3

WHO WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH?

A CONSIDERATION OF INTERNAL EVIDENCE
IN SUPPORT OF A VARIANT IN 1 TIM 3:16A
STEPHEN W. FRARY
1 Tim 3:16 contains a textual variant in the initial line of what is
considered to be a hymn fragment which is difficult if not impossible to
resolve based on external evidence. This verse thus provides an interesting
test case by which we might examine the differing and often contradictory
ways that the leading schools of textual criticism use the agreed canons
of their trade to arrive at the original reading from the internal evidence.
This paper outlines the difficulties in the external evidence, and considers
how answers to three key questions about the internal readings of the text
result in contradictory findings. The author concludes that thoroughgoing
eclecticism (consideration of internal evidence alone) cannot determine the
original text and thus only a reexamination of external evidence or the likely
transmissional history can resolve the question.

Introduction
NT text critics are a strange breed. They tend to defend their territory staunchly, and one must trespass with extreme caution. Familiarity
with jargon is essential, and one must not assume that mere fluency in
their native language will suffice. For example, those who employ the
eclectic method with the greatest abandon seem to be the least eclectic,
for they tend, usually, to emphasize not a selection of various principles
and canons of textual criticism as the term would imply but only the
principles from one small corner of criticism, particularly the intrinsic
principle. . .1 In response, these thoroughgoing eclectics charge their
brother reasoned eclectics with being most unreasonable practitioners,
devotees of the cult of the best manuscripts,2 for whom nearly a century of effort has resulted in a critical edition of the NT which agrees in
substantially every respect with that produced over 100 years ago by their
1
E.J. Epp, The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism, JBL
93 (1974) 404.
2
J.K. Elliott, Thoroughgoing Eclecticism in New Testament Textual Criticism, in
B.D. Ehrman and M.W. Holmes (eds), The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary
Research. Essays on the Status Quaestionis (Grand Rapids, MI 1995) 332.

Filologa Neotestamentaria - Vol. XVI - 2003, pp. 3-18

Facultad de Filosofa y Letras - Universidad de Crdoba (Espaa)

Stephen W. Frary

patron saints Westcott and Hort, whose work was without the benefit of
any of the papyri or over four-fifths of the uncials.3
These tribes are united on one front, though: neither has much good to
say about the outcast Byzantine priorists. These adherents to the text form
which came to predominate within the stream of documents currently
extant are accused of not being real text critics, but a popular movement within conservative circles bolstered by an occasional scholar.4 Yet
these alone unabashedly admit their belief in a superior text type the
Byzantine and alone note, reasonably, that the eclectic methods result
in a hodgepodge text which has never existed as an entity in the history
of the transmission of the NT, not only as an intact chapter or book, but
in some places not even as a single verse.5
God, in His providence, has filled the NT MSS with passages the
resolution of whose variants demonstrate not only the differences,
but the unwilling similarities in the methodologies of these groups so
earnestly engaged in trying to ascertain what He really said, or at least
had recorded. 1 Tim 3:16a, is such a verse. While NA27, UBSGNT4, and
Wescott-Hort all begin the hymn with
, all published critical
editions based on the Byzantine texts, including the Robinson-Pierpont
read
.6 Traditionally, this variant has been resolved (except by the thoroughgoing eclectics) relying mainly on external grounds,
with internal evidence relegated to the role of corroboration. However,
the testimony of the manuscripts is not beyond dispute at this reading,
and while the partisans of the Byzantine and the reasoned eclectics have
spent much energy bolstering the reputation of their favorite text types in
resolving this variant, this has been done at the expense of an extensive
evaluation of the internal data vaunted by the thorough-goers.
J. Keith Elliott, speaking of this verse claims, Stylistic considerations
and authors usage are usually ignored by textual critics, but these criteria can help us to decide with certainty the original reading here.7 While
Epp, Twentieth Century Interlude, 390.
D.B. Wallace, The Majority Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique, in Ehrman
and Holmes (eds), Status Quaestionis, 305.
5
M. Robinson, New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority,
TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 6 (2001) 4. [http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/
Robinson2001.html] accessed May 26, 2005.
6
Unless otherwise noted, all citations of the Greek Byzantine text are from Maurice A.
Robinson, William G. Pierpont, The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the
Byzantine/Majority Textform, BibleWorks, v. 6.0.011y [CD-ROM] (2003).
7
J.K. Elliott, The Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus (Salt Lake City UT
1968) 59.
3
4

