“`html
An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Timothy 3:16: Textual Variants and Grammatical Challenges of the Relative Pronoun
This exegetical study of “An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Timothy 3:16: Textual Variants and Grammatical Challenges of the Relative Pronoun” is based on a b-greek discussion from June 15th, 2014. The grammar of 1 Timothy 3:16, particularly in its critical text variant, has been a subject of scholarly debate for over three centuries. The discussion highlights the fundamental textual difference concerning the relative pronoun in the verse, distinguishing between readings such as θεός (Received Text), ὃς (Critical Text), and ὃ (Codex Bezae), each presenting unique interpretive challenges.
The central exegetical issue revolves around the grammatical discordance between the masculine relative pronoun ὃς and its apparent neuter antecedent, μυστήριον (mystery). This lack of agreement in gender has led scholars to propose various solutions, including the “hymn theory” (suggesting an external, non-extant antecedent within an embedded liturgical fragment), the acceptance of constructio ad sensum (where the pronoun agrees with the implied meaning rather than the grammatical gender of its antecedent), or classifying the construction as an ungrammatical solecism. This study explores the textual evidence, grammatical implications, and proposed solutions for understanding this challenging passage, particularly in light of arguments for and against constructio ad sensum in Pauline literature.
Greek text (Nestle 1904)
καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The SBLGNT (2010) reads ὃς, aligning with most modern critical editions.
- In contrast, the Byzantine text and the Received Text tradition read θεός (“God”), leading to a significantly different theological statement.
- A third variant, ὃ (neuter relative pronoun), found in Codex Bezae (D*) and some other Western witnesses, proposes agreement with μυστήριον.
Textual Criticism (NA28): The textual evidence for 1 Timothy 3:16 is complex, with significant divergences among manuscript traditions. The reading ὃς (masculine relative pronoun) is strongly supported by early and significant witnesses, including א* (original hand of Sinaiticus), A* (original hand of Alexandrinus, though corrected to θεός), C* (original hand of Ephraemi Rescriptus, corrected to θεός), F, G, Ψ, 33, 365, 1175, 1739*, 1881, vg, cop, arm, eth, geo, and several Church Fathers (Didymus, Epiphanius). The NA28, like most modern critical editions, adopts ὃς as the preferred reading, reflecting the strong external and internal evidence. The variant θεός (God) is found in later Byzantine manuscripts (אc, Ac, C2, D2, Ψ [88pc] 1739c, 1881c, Byz) and later patristic citations. This reading is considered a later development, possibly arising from a scribal confusion between OC (a common abbreviation for ὅς