ically restored, and has been published by Tischendorf, who has also given us a beautiful facsimile of this passage. This MS. had been regarded as authority for Deós till Wetstein questioned its reading. He says: "C, I think, has os; for the slender line which converts O into is not apparent,1 and the other line, drawn over the letters C as a sign of contraction for Deós, and which elsewhere is drawn evenly over them, is so made, with a more heavy and unskilful stroke, that it seems to betray a different hand." 2 This supposed inelegance, other critics, as Woide and Less, failed to discover; but Griesbach, in his notice of this MS.,3 ably and satisfactorily defends the opinion of Wetstein. Since the ancient text has been restored, and the transverse stroke of the brought to light, Tischendorf has found fresh reason to believe that the relative was the original reading. His facsimile seems to confirm this opinion. He even goes so far as to assign the change to his second corrector, relying on the character of the strokes and the color of the ink. Tregelles confirms the reading of Tischendorf.5 Codex D, or Claromontanus, dates from the seventh or eighth century, and was written by a Latin librarius. It contains the Greek and Latin texts in parallel columns. At present it reads Deós, but it has been conclusively proved by Griesbach, and is now generally admitted, that the original reading was o. The change was made by erasing enough of the original O to convert it into C and then. prefixing a , which could be readily done, as the word happens to begin the line. The will then, of course, 'The transverse line was not visible till the writing had been chemically restored. * Wetstein's Nov. Test. in 1 Tim. iii. 16. Symbol. Crit., Vol. I. pp. viii-xxv. 6 Symbol. Crit., Vol. II. pp. xliv, lvi – lxxvii. The same explanation of this alteration is given by Le Clerc in his Epist. de Ed. Nov. Test. Millii, prefixed to Küster's edition of Mill (1708). protrude beyond the regular commencement of the line, while in shape it is more circular than the same letter as drawn by the original scribe, and the C has the general outlines of the O out of which it was made. This MS., is the only one known which has o, and a reading so unique is no doubt referable to the Latin scribe, who accommodated the relative to his Latin text, which has quod. Tischendorf has also edited this MS, and says: "It is most certain that the first hand wrote O, and the third C."1 The MSS., designated as F and G, Augiensis and Boernerianus, of about the ninth century, agree in reading ös. They closely resemble each other, and seem to be copies of the same exemplar. Scrivener has given, in his edition of F, a photograph of this passage, which shows that he is right in saying, "as most expressly."2 A facsimile of this passage as found in G is given by Matthaei.3 J and K, Moscow MSS. of the ninth or tenth century, have θεός. All the cursive MSS. agree in reading Deós, with the exception of 17 (33 of the Gospels, called sometimes "the Queen of the Cursives "), 73, and 181. Reviewing the testimony of the MSS., we find that all which are older than the ninth century, either probably or certainly, have a relative, and that relative, with one exception, ős, while all of a later date, but three, read Deós. In point of antiquity, the great preponderance is for ős, in point of numbers, for deós. II. ANCIENT VERSIONS. Next in value to the MSS. as a means of determining the true state of the sacred text, stand the Ancient Versions. With remarkable unanimity all which possess any critical value reject the reading Deós. The only question is, which relative do they favor, os or a? The difference between them is so slight as not to affect the sense, if the mystery be referred personally to Christ, as the passage was understood by many of the early Fathers. It may be translated indifferently, as in the versions: "Great is the Mystery of Godliness," i.e. "Christ, who or which was manifested in the flesh." The Old Latin Version gives us: Et manifeste magnum est pietatis sacramentum, quod manifestatum est in carne, justificatum est in spiritu. Many have held here that quod implies necessarily the neuter relative %. But we see no valid reason why ős may not have been translated by the neuter quod, in more strict grammatical conformity with its supposed antecedent, since μvorýpiov and sacramentum were understood by the translator to be a title of Christ. At any rate, on such a minute point we must refer back to the MSS. which strongly oppose ő. Versions are hardly competent witnesses for the distinction of gender. Jerome, in his revised version, retains the exact words of the Old