Stephen W. Frary, «Who Was Manifested In The Flesh? A Consideration Of Internal Evidence In Support Of A Variant In 1 Tim 3:16A», Vol. 16 (2003) 3-18
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.
Who Was Manifested in the Flesh? A Consideration of Internal Evidence 15
Verse CMM WHG JTS JF Christological / Antecedent
Theological Subject
Phil 2:6-11 X X X 9-11 ὃς ΧÏιστῷ Ἰησοῦ
Col 1:15-20 X X X 20 ὃς τοῦ υἱοῦ
Col 2:14-15 X 14 ἦÏκεν (vb.) ΧÏιστοῦ
1 Tim 3:16 X X X X ὃς μυστήÏιον·
do. Θεός NA
Heb 1:1-4 X 3 3 4 υἱῷ NA
1 Pet 1:18-21 X ΧÏιστοῦ NA
1 Pet 2:22-24 X 21-25 ὃς ΧÏιστός
1 Pet 3:18-22 18, 21 X X ΧÏιστός NA
Rev 4:11 X κύÏιος NA
Rev 5:9-10 X εἶ \ (vb.) á¼€Ïνίου
Rev 5:12 X 13 á¼€Ïνίον NA
Rev 11:17-18 X Σοι κύÏιε
Rev 12:10-12 X NA NA
Rev 14:7 X θεὸν NA
Rev 15:3-4 X κύÏιε θεός NA
Rev 19:1-7 X θεοῦ ` 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 pronomi-
nal reading in 1 Tim 3:16a. Furthermore, if the original reading in our
passage is indeed á½…Ï‚, 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 John’s 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 ante-
cedent is usually an explicit name or title for God or Christ, and it is by
no means obvious that μυστήÏιον 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 ΧÏιστός is put in explicit apposition. Therefore,
it is reasonable to conclude that in terms of consistency with hymnic
style, Θεός 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