Third Series. St. Paul.
33. Rom. v. 1. Δικαιωθέντες οὖν ἐκ πίστεως εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. Here, as in 2 Cor. iii. 3, we find the chief uncials supporting a reading which is manifestly unsuitable to the context, although, since it does not absolutely destroy the sense, it does not (nor indeed does that other passage) lack strenuous defenders. Codd. אB for ἔχομεν have primâ manu ἔχωμεν, and though some doubt has been thrown on the primitive reading of B, yet Mai and Tregelles (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 156) are eyewitnesses to the fact, which is now settled: Tischendorf in 1866 referred ἔχομεν to the third hand of B, Codd. ACDEKL, not less than thirty cursives, including 104, 244, 257 and the remarkable copies 17, 37, also read ἔχωμεν, as do d e f g, the Vulgate (“habeamus”), the Peshitto Syriac (ܢܚܘܐ ܠܢ ܫܠܡܐ or ܐܡܠܫ ܢܠ ܐܘܚܢ), Bohairic, Ethiopic (in both forms), and Arabic. Chrysostom too supports this view, and so apparently Tertullian (“monet justificatos ex fide Christi ... pacem ad Deum habere”). The case for ἔχομεν is much weaker in itself: Codd. אaB3FG (in spite of the contrary testimony of f g, their respective Latin versions) P, perhaps the majority of the cursive manuscripts (29, 30, 47, 221, 260, 265, &c.), Didymus, Epiphanius, Cyril (once), and the Slavonic. The later Syriac might seem to combine both readings (ܢܗܘܐ ܐܬ ܠܢ ܠܘܐ ܐܠܗܐ ܫܝܢܐ or ܐܢܝܫ ܐܗܠܐ ܐܘܠ ܢܠ ܬܐ ܐܘܗܢ): White translates “habemus,” but has no note on the passage[417]. Had the scales [pg 380] been equally poised, no one would hesitate to prefer ἔχομεν, for the closer the context is examined the clearer it will appear that inference not exhortation is the Apostle's purpose: hence those who most regard “ancient evidence” (Tischendorf and Tregelles, Westcott and Hort; Lachmann could not make up his mind) have struggled long before they would admit ἔχωμεν into the text. The “Five Clergymen” who in or about 1858 benefited the English Church by revising its Authorized version of this Epistle, even though they render “let us have peace with God,” are constrained to say, “An overwhelming weight of authority has necessitated a change, which at the first sight seems to impair the logical force of the Apostle's argument. No consideration, however, of this kind can be allowed to interfere with the faithful exhibition of the true text, as far as it can be ascertained; and no doubt the real Word of God, thus faithfully exhibited, will vindicate its own meaning, and need no help from man's shortsighted preference” (Preface, p. vii). Every one must honour the reverential temper in which these eminent men approached their delicate task; yet, if their sentiments be true, where is the place for internal evidence at all? A more “overwhelming weight” of manuscript authority upholds καρδίαις in 2 Cor. iii. 3: shall we place it in the text, “leaving the real Word of God to vindicate its own meaning”? Ought we to assume that the reading found in the few most ancient codices—not, in the case of Rom. v. 1, in the majority of the whole collection—must of necessity be the “real Word of God, faithfully exhibited”? I see no cause to reply in the affirmative, nor do Meyer and Dr. Field[418].
We conclude, therefore, that this is a case for the application of the paradiplomatical canon (VII): that the itacism ω for ο, so familiar to all collators of Greek manuscripts[419], crept into [pg 381] some very early copy, from which it was propagated among our most venerable codices, even those from which the earliest versions were made:—that this is one out of a small number of well-ascertained cases in which the united testimonies of the best authorities conspire in giving a worse reading than that preserved by later and, on the whole, quite inferior copies.