Latin just quoted. Henderson refuses to receive the reading of the Vulgate as any authority for that of Jerome, notwithstanding he also reads Qui manifestatus est in his Commentary on Isaiah, till it can be proved that his revision extended to this part of the Old Version.1 In answer we would say that there are in this very verse two variations between the Vulgate and the Old Latin as pub lished by Labatier. Jerome's version, in more strict accordance with the Greek, omits hoc before mundo, and reads assumptus for absumptus. Nearly or quite equal in value to the Latin Versions are the Syriac. The old Peschito translates this passage, ??110 ¡mon 41; 12ubi la 11?1 on 03 Aaljsjso o, “And truly great is the mystery of godliness, which [or who] was manifested in the flesh, and was manifested in the Spirit." Here the relative refers to hil. Henderson endeavors to show that may be a conjunction, and the 1 Henderson's Defence of the Mystery of Godliness, p. 29, or Biblical Repository, Vol. II. p. 17. passage be translated, "Great is the mystery of godliness, that he," i.e. God, referring to the clause "house of God" in the fifteenth verse, was manifested in the flesh," 2 a most improbable supposition. The Philoxenian Version, made A.D. 508, is generally remarkable for its servile adherence to the Greek. Its trans lation reads: 20jos? HI? oa) 1; AL;02 ¿❤00 1,21? IGD) ALM?. "And confessedly great is the mystery of the good fear of God, who [or which] was manifested in the flesh." The only question which can be raised here is whether "the good fear of God" is to be regarded as a compound expression equivalent to evoéßeia. White, who edited this version, so regards it, and translates the whole clause simply by pietatis. It is remarkable, however, that this is the only case in which evoéßea is translated by IGD) Alm? 20jso, good fear of God; its usual equivalent being simply 20, good fear. The addition of lol, God, seems then to favor deós, while the use of the relative favors ős. In 1 Tim. ii. 10, the same full form, good fear of God, occurs as the translation of Deoσéßeua, and it would seem probable that the translator either found that reading in the present passage, or, which is more probable, was aware that both ős and Deos were current, and endeavored to combine them both in his translation. Mar Xenayas, under whose auspices this version was made, was one of the leaders in the Monophysite controversy, and no doubt acquainted with the charge made against Macedonius of corrupting this passage. In the margin of this version is added on, ille, which White thinks was meant to be inserted before?, as a fuller form of the relative, but without rendering its gender any clearer. But this seems too trivial an alteration even for the Philoxenian Version, and we conjecture that it 1 White's Philox. Version, 1 Tim. iii. 16; also note, p. 338. was intended to take the place of lol, God, in which case the margin would favor os. If we are not mistaken, no reliance can be placed on this version in support of either reading. The Aethiopic Version belongs probably to the fourth or fifth century. As printed in the London Polyglot, the passage reads: ኧስ : ዐቢይ ፡ ዘአጮኑ፡ አስጮ መከረ፡ በጽድቅ ፡ ዘአስተርአP : ስሠጋ: ሰብሽ “ Since great is the mystery of truth, which [or who] appeared in the flesh of The word here used to translate μvorýptov is of the masculine gender, so that nothing can be gathered from this version to decide between os and ő. Lawrence asserts that both the Peshito and the Aethiopic indisputably favor ō, and not ős. He says: "If ős be the reading, it is evident that the following clauses of the verse cannot be grammatically connected by a copulative, but that the passage must be translated as the Unitarians translate it. He who was manifested in the flesh was justified,' etc., but in all the versions alluded to the subsequent clauses are grammatically connected by a copulative." It does not seem to have occurred to Lawrence that it might be translated, the mystery of godliness who, or he who, was manifested in the flesh, [and who] was justified, etc. Augustine 2 and many others, quoting this passage, refer the mystery personally to Christ. In Platt's edition of the Aethiopic Version we have the remarkable variation, VNP: HN.: HÀNTCAP: NW?: We “Great is he who was seen in the flesh of man." can hardly help believing that this is a variation peculiar to the single MS. which Mr. Platt used in editing the epistles. It certainly is not founded on the Greek. But the variation serves, at least, to discredit Henderson's statement, that the relative H may be regarded as a conjunction, like ? in 1 Remarks on Griesb. Classif., p. 79. 2 Sermon 204. |