and that it is in some respects the most valuable of them all : but we must forbear. And now it is not necessary to say much about the doctrinal conclusions, drawn by our author from the writings which he examines. His book is intended to be a great buttress of the Broad-Church or negative-theology school, by demonstrating that the first Christians were not particular about doctrine. For this purpose it is utterly useless. There is not a sentence in the writings of Clement, Barnabas, Polycarp, or Papias, which our author examines, that might not with perfect consistency have been written by the most determined stickler for orthodoxy; while the Pastor of Hermas is so allegorical that either nothing can be made of it, or anything may be made of it. It is quite true that the writings contain no dogmatic statement, for that were inconsistent with their character. But if it be inferred from this that the writers of them did not believe or firmly hold orthodox doctrines, we venture to say that the inference were most unwarrantable. The result of a careful perusal of this volume is sore disappointment. A man of Mr Donaldson's scholarship, and extensive reading, might have produced a valuable book on the patristic writings and the patristic theology. But we are compelled to say that he has not done so; and we say it with sincere regret. We are not afraid that his book will do any harm; but we have no hope that it will do any good. Θ. Σ. ART. IX.-An Examination of the Various Readings of 1 TIM. iii. 16. BY REV. WILLIAM WARD, UTICA, N.Y.* Καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ· INSTEA NSTEAD of 986, in this passage many editors read i̇s, and some writers have defended ő. The latter reading may at once be dismissed as untenable, not being supported by any such authority as either of the others, and being plainly a grammatical variation, introduced for the purpose of relieving an apparent impropriety in the gender of . The question then rests between ős and 986s. Having endeavoured carefully to investigate all the authorities for either reading, as far as they are accessible to us, we propose to give the result of this *From the Bibliotheca Sacra for January 1865. Readings of 1 TIM. III. 16. 387 labour in such a form that the reader can easily decide for himself between the two readings. While Sós in this passage supports the divinity of Christ, this is not a doctrine which rests on any single text. If the result of criticism could be proved adverse to this reading, it would not affect our general faith. God does not leave such an important doctrine as the Trinity to depend on so few and feeble arguments, that a single proof-text more or less makes any appreciable difference in our belief. We have perfect confidence in the principles of our faith, and look with no feelings of concern upon investigations of the purity of the Scripture text. Even with the reading os, some of the early Fathers, as will be seen, deduced from this passage the divinity of Christ, and Dr S. Clarke truly says of this passage, that "the same is evident; that that person was manifest in the flesh, whom John in the beginning of his gospel styles Iɛós, God.” * I. MANUSCRIPTS. The authority of this source of evidence in identifying the original text is paramount to all others. Although they are not, of course, accessible in this country, yet accurate copies of all the older MSS. have been published, and in the case of doubtful readings they have been carefully and repeatedly examined by the most competent critics. A collection of their researches will be as satisfactory as any personal examination, especially as we have in the case of the older MSS. ( and D excepted) the advantage of good facsimiles, or even photographs, of this passage. The Codex Sinaiticus, distinguished as &, and belonging to the fourth century, clearly reads as a prima manu. Tischendorf says: "A prima ös ipavegún. Another corrector, the latest of all who have altered this MS., of nearly the twelfth century, has substituted 9sós, but so carefully has he done it, that he has left the more ancient writing untouched."+ This seems to leave the reading of this most ancient MS. in no kind of doubt. Would that we could say as much for some of the others. The Alexandrian MS., which is marked as Codex A, and belongs probably to the fifth century, has been referred to as authority by the advocates of either reading. The form OC, as it now appears, is the ordinary contraction for 9sós, but it has evidently been altered or retouched at quite a late period.‡ The heavy black line above the letters and the point within the are palpably modern, and at present there is no trace * Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, by Samuel Clarke, D.D. (3d ed., 1732), p. 89. Not. Codicis Sinaitici, p. 20. Perhaps by Patricius Junius, Curator of the Royal Library in the time of Charles I. See Wetstein's Nov. Test., vol. i., Proleg. pp. 20, 21, also Wotton's Clement, cap. 6, pp. 26, 27. visible of either line as drawn by the original scribe, if such were the case. It is true that the superior line is so heavy that it would conceal any earlier one, but the mark within the consists of a simple dot within the circle, instead of a diametrical line extending across the ; and it might be supposed that if a transverse line were originally present, some faint remains of it might yet be discovered on either side of the central point; but such is not the case. It is said, however. that this line, if originally present, might now be completely worn away, although faintly seen a century or two ago. Indeed, the passage has been so repeatedly examined that this page has become somewhat defaced.* It has accordingly been the practice of the defenders of the reading ós to refer the whole question to the authority of the earlier critics who have examined our text. But even they speak of the old line as being exceedingly faint, although most of them assert that traces of it were visible. It is to be noted, however, that neither Patricius Junius nor Mr Huish, who collated this MS. for Walton's Polyglot, makes any definite assertion in reference to this passage. In fact Huish, whose negative authority has been much relied on, in no case notices the reading of the original scribe where it differs from that of the corrector. The earliest distinct notice which we find of the reading of A is by Mill, who says, in his critical edition, published AD 1707, This transverse line of which I speak is so faint and evanescent, that at first sight I did not doubt that it was written 8, which I therefore had placed among the various readings, but afterwards, having more carefully examined the passage (perlustrato attentius loco), I found some marks and remains sufficiently distinct (satis certa) of the line which at first had escaped my examination, especially towards the left side, where it touches the circumference of the letter." † In Next after Mill we find that the passage was examined by Wetstein, in the year 1716 or 1717, in order to discover what Mill had supposed. himself to see, "perlustrato attentius loco," but he failed to find any traces of the more ancient lines. 1718, Henry Wotton seems to have found the transverse lines quite plain compared with the previous experience of Mill and Wetstein. He says: "In this MS., without doubt, was always read eos pavegen, as will readily be discovered by any one who inspects it quite carefully [accuratioribus oculis].” § * Griesb. Symbol. Crit., vol. i. p x. Others say that the passage itself has not been defaced, only that part of the page being affected where the hand has rested while holding the microscope. The facsimile given by Porter seems to confirm the statement. Mill's Nov. Test., in 1 Tim. iii. 16. Readings of 1 TIм. III. 16. 389 About twenty years later, Rev. J. Berriman made a careful examination of this passage, with several of his friends; the result of which was published in 1741. He says: I have several times carefully examined this manuscript myself, and though I could never perceive any part of the old transverse line by the naked eye (nor others who were with me, whose eyes were better than mine), yet by the aid of a glass and the advantage of the sun shining on the book, I could see some part of the old line toward the left hand of the new stroke within the circle of the , and the same was seen by two gentlemen who viewed it at the same time; one of whom also could discern some remainder of the old line towards the right hand, as well as the other towards the left." It will be seen that the transverse stroke was so faint that it could be only seen on the most minute examination, and then only with a microscope, the leaf being held in the sunlight. It was left for Wetstein, in the year 1746, to explain the faint appearance of this line. His discovery may best be given in his own words. He says: "I asked an old friend to take me into the Royal Library, and when he had done it, and carefully examined this passage in the Alexandrian MS., not only with the naked eye, but with various kinds of glasses, he pronounced that it had originally been written in no other way than OC; but when I sought towards the left for the line of Mill and Berriman, I found it indeed, but when I wished to shew it to my friend, I could not, because it had vanished; and when the line alternately appeared and again disappeared, and I was not a little perplexed by the phantasm, my friend, with his peculiar penetration, immediately suggested the cause, and shewed that the line was not written on the page where it is read ös ipavegwon, but on the other side of the leaf, where is written nar' EUGEßeíαv (1 Tim. vi. 3), and that it formed a part of the first letter of the word reßeíav. For when the book was εὐσεβείαν. laid on the table, as often as the leaf which we were considering was so placed on the following leaves that it should touch. and cover the whole of the next leaf, the line could not be seen, because the parchment was opaque; but as soon as the leaf was so raised and separated from the following leaves that both sides should be shone upon, not only was this line seen through the translucent parchment, but even whole letters and words."t This explanation of Wetstein, that the supposed faint transverse line was only the sagitta of the seen through the thin vellum, is probably the true one. Woide, the learned editor of this Codex, endeavoured in his Prolegomena to throw discredit * Berriman's Works, vol. v. pp. 155, 156. upon it; but it has been defended by Tischendorf, Porter,t Tregelles, and more lately by Ellicott,§ so satisfactorily that there seems but little room to doubt its correctness. It is astonishing how many errors Dr Henderson has compressed into the single page which he devotes to the Alexandrian MS. He says: "This proof (of its reading 965) is furnished by the unimpeachable testimony of Junius, Huish, Mill, Wotton, Croyk, Berriman, Ridley, Hewitt, and Pilkington, who carefully and minutely inspected the passage before it became illegible, and found the genuine transverse line in the . To these names may be added those of Walton, Tell, Bently, and Grabe, all of whom had access to this MS. at an earlier period, and who concur in its exhibiting OC and not OC. The evidence thus elicited was attempted to be set aside by Wetstein, who on first examining the MS. was able to discover no stroke, and conjectured that what Mill had taken for it was merely the line of an E in the word ETTEBEIAN on the opposite side of the leaf, which made its appearance through the vellum; but on inspecting the more minutely afterwards, he found that the fine stroke which was originally in the body of the letter was discoverable at each end of the fuller stroke, with which some corrector had retouched it."|| Here are almost as many errors as assertions. We will examine his statements in order. 1. Junius nowhere makes the slightest reference to this passage. Cod. Rescr. (ed. Tischendorf), p. xlii. † Principles of Text. Critic., p. 487. Printed Text of Griesh. Nov. Test., p. 228. ? Commentary on 1 Tim. iii. 16; also note on p. 100. This note seems most satisfactory, especially as coming from so sound a critic. His experiment consists of having the leaf held in the light, so that the edge of an instrument held on the obverse side of the leaf, exactly over the sagitta of the e, can be seen through the leaf by an observer looking at the suspected letter. In opposition to Woide, he finds that this sagitta exactly corresponds with the supposed transverse line of the e. Scrivener asserts, however, in his Introduction to the Criticism of the New Test. (1859), p. 453, that Ellicott's experiment is too delicate to be reliable. It is remarkable that neither Tregelles, nor Scrivener, who has examined this passage "twenty times within as many years" (p. 453), has noticed Prof. Porter's statement that a pinhole, made by some one at the extremity of the sagitta, falls exactly upon the supposed transverse line. One could hardly suppose that a pinhole sufficiently distinct to be pointed out, as Prof. Porter says, to Sir F. Madden, keeper of the MSS. in the Museum, could have become worn out by the lapse of time. We may add that Prof. Porsou spent two days examining this passage, and was satisfied that the original read ing of A was %s. See Porson's Tracts, p. 290. As an offset to the suspicion of Woide, that some critics, like Wetstein, may have failed to see the transverse line because they did not wish to do so, may be placed the testimony of Hempelius, who affirmed that the reading was certainly ös, although, as he informed Woide, he had expected and desired to read 9's Vide Spohr's Woide's Proleg., p. 181. || Biblical Repository, vol. ii. p. 82. |