Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: 1 Timothy 3:16

Expand Messages
  • Solomon
    To the list of ancient witnesses that do not say God was manifested at 1 Timothy 3:16 can be added the Sahidic Coptic version of the 2nd/3rd century C.E. The
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 16, 2008
      To the list of ancient witnesses that do not say "God was manifested"
      at 1 Timothy 3:16 can be added the Sahidic Coptic version of the
      2nd/3rd century C.E.

      The Coptic version has: *pai entaFouwnH ebol Hn tsarx* which means
      literally, "It was this who was manifested in the flesh."

      So obviously the Greek texts used by the ancient Coptic translators
      read "who" or "he who" rather than "God" in this verse.

      Yb,

      Solomon

      --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
      <no_reply@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > 1 Tim. 3:16 ("God [?] was manifest in the flesh")
      >
      > As this is translated in the KJV it makes Paul say that Jesus is God
      > "manifest in the flesh."
      >
      > Although the KJV translates 1 Tim. 3:16 with "God" as above, nearly
      all
      > other translations today use a word which refers, not to God, but to
      > Jesus: "he" (NIV; RSV; NRSV; JB; NJB; REB; NAB [`70]; AT; GNB; CBW;
      > and Beck's translation), "he who" (ASV; NASB; NEB; MLB; BBE;
      > Phillips; and Moffatt), "who," or "which." Even the equally old
      Douay
      > version has "which was manifested in the flesh." All the very best
      > modern NT texts by trinitarian scholars (including Westcott and
      Hort,
      > Nestle, and the text by the United Bible Societies) have the NT
      Greek
      > word oV ("who") here instead of qeoV ("God"). Why do the very best
      > trinitarian scholars support this NON-trinitarian translation of 1
      Tim.
      > 3:16?[1]
      >
      > Noted trinitarian Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:
      >
      > "A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy
      > 3:16, where `OS' (`who') was later taken for theta sigma
      > with a bar above, which stood for theos (`God'). Since the new
      > reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian,
      > at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts –
      > though the majority even of Byzantine manuscripts still preserved
      the
      > true reading." – p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed.
      > (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the
      latest
      > Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed., pp.696-698,
      > vol. 3.)
      >
      > A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible
      > Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose
      oV as
      > the original reading in their NT text for this verse:
      >
      > "it is supported by the earliest and best uncials." And, "Thus, no
      > uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the
      > eighth or ninth century supports qeoV ["God"]; all ancient versions
      > presuppose oV ["who" - masc.] or o ["which" - neut.]; and no
      patristic
      > writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [370 A.D.]
      > testifies to the reading qeoV. The reading qeoV arose either (a)
      > accidentally, through the misreading of OC as QC, or (b)
      > deliberately...." - p. 641.
      >
      > In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the
      emphasis
      > on the latter). You see, the word oV was written in the most ancient
      > manuscripts as OC ("C" being a common form for the ancient Greek
      letter
      > "S" at that time). Most often at this time the word for God (qeoV)
      was
      > written in abbreviated form as QC. However, to show that it was an
      > abbreviated form a straight line, or bar, was always drawn above
      QC. So
      > no copyist should have mistaken OC for QC, in spite of their
      > similarities, because of the prominent bar which appeared over the
      one
      > and not over the other.
      >
      > What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714.
      As he
      > was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known
      (the
      > Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the
      > word originally written there was OC but that a horizontal stroke
      from
      > one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed
      > through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not
      > qualify as an abbreviation for qeoV, of course, but Wetstein
      discovered
      > that some person at a much later date and in a different style from
      the
      > original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original
      word!
      > Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately
      > changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit QC [with bar
      > above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own
      > trinitarian views)!
      >
      > Of course, since Wetstein's day many more ancient NT manuscripts
      > have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D.
      > have been found with QC ("God") at this verse!
      >
      > Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes:
      >
      > "The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [`who'],
      > along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic
      probability,
      > have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as
      the
      > original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text]
      and
      > UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a `B' rating)
      > [also the Westcott & Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an
      > instance of the Christological [`Jesus is God'] use of qeoV." -
      > Jesus as God, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992.
      >
      > And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T.
      Robertson
      > wrote about this scripture:
      >
      > "He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). The correct text, not
      theos
      > (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative
      > [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [`mystery'] the
      > reading of Western documents." - p. 577, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in
      the
      > New Testament, Broadman Press.
      >
      > And even hyper-trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses
      the
      > relative pronoun oV (`who') in this scripture and tells us:
      >
      > "The textual variant qeoV in the place of oV has been adamantly
      defended
      > by some scholars, particularly those of the `majority text'
      > school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested,[2] but the
      > syntactical argument that `mystery' (musthrion) being a neuter
      > noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (oV) is entirely
      > without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians such
      as
      > he] as the reading qeoV may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not
      to
      > deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit
      > reference in this text." [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp.
      > 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.
      >
      > ............................................................
      >
      > 1. Some trinitarian paraphrase Bibles are even more certain and
      clear:
      >
      > "He (Christ) was shown to us in a human body" - ETRV.
      >
      > "Christ appeared in human form" - Weymouth.
      >
      > "Christ came to earth as a man" - NLV.
      >
      > "Christ, who came to earth as a man" - LB.
      >
      > "Here is the great mystery of our religion: Christ came as a
      human." -
      > CEV.
      >
      > 2. Wallace's footnote says: "In particular, it is impossible to
      explain
      > the Latin reading of a neuter R[elative] P[ronoun] as deriving from
      > qeoV, showing that oV was quite early. Not one firsthand of any
      Greek
      > witnesses [manuscripts] prior to the 8th century read qeoV."
      >
    • teddy_trueblood
      Thanks, Solomon. Is 2nd/3rd century the date of an existing manuscript? If not, what is the date of earliest manuscript of the Sahidic Coptic version which
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 16, 2008
        Thanks, Solomon.

