Readings of 1 TIм. III. 16. 121 and the relative. But it has been shewn by Professor Stuart,* that this is by no means an unparalleled construction. Very few, however, of the defenders of the reading is admit this translation. They regard the clause ös ipavsgwen not as the subject of the subsequent predicates, idinaon, pen, &c., but as coordinate with them. Their translation would be: "Great is the mystery of godliness; he who was manifested in the flesh, [he who] was justified in the spirit, [he who] was seen of angels," &c. In favour of the reading is is the fact that it requires but a single step to obtain from it the other readings Θεός, o, or ὡς. The addition of two short strokes converts ös into 9ɛós. On the other hand, the omission of a single letter gives us ő, a form evidently derived from ős, and adopted merely as a supposed grammatical correction. If we suppose, however, that 90s was the original reading, we must first obtain is from it, and then obtain by altering this alteration. Caeteris paribus, that form is to be preferred from which the others are most easily explained. Again, as is at first sight the more difficult reading, and as such has the preference. The form is seems harsh, while 9ós is very easy. Copyists are liable to alter a harsh form for an easier one. At the same time is gives a good sense, even without resorting to the opinion defended by Conybeare and Howson, and by others, that Paul here quotes a fragment from a hymn of the early church, as in other places in his pastoral epistles. In accordance with this idea the verse would read: "And without controversy, great is the mystery of godli ness. 'He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, 'Believed on in the world, received up into glory.'" The omission of the article before 9sós, although it is the subject of the sentence, is another suspicious circumstance mentioned by Professor Stuart. He found, out of two hundred and fifty-seven cases in the New Testament in which sós is used as the subject of the sentence, only four cases in which it * Biblical Repository, vol. ii. pp. 70-72. Matthaei, whom Henderson thinks the most learned man who ever edited the New Testament, says of the notion that rò parigali, would be the only form grammatically allowable if we reject 9sós: "If we were speaking of a Greek author, I should have nothing to say against it; but Paul wrote this, who in another passage, in immediate connection with τὸ μυστήριον τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον, has νυνὶ δὲ ἐφανερώθη, which is no sort of Greek."-Note on 1 Tim. iii. 16. fails to take the article, and so strong is the tendency to insert it, that in three of these cases an examination of the authorities collected by Tischendorf will shew that important MSS. exhibit the article. It is, however, noticeable that these four cases all occur, like our passage now under discussion, in the writings of Paul. It is a further argument in favour of os that Paul has in other cases similarly connected vorngrov with some form of the verb pavegów. In Col. i. 26, 27, he has rò vorÁgiov Tò ȧTоxengupμένον ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν, νυνὶ δὲ ἐφανερώθη τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ, οἷς ἠθέλησαν ὁ θεὸς γνωρίσαι τὶς ὁ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης τοῦ μυστηρίου τούτου ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ὅς ἐστι Χρίστος ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης. Here μυστήριον is not only followed by ἐφανερώθη, but a little later τοῦ μυστήριου is followed by ὅς ἐστι Χρίστος, which shews that μυστήριον may be applied personally to Christ, and followed by the masculine relative, unless the gender is here due to attraction. In Rom. xvi. 25, 26, Paul again connects vorgio with pavegów: κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν μυστηρίου χρόνοις αἰωνίοις σεσιγημένου, φανερωθέντος δὲ νῦν, x. 5. λ. In favour of ő, has sometimes been adduced the argument that ɛó; seems to be an alteration made for the purpose of its use in polemic theology, as giving the orthodox an additional text to use against the Arians and other heretics. But there seems to have been no intentional corruption of this sort, for we cannot see that there was any distinction between the orthodox and the heretics in their use of the passage. Some defenders of the deity of Christ favour one, and some the other reading. Both Gregory of Nyssa in the East, and Didymus at Alexandria, simultaneously exhibit 9ós, the former using it as freely as if it were the universally received reading; while, on the other hand, the multifarious polemical writings of Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, and Epiphanius nowhere contain this passage, except that the latter quotes it to prove the divinity of the Holy Ghost. If we descend to a later period, we shall find that in the fifth and sixth century the reading is would be likely to be looked on with suspicion as favouring the heresies of Nestorians. It would not be regarded as the orthodox reading, for it distinguishes most clearly between the divine and the human natures: God is not confounded with the flesh, but said to have been manifested in it. It was only after a long controversy that the Eastern and North African churches settled to a general opposition to the doctrine of the single nature of Christ. The conflict waged so bitterly by Cyril and his supporters against Nestorius and Theodoret had the effect of leading Readings of 1 TIM. III. 16. 