jgibson000

Here's Tishenendorf's outline of the MSS evidence followed by Metzger's and Mounce's discussion of the evidence

Jeffrey

1Ti 3:16 kai. o`mologoume,nwj me,ga evsti.n to. th/j euvsebei,aj musth,rion\ o]j evfanerw,qh evn sarki,( evdikaiw,qh evn pneu,mati( w;fqh avgge,loij( evkhru,cqh evn e;qnesin( evpisteu,qh evn ko,smw|( avnelh,mfqh evn do,xh|) Dgr*06 omologoumen wj (haec enim sticho seiuncta sunt) oj (et. Gb, sed Gb' et o[ et qeo,j) c. a*01 (nec aliter a*01 ) A*02 C*04 Fgr010 Ggr012 17.33. 73.441. 442. 181.365. (de C*04 et A*02 cf excursum meum in Prol. codicis C04 p. 39 ss) cod Liberati (vide post) sah cop aethpp syrp mg (ut ex forma relativi ampliore probarunt iam Wtst Gb; White ad h. l. vult et oj et o significari)3,16lin. 5 post significari) adde item go (cf adnot ad h. l. in ed. ga. et. loeb.) arvat Origen int 4,465 [= Origen interpretatio Latina", teils von Hieronymus, teils von Rufin, teils von einem unbekannten aber alten Schriftsteller. wie die Kommentare zu Matthäus. iob: „in Iobum homiliae".]: (legendum enim: ,sicut apostolus dicit: qui [non quia] manifestatus est in carne, iustificatus etc) Epiph 894 et2,74 Thdormop (apud Mansi 9. 221) Euther ap Thdrt5,719 (cf et. ibidem1127) Cyrfid 6 bis (nec aliter legendumfid 124) et5,680 Cyr ap Oec ad h. l. et in Scholiis codicum aliquot ut 16.91. 20.1905. 22.94. 27.1907. pag. 850, lin. 4 post 27.1907. adde item Hier (in Esaiam 53,11). Quibus de testibus paullo accuratius videndum. Liberati enim archidiaconi Carthaginiensis (circa 554.) breviarium caussae nestorianorum et Eutychianorum (quod ex Garnerio repetit Gall12, 119 ss) capite 19. quod inscribitur de Severo, Iuliano ac Macedonio, haec tradit: ,,Hoc tempore Macedonius Constantinop. episc. ab imperatore Anastasio dicitur expulsus tanquam evglia falsasset, et maxime illud apostoli dictum: Qui apparuit in carne, iustificatus est spiritu. Hunc enim immutasse, ubi habet oj, id est qui, monosyllabum Graecum, littera mutata O in Q vertisse et fecisse YC, id est deus, ut esset: Deus apparuit per carnem". Quam relationem Liberati confirmavit Hincmarus, qui opp. II, 449. cap 18. haec scripsit: ,,Quidam nimirum ipsas scripturas verbis inlicitis imposturaverunt, sicut Macedonius Const. episc., qui ab Anastasio imp. ideo a civitate expulsus legitur quoniam falsavit evglia, et illum apostoli locum ubi dicit: Quod apparuit in carne, iustificatum est in spiritu, per cognationem Graecarum litterarum O et Q hoc modo mutando falsavit: ubi enim habuit qui, hoc est OX, monosyllabum Graecum, littera mutata O in Q veret fecit QX id est ut esset: Deus apparuit in carne." Epiph 894 h; o]j evfanerw,qh evn sarki,( evdikaiw,qh evn pneu,mati) Quo loco ille de spiritu sancto. Tum demum pergit ad filium, dicens: qeo.j de. o` ui`o,j, quod probat 9, 5. aliis. In ancorato2,74 ap Dind deest o]j ante evfaner) Theodorimopss verba afferuntur in actis concilii Constant. 2 collat. 4. in excerpto 54.1909. lin. 20 ab ima pro 54.1909. lege 53.0121 (Act. conc. [Harduin] 3,84) ex Theodori libr. 13. de incarn. contr. Apollinar. ,,Qui manifestatus est in carne, iustificatus est in spiritu.lin. 18 ab ima post spiritu. adde Haec Graeca adservata ap. Leont (hier fr 21) Mai Scr. vet. nova coll. tom. 6, pars 1, p. 308 et Mign. vol. 66, col 988; cf Theod mops (fr syr 53 [86.87]) Eutherii est epist. ad Ioh. archiepisc. Antioch. ubi est l. l. ,,discens a Paulo id quod est: Qui manifestatus est carne, iustificatus est in spiritu". Denique Cyrilli loci multi sunt eum lectionis oj, non qeoj testem probant. Huiusmodi suntfid 6 plana/sqe mh. eivdo,tej ta.j grafa.j mh,te mh.n to. me,ga th/j euvsebei,aj musth,rion( toute,*sti Cristo,j( o[j evfanerw,qh sarki,( evdikaiw,qh & evn do,xh) Ibidem paullo post ei;h ga.r a'n ouvc e[teron oi=mai, ti to. th/j euvsebei,aj musth,rion h' auvto.j h`mi/n o` evk qeou/ patro.j lo,goj( o]j evfanerw,qh evn sarki, et124 substituendum pro qeo,j omnino est o[j) Subsequitur enim ti,j o` evn sarki. fanerwqei,j* h' dh/lon o[ti pa,nth te kai. pa,ntwj o` evk qeou/ patro.j lo,goj* ou[tw ga.r e;stai me,ga to. th/j euvsebei,aj musth,rion) Item cf 5,680 ubi eadem atquefid 6 leguntur. Legitur etiam ap Oec ad h. l. o` evn a`gi,oij ku,rilloj evn tw/| dwdeka,tw| kefalai,w| tw/n scoli,wn fhsi,n o]j evfanerw,qh evn sarki,( evdikaiw,qh etc. Spectantlin. 