34. 1 Cor. xi. 24. I am as unwilling as Mr. C. Forster could have been to strike out from the Received text “a word which (if genuine) the Lord God had spoken!” (A new Plea for the Three Heavenly Witnesses, Preface, p. xvii), but I cannot censure Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, or Westcott and Hort, or Dean Blakesley for deciding on the state of the evidence, as now generally taken, that it is not genuine. Yet it is with great satisfaction that I find Bp. Chr. Wordsworth able to retain κλώμενον, and to save the solemn clause τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν from being “bald and impressive without the participle.” Mr. Forster's argument in behalf of κλώμενον, that it refers to ch. x. 16, τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, has a double edge, and might be employed to indicate the source from which the word crept in here. It is more to the purpose to urge with Bp. Wordsworth that early scribes were offended by the apparent inconsistency of the term with John xix. 36, and because there is nothing like it in the narratives of the three earlier Evangelists. If we decide to retain κλώμενον, it must be in opposition to the four chief manuscripts אABC, though אC insert it by the third hand of each. Cod. D, like its namesake of the Gospels and Acts, is [pg 382] somewhat inclined to paraphrases, and has θρυπτόμενον[420] by the first hand, κλώμενον by the second. Only two cursives here side with the great uncials (17, and the valuable second hand of 67), as do Zohrab's Armenian, Cyril of Alexandria and Fulgentius in the fifth century, and Theodoret's report of Athanasius. The word κλώμενον is found in EFGKLP, all other cursives, the Latin versions of DE (quod frangitur), with Ambrosiaster: G and the interlinear Latin of F, which, as has been already shown under that MS., is taken from G, prefer quod frangetur, with both Syriac, the Gothic, and the Armenian of Uscan. The Latin Vulgate has tradetur (but traditur in harl.2, even in the parallel column of F and against its Greek, and so Cyprian); the Bohairic renders traditur; but the Sahidic and Ethiopic datur, after the διδόμενον of Zacagni's Euthalius, derived from Luke xxii. 19. Theodoret himself knew of both forms. The main strength of κλώμενον rests on Patristic evidence. Mr. Forster has added to our previous store the “conclusive testimony” of Basil (Forster, p. xxvi) and of Athanasius himself (ibid. p. xvii), which is better than Theodoret's report at second hand; and thus too Chrysostom in three places, one manuscript of Euthalius, John Damascene, the Patriarch Germanus (a.d. 715, ibid. p. xix), Œcumenius and Theophylact. Mr. Forster is perfectly justified also in pressing the evidence of the Primitive Liturgies, in all of which κλώμενον occurs in the most sacred words of Institution (ibid. pp. xx, xxi). Whatsoever change these services have received in the course of ages, they have probably been little altered since the fourth century, and very well established must the word have then been to have found a place in them all. On the whole, therefore, we submit this important text as a proof that the united readings of אABC are sometimes at variance, not only with the more modern codices united, but with the text of the oldest versions and most illustrious Fathers. We confess, however, that in ver. 29 ἀναξίως (compare ver. 27) and τοῦ κύ look too much like glosses to be maintained confidently against the evidence of א*ABC*, 17, (67**) and some manuscripts of the Ethiopic.
35. 1 Cor. xiii. 3. ἐὰν παραδῶ τὸ σῶμά μου ἵνα καυθήσωμαι, [pg 383] “though I give my body to be burned.” Here we find the undoubtedly false reading καυχήσωμαι in the three chief codices אAB and in 17, adopted by Drs. Westcott and Hort[421], and it is said to have been favoured by Lachmann in 1831, by Tregelles in 1873 (A. W. Tyler, Bibl. Sacra, 1873, p. 502). Jerome testifies that in his time “apud Graecos ipsos ipsa exemplaria esse diversa,” and preferred καυχήσωμαι (though all copies of the Latin have ut ardeam or ut ardeat), which is said to be countenanced by the Roman Ethiopic: the case of the Bohairic is stated by Bp. Lightfoot (Chap. IV)[422]. Tischendorf cites Ephraem (ii. 112) for καυχήσομαι. This variation, which involves the change of but one letter, is worth notice, as showing that the best uncial MSS. are not always to be depended upon, and sometimes are “blemished with errors” (Wordsworth, N. T., ad loc.). As a parallel use, Theodotion's version of Dan. iii. 8 (παρέδωκαν τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν εἰς πῦρ) is very pertinent: and for the punishment of burning alive, as practised in those times, consult (if it be thought needful) Joseph., Antiq. xvii. 6, 4 (Hort). Καυχήσωμαι may have obtained the more credit, inasmuch as each of the other principal readings, namely Tischendorf's καυθήσομαι (DEFGL, 44, 47, 71, 80, 104, 113**, 253**, 