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.

Biblical Textual Criticism Part 1

Since this blog's purpose is to highlight an apparatus that I am working on, an apparatus being an important part of a critical text, I thought it might be worthwhile talking about the subject.

I am not a trained textual critic, so the research I will do for future posts on the subject will be as much a learning experience for me as for anyone who might read them. Also, nothing I say about any position on textual criticism in this or future posts should be taken as an endorsement or condemnation of any given position. I do have a position, but I am trying to make this as neutral as possible and to keep out bias as far as it is possible.

What Exactly is Textual Criticism?

Textual criticism seeks to uncover the original wording of a given text. This is not limited to the Bible but some of the earliest text critical efforts were of the Bible. A textual critic will examine copies of a text and attempt to determine if a reading is authentic or if it has been altered (known as a variant), whether deliberately or accidentally and if so, find what may be the original reading. A number of different methodologies have been used in the process of textual criticism. But more on those in a future post.

Why Do We Need Textual Criticism?

Prior to the invention of the printing press texts were copied entirely by hand. The limitations of humans led to errors creeping in as new manuscripts were made. Many of these were minor, such as spelling errors or differences in word order, while others are more serious such as addition or omission of words to entire passages (e.g. John 7:53-8:12 aka the Pericope Adulterae and the ending of Mark).

An example I have recently encountered while editing my work in Acts 14 is very minor, but like all variants we can ask which is correct? The Greek text reads as follows (1 = 'Alexandrian' and 2  'TR/Byzantine'):

1. διέτριβον δὲ χρόνον οὐκ ὀλίγον σὺν τοῖς μαθηταῖς.
2. διέτριβον δὲ ἐκεῖ χρόνον οὐκ ὀλίγον σὺν τοῖς μαθηταῖς.

In English this reads:

1. They stayed with the disciples for a long time.
2. They stayed there with the disciples for a long time.

This variant is minor and does not change the meaning of the text, it merely makes it more specific in stating they stayed in Antioch (see Acts 14:26). But which version is the one Luke actually wrote? That is what textual criticism seeks to determine.

Many variants are untranslatable. For example we see variants such as Δαβιδ, Δαυιδ, and Δαυειδ or Πιλατος versus Πειλατος. In English these will all translate to David and Pilate respectively.

A common cause of variants is iotacism (or itacism). This is generally caused by the process of certain vowels in the Greek language merging in sound as the language evolved. This is seen in modern Greek with η, υ, ει, οι, and occasionally υι all being pronounced as ι. It seems that this process began in different places and in different regions prior to the 1st century AD. It may be that the different spellings of Δαυιδ/Δαυειδ or Πιλατος/Πειλατος were caused by iotacism and the names were pronounced in an identical manner. Where this change to the language had taken hold it is likely that someone reading words such as υμων (hymōn) and ημων (hēmōn) would pronounce both himōn leading to the copyists confusing words.

In most cases the changes were accidental, but in some cases they were possibly deliberate. It is hard to determine exactly which variants are deliberate and which are accidental. Apart from the variants listed above we have a number of verses that were either added or removed from the text. But which way it was is debated with proponents of one side arguing they were added perhaps by well meaning scribes seeking to harmonise readings of one Gospel with those of another while another side will argue they have been removed and are genuine and therefore should be restored to the text.

The purpose of the textual critic is not to determine if what they say is true, but rather they ask, are the words we read the words that the original author penned or have they changed over time and if they have changed, what might the original reading be?

Next Time

 In future posts I hope (God willing) to talk about topics such as:

• Does textual criticism undermine trust in the Bible?
• A short history of textual criticism
• Methods used
• Textual critics and their works (e.g. Erasmus, Tregelles, Scrivener, Westcott & Hort, Robinson and so on)
• Any other important topics connected to textual criticism.

This may not be a week by week project, but I do hope to do a couple of posts a month on it.

I will possibly edit these posts as I study further and find more/better information for the posts. I will flag them as Edited if I do this.

Review of Thomas Nelson's The Majority Text Greek New Testament

 

I recently received a copy of this interlinear just a couple of months after pre-ordering it from Book Depository (not a sponsored link).

Firstly, the cons. There are a few, not many, but there are some so I'll get them out of the way.

