Part 30 (2/2)

”But” (he adds) ”the reading is a little dubious. H. F. Ma.s.smann, in the notes to his edition,(980) at page 657, says,-'_saei_ [qui] is altogether obliterated.' ”-In claiming the Gothic therefore as a witness for ??, you will (I trust) agree with me that a single _scarcely legible copy_ of a Version is not altogether satisfactory testimony:-while certainly ”_magnus_ est pietatis sacramentum, _qui_ manifestat_us_ est in corpore”-is not a rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 which you are prepared to accept.

(_h_) For the aeTHIOPIC. Version,-Dr. h.o.e.rning, (of the British Museum,) has at my request consulted six copies of 1 Timothy, and informs me that they present no variety of text. _The antecedent, as well as the relative, is masculine in all._ The aethiopic must therefore be considered to favour the reading ?st?????; ? ?fa?e????, and to represent the same Greek text which underlies the Latin and the Peschito Versions. The aethiopic therefore is against you.

(_i_) ”The ARMENIAN Version,” (writes Dr. Malan) ”from the very nature of the language, is indeterminate. There is _no grammatical distinction of genders_ in Armenian.”

(_j_) The ARABIC Version, (so Dr. Ch. Rieu(981) informs me,) exhibits,-”In _truth the mystery of this justice is great. It is that he_” (or ”_it_,”

for the Arabic has no distinction between masculine and neuter) ”_was manifested in the body, and was justified in the spirit_” &c.-This version therefore witnesses for neither ”who,” ”which,” nor ”G.o.d.”

(_k_) and (_l_). There only remain the GEORGIAN Version, which is of the VIth century,-and the SLAVONIC, which is of the IXth. Now, both of these (Dr. Malan informs me) _unequivocally witness to_ Te??.

Thus far then for the testimony yielded by ancient Ma.n.u.sCRIPTS and VERSIONS of S. Paul's Epistles.

[_g_] _Review of the progress which has been hitherto made in the present Enquiry._

Up to this point, you must admit that wondrous little sanction has been obtained for the reading for which _you_ contend, (viz. ?st?????; ??

?fa?e????,) as the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. Undisturbed in your enjoyment of the testimony borne by Cod. ?, you cannot but feel that such testimony is fully counterbalanced by the witness of Cod. A: and further, that the conjoined evidence of the HARKLEIAN, the GEORGIAN, and the SLAVONIC Versions outweighs the single evidence of the GOTHIC.

But what is to be said about the consent of the ma.n.u.scripts of S. Paul's Epistles for reading Te?? in this place, _in the proportion of_ 125 _to_ 1? You must surely see that, (as I explained above at pp. 445-6,) such mult.i.tudinous testimony is absolutely decisive of the question before us.

At p. 30 of your pamphlet, you announce it as a ”lesson of primary importance, often reiterated but often forgotten, _ponderari debere testes, non numerari_.” You might have added with advantage,-”_and oftenest of all, misunderstood_.” For are you not aware that, generally speaking, ”Number” _const.i.tutes_ ”Weight”? If you have discovered some ”regia via” which renders the general consent of COPIES,-the general consent of VERSIONS,-the general consent of FATHERS, a consideration of secondary importance, why do you not at once communicate the precious secret to mankind, and thereby save us all a world of trouble?

You will perhaps propose to fall back on Hort's wild theory of a ”_Syrian Text_,”-executed by authority at Antioch somewhere between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350.(982) Be it so. Let that fable be argued upon as if it were a fact. And what follows? That _at a period antecedent to the date of any existing copy_ of the Epistle before us, the Church in her corporate capacity declared Te?? (not ??) to be the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16.

Only one other head of Evidence (the PATRISTIC) remains to be explored; after which, we shall be able to sum up, and to conclude the present Dissertation.

[h] _Testimony of the_ FATHERS _concerning the true reading of_ 1 _Tim._ iii. 16:-GREGORY OF NYSSA,-DIDYMUS,-THEODORET,-JOHN DAMASCENE,-CHRYSOSTOM,-GREGORY NAZ.,-SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH,-DIODORUS OF TARSUS.

It only remains to ascertain what the FATHERS have to say on this subject.

And when we turn our eyes in this direction, we are encountered by a ma.s.s of evidence which effectually closes this discussion. You contended just now as eagerly for the Vth-century Codex A, as if its witness were a point of vital importance to you. But I am prepared to show that GREGORY OF NYSSA (a full century before Codex A was produced), in at least 22 places, knew of no other reading but Te??.(983) Of his weighty testimony you appear to have been wholly unaware in 1869, for you did not even mention Gregory by name (see p. 429). Since however you now admit that his evidence is unequivocally against you, I am willing to hasten forward,-only supplying you (at foot) with the means of verifying what I have stated above concerning the testimony of this ill.u.s.trious Father.

You are besides aware that DIDYMUS,(984) another ill.u.s.trious witness, is against you; and that he delivers unquestionable testimony.

You are also aware that THEODORET,(985) in _four_ places, is certainly to be reckoned on the same side:

And further, that JOHN DAMASCENE(986) _twice_ adds his famous evidence to the rest,-and is also against you.

CHRYSOSTOM(987) again, whose testimony you called in question in 1869, you now admit is another of your opponents. I will not linger over his name therefore,-except to remark, that how you can witness a gathering host of ancient Fathers ill.u.s.trious as these, without misgiving, pa.s.ses my comprehension. Chrysostom is _three_ times a witness.

Next come two quotations from GREGORY OF n.a.z.iANZUS,-which I observe you treat as ”inconclusive.” I retain them all the same.(988) You are reminded that this most rhetorical of Fathers is seldom more precise in quoting Scripture.

And to the same century which Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus adorned, is probably to be referred,-(it cannot possibly be later than A.D. 350, though it may be a vast deal more ancient,)-THE t.i.tLE bestowed, in the way of summary, on that portion of S. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy which is contained between chap. iii. 16 and chap. iv. 7,-viz., ?e?? T???S S????se??. We commonly speak of this as the seventh of the ”_Euthalian_” ?ef??a?a or chapters: but Euthalius himself declares that those 18 t.i.tles were ”devised by a certain very wise and pious Father;”(989) and this particular t.i.tle (?e?? ?e?a? sa???se??) is freely employed and discussed in Gregory of Nyssa's treatise against Apolinaris,(990)-which latter had, in fact, made it part of the t.i.tle of his own heretical treatise.(991) That the present is a very weighty attestation of the reading, T??S ?fa?e???? ?? S???? no one probably will deny: a memorable proof moreover that Te??(992) must have been universally read in 1 Tim. iii. 16 throughout the century which witnessed the production of codices B and ?.

SEVERUS, BP. OF ANTIOCH, you also consider a ”not unambiguous” witness. I venture to point out to you that when a Father of the Church, who has been already insisting on the G.o.dhead of CHRIST (?a?? ? ??? ?p???e Te??,) goes on to speak of Him as t?? ?? sa??? fa?e?????ta Te??, there is no ”ambiguity” whatever about the fact that he is quoting from 1 Tim. iii.

16.(993)

And why are we only ”_perhaps_” to add the testimony of DIODORUS OF TARSUS; seeing that Diodorus adduces S. Paul's actual words (Te??

?fa?e???? ?? sa???), and expressly says that he finds them in _S. Paul's Epistle to Timothy_?(994) How-may I be permitted to ask-would you have a quotation made plainer?

[i] _Bp. Ellicott as a controversialist. The case of_ EUTHALIUS.

<script>