254, 255, 257, 260, 265, with nine of Matthaei's, and some others: καθήσομαι 244) and καυθήσωμαι (CK, 29, 37, and many others, Chrysostom, Theodoret, &c.) of Lachmann and Tregelles, are anomalous, the former in respect to mood, the latter to tense. The important cursive 73 has καυθήσεται with some Latin copies: Codd. 1, 108*, Basil (perhaps Cyprian) adopt καυθῇ: the Syriac (ܕܢܐܘܕ or ܕܘܐܢܕ), and I suppose the Arabic, will suit either of these last. Evidence seems to preponderate on the side of καυθήσομαι, but in the case of these itacisms manuscripts are very fallacious we know. Such a subjunctive future as καυθήσωμαι, however, I should have been disposed to question, had it not passed muster with much better scholars than I am: but to illustrate it, as Tregelles does (An Account of the Printed Text, [pg 384] p. 117, note), from ἵνα δώσῃ Apoc. viii. 3, is to accomplish little, since δώσηι is the reading of אAC, 1 (although Erasmus has δώσῃ with BP, 6, 7, 91, 98, and the Complutensian), 13, 28, 29, 30, 37, 40, 48, 68, 87, 94, 95, 96 (δωσι 8, 26, 27: δω 14), together with the best copies of Andreas, and is justly approved by Lachmann and Tischendorf, nay even by Tregelles himself in his second revision (1872). It seems most likely that in both places ἵνα, the particle of design, is followed by the indicative future, as (with Meyer and Bp. Ellicott) I think to be clearly the case in Eph. vi. 3. In John xvii. 3 even Tregelles adopts ἵνα γινώσκουσιν[423].
36. 1 Cor. xv. 51. We have now come to a passage which has perplexed Biblical students from St. Jerome's time, and has exercised the keen judgement of Bp. Pearson in his Exposition of the seventh article of the Apostles' Creed. There is but little doubt that the Received text, as rendered in our English versions, [pg 385] is the true reading: (a) Πάντες μὲν οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα. Some of the leading authorities omit μέν, a few put δέ or γάρ in its place, but, with this trifling exception, the clause stands thus in B, the third hand of D, and consequently in EKLP, 37, 47, 265, and indeed nearly all the cursives, as in some manuscripts known to Jerome, and has the support of Theodore of Heraclea and Apollinarius: and so the two Syriac, the Bohairic (the Sahidic not being extant), the Gothic, and one edition of the Ethiopic version. For the same form may be cited Ephraem the Syrian, Caesarius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Chrysostom (often) in the fourth century; Theodoret and Euthalius in the fifth century; Andreas of Caesarea in the sixth; John Damascene in the eighth. A modification of this main and true reading (b) Οὐ πάντες κοιμησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα is supported only by Origen and some copies known to Jerome: it is only a clearer way of bringing out the foregoing sense. The next form also hardly enters into competition, (c) Πάντες [μὲν] ἀναστησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγήσομεθα: it is supported by the first hand of D, by the Vulgate (whose manuscripts vary between resurgimus and resurgemus, while m omits the negative), by Tertullian and Hilary. Even the Latin versions of EF maintain it against their own Greek, while Jerome and Augustine note it as a point wherein the Latin copies diverge from the Greek. A fourth variation is due to Cod. A alone, (d) Οἱ πάντες μὲν κοιμησόμεθα, οἱ πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα, the second οι being altered by the first hand, and ου by the same or a very early hand super-added after οἱ πάντες δέ: but this is only a correction of transcriptional error. The real variation consists in the transfer of the negative from the first clause to the second, (e) Πάντες [μὲν] κοιμηθησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα of אC(F)G, 17, and apparently of A also by intention. This last is discussed by Jerome, who alleges in its favour Didymus and Acacius of Caesarea; it appears also in Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, and in copies known to Pelagius and Maximus, but their testimony fluctuates. In its favour are quoted the Armenian and one form of the Ethiopic, but all the Latin prefer (c) except the interlinear version of G, and the rendering set above the Vulgate text of F, which is assimilated to the latter. The Complutensian margin in a special note chronicles one other change, Πάντες μὲν οὖν κοιμηθησόμεθα, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντες ἀλλαγησόμεθα, but this is bye-work. [pg 386] “The objection made in ancient times to the Received reading was, that the wicked would not be changed, namely, glorified; but St. Paul is here speaking only of the resurrection of the Just” (Bp. Chr. Wordsworth): compare 1 Thess. iv. 14-17. Thus Cod. B and the cursives for once unite to convict of falsehood a change which men were pleased to devise in order to evade a difficulty of their own making.
