Big Update

 I think I've learned not to make promises. Over the past couple of years I've been studying a diploma in graphic design. I'm almost done and just finished my second last unit with one remaining. I had thought at the beginning of this last unit it was going to be fairly easy and that I could ramp up my blogging. But, as it turned out, the unit was fairly intensive and between it and my paying job it got hard.

I'm on 'holiday' now (from Uni at least) and have a couple of weeks to do stuff including for this blog.

So today I updated the last journal file I uploaded (the Theodotian Daniel), completed the Old Greek and Judges and added them to the Downloads page. I will try to do as many as I can before the workload on my next unit gets too much to spend time on blogging. There are nineteen canonical books remaining and the next three are Joshua, Esdras B (Ezra/Nehemiah), and Kings II in terms of length, so, God willing, they will be the next ones added.

As well as these I've finished the transcription of the Codex Alexandrinus Minor Prophets and Ruth and these are now available as DOCX files. I'm working on transcribing Isaiah and this is going to take a while to compete.

Daniel (Theodotian) Journal is Live

 It has been a while ... again ...

So, it's been one of those years. First plumbing issues, then the PC I was doing this work on deciding that under no circumstances will it display video, then my university course started again, and finally a major life threatening illness of a relative whose condition we are still waiting on.

 No excuses, but it did make it impossible to post for a couple of weeks. I'm still under the pump, but I can restart at least the journals.

 So, to get the ball rolling again, I've just uploaded the Theodotian translation of Daniel. I have changed the table to split Daniel's entry into the earlier Old Greek (OG) and Theodotian translations and I intend to do that one next week. It's significantly shorter than the Theodotian translation and stopped being used some time around the 4th or 5th century because Theodotian's Greek translation is far closer to the Hebrew texts we have than the Old Greek translation is.

As far as I know only the book of Daniel plus its additions have this Old Greek/Theodotian translation. It seems that other books are similar because they have major variations between versions (e.g. Isaiah in Alexandrinus versus Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). I'm not sure if there's certainty about whether, in these cases, one version is 'Old Greek' and the other 'Theodotian' or if something else is going on.

So the plan is that next week I will make and upload the OG Daniel and then, God willing, Judges and Joshua in the weeks after. 

The Esther Journal Is Live

 I've just added the Esther journal to the Downloads page.

The next three are Daniel (Theodotus), Judges, and Joshua.

Verse of the Week - 1 Timothy 3:16

Apology

Sorry, this is a little late, we have had some plumbing problems with a tap in our bathroom exploding and some other issues. But here we are, the Verse of the Week, a day late, but hopefully not a dollar short.

The Variant

Tregelles GNT representative of the 'Alexandrian' family: καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.

Scrivener's 1881 Textus Receptus: καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ.

A third version found in the original text of the 4th century AD Greek-Latin diglot, Codex Claromontanus (D, 06*) has ὅ 'which was revealed' and a fourth, ὧ 'he revealed' is found in 061, a 5th century AD uncial. We can safely dismiss this pair of variants.

The Variant found in 1 Timothy 3:16 is one of those that splits translations into two competing camps. On the one hand are those following the Textus Receptus and Byzantine majority which read θς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί and the other in the form of Alexandrian and 'Free' texts  ὃς  ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί . In English this difference is between 'God was manifested in the flesh' and 'Who was manifested in the flesh'

The difference comes down to an emphatically Trinitarian statement that God the Son himself walked the earth in the flesh or a relative pronoun that clearly refers to the Son of God and his life in the flesh on the earth (1 John 4:2) but does not refer explicitly to deity.

Which is the correct reading?

The Evidence for ὅς  

The primary support for ὃς is found in some of the earliest Greek manuscripts, 01* 02* 04* 010 012 and 33. Later witnesses include 365 (XII), 442 (XII/XIII), 1175 (X), and 2127 (XII). These witnesses are almost all Category I or 'Alexandrian'. The Codices 010, 442 are Category II while 012, 365 are Category III. Codex 1175 and 2127 are not categorised. Codex l60 (1021 AD) also contains this variant.

Secondary support includes the Ethiopian translation (IV/V). Tertiary support comes from Latin translations of Origen (III) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (V) as well as original versions of Augustine (V), Dydmus (IV), Epiphanius (V), Cyril of Alexandria (V), and Jerome (V).

This version of the variant starts during the 4th century and continues to appear sporadically until at least the 12th or 13th century. There are few witnesses, but they are widespread geographically, though the majority originate in the southern and north western regions of the Roman empire.

The Evidence for θεὸς

The second major form of the variant naturally has more witnesses. It is found in Greek manuscripts from the 10th century AD onwards in the Byzantine family, correction of several of early witnesses for ὃς, the majority of lectionaries. The secondary witnesses include the Vulgate, the Geo ² , and Slavic translations. Tertiary witnesses include Pseudo-Dionysius (V), Apollinarius of Caesarea ( IV), Diodore (IV), Gregory of Nyssa (IV), Didymus the Blind (IV - this is a citation and is considered dubious), John Chrysostum (IV), and Theodoret of Cyrrhus (V).

In terms of Greek manuscripts, this variant is very late. No Greek New Testament manuscript in an original hand contains the variant prior to the 10th century. However, we can see that it does appear to be fairly early, appearing in the writings of Christians in around the 4th century as well as some relatively early translations (e.g. the Vulgate).

Arguments For Each Variant

From the time of the publication of Erasmus' original Greek text, the reading has been θεὸς. In the 19th century textual critics began to favour the other variant which caused a storm of controversy. Philip Comfort tells us in his New Testament Textual Commentary (pp. 662-663, 2008 Tyndale House Publishers Inc) in the entry for this verse:

Few textual problems generated so much stir and controversy in the nineteenth century as this one did. Many scholars entered the debate—and not without good reason, inasmuch as this verse is related to the doctrine of the incarnation. When the reading in TR and KJV (“God was manifest in the flesh”) was challenged by another reading (“he who was manifest in the flesh”), some thought the doctrine of God becoming man was being undermined.

And indeed, at first glance, it would seem that the discussion is an attack on the deity of Christ. Comfort continues:

Not so. The scholars who defended the reading with ὁς (“he who”) primarily did so because they realized that the second reading was clearly an emendation. The original scribes of א* A* C* wrote ὁς, which was then changed by later scribes in all three manuscripts to θεος (“God”).  The original scribe of D wrote ὁ (“which”), which was also then corrected to θεος (“God”).

I will not argue the variant based on theology and Christology and how it relates to the deity of Christ, that is beyond the scope of this post and this blog.

As with nearly all variants, we cannot determine why the variant arose, however two theories have been raised as possibilities:

1. That scribes copying the manuscripts accidentally read the Greek uncial letters OC as ΘC.
2. That scribes deliberately wrote ΘC when they read OC

The modern consensus is that it is highly unlikely that professional scribes and well trained monks copying this text would read the uncial text and wrongly conclude that  OC should read  ΘC.

It would make the most sense if ὃς is the original reading to change it to read θς, believing it to be a mistake or 'Arian corruption' rather than the other way round.

An argument for this is found in A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1 & 2 Timothy (2008, Lang, J. P., Schaff, P., & van Oosterzee, J. J. pg 45 (Washburn and Harwood translation)):

Paul might, indeed, from his Christological standpoint, have very justly written θεός; but it does not at all follow that he has done so. It is hardly credible that the original reading θεός should have been changed to θεὅς; but very explicable that the original ὅς should have been changed to θεός. Were θεός the true reading (Matthäi, Scholz, Rinck), it would be passing strange that such decisive proof-texts should never have been used by the orthodox church fathers in the Arian and other controversies; and, again, Cyril, in his reply to the Emperor Julian, who denied that Paul had ever called Christ θεός, has not appealed in a word to this passage, as he would almost surely have done had he known the Lectio Recepta.

As Comfort further explains:

But it is difficult to imagine how several fourth- and fifth-century scribes, who had seen thousands of nomina sacra, would have made this mistake. It is more likely that the change was motivated by a desire to make the text say that it was “God” who was manifest in the flesh. But in the original text, the subject of the verse is simply “who”—which most translators render as “he” and which most commentators identify as Christ.

To be sure, the reading of θεὸς would be a perfect counter to the likes of Arians and the anti-Christian and Neoplatonist emperor Julian the Apostate who denied that Jesus was even a prophet, let alone the Christ and divine Son of God. But there are no quotations found in any of the fathers addressing these and referring to this verse as proof against their arguments.

Philip Schaff in his A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version (1883, Harper Brothers) argued for ὅς on the basis of the wider New Testament context. On page 199 he says:

We may say that God "was manifested in the flesh," but not that he was "justified in the spirit," "seen of angels," "received up in glory." All this, however, can be said with perfect propriety of Christ as the God-man. And he is undoubtedly meant by the relative pronoun. And even the first verb suits better to the language of John, who does not say "God was made flesh," but "the Word was made flesh."

