In the Critical text (the Westcott & Hort manuscripts) there is the omission of “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16. Let’s look more closely at that text. Burgon, responding to the margin note in the original 1881 Revision which says “The word God, in place of He who, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence”, replies (we quote from the summation of his 76-page dissertation of proofs to the contrary):
Behold then the provision which THE AUTHOR of Scripture has made for the effectual conservation in its integrity of this portion of His written Word! Upwards of eighteen hundred years have run their course since the HOLY GHOST by His servant, Paul, rehearsed the ‘mystery of Godliness;’ declaring this to be the great foundation-fact,—namely, that ‘GOD WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH.’ And lo, out of two hundred and fifty-four [cursive] copies of S. Paul’s Epistles no less than two hundred and fifty-two are discovered to have preserved that expression. Such ‘Consent’ amounts to Unanimity; and, (as I explained at pp. 454-5,) unanimity in this subject matter, is conclusive.
The copies of which we speak, (you are requested to observe,) were produced in every part of ancient Christendom,—being derived in every instance from copies older than themselves; which again were transcripts of copies older still. They have since found their way, without design or contrivance, into the libraries of every country of Europe,—where, for hundreds of years they have been jealously guarded. And,—(I repeat the question already hazarded at pp. 445-6, and now respectfully propose it to you, my lord Bishop; requesting you at your convenience to favor me publicly with an answer)—For what conceivable reason can this multitude of witnesses be supposed to have entered into a wicked conspiracy to deceive mankind?
True, that no miracle has guarded the sacred Text in this, or in any other place. On the other hand, for the last 150 years, Unbelief has been carping resolutely at this grand proclamation of the Divinity of CHRIST,—in order to prove that not this, but some other thing, it must have been, which the Apostle wrote. And yet (as I have fully shown) the result of all the evidence procurable is to establish that the Apostle must be held to have written no other thing but this…
The numerical result of our entire enquiry, proves therefore to be briefly this:
In 1 TIMOTHY 3:16 the reading [writing English for the Greek] God manifest in the flesh, is witnessed to by 289 manuscripts:—by 3 VERSIONS:—by upwards of 20 Greek FATHERS [all of which he has just listed in detail]…
The reading who (…in place of God) is countenanced by 6 MANUSCRIPTS in all (a, Paul 17, 73: Apost. 12, 85, 86):—by only one VERSION for certain (viz. the Gothic):—not for certain by a single Greek FATHER. (1)
In short, the overwhelming testimony of Antiquity says that the Fathers, the Lectionaries, and the manuscripts were familiar with the very reading we ourselves have preserved in the Traditional Text. The fractional aberrant readings proceeding from their source in a’s Alexandria or Caesarea, where the Deity of Jesus Christ was violently and wickedly denied, are virtually buried by the contradictory evidence of the true reading widely spread throughout the ancient Christian world.
Burgon, Commenting on the two major Alexandrian manuscripts,
We assert that, so manifest are the disfigurements jointly and exclusively exhibited by codices B & a [at which point he gives a long list of examples in the footnote], that instead of accepting these codices as two ‘independent’ Witnesses to the inspired Original, we are constrained to regard them as little more than a single reproduction of one and the same scandalously corrupt and (comparatively) late Copy…
The result is, that codex a, (which evidently has gone through much more adventures and fallen into worse company than his rival) has been corrupted to a far graver extent than codex B, and is even more untrustworthy. Thus, whereas (in the Gospels alone) B has 589 Readings quite peculiar to itself, affecting 858 words,— a has 1460 such readings, affecting 2640 words.
One solid fact like the preceding, (let it be pointed out in passing,) is more helpful by far to one who would form a correct estimate of the value of a Codex, than any number of such ‘reckless and unverified assertions,’ not to say peremptory and baseless decrees, as abound in the highly imaginative pages of Drs. Westcott and Hort. (2)
Although it has been asserted by some that the W&H manuscripts are characterized by “lack of omissions,” the facts are glaringly contrary:
…Mutilation has been practiced throughout. By codex B (collated [i.e., minutely compared] with the Traditional Text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from the Gospels alone: by codex a,—3455 words: by codex D,—3704 words. (3)
-----------Jerusalem Blade's PB Blog
(1) The Revision Revised, Burgon, pages 494, 495, 496.
(2) Ibid., pages 317, 318, 319.
(3) Ibid., page 75.
Full thread found