37. Eph. v. 14. It is instructive to observe how a reading, pretty widely diffused in the fourth century, though not obtaining much acceptance even at that period, has almost entirely disappeared from extant codices. In the place of ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ χριστός the first hand of D, followed of course by E (Sangermanensis) and the Latin versions of both, exhibits an interesting variant ἐπιψαύσεις τοῦ χριστοῦ, continges Christum. Jerome had heard of it in the form ἐπιψαύσει, id est continget te Christus, but refused to vouch for it, as do Chrysostom and Theodoret, though they treat it with somewhat more consideration. The Latin interpreter of Origen (against his own Greek twice, and the Latin once), with Victorinus and the writer cited as Ambrosiaster, adopt it as genuine. Augustine (on Psalm iii) has et continget te once, but once elsewhere the common reading. Theodore of Mopsuestia, in the Latin version of his Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles, recently edited by Dr. Swete from two manuscripts, one at Amiens (Cod. 68) brought from Corbey [x], a second from Cuza, now Harleian. 3063 [ix], after translating inluminabit tibi Christus, goes on to say “alii continget te Christus legerunt; habet autem nullam sequentiam” (Swete, vol. i. p. 180). The variation of D* is surely too curious to be lost sight of altogether. “The two imperatives [ἔγειρε and ἀνάστα] doubtless suggested that the following future would be in the second person, the required σ stood next after ἐπιφαύσει, easily read as ἐπιψαύσει, and then the rest would follow accordingly.” Hort, Notes, p. 125. Such are the harmless recreations of a critical genius.
38. Phil. ii. 1. εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος, εἴ τινα σπλάγχνα. For τινα, to the critic's great perplexity, τις is found in אABCD EFGKLP, that is, in all the uncials extant at this place. As regards the cursives nearly the same must be said. Of the seventeen collated by Scrivener, eleven read τις (29, 30, 252, 254, 255, [pg 387] 257, 258, 260, 265, 266, 277), and six τι (31, 104, 221, 244, 253, 256). Mill enumerates sixteen others that give τις, one (40) that has τι: Griesbach reckons forty-five in favour of τις, eight (including Cod. 4) for τι, to which Scholz adds a few more (18, 46, 72, 74). Thus am. fuld. tol. of the Vulgate render si quid viscera, for the more usual si qua viscera. One cursive (109) and a manuscript of Theodoret have τε. Basil, Chrysostom (in manuscript) and others read τις, as do the Complutensian, the Aldine (1518), Erasmus' first four, and R. Stephen's first two editions. In fact it may be stated that no manuscript whatever has been cited for τινα, which is not therefore likely to be found in many. Theodore of Mopsuestia alone, in his Latin version published by Dr. Swete (vol. i. p. 214), has si qua et viscera against the Vulgate. In spite of what was said above with regard to far weaker cases, it is impossible to blame editors for putting τις into the text here before σπλάνχνα: to have acted otherwise (as Tischendorf fairly observes) would have been “grammatici quam editoris partes agere.” Yet we may believe the reading to be as false as it is intolerable, and to afford us another proof of the early and (as the cursives show) the well-nigh universal corruption of our copies in some minute particulars. Of course Clement and later Fathers give τινα, indeed it is surprising that any cite otherwise; but, in the absence of definite documentary proof, this can hardly be regarded as genuine. Probably St. Paul wrote τι (the reading of about nineteen cursives), which would readily be corrupted into τις, by reason of the σ following (ΤΙΣΠΛΑΓΧΝΑ), and the τις which had just preceded. See also Moulton's “Winer,” p. 661, and note 3.