4 ab ima,,Spectant etc". Minime. Spectat ad,,Scholia de incarnat. unigentii", cf. v. cl. W. H. Wardius, Bibliotheca sacra, Andoverae a. 1865, p. 18-21. ista sine dubio ad explanationem XII capitum, quorum in secundo6,148 eadem verba leguntur, nisi quod pro o]j, quod ipsum nonnulli cdd. praebent, substitum est qeo,j. At quae subsequuntur satis probant o]j, non qeo.j, ab ipso scriptum esse. Ibi est enim: ti, ou=n evsti. to, evfanerw,qh evn sarki,* toute,sti( ge,gone sa,rx o` evk qeou/ patro.j lo,goj( ouv kata. meta,stasin & ivdi,an de. ma/llon poihsa,menoj sa,rka th.n evk th/j parqe,nou( ei=j kai. o` auvto.j crhmati,zwn ui`o,j) Ceterum eadem illa: o` evn a`gi,oij ku,rilloj etc in scholl leguntur. Denique iul 10,327 ubi Iulianus sic: ou[tw de, evste dustucei/j w[ste ouvde. toi/j tw/n avposto,lwn u`mi/n paradedome,noj evmmemenh,kate & to.n gou/n VIhsou/n ou;te Pau/loj evto,lmhsen eivpei/n qeo,n( ou;te matqai/oj ou;te louka/j ou;te ma,rkoj( avllV o` crhsto.j ivwa,nnhj) Nec Cyr in eis quae Iuliano respondet loci huius meminit; quemadmodum nec Athanasius Basilius alii in litibus Arianis eo usi sunt, qui, si qeo.j continebat, luculentissimus testis deitatisChristi debuisset proferri ...... testimoniis contra qeoj lectionem accedunt interpretes qui sive o]j sive o[ habent, syrsch et syrp txt (syrp mg vide ante) are arm aethro (utitur relativo generis nota carente). Praebent vero ipsum o], quod (id quod Latini ad o]j conformarunt proptereaque o[j lectionem confirmant) D*06 d f g vg Hil1087 Augep 199 Victoringall 8,161 Ambrst al (excepto Hier quem o]j tueri iam notavimus). Affertur et. huius lectionis testis Gelascyzicen sive Machier apud Gelas in actis concilii Nic. 2, 23: vide Harduin concil. I, 418 et mansi II, 871. apud quos et Latine quod et Graece o[ habeturpag. 851, lin. 20 post habetur adde sed codd quattuor legunt hoc loco o[j teste Berrimano, Crit. dissertat. Londinii a. 1741, p. 180.. Praeterea o]j lectioni favent Barn12 i;de pa,lin VIhsou/j ouvc o` ui`o.j avnqrw,pou avllV o` ui`o.j tou/ qeou/ tu,pw| kai. evn sarki. fanerwqei,j, Thdotclem 983 o` swth.r w;fqh katiw,n toi/j avgge,loij, Diogn11 ou- ca,rin avpe,steile lo,gon i[na ko,smw| fanh/|( o]j u`po. laou/ avtimasqei,j( dia. avposto,lwn khrucqei.j u`po. evqnw/n evpisteu,qh, Clem ap Oec ad w;fqh avgge,loij to. musth,rion meqv (male editum w' musth,rion) meqv) h`mw/n ei=don oi` a;ggeloi( to.n Cristo,n( pro,teron ouvc o`rw/ntej( ouvc w`j toi/j avnqrw,poij ou[twj o` klh,mhj evn tw/| e`bdo,mw| tw/n u`potupw,sewn, Apollinar ap Nyss (Antirrh. cap. 7 ap Gall6,522 ei=ta evpa,gei toi/j eivrhme,noij o[ti to. musth,rion evn sarki. evfanerw,qh kalw/j tou/to le,gwn ou-toj o` h`me,teroj lo,goj) Aliter ipse Nyss in eodem Antirrh. Vide post.) Basep 65 /mega,lou musthri,ou o[ti o` ku,rioj evfanerw,qh evn sarki,, Nestor ap Marium Mercatorem (p. 11. serm. 2.) to. evn th/| Mari,a| gennhe,n & evfanerw,qh ga,r( fhsi,n( evn sarki,) evdikaiw,qh evn pn) (Latine habetur apud Gall8,645), Didlat ap Gall6,301 ,,secundem quod dictum est: Manifestatur in carne" (sed vide infra) al ...... j ( = Gb, sed vide supra) qeoj (i.e. QX pro OX) cum ae01C (qui corrector est saeculi 12.) Cc04 Dc06 K018 L020 P025 al pler (37.69. o qeoj) Didtri 83 (utitur verbis Pauli ad asserendam filii divinitatem) Nysscont eunom 10 (II, 265. id ipsum agit ut demonstret Christum a Paulo deum nominatum) etantirrh ap Gall6,526. 518 (quo loco id ipsum urget o[ti avei. a;trepton o'n to. qei/on th/ ouvsi,a| kai. avnalloi,wton)) et1,663 (ou- kai. sarkwqe,ntoj h` evmfainome,nh do,xa dhloi/ o[ti qeo.j evfaner) evn sarki,( qeo.j pa,ntwj o` monogenh,j etc.) 54*

