1 Timothy 3:16

There's no magic bullet for determining if a stretch of text is parenthetical. You just have to analyze the syntax and, if that's the best way to make sense of it, that's how ι'd take it. ι'm not sure we have quite the same perspective on parentheses, though. ι don't see anything parenthetical in the text you've quoted. Can you explain why you see it that way? Statistics: Posted by timothy_p_mcmahon — March 17th, 2017, 12:56 am
ι found a very readable summary of the text critical questions on lumina.bible.org. ι don't want to debate text critical questions here, and ι don't want to claim that the conclusions this article reaches are correct, but a lot of words like "hymn theory" and such have been thrown around in this thread, and this quote should at least clarify what these various terms mean.
lumina.bible.org wrote: The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (אc Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88 pc] 1739 1881 Ï vgms) read θεός for ὅς. Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the discussion. α few mss have ὁ θεός (so 88 pc), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* α* ξ* φ γ 33 365 pc Did Epiph. Significantly, δ* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ, a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered original: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a six-strophed hymn. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεός written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: οϲ vs. θ̅ϲ̅. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א α ξ δ). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον. What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As τξγντ 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading in this case. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός (Cristos, “Christ”) or κύριος (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341-42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — June 19th, 2014, 1:41 pm  
Steven Avery wrote: In fact, as ι write this, ι want to add another question. Is this two-step constructio ad sensum seen in Greek grammar? Clearly, a personal pronoun can be two-step, personal pronoun to the proper name. However, one word concept, μυστήριον, pointing to a second related yet quite distinct noun or name (Christ Jesus)? Are there similar examples?
Abbott-Smith has a rather nice entry for βδ%85%ξφ%82">ὅς that provides quite a few examples of constructio ad sensum for this pronoun in the New Testament. Abbott-Smith wrote: ὅς: pronoun ι. As demonstr. pron. = οὗτος, ὅδε, this, that, also for αὐτός, chiefly in nom.: ὅς δέ, but he (cf. ἦ δὲ ὅς, freq. in Plat.), Mk 15:23, Jo 5:11; ὃς μὲν . . . ὃς δέ, the one . . . the other, Mt 21:35, 22:5, 25:15, Lk 23:33, Ac 27:14, Ro 14:5, ι Co 11:21, ιι Co 2:18, Ju 22; neut., ὃ μὲν . . . ὃ δέ, the one . . . the other, some . . . some, Mt 13:8, 23, Ro 9:21; ὃς (ὃ) μὲν . . . (ἄλλος (ἄλλο)) . . . ἕτερος, Mk 4:4, Lk 8:5, ι Co 12:8-10; οὓς μέν, absol., ι Co 12:28; ὃς μὲν . . . ὁ δέ, Ro 14:2. ιι. As relat. pron., who, which, what, that; 1. agreeing in gender with its antecedent, but differently governed as to case: Mt 2:9, Lk 9:9, Ac 20:18, Ro 2:29, al. mult. 2. In variation from the common construction; (a) in gender, agreeing with a noun in apposition to the antecedent: Mk 15:16, Ga 3:16, Eph 6:17, al.; constr. ad sensum: Jo 6:9, Col 2:19, ι Ti 3:16, Re 13:14, al.; (b) in number, constr. ad sensum: Ac 15:36, ιι Pe 3:1; (c) in case, by attraction to the case of the antecedent (Bl., §50, 2): Jo 4:18, Ac 3:21, Ro 15:18, ι Co 6:19, Eph 1:8, al. 3. The neut. ὅ with nouns of other gender and with phrases, which thing, which term: Mk 3:17 12:42, Jo 1:39, Col 3:14, al.; with a sentence, Ac 2:32, Ga 2:10, ι Jo 2:8, al. 4. With ellipse of a demonstrative (οὗτος or ἐκεῖνος), before or after: before, Mt 20:23, Lk 7:43, Ro 10:14, al.; after, Mt 10:38, Mk 9:40, Jo 19:22, Ro 2:1 al. 5. Expressing purpose, end or cause: Mt 11:10 (who = that he may), Mk 1:2, He 12:6 al. 6. ξ. prep, as periphrasis for conjc.: ἀνθ’ ὧν ( = ἀντὶ τούτων ὧν), because, Lk 1:20, al.; wherefore, Lk 12:3; ἐξ οὗ, since, for that, Ro 5:12; ἀφ’ οὗ, since (temporal), Lk 13:25; ἐξ οὗ, whence, Phl 3:20; etc. 7. With particles: ὃς ἄν (ἐάν), v.s. ἄν, ἐάν; ὃς καί, Mk 3:19, Jo 21:20, Ro 5:2, al.; ὃς καὶ αὐτός, Mt 27:57. 8. Gen., οὗ, absol., as adv. (v.s. οὗ). Here are some examples using constructio ad sensum with ὃς that are particularly similar to Ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί in 1 Tim 3:16.
John 6:9 wrote: Ἔστιν παιδάριον ὧδε ὃς ἔχει πέντε ἄρτους κριθίνους καὶ δύο ὀψάρια
παιδάριον is neuter. ὅς is the masculine form.
Colossians 2:19 wrote: καὶ οὐ κρατῶν τὴν κεφαλήν, ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων ἐπιχορηγούμενον καὶ συμβιβαζόμενον αὔξει τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ θεοῦ.
κεφαλή is feminine. The genitive οὗ can be masculine or neuter, but not feminine.
Rev 13:14 wrote: καὶ πλανᾷ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς διὰ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ποιῆσαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θηρίου, λέγων τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ποιῆσαι εἰκόνα τῷ θηρίῳ, ὃς ἔχει τὴν πληγὴν τῆς μαχαίρης καὶ ἔζησεν.
θηρίον is neuter. ὅς is the masculine form. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — June 19th, 2014, 12:05 pm
Barry Hofstetter wrote: Well stated, Stephen. ι don't have too much to add here -- ι think your analysis of Col 1:27 and 4:3 is spot on.
Agreed. ι would emphasize very simply that grammar is a function of context, and that an author, and particularly one fluent in the language in which he is writing, sometimes has choices. An author sometimes says surprising things, things which don't accord with our limited sense of the way the language should work. ι think that is the case here. Could Paul have written the neuter at 1 Timothy 3:16? Certainly, but this would also change the meaning of the text to refer to the fact of the μυστήριον rather than its content. By using the masculine relative pronoun Paul is saying not that the word μυστήριον is the literal antecedent of the pronoun, but that the meaning or content of the "mystery" is the assumed antecedent, and in context that is Jesus Christ.
Very well said. ι think that the authors that Steven cited are just a bit too "rule bound" in their attempt to understand the text. So were some of the scribes, who attempted to change the pronoun to the neuter...