Part 32 (1/2)

A far more conspicuous writer of nearly the same date, THEODORUS STUDITA of CP, [A.D. 759-826,] is also a witness for Te??.(1053) How does it happen, my lord Bishop, that you contend so eagerly for the testimony of codices F and G, which are but _one_ IXth-century witness after all,-and yet entirely disregard living utterances like these, of known men,-who belonged to known places,-and wrote at a known time? Is it because they witness unequivocally against you?

Several ancient SCHOLIASTS, expressing themselves diversely, deserve enumeration here, who are all witnesses for Te?? exclusively.(1054) Lastly,-

c.u.mENIUS(1055) (A.D. 990),-THEOPHYLACT(1056) (A.D. 1077),-EUTHYMIUS(1057) (A.D. 1116),-close this enumeration. They are all three clear witnesses for reading not ?? but Te??.

[o] _The testimony of_ ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION.

Nothing has been hitherto said concerning the Ecclesiastical usage with respect to this place of Scripture. 1 Tim. iii. 16 occurs in a lection consisting of nine verses (1 Tim. iii. 13-iv. 5), which used to be publicly read in almost all the Churches of Eastern Christendom on the Sat.u.r.day before Epiphany.(1058) It was also read, in not a few Churches, on the 34th Sat.u.r.day of the year.(1059) Unfortunately, the book which contains lections from S. Paul's Epistles, (”_Apostolus_” it is technically called,) is of comparatively rare occurrence,-is often found in a mutilated condition,-and (for this and other reasons) is, as often as not, without this particular lesson.(1060) Thus, an a.n.a.lysis of 90 copies of the ”Apostolus” (No. 1 to 90), is attended by the following result:-10 are found to have been set down in error;(1061) while 41 are declared-(sometimes, I fear, through the unskilfulness of those who profess to have examined them),-not to contain 1 Tim. iii. 16.(1062) Of 7, I have not been able to obtain tidings.(1063) Thus, there are but 32 copies of the book called ”Apostolus” available for our present purpose.

But of these thirty-two, _twenty-seven_ exhibit Te??.(1064) You will be interested to hear that _one_ rejoices in the unique reading Te??:(1065) while another Copy of the 'Apostolus' keeps ”Paul 282” in countenance by reading ?? Te??.(1066) In other words, ”G.o.d” is found in 29 copies out of 32: while ”who” (??) is observed to survive in only 3,-and they, Western doc.u.ments of suspicious character. Two of these were produced in one and the same Calabrian monastery; and they still stand, side by side, in the library of Crypta Ferrata:(1067) being exclusively in sympathy with the very suspicious Western doc.u.ment at Paris, already described at page 446.

ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION is therefore clearly against _you_, in respect of the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. How _you_ estimate this head of Evidence, I know not. For my own part, I hold it to be of superlative importance. It transports us back, at once, to the primitive age; and is found to be infinitely better deserving of attention than the witness of any extant uncial doc.u.ments which can be produced. And why? For the plain reason that it must needs have been once attested by _an indefinitely large number of codices more ancient by far than any which we now possess_. In fact, ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION, when superadded to the testimony of Ma.n.u.scripts and Fathers, becomes an overwhelming consideration.

And now we may at last proceed to sum up. Let me gather out the result of the foregoing fifty pages; and remind the reader briefly of the amount of external testimony producible in support of each of these rival readings:-?,-??-Te??.

[I.] _Sum of the Evidence of_ VERSIONS, COPIES, FATHERS, _in favour of reading_ ?st?????; ? ?fa?e???? _in_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.

(a) The reading ?st?????; ? ?fa?e????,-(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 aethiopic Versions.

No one may presume to speak slightingly of such evidence as this. It is the oldest which can be produced for the truth of anything in the inspired Text of the New Testament; and it comes from the East as well as from the West. Yet is it, in and by itself, clearly inadequate. Two characteristics of Truth are wanting to it,-two credentials,-unfurnished with which, it cannot be so much as seriously entertained. It demands _Variety_ as well as _Largeness of attestation_. It should be able to exhibit in support of its claims the additional witness of COPIES and FATHERS. But,

() On the contrary, ? is found besides in _only one Greek Ma.n.u.script_,-viz. the VIth-century codex Claromonta.n.u.s, D. And further,

(?) _Two ancient writers_ alone bear witness to this reading, viz.

GELASIUS OF CYZICUS,(1068) whose date is A.D. 476;(1069) and the UNKNOWN AUTHOR of a homily of uncertain date in the Appendix to Chrysostom(1070).... It is scarcely intelligible how, on such evidence, the Critics of the last century can have persuaded themselves (with Grotius) that ?st?????; ? ?fa?e???? is the true reading of 1 Timothy iii.

16. And yet, in order to maintain this thesis, Sir Isaac Newton descended from the starry sphere and tried his hand at Textual Criticism. Wetstein (1752) freely transferred the astronomer's labours to his own pages, and thus gave renewed currency to an opinion which the labours of the learned Berriman (1741) had already _demonstrated_ to be untenable.

Whether THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA (in his work ”_de Incarnatione_”) wrote ??

or ?, must remain uncertain till a sight has been obtained of his Greek together with its context. I find that he quotes 1 Tim iii. 16 at least three times:-Of the first place, there is only a Latin translation, which begins ”QUOD _justificat_US _est in spiritu_.”(1071) The second place comes to us in Latin, Greek, and Syriac: but unsatisfactorily in all three:-(_a_) The Latin version introduces the quotation thus,-”Consonantia et Apostolus dicit, _Et manifeste magnum est pietatis mysterium_, QUI(1072) (or QUOD(1073)) _manifestat_US (or TUM) _est in carne, justificat_US (or TUM) _est in spiritu_:”-(_b_) The Greek, (for which we are indebted to Leontius Byzantinus, A.D. 610,) reads,-?? ?fa?e???? ??

sa???, ?d??a???? ?? p?e?at?(1074)-divested of all preface.(1075) Those seven words, thus isolated from their context, are accordingly printed by Migne as _a heading_ only:-(_c_) The Syriac translation unmistakably reads, ”Et Apostolus dixit, _Vere sublime est hoc mysterium_, QUOD,”-omitting t?? e?see?a?.(1076) The third quotation, which is found only in Syriac,(1077) begins,-”_For truly great is the-mystery of-the-fear-of_ G.o.d, _who was manifested in-the-flesh and-was-justified in-the-spirit_.” This differs from the received text of the Peschito by subst.i.tuting a different word for e?s?e?a, 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 ?-??-and even Te??. You, I observe, (who are only acquainted with the second of the three places above cited, and but imperfectly with _that_,) do not hesitate to cut the knot by simply claiming the heretic's authority for the reading you advocate,-viz. ??. I have thought it due to my readers to tell them all that is known about the evidence furnished by Theodore of Mopsuestia. At all events, the utmost which can be advanced in favour of reading ?st?????; ? in 1 Timothy iii.

16, has now been freely stated. I am therefore at liberty to pa.s.s on to the next opinion.

[II.] _Sum of the Evidence of_ VERSIONS, COPIES, FATHERS _in favour of reading_ ?st?????; ?? ?fa?e???? _in_ 1 Timothy iii. 16.

Remarkable it is how completely Griesbach succeeded in diverting the current of opinion with respect to the place before us, into a new channel. At first indeed (viz. in 1777) he retained Te?? in his Text, timidly printing ?? in small type above it; and remarking,-”_Judicium de hac lectionis varietate lectoribus liberum relinquere placuit_.” But, at the end of thirty years (viz. in 1806), waxing bolder, Griesbach subst.i.tuted ?? for Te??,-”_ut ipsi_” (as he says) ”_n.o.bis 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 ??, than for ?, in this place. But let the evidence for ?st?????; ?? ?fa?e???? ??

sa??? be briefly recapitulated:-

(a) It consists of _a single uncial copy_, viz. the corrupt cod. ?,-(for, as was fully explained above,(1079) codd. C and F-G yield uncertain testimony): and _perhaps two cursive copies_, viz. Paul 17, (the notorious ”33” of the Gospels,)-and a copy at Upsala (No. 73), which is held to require further verification.(1080) To these, are to be added three other liturgical witnesses in the cursive character-being Western copies of the book called ”_Apostolus_,” which have only recently come to light. Two of the codices in question are of Calabrian origin.(1081) A few words more on this subject will be found above, at pages 477 and 478.

() _The only Version_ which certainly witnesses in favour of ??, 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.

(?) Of Patristic testimonies (to ?st?????; ?? ?fa?e????) _there exists not one_. That EPIPHANIUS [A.D. 360] _professing to transcribe_ from an early treatise of his own, in which ?fa?e???? stands _without a nominative_, should prefix ??-proves nothing, as I have fully explained elsewhere.(1082)-The equivocal testimony rendered by THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA [A.D. 390] is already before the reader.(1083)

And this exhausts the evidence for a reading which came in,-and (I venture to predict) will go out,-with the present century. My only wonder is, how an exhibition of 1 Tim. iii. 16 so feebly attested,-so almost _without_ attestation,-can have come to be seriously entertained by any. ”Si,”-(as Griesbach remarks concerning 1 John v. 7)-”si tam pauci ... testes ...

sufficerent ad demonstrandam lectionis cujusdam ???s??t?ta, licet obstent tam multa tamque gravia et testimonia et argumenta; _nullum prorsus superesset in re critica veri falsique criterium_, et _textus Novi Testamenti universus plane incertus esset atque dubius_.”(1084)

Yet _this_ is the Reading which you, my lord Bishop, not only stiffly maintain, but which you insist is no longer so much as ”_open to reconsideration_.” You are, it seems, for introducing the _cloture_ into Textual debate. But in fact you are for inflicting pains and penalties as well, on those who have the misfortune to differ in opinion from yourself.