Ultimately, as with many variants, we have no very early manuscripts (e.g. 1st or 2nd century) containing the verse and it appears that no second century Christian writers quote this verse, though the Epistle to Diognetus does seem to cite and paraphrase the verse, though it is inconclusive as to what that author's Bible actually said or that he really had this particular verse in mind as the 'He' referred to is God sending the Word so that the Word might manifest God in the world:

For which It has been proposed to connect this with the preceding sentence, and read, “have known the mysteries of the Father, viz., for what purpose He sent the Word.” reason He sent the Word, that He might be manifested to the world ; and He, being despised by the people, was, when preached by the Apostles, believed on by the Gentiles.

Summary

The evidence, in my opinion, does lean most strongly towards ὅς being the original reading. The significantly earlier appearance in manuscripts, the later editing of multiple manuscripts to change ὅς to θς, the early citations, and there being no use of the verse to counter Arian and pagan arguments all lend weight to the argument that it is original reading.

Theology and number of witnesses do not mean much if the primary witnesses first appear 500 or more years after the other variant's appearance in primary witnesses. Coupled with the fact that ardent opponents of the Arians such as Augustine who directly quotes the reading as 'quod manifestatum est in carne' or 'who was manifested in the flesh' (Augustine of Hippo, In Evangelium Ioannis Tractatus Centum Viginti Quatuor, Tractate 72.3) also stand as a witness for ὅς as against θεὸς.

The Ecclesiastes Journal Is Now Live

 As the title says, the journal for Swete's version of Ecclesiastes is now available on the Downloads page.

The next three will be Esther, Daniel, and then Judges.

Verse of the Week - Ephesians 5:21

 This week's variant is an interesting one.

Many Greek texts, primarily Byzantine and TR, read:

21 ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Θεοῦ. (Hodges Farstad, GNT Acc. to f35, TR)

While most others read

21 ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ. (Robinson Pierpont, all Critical texts)

The story

I first came across this variant in a stream by Dwayne Green (YT channel) where he mentioned the variant amongst others. This piqued my interest and I decided to look into it. The next thing I knew I had checked over a thousand separate Greek New Testament, medieval commentaries, Latin Vulgate, and 'Vetus Latina' (Old Latin) manuscripts and compiled a spreadsheet in Excel to track the variant from the second century AD to the 18th century AD.

The result was, to say the least, interesting.

When it comes to determining the 'originality' of a variant there are a variety of approaches:

• Those who in the 'Alexandrian' (Category I, II) camp generally favour the earliest, most difficult readings, often excluding the majority readings.
• The TR only camp will generally ignore anything not found in the various Textus Receptus editions.
• For the Byzantine Priority camp the majority reading is most commonly the reading favoured over any reading agreed to be 'Alexandrian'.

Obviously, this I am painting with a broad brush and this is not meant to demean any of the positions, however, this is the broad approaches of each.

So how would each determine the validity of this one?

I've already basically given the answer away above. For the most part the Byzantine and TR camps choose θεοῦ over Χριστοῦ.

θεοῦ or Χριστοῦ?

I started my research on this variant by looking at the CNTTS apparatus as it is one of the most comprehensive apparatuses available. It's not perfect, I've found errors, but for the most part it's highly accurate and often has more GNT witnesses recorded than the UBS Apparatus. This began to paint a picture that I didn't expect. However, there were not enough witnesses and so I went to the list of Greek New Testaments on Wikipedia and one by one opened them up in the Muenster Virtual Manuscript room to look at this verse and noted the variant on a spreadsheet I created for this project.

I started this research with about 40 MSS and ended up with 668. I also found several new variants that had not been noted (though perhaps they had been found before me). These were κυ, κν, θεου, θω, and Omit NS. 

When we look at the following results table we see my findings:

At first glance it would appear that the correct variant is θεοῦ - it is found in about 65% (rounded to the nearest whole %) of all catalogued and available manuscripts while Χριστοῦ is found in a mere 35%.

It is quite clear cut, it has to be θεοῦ right? It is found in the vast majority of the witnesses, so it must be that one.

Well, you would be wrong if you thought so.

When we look at the next table, we can see a clear pattern forming (click to enlarge):

So, what are looking at here? Simply put, there is a pattern that I believe means Χριστοῦ, the minority reading, is the true original meaning. How so? Well, when we look at the above table we see that Χριστοῦ first appears in the 3rd century AD (III). It is first found in a papyrus P46 in the form of the Nomina Sacra χρυ. There are three other papyri (49, 92, and 132) with Ephesians, but they are lacunose (missing) in 5:21 and are of no help.

