Subject: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16

From: "Martin Smart" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:48:39 PDT

Dear list.

It is not my intention to start a debate on the merits of the KJV-only 
position, or the majority text debate.  I however, know that what Burgon 
wrote below might be out of date or even biased.

Is Burgon accurate in his opinion of 1Tim 3:16 below, and can anyone point 
me to any literature which might specifically address/rebut his views?

Thanks very much,
Martin Smart

Burgon:
"The place of Scripture before us, the Readers is assured, presents a
memorable instance of the michief which occasionally resulted to the
inspried Text from the ancient practice of executing copies of the
Scriptures in unical characters. S. Paul certain wrote mega esti to ths 
eusebeias musthrion. Theos ephanerothe en sarki ('Great is the msytery of 
godliness: God was manifested in the flesh.") But it requres to be explained 
at the outset, that the holy Name when abbreviated (which it always was), 
thus, (THETA SIGMA with line drawn over the top - the abbreviated form of 
God in the NT), is only distinguishable  from the relative pronoun 'WHO' 
(Omicron Sigma with no line over the top) by two horizontal strokes, which , 
in manuscripts of early date, it was often the practice to trace so faintly 
that at present they can scarcely be discerned.  Need we go on? An 
archetypal copy in which one or both of these slight strokes had vanished 
from the word QS (Theta Sigma), gave rise to the reading OS (Omicron Sigma), 
of which nonsensical substitute, traces survive in only two* manuscripts - 
sinaiticus and 17: not, for certain, in one single ancient Father, no, nor 
for certain in one single ancient version. So transparent, in fact, is the 
absurdity of writing to musterion os (the mystery who) that copyists 
promptly substituted 'o (which): thus furnishing another illustration of the 
well-known property of a fabricated reading, vz. sooner or later inevitablly
to become the parent of a second.  Happily, to this second mistake the sole 
surviving witness is the Codex Claromontanus, of VI century (D): the only 
Patristic evidence in its favor being Gelasius of Cyzicus (Concilia, ii. 217 
c.), and the unknown author of a homily in the appendix to Cysostom.  The 
Versions - all but the Gregorian and the Slavonic, which agree with the 
Received Text- favor it unquestionably; for they are obversed invriably to 
make the relative pronoun agree in gender with the word which represents 
mystery (musterion) which immediately precedes it.  Thus, in the Syriac
Versions, OS (who) is found, but only becuase the Syriac equivalent for 
musterion is of the masculine gender: in Latin, quod (which) but only 
because mysterium in Latin (like musterion in greek) is neuter.  Over this 
latter reading, however, we need not linger; seeing that ho does not find a 
single patron at the present day. And yet, this was the reading which was 
eagerly upheld during the last century: Wetstein and Sir Isaac Newton being 
its most strenous advocates.
It is time to pass under hasty review the direct evidence for the true
reading.  A and C exhibited QS until ink, thumbing and the injurious use of 
chemicals, obliterated what was once patent.  It is too late, by full 150 
years, to contend on the negative side of this question.  F and G, which 
exhibit OS with a line over the top were confessedly derived from a common 
archetype: in which archetype, it is evident that the horizontal stroke 
which distinguishes theta from omicron must have been so faintly traced as 
to be scarcely discernable. The supposition that, in this place, the stroke 
in question represents the aspirate, is scarcely admissible. There is no 
single example of os written as os with a line over the top in ANY part of 
either Codex F or G.  On the other hand, in the only place where OS 
represents QS, it is written OS (with a line over the top) in BOTH. 
Predjudice herself may safely be called upon to accept the obvious and only
lawful inference. *For, of the 3 cursives usually cited for the same reading 
(17, 73, 181),the second proves (en enquiry at Upsala) to be merely an 
abridgement of OEcumenius, who certainly read Theos; and the last is 
non-existent.

(Dean John William Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 99-101)

_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:38:23 -0500

On 7/28/99, Martin Smart wrote:

>Dear list.
>
>It is not my intention to start a debate on the merits of the KJV-only position, or the majority text debate.  I however, know that what Burgon wrote below might be out of date or even biased.
>
>Is Burgon accurate in his opinion of 1Tim 3:16 below, and can anyone point me to any literature which might specifically address/rebut his views?

One is tempted to say that any time Burgon expresses an opinion, it is
wrong. :-) To put it mildly, he let his rhetoric take charge of the issues.

Burgon actually did do useful textual work, in that he examined many
manuscripts, both of the New Testament itself and of patristic works.
But his prejudices are so strong that one must examine *everything* for
motive. :-( Much safer to simply go back and re-examine the evidence.
So, for instance, the first place to turn in examining a reading like
this is the UBS commentary. (For all the nasty things we've been
saying today, this is the only full and modern textual commentary
in existence.)

The other thing to do is look at the manuscript evidence as we know it
today. (In this instance, there isn't all that much new data, but
usually there is. It's just that the Pastorals are relatively poorly
represented in our early witnesses.)

Anyway, the evidence:

OS: Aleph* A* C* F G 33 365 442 1175 2127
QEOS: Aleph** A** C** D** K L P Psi 075 0150
  6 81 (88 O QEOS) 104 263 330 424 436 451 629 630 1241 1319
  1505 1739 1881 1962 2492 2495 Byz
  geo2 slav
OS QEOS: 256 (conflation)
O: D* (a b d f m vg "quod," i.e. O on its face but possibly
  a grammatical correction for OS)

O or OS: most other versions except as cited.

Thus OS has the best support, being supported by all the Alexandrian
witnesses plus some "Western" witnesses. "QEOS," except for the
members of Family 1739, is purely Byzantine (we can ignore the
corrections in Aleph, A, C, etc.; those are Byzantine also).
"O" is supported only by a subset of the "Western" witnesses.

Internal evidence also supports OS. (This is where most of us
disagree with Burgon: Our rule is, "Prefer the reading which
best explains the others." His is, "Prefer the reading which
doesn't pose any problems.")

"OS" is the reading which best explains the others in several
senses. First, the best witnesses all support a relative
pronoun (either O or OS). This is much the more difficult
reading. So surely a relative pronoun is correct, and OS
is better attested.

OS is also the middle reading. To get from OS to O requires a
change of only one letter; similarly, to get from OS to QEOS
requires only one letter (remember that QEOS was written QS).
To get from O to QEOS or vice versa is a larger change. So
OS is to be preferred as the middle reading.

Thus one must conclude that this is another instance where Burgon
has preferred to Byzantine reading, and has come up with forced
evidence to support his conclusion.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)