1 Tim 3:16 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]700-701
Καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκὶ, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν Πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ.
* NA, etc: σαρκί
1 Tim 3:16 [Codex Sinaiticus (א or 01) (4th century)]
1 Tim 3:16 [Codex Alexandrinus (Royal MS 1 D VIII) (A02) (5th century)]
1 Tim 3:16 [Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (Grec 9) (C04) (5th century)]
1 Tim 3:16 [Codex Claromontanus (Grec 107) (D06) (5th century)]
Critical Apparatus :
(1) εστι :
(2) εστιν :
A Textual Commentary On 1 Timothy 3:16
(a) In 1 Tim. iii. 16. Woide edits ΘC εφανερωθη, and he combats in his prolegomena the opinion of Wetstein, who maintained that ⲞC was the original reading, and that the stroke, which in some lights can be seen across part of the Ⲟ, arose from part of a letter visible through the vellum. In this, however, as the result of repeated examinations, we can say distinctly that Woide was wrong, and Wetstein was right. Part of the Ⲉ on the other side of the leaf does intersect the Ⲟ, as we have seen again and again, and which others with us have seen also. The copyist of the Codex Alexandrinus was by no means careful ; and the corrector was often as little accurate as the first scribe. In points of minute exactness this has to be borne in mind, though the value of a MS. is often in inverse proportion to the critical skill of the copyist: a scribe, if too intelligent, was always prone to make critical emendations. (S. P. Tregelles, An Introduction to Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 156)
(b) Besides the’ printed editions of the Arabic New Testament, many MSS. have been spoken of as containing a differing version. One of these which has been definitely described by Scholz1; it is a MS. in the Vatican (Cod. Vatic. Arab. 13.), which appears to contain all the New Testament except the Apocalypse. From a Greek subscription this copy seems to have been written at Emesa. According to Hug’s investigation this version seems to rank low enough ; and yet in the passages extracted by Scholz there are readings which prove that the translator must have followed a Greek copy containing very ancient readings. Thus, in 1 Tim. iii. 16., it has ὃς ἐφανερώθη², and it omits the last eleven verses of St. Mark’s Gospel.3
² Though Scholz, who cites the passage p. 122., states, p. 127., that it has Ms, an entire mistake. (S.P. Tregelles, An Introduction to Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 326)
(c) When such a point admits of investigation, it will often be found that the patristic reading which contradicts the other early monuments is either not genuine, or that it has been (as a demonstrable fact) modernised and emended. An instance of this may be seen in some of the authorities quoted respecting 1 Tim. iii. 16. The question there lies between a substantive and a relative pronoun ; the early MSS. have ὃς (one ὃ) ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, and the early versions have also a relative, while the later MSS., and one or two versions later than the seventh century, have θεὸς ἐφαν. ἐν σαρκί, as in the common text.¹ But Dionysius of Alexandria, in the third century, is cited as reading θεός . This seems at least strange ; for it would be remarkable for so distinct a reading as this to be untraceable in any of the early versions. This is enough to suggest inquiry ; and it is well known that the Epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria to Paul of Samosata is of very doubtful genuineness. The passage stands thus in Manei: εἷς ἐστιν ὁ χριστός, ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ πατρι συναιδιος λογος, εν αυτου προσωπον, αορατος θεος, και ορατος γενομενος· θεος γαρ εφανερωθη εν σαρκι, γενομενος εκ γυναικος κτλ. (Concilia, I. col. 1044. : vel Dionysii Opera, p. 211.) In examining the question of the genuineness of this letter it appeared that it was of too doubtful authority for an argument of any kind to be built upon it ; and indeed it led to a settled conclusion in my mind of the doubtfulness of much that is inserted in the Acts of Councils as at present edited. But as to this citation, I was able to carry the argument a little farther; for there exists an old Latin translation of this very epistle, and in it the passage stands thus : — ” Unus est Christus, una persona visibilis et invisibilis, id est divine et sensibiliter simplex desursum et deorsum compositus, ex Deo, et ex muliere.” (Dionysii Opera, p. 300. col. II.) Thus whether the letter be a genuine work of Dionysius or not, the citation from 1 Tim. iii, 16. is, at least, an interpolation introduced subsequently to the old Latin translation having been executed. No doubt that it was thought a valuable service to dogmatic orthodoxy to introduce θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί into a refutation of the proleptical Socinianism of Paul of Samosata. Alas! that those who maintain both truth and dogmatic orthodoxy in all its strictness should often have to exclaim ” non tali auxilio.”² The result of this investigation shows, that when a reading is found in a Father utterly discordant with all contemporary or other early authority, it may be quite right to mention the reading so found, but to attach no authority to it per se, until it has been examined and vindicated.