Who Was Manifested in the Flesh? A Consideration of Internal Evidence

certainty is unlikely to be granted the findings of any one school of text

critics to those of another, the methodologies of the three camps are most
congruent when they consider internal evidence, and thus a fresh look
from the thoroughgoing perspective, which is the purpose of this paper,
may contribute constructively to the deliberations of each. First we will
briefly examine the external evidence, stating the reasons that this may
not be as conclusive as usually assumed. Next, we will compare the canons of internal evidence by which each of the three groups of text critics
evaluate readings. Finally, we will apply the common principles distilled
from these methods to the / variant of 1 Tim 3:16a. In concluding,
we will assess whether or not the internal evidence alone is capable of
bearing the burden cast upon it by the thoroughgoing eclectics.
1. Reasonable Doubt in the External Evidence
Mill, Scrivener, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort all give extended
discussions of the uncials, minuscules, versions, and patristic evidence
for this variant. Their positions favoring can be discerned in Metzgers
own Textual Commentary:
The reading which, on the basis of external evidence and transcriptional probability, best explains the rise of the others is . It is supported by
the earliest and best uncials ( *A*vid C* Ggr) as well as by 33 365 442 2127
syr hmg, pal goth ethpp Origenlat Epiphanius Jerome Theodore Eutherius acc. to
Theodoret
Cyril Cyrilacc to Ps-Oecumenius Liberatus. Furthermore, since neuter relative
pronoun must have arisen as a scribal correction of (to bring the relative
into concord with ), the witnesses that read (D* it d, g, 61, 86 vg
Ambrosiaster Marius Victorinus Hilary Pelagius Augustine) also indirectly
presuppose as the earlier reading. The Textus Receptus reads , with
c (this corrector is of the twelfth century) A2 C2 D2 K L P 81 330 614
1739 Byz Lect Gregory-Nyssa Didymus Chrysostom Theodoret Euthalius
and later Fathers. Thus no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or
ninth century () supports .8

John Burgon, the champion of the Majority Text reading of ,

disputed much of this external evidence in his attack on the Revised Version of the Bible in a prolix discussion in his 1883 work, The Revision

8
B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed. (Stuttgart
1998) 575.

Stephen W. Frary

Revised.9 Interestingly, much of the evidence he proposed is still attacked

today in offering evidence against the Byzantine reading, so it is appropriate that it be addressed in any current discussion of external evidence.
If it can be shown that his argument has some basis in fact we will at
least have established reasonable doubt concerning current assumptions
that the MSS evidence is indisputable and definitive, thus heightening the
importance of correctly interpreting internal evidence.
The external evidence treated by text critics falls into three categories:
MSS, the citations of the passage by the Fathers, and the early versions
of the NT translated into other languages. The controversy concerning
the Greek MSS centers on whether or is the original reading of
A, (representative in the epistles of the Alexandrian text type and one of
the three codices commonly referred to in commentaries as the oldest
and best manuscripts,10) of C, and of F and G, (Western in the Pauline
Epistles.) Since these are all uncials, written entirely in upper case, and
since OC was abbreviated to C, the only difference with the relative
pronoun OC is the presence of two horizontal strokes. Burgon presents
copious evidence for doubting the reading OC in each of these MSS, and
it is beyond the scope of this paper to deal with each. We will deal briefly
with Alexandrinus, though, as it is the oldest of the uncials containing
the passage, and would, if C were original, establish a Byzantine reading
in a 4th century Alexandrian MS, disputing Metzgers claim from his
Commentary that no uncial prior to the 8th or 9th century so attests.
There is no doubt that in A these strokes are now present. At issue is
whether or not they are original, since in the twelfth century A was corrected and the letters either retouched as they were or changed to C.
Under ideal circumstances, one would look at the manuscript to settle
the issue. However, Burgon states that Woide, the learned and conscientious editor of the Codex, declares that so late as 1765 he had seen traces
of [the stroke in] which twenty years later... were visible to him no
longer.11Assuming that the issue must be decided by earlier eyes, Burgon
9
It should be stated at the outset that Burgons argument was presented in the form of
a running dialog in the Quarterly Review with Bishop C.J. Ellicott, a leader in the effort to
revise the English Bible based on the WH text. By current standards, this exchange lacked
the courtesy and collegiality which is expected in academic circles today. Burgons invective
is a temptation to dismiss his arguments without dealing with their substance. It is not
the purpose of this paper to adjudicate the dispute that current or past scholars have with
Burgon or his defenders, nor to vindicate Burgons position.
10
The second of the three, ), undisputedly reads . The third, codex B, is missing 1 Tim
through Phlm and 1 Tim exists in none of the papyri known at present.
11
J.W. Burgon, The Revision Revised (Paradise, PA 1883) 434. NB: The date of publication of this reprint is not mentioned.

Who Was Manifested in the Flesh? A Consideration of Internal Evidence

states that Johann Jakob Wettstein, the 1751-2 publisher of a critical edition of the Elzevir Textus Receptus, had observed the codex around 1716
and decided that though the middle stroke of the has been evidently
retouched, yet the fine stroke which was originally in the body of the is
discoverable at each end of the fuller stroke of the corrector.12
Considering the versions, Gordon D. Fee flatly states that there was
not a single Latin-speaking Christian in the entire history of the church
who knew the reading that emerged as that of the Majority text ...
Moreover, the same thing is true of every other ancient version: Syriac,
Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Gothicnone of them reads God.13
However, neither do the Latin versions read the relative pronoun who
but rather which, unanimously considered to be a harmonization with
mystery, which is neuter in both Latin and Greek. Likewise in Burgons
discussion of the Syrian, Coptic, Gothic and other translations, the best he
can claim is that due to disagreements in the gender of the pronoun used
with the corresponding word for mystery these versions support neither
God nor who.
Burgons citation of patristic evidence parts from the UBSGNT
apparatus in several significant instances. While both have Ps-Dionysius
(400s,) Diodore (d. after 394), Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394,) Didymus (d.
398. UBSGNT notes this as a disputed reading and lists Didymus as certain in his support for ), Chrysostom (347-407), and Theodoret (d. 466)
as quoting , Burgon adds several witnesses in addition, claiming that
Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), in a treatise addressed to the Empresses
Arcadia and Marina, explicitly cites 1 Tim 3:16 to prove the deity of
Christ. He cites Severus of Antioch (d. after 408) as supporting the Byzantine and also lists references from Gregory of Nazianzus (d. about
390), Macedonius (who was accused of manufacturing the reading in
511), and John of Damascus (d. before 754) as referring to the Byzantine
reading of this passage.14
Burgons citation of the Fathers has been criticized as indiscriminate15 by Fee, who likewise dismisses his patristic sources as uncritical.16 Fee warns,
12

433.

J. Berriman, Dissertation (London 1741) 156, quoted in Burgon, Revision Revised,

13
G.D. Fee, The Majority Text and the Original Text of the New Testament, in E.J.
Epp and G.D. Fee (eds), Studies in the Theory, and Method of New Testament Textual
Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI 1993) 206.
14
Burgon, Revision Revised, 455-471.
15
G.D. Fee, The Majority Text and the Original Text of the New Testament, BT 31
(1980) 116.
16
G.D. Fee, A Critique of W.N. Pickerings The Identity of the New Testament Text: A
Review Article, WTJ 41 (1979) 417.

Stephen W. Frary

One of the problems with patristic citations is that the evidence must be
carefully analyzed before it can be used. That is, one must be sure (a) that
a given Fathers work has been faithfully transmitted, (b) that the Father
was actually quoting (=copying), not merely remembering his NT, and (c)
especially in the Gospels, that it was one Gospel and not another that was
being quoted.17

However, Fee, in his discussion of Burgons treatment of 1 Tim 3:16

does not identify which, if any, of his citations are invalidated by (a) or
(b), (c) being irrelevant in this case.
Fee dismisses the weight of Burgons patristic evidence summarily,
stating that ... the variant reading God is unknown among the Greek
Fathers before the last part of the fourth century.18 However, the only
earlier Greek witness for any reading in the UBSGNT apparatus is Origen. Bruce Metzgers warning concerning patristic evidence is pertinent
in that case:
After the true text of the Patristic author has been recovered, the further
question must be raised whether the writer intended to quote the scriptural
passage verbatim or merely to paraphrase it. If one is assured that the Father
makes a bona fide quotation and not a mere allusion, the problem remains
whether he quoted it after consulting the passage in a manuscript or whether
he relied on memory... Furthermore, if the Father quotes the same passage
more than once, it often happens that he does so in divergent forms. Origen
is notorious in this regard, for he seldom quotes a passage twice in precisely
the same words. Moreover, while dictating to one of his several amanuenses,
Origen would sometimes refer merely to a few catchwords in the Scripture
passage... later the amanuensis would hunt out the passage in a Biblical manuscript and insert its words...19