Next, in the 4th century (IV) we see 2 witnesses with χυ a slight variation on P46's form. These are the manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus (GA 01) and Codex Vaticanus (GA 03). Moving to the 5th century there are two more manuscripts, Alexandrinus (02) and Freerianus (aka Washingtonianus, 016). In the 6th (VI) century there is a single witness, Codex Fuldensis (F), one of the earliest Vulgate manuscripts and one of the earliest complete Diatessarion manuscripts (a Gospel Harmony by Tatian).

Unfortunately, the 7th (VII) century is barren of any witnesses. However, with the founding of some of the earliest monasteries we see witnesses beginning to appear again. In this case it is another Latin witness, Codex Amiatinus (A), the earliest known complete Latin Vulgate.

In the 9th century (IX) a spate of new variants appear, these being ιυ χυ, ιυ χρυ, κυ, and κν. These variants are found only in 6 manuscripts, some being the Latin of a Greek/Latin diglot or interlinear. Apart from singular appearances in the 10th (κν), 11th (κυ), 12th and 13th (χω) these variants disappear from the record and can be safely dismissed as intrusions.

It is not until the 10th century that θεοῦ first appears in 22 manuscripts. The next century there are 52 and it reaches a peak in the 14th century (XIV) after which it tapers off until the 18th century (XVIII) when some of the last handwritten manuscripts were copied.

Through these centuries the variant χριστοῦ continues steadily and reaches a peak of 35 in the 12th and 13th centuries and is last seen in the 17th century (XVII).

Categories, Commentaries, and Translations

In the image above you can see another pattern clearly laid out. Apart from appearing in nearly every century from the 2nd to the 17th, the variant χριστοῦ also appears in literally every Aland Category. It's found in 18 uncategorised witnesses, 102 of unknown category, 17 commentaries, Latin Vulgates, and three slightly different variants (χρυ, ιυ χυ, and χυ ιυ) in Vetus Latina manuscripts.

In contrast the variant θεοῦ is found only in Category II (2), III (8), V (81), uncategorised (32), unknown category (250), and commentaries (75). Unlike χριστοῦ there are no Alexandrian, Western, or Latin witnesses.

Conclusion

It is true that θεοῦ is found in the majority of the manuscripts. But the evidence that stands against its originality is the fact that there are no witnesses existing before the 10th century. It suddenly appears and then explodes in numbers as it is copied in manuscript after manuscript, mostly in monasteries on Mount Athos.

Χριστοῦ is found in manuscripts ranging from Egypt in the south to Anatolia in the north east to Italy in the West. It is found in manuscripts copied in Egyptian monasteries such as St Katherine's, by individual scribes, and even 7th century British monks (Amiatinus). The categories range from pure 'Alexandrian' to 'Free' to 'Western' to 'Byzantine'. It is also found in every century from the 3rd to the advent of printing.

Based on the evidence, we can only conclude that χριστοῦ is the original reading. True, it forms only one third of the known witnesses but the centuries long consistent appearance of this variant across all categories versus the late appearance of θεοῦ in the 10th century, seven centuries after χριστοῦ, and the restricted categories weigh strongly in favour of χριστοῦ.

Unless one is working with strictly contained families of manuscripts such as the Textus Receptus or Family 35 there is no reason to accept θεοῦ as being the original reading.

Why Θεοῦ Though?

We could understand perhaps why θεοῦ appeared - in all other verses where we are told to 'fear' someone it is God (θεοῦ) who is the subject. But, in Ephesians 5:21 it is Christ (χριστοῦ) we are told to fear. Given the number of verses telling us to 'fear God' it is almost reasonable to think that the verse specifying Christ instead of God might be an error and that χριστοῦ should be 'corrected' to θεοῦ. If you are a monk copying a manuscript in a monastery and you don't have access to a computer and a spreadsheet app nor to the hundreds of copies of Ephesians, there is no way to check which is correct. You have to either stick with what is written your exemplar or make an executive decision to change the reading to what you think it should be. It seems that at least one monk made this decision, wrongly as it turns out.

But, we can be confident that χριστοῦ is in fact the correct reading and that, barring the discovery of a first or second century manuscript of Ephesians reading otherwise, was the name used in Paul's autograph of Ephesians.

If you are feeling a bit nerdy and want to dig through a spreadsheet of my findings, you can find it on the Downloads page. If you are using MS Excel the second tab is filled with check boxes while in LibreOffice Calc (and maybe others) these are shown as either 'TRUE' or 'FALSE', but the data doesn't change.

Lamentations Journal

 I have created the journal for Θρῆνοι (Lamentations) and it is available on the Downloads page. As with the Song of Songs I have converted the text to prose layout and formatted the text to make it as short as reasonable to save paper for anyone who wishes to print it out.

Next week will be Ἐκκλησιαστής then Ἐσθήρ and Δανιήλ.