1. It's an interlinear - this isn't a huge problem if you just want to read the Bible and see how translators view the Greek underlying their work without intent to seriously study Greek. If you are learning Greek this can be an impediment to your learning and make your efforts harder. See this video by Dr Darryl Burling of Master Biblical Languages for some reasons not to use an interlinear if you are learning Greek.
   
2. It's a paperback - I have nothing in particular against paperbacks, but they do have their place. For example a novel or the like where you read it once and then place it on the shelf and rarely use it again for some time. In the case of a Bible, a book that most users refer to regularly paperback bindings will wear out quickly and you can't have it rebound easily. There's no hardback version yet.
   
3. It's not a new edition - The current version is a reprint of the 2007 edition with the original 1982 New King James Version, 1985 Hodges-Farstad Greek New Testament, and 1994 word studies and textual notes.
4. The apparatus is somewhat outdated - the text, when it refers to the NU is referring to the Nestle Aland 26 and UBS4 (essentially the NA27 Greek text)
5. It doesn't lay flat - the gutters (internal margins closest to the spine) are narrow so the text curves into the gutter between pages.
   
6. The paper is not the best.

The deep gutters

 

In themselves none of these are deal breakers. For example, this is one of the cheapest way to get a Hodges-Farstad GNT at the moment since it's currently out of print. Used copies go for as much as US$220 (~AU$350) on Amazon down to about US$100 on Ebay (~AU$120 including import taxes, shipping etc). Other than this, the cheapest way is to buy a Logos or Accordance module for around $32 or have a personal copy privately printed.

What are the pros?

I'm no expert when it comes to paper used in books but it seems to be about 70 gsm or maybe thinner. Despite the relative thinness of the paper, there is bleed through of the text on the reverse of each page, but it's not distracting and is quite faint. The paper is similar to high quality mass market paperbacks, light, smooth, and a pale creamy white colour. The text is crisp and comfortable to read. None of the text is crowded, but is fairly well spaced. The text is small but even with my 50-something eyes, it's still clear to me with or without my glasses.

Apparatus and Study Notes

There's a rudimentary apparatus which, as mentioned above, gives variant readings in the NA26/UBS4 text (NU), Majority (M or Byzantine), and TR. This is handy as it gives a quick overview of differences in the three major families. Unfortunately it hasn't been updated to refer to the current NA28/UBS5 editions.
There's study notes that have fairly in-depth discussions of 342 select Greek words. There's a word-study section in the rear has an index for the word study words. This is arranged in four columns with the Greek word, a transliteration, a gloss of the word, and a scripture reference to where this word is found.

The interlinear contains the Greek text, a literal translation and occasional idiomatic translations. Some of the English text is marked by numbers to give a proper English word order. Greek is a highly inflected which means word order is less important than the form of words. English has little inflection (e.g. -ing and -ed suffixes) and a Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) word order which means the literal translation can seem weird to English speakers and is a reason why a perfectly literal translation would be a bad idea. Numbering the English words makes it simpler for those who don't understand Greek to see how the English should read.

The blue underlined word shows an example of their idiomatic translation of Εἰ (literally 'if') to 'otherwise'. The red underline indicates an instance where they've given a word order for the literal translation.

The edition is a fairly hefty and substantial volume weighing in at about 1.32 kg (2.91 pounds). Its dimensions are 6 x 2.25 x 9 inches and 936 pages. My preference would have been perhaps a 7x10 inch or US Letter/A4 block which would make it a somewhat thinner but it's not unwieldy or difficult to use even holding it in your hands. I would much prefer having the original GNT without an interlinear, even with something like a NKJV column, but absent that option I think this is just fine.

My Recommendation

Do I recommend this Edition? With a few minor caveats, yes. I'm not a TR or Majority Text primacist (nor an Alexandrian Text supremacist for that matter), but I do love God's word and would love to own as many editions as were created if it were possible and this is a good addition to my library. I feel the pros outweigh the cons and I would recommend it. If you want it to learn Greek, I'd advise against it, but if you want a Majority Text GNT to refer to this is a good option. Others such as the Robinson Pierpont MT is still in print for good prices and I would recommend getting both and not either, but that's just me.

Just be advised, the cover will attract finger prints and it's not good for daily reading. Those aside, if you want a print copy of the Hodges-Farstad GNT and don't want to go to the effort of a privately printed copy or spending hundreds of dollars on a second-hand copy, this is definitely worth adding to your library.