It is not unreasonable, then, to conclude that the patristic evidence is

definitely divided, therefore inconclusive, and, in light of the questions
regarding specific citations, deserving of detailed study for this variant.

Fee, The Majority Text, BT, 116.

Fee, The Majority Text, BT, 118.
19
B. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3d ed. (Oxford; New York 1992) 87-88.
17
18

Who Was Manifested in the Flesh? A Consideration of Internal Evidence

2. Canons of Internal Evidence

As was stated earlier, it is in the enumeration, if not the application
of canons of internal evidence, that the three species of text critics are
most in agreement. Elliott, a thoroughgoing eclectic, identifies the three
broad questions that all critics ask in assessing internal evidence: Which
reading best accounts for the rise of the other variants? Which reading is
the likeliest to have suffered change at the hands of early copyists? Which
reading is in keeping with the style and thought of the author and makes
the best sense in context?20 The factors addressed in the second question
are also referred to by reasoned eclectics such as Bruce Metzger as transcriptional probabilities, which can be further classified as intentional
and unintentional alterations, while the last question is said to deal with
intrinsic probabilities.21
There is further agreement among the text critics concerning the
types of unintentional errors that can account for variant readings. Such
errors include (a) confusion of similar Greek letters such as , , and
C when dealing with uncials, (b) omission of entire lines, or parts of
lines when the scribes eye skips from one series of letters to an identical
series and fails to copy the intervening text, or (c) the recopying of a
word or series of letters when the scribes eye returns to the same location
on the exemplar as that from which he just copied, duplicating the text
(dittography.) All agree that where a reading can be attributed to any of
these factors, it is less likely to be the original.
Scribes also intentionally altered the text they were copying, although
text critics disagree about their propensity and motives for doing so. Metzger calls such alterations frequent,22 while M. Robinson, a Byzantine
priorist, states that A careful examination of scribal practices will reveal
how rarely conflation or other supposed scribal tendencies actually occurred, and how limited was the propagation of such among the MSS.23
Both agree, however, that scribes did on occasion (a) harmonize readings
to match those in either the near context of the MSS being copied, in
other works by the same author, or in other passages of Scripture with
which the scribe was familiar, (b) expand divine names for pietys sake,
such as modifying Jesus to Jesus Christ to Jesus Christ our Lord,
and occasionally (c) combine the wording of two or more readings into
one (conflation). Metgzer goes on to have scribes replace unfamiliar with
Elliott, Thoroughgoing Eclecticism, 322.
Metzger, The Text of the NT, 209-10.
22
Metzger, The Text of the NT, 210.
23
Robinson, NT Textual Criticism, 11 n. 25.
20
21

Stephen W. Frary

10

familiar words to grammatically smooth readings to a much greater

degree than Robinson identifies. Elliott, on the other hand, believes that
scribes, influenced by a revival of Attic Greek literary style in the second
century A.D., improved the style and expression of the NT writers, and rid
the text of unGreek expressions to a far greater degree than Robinson
or Metzger will attest.24 Wherever such alterations by the scribe can be
shown to have occurred, the resulting reading is unlikely to be original.
Finally, it is generally agreed that Readings which conform to the
known style, vocabulary, and syntax of the original author are to be
preferred.25 This is not to say, though, that there is a consensus on what
particular habits are to be attributed to a given author. Robinson raises
the interesting point, for example, that one cannot necessarily extrapolate from the fact that is typical of Johns writings that every time a
variant reading presents a choice between and, say, (actually used
more often by John) that we can assume to be original.26
There are two corollaries derived from these rules that bear mentioning, one agreed upon and one in dispute. Given that scribes did, on occasion, make deliberate changes to the text, there is a consensus that The
reading which is more difficult as a scribal creation is to be preferred.27
This is based on the assumption that a scribe wishing to improve the
text would do so in a way so as to remove, not create, difficult-to-understand passages. Robinson goes on to hold that this rule should apply only
when the difficult reading is not a solitary or poorly attested one. This
contradicts the tenets of Elliotts brand of eclecticism, but nonetheless all
text critics will apply the rule in some instances.
The disputed corollary is succinctly put: prefer the shorter reading.
This seems to be a reasonable derivation from the facts, admitted by all,
that line skip and other related unintentional variations result in shorter
readings while pious expansions and conflations tend to lengthen the text.
The fact that these rules covering these eventualities will have already
been applied, though, render this additional principle unnecessary and
mischievous. Robinson protests that applying this principle where there
is no identified expansion or omission due to other factors automatically
tends to favor the Alexandrian text type, which tends to be shorter where
it varies from either the Western or Byzantine.28 He would eliminate the

Elliott, The Greek Text of the Epistles, 8.

Robinson, NT Textual Criticism, 31.
26
Robinson, NT Textual Criticism, 32.
27
Robinson, NT Textual Criticism, 30.
28
Robinson, NT Textual Criticism, 43.
24
25

Who Was Manifested in the Flesh? A Consideration of Internal Evidence

11

rule entirely, while Elliott applies it primarily where the cause of the
omission can be identified.29
3. 1 Tim 3:16a: The Internal Evidence
Turning, then, to the first of Elliotts three questions, which of the
readings is most likely to give rise to the others? Fee flatly states, the
corruption can have happened only in Greek, and on the basis of the
abbreviation of the nomen sacrum (C); this was easily corrupted from
C, on the basis of the apparently ungrammatical nature of the latter;
indeed a change in the other direction is nearly impossible to account for
under any circumstances.30 Burgon disputes this claim indirectly in his
discussion of MSS F and G:
...that OC (in verse 16) would be if the delicate horizontal stroke
which distinguishes from , were not away,no one denies... Are there any
other such substitutions of one letter for another discoverable in these two
codices? And it is notorious that instances of the phenomenon abound. The
letters C, , , are confused throughout.31

While it is not appropriate to confuse the habits of one scribe with

another, what Burgon has shown is that unintentional changes caused by
mistaking letters can account for a change from either of the two main
variants to the other.
What Burgon has not explained is how the Western texts could have
arisen unintentionally from C. It is indeed unlikely that any scribe would
have knowingly replaced a nomen sacrum with a neuter relative pronoun.
Thus to derive the Western reading, a scribe must have had a defective
exemplar which read C and then intentionally changed this pronoun to
to agree in gender with . This scenario presents a difficulty
for the Byzantine priorist, for it violates the principle of Occams razor,
requiring two consecutive changes in the transmissional stream to arrive
at the reading, one from C to C, and a second from C to .
The possibility of intentional corruption moves us to answer Elliotts
second question: which reading is the likeliest to have been changed by the

Elliott, The Greek Text of the Epistles, 7.

G.D. Fee, Gods Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody,
MA, 1994) 762 n. 30.
31
Burgon, Revision Revised, 442.
29
30

12

Stephen W. Frary

scribe? That is, which is most difficult as a scribal creation, for it is more
likely to be original. In the case of 1 Tim 3:16a, this question represents
the disputed ballot of textual criticism, for it requires the interpreter to
anticipate the motive as well as the behavior of the copyist, and can yield
various results. For example, a scribe whose theology rules his pen might
easily modify the original text to C in anti-Arian fervor, elevating one
of the other two variants to the status of lectior difficilior. On the other
hand, a grammar-conscious scribe has two paths open. Normally, the
gender of the antecedent and the pronoun agree; thus J.A.T. Robertson
notes: ...the true text is changed in the Western class of documents to
to agree with ,32 making the more difficult reading, hence
original.
Elliott, on the other hand, holds that the mystery of godliness is
in fact Christ, a concept not alien to N. T. theology (cf. Col 2:2 and
possibly 1 Cor 2:1.).33 This relegates 1 Tim 3:16a to the category identified
by Robertson which contains phrases in which a pronoun () represents
the real gender [of the antecedent] rather than the grammatical.34 In this
case would be more difficult since the tendency would be to make the
pronoun masculine in agreement with . Interestingly, though,
this does not seem to happen elsewhere in the Pauline corpus. Col 1:27
refers to Christ as a mystery among the gentiles:
, ,
. Although the neuter mystery is the antecedent to the relative
pronoun, the real subject is the masculine , yet the pronoun
is the neuter Col 4:3 reads: ,
. If is taken here both as an epexegetical genitive and as
the nearest antecedent, again there is no gender agreement with the pronoun in the relative clause following. If the pattern, then, is for the relative
pronoun not to assimilate to the gender of the antecedent when Christ is
described as a mystery, the harder reading of 1 Tim 3:16a becomes .
Clearly, the judgment of which is the more difficult reading is in this case
subjective.
Elliotts final question would have us consider which reading is consonant with the thought and style of the author and makes best sense in
context. In the present passage this presents the immediate challenge of
determining authorship and extends beyond the issue of Pauline author-