Contra quos locos vix valet si quid alibi minus clarum habetur. Grave vero est quod in oratione quam de ipsa filii deitate habuit, opp. II, 896sqq prorsus abstinuit hoc epistulae ad Tim. loco. Prbat deum illum esse inde quod dicatur qeou/ du,namij et qeou/ sofi,a (pag 903) et similiter. nec vero luculento testimonio verborum qeo.j evfanerw,qh evn sarki. utitur. Ps-Ath26 Euthalcod Thdrt ad h. l. et1,92. 4,19. 23 Damtxt (in com enim non attigit, potueritque id contra lectionis veritatem adhiberi, praesertim quum ad w;fqh avgge,loij nihil adnotet nisi verba Chrysostomi: w[ste kai. a;ggeloi meqv h`mw/n ei=don to.n ui`o.n tou/ qeou/( pro,teron ouvc o`rw/ntej) Thphyl Oec al. Dubium vero est an Chr667a verbis incorruptis ad nos venerit; certe enim cat31 repetens Chrysostomi verba ipsam vocem qeoj omittit. Confirmat tamen qeo.j lectionem homilia de S. Philogonio anno 386. habita I, 609. Videndum vero est ne locis incuriose indicatis fidamus nec testimonis per se ambiguis, probeque notandum miram obtinuisse licentiam istum Pauli locum in patrum operibus describentium. Lectioni qeo.j favere putatur Igneph 19 qeou/ (sed syrus tou uiou) avnqrwpi,nwj faneroume,nou) Sed ista, etiamsi qeou scripsit Ignatius, non ex 1 Tim 3, 16derivanda. quemadmodum in eadem epistula habetur cap. 7. evn sarki. geno,menoj qeo,j) Explicatius idem dixit Ignmagn 8 ei-j qeo,j evstin o` fanerw,saj e`auto.n dia. VIhsou/ cristou/ tou/ ui`ou/ auvtou/) nec magis lectionem qeoj probat Ignintpol in eadem ad Eph epist19 qeou wj anqrwpou fainomenou kai anqrwpou wj qeou energountoj, quo cum loco cf Ignintpol ad Smyrn5 mh. o`mologw/n auvto.n sarkofo,ron qeo,n) Item afferunt ad firmandam qeoj lectionem Constit7,26 qeo.j ku,rioj o` evpifanei.j h`mi/n evn sarki,, Hippnoet 17 ou-toj proelqw.n eivj ko,smon qeo.j evn sw,mati evfanerw,qh (ex eodem Hippps 2 affert Thdrt4,132 ou-toj o` proelqw.n eivj to.n ko,smon qeo.j kai. a;nqrwpoj evfanerw,qh) Thaum s. Apollinar ap Phot272 cod 230 kai. e;sti qeo.j avlhqino.j o` a;sarkoj evn sarki. fanerwqei,j) Quae quidem omnia veteres doctores quid deChristo deo senserint produnt, sed non de 1 Tim 3, 16. lectione testantur. Prolixe tractavit locum praeter alios Reiche in comm. critici tom. II. 367 - 389.3,16(pag. 852) lin. penult post 389 adde cf etiam Wardius, ut supra, p. 1-50. | episteuqh: F010 G012 pisteuqh | anelhmfqh cum a01 A02 C04 D*06 F010 G012 ... j anelhfqh cum Dc06 K018 L020 P025 al omnvi

*******

Metzger

3.16 o[j {A}

The reading which, on the basis of external evidence and transcriptional probability, best explains the rise of the others is o[j. It is supported by the earliest and best uncials (a* A*vid C* Ggr) as well as by 33 365 442 2127 syrhmg, pal goth ethpp Origenlat Epiphanius Jerome Theodore Eutheriusacc. to Theodoret Cyril Cyrilacc. to Ps-Oecumenius Liberatus. Furthermore, since the neuter relative pronoun o[ must have arisen as a scribal correction of o[j (to bring the relative into concord with musth,rion), the witnesses that read o[ (D* itd, g, 61. 86 vg Ambrosiaster Marius Victorinus Hilary Pelagius Augustine) also indirectly presuppose o[j as the earlier reading. The Textus Receptus reads qeo,j, with ae (this corrector is of the twelfth century) A2 C2 Dc K L P Y 81 330 614 1739 Byz Lect Gregory-Nyssa Didymus Chrysostom Theodoret Euthalius and later Fathers. Thus, no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Y) supports qeo,j; all ancient versions presuppose o[j or o[; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading qeo,j. The reading qeo,j arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of oc as ;=c=, or (b) deliberately, either to supply a substantive for the following six verbs, or, with less probability, to provide greater dogmatic precision.

Mounce
16.d. The identity of the subject of this hymn has been a topic of long discussion. Because of the theological significance of this question, discussion of this point has been reserved for the Comment except for the textual data (cf. TCGNT 2, 573–74). ὅς, “who,” has the best attestation, being read by x* A* C* F G 33 365 442 2127 sy hmg pal got aethpp and some church fathers (Orlat Epiph Jerome Theodore Eutherius [according to Theodoret] Cyr Liberatus), and refers to Jesus. It is a typical way to introduce a hymn (cf. Phil 2:6 and Col 1:15), and it is not necessary to locate an antecedent in the text.

The neuter ὅ, “which,” in the Western text probably arose as an attempted correction of the ὅς, making μυστήριον, “mystery,” the subject of the hymn. It therefore supports ὅς as the original reading. It is read by D* and almost all of the Latin tradition.

θεός, which makes God the subject of the hymn, is read by the Byzantine text and correctors (xc Ac C2 D2 Ψ). In majuscule script, ὅς is Ο῏, and the abbreviation for θεός is Θ—῏, so one could be mistaken for the other. More likely, ὅς was changed to θεός in an attempt to glorify Christ as God. It is almost inconceivable that a scribe would change θεός to a pronoun. The pronoun is also more difficult because there is no antecedent.

Metzger concludes, “Thus, no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός” (TCGNT 1, 641). See also B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, “Notes on Select Readings,” in The New Testament in the Original Greek (London: Macmillan, 1881) 132–34; Lock, xxxvi–xxxvii; W. Stenger, BZ 19 (1975) 240–47; G. D. Fee, “The Majority Text and the Original Text of the New Testament,” BT 31 (1980) 116–18; id., God’s Empowering Presence, 762 n. 30. Ellicott (49–50) was able personally to examine Alexandrinus and confirm that it clearly reads ὅς (100).

Mounce, William D.: Word Biblical Commentary : Pastoral Epistles. Dallas : Word, Incorporated, 2002 (Word Biblical Commentary 46), S. 214

mountainman

Isaac Newton on I Timothy 3:16

"In all the times of the hot and lasting Arian controversy it never came into play....they that read "God manifested in the flesh" think it one of the most obvious and pertinent texts for the business."

"The word Deity imports exercise of dominion over subordinate beings and the word God most frequently signifies Lord. Every lord is not God. The exercise of dominion in a spiritual being constitutes a God. If that dominion be real that being is the real God; if it be fictitious, a false God; if it be supreme, a supreme God." [1]

http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/newton1.html




Pete Brown

jgibson000

Could you please give the primary reference from Newton's own writings for this quote? I'd also like to see what the words omitted from the quote were.

Apt as its sentiments might be, I have grave doubts that it actually stems from Newton's pen.

More importantly, can you demonstrate that what "Newton" said about the non-use of I Tim 3:16 in the Arian controversy is true?

Jeffrey Gibson

mountainman

Here is a starting place. There are a number of articles in JSTOR,
and scattered around the net. I also believe the entire text written
by Newton is somewhere available online, but I cannot locate it at
this particular moment ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Hist...s_of_Scripture

Taken from the above page ...
There are certainly available on the net other articles written by
Isaac Newton, in the same category, these specifically dealing
with the character of Athanasius, and the Arian controversy.




Then you might be (and pleasantly, I hope) surprised.

The above wiki page mentions:

In the two hundred years and more since that treatise
was compiled by Isaac Newton, only a few minor corrections
have been necessary to the evidence he adduced.

My inclination is to suspect that scholarship
will support these (above) claims.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown
AUTHORS of ANTIQUITY
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_029.htm

jgibson000

I wrote:

Peter Brown replied:

Quoting a secondary source -- let alone quoting Wiki -- is not sort of demonstration I asked you to engage in. I wanted you, if you could, to provide primary evidence from the Church fathers -- or the "negative" evidence you found in your own search through them -- that confirms or disconfirms "Newton's" claim.

And what are these "few minor corrections" mentioned above? Do you know?

Jeffrey Gibson

judge

The whole passage is almost certainly translated into greek from Aramaic anyway.
On needs to consider the Aramaic.
The irony is that if one reads the NT in Aramaic then we don't get the trinity the way the orthodox understand it.

The great poem to Timothy

jgibson000

Almost certainly?

Is there any evidence that "Paul" wrote anything in Aramaic? Is their any tradition that he did so?

Besides that (assuming the data in Acts and 2 Timothy is correct), it is extremily likely that Timothy, having been born and raised in Lystra in Asia Minor and having had a Greek father, would have spoken or read Aramaic. Doubleday) 1997, 1992. did not speakAramaic.

Except that the text you give is not Aramaic. it's Syriac. And the particular text you quote from -- the Peshitta -- is itself based upon the Greek text of Timothy.

Your source for your text (and for your claim about the Vorlage of the passage) is far too agenda driven to be trusted.

But it is a versional witness to the text of 1 Tim 3:16 and shows that in the Syriac speaking churches 1 Tim 3:16 was not read as Steve claims it originally read.

Jeffrey

judge

Even the greek version still contain Aramaic words such as Maranatha. those who translted paul letters from aramaic to greek appear to have left this aramaic prayer/cry intact.


Yes the Church of the East has this tradition. They use the Peshitta

Sorry , can you explain again?



Syraic is a form of aramaic.

How so?

maybe, the problem is there has been no peer reviewed analysis of the claims that paul wrote in Aramaic ..or so little it is useless.

This stuff does need peer review. Who knows when it will come?

Can you explain your reasoning here?

Thank you.

judge

Here is the poem transliterated from aramaic into english.

from here

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

1 Timothy 3:16 (KJB)
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.

One of a number of Jeffrey's original unreferenced and/or inaccurate claims:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fundebate/message/16259
Re: [Fundebate] 1 Timothy 3:16 - God was manifest in the flesh
Origen (d. 254) testifies to hOS more than a century before the earliest Patristic citation of QEOS.

So a year and more later, what is the exact testimony to hOS from Origen that Jeffrey finally offers ?

Jeffrey, what type of supposed scholarship is it to post this reference for Origen?

A Professor at the University of Memphis, Mischa Hooker, has already indicated to you that he finds problems with supposed references from Origen on this very issue. He said he looked and could not find two specific references, one in the Matthew commentary and one in the Luke homily, that are given from Biblia Patristics and that are supposed to be 1 Timothy 3:16 references.

And you are never even mentioning such a rather major caveat ?
And you put known dubious stuff in bold no less ?

Amazing.

Please, let's try for honest scholarship where you don't just hide behind a cryptic reference or two that you know has been legitimately questioned.

============================

There are clearly additional problems with your simply quoting Tischendorf.

We had already started discussing the Tischendorf page..
http://rosetta.reltech.org/cgi-bin/E...NTG8v2?seq=852

The discussion can be seen at and around ..
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fundebate/message/16263

eg. Epiphianus has already been shown to you to be a skewered reference, ignoring :

Ancoratus, 69.8. "os efanerwqh en sarki"
Adversus Haereses 3.322. "qeos efanerwqh en sarki"

Why requote a flawed apparatus, when you already know of a number of flaws ? Without even mentioning the flaws and concerns.

An interesting one is 'Jerome'. Is his Vulgate translation being counted as a patristic reference as well ? Double-duty. Does the apparatus do the same when the Vulgate supports the Byzantine Text ? Hmmmm.

=======================================

ORIGEN

Now it would not be at all surprising to have a reference for two from Origen can be considered a testimony for hOS (although Hippolytus could be called a testimony for QEOS around the same time, while Dionysius (pseudo) is time unclear and the Apostolic Constitutions are viewed as a compilation of early works). Making the original claim above from Jeffrey more a spin factor than anything.

The citations bloom in the 4th century, before and around the time of our earliest manuscripts, which are usually given as the prime evidence.

The ECW citations by then are clearly predominately pro-QEOS.

This combines with the overwhelming Greek manuscript evidence, the lectionaries, the internal evidence, the huge problems with competing/clashing alternate readings and more.. and it is proper to conclude that -

"God was manifest in the flesh ...." is original.

Clearly Jeffrey is uncomfortable with this on a doctrinal level, (it supports an early high Messiahology) so he struggles hard to try to fight the historic Bible verse.

Shalom,
Steven Avery