieving school (chiefly Socinians1050) revived and embellished the silly story, in order if possible to get rid of a text which witnesses inconveniently to theGodheadofChrist, 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[pg 475]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 anAnonymouswriter(a.d.430),—ofEpiphanius(a.d.787),—ofTheodorus Studita(a.d.795?),—ofScholia,—ofŒcumenius,—ofTheophylact,—ofEuthymius.

The evidence of anAnonymousAuthor 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 codexaitself: and Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη is clearly what he found written in this place.1051Why do you make such a fuss about Cod.a, and yet ignore this contemporary witness? We do not knowwho wrotethe Epistle in question,—true. Neither do we know who wrote Codexa. Whatthen?

Another eminent witness for Θεός, whom also you do not condescend to notice, isEpiphanius, deacon of Catanain 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,1052and 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 Studitaof CP, [a.d.759-826,] is also a witness[pg 476]for Θεός.1053How does it happen, my lord Bishop, that you contend so eagerly for the testimony of codicesfandg, which are butoneIXth-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 ancientScholiasts, expressing themselves diversely, deserve enumeration here, who are all witnesses for Θεός exclusively.1054Lastly,—

Œcumenius1055(a.d.990),—Theophylact1056(a.d.1077),—Euthymius1057(a.d.1116),—close this enumeration. They are all three clear witnesses for reading not ὅς but Θεός.

[o]The testimony ofEcclesiastical 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.1058It was also read, in not a few Churches, on the 34th Saturday of the year.1059Unfortunately, the book which[pg 477]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.1060Thus, 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;1061while 41 are declared—(sometimes, I fear, through the unskilfulness of those who profess to have examined them),—not to contain 1 Tim. iii. 16.1062Of 7, I have not been able to obtain tidings.1063Thus, there are but 32 copies of the book called“Apostolus”available for our present purpose.

But of these thirty-two,twenty-sevenexhibit Θεός.1064You will be interested to hear thatonerejoices in the unique[pg 478]reading Θεοῦ:1065while another Copy of the 'Apostolus' keeps“Paul 282”in countenance by reading ὅς Θεός.1066In 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:1067being exclusively in sympathy with the very suspicious Western document at Paris, already described at page446.

Ecclesiastical Traditionis therefore clearly againstyou, in respect of the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. Howyouestimate 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 byan 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[pg 479]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 ofVersions,Copies,Fathers,in favour of readingμυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθηin1 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 demandsVarietyas well asLargeness of attestation. It should be able to exhibit in support of its claims the additional witness ofCopiesandFathers. But,

(β) On the contrary, ὅ is found besides inonly one Greek Manuscript,—viz. the VIth-century codex Claromontanus,D.And further,

(γ)Two ancient writersalone bear witness to this reading, viz.Gelasius of Cyzicus,1068whose date isa.d.476;1069and theUnknown Authorof a homily of uncertain date in the[pg 480]Appendix to Chrysostom1070.... 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 alreadydemonstratedto be untenable.

WhetherTheodore 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“Quodjustificatusest in spiritu.”1071The 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,qui1072(orquod1073)manifestatus(ortum)est in carne, justificatus(ortum)est in spiritu:”—(b) The Greek, (for which we are indebted to Leontius Byzantinus,a.d.610,) reads,—Ὅς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι1074—divested of all[pg 481]preface.1075Those seven words, thus isolated from their context, are accordingly printed by Migne asa headingonly:—(c) The Syriac translation unmistakably reads,“Et Apostolus dixit,Vere sublime est hoc mysterium,quod,”—omitting τῆς εὐσεβείας.1076The third quotation, which is found only in Syriac,1077begins,—“For truly great is the-mystery of-the-fear-ofGod,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 withthat,) 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[pg 482]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 ofVersions,Copies,Fathersin favour of readingμυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθηin1 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 ofa single uncial copy, viz. the corrupt cod. א,—(for, as was fully explained above,1079codd.candf-gyield uncertain testimony): andperhaps 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.1080To 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[pg 483]light. Two of the codices in question are of Calabrian origin.1081A few words more on this subject will be found above, at pages477and478.

(β)The only Versionwhich 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. ThatEpiphanius[a.d.360]professing to transcribefrom an early treatise of his own, in which ἐφανερώθη standswithout a nominative, should prefix ὅς—proves nothing, as I have fully explained elsewhere.1082—The equivocal testimony rendered byTheodore 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 almostwithoutattestation,—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, ettextus Novi Testamenti universus plane incertus esset atque dubius.”1084

Yetthisis the Reading which you, my lord Bishop, not only stiffly maintain, but which you insist is no longer so[pg 484]much as“open to reconsideration.”You are, it seems, for introducing theclôtureinto 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 onmefor 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 conclusionsabout which no professed Scholar has any doubt whatever; but which an ordinary reader (and to such we address ourselves) might regard asstill 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 byModern Opinion, but byAncient Authority.1086In this department of enquiry therefore,“complete isolation”is his, andhis only, who is forsaken byCopies,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 contradicttheirplain[pg 485]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, (asyounow say ofme,)“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 rightlythe solemn verdict of Antiquity. DoIthen interpret that verdict rightly,—or do I not? The whole question resolves itself intothat! If I donot,—pray show me wherein I have mistaken the facts of the case. But if Ido,—why do you not come over instantly to my side?“Sincehe 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 ofVersions,Copies,Fathers,in favour of readingΘεὸς ἐφανερώθηin1 Tim. iii 16.