32
J.A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical
Research (Nashville, TN 1934) 713.
33
Elliott, The Greek Text of the Epistles, 59.
34
Robertson, Grammar, 713.

Who Was Manifested in the Flesh? A Consideration of Internal Evidence

13

ship for the Pastoral Epistles.35 In 1 Tim 3:16, Because the hymnic structure is so pronounced, ... almost universally recognized as a fragment of
a hymn,36 the question arises, with whose thought and style should we
expect the disputed reading to be consonant: with Pauls who quoted it
(if it is fact a quote) or with the composers (if it is fact a hymn)? Janusz
Frankowski disputes that every hymn quoted in the NT preexisted the
work in which it is found. Examining the similarities in the Alexandrian
vocabulary and thought of Heb 1:3, widely thought to be a hymn, to the
rest of Hebrews, and noting the non-formulaic expression of its themes,
Frankowski concludes that ...Heb 1:3 is not a previously existing hymn
merely cited here by the Author of Hebrews but rather it is his own
composition37 (emphasis in original). However, even if this should be the
case in 1 Tim 3:16 or other hymns, the hymn genre is unique enough and
sufficiently defined in the NT to warrant the assumption for the purposes
of our study that while each author who quotes a hymn may rework the
composition for his own purposes, the very fact that the composition is
recognized as a hymn justifies, for text critical purposes, that we suppose
that the original reading be appropriate to the characteristics of a hymn
even if such a reading is not consonant with the quoting authors prose
style.
Fortunately, much work has gone into the description of the genre of
Christ hymn in the New Testament, thus simplifying the task of identifying what characteristics our variant should display to be consistent
with the form. W. Hulitt Gloer goes into the most detail, listing 16 properties which mark a Christ hymn, a passage needing more than just
one38 to qualify. Of special interests for our purposes are stylistic and

35
Elliott, while assuming independent and identical authorship for the Pastorals, does
not believe that this is a critical issue in evaluating the internal evidence: Even if one
argues for Pauline authorship, the language and style are sufficiently different from Pauls
undisputed writings as to enable us to study the Pastoral Epistles in isolation. (Elliott, The
Greek Text of the Epistles, 7.) For the purposes of this paper, Pauline authorship of the
Pastorals is assumed.
36
W.D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Nashville, TN, 2000) 215.
37
J. Frankowski, Early Christian Hymns Recorded in the New Testament: A Reconsideration of the Question in the Light of Heb 1,3, BZt 27 (1983) 191.
38
W. H. Gloer, Homologies and Hymns in the New Testament: Form, Content, and
Criteria for Identification, Perspectives in Religious Studies 11 (1984) 130. The complete
list, on pages 124-129 includes:
1) Presence of a quotation particle such as the recitative .
2) Use of the double infinitive and the accusative to express indirect discourse.
3) Presence of certain introductory formulae.
4) Syntactical disturbance.
5) Stylistic differences from the main text.

14

Stephen W. Frary

linguistic differences setting the hymn off from its context (confirming
that matching the authors style is not as important in resolving variants
as is being consistent with the genre) and relative, i.e., pronominal style.
The following chart lists all passages identified as NT hymns by Charles
M. Mountain, W. Hulitt Gloer, Jack T. Sanders, or Janusz Frankowski
respectively. (See chart notes for particular work referenced.) Also listed
is the grammatical form of the first reference to Christ or God within the
hymn. (While by definition a Christ hymn should focus on the person or
work of Christ, Gloer also identifies God hymns, which extol God the
Father, as another hymn type showing similar characteristics.)
Verse39
Jn 1:1
Jn 1:3-5
Jn 1:9-11
Jn 1:14
Jn 1:1644
do.
Rom 11:33-36
Eph 1:10
Eph 1:20-23
Eph 2:14-16
Eph 3:10
Eph 5:14

Hymns in the New Testament and their Subjects

CMM40
WHG41 JTS42
JF43
Christological /
Theological Subject
X
X
X

X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X

X
19-22

X
X

Antecedent
NA

NA
NA


NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

6) Linguistic differences from the author of the main text.

