divided between D and E, and that the latter part of verse 15 belongs

to

verse 16.  There is no definite article before the word `pillar', and

a

consistent translation is as follows.  Having finished what he had to

about the officers of the church and Timothy's behaviour, he turns to

great subject of the mystery of godliness with the words:

`A pillar and ground of truth and confessedly great is the Mystery of

Here the teaching is that whatever or Whoever the Mystery of godliness

shall prove to be, it or He, is the pillar and ground of truth.  The Mystery

of godliness is then explained as `God manifest in the flesh' and He, we

know, is the sure and tried Foundation.

We now come to the question of the true reading of 1 Timothy 3:16.  The

A.V. reads `God', the R.V.  reads `He Who', and some versions read `Which'.

As it is not possible for us to depart from our practice, and use Greek type,

we have prepared the following explanation to which the reader, unacquainted

with the Greek or with the ancient manuscripts, is asked to refer as we

proceed.  Anyone who has examined an ancient Greek manuscript will have

noticed the large number of abbreviations that are employed.  For instance,

the Greek word for God, Theos, is always contracted to ths.  Now this

contraction is only distinguishable from the relative pronoun hos by two

horizontal strokes, which, in manuscripts of early date, it was often the

practice to trace so faintly that they can now be scarcely discerned.  Of

this, any one may be convinced by inspecting the two pages of Codex A which

are exposed to view at the British Museum.  An archetype copy, in which one

or both of these slight strokes had vanished from the contraction ths, gave

rise to the reading hos, `who', of which substituted word traces survive in

only two manuscripts, Aleph and 17; not, for certain, in one single ancient

Father, no, not for certain in one single ancient version.  So transparent,

in fact, is the absurdity of writing to musterion hos (`the mystery who'),

that copyists promptly substituted ho (`which'), thus furnishing another

illustration of the well -known property which a fabricated reading has of,

sooner or later, begetting offspring in its own likeness.  Happily, to this

second mistake the sole surviving witness is the Codex Claromontanus of the

sixth century (D): the only Patristic evidence in its favour being Gelasius

of Cyzicus (whose date is a.d. 476): and

the unknown author of a homily in the appendix to Chrysostom.  Over this

latter reading, however, we need not linger, seeing that ho, `which', does

not find a single patron at the present day.

Theos is the reading of all the uncial copies extant but two, and of

all the cursives but one.  The universal consent of the Lectionaries proves

that Theos has been read in all the assemblies of the faithful since the

fourth or fifth century of our era.  At what earlier period of her existence

is it then supposed that the Church availed herself of the privilege to

substitute Theos for hos or ho, whether in error or in fraud? Nothing short

of a conspiracy, to which every region of the Eastern Church must have been a

party, would account for the phenomenon.  We inquire for the testimony of the

Fathers; and we discover that (1) Gregory of Nyssa quoted Theos no less than

twenty -two times.  That Theos is also recognized by (2) his namesake of

Nazianzus in two places; as well as by (3) Didymus of Alexandria; and (4) by

pseudo -Dionysius of Alexandria.  It is also recognized (5) by Diodorus of

Tarsus, and (6) Chrysostom quotes 1 Timothy 3:16 in conformity with the

Received Text at least three times.  In addition there are twelve others,

bringing the number up to eighteen.