39. Col. ii. 2. τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ χριστοῦ, “of the mystery of God the Father, and of Christ.” The reading of B (approved by Lachmann, by Tischendorf in his eighth edition, by Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, and Bp. Ellicott), τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ θεοῦ χριστοῦ (“ita cod. nihil interponens inter θεοῦ et χριστοῦ,” Mai, 2nd ed.[424]), has “every [pg 388] appearance of being the original reading, and that from which the many perplexing variations have arisen” (Canon II). At present it stands in great need of confirmation, since Hilary (de Trin. ix) alone supports it (but καὶ χριστοῦ Cyril), though the Scriptural character of the expression is upheld by the language of ch. i. 27 just preceding, and by the Received text in 1 Tim. iii. 16. Some, who feel a difficulty in understanding how χριστοῦ was removed from the text, if it ever had a place there, conceive that the verse should end with θεοῦ, all additions, including χριστοῦ the simplest, being accretions to the genuine passage. These alleged accretions are τοῦ θεοῦ ὅ ἐστι χριστός, manifestly an expansion of χριστοῦ and derived from ch. i. 27; τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ χριστοῦ: τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ χριστοῦ, the final form of the Received text. Now, of these four readings, τοῦ θεοῦ the shortest, and, according to Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf in his seventh edition, Alford, and Dr. Green, the true one, is found only in the late uncial P, and in a few, though confessedly good, cursives: 37, 71, 80*, 116 (καὶ θεοῦ 23), and the important second hand of 67; witnesses too few and feeble, unless we consent to put our third Canon of internal evidence to a rather violent use. Of the longer readings, ὅ ἐστιν χριστός is favoured by D (though obelized by the second hand, which thus would read only τοῦ θεοῦ), d e (whose parallel Greek speaks differently), by Augustine and Vigilius of Thapsus, but apparently by no cursives. The form best vouched for appears to be that of א*AC, 4, of the Sahidic according to one of the readings of Griesbach, and of an Arabic codex of Tischendorf, τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ (א* omits τοῦ) χριστοῦ. To these words “ihu” is simply added by f (FG, g are unfortunately lost here) and by other manuscripts of the Vulgate (am. fuld., &c.), though the Clementine edition has “Dei patris et Christi Jesu,” the Complutensian in the Latin “dei et patris et C.J.” With the Clementine Vulgate agree the Bohairic, and (omitting ἰησοῦ) the Peshitto Syriac, Arabic, 47, 73, Chrysostom; while 41, 115, 213, 221, 253* (τοῦ θ. καὶ π. τοῦ χ.), so far strengthen the case of אAC. The Received text is found in (apparently) the great mass of cursives, in D (tertiâ manu), EKL, the Harkleian Syriac (but the καί after πατρός marked with one of Harkel's asterisks), Theodoret, John Damascene and others. The minor [pg 389] variations, τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν χριστῷ of Clement and Ambrosiaster, τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἐν χριστῷ of 17, uphold D*, as may the Ethiopic (“domini quod de Christo”): to the reading of Cod. 17 Zohrab's or the Venice Armenian (a.d. 1789) simply adds “Jesu.” We also find “dei Christi Jesu patris et domini” in tol., “dei patris et domini nostri Christi” in demid., “dei patris in Christo Jesu” in Uscan's Armenian; but these deserve not attention. Theodore of Mopsuestia (Swete, vol. i. p. 283), has mysterii Dei Patris et Christi, which need not imply the omission of καί before πατρός.
On reviewing the whole mass of conflicting evidence, we may unhesitatingly reject the shortest form τοῦ θεοῦ, some of whose maintainers do not usually found their text on cursive manuscripts almost exclusively. We would gladly adopt τοῦ θεοῦ χριστοῦ, so powerfully do internal considerations plead in its favour, were it but a little better supported: the important doctrine which it declares, Scriptural and Catholic as that is, will naturally make us only the more cautious in receiving it unreservedly. Yet the more we think over this reading, the more it grows upon us, as the source from which all the rest are derived. At present, perhaps, τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ χριστοῦ may be looked upon as the most strongly attested, but in the presence of so many opposing probabilities, a very small weight might suffice to turn the critical scale.