7) Content marked by an excursive nature, containing the basic elements of the Christ
event emphasizing the nature of the events.
8) Parallelism
9) Rhythm
10) Chiasmus.
11) Antithesis
12) Participial style.
13) Relative style or use of relative clause in introduction.
14) Arrangement in strophes, verses, or stanzas.
15) Highly stylized construction including parison, homoeopton, homeooteleuton, or
isocolon.
16) The presence of different passages which contain the same basic form.
39
Verse ranges represent the most inclusive identified by any author. Restricted verse
ranges are noted for each passage if an author disputes the limits given for the passage.
40
C.M. Mountain, The New Testament Christ-Hymn, Hymn 44 (1993) 20-8.
41
Gloer, Homologies and Hymns, 115-32.
42
J.T. Sanders, The New Testament Christological Hymns (Cambridge 1971) 9-25.
43
Frankowski, Early Christian Hymns, 183-94.
44
The antecedent in John 1:16 may in fact occur after the pronoun, hence the second
set of data.

Who Was Manifested in the Flesh? A Consideration of Internal Evidence

Verse

CMM

WHG

JTS

JF

Phil 2:6-11
Col 1:15-20
Col 2:14-15
1 Tim 3:16
do.
Heb 1:1-4
1 Pet 1:18-21
1 Pet 2:22-24
1 Pet 3:18-22
Rev 4:11
Rev 5:9-10
Rev 5:12
Rev 11:17-18
Rev 12:10-12
Rev 14:7
Rev 15:3-4
Rev 19:1-7

X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

9-11
20
14
X

3
X
21-25

X
18, 21

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

13

Christological /
Theological Subject

(vb.)

\ (vb.)

NA

15
Antecedent

NA
NA
NA

NA
NA

NA

NA
NA
NA
NA

Of immediate interest is that in 19 of 27 cases there is no pronoun at

all to first identify the divine subject of the hymn, and of the remaining
8, only half use a relative pronoun even including the disputed pronominal reading in 1 Tim 3:16a. Furthermore, if the original reading in our
passage is indeed , it alone of the six hymns where pronouns introduce
the divinity would not have an antecedent which either is itself a name or
title of a person of the Godhead, or, in the case of Johns gospel, another
title explicitly equated with Christ in the immediate context.
What, then, does this mean for resolving the variant in 1 Tim 3:16a?
Firstly, it calls into question the formulaic nature of the introductory
relative pronoun; many hymns do not use the relative. Secondly, for those
hymns where the divine subject is introduced with a pronoun, the antecedent is usually an explicit name or title for God or Christ, and it is by
no means obvious that qualifies. According to Elliott, there is
only one other verse in the NT in which Christ is referred to as a mystery,
Col 2:2, and in that verse is put in explicit apposition. Therefore,
it is reasonable to conclude that in terms of consistency with hymnic
style, is more likely as the original reading.
Two possible objections present themselves to this reasoning. Firstly,
1 Tim 3:16a may not be a hymn at all, and comparisons to that genre
may be invalid. Jack T. Sanders, who considers this passage to be a hymn
nonetheless, observes:
... it is lacking in certain hymnic traits. There are no participles, and no
parallelismus membrorum, only related pairs of lines. Further, although the

Stephen W. Frary

16

passage seems to be complete in itself, it is far too brief and its lines too
interrelated to lend itself to a division into stanzas, ... Moreover, passives
have not previously been encountered in these hymns in reference to the
redeemer, and, except for Phil. ii, 9-11, the redeemer has always been the
explicit subject.45