Entirely different,—in respect of variety, of quantity and[pg 486]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.1087The reader is fully aware1088that 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: andheis 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 page463) thatIgnatius(a.d.90) probably recognized the reading before us in three places.]

[(b) The brief but significant testimony ofBarnabaswill be found in the same page.]

[(c) In the IInd century,—Hippolytus[a.d.190] (as was explained at page463,) twice comes forward as a witness on the same side.]

[(d) In the IIIrd century,—Gregory Thaumaturgus, (if[pg 487]it be indeed he) has been already shown (at page463) probably to testify to the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη.]

[(e) To the same century is referred the work entitledConstitutiones Apostolicæ: which seems also to witness to the same reading. See above, p.463.]

[(f)Basil the Greatalso [a.d.355], as will be found explained at page464, 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 uponterra firma.

(1) To the IIIrd century then [a.d.264?], belongs the Epistle ascribed toDionysius of Alexandria, (spoken of above, at pages461-2,) 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 isDidymus, who presided over the Catechetical School of Alexandria,—the teacher of Jerome and Rufinus. Borna.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 page456.

(3)Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus[a.d.355], a contemporary of Basil, intwoplaces is found to bear similar witness. See above page457.

(4)Diodorus, (or“Theodorus”as Photius writes his name,) the teacher of Chrysostom,—first of Antioch, afterwards the hereticalbishop of Tarsusin Cilicia,—is next to be cited [a.d.370]. His testimony is given above at pages458-9.

(5) The next is perhaps our most illustrious witness,—viz.Gregory, bishop of Nyssain Cappadocia [a.d.370]. References to at leasttwenty-twoplaces of his writings have been already given at page456.

(6) Scarcely less important than the last-named Father, isChrysostom[a.d.380], first of Antioch,—afterwardsPatriarch of Constantinople,—who inthreeplaces witnesses plainly to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη. See above, page457.

(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, whichbeginswith 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.bor cod. א was produced. See above, pages457-8.

(8) In the Vth century,—besides theCodex Alexandrinus(cod.a,) concerning which so much has been said already (page431to page 437),—we are able to appeal for the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, to,

(9)Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, [a.d.410,] who inat least twoplaces witnesses to it unequivocally. See above, pp.464to 470. So does,

(10)Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrusin Syria, [a.d.420]: who, in at leastfourplaces, (see above, page456) renders unequivocal and important witness on the same side.

(11) Next, theAnonymous Authorclaims notice [a.d.430], whose composition is found in the Appendix to the works of Athanasius. See above, page475.

(12) You will be anxious to see your friendEuthalius, bishop of Sulca, duly recognized in this enumeration. He comes next. [a.d.458.] The discussion concerning him will be found above, at page459to page 461.

(13)Macedonius II, Patriarch of CP.[a.d.496] must of necessity be mentioned here, as I have very fully explained at page470to page 474.

(14) To the VIth century belongs theGeorgianVersion, as already noted at page454.

(15) And hither is to be referred the testimony ofSeverus, bishop of Antioch[a.d.512], which has been already particularly set down at page458.

(16) To the VIIth century [a.d.616] belongs theHarkleian(orPhiloxenian) Version; concerning which, see above, page450.“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,1089the words ܩܦܝܕܘܐ ܕܗܬܐ (or ܐܬܗܕ ܐܘܕܝܦܩ) (‘beauty-of-fear’) are foundwithoutthe addition of ܐܠܚܐ (or ܐܚܠܐ) (‘God’). It is noteworthy, that on the thirteenth occasion (1 Tim. ii. 2), where the Peschito reads‘fear ofGod,’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 istwicea witness for Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, as was explained at page457.

(18) Next to be mentioned isEpiphanius, deacon Of Catana; whose memorable testimony at the 2nd Nicene Council [a.d.787] has been set down above, at page475. And then,

(19)Theodorus Studitaof CP. [a.d.790],—concerning whom, see above, at pages475-6.

(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) TheSlavonic Versionbelongs to the same century, and exhibits the same reading.

(24) Hither also may be referred several ancientScholiawhich all witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, as I explained at page476.

(25) To the Xth century belongsŒcumenius[a.d.990], who is also a witness on the same side. See page476.

(26) To the XIth century,Theophylact[a.d.1077], who bears express testimony to the same reading. See page476.

(27) To the XIIth century,Euthymius[a.d.1116], who closes the list with his approving verdict. See page476.

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,[pg 491]is absolutely decisive of the point now under discussion. I allude to the testimony ofevery known copy of S. Paul's Epistlesexcept the three, or four, already specified, viz.dof 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 page443to 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 302.1092Out of this number, 2 are fabulous:1093—1 has been destroyed by fire:1094—and 6 have strayed into unknown localities.1095Add, that 37 (for various reasons) are said not to contain the verse in question;1096while of 2, I[pg 492]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.

Back to Index Next