« FöregåendeFortsätt »
the Syriac, and quod in the Latin, for in this shorter form of the verse, H is preceded only by the demonstrative T.H.
The Coptic or Memphitic Version, which has been referred to the third century, as edited by both Wilkins and Boeti cher, translates τὸ μυστήριον by ΠΙ MYCTHPION, and for the relative gives us ØH ET, i.e. ille qui.
In the Thebaic Version, which is perhaps even more ancient, the form is almost identical with the Memphitic. Both certainly have the relative, but do not distinguish its gender.
The Gothic Version, of the fourth century, translates μvoτýpov by the feminine substantive runa, and connects with it the masculine relative saci, which seems to require ös rather than %. The adjective mikils, great, is also masculine, though connected with the feminine runa, the mystery being referred personally to Christ, and the gender of mikils being determined by the idea rather than the grammatical form of the noun with which it is connected
The Armenian Version, belonging to the fifth century, plainly has a relative.
The various Arabic Versions are all too modern to possess any critical authority, unless an exception be made in favor of a MS. version preserved in the Vatican. With the exception of the Arabic of the Polyglot they all have a relative.
The Slavonic and Georgian, which are of even less weight than the Arabic, are said to favor deós.
It will, then, be seen that all the versions made previous to the sixth century have the relative, and that, with the apparent exception of the Gothic, they leave its gender in doubt, a point which can be decided only by the Greek MSS. As these afford but very slight support to o,—only a single copy having this reading, and then probably arising from grammatical accommodation to the Latin which is written beside it, the versions may confidently be adduced as unanimously supporting ős.
AUTHORITY OF THE FATHERS.
Our third source of evidence is the authority of the Fathers. All their citations which have any bearing upon our text we will endeavor to give from minute personal examination of the original authorities, omitting, however, those Latin Fathers who did not also use the Greek, and who are therefore authority only for the Old Latin or the Vulgate Version. It is to be premised that it is difficult always to discover the original text of the Fathers, especially in quotations of scripture, because scribes, and too often editors, have altered these quotations so as to make them correspond with their own copies of the scriptures. Accordingly we may rely with more confidence on the comments connected with our text than on the words in which we now find it quoted. The mere citation of this passage with the reading deós is no sure sign that such was the real reading of an author, for the temptation to change ős to deos has been very strong, while, as all the later MSS. have Deos, and this also seems the more orthodox reading, there has been since the sixth century no such tendency to alter Deós to os. This being the case, a citation of this passage with the reading ős almost certainly has not been altered, while with the reading deós it may have suffered corruption. This principle may be expressed in more general terms: when of two earlier readings one has at a later period become universal, the writings of the early Fathers may in all honesty of intention be so altered as to accord with the received reading, but not with the obsolete one. In accordance with this rule, a citation with the reading os has more probably not been altered than with the reading θεός.
Again, the passage may be alluded to in such a way as to indicate what was the author's reading, although not formally quoted. If we read that "the mystery of godli ness was manifested in the flesh," we may be sure that the writer's copy of the scriptures contained only a relative
between μυστήριον and ἐφανερώθη. On the other hand, if an author frequently allude to this passage, persistently connecting Deos with some form of pavepów, we may be sure that he read this passage as in the Textus Receptus, while if he generally connects épavepan with such subjects as κύριος, υἱός, Χριστός, and σωτήρ, instead of θεός, it is a probable proof that Deos was not in his copy, although the presumption is much weakened if such subjects are connected with the subsequent predicates. Thus, little can be gathered from Origen's remark: "My Saviour is said to have been received up into glory."
It may be added of Latin translations of Greek Fathers that they are especially worthy of confidence, as correctly expressing the original, in cases where they show a variation from the Vulgate.
The following Fathers clearly support ős:
1. Epiphanius. A.D. 368. Ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι.1 This passage is found in a long quotation from the Ancoratus of Epiphanius, taken by him into his Panarium. The two passages have been generally quoted as independent authorities, and correctly so, as Epiphanius himself transferred these sections from one work to the other. In the Ancoratus, as we now have it, ős is omitted,2 a remarkable omission if the reading had been Deos.
2. Theodorus of Mopsuestia. A.D. 407.
α. Ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνέυματι· δεδικαι· ὥσθαι ἐν πνέυματι λέγων ἀυτὸν εἶτε ὡς, κ. τ. λ. "Who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit; saying that he was justified in the spirit either because, etc."
b. Consonantia et apostolus dicit, et manifeste magnum est
1 Panarium, Tom. I. p. 894 (Coloniae, 1682). A single MS. of little note is said to read us for ds, viz. the Cod. Rhedig. of the fifteenth century, noted by Ochler in his edition of the Panarium, Vol. I. Part I. p. 157.
Ancor. 69, Tom. I. p. 894.
