I think this: 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. 1Timothy 3:16
.
1 Tim. 3:16 (“God was manifest in the flesh”)
As this is translated in the
KJV it makes Paul say that Jesus is
God “manifest in the flesh.”
Although the
KJV translates 1 Tim. 3:16 with “
God” as above, nearly all other translations today use a word which refers, not to God, but to
Jesus: “
he”
(NIV; RSV; NRSV; JB; NJB; REB; NAB [‘70];
AT; GNB; CBW; and Beck’s translation), “
he who”
(ASV; NASB; NEB; MLB; BBE; Phillips; and Moffatt), “
who,” or “
which.” Even the equally old
Douay version has “
which was manifested in the flesh.” All the very best modern NT texts by trinitarian scholars (including Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and the text by the United Bible Societies) have the NT Greek word
ὃς (“who”) here instead of
θεὸς (“God”). Why do the best trinitarian scholars support this
NON-trinitarian translation of 1 Tim. 3:16?
Noted Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:
“A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where ‘OS’ (
OC or
ὃς, ‘who’) was later taken for
theta sigma with a bar above, which stood for
theos (
θεὸς, ‘god’). Since the new reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts ….” – p. 656,
Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest
Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the
1990 ed., pp. 696-698, vol. 3.)
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose
ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] as the original reading in their NT text for this verse:
“it is supported by the
earliest and
best uncials.” And, “Thus, no uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports
θεὸς [“God”];
all ancient versions presuppose
ὃς [or
OC, “who” - masc.] or
ὅ [“which” - neut.]; and
no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [ca. 370 A.D.] testifies to the reading
θεὸς. The reading
θεὸς arose either
(a) accidentally, through the misreading of
OC as
ΘC, or
(b) deliberately....” - p. 641.
In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the emphasis on the latter). You see, the word ὃς was written in the most ancient manuscripts as
OC (“
C” being a common form for the ancient Greek letter “S” at that time). Most often at this time the word for God
(θεὸς) was written in abbreviated form as
ΘC. However, to show that it was an abbreviated form a
straight line, or
bar, was always drawn above
ΘC. So no copyist should have mistaken
ὃς (or
OC) for
ΘC, in spite of their similarities, simply because of the prominent
bar which appeared over the one and not over the other.
What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714. As he was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known (the Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the word originally written there was
OC but that a horizontal stroke from one of the words
written on the other side of the manuscript showed through very faintly in the middle of the
O. This still would not qualify as an abbreviation for
θεὸς, of course, but Wetstein discovered that some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer
had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit
ΘC [with bar above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)!
Of course, since Wetstein’s day many more ancient NT manuscripts have been discovered and
none of them before the eighth century A.D. have been found with
ΘC (“God”) at this verse!
Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes:
“The strength of the external evidence favoring
OC [‘who’], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually
unanimously to regard
OC as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a ‘B’ rating) [also the Westcott & Hort text]. Accordingly,
1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [‘Jesus is God’] use of θεὸς.” -
Jesus as God, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992.
And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture:
“
He who (hos [or
OC in the original text]).
The correct text, not
theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor
ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter]
musterion [‘mystery’] the reading of Western documents.” - p. 577, Vol. 4,
Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press.
And even hyper-trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun
ὃς (‘who’) in this scripture and tells us:
“The textual variant
θεὸς [‘god’] in the place of
ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the ‘majority text’ school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested, but the syntactical argument that ‘mystery’ (
μυστήριον) being a neuter noun,
cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (
ὃς) is
entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading
θεὸς may be, it is
spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any
explicit reference in
this text.” [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp. 341-342,
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.
The correct rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16, then, is: “
He who was revealed in the flesh ….” -
NASB. Cf.
ASV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; JB; NJB; NIV; NEB; REB; ESV; Douay-Rheims;
TEV; CEV; BBE; NLV; God’s Word; New Century Version; Holman NT; ISV NT; Lexham English Bible; The Message; Weymouth; Moffatt; etc.
Any time you can find so many
trinitarian scholars and translators who agree that a trinity 'proof' verse is NOT accurate, you can be assured that it is NOT a valid 'proof.'
