1 Timothy 3:16 what is the correct reading? God or he/who/which
In 1 Timothy 3:16 should it read God was manifest in the flesh or he/who was manifest in the flesh?
In the KJV we find the reading God
1 Timothy 3:16 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. KJV
However, most modern versions read either he or who.
Some of the versions that read he are the NIV and ESV
1 Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. NIV
1 Timothy 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. ESV
The LSV reads who
1 Timothy 3:16 and confessedly, great is the secret of piety: who was revealed in flesh, declared righteous in [the] Spirit, seen by messengers, preached among nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory! LSV
The NASB has He who
1 Timothy 3:16 Beyond question, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory. NASB
None of the major versions read “which”.
So, what is the correct reading here?
First off, we need to understand this is not simply an issue of interpretation. This is a textual criticism issue.
The Greek reading that underlies the KJV is not the same Greek reading that underlies the modern versions. They are based on two different readings here.
The Greek that underlies the KJV is Theos (God), the Greek that underlies most of the modern versions is Hos (who) although as seen hardly any actually translate Hos as who but rather they use he. This will be looked at in depth shortly.
Most modern scholarship asserts that God (theos) is not the original word here and that it was added later by scribes.
We must also understand that this is NOT just a KJV only thing
Nearly every single English translation that preceded the KJV read God, excluding the Wycliffe Bible. The Wycliffe Bible reads “that thing”
Wycliffe Bible
And opynli it is a greet sacrament of pitee, that thing that was schewid in fleisch, it is iustified in spirit, it apperid to aungels, it is prechid to hethene men, it is bileuyd in the world, it is takun vp in glorie.
Tyndale 1531
And with out naye great is that mistery of godlines: God was shewed in the flesshe was iustified in the sprete was sene of angels was preached vnto the gentyls was beleved on in erth and receaved vp in glory.
Coverdale 1535
and without naye, greate is that mystery of godlynes. God was shewed in the flesh: was iustified in the sprete: was sene of angels: was preached vnto the Heythen: was beleued on in the worlde: was receaued vp in glory.
Matthews Bible 1537
And wythout naye greate is that mysterye of godlynes: God was shewed in þe fleshe, was iustified in the spirite, was sene of aungels, was preached vnto the gentils, was beleued on in earth and receyued vp in glory.
The Great Bible 1539
And without doute great is that mystery of godlynes: God was shewed in the flesshe, was iustifyed in the sprete, was sene amonge the Angels, was preached vnto the gentyls, was beleued on in the worlde, and receaued vp in glory.
The Geneva Bible 1560
And without controuersie, great is the mysterie of godlinesse, which is, God is manifested in the flesh, iustified in the Spirit, seene of Angels, preached vnto the Gentiles, beleeued on in the world, and receiued vp in glorie.
The Bishops Bible 1568
And without doubt, great is that misterie of godlynesse: God was shewed in the flesshe, was iustified in the spirite, was seene among the angels, was preached vnto the gentiles, was beleued on in the worlde, and was receaued vp in glorie.
While most modern versions do not read God in this verse, there are some modern versions that do. There are at least 30 versions that post date the KJV that read God in this verse.
The more well known of these would be John Wesley’s translation , Darby Bible, the NKJV, the amplified Bible and Youngs literal translation.
There are a number of more obscure lesser known modern versions that read God here, such as, but not only, The World English Bible 2000, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, Jubilee Bible 2010, The Modern English Version 2014 and The Modern Literal Version 2014
The modern Greek also reads God.
Having seen that this is not just a KJV issue but also that the majority of modern versions, including the most popular ones, do not read “God” but “he”, we need to look at the evidence for each of the readings.
The reading God is the reading of the 16th Century Complutensian Polyglot, Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza.
Any claim that the KJV translators inserted God is simply false. While they clearly do use God, they most certainly didn;t insert it as it was already in The Greek Textus receptus and other Greek translations long before the KJV was produced.
The Latin Vulgate reads “which”
et manifeste magnum est pietatis sacramentum quod manifestatum est in carne iustificatum est in spiritu apparuit angelis praedicatum est gentibus creditum est in mundo adsumptum est in gloria
And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels, hath been preached unto the Gentiles, is believed in the world, is taken up in glory.
The evidence
There are many claims made about the evidence for the reading as found in the modern versions and that of the reading found in the KJV. Many of those claims are simply erroneous and with a little study are demonstrably so.
Manuscript Evidence
When it comes to the Greek evidence a claim that is sometimes made is that only some Greek manuscripts contain the reading God. This is simply factually incorrect.
We can see this claim made on the Biblical Unitarian website.
“Although the above verse in the NIV does not support the Trinity, there are some Greek manuscripts that read, “God appeared in the flesh.” This reading of some Greek manuscripts has passed into some English versions, and the King James Version is one of them.”
1 Timothy 3:16 – A Verse Used to Support the Trinity | BiblicalUnitarian.com
When it comes to Greek manuscript evidence, the reading God actually has the vast majority of support. There are approximately 300 Greek manuscripts that contain this verse. The majority of these manuscripts, 254 of them, read Theos. While certainly not in any way totally unanimous, the number of Greek manuscripts is very strongly in favour of God being the original reading.
We must also make note that Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and manuscripts C and D all have a correction and now read God (theos).
Here then are some of the manuscripts that do read God (as listed in the NA/UBS)
אc Ac Cc Dc K L P Ψ 075 0150 6 81 104 181 263 326 330 424 436 451 459 614 629 630 1241 1319 1573 1739 1852 1877 1881 1912 1962 1984 1985 2200 2492 2495 Byz Lectmss slav Gregory Chrysostom Theodoret Euthalius Theodore of Mopsuestia
As we can also see, the manuscript evidence has early attestation and is diverse, so along with the numerical support the weight of manuscript evidence for Theos is also good.
In reality there are at least 570 minuscule manuscripts from all text types that read Theos in this verse.
1 3 5 6 18 35 38 42 43 51 57 61 62 76 81 82 90 93 94 97 102 103 104 105 110 122 131 133 141 142 149 172 175 177 181 189 201 203 204 205 206 209 216 218 221 223 226 228 234 250 252 254 263 296 302 308 309 312 314 319 321 322 323 325 326 327 328 330 336 337 356 363 367 378 383 384 385 386 390 393 394 398 400 404 421 424 425 429 431 432 436 440 444 451 452 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 462 465 466 467 468 469 479 489 491 496 498 506 517 522 547 567 582 592 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 612 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 622 623 625 627 628 629 630 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 641 642 644 664 665 676 680 699 757 794 796 801 808 823 824 858 876 886 891 901 909 910 911 912 913 914 918 919 920 921 922 927 928 935 941 945 959 996 997 999 1003 1022 1040 1058 1069 1070 1072 1075 1094 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1115 1127 1149 1161 1162 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1270 1277 1292 1297 1311 1315 1319 1352 1354 1359 1360 1367 1384 1390 1398 1400 1404 1405 1409 1424 1425 1448 1456 1482 1490 1495 1501 1503 1505 1508 1509 1521 1548 1573 1594 1595 1597 1598 1599 1609 1610 1611 1617 1618 1622 1626 1628 1636 1637 1642 1643 1646 1649 1652 1661 1673 1678 1702 1704 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1757 1759 1760 1761 1763 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1780 1795 1798 1827 1828 1830 1831 1832 1836 1837 1839 1840 1841 1843 1845 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1879 1880 1881 1882 1886 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1896 1897 1899 1900 1902 1903 1905 1906 1907 1908 1910 1911 1912 1914 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1927 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1939 1941 1945 1946 1947 1948 1950 1951 1952 1954 1955 1956 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1976 1977 1978 1980 1981 1982 1984 1985 1986 1987 1991 1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2003 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2011 2012 2080 2085 2086 2102 2105 2110 2125 2131 2138 2143 2147 2175 2180 2183 2189 2191 2194 2197 2200 2201 2208 2218 2221 2248 2255 2257 2261 2279 2298 2310 2318 2344 2356 2374 2378 2400 2401 2404 2412 2431 2466 2475 2482 2483 2484 2492 2494 2495 2501 2502 2508 2511 2516 2523 2527 2541 2544 2554 2558 2576 2587 2625 2626 2627 2629 2652 2653 2659 2674 2675 2690 2691 2696 2704 2705 2712 2718 2723 2736 2739 2746 2772 2774 2777 2815 2816 2817 2865 2886 2889 2892 2899 2909 2918 2936
(variations)
ο θεος εφανερωθη (the God was manifested) – 88
ος θεος εφανερωθη (the God who was manifested) – 256 ℓ597
ο̅ς ( This is the reading ος with the line over the top) it reads neither who or God as it is a clear error. – F G (9th Century)
Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and C originals all read “who” (ὃς) while D read “which” (ὃ).
THE NA/UBS text cite Aleph, A and C as witnesses for ὃς and D as a witness for ὃ
Obviously none of these manuscripts, including Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus support the reading “HE” as found in the NIV, ESV and NASB (to name a few).
It also needs to be noted that Hos is a masculine relative pronoun and there is nothing grammatically that it points to. The grammar here does not align.
Manuscript evidence for ὃς as in the NA/UBS sources.
ος εφανερωθη (he who was manifested) – א* A* C* F G 33 365 442 1175 2127 ℓ60 ℓ599 syr goth eth Origenlat Didymus Epiphanius Jerome Cyril Liberatus
There is no reading from Vaticanus as this manuscript does not contain 1 Timothy.
We must now examine the reading of some of these manuscripts that are used as evidence for the reading ὃς .
We shall start with codex Alexandrinus. It is almost certain that the original reading of (A) Alexandrinus was actually θς (theos) and not ὃς “hos”
θς or ὃς
Many Greek manuscripts used nomina sacra (the abbreviation of certain divine names or titles).
__
The nomina sacra for God is θς, (from here on will be referred to as θς) which is the abbreviation of θEOΣ theos. However, without the line above the θς and the line within the θ as so it just looks like an O this becomes the Greek word ὃς which simply means “who” in the Masculine singular . It is then, here that we find the difference between the readings. The vast majority of manuscripts include the lines and a few manuscripts do not contain them.
It is possible for θς to become ὃς by the removal of the line above and within the O, either through a scribal error or simple wear and tear.
When it comes to Alexandrinus the historical attestation regarding this manuscript would suggest that up until at least 1765 the reading was indeed theos in nomina sacra form, θς, but this has since become ὃς.
below is an image of Codex Alexandrinus from the CSNTM wesbsite.
Dean Burgon, in his book, “the Revision Revised”, gave a detailed list of those who attested to the original reading of A being θς.
That Patrick Young, the first custodian and collator of the codex (1628-1652) read θς is certain, young communicated the ‘various readings’ of A to Abp. Ussher:- and the latter, prior to 1653, communicated them to Hammond, who clearly knew nothing of . It is plain that the reading θς was the reading seen by Huish- when he sent his collation of the Codex (made, according to Bentley, with great exactness,) to Brian Walton, who published his fifth volume of his polyglot in 1657. _Bp. Pearson, who was very curious in such matters, says “ we find not… in any copy” – a sufficient proof of how he read the place in 1659. – Bp. Fell, who published an edition of the N.T in 1675 certainly considered θς the reading of Cod.A.- Mill, who was at work on the Text of the N.T from 1677 to 1707, expressly declares that he saw the remains of θς in this place. Bentley, who had himself collated the MS, with the utmost accuracy knew nothing of any other reading. – Emphatic testimony on the subject is borne by Wotton in 1718:- “There can be no doubt” (he says) “ that this MS always exhibited θς. Of this, any one may easily convince himself who will be at pains to examine the place with attention.” – Two years earlier ,– (we have it on the testimony of Mr. John Creyk, of S. John’s Coll. Cambridge, ) – “the old line in the letter θ was plainly to be seen” – It was “muchabout the same time” also, (viz. About 1716) that Westein acknowledged to the Rev.John Kippax- “who took it down in writing from his own mouth, – that though the middle stroke of the θ has been evidently retouched, yet the fine stroke which was originally in the body of the θ is discoverable at each end of the fuller stroke of the corrector. “ – And Berriman himself, (who delivered a course of Lectures on the true reading of 1 Tim iii.16 in 1737-9,) attests emphatically that he had seen it also. “If therefore” he adds, “at any time hereafter the old line should become altogether undiscoverable there will never be just cause to doubt that the genuine, and original reading of the MS was θς : and that the new strokes, added at the top and in the middle by the corrector were not designed to corrupt or falsify, but to preserve and perpetuate the true reading, which was in danger of being lost by the decay of time.” – Those memorable words (which I respectfully commend to your notice) were written in Ad.1741.
Dean Burgon The Revision Revised pages 432-433
In fact it may even have still been visible in the 19th Century and seen by Scrivener:
The sum of the matter, (as I pointed out to you on a former occasion,) is this,- That it is too late by 150 years to contend on the negative side of the question. Nay, a famous, living critic ( long may he live) assures us that when his eyes were 20 years younger (Feb 7, 1861) he actually discerned, still lingering, a faint trace of the diameter of the O”.which Barriman in 1741 had seen so plainly. “I have examined Codex A at least twenty times within as many years” Wrote Prebendary Scriviner in 1874) “and…seeing (as everyone must) with my own eyes, I have always felt convinced that it reads θς.
The Revision Revised Page 435
So it would seem that the original reading in Alexandrinus has changed over time from God to who, not through scribal error or deliberate change, but rather through the simple loss of the lines through general decay.
Similarly codex C is also attested to have read θς
George Sayles Bishop regarding Codex C —
“Soon after 1885 I went to Europe where I spent nearly three weeks in studying this text, 1 Tim iii:16 on the great uncials “C” and “A”. Through the kindness of Mr. Albert Le Faivre, Minister Plenipotentiary from France to the United States, I had the Codex “C” for one week under my hands to study the membrane with lenses and under full sunshine. The parchment was also held up by an attendant in front of the great window so that the light could fall through the palimpsest page. I have compared the THEOS of line 14 on folio 119, the one in dispute, with every other THEOS on the page and, OUT OF THE FIVE, I FIND IT THE PLAINEST ONE THERE. All five are written with two letters – OY, OY, OC, OY, OW Two of the five only have the line, the mark of contraction, above. Only one of the two, THE PLAINEST, is the only one they deny. THREE OF THE FIVE ONLY HAVE THE HAIR MARK IN THE THETA – ONE OF THESE THREE IS THE ONE THEY DENY. To put it more plainly – the question is, Is it OC “who” or is it OC with a line over the two letters and a mark in the O, God? IT IS BEYOND QUESTION THE LATTER. My eyes are as good as any man’s.”
Sheol, The Principle and Tendency
Burgon himself stated that the earlier attestation to the reading of Codex C was that of θς before the manuscript had become undecipherable at this point.
Woide, Mill, Weber and Parquoi being just as confident that the original reading was θς. As in the case of codex A, it is too late by full 100 years to re-open this question.”
The Revision Revised Page 437
We now need to examine the reading ὃς. It would seem that this reading creates problems within the grammar and so is very unlikely to be the original reading.
In an article by Scott Jones examining the manuscript evidence for the original reading of 1 Timothy 3:16, he states:
“Furthermore, the scant few manuscripts missing the horizontal lines creates a SEVERE grammatical problem, for the Greek word OΣ (without the horizontal lines, which means “who”) is a masculine relative pronoun that ends up modifying a NEUTER noun – in this case the noun “mystery.” Significantly, this is not only HORRIBLE GREEK GRAMMAR, but the resulting clause ends up containing A PREDICATE WITHOUT A SUBJECT — I say, the RESULTING CLAUSE ENDS UP CONTAINING A PREDICATE WITHOUT A SUBJECT — which is of course ABSURD”
He also states that it is only modern scholars who do not notice how absurd the reading actually is.
“Naturally, the only people who don’t understand how ABSURD this grammatical error is are Anglo-bible scholars and modern version translators who can’t speak Greek, whereas native Greeks who are fluent in English and who can actually speak their own mother tongue of Greek, unlike Anglo-bible scholars and modern version translators who pawn themselves off as experts in a language they can’t even speak, testify just how utterly ABSURD this grammatical solecism is, a solecism that is so severe that not even a fledgling Greek schoolboy would commit it. See Definition Of Monogenes and Indictment Of Ignorance for just two short examples of the linguistic ignorance of Anglo-bible scholars and modern version translators.”
In fact, the reading ὃ (which) was understood by Bruce Metzger to have been a scribal correction of the reading ὅς (who) because of the Greek grammar and the problem that the reading ὅς causes.
“since the neuter relative pronoun ὅ must have arisen as a scribal correction of ὅς (to bring the relative into concord with μυστήριον)”.
- Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (573). London; New York: United Bible Societies.
Nick Sayers points out that this is an acknowledgment of a Greek solecism. He states:
“Notice that this is first of all an acknowledgment of the Greek solecism. The lack of any sensible concord for the hanging masculine relative pronoun. And a de facto acknowledgment of a feeble text (ie. not inspired by God) taken in by the hortians. And the blunder ὅς in the Metzger economy was immediately being corrected by scribes in the 1st and 2nd centuries … in time for all the versional translations. (Then the ὃ was some how reverting back to ὅς being more common, yet both are ultra-minority.)”
1 Timothy 3:16 – Textus Receptus (textus-receptus.com)
Scott Jones further points out that the reading “he”, which does not appear in any of the manuscript evidence, is created out of thin air by necessity in order to change the syntax of the verse in order to make up for the absurdity of the reading “who” .
“And yet, most modern bibles have followed this preposterous error in 1 Timothy 3:16 by rendering the word as WHO instead of GOD. The resulting GRAMMATICAL ABSURDITY forced these modern bibles to either fabricate the word “HE” out of thin air, or change the syntax around entirely in order to compensate for the utter ABSURDITY.”
When it comes to the reading in Sinaiticus (aleph) Scott Jones makes note that ultraviolet technology has shown most of the corrections in Aleph were done before the manuscript had ever left the scriptorium. He also makes note that the scribe copied his exemplar and then he, or another scribe, went back to make the changes, changing “hos” to “Theos”. He further makes note that this type of correction is more accurate than the original reading.
“Ultraviolet technology demonstrated that most of the corrections in the fifth manuscript — Aleph — ESPECIALLY those with doctrinal significance, were made before Aleph ever left the scriptorium….
…..In fact, according to ultraviolet technology, the first scribe of Aleph simply copied from his exemplars without deviation. Then, before Aleph ever left the scriptorium, the same scribe or a fellow scribe came back and went over the manuscript, correcting as many obvious errors as he determined to exist. In other words, it is most probable that Aleph’s reading of THEOS is a correction contemporary with the original hand of the manuscript itself, and a correction contemporary with the original hand of the manuscript is more accurate than the original hand.
I must point out that Burgon, however, states that the original reading of Aleph was indeed ὃς
“That Aleph reads ὃς is admitted”
The Revision revised page 437
On pages 438-443 Burgon asserts and argues at great length that the original reading of Codices F and G both read θς.
Translational witnesses.
Burgon also makes note that the Georgian version from the 6th century, the Harkleian Syriac from the 7th Century and the Slovanic from the 9th Century all read God.
He states of the reading of the Harkleian version of which he had discussed with a learned editor of that version.
“There can be no doubt that the authors of this version had either Theos or Theou before them: while there marginal note shows that they were aware of the reading ὃς.
The Revision revised Page 450
(he also addresses this on pages 489-90
On pages 451-452 Burgon argues that the Coptic and Sahidic both are witnesses for God in this verse.
On page 454 he states that the Georgian (6th Century) and Slavonic (9th Century) both support theos.
“There only remain the GEORGIAN Version which is of the VIth Century,- and the SLAVONIC, which is of the IXth. Now, both of these (Dr Malan informs me) unequivocally witness to THeos”
The Revision Revised Page 454
Here, I would just like to make note that even James White in his book the King James only controversy states that he prefers this reading in the KJV and agrees with much of what Burgon states regarding the verse.
“There is much to be said defending the KJV rendering of 1 Timothy 3:16 as “God manifest in the flesh”. In fact I prefer this reading and feel it has sufficient support in the Greek manuscripts. I can also agree with the majority of comments made on the topic long ago by Dean Burgon.
James White King James only Controversy page 261
In fact James continues on and explains how the change form Theos to Hos would likely have happened, being down to the Lines within and on top of the Nomina Sacra of Theos being unseen or misread leading to the reading Hos. (pages 262-263)
Evidence from the Patristic fathers and church writers:
Another false claim regarding the reading God can be found in regards to those who cite the passage using God.
Also on the Biblical Unitarian website:
“[“He who”] is supported by the earliest and best uncials…no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports theos; all ancient versions presuppose hos or ho [“he who” or “he”]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading theos. The reading theos arose either(a) accidentally, or (b) deliberately, either to supply a substantive for the following six verbs [the six verbs that follow in the verse], or, with less probability, to provide greater dogmatic precision [i.e., to produce a verse that more clearly supports the Trinitarian position].”
The reading God was utilised by many church fathers. While most of those do come from the 4th Century and later, we do have some that date early.
Ignatius who wrote in the late 1st Century and early 2nd century, makes at least 3 references to the reading God.
There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh;
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians chapter 7
This is a clear attestation to the reading God in 1 Timothy 3:16
“Hence every kind of magic was destroyed, and every bond of wickedness disappeared; ignorance was removed, and the old kingdom abolished, God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life.”
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians chapter 19
“On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased Him that sent Him.”
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians chapter 8
Hippolytus (late 2nd-early 3rd Century)
He now, coming forth into the world, was manifested as God in a body, coming forth too as a perfect man.
Hippolytus Against Noetus (17)
Dean Burgon also cited Gregory Thaumaturgus as having used the verse and attested to the reading God
Gregory THaumaturgus (if it really be he) seems also to refer directly to this place when he says (in a passage quoted by Photius)
The Revision Revised Page 463
“For God, having been incarnated in the flesh of man, retains also His proper energy pure, possessing a mind unsubjected by the natural and fleshly affections, and holding the flesh and the fleshly motions divinely and sinlessly, and not only unmastered by the power of death, but even destroying death.”
Gregory Thaumaturgus A Sectional Confession of Faith
Burgon cited Dionysius as support for the early usage of God.
Epistle ascribed to Dionysius of Alexandria (264 AD),
Some sites have the quotation coming from a work named Concilia in i. 858a. It would seem, however, that they have not themselves found this citation directly.
The reference of Burgon would, it appears, to come in a letter sent by Dionysius to Paul of Samosata,(who was a Heretic )
θεος γαρ εφανερωθη εν σαρκι (Except for the γαρ this is a direct quotation of 1 Timothy 3:16)
It is argued by some that this writing is not in fact by Dionysius but rather is Pseudo -Dionysius. Whether the letter is by Dionysius or not, it still remains a very early witness to the reading Theos (God)
Burgon addressed the argument against Dionysius being the author of the letter:
” But you are requested to remember that the epistle must needs have been written by somebody : that it may safely be referred to the III rd century ; and that it certainly witnesses to Theos — which is the only matter of any real importance to my argument. Its testimony is, in fact, as express and emphatic as words can make it.”
The Revision Revised page 462
The list of writers that quote this passage from the 4th Century onwards is great and clearly shows that many utilised this verse with the reading God.
Here is a list of just some:
Basil the Great (355 AD), Chrysostom (380 AD), Didymus (325 AD), Diodorus (370 AD), Gregory of Nazianzus (355 AD), Gregory of Nyssa (370 AD). “Euthalian” chapter title of I Tim. 3, attesting to “God in the flesh.”; 5th Century: Anon. citation in works of Athanasius (430 AD), Cyril of Alexandria (410 AD), Euthalius (458 AD), Macedonius 11(496 AD), Theodoret (420 AD); 6th Century: Severus, Bishop of Antioch (512 AD); 8th Century: Epiphanius of Catana (787 AD), John Damascene (730 AD), Theodorus Studita (790 AD); 10th Century: Ecumenius (990 AD); 11th Century: Theophylact (1077 AD); 12th Century: Euthymius (1116 AD).
(Copied from Brandplucked website)
I shall give just a few of the actual citations
Didymus of Alexandria often known as Didymus the Blind (c. 314 – 398)
He quotes 1 Timothy 3:16 with the word Theos, God.
Didymus’ De Trinitate (paragraph 83
Gregory of Nicea (c 335-395 AD)
According to the appearing of Jesus Christ the great God and our Saviour, and to Timothy, proclaims in plain terms, God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit…” (Against Eunomius, Book XI paragraph 2)
John Chrysostom (c. 347 – 407)
And wonder not that Paul saith in another place, “God was manifested in the Flesh“; because the manifestation took place by means of the flesh, not according to (His) Essence. Besides, Paul shows that He is invisible, not only to men, but also to the powers above, for after saying, “was manifested in the Flesh,” he adds, “was seen of angels.”
Homilies on the Gospel of John, Book XV, John 1:18:
The evidence for the original reading being θς “God”, in my opinion is not only strong but almost overwhelming when we take into the account of the attestation regarding some of the manuscripts used in support of ὃς “who) that would actually seem rather to support θς as the original. The fact also that the English renders ὃς as he and the change to the syntax of the verse in order to “force” it to align grammatically is also evidence against ὃς being the original reading.
I will update this writing as and when new information becomes available.
If you liked this study please subscribe here
You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here
Help me keep this site free for all. Join our Patreon membership
here
0 Comments