De Incarn. ap. Leont. Hieros. Fragm. 21. Maii Script. Vet. Vat. Coll., Tom. VI. p. 308. The same passage translated into Latin by Fr. Turrianus may be found in Basnage's Thesaurus, Tom. I. p. 588.
pietatis mysterium, qui manifestatus est in carne, justificatus in spiritu.1 "And agreeably with this the apostle says: 'And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit.'" Note here, that this old translation from the Greek varies from the Vulgate in having mysterium for sacramentum, and qui manifestatus instead of the neuter form, and therefore no doubt correctly represents the original of Theodorus.
Less decisive in its present form is the following:
c. Christum justificatum et immaculatum factum virtute Sancti Spiritus, sicut beatus Paulus modo quidem dicit quod justificatus est in spiritu.2 "Christ was justified and made spotless by the agency of the Holy Spirit, as Paul says, in one place, that he was justified by the spirit," etc.
d. In another place Theodorus speaks of Christ as not needing to be "justified by the Spirit," if the proper Godhead dwelt in him; 3 a comment hardly appropriate had he read θεὸς . . . . ἐδικαιώθη ἐν.
3. Cyril of Alexandria. A.D. 412. This author has been quoted at times as favoring Deós, but it may be abundantly proved that his real reading is ős. He several times quotes this passage.
α. Πλανᾶσθε μὴ εἰδότες τὰς γραφάς, μήτε μὴν τῆς εὐσεβείας τὸ μέγα μυστήριον, τουτ' έστι Χριστόν, ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη, κ. τ. λ. Εἴη γὰρ ἂν οὐχ ἕτερον οἶμαι τι τὸ τῆς εὐσεyàp âv tò βείας μυστήριον, ἢ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν ὁ ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγος, ὃς ἐφανερún év σapki. Bis. "Ye err, not knowing the scriptures, ώθη σαρκί. nor indeed the great mystery of godliness, that is, Christ, who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, etc. ; for the mystery of godliness could be nothing else, I think, than the Word of God the Father sent to us, who was mani
1 De Incarn., Lib. XIII., ap. Concil. Constant. II., Mansi, Tom. IX. col. 221. Henderson calls both Theodorus and Epiphanius Diaconus "Latin Fathers," pp. 35, 64.
'Ad Baptizandos, Mansi, Tom. IX. col. 218.
* Ibid., col. 206.
De Incarn. Unig. Dial. VIII. (ed. Aubert), Tom. V. Part 1. pp. 680, 681;
also, in nearly the same words, De Recta Fide, Tom. V. Part. 11. p. 6.
VOL. XXII. No. 85.
fested in the flesh." This explanation necessarily requires the reading ős, for if deós takes its place, the mystery is evidently the great doctrine of redemption through the God-man, and not the person of the Word of God.
b. ^Ος ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι· κατ ̓ οὐδένα γὰρ τρόπον ταῖς ἡμετέραις ἀσθενείαις ἥλω.1 "Who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit; for in no way was he overcome by our infirmities." The same passage exists in a Latin translation by Marius Mercator, A.D. 418, in the following form: Divinus Paulus magnum quidem sit esse Mysterium pietatis, et vere res ita se habet. Manifestatus est enim in carne, cum sit Deus Verbum; justificatus est autem in spiritu, nullo enim modo nostris. videtur infirmitatibus contineri."2 This quotation of the Greek form by Oecumenius has been universally but erroneously supposed to refer to the citation quoted below from the Twelve Anathematisms; but Oecumenius distinctly states that it was taken from the twelfth chapter of the Scholia; the very place where we find it in Mercator's translation.
c. Καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, κ. τ. λ. Here θεός has been foisted into the text, as is shown by the comment upon the passage. Cyril is engaged in upholding the divinity of Christ, and without dwelling on the word deós, as he indubitably would, if he had employed that reading, he adds, Ei Deòs ŵv ó Xóyos ἐνανθρωπῆσαι λέγοιτο (notice that ὁ λόγος, and not θεός, is made the subject). "If the Word, being God,5 be said to have become incarnate, and this without dropping his
' Schol. de Incarn. Unig., Cap. 12, ap. Oecum. Comm. in 1 Tim. iii. 16 (Par., 1631), Tom. II. p. 227.
2 Cyril, Tom. V. Part 1. p. 785, also Mar. Merc. (ed. Migne), col. 1013.
8 Occumenius introduces the quotation with the words Ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις Κύριλλος ἐν τῷ δωδεκάτῳ κεφαλαίῳ τῶν Σχολίων φησίν· ὅς ἐφανερώθη, κ. τ. λ. This is frequently quoted in the margin of MSS.
De Recta Fide, Tom. V. Part 11. p. 153.
This expression, Deds wv d Xóyos, is quite common with Cyril; cf. Id. pp. 72 A, 94 D.