Steven Avery
Administrator
1 Timothy 3:16 (AV)
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.
Trying to find original author
NT Textual Criticism
Raul Martín Cruz-mireles
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2295188903875612&set=p.2295188903875612 (change to thread url)
post form #1
https://www.facebook.com/groups/11404207692/permalink/10155804432187693/?comment_id=10155805835992693&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"}
post form @2
https://www.facebook.com/groups/11404207692/permalink/10155804432187693/?comment_id=10155805836117693&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"}
William Watson Goodwin (1831-1912)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Watson_Goodwin
Goodwin grammar
https://archive.org/details/greekgrammar00gooduoft/page/196
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.
Trying to find original author
NT Textual Criticism
Raul Martín Cruz-mireles
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2295188903875612&set=p.2295188903875612 (change to thread url)
post form #1
https://www.facebook.com/groups/11404207692/permalink/10155804432187693/?comment_id=10155805835992693&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"}
post form @2
https://www.facebook.com/groups/11404207692/permalink/10155804432187693/?comment_id=10155805836117693&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"}
WIP - grammatical paragraphs
Leaving the external evidence to one side, we shall now turn to the internal evidence, where it will be seen, that the accepted reading, ὅς is. to say the least, problematic. It is a commonly known rule in Greek grammar, that, every sentence must contain two parts, a subject and a predicate. The subject is that of which something is stated. The predicate is that which is stated of the subject. (Dr William Goodwin; A Greek Grammar, p. 196. Sec.890). In our present study, the subject would be θεός. and the predicate, musthrion (mystery). However, with the reading ὅς, the subject of the sentence has been removed. The only reason why Paul would have not mentioned the subject, would have been it it were already known to his readers. In this case, the ὅς would be referring us to the subject already mentioned in the context. This would take us back to the use of θεός twice in verse fifteen. However, if this were the case here, then Paul could not have chosen the pronoun, ὅς . Why not, you may be asking? Put simply, it would be incorrect Greek grammar!
There is a lack of agreement with the pronoun "ὅς", with its antecedent, which, in this case is ‘mystery’. In the Greek, the text literally reads; "great is the of godliness mystery, God...". The noun "musthrion" is in Greek neuter in gender, and would therefore require, not "ὅς" (which is masculine, and would not agree), but "which", as it is the neuter relative pronoun, to which there is no grammatical objection. However, by writing "ὅς", Paul would cause a grammatical abruptness in the flow of the sentence, thus making it difficult to connect with "musthrion". With the reading θεός, no such problem is caused with the grammar! Since the Holy Spirit is Who inspired Paul to write his epistles, it is unthinkable that he could have made such a grammatical error! Even those who support the reading ὅς, cannot hide the fact that it causes grammatical problems. There is yet one commentator who I have come across, who can say with confidence, that the reading ὅς is grammatically sound. We read in some commentaries on this epistle, that Paul was here quoting from some ancient Hymn (which is nothing but conjecture), which was supposedly known to his readers, and he could therefore omit the subject, as it was already known to them! What would have been the harm for him to use the subject in his quotation?, seeing that omitting it causes problems with the grammar. The Expositor's Greek Testament, has another incredible theory (for this is all that it is) for the reading ὅς. They say that ὅς,
"does not form part of the quotation (from the hymn) at all; it is simply introductory, and relative to the subject, Jesus Christ, Whose Personality was, in some terms, expressed in an antecedent sentence which Paul has not quoted" (vol. IV, pp.118-119).
So, this line of argument says, that the words: "without controversy great is the mystery of godliness", are Paul’s own, which are then followed by quotation from some "known" hymn! The more I read the "theories" for the reading ὅς, the more absurd the whole thing gets. There is no indication anywhere in the passage, that the words are all not Paul’s. Again, it would be grammatically correct, for Paul to have "introduced" the words from this hymn, with the relative ".. ?", which would connect his words to the quotation, rather than use ὅς, which makes an unnatural break in the construction of the sentence!
By reading some of the commentaries on this epistle, one can see the desperation felt by some of the scholars, in trying to discredit the reading θεός. This is evident, as even in modem times, scholars are prepared to refer to "the idle tale, propagated by Liberatus the Deacon of Carthage, and from him repeated by Hincmar and Victor, that Macedonius Patriarch of Constantinople (A.D.506) was expelled by the Emperor Anastasius for corrupting ὅς into (ὅς with overstrike line) (Scrivener, Introduction. Vol.II. p.394). This tale is referred to in the Expositor's Greek Testament, and by Dean Henry Alford, even though their own evidence shows, that θεός was read at this place two hundred years before Macedonius lived!
William Watson Goodwin (1831-1912)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Watson_Goodwin
Goodwin grammar
https://archive.org/details/greekgrammar00gooduoft/page/196
Last edited: