Hincmar of Rheims

Liberatus and Hincmar​

The testimony of Hincmar of Rheims is derived from a very problematic statement by Liberatus of Carthage, though he has edited the wording a bit (as does Tregelles, following Bentley).[1] Both together comprise one witness. Both relate that Macedonius II was accused of altering the reading of 1 Timothy 3:16, so that it became Deus apparuit per carnem (not, Deus apparuit in carne), "God appeared through the flesh," and that he was thereby expelled for Nestorianism. Both state the change was by one letter, but there is no single letter change that would result in such a reading and the inference appears to be ad hoc.

The entire story since the 17th century has generally been regarded as a fable, despite a brief attempt to resurrect it by the Socinians in the 19th century.[2] Macedonius II was not a Nestorian, neither did he actually corrupt the scriptures. When he refused to cave under the pressure of Emperor Anastasius to denounce the Chalcedonian Creed, the Emperor directed the Eutychian Bishop Xenaïas to set up false witnesses against him as a pretense for his expulsion.

Had been accused of inventing the reading to Deus apparuit in carne, "God was manifest in the flesh" (and not, as he is, Deus apparuit per carnem, "God appeared through the flesh"), by that time, "God was manifest in the flesh" had been directly quoted by at least nine writers as early as the third century (Dionysius of Alexandria, Apollinaris of Laodicea, Didymus of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Diodorus of Tarsus, John Chrysostom of Constantinople, probably Theodore of Mopsuestia (Syriac), Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrus), so that such an inference would be entirely without merit.

I have summed up briefly a topic that could easily be (and has been) expanded by many pages.[3]


[1] Samuel P. Tregelles, An account of the printed text of the Greek New Testament, [Samuel Bagster, 1854], p. 229. [Edit: Tregelles uncritically copies the quotation from Bentley, who a]lters the Greek letters ΩΣ to Θ͞Σ, emended quia (“that”) to read qui (masculine) and altered justificatum (neuter) to justificatus (masculine) in order to arrive at presenting Liberatus as a witness for qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu, “who appeared in flesh, was justified in the Spirit”, as the grammar would dictate. And this he set against the reading “God was manifest in the flesh”, and not as Liberatus claims the corruption to be, “God appeared through flesh” (Novum Testamentum Graece, [J.C. Hinrichs, 1872] p. 850).

[2] Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 474, "The entire fable, by whomseoever fabricated, has been treated with well-merited contempt by a succession of learned men ever since the days of Bp. Person." That is, since the 17th century.

[3] Berriman provides an extensive analysis in his Critical Dissertation Upon 1 Tim. iii. 16, pp. 229-263. Henderson also provides analysis in his book, The Great Mystery of Godliness Incontrovertible, pp. 10-14. Burgon effectively drives the nail in the coffin of this argument as an already "exploded fable" in Revision Revised, pp. 470-475.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Liberatus of Carthage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberatus_of_Carthage

Liberatus Diaconus
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.a.html?term=Liberatus Diaconus

Macedonius - Patriarch Macedonius II of Constantinople (c. 500 AD.)-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Macedonius_II_of_Constantinople

Hincmar of Rheims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hincmar

=================================

Basil Kennicott
http://books.google.com/books?id=5e4CAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA50

John Pearson
http://books.google.com/books?id=YZ8uAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA90

Isaac Newton
https://books.google.com/books?id=RwfnYzTYJHoC&pg=PA308

Stephen Nye
https://books.google.com/books?id=qgY8AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA3

Jean le Clerc
http://books.google.com/books?id=PF9OAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA519

Richard Bentley
http://books.google.com/books?id=i0MJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA366
http://books.google.com/books?id=Pv5LAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA420
http://books.google.com/books?id=wVEJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA179
http://books.google.com/books?id=yVUuAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR53
http://books.google.com/books?id=8DkCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA366

Anthony Collins
http://books.google.com/books?id=0kdTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA81

Lorenzo Cozza
[URL unfurl="false"]https://books.google.com/books?id=CGcPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA52[/URL]

John Mawer
http://books.google.com/books?id=JZoCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA24

John Berriman
http://books.google.com/books?id=87UPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA115

James Smith
http://books.google.com/books?id=0lgXAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA89

Johann Velthusen
https://books.google.com/books?id=cBlhAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA92

Zeger Bernard Van Espen
http://books.google.com/books?id=lwtCAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA187

MacKnight
http://books.google.com/books?id=Wac2AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA194

Christian Observer
http://books.google.com/books?id=ko83AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA275

Frederick Nolan
http://books.google.com/books?id=FF4UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA567

Robert Gray
http://books.google.com/books?id=pcI8AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA71

John Pye Smith
http://books.google.com/books?id=pVMEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA358

William Hamilton Drummond
http://books.google.com/books?id=FoE8sARZd6UC&pg=PA45

Joseph John Gurney
http://books.google.com/books?id=-tg-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA391

Ebenezer Henderson
http://books.google.com/books?id=DPkDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA17
Eclectic Review
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ht0EAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA43

John Scott Porter
http://books.google.com/books?id=NuxUAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA489

Weisinger
http://books.google.com/books?id=JqoGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA438

Samuel Davidson
http://books.google.com/books?id=nwxMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA157

Burgon - Revision Revised
http://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA470

Tregelles
http://books.google.com/books?id=uwc_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA229

Dublin Review on Revision Revised
https://books.google.com/books?id=hPYEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA485

Jerome D. Quinn
http://books.google.com/books?id=1QIseKlznwkC&pg=PA289

Ariel Hessayon, Nicholas Keene -
https://books.google.com/books?id=P0bObTmMazAC&pg=PA127
 
Last edited:
Samuel P. Tregelles, An account of the printed text of the Greek New Testament, [Samuel Bagster, 1854], p. 229. Alters the Greek letters ΩΣ to Θ͞Σ, emended quia (“that”) to read qui (masculine) and altered justificatum (neuter) to justificatus (masculine) in order to arrive at presenting Liberatus as a witness for qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu, “who appeared in flesh, was justified in the Spirit”, as the grammar would dictate. And this he set against the reading “God was manifest in the flesh”, and not as Liberatus claims the corruption to be, “God appeared through flesh” (Novum Testamentum Graece, [J.C. Hinrichs, 1872] p. 850).
Thanks for the list. After reading the Bentley reference and double checking Tregelles, I took note again where he writes "I take the citation from Bentley." Par for the course. Unfortunately, failing to perform this most basic good practice is the reason why Liberatus is still listed in Greek apparatuses as a witness for qui ("who"), and why the critical apparatuses still haven't cleared many errors even after more than a century.

Had he read qui, there would not be neuter stems in the Latin.

I enjoyed the Dublin Review. It is too bad Burgon didn't receive a correspondence about the Armenian of GA 256.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Thanks for the list. After reading the Bentley reference and double checking Tregelles, I took note again where he writes "I take the citation from Bentley." Par for the course. Unfortunately, failing to perform this most basic good practice is the reason why Liberatus is still listed in Greek apparatuses as a witness for qui ("who"), and why the critical apparatuses still haven't cleared many errors even after more than a century.
Had he read qui, there would not be neuter stems in the Latin.
I enjoyed the Dublin Review. It is too bad Burgon didn't receive a correspondence about the Armenian of GA 256.

If the apparatus is still wrong on Liberatus, then it would be proper to put a correction in a paper on Academia.edu, or a dedicated page here. Probably most or all of the eight ECW here are wrong

1635224082717.png


=======================================

Note that Grantley blundered on Erasmus, Luther and Newton in this regard, leading to the Peter Gurry blunder quoting Grantley, his quote was Erasmus and Luther.

You might consider correcting that on the cloistered Textual Criticism forum and the Text and Canon forum (if that is open, I think I got blocked by Keith Mason sort of accidentally).

(Also you could offer the Liberatus et al apparatus correction.)

Facebook - New Testament Textual Criticism
https://www.facebook.com/groups/11404207692/permalink/10155804432187693/

Facebook - Text and Canon
https://www.facebook.com/groups/receivedtext/permalink/2222159678034403/

And I corrected it here, however no telling if Peter Gurry read it, or cared about the errors.

Facebook - Ecclesiastical Text
https://www.facebook.com/groups/562875144528626/permalink/667043874111752/

Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/permalink/612554289590437/

=======================================

Here is where Peter Gurry made a bunch of errors on the heavenly witnesses
https://twitter.com/pjgurry/status/1365428038410727424

 
Last edited:
If the apparatus is still wrong on Liberatus, then it would be proper to put a correction in a paper on Academia.edu, or a dedicated page here. Probably most or all of the eight ECW here are wrong

1635224082717.png
A fairly reasonable assessment. The problem with the testimony of Liberatus is that it's been discredited since at least the 1600s. Unfortunately, every so many years a Socinian or Unitarian tries to resurrect it again.

I found the Eutherius quotation about two days ago, but unfortunately I promptly misplaced it. It was another underwhelming and ambiguous witness...with any luck it will turn up again while I'm organizing.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
I found the Eutherius quotation about two days ago, but unfortunately I promptly misplaced it. It was another underwhelming and ambiguous witness...with any luck it will turn up again while I'm organizing.

Burgon
1635389658569.png


Theodori Episcopi Mopsuesteni in Epistolas B. Pauli Commentarii ..., Volume 2
Commentary by Henry Barclay Swete
"qui manifestatus est in carne"
Is there a Eutherius section here?
IN EP. AD TIMOTHEUM I.
https://books.google.com/books?id=9OZJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA135
https://books.google.com/books?id=9OZJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA136
Appendix A - FRAGMENTS OF THE DOGMATIC WORKS OF THEODORE.
https://books.google.com/books?id=9OZJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA306

1567 - Theodoret
https://books.google.com/books?id=dShYhLnViFsC&pg=PA515
https://books.google.com/books?id=CW1EAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA515

1714
Concilium Constantinopolitanum
https://books.google.com/books?id=VHNZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA83

Scholz
https://books.google.com/books?id=cYrNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA334

Griesbach
https://books.google.com/books?id=y8dfAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA150

Reiche
https://books.google.com/books?id=buRSAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA371

Migne
https://books.google.com/books?id=KaDngTZFt4MC&pg=PA987

Thischendorf
https://books.google.com/books?id=nIsEX7uEipMC&pg=PA850

Gunther
https://books.google.com/books?id=XSLWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA280

Schaff
https://books.google.com/books?id=zJ4HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA557
1635390998763.png


Jornades Internacionals d'Estudi sobre el Bisbe Feliu d'Urgell: la Seu d'Urgell, 28-30 de setembre de 1999 : crònica i estudis
https://books.google.com/books?id=tBAmAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA92
1635392178560.png
1635392078642.png
 
Last edited:
The pronoun had an antecedent, which is why I need the full passage.

Looks like Tischendorf, just like Tregelles, followed Bentley's emendation of Liberatus. So many of those types of errors were just passed down from critic to critic. Always, always verify sources...
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Could you find one in Theodori Episcopi Mopsuesteni in Epistolas B. Pauli Commentarii ..., Volume 2?

Do you think Burgon was referencing a spot different than those 3?
 
It's actually in one of Theodoret's works. The links above are mostly Theodore (of Mopsuestia)...

On a side note Theodore of Mopsuestia's reading in the Latin translation (provided above) may have suffered in transcription. The editors also took note of it:

…too much weight must not be attached in this instance to our translator’s testimony, since he may have been influenced in favor of qui by Jerome’s authority [on Isa. liii. 13, “qui apparuit in carne;” but whether as an exact quotation is open to doubt], or by local and contemporary usage.[1]

Though the verse reads qui, Theodore himself expounds it thus at the start of the commentary, as though commenting on a passage that read Deus:

That is, "I delight in the mystery of godliness because it is great and pre-eminent; since the invisible God, the only begotten Word of the Father, has manifested himself to men in the flesh, appearing for the common salvation of all."

I would still list it as negative evidence, but probably wiser to mark it as dubious. There's an English translation of his commentary on the Nicene Creed, in Syriac, where "God" stands in the English, and the commentary supports the inclusion because he speaks of Paul connecting words of humanity with Deity. Unfortunately, the original text is not something I would be able to parse.


[1] B. Swete, Theodori episcopi Mopsuesteni in epistolas B. Pauli commentarii, [University Press, Cambridge, 1880] p. 135.
 
Last edited:
Continued from above
I was able to find it thanks to the Burgon reference above. Apud Theodoret, v. 719 means "Among [the works of] Theodoret," which is shorthand for the Patrologia Gracae volumes containing his works. So, PG, Theodoret, volume 5 and look for 719 among the bold numbers, which falls on column 682 if I can read the page numbers correctly. That's how to find Burgon's references that are written in this manner. Here's the full name and link: Patrologia Cursus Completus, Patrologia Graecae Tomus LXXXIV: Theodoreti Cyrensis Episcopi Opera Omnia, Volume 5, section 719 (in col. 682).

Having just spoken of Christ as the "God the Word" (Deo Verbo), Eutherius says, et discens a Paulo id quod est qui manifestatus est in carne, justificatus in spiritu, "and we learn from Paul that it is he who, 'was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit..." Since the relative has an antecedent, I certainly would not infer the actual passage he had before him read anything but Deus.
 
Top