The Revision Revised Part 33

(11) Next, the ANONYMOUS AUTHOR claims notice [A.D. 430], whose composition is found in the Appendix to the works of Athanasius. See above, page 475.

(12) You will be anxious to see your friend EUTHALIUS, BISHOP OF SULCA, duly recognized in this enumeration. He comes next. [A.D. 458.] The discussion concerning him will be found above, at page 459 to page 461.

(13) MACEDONIUS II, PATRIARCH OF CP. [A.D. 496] must of necessity be mentioned here, as I have very fully explained at page 470 to page 474.

(14) To the VIth century belongs the GEORGIAN Version, as already noted at page 454.

(15) And hither is to be referred the testimony of SEVERUS, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH [A.D. 512], which has been already particularly set down at page 458.

(16) To the VIIth century [A.D. 616] belongs the HARKLEIAN (or PHILOXENIAN) Version; concerning which, see above, page 450. "That Te??

was the reading of the ma.n.u.scripts from which this Version was made, is put beyond reach of doubt by the fact that in twelve of the other places where e?s?e?a occurs,(1089) the words ?????? ???? (or ???? ??????) ('_beauty-of-fear_') are found _without_ the addition of ???? (or ????) ('G.o.d'). It is noteworthy, that on the thirteenth occasion (1 Tim. ii. 2), where the Peschito reads '_fear of_ G.o.d,' the Harkleian reads '_fear_'

only. On the other hand, the Harkleian margin of Acts iii. 12 expressly states that e?s??a is the Greek equivalent of ?????? ???? (or ????

??????) ('_beauty-of-fear_'). This effectually establishes the fact that the author of the Harkleian recension found Te?? in his Greek ma.n.u.script of 1 Tim. iii. 16."(1090)

(17) In the VIIIth century, JOHN DAMASCENE [A.D. 730] pre-eminently claims attention. He is _twice_ a witness for Te?? ?fa?e????, as was explained at page 457.

(18) Next to be mentioned is EPIPHANIUS, DEACON OF CATANA; whose memorable testimony at the 2nd Nicene Council [A.D. 787] has been set down above, at page 475. And then,

(19) THEODORUS STUDITA of CP. [A.D. 790],-concerning whom, see above, at pages 475-6.

(20), (21) _and_ (22). To the IXth century belong the three remaining uncial codices, which alike witness to Te?? ?fa?e???? ?? sa???:-viz. the "COD. MOSQUENSIS" (K); the "COD. ANGELICUS" (L); and the "COD.

PORPHYRIa.n.u.s" (P).

(23) The SLAVONIC VERSION belongs to the same century, and exhibits the same reading.

(24) Hither also may be referred several ancient SCHOLIA which all witness to Te?? ?fa?e???? ?? sa???, as I explained at page 476.

(25) To the Xth century belongs c.u.mENIUS [A.D. 990], who is also a witness on the same side. See page 476.

(26) To the XIth century, THEOPHYLACT [A.D. 1077], who bears express testimony to the same reading. See page 476.

(27) To the XIIth century, EUTHYMIUS [A.D. 1116], who closes the list with his approving verdict. See page 476.

And thus we reach a period when there awaits us a ma.s.s of testimony which transports us back (_per saltum_) to the Church's palmiest days; testimony, which rightly understood, is absolutely decisive of the point now under discussion. I allude to the testimony of EVERY KNOWN COPY OF S.

PAUL'S EPISTLES except the three, or four, already specified, viz. D of S.

Paul; ?, 17, and perhaps 73. A few words on this last head of Evidence may not be without the grace of novelty even to yourself. They are supplementary to what has already been offered on the same subject from page 443 to page 446.

The copies of S. Paul's Epistles (in cursive writing) supposed to exist in European libraries,-not including those in the monasteries of Greece and the Levant,(1091)-amount to at least 302.(1092) Out of this number, 2 are fabulous:(1093)-1 has been destroyed by fire:(1094)-and 6 have strayed into unknown localities.(1095) Add, that 37 (for various reasons) are said not to contain the verse in question;(1096) while of 2, I have been hitherto unsuccessful in obtaining any account:(1097)-and it will be seen that the sum of the available cursive copies of S. Paul's Epistles is exactly 254.

Now, that 2 of these 254 cursive copies (viz. Paul 17 and 73)-exhibit ??,-you have been so eager (at pp. 71-2 of your pamphlet) to establish, that I am unwilling to do more than refer you back to pages 443, -4, -5, where a few words have been already offered in reply. Permit me, however, to submit to your consideration, as a set-off against those _two copies_ of S. Paul's Epistles which read ??,-the following _two-hundred and fifty-two copies_ which read Te??.(1098) To speak with perfect accuracy,-4 of these (252) exhibit ? Te?? ?fa?e????;(1099)-1, ?? Te??;(1100)-and 247, Te?? absolutely. The numbers follow:-

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 16. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 52. 55. 56. 57. 59. 62. 63. 65. 67. 68. 69.

70. 71. 72. 74. 75. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 90. 91.

92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107.

108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 120. 121. 122. 123. 125.

126. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141.

142. 143. 144. 145. 149. 150. 151. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 164.

165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180.

182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 188. 189. 190. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198.

199. 200. 201. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 211. 212. 213. 215. 216. 217.

218.(1101) 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231.

232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246.

247. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 255. 256. 257. 258. 260. 262. 264. 265. 266.

267. 268. 269. 270. 272. 273. 274. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281.

282.(1102) 283. 285. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298.

299. 300. 301.

Behold then the provision which THE AUTHOR of Scripture has made for the effectual conservation in its integrity of this portion of His written Word! Upwards of eighteen hundred years have run their course since the HOLY GHOST by His servant, Paul, rehea.r.s.ed the "mystery of G.o.dliness;"

declaring _this_ to be the great foundation-fact,-namely, that "G.o.d WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH." And lo, out of _two hundred and fifty-four_ copies of S. Paul's Epistles no less than _two hundred and fifty-two_ are discovered to have preserved that expression. Such "Consent" amounts to _Unanimity_; and, (as I explained at pp. 454-5,) unanimity in this subject-matter, is conclusive.

The copies of which we speak, (you are requested to observe,) were produced in every part of ancient Christendom,-being derived in every instance from copies older than themselves; which again were transcripts of copies older still. They have since found their way, without design or contrivance, into the libraries of every country of Europe,-where, for hundreds of years they have been jealously guarded. And,-(I repeat the question already hazarded at pp. 445-6, and now respectfully propose it to _you_, my lord Bishop; requesting you at your convenience to favour me publicly with an answer;)-For what conceivable reason can this mult.i.tude of witnesses be supposed to have entered into a wicked conspiracy to deceive mankind?

True, that no miracle has guarded the sacred Text in this, or in any other place. On the other hand, for the last 150 years, Unbelief has been carping resolutely at this grand proclamation of the Divinity of CHRIST,-in order to prove that not this, but some other thing, it must have been, which the Apostle wrote. And yet (as I have fully shown) the result of all the evidence procurable is to establish that the Apostle must be held to have written no other thing but _this_.

To the overwhelming evidence thus furnished by 252 out of 254 cursive _Copies_ of S. Paul's Epistles,-is to be added the evidence supplied by the _Lectionaries_. It has been already explained (viz. at pp. 477-8) that out of 32 copies of the "Apostolus," 29 concur in witnessing to Te??. I have just (May 7th) heard of another in the Vatican.(1103) To these 30, should be added the 3 Liturgical codices referred to at pp. 448 and 474, _note_ 1. Now this is emphatically the voice of _ancient Ecclesiastical Tradition_. The numerical result of our entire enquiry, proves therefore to be briefly this:-

(I.) In 1 TIMOTHY iii. 16, the reading Te?? ?fa?e???? ?? sa???, is witnessed to by 289 Ma.n.u.sCRIPTS:(1104)-by 3 VERSIONS:(1105)-by upwards of 20 Greek FATHERS.(1106)

(II) The reading ? (in place of Te??) is supported by a single MS. (D):-by 5 ancient VERSIONS:(1107)-by 2 late Greek FATHERS.(1108)

(III.) The reading ?? (also in place of Te??) is countenanced by 6 Ma.n.u.sCRIPTS in all (?, Paul 17, 73: Apost. 12, 85, 86):-by _only one_ VERSION for certain (viz. the Gothic(1109)):-_not for certain by a single Greek_ FATHER.(1110)

I will not repeat the remarks I made before on a general survey of the evidence in favour of ?? ?fa?e????: but I must request you to refer back to those remarks, now that we have reached the end of the entire discussion. They extend from the middle of p. 483 to the bottom of p. 485.

The unhappy Logic which, on a survey of what goes before, can first persuade itself, and then seek to persuade others, that Te?? is a "_plain and clear error_;" and that there is "_decidedly preponderating evidence_," in favour of reading ?? in 1 Timothy iii. 16;-must needs be of a sort with which I neither have, nor desire to have, any acquaintance. I commend the case between you and myself to the judgment of Mankind; and trust you are able to await the common verdict with the same serene confidence as I am.

Will you excuse me if I venture, in the homely vernacular, to a.s.sure you that in your present contention you "have not a leg to stand upon"?

"Moreover" (to quote from your own pamphlet [p. 76],) "_this case is of great importance as an example_." You made deliberate choice of it in order to convict me of error. I have accepted your challenge, you see. Let the present, by all means, be regarded by the public as a trial-place,-a test of our respective methods, yours and mine. I cheerfully abide the issue,

(p) INTERNAL EVIDENCE _for reading_ Te?? ?fa?e???? _in_ 1 Tim. iii. 16, _absolutely overwhelming_.

In all that precedes, I have abstained from pleading the _probabilities_ of the case; and for a sufficient reason. Men's notions of what is "probable" are observed to differ so seriously. "Facile intelligitur"

(says Wetstein) "lectiones ?? et Te?? esse interpretamenta p.r.o.nominis ?: sed nec ? nec ?? posse esse interpretamentum vocis Te??." Now, I should have thought that the exact reverse is as clear as the day. _What_ more obvious than that _TS_, by exhibiting indistinctly either of its delicate horizontal strokes, (and they were often so traced as to be scarcely discernible,(1111)) would become mistaken for ?S? What more natural again than that the masculine relative should be forced into agreement with its neuter antecedent? Why, _the thing has actually happened_ at Coloss. i.

27; where ?S ?st? ???st?? has been altered into ?, only because ?st?????

is the antecedent. But waiving this, the internal evidence in favour of Te?? must surely be admitted to be overwhelming, by all save one determined that the reading _shall be_ ?? or ?. I trust we are at least agreed that the maxim "_proclivi lectioni praestat ardua_," does not enunciate so foolish a proposition as that in choosing between two or more conflicting readings, we are to prefer _that_ one which has the feeblest external attestation,-provided it be but in itself almost unintelligible?

And yet, in the present instance,-How (give me leave to ask) will you translate? To those who acquiesce in the notion that the ??a ?st?????

t?? e?see?a? means our SAVIOUR CHRIST Himself, (consider Coloss. i. 27,) it is obvious to translate "_who_:" yet how harsh, or rather how intolerable is this! I should have thought that there could be no real doubt that "_the mystery_" here spoken of must needs be that complex exhibition of Divine condescension which the Apostle proceeds to rehea.r.s.e in outline: and of which the essence is that it was very and eternal G.o.d who was the subject of the transaction. Those who see this, and yet adopt the reading ??, are obliged to refer it to the remote antecedent Te??.

_You_ do not advocate this view: neither do I. For reasons of their own, Alford(1112) and Lightfoot(1113) both translate "_who_."

Tregelles (who always shows to least advantage when a point of taste or scholarship is under discussion) proposes to render:-

"He who was manifested in the flesh, (he who) was justified in the spirit, (he who) was seen by angels, (he who) was preached among Gentiles, (he who) was believed on in the world, (he who) was received up in glory."(1114)

I question if his motion will find _a seconder_. You yourself lay it down magisterially that ?? "is _not emphatic_ ('He who,' &c.): nor, by a _constructio ad sensum_, is it the relative to ?st?????; but is a relative to an _omitted_ though easily recognized antecedent, viz.