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.