¹ For the detail of the evidence on this passage, see “Account of Printed Text,” pp. 227- 231. It may be well to state, that the allegations of Dr. Henderson and some others, that various ancient versions do not read a relative, but that they may or must read θεός are utterly incorrect; indeed, if such modes of reasoning were legitimate, it would be in vain to bring forward the evidence of versions at any time, or on any subject. The reading of G. (Cod. Boernerianus) is there discussed, p. 165. The line over the Ο (of ος) in that MS. is there stated not to be the mark of contraction, but it is drawn upward from left to right over the vowel, and it is (p. 165.) compared with that found in the MS. in Gal. iii. 24. over ι, and ver. 28. over ε, with the suggestion that “it may be a mode of denoting the spiritus asper.” To this remark is added, ” Perhaps the line in question was used in 1 Tim. iii, 16. to fill up the Latin text which lies over the Greek.” (Addenda, p. 2.) Besides these suggestions, it may be well to refer to Matthæi’s N. Test., ed. 2. vol. ii. p. 440., who says, that the letter Ο in the Codex Boernerianus (which he himself edited) has often a line over it without any reason.
When I wrote the examination of the readings of 1 Tim. iii. 16. in the “Account of the Printed Text,” I passed by the alleged citation of Dionysius of Alexandria with θεός, simply mentioning it as possibly correct, because it was impracticable to investigate the point with the limited resources of my own study. I knew that the Epistle to Paul of Samosata was of doubtful authenticity, and thus I was then obliged to leave the question.
² The mode in which θεὸς in this passage has been introduced into Chrysostom is stated in “Account of the Printed Text,” p. 277. foot-note. The allegations from Didymus and Theodoret may admit of investigation with similar results. The appeal must often be made from the Fathers as edited to the Fathers as extant in MSS. (S.P. Tregelles, An Introduction to Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p.339-340)
(d) At Dresden I examined the Codex Boernerianus (G Paul.) especially as to those places in which its text, as published by Matthæi, differs from that of F. The resemblance of this MS. to the Codex Sangallensis, A of the Gospels (published in a lithographed facsimile by Rettig), is even more evident in looking at the MS. itself, than in examining the facsimile specimen in Matthæi. At the beginning of the Codex Boernerianus there is one leaf, and at the end there are eleven , written on in a later hand exactly like that of the leaves prefixed to the Codex Sangallensis . It is thus evident that these MSS. are the severed parts of the same book.*
* The reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16 in this MS. is worthy of notice, because of assertions which have been made respecting it of late. The following sentence has been quoted from Le Clerc’s Epistle to Optimianus, prefixed to Küster’s edition of Mill’s Greek Testament : – “Codicem vidi qui fuit in Bibliotheca Francianâ in hac urbe, anno MDCCV. vendita, in quo erat O (nempe in 1 Tim. iii. 16), sed ab aliâ manu additum Sigma. Codex est in quo Latina interpretatio Græcæ superimposita est : quæ hic quoque habet QUOD.” To this the following remark has been added : – “In this Codex the alteration is betrayed, not merely by the fresh colour of the ink, and by the word quod, placed immediately above the altered word, but by the difference of the size of the letters ; for the corrector, not having room for a full-sized C, has stuck a small one up in the corner between the Ο and the letter Ε which follows, thus Οc. Dr. Griesbach could hardly fail to be aware of this, yet he quotes G without any remark, as supporting the reading ὁς not ὁ. The Codex F (Augiensis) was copied from G, after it had been thus altered. ” These statements would have required proof, and none is given. Le Clerc seems to have argued on the reading of the Greek, backward from the Latin quod : it might be well asked, how the ink could look fresh after a lapse of a thousand years? Also in fact F is not a transcript of G, so that it may be left out of the question. To set this whole matter at rest, and to test these assertions, I made a facsimile of that page of G. The sigma stands on a level with the line , and there is no pretence for saying that it is an addition ; the words are not cramped together, but they stand thus ΟC ΕΦΑΝΕΡωΘΗ ; with three sixteenths of an inch between the words . It has also been said by those who suppose OC here to be a contraction for beos that there is a line over the O ; but this is not the mark of contraction, but it lies over the vowel , drawn upward from left to right. In folio 57 of the MS., such a line occurs twice ; Gal. iii. 24, the initial vowel of ινα is so marked, and Gal. iii. 28, εν : (where the common text reads εἷς) . It may be a mode of denoting the spiritus asper.
(S. P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, p.165)
(e) Johann Jacob Griesbach, Symbolae Criticae, vol. 2, pp. 64-77