40. 1 Thess. ii. 7. We have here a various reading, consisting of the prefix of a single letter, which seems to introduce into a simple verse what is little short of an absurdity. Instead of ἤπιοι of the Received text, of Tischendorf and Tregelles, we find νήπιοι adopted by Lachmann as a consequence of his own stringent rules, and by Westcott and Hort of their own free will, unless indeed it be said that they also are working in chains of their own forging. How St. Paul can compare himself to a babe in one clause of the verse and to its nurse in the other would be quite unintelligible if Origen, who read νήπιοι, had not instructed us that the nurse is playing at baby for the babe's amusement (ἐγένετο νήπιος καὶ παραπλήσιος τροφῷ θαλπούσῃ τὸ ἑαυτῆς παιδίον καὶ λαλούσῃ λόγους ὡς παιδίον διὰ τὸ παιδίον, iii. 662). It needs but the exercise of common sense to brush away such a fancy as this, and the state of the evidence will show us how the best authorities are sometimes hopelessly in the wrong; for νήπιοι is the [pg 390] form favoured by א*BC*D*FG, 5, 23, 26, 31* 37, 39**, 74, 87, 109**, 114, 115, 137, 219*, 252, and is easily accounted for by the accidental reduplication of the letter after Ν in ΗΜΕΝΗΠΙΟΙ (see p. [10]). The Vulgate and the Latin versions accompanying DEFG (e testifying against its own Greek) have parvuli, and so the Bohairic, Ethiopic, Clement of Alexandria (ἤπιος οὖν ὁ νήπιος), Ambrosiaster, Jerome, and Augustine very expressly. On the other hand ἤπιος is vouched for by א**AC**D**EKLP, 17, 47, 61, 260, and by all cursives not named above, by both Syriac versions, by the Sahidic and by its follower the Bashmuric, by the Armenian, by Clement and Origen elsewhere (but their inconsistency means nothing but carelessness), Basil, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia[425], Theodoret, Euthalius, Œcumenius, John Damascene and the catenae. Theophylact knew of and expounds both readings. It is almost pathetic to mark Dr. Hort's brave struggle to maintain a cause which in this instance is simply hopeless. “The second ν might be inserted or omitted with equal facility; but the change from the bold image to the tame and facile adjective is characteristic of the difference between St. Paul and the Syrian revisers (cf. 1 Cor. iii. 1, 2; ix. 20, &c.). It is not of harshness that St. Paul here declares himself innocent, but of flattery and the rhetorical arts by which gain or repute is procured, his adversaries having doubtless put this malicious interpretation upon his language among the Thessalonians” (Notes, p. 128). For his alleged Syrian revision, see above, p. [287].
41. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί. This text has proved the crux criticorum. The Vatican has now failed us, but all manuscripts (D tertiâ manu, KLP, 300 cursives) read Θεός with the common text, except א*A*? C*? FG, 17, 73, which have ὅς, D* which (after the Latin versions) has ὅ: the Leicester codex, 37, gives ὁ θς (see facsimile No. 40, l. 1), as if to combine two of the variations[426]. In the abridged form of writing usual in all manuscripts, even the oldest, the difference between ΟΣ and ΘΣ consists only in the presence or absence of [pg 391] two horizontal strokes; hence it is rather to be regretted than wondered at that the true reading of each of the uncial authorities for the former is more or less open to question. Respecting Cod. א we have the statement of Tischendorf, a most consummate judge in such matters: “corrector aliquis, qui omnium ultimus textum attigit, saeculi ferè duodecimi, [pro ος primae manûs] reposuit θεος, sed hoc tam cautè ut antiquissimam scripturam intactam relinqueret” (Notitia Cod. Sinait. p. 20), which is unequivocal enough: see facsimile No. 13 in Scrivener's “Collation of Cod. Sin.,” and Introd., p. xxv: also Plate iv, facsimile No. 11 c of this volume, wherein the twelfth century θε above the line, the new accent over ΟΣ, and the triple points to denote insertion, are very conspicuous. Nor is there any real doubt respecting the kindred codices FG. From the photographed title-page of the published “Cod. Augiensis” (F) l. 9, and Matthaei's facsimile of G (N. T., vol. i. p. 4)[427], it will be seen that while there is not the least trace of the horizontal line within the circle of omicron, the line above the circle in both (ΟΣ) is not horizontal, but rises a little towards the right: such a line not unfrequently in F, oftener in G, is used (as here) to indicate the rough breathing: it sometimes stands even for the lenis (e.g. ἱδιον 1 Cor. vi. 18; vii. 4; 37; ἱσσα Phil. ii. 6). Those who never saw Cod. C must depend on Tischendorf's Excursus (Cod. Ephraemi, pp. 39-42) and his facsimile, imitated in our Plate x. No. 24. His decision is that the primitive reading was ΟΣ, but he was the first to discern a cross line within Ο (facsimile, l. 3, eighth letter); which, however, from the colour (“subnigra”) he judges to belong to the second or third hand, rising upwards (a tendency rather exaggerated than otherwise in our Plate); while the coarse line above, and the musical notes (denoting a word of two syllables) below, are plainly of the third hand. This verdict, especially delivered by such a man, we know not how to gainsay, and merely point to the fact that the cross line in Θ, the ninth letter further on, which is certainly primâ manu, also ascends towards the right. Cod. A, however, I have examined at least twenty times within as many years, and yet am not quite able to assent to the conclusion of Mr. Cowper when he says “we hope that no one will think it possible, [pg 392] either with or without a lens, to ascertain the truth of the matter by any inspection of the Codex” (Cod. Alex., Introd. p. xviii). On the contrary, seeing (as every one must see for himself) with my own eyes, I have always felt convinced with Berriman and the earlier collators that Cod. A read ΘΣ, and, so far as I am shaken in my conviction at all, it is less by the adverse opinion even of Bp. Ellicott[428], than by the more recently discovered fact that ΟΣ (which is adopted by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Davidson, Tregelles, Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth, Hort and Westcott), was read in א as early as the fourth century.
