Raul Martín Cruz-mireles - 1 Timothy 3:16 - finds excellent article on grammatical

Steven Avery

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
post form @2

Section A.jpg


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)

Goodwin grammar

Last edited:

Steven Avery

baptistboard - is this related ?

God Was Manifested in The Flesh
posted by Martin Andrews, from West Midlands, England, March 31, 2017, he may be the author


In most modern translations of the New Testament, we will discover, that, where the King James Version reads in 1 Timothy 3:16, that "God was manifested in the flesh", it reads: "He Who (or, simply "Who") was manifested in the flesh". The difference between the two readings is very important. In the first reading, we clearly have the Deity of Jesus Christ taught, where Paul calls Him "God". But, in the second reading, we have no such reference to Christ's Deity. The reader who uses such modern versions, will probably find a footnote to this text, as the New International Version has: "some manuscripts God". Footnotes such as this one, give the false impression, that the reading "God" is an invention by some over zealous Christian, who, while copying a manuscript, substituted "Θεοϛ" (God), for "οϛ" (who). When the Scriptures were originally written down, the form which the Greek characters were written in, was contracted. Thus, where we have "God" now written "Θεοϛ", the contracted form would be "ΘC", and for "who", which is now "οϛ", it was "ΟC". As the reader can see, the difference is only the line in the "Ο", and the one above both letters. So, a copyist, who denied the Deity of Jesus Christ, when he came to this text, only had to omit the two horizontal lines, and the reference to Christ's Deity in this text, no longer existed. On the other hand, the opposite could be argued. That a Christian who was copying the manuscript, when he came to this place, inserted the two lines, so as to have the text refer to Christ's Deity! Which is right? The present situation seems hopeless, as the person who affirms Christ's Deity, would maintain that Paul wrote "God"; while the Jehovah's Witnesses would no doubt argue for "Who", as being the work of Paul.

For the reading "οϛ", the earliest evidence dates to the third century, where we find it in the Latin translation of a work by Origen (A.D.185-254), where the Latin is "qui" (who). We must not loose sight of Origen's theology on the Person of Jesus Christ. He taught that Jesus, when referred to by John in his Gospel (1:1), is to be understood as "divine", and not "God", arguing his case from the absence of the article (ὀ) in the Greek with "Θεοϛ" (="ὀ Θεοϛ"), where he says that its meaning cannot be "God"! But, what led him (and the Jehovah's Witnesses, today) to this conclusion, is not because of the Greek grammar, but, because of their theological position on Christ. Origen taught that Jesus is not of the "same essence" as the Father, but different, which was later taken up by the heretic Arius (Arianism). He also went as far as to call Jesus a "creature", thus making him into a "second god"! (See, J F Bethume-Baker: Early History of Christian Doctrine, p.148; F J Foakes Jackson; The History of the Christian Church, p.163). With this theology on Christ, how could Origen quote 1 Timothy 3:16 with "Θεοϛ", and hold to his position, that Christ is not God? There is no doubt that at a very early time, heretics were corrupting the Word of God, especially with respect to the deity of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

Much is made of the fact, the Greek manuscript, the Codex Sinaiticus (otherwise known by the Hebrew letter א ), which is of the fourth century, and the oldest manuscript of the complete Bible in Greek, does not have "Θεοϛ" in 1 Timothy 3:16. But, there again, this manuscript is given far too much credit for what it's worth, especially by those who do not know the history of this Codex! History informs us, that, in about the year A.D.331, the Emperor Constantine ordered fifty copies of the Scripture. Hitherto, Scripture was written in scroll form, but, at this time it was replaced by the codex (book form). We also know, that this task of copying from scroll to codex was undertaken by the efforts of one Acacius and Euzoius (about A.D.350), who were working in the library of Pamphilus, at Caesarea. It is almost certain, that the Codex Sinaiticus was one of these fifty Bible's that were copied by these two. (see, Sir Frederic Kenyon; Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pp.41, 68; and, Dr Frederick Scrivener; A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, vol.II, p.268-270). Now, for those who known their early Church History, the names Acacius and Euzoius, are known for their stand against the truth of the Holy Trinity, they were both hard line Arians, who went further than Arius (who admitted that Jesus was "like" the Father in essence), by teaching that there was no likeness at all, between the Father and Jesus! This, no doubt, resulted in "Θεοϛ" being replaced in 1 Timothy 3:16.

Now, moving on to the reading "Θεοϛ" in 1 Timothy 3:16, we have the very early testimony of the Church father, Ignatius, who was Bishop of Antioch, and who was born just after our Lord's death, in A.D.35, and was martyred under Trajan (about 108 A.D.). In his epistle to the Ephesians he wrote;

"εν σαρκι γενομενοϛ Θεοϛ" (VII.2)

(Dr J B Lightfoot; The Apostolic Fathers, page 107. Note)

"God having come in the flesh"

Not only do we have this reading, but in this same Epistle, in chapter nineteen, we read the words:

"Θεου ανθρωπινωϛ ϕανερουμενου" (God was manifest as man)"

(Lightfoot, ibid, p.111)

It is interesting to note, for the purpose of textual criticism, that even at this place we have a corruption. The Syriac Versionof this fathers writings, has, instead of Θεου, υιου (Son), this is according to Dr Alford in his Greek Testament, Vol.III, p.332). The reading Θεου has by far the strongest evidence.

For those of us who are familiar with the writings of Ignatius, it is clear that he did not always quote Scripture verbatim. This can be seen from the same epistle already mentioned, where, in chapter one he uses the phrase: "εν αιματιΘεου" (by the blood of God), (ibid, pp.172-173), a phrase he would not have used, had he not found it in Scripture. This, of course, is sanctioned by Paul in Acts 20:28, where he speaks of the "Church of God, which He purchased by His own blood"!; proving that the use of "Lord" in Acts 20:28 (as found in some versions) is a corruption.

Not only do we have the early testimony of Ignatius, for the reading "Θεοϛ", but it is also quoted by (a) Hippolytus (170-236), the time of Origen!; (b) Gregory Thaumaturgus (213-270); (c) Didymus (313-398); (d) Gregory of Nyssa (330-395), who quotes this text 22 times with "Θεοϛ"!; (e) Chrysostom (347-407); Cyril Alex. (died 444); (f) Theodoret (393-458); (g)Apollinarius (310-390, heretic!). Here, we have the testimony of writers (all Greek) from the first, to the fifth century, who found "Θεοϛ" in their copies of 1 Timothy 3:16! This evidence is by far stronger than what we have for the corrupted reading "οϛ". It is interesting to note, that, though this text with "Θεοϛ" (as far as I am aware) is not used by Athanasius (296-373), in his disputes with the Arian's. Yet it was known in (and before) his age, especially to Didymus, who was a very good friend of Athanasius, who, with Gregory of Nyssa, uses this text with "Θεοϛ", against the Arian's! It is of course possible, that the writings of Athanasius that have come down to us, have been corrupted. We know from history, that many of the writings of Diodore, Bishop of Tarsus (died 390), were destroyed by the Arias (see, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, under "Diodore", on page 401).
Last edited:


A few corrections to/observations about the text reproduced above:

The statement "For the reading 'οϛ', the earliest evidence dates to the third century, where we find it in the Latin translation of a work by Origen (A.D.185-254), where the Latin is 'qui' (who)," is incorrect. Origen doesn't witness to that reading.

The Latin in question (Commentary on Romans, 1.4.1) is De quibus quamvis periculosum videatur chartulis committere sermonem, tamen non otiose praetereunda sunt dicta sapientium et aenigmata, sed subtili admodum mentis acie, in quantum res patitur, velut per quoddam speculum contemplanda: ne forte is qui Verbum caro factus apparuit positis in carne, sicut Apostolus dicit quia manifestatus est in carne, justificatus in spiritu, apparuit angelis &c. That is, “Though it may seem perilous to commit [such] words to paper, yet they are not to be idly passed over, the sayings and riddles of the wise, but with very subtle keenness of the mind, insofar as circumstances permit, as though contemplating in a mirror: that He who is the Word made flesh,” i.e., God, “appeared to those who were in the flesh, even as the Apostle says that He [the Word] ‘was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit’ [and] ‘seen of angels.’” The word in question is not the relative pronoun, qui ("who") but rather a Late Latin subordinator, quia ("that"). The verb manifestatus ("he-was-manifest") directly references is qui Verbum caro factus. In more ancient Christian writings John 1:1, 14 and 1 Timothy 3:16 are frequently intertwined in commentary. Minuscule 1739 (9th century) was produced from a second or third century exemplar that remained in use until about the 4th century, and contains a colophon indicating it was copied from a text edited by Origen in the Pauline Epistles. The reading contains the Euthalian header "On the divine incarnation" and the reading is "God was manifest in the flesh."

The reason for attributing the reading qui (“who”) to Origen stems from the suggestion by Wetstein, who was followed by Griesbach (1806),[1] Henry Alford (1865)[2], F.J.A. Hort (1882),[3] Philip Schaff (1882)[4] et al that qui (“who”) should be read in place of quia. Ultimately Schaff, in 1863, reified this conjecture and proclaimed that Origen in Latin indeed reads qui manifestatus est.[5] Origen has been incorrectly listed among the evidence for qui ever since.

Hippolytus does not quote the verse directly, but does clearly reference it: Οὗτος προελθὼν εἰς κόσμον Θεὸς ἐν σώματι ἐφανερώθη, “He coming forth into the world was God manifested in a body".

Dionysius of Alexandria, in the Greek copy of his epistle against Paul of Samosata written just before his death in 265 (there is a later, interpolated Latin copy that is more sympathetic to the views of Paul of Samosata that the authentic epistle is confused with), quotes the text with Θεὸς ("God"). He writes, εἶς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ὁ ῶν ἐν τῷ Πατρι συναΐδιος λόγος, ἕν αὐτοῦ πρόσωπον, ἀόρατος Θεός, καὶ ὁρατὸς γενόμενος; Θεὸς γὰρ[6] ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός, ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθεὶς ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου.[7] That is, “Christ is one, who is in the Father the co-eternal Word. There is one person of Him that is the invisible God, and became visible, for ‘God was manifest in the flesh,’ ‘made of a woman,’ born out of God the Father, out of the womb before the dawn.” This epistle was addressed to the diocese and sent to the Council of Antioch shortly before his death. It is noted as an authentic work of Dionysius by Eusebius of Caesarea around the year 340.

Gregory of Nyssa not only quotes "God was manifest in the flesh" 22 times, but also mentions it as one of the passages that was "in all men's mouths" when defending the Deity of Christ against the heterodox. In Gregory’s Fourth Oration (c. 380), he writes, Πάντες οἵ τὸν λόγον κηρύσσοντες ἐν τούτῳ τὸ θαύμα τοῦ μυστηρίου καταμηνύουσιν· ὅτι Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ὅτι ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο. “All who preach the word, pronounce the wonder of the mystery to be in this: that ‘God was manifest in the flesh,’ that ‘the Word was made flesh’”. Not only does he witness to the reading in the fourth century, he also proclaims it to be that pronounced by “All who preach the word,” and places it foremost in a string of four straight scriptural references. And again, against Eunomius (or 10th Oration), Gregory offers three proofs of Christ’s Deity from the Pauline Epistles, proclaiming them to be “in all men’s mouths”: he first cites that Christ is called “Great God” in Titus 2:13 and then “God over all” in Romans 9:5, and having quoted these two he proceeds to write Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διαρρήδην βοᾷ; ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, “And unto Timothy he cries outright that ‘God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit.”

(Not to pull the discussion off topic)

[1] “Griesbach—Nov. Testamentum Grace, Vol. II”, The Monthly Review, vol. LIII, [1807] p. 505.
[2] Henry Alford, The Greek Testament: with Various Readings, [Deighton, Bell, and Co., Cambridge, 1865] p. 333
[3] Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction. Appendix [Macmillan and Company, 1882], Appendix I: Notes on Select Readings, p. 133
[4] Philip Schaff, The New Testament in the original Greek, [Harper & Brothers, 1882] vol. 2, p. 133: “Orig.Rom.lat.Ruf(sicut apostolus dicit Quia [? Qui] manifestatus est in carne &c.)”.
[5] Philip Schaff, A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version, [Harper & Brothers, 1883] p. 200: “Origen (qui manifestatus est)”.
[6] For those unacquainted with Greek grammar, γὰρ (“for”) always intrudes one word into the clause, and is therefore not part of the quotation proper.
[7] Contra Paul Samosata, as found in Sacrosancta concilia ad regiam editionem exacta, [1671] vol. 1, 853a. In the 1728 edition of this volume, the text begins at the top of col. 876 (Greek) and the bottom of col. 874 (Latin).

Steven Avery

Thank you Brian. Good to have you aboard.

That Origen correction is very important. I'll try to spend some time on this shortly.

It looks like we need a Burgon style full review,
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Last edited:


Thank you Brian. Good to have you aboard.

That Origen correction is very important. I'll try to spend some time on this shortly.

It looks like we need a Burgon style full review,
The manuscript evidence I have accumulated over the last decade is quite extensive, I've also been through all the quotations of the Greek authors. I'd be willing to post it at some point but it would take time to compile in a digestible format.

Interesting anachronism you've pointed out above. At the time of Erasmus the debate was between quod (O) in the Vulgate and Θεὸς (Deus) in the Greek... OC wasn't even on the radar, [edit: to my knowledge, until the "discovery" of Sinaiticus, see comments below] and probably because no one would think to put a solecism as the words of the Apostle. The prolonged debate over how to interpret it among those rigidly promoting the reading OC is probably the best argument against its "intrinsic goodness."

"[P]osited" also seems a bit strong for Caeterum utra lectio sit verior, ambigo nonnihil, "of which reading is truer, I am uncertain." It's all in the manner of cutting the quotation at Mihi subolet, "Deum" additum fuisse aduersus haereticos Arrianos ("It occurs to me that 'God' was added against the Arian heresy") and not allowing the rest to be heard: Caeterum, mea quidem sententia, simplicissima fuerit interpretatio, si quis mysterium intelligat praedicationem evangelii, quod saepe alias mysterium vocat, prius occultum et ignotum, nunc manifestatum universo mundo. "But, in my opinion, it would be the simplest interpretation, if any one understands the mystery of the preaching of the Gospel, which he often calls other times a mystery, first hidden and unknown, now revealed to the whole world." It seems to me that Erasmus has produced an "on the one hand . . . on the other hand" sort of argument that favors Deus.

The Latin had been insulated from any revision according to the Greek, but when Byzantium fell the Greek scholars headed toward Europe, bringing their language and manuscripts with them. It is only natural that many of the first generation of European scholars to face the difficulty would do so with uncertainty. Besides that, we can weigh the words of Erasmus now and know it wasn't added against the Arians, as the reading is attested to before that time.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

John Berriman went over the OC issues in the 1700s.

And I will be trying to expand this page, which I just started now.
I’ll plan on adding some 1800s.

the earliest scholastic arguments for οϛ

the anachronism error from Grantley to Gurry could be corrected on New Testament Textual Criticism, however I don’t have posting rights there
Last edited:


Lectured by Berriman in 1737 and 1738, published in 1741, I think. Somewhere in my archive I have it. Might be good to go back and look. You're correct, he mentions the reading found in the Colbert (Colbertinus 2844) manuscript, which is GA 33, and the extremely problematic testimony of Liberatus. Now that I'm thinking about it there's another large work by Henderson around 1830 who covers it also.


In translation (to English, to Latin, etc.) the pronoun can be ameliorated without difficulty and without reflecting the difficulty present in the Greek once Θεὸς is removed. If it has to be ameliorated, it is safe to assume the possibility that something somewhere has already gone wrong. And this is part of the problem with modern criticism: it regards the harder reading as genuine, failing to consider that errors resulting in harder readings give rise to ameliorations (that is, "fixing the text," resulting in variant clusters). Hence the corruption from Θ̅C to Ο̅C (as they appear in the uncial script), for instance, would result in OC and subsequently O, and other solutions besides. Consider that, in the early days of Christianity, θεός itself was a "hard reading," and that for a long period of time it was the Arians who dominated the Latin West.

From there, we can make a reasoned conclusion that isolated mistakes will manifest themselves in a fewer number of manuscripts:

ο̅ς (uncial error for θ̅ς): F and G. The relative is written this way only in this place in both manuscripts. This is probably the source of the error in the West.
ς̅ (error for θ̅ς): 2243
χριστὸς: 91
ὃ: D (06) vg lat co(sa, bo)
ᾧ: 061
ὅς (this could be divided into with a colon or without): Aleph 33 365 1175 2127 l60.
ὃς θεός: 256 (Armenian diglot)
ο Θεος: 69 88 915 1524 1943 2002
ϴεος γαρ: 336

Whereas the majority faithfully copied it:
Aleph2, A (according to early testimonies before the text wore away), C, D(c), K (018), L (020), P (025), Ψ (044), 056, 075, 0142, 0150, 0151

Minuscules: At least 570 minuscules from every text type including 6, 81, 104, 181, 263, 424, 436, 459, 614, 1241, 1319, 1424, 1505, 1573, 1739, 1862, 1881, 1912, 2110, 2200.

23, 156, 167, 169, 173, 250, 587, 809, 884, 895, 1126, 1159, 2010, 2058 and probably more (these are all I have access to).

Versions: geo2 slav syr(har) arab(poly)
Last edited:


It seems to me it started gaining more traction in 1785 when Griesbach popularized the notion that the original readings of A and C were actually OC, and not (as traditionally held) Θ̅C. In 1834-1835 when potassium ferricyanide was applied to C, the reading Θ̅C was clearly restored. Tischendorf in 1843 said to be the mark of a corrector because it slants upward to the right, and this became the dominant view. With the discovery of Sinaiticus in 1859, a lot of incorrect information flooded the critical field in a push to remove Θεὸς--much of it has still not been removed.


Just an addendum to the manuscript list above.

θεός - Full list of minuscules
1 3 5 6 18 35 38 42 43 51 57 61 62 76 81 82 90 93 94 97 102 103 104 105 110 122 131 133 141 142 149 172 175 177 181 189 201 203 204 205 206 209 216 218 221 223 226 228 234 250 252 254 263 296 302 308 309 312 314 319 321 322 323 325 326 327 328 330 336 337 356 363 367 378 383 384 385 386 390 393 394 398 400 404 421 424 425 429 431 432 436 440 444 451 452 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 462 465 466 467 468 469 479 489 491 496 498 506 517 522 547 567 582 592 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 612 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 622 623 625 627 628 629 630 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 641 642 644 664 665 676 680 699 757 794 796 801 808 823 824 858 876 886 891 901 909 910 911 912 913 914 918 919 920 921 922 927 928 935 941 945 959 996 997 999 1003 1022 1040 1058 1069 1070 1072 1075 1094 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1115 1127 1149 1161 1162 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1270 1277 1292 1297 1311 1315 1319 1352 1354 1359 1360 1367 1384 1390 1398 1400 1404 1405 1409 1424 1425 1448 1456 1482 1490 1495 1501 1503 1505 1508 1509 1521 1548 1573 1594 1595 1597 1598 1599 1609 1610 1611 1617 1618 1622 1626 1628 1636 1637 1642 1643 1646 1649 1652 1661 1673 1678 1702 1704 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1757 1759 1760 1761 1763 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1780 1795 1798 1827 1828 1830 1831 1832 1836 1837 1839 1840 1841 1843 1845 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1879 1880 1881 1882 1886 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1896 1897 1899 1900 1902 1903 1905 1906 1907 1908 1910 1911 1912 1914 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1927 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1939 1941 1945 1946 1947 1948 1950 1951 1952 1954 1955 1956 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1976 1977 1978 1980 1981 1982 1984 1985 1986 1987 1991 1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2003 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2011 2012 2080 2085 2086 2102 2105 2110 2125 2131 2138 2143 2147 2175 2180 2183 2189 2191 2194 2197 2200 2201 2208 2218 2221 2248 2255 2257 2261 2279 2298 2310 2318 2344 2356 2374 2378 2400 2401 2404 2412 2431 2466 2475 2482 2483 2484 2492 2494 2495 2501 2502 2508 2511 2516 2523 2527 2541 2544 2554 2558 2576 2587 2625 2626 2627 2629 2652 2653 2659 2674 2675 2690 2691 2696 2704 2705 2712 2718 2723 2736 2739 2746 2772 2774 2777 2815 2816 2817 2865 2886 2889 2892 2899 2909 2918 2936

Greek-Latin Diglots
457 (10th century) reads Θεὸς in the Greek and Deus (“God”) in Latin, thought it is not a full diglot—there are significant gaps in the Latin text. It looks more like an interlinear text was started but not completed.

460 (13th century) reads Θεὸς in the Greek and quod in Latin. There is also an Arabic column, though I am unfamiliar with the language.

620 (12th century) reads Θεὸς in the Greek. The original Latin reading, quod, has been scraped and the text is corrected to Deus.

628 (14th century) reads Deus in the Latin column by the original hand.

629 (14th century) reads Θεὸς in Greek and quod in Latin.

Steven Avery

The manuscript evidence I have accumulated over the last decade is quite extensive, I've also been through all the quotations of the Greek authors. I'd be willing to post it at some point but it would take time to compile in a digestible format.

Sounds good!

Here is a new staging area.

Early Church Writers (ECW) usages of 1 Timothy 3:16

You can use posts there, and/or we could give you your own threads!
(Maybe you can set one up on your own?) Not sure.

And I use a bookmark system called Linkman, which led to some of those pics.


Thank you. I started a new thread. I'll elaborate on it a little at a time.
Last edited: