Part 29 (1/2)
”GREAT IS THE MYSTERY OF G.o.dLINESS, WHO WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH, JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT,” &C.:
Which contention of yours I hold to be demonstrably incorrect, and proceed to prove is a complete misconception.
(_A_) _Preliminary explanations and cautions._
But English readers will require to have it explained to them at the outset, that inasmuch as T??S (G.o.d) is invariably written _TS_ in ma.n.u.scripts, the only difference between the word ”G.o.d” and the word ”_who_” (?S) consists of two horizontal strokes,-one, which distinguishes T from ?; and another similar stroke (above the letters TS) which indicates that a word has been contracted. And further, that it was the custom to trace these two horizontal lines so wondrous faintly that they sometimes actually elude observation. Throughout cod. A, in fact, the letter T is often scarcely distinguishable from the letter ?.
It requires also to be explained for the benefit of the same English reader,-(and it will do learned readers no harm to be reminded,)-that ”_mystery_” (?st?????) being a neuter noun, _cannot_ be followed by the masculine p.r.o.noun (??),-”_who_.” Such an expression is abhorrent alike to Grammar and to Logic,-is intolerable, in Greek as in English. By consequence, ?? (”_who_”) is found to have been early exchanged for ?
(”_which_”). From a copy so depraved, the Latin Version was executed in the second century. Accordingly, every known copy or quotation(922) of _the Latin_ exhibits ”quod.” _Greek_ authorities for this reading (?) are few enough. They have been specified already, viz. at page 100. And with this brief statement, the reading in question might have been dismissed, seeing that it has found no patron since Griesbach declared against it. It was however very hotly contended for during the last century,-Sir Isaac Newton and Wetstein being its most strenuous advocates; and it would be unfair entirely to lose sight of it now.
The two rival readings, however, in 1 Tim. iii. 16, are,-Te?? ?fa?e????
(”G.o.d _was manifested_”), on the one hand; and t? t?? e?see?a? ?st?????, ?? (”_the mystery of G.o.dliness, who_”), on the other. _These_ are the two readings, I say, between whose conflicting claims we are to adjudicate.
For I request that it may be loyally admitted at the outset,-(though it has been conveniently overlooked by the Critics whom _you_ follow,)-that the expression ?? ?fa?e???? in Patristic quotations, _unless it be immediately preceded by_ the word ?st?????, is nothing to the purpose; at all events, does not prove the thing which _you_ are bent on proving.
English readers will see this at a glance. An Anglican divine,-with reference to 1 Timothy iii. 16,-may surely speak of our SAVIOUR as One ”_who_ was manifested in the flesh,”-without risk of being straightway suspected of employing a copy of the English Version which exhibits ”_the mystery of G.o.dliness who_.” ”Ex hujusmodi locis” (as Matthaei truly remarks) ”nemo, nisi mente captus, in contextu sacro probabit ??.”(923)
When Epiphanius therefore,-_professing to transcribe_(924) from an earlier treatise of his own(925) where ?fa?e???? stands _without a nominative_,(926) writes (if he really does write) ?? ?fa?e????,(927)-we are not at liberty to infer therefrom that Epiphanius is opposed to the reading Te??.-Still less is it lawful to draw the same inference from the Latin Version of a letter of Eutherius [A.D. 431] in which the expression ”_qui manifestatus est in carne_,”(928) occurs.-Least of all should we be warranted in citing Jerome as a witness for reading ?? in this place, because (in his Commentary on Isaiah) he speaks of our SAVIOUR as One who ”was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit.”(929)
As for reasoning thus concerning Cyril of Alexandria, it is demonstrably inadmissible: seeing that at the least on two distinct occasions, this Father exhibits Te?? ?fa?e????. I am not unaware that in a certain place, apostrophizing the Docetae, he says,-”Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor indeed the _great mystery of G.o.dliness_, that is CHRIST, who (??) _was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit_,”(930) &c.
&c. And presently, ”I consider _the mystery of G.o.dliness_ to be no other thing but the Word of G.o.d the FATHER, who (??) Himself _was manifested in the flesh_.”(931) But there is nothing whatever in this to invalidate the testimony of those other places in which Te?? actually occurs. It is logically inadmissible, I mean, to set aside the places where Cyril is found actually to write Te?? ?fa?e????, because in other places he employs 1 Tim. iii. 16 less precisely; leaving it to be inferred-(which indeed is abundantly plain)-that Te?? is always his reading, from the course of his argument and from the nature of the matter in hand. But to proceed.
_(B) Bp. Ellicott invited to state the evidence for reading ?? in_ 1 Tim.
iii. 16.
[a] _”__The state of the evidence,__”__ as declared by Bp. Ellicott._
When last the evidence for this question came before us, I introduced it by inviting a member of the Revising body (Dr. Roberts) to be spokesman on behalf of his brethren.(932) This time, I shall call upon a more distinguished, a wholly unexceptionable witness, viz. _yourself_,-who are, of course, greatly in advance of your fellow-Revisers in respect of critical attainments. The extent of your individual familiarity with the subject when (in 1870 namely) you proposed to revise the Greek Text of the N. T. for the Church of England on the _solvere-ambulando_ principle,-may I presume be lawfully inferred from the following annotation in your ”_Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles_.” I quote from the last Edition of 1869; only taking the liberty-(1) To break it up into short paragraphs: and-(2) To give _in extenso_ the proper names which you abbreviate. Thus, instead of ”Theod.” (which I take leave to point out to you might mean either Theodore of Heraclea or his namesake of Mopsuestia,-either Theodotus the Gnostic or his namesake of Ancyra,) ”Euthal.,” I write ”Theodoret, Euthalius.” And now for the external testimony, as _you_ give it, concerning 1 Timothy iii. 16. You inform your readers that,-
”The state of the evidence is briefly as follows:-
(1) ?? is read with A1 [_indisputably_; after minute personal inspection; see note, p. 104.] C1 [Tischendorf _Prol. Cod.
Ephraemi_, -- 7, p. 39.] F G ? (see below); 17, 73, 181; Syr.-Philoxenian, Coptic, Sahidic, Gothic; also (?? or ?) Syriac, Arabic (Erpenius), aethiopic, Armenian; Cyril, Theodorus Mopsuest., Epiphanius, Gelasius, Hieronymus _in Esaiam_ liii. 11.
(2) ?, with D1 (Claromonta.n.u.s), Vulgate; nearly all Latin Fathers.
(3) Te??, with D3 K L; nearly all MSS.; Arabic (Polyglott), Slavonic; Didymus, Chrysostom (? see Tregelles, p. 227 note), Theodoret, Euthalius, Damascene, Theophylact, c.u.menius,-Ignatius _Ephes_. 29, (but very doubtful). A hand of the 12th century has prefixed ?e to ??, the reading of ?; see Tischendorf _edit.
major_, Plate xvii. of Scrivener's Collation of ?, facsimile (13).
On reviewing this evidence, as not only the most important uncial MSS., but _all_ the Versions older than the 7th century are distinctly in favour of a _relative_,-as ? seems only a Latinizing variation of ??,-and lastly, as ?? is the more difficult, though really the more intelligible, reading (Hofmann, _Schriftb._ Vol.
I. p. 143), and on every reason more likely to have been changed into Te?? (Macedonius is actually said to have been expelled for making the change, _Liberati Diaconi Breviarium_ cap. 19) than _vice versa_, we unhesitatingly decide in favour of ??.”-(_Pastoral Epistles_, ed. 1869, pp. 51-2.)
Such then is your own statement of the evidence on this subject. I proceed to demonstrate to you that you are completely mistaken:-mistaken as to what you say about ??,-mistaken as to ?,-mistaken as to Te??:-mistaken in respect of Codices,-mistaken in respect of Versions,-mistaken in respect of Fathers. Your slipshod, inaccurate statements, (_all_ obtained at second-hand,) will occasion me, I foresee, a vast deal of trouble; but I am determined, now at last, if the thing be possible, to set this question at rest. And that I may not be misunderstood, I beg to repeat that all I propose to myself is to _prove_-beyond the possibility of denial-that the evidence for Te?? (in 1 Timothy iii. 16) _vastly preponderates over the evidence for either_ ?? _or_ ?. It will be for _you_, afterwards, to come forward and prove that, on the contrary, Te?? is a ”_plain and clear error_:” _so_ plain and _so_ clear that you and your fellow-Revisers felt yourselves constrained to thrust it out from the place it has confessedly occupied in the New Testament for at least 1530 years.
You are further reminded, my lord Bishop, that unless you do this, you will be considered by the whole Church to have dealt unfaithfully with the Word of G.o.d. For, (as I shall remind you in the sequel,) it is yourself who have invited and provoked this enquiry. You devote twelve pages to it (pp. 64 to 76),-”compelled to do so by the Reviewer.” ”Moreover” (you announce) ”this case is of great importance as an example. It ill.u.s.trates in a striking manner the complete isolation of the Reviewer's position. If he is right all other Critics are wrong,” &c., &c., &c.-Permit me to remind you of the warning-”Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off.”
[b] _Testimony of the __Ma.n.u.sCRIPTS__ concerning_ 1 Tim. iii. 16: _and first as to the testimony of __CODEX_ A.
You begin then with the _Ma.n.u.script_ evidence; and you venture to a.s.sert that ?S is ”indisputably” the reading of Codex A. I am at a loss to understand how a ”professed Critic,”-(who must be presumed to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and who is a lover of Truth,)-can permit himself to make such an a.s.sertion. Your certainty is based, you say, on ”minute personal inspection.” In other words, you are so good as to explain that you once tried a coa.r.s.e experiment,(933) by which you succeeded in convincing yourself that the suspected diameter of the ? is exactly coincident with the sagitta of an _epsilon_ (?) which happens to stand _on the back of the page_. But do you not see that unless you start with _this_ for your major premiss,-”_Theta_ cannot exist on one side of a page if _epsilon_ stands immediately behind it on the other side,”-your experiment is _nihil ad rem_, and proves absolutely nothing?
Your ”inspection” happens however to be _inaccurate_ besides. You performed your experiment unskilfully. A man need only hold up the leaf to the light on a very brilliant day,-as Tregelles, Scrivener, and many besides (including your present correspondent) have done,-to be aware that the sagitta of the _epsilon_ on fol. 145_b_ does not cover much more than a third of the area of the _theta_ on fol. 145_a_. Dr. Scrivener further points out that it cuts the circle _too __ high_ to have been reasonably mistaken by a careful observer for the diameter of the _theta_ (T). The experiment which you describe with such circ.u.mstantial gravity was simply nugatory therefore.
How is it, my lord Bishop, that you do not perceive that the way to ascertain the reading of Codex A at 1 Tim. iii. 16, is,-(1) To investigate _not_ what is found at _the back_ of the leaf, but what is written on _the front_ of it? and (2), Not so much to enquire what can be deciphered of the original writing by the aid of a powerful lens _now_, as to ascertain what was apparent to the eye of competent observers when the Codex was first brought into this country, viz. 250 years ago? That Patrick Young, the first custodian and collator of the Codex [1628-1652], read _TS_, is certain.-Young communicated the ”various Readings” of A to Abp.