If these observations are decisive, and we are not dealing with a hymn
in this passage, then we should not in fact expect a pronoun, relative or
other, to introduce the passage, and the case for as the original reading is strengthened. On the other hand, if it is a hymn, in spite of these
objections, then we should expect an explicit reference to the redeemer as
the subject, with God manifested in the flesh being the most likely.
The second objection concerns the provenance of the pronoun in
those hymns which have relative pronouns with which they introduce
the divine subject. When they are identified as typical of this genre, it
is generally assumed that the pronouns are a part of the hymn itself.
Gloer correctly notes though that their presence ...implies at least one
preceding phrase which may have taken the form of a eulogy (Blessed
be God or Christ).46 In other words, the pronoun may not be a part of
the hymn at all, but rather an insertion by the author quoting it to relate
the subject of the hymn to a person already under discussion in his own
text. Thus each author using a hymn fragment may in fact have his own
distinct way to join the hymn to his text. Reviewing the previous chart
and disregarding 1 Tim, however, we see that Paul makes this integration
in a variety of ways, using a pronoun three times, a noun five, and the
person-number suffix of a finite verb once, showing no clear pattern.
Conclusion
Having considered the possibilities of accidental or intentional changes
and the congruence of the possible variants with the hymn genre and
Pauls way of quoting them, what are we left to conclude about 1 Tim.
3:16a particularly, and the value of internal evidence in general? Clearly,
the easy way in which most text critics dismiss the internal evidence (Fee,
Metzger) or assume its attestation for (Elliott) is unfounded. There
are far more data to consider, and their verdict is not unanimous. If we

45
Sanders, Christological Hymns, 16. See table above for which passages Sanders considers hymns.
46
Gloer, Homologies and Hymns, 128.

Who Was Manifested in the Flesh? A Consideration of Internal Evidence

17

consider the possibility of accidental corruption, though at first seems

more likely to have given rise to the other readings, it must be recognized
that an exemplar in poor condition, where specific letters are easy to
confuse, as in the case of MSS F and G, can also explain the confusion of
C and OC.
While accidental changes seem to be the least subjective and the easiest
to identify, determining which changes are easier as scribal creations
can in no way be described as an objective process. One can construct
scenarios for nearly any variant by merely presupposing the attitude and
aptitude of a scribe. A most conscientious scribe, faithfully copying what
is before him will be prone only to accidental errors. The theologian may
fall to the temptation to clarify a text with in a way that a grammarian would not, while the Greek-speaking scribe may not believe that
sacred writ could contain a pronoun disagreeing with its antecedents
gender. It is not always possible, therefore, to decide this variant on the
grounds of most difficult reading without unwarranted and improvable
speculations.
Determining the most appropriate reading for the style of the author
or the genre of the text seems to have more promise. From the data presented, it is obvious that neither the Christ hymn as a form, nor Pauls use
of it in his texts is adequately described by saying of the relative pronoun
It is a typical way to introduce a hymn ... and it is not necessary to locate
an antecedent in the text.47 Hymns were introduced in a variety of ways,
and it is indeed tenuous to dogmatically state that any Pauline use of a
Christ hymn must be introduced with a relative pronoun. There is more
than sufficient evidence that would have been appropriate here.
Dr. J. Keith Elliott, in a different context, himself asks the broader
question with which we must conclude this discussion: just how far can
thoroughgoing eclecticism go in determining the original text of the NT?48
We might translate this question to ask, in light of the ambivalence with
which the data may be interpreted, is it possible or responsible to ignore
external evidence in the practice of textual criticism? From the data presented for 1 Tim 3:16a, we conclude that it is futile to do so. As Gordon
Fee points out, ... very often internal questions either are indecisive or
sometimes collide.49 For example, it may be said that choosing a variant
that is most in line with authorial style by definition must inherently
conflict with the reading that is the most difficult for the scribe, unless
Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 214, n. d.
Elliott, The Greek Text of the Epistles, 10.
49
G.D. Fee, Rigorous or Reasoned Eclecticism Which?, SBL Seminar Papers 2 (ed.
George MacRae) (Missoula, MT 1975) 44.
47
48

18

Stephen W. Frary

we posit that the scribe knew nothing of the text which he was copying.
Only a knowledge of the transmissional history of the text can break this
logjam. Hence we have come full circle, and must challenge the reasoned
eclectics and Byzantine priorists to make their most compelling cases.
Stephen W. FRARY
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
114 N. Wingate St.
Wake Forest, NC 27587 (USA)