The secondary witnesses, versions, and certain of the Fathers, also powerfully incline this way, and they deserve peculiar attention in a case like the present. The Peshitto (ܕ) and Harkleian (text and ܗܘ in margin) Syriac have a relative (whether ὅς or ὅ); so have the Armenian, the Roman Ethiopic, and Erpenius' Arabic. The Gothic supports ὅς; the Sahidic, Bohairic, and Platt's Ethiopic favour ὅς or ὅ: all Latin versions [pg 393] (even f g whose Greek is ΟΣ) read “quod,” while θεός appears only in the Slavonic (which usually resembles KL and the later copies) and the Polyglott Arabic. Of ecclesiastical writers the best witness for the Received text is Ignatius, Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένου (“Ephes.” 19), both in the Greek and Old Latin, although the Syriac abbreviator seems to have τοῦ υἱοῦ: the later interpolator expanded the clause thus: θεοῦ ὡς ἀνθρώπου φαινομένου, καὶ ἀνθρώπου ὡς θεοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος. Hippolytus (Adv. Not. 17: fl. 220) makes a “free reference” to it in the words Οὗτος προελθὼν εἰς κόσμον, θεὸς ἐν σώματι ἐφανερώθη, and elsewhere with ὁ before προελθών. The testimony of Dionysius of Alexandria (265) can no longer be upheld (Tregelles, Horne, iv. p. 339), that of Chrysostom to the same effect is by some deemed precarious, since his manuscripts fluctuate, and Cramer's catena on 1 Tim. p. 31 is adverse[429]. The evidence borne for θεός by Didymus (de Trin.) and Gregory Nyssen[430] is beyond all doubt; that of later writers, Theodoret, John Damascene, Theophylact, Œcumenius (as might be looked for) is clear and express. The chief Latins, Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, &c., exhibit either qui or quod: Cyril of Alexandria (for so we must conclude both from manuscripts and his context)[431], Epiphanius (twice), Theodore of Mopsuestia (in Latin)[432], and others of less weight, or whose language is less [pg 394] direct, are cited in critical editions of the N. T. in support of a relative; add to which that θεός is not quoted by Fathers (e.g. Cyprian, p. 35; Bentleii Critica Sacra, p. 67) in many places where it might fairly be looked for; though this argument must not be pushed too far. The idle tale, propagated by Liberatus the Deacon of Carthage, and from him repeated by Hincmar and Victor, that Macedonius Patriarch of Constantinople (a.d. 506) was expelled by the Emperor Anastasius for corrupting Ο or ΟΣ into ΘΣ, although lightly credited by Dr. Tregelles (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 229) and even by Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 133), is sufficiently refuted by Bp. Pearson (On the Creed, Art. ii. p. 128, 3rd edition).
On a review of the whole mass of external proof, bearing in mind too that ΟΣ (from which ὅ of D* is an evident corruption) is grammatically much the harder reading after μυστήριον (Canon I), and that it might easily pass into ΘΣ, we must consider it probable (indeed, if we were sure of the testimony of the first-rate uncials, we might regard it as certain) that the second of our rules of Comparative Criticism must here be applied, and θεός of the more recent many yield place to ὅς of the ancient few[433]. Yet even then the force of the Patristic testimony remains untouched. Were we to concede to Dr. Hort's unproved hypothesis that Didymus, de Trinitate, abounds in what he calls Syrian readings, and that they are not rare with Gregory Nyssen (Notes, p. 133), the clear references of Ignatius and [pg 395] Hippolytus are not thus to be disposed of. I dare not pronounce θεός a corruption.
This decision of Dr. Scrivener would probably have been considerably strengthened in favour of θεός, if the above passage had been written after, instead of before, the composition and appearance of Dean Burgon's elaborate and patient examination of all the evidence, which occupies seventy-seven pages in his “Revision Revised” (pp. 424-501). Dean Burgon shows at length that after about 1770 the passage in A became so worn that it has been since that time increasingly difficult to see it; he casts much doubt upon the witness of C for ὅς, which Mr. Hoskier (Cod. 604, Appendix J), after a long examination of the MS., not only confirms, but actually removes in the opposite direction by claiming C as a witness for θεός; he maintains with reason that the transverse line in F and G is the sign of contraction; he exhibits the consentient testimony of the cursives; he claims upon the testimony of the scholar who was editing the Harkleian that version, as also the Georgian and Slavonic; and he adds to the Fathers enumerated above, besides doubtful testimonies, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, Diodorus of Tarsus, Euthalius, Macedonius, Epiphanius of Catana, Theodorus Studita, Euthymius, some scholia, the author of Περὶ θείας σαρκώσεως, and an anonymous author,—making some fifty testimonies in all.
42. 1 Tim. vi. 7. By omitting δῆλον of the Received text, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, produce a Greek sentence as inconsequential as the most thorough votaries of the “harder reading” can wish for: “For we brought nothing into the world, because neither can we carry anything out.” Dr. Hort sees, of course, that St. Paul could not reason in this fashion, and says that “The text [i.e. his text, without δῆλον] is manifestly the parent of all the other readings, which are futile attempts to smooth away its difficulty. A primitive corruption must lurk somewhere,”—and then ventures on the awkward suggestion that ΟΤΙ arose from the transcriptional repetition of the last syllable of κοσμον (ΟΝ being read as ΟΤΙ), a guess which we observe that Dr. Westcott does not care to vouch for (Notes, p. 134). But why create a difficulty at all? Cod. B, which ends in Heb. ix. 14, is now lost to us, and of the rest δῆλον is omitted in א*AFG and [pg 396] its Latin version g with copies of the Vulgate referred to by Lachmann, the Bohairic (καί for ὅτι), Sahidic; the Armenian and both Ethiopic varying with the Bohairic. Instead of δῆλον D*, m, fuld., Cyprian and the Gothic have ἀληθές, and the printed Vulgate with its codices (even f) and Ambrosiaster haud dubium, which will suit δῆλον well enough, as will ܘܕܝܥܐ (or ܐܥܝܕܘ) (et notum est) of the Syriac versions. For δῆλον itself stand א**D** (hiat E) KLP, all the cursives save one, and of the Fathers Basil, Macarius, Chrysostom, Euthalius, Theodoret, and John Damascene, evidence which we should have liked to see a little stronger.
43. Philem. 12. For ὃν ἀνέπεμψα; σὺ δὲ αὐτόν, τουτέστι τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα, προσλαβοῦ of the Received text, the critics, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles (but not his margin), Bp. Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort read ὃν ἀνέπεμψά σοι, αὐτόν, τουτέστι τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα, omitting προσλαβοῦ, which they judge to have been interpolated from ver. 17. Tregelles and Bp. Lightfoot, moreover, put a full stop after σοι, so that αὐτόν is regarded as an “accusative suspended; the sentence changes its form and loses itself in a number of dependent clauses; and the main point is not resumed till ver. 17 προσλαβοῦ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐμέ, the grammar having been meanwhile dislocated.” So Lightfoot, who vindicates the emphatic place he has assigned to αὐτόν by the not very close parallels John ix. 21, 23; Eph. i. 22. Manuscripts, of course, will not help us much in punctuation, but Codd. א*A, 17 are very good witnesses for σοι in the room of σὺ δέ and for the omission of προσλαβοῦ, a simple, although somewhat rude, construction well worthy of attention. For σοι, with or without σὺ δέ following, we have the additional support of C*DE, d e and g against its own Greek, the Clementine Vulgate and such Vulgate codices as demid. harl.2**, the Peshitto Syriac, Bohairic, Armenian, Ethiopic, &c. For the omission of προσλαβοῦ, which is of course the chief variation, besides א*A, 17 are cited F and G in the Greek but not in their Latin versions, 37 and others setting it before αὐτόν. It is found in all the rest, D**E**KLP, all other cursives, and (as might have been anticipated) the versions, as well Latin as Syriac, Bohairic (which reads as Cod. 37), Gothic, and Ethiopic: g, the Armenian and Theodoret put it after αὐτόν.