423 his successors into the opposite Monophysite heresy. For a season there was scarcely any middle ground allowed between the Nestorians and the Eutychians. All who opposed the blind and intolerant zeal of the Monophysites were branded by them as Nestorians. The whole Eastern church seemed falling into this extreme. At this time it will be seen that those who regarded themselves as the orthodox party, and the devoted followers of Cyril, would have looked with great suspicion on the reading "God was manifested in the flesh," a reading so apparently opposed to their Monophysite rendering of John's text: "The Word was made flesh." Accordingly we find that Liberatus distinctly speaks of the reading with 9ós as Nestorian and heretical. If there had been at an earlier time a temptation to the orthodox to alter is to 96, the temptation was now equally strong to change 96s to . Editors of the New Testament have, according to their different principles of criticism or means of information, varied in their reading of this passage. In favour of 9sós may be mentioned Stephens, Mill, Matthaei, Scholz, and others of less note; Griesbach, Lachman, Tischendorf, and Tregelles prefer ös, while Wetstein's choice seems to fav our ő. We do not propose to balance against each other the various arguments for either reading, with the purpose of defending one or the other. It has been our aim simply to give a more complete, accurate, and impartial statement of the facts in the case than has heretofore been accessible, that each one who studies them may have all the materials necessary for the satisfaction of his own judgment, and that something may thus be done for perfecting the purity of the original text of the Scriptures. It is gratifying to discover that none of the early Christian writers, whether called orthodox or heretic by the general councils of the church, have ventured to tamper with the sacred text. Epiphanius, Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory Nazianzen, all active opponents of Arianism, either read s distinctly, or else do not quote the passage, although it would seem that with the reading 9e6s it might have been used with effect against their opponents. On the other hand, when, a century later, 965 seemed the less orthodox reading, we find Theodorus and Nestorius, though treated as heretics, employing the relative. Again the tide has turned, and 96s has been called the more orthodox reading, and the identical alteration for which the Constantinopoli tan bishop was deposed as a heretic has of late years been charged upon the defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity as an orthodox trick. There is no proof on either side of any intentional corruption of the sacred text. German Theological Literature. 425 X.-GERMAN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. Théologische Studien und Kritiken. Jahrgang 1865. Zweites Heft. We lament to state that the death of Dr Ullmann, principal editor of this important theological journal, is announced in the present number. He died on the 12th of January, after a lengthened illness, which could not, however, prevent him from undertaking the editorial care of this number, which was his latest literary labour. Nearly thirty-eight years before, he had joined with his beloved friend and colleague, Umbreit, in founding the journal, and during all these years he had continued to take a principal share in its management. Umbreit died five years ago, and soon after the event a beautiful sketch of his life and labours from Ullmann's pen appeared in the work which they had both loved so much and fostered so long. A similar duty of affectionate and admiring remembrance will be done in an early number for the memory of a man than whom scarcely any theologian in Germany was more admired and loved. We had the privilege of making his personal acquaintance in Heidelberg the same year that Neander died, and we well remember the terms of loving veneration in which he referred to his illustrious friend. He was a Christian of the same type, and a theologian of the same school as Neander, both of them disciples in early life of Schleiermacher, and both of them eminent examples of what has often been remarked, that many of Schleiermacher's disciples became much sounder divines than himself, though still, it may be, coming far short of the fulness of dogmatic truth. The present number of the Studien contains two elaborate papers of great value. One of these is a strictly scientific review, by Professor Weiss of Kiel, of Dr Schenkel of Heidelberg's Characterbild Jesu-a work which has lately excited a considerable sensation in the south of Germany on account of the concessions which it makes to the views of Strauss and Renan. Schenkel is at the head of the radical rationalistic party in the Duchy of Baden; he is a man of undoubted power; he is the most eloquent German lecturer we ever heard in a university chair; but, unhappily, his great influence with the masses of his countrymen is all used on the side of a dissolution both of faith and discipline. Professor Weiss applies a searching scrutiny to the book, which is one every way fitted, both by its style and contents, to do great mischief among a people already largely leavened with the spirit of unbelief. He tries it by the double test of the manner in which it makes use of the Gospel sources, and the mode and spirit in which it interprets and constructs the history which the sources contain; and in both respects he pronounces upon it a severe condemnation, viewed as a work put forth with high pretensions to scientific truth and accuracy. Dr Weiss has himself written much upon the historical criticism of the gospels, and is quite at home on this field. His verdict comes substantially to this, that Dr Schenkel has more of the party spirit and dexterity of an ecclesiastical agitator than of the impartiality and thoroughness of a historical critic. Neither his critical nor his historical method comes up to the requirements of science. His character of Christ' is only the expression of his individual theological views, which he has here sought, not without violence, to reconcile with the evangelical sources." Still more valuable, and of real importance as a fresh contribution to the literature of a fundamental question of the apostolic age, is an essay by Professor Beyschlag on the Christ-party in the Church of Corinth. The substance of this extremely able and satisfactory paper was printed three years |