        Is 2nd/3rd century the date of an existing manuscript? If not, what is
        the date of earliest manuscript of the Sahidic Coptic version which
        includes 1 Timothy 3:16?

        ....................................


        --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, "Solomon" <Awohili@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > To the list of ancient witnesses that do not say "God was manifested"
        > at 1 Timothy 3:16 can be added the Sahidic Coptic version of the
        > 2nd/3rd century C.E.
        >
        > The Coptic version has: *pai entaFouwnH ebol Hn tsarx* which means
        > literally, "It was this who was manifested in the flesh."
        >
        > So obviously the Greek texts used by the ancient Coptic translators
        > read "who" or "he who" rather than "God" in this verse.
        >
        > Yb,
        >
        > Solomon
        >
        > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
        > no_reply@ wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > 1 Tim. 3:16 ("God [?] was manifest in the flesh")
        > >
        > > As this is translated in the KJV it makes Paul say that Jesus is God
        > > "manifest in the flesh."
        > >
        > > Although the KJV translates 1 Tim. 3:16 with "God" as above, nearly
        > all
        > > other translations today use a word which refers, not to God, but to
        > > Jesus: "he" (NIV; RSV; NRSV; JB; NJB; REB; NAB [`70]; AT; GNB; CBW;
        > > and Beck's translation), "he who" (ASV; NASB; NEB; MLB; BBE;
        > > Phillips; and Moffatt), "who," or "which." Even the equally old
        > Douay
        > > version has "which was manifested in the flesh." All the very best
        > > modern NT texts by trinitarian scholars (including Westcott and
        > Hort,
        > > Nestle, and the text by the United Bible Societies) have the NT
        > Greek
        > > word oV ("who") here instead of qeoV ("God"). Why do the very best
        > > trinitarian scholars support this NON-trinitarian translation of 1
        > Tim.
        > > 3:16?[1]
        > >
        > > Noted trinitarian Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:
        > >
        > > "A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy
        > > 3:16, where `OS' (`who') was later taken for theta sigma
        > > with a bar above, which stood for theos (`God'). Since the new
        > > reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church
        [trinitarian,
        > > at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts –
        > > though the majority even of Byzantine manuscripts still preserved
        > the
        > > true reading." – p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957
        ed.
        > > (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the
        > latest
        > > Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed.,
        pp.696-698,
        > > vol. 3.)
        > >
        > > A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible
        > > Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose
        > oV as
        > > the original reading in their NT text for this verse:
        > >
        > > "it is supported by the earliest and best uncials." And, "Thus, no
        > > uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the
        > > eighth or ninth century supports qeoV ["God"]; all ancient versions
        > > presuppose oV ["who" - masc.] or o ["which" - neut.]; and no
        > patristic
        > > writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [370 A.D.]
        > > testifies to the reading qeoV. The reading qeoV arose either (a)
        > > accidentally, through the misreading of OC as QC, or (b)
        > > deliberately...." - p. 641.
        > >
        > > In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the
        > emphasis
        > > on the latter). You see, the word oV was written in the most ancient
        > > manuscripts as OC ("C" being a common form for the ancient Greek
        > letter
        > > "S" at that time). Most often at this time the word for God (qeoV)
        > was
        > > written in abbreviated form as QC. However, to show that it was an
        > > abbreviated form a straight line, or bar, was always drawn above
        > QC. So
        > > no copyist should have mistaken OC for QC, in spite of their
        > > similarities, because of the prominent bar which appeared over the
        > one
        > > and not over the other.
        > >
        > > What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714.
        > As he
        > > was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known
        > (the
        > > Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the
        > > word originally written there was OC but that a horizontal stroke
        > from
        > > one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed
        > > through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not
        > > qualify as an abbreviation for qeoV, of course, but Wetstein
        > discovered
        > > that some person at a much later date and in a different style from
        > the
        > > original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original
        > word!
        > > Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately
        > > changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit QC [with bar
        > > above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own
        > > trinitarian views)!
        > >
        > > Of course, since Wetstein's day many more ancient NT manuscripts
        > > have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D.
        > > have been found with QC ("God") at this verse!
        > >
        > > Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes:
        > >
        > > "The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [`who'],
        > > along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic
        > probability,
        > > have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as
        > the
        > > original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text]
        > and
        > > UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a `B' rating)
        > > [also the Westcott & Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an
        > > instance of the Christological [`Jesus is God'] use of qeoV." -
        > > Jesus as God, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992.
        > >
        > > And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T.
        > Robertson
        > > wrote about this scripture:
        > >
        > > "He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). The correct text, not
        > theos
        > > (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative
        > > [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [`mystery'] the
        > > reading of Western documents." - p. 577, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in
        > the
        > > New Testament, Broadman Press.
        > >
        > > And even hyper-trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses
        > the
        > > relative pronoun oV (`who') in this scripture and tells us:
        > >
        > > "The textual variant qeoV in the place of oV has been adamantly
        > defended
        > > by some scholars, particularly those of the `majority text'
        > > school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested,[2] but the
        > > syntactical argument that `mystery' (musthrion) being a neuter
        > > noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (oV) is entirely
        > > without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians such
        > as
        > > he] as the reading qeoV may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not
        > to
        > > deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit
        > > reference in this text." [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp.
        > > 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.
        > >
        > > ............................................................
        > >
        > > 1. Some trinitarian paraphrase Bibles are even more certain and
        > clear:
        > >
        > > "He (Christ) was shown to us in a human body" - ETRV.
        > >
        > > "Christ appeared in human form" - Weymouth.
        > >
        > > "Christ came to earth as a man" - NLV.
        > >
        > > "Christ, who came to earth as a man" - LB.
        > >
        > > "Here is the great mystery of our religion: Christ came as a
        > human." -
        > > CEV.
        > >
        > > 2. Wallace's footnote says: "In particular, it is impossible to
        > explain
        > > the Latin reading of a neuter R[elative] P[ronoun] as deriving from
        > > qeoV, showing that oV was quite early. Not one firsthand of any
        > Greek
        > > witnesses [manuscripts] prior to the 8th century read qeoV."
        > >
        >
      • Solomon
        According to Joseph Warren Wells Sahidica site, the earliest extant Coptic manuscript of 1 Timothy is from the 4th century. This means, of course, that the
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 18, 2008
          According to Joseph Warren Wells' Sahidica site, the earliest extant
          Coptic manuscript of 1 Timothy is from the 4th century. This means,
          of course, that the original was written earlier. Coptic scholars
          and the Coptic church generally date the beginning of the Sahidic
          Coptic version to the late 2nd or early 3rd century CE.

          http://sahidica.warpco.com/SahidicaIntro.htm

          Solomon


          --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
          <no_reply@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > Thanks, Solomon.
          >
          > Is 2nd/3rd century the date of an existing manuscript? If not,
          what is
          > the date of earliest manuscript of the Sahidic Coptic version which
          > includes 1 Timothy 3:16?
          >
          > ....................................
          >
          >
          >
        • teddy_trueblood
          Thanks, Solomon. Good information - I ll add it to my file.
          Message 4 of 6 , Oct 18, 2008
            Thanks, Solomon. Good information - I'll add it to my file.

            .........................................


            --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, "Solomon" <Awohili@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > According to Joseph Warren Wells' Sahidica site, the earliest extant
            > Coptic manuscript of 1 Timothy is from the 4th century. This means,
            > of course, that the original was written earlier. Coptic scholars
            > and the Coptic church generally date the beginning of the Sahidic
            > Coptic version to the late 2nd or early 3rd century CE.
            >
            > http://sahidica.warpco.com/SahidicaIntro.htm
            >
            > Solomon
            >
            >
            > --- In JWquestions-and_answers@yahoogroups.com, teddy_trueblood
            > no_reply@ wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > > Thanks, Solomon.
            > >
            > > Is 2nd/3rd century the date of an existing manuscript? If not,
            > what is
            > > the date of earliest manuscript of the Sahidic Coptic version which
            > > includes 1 Timothy 3:16?
            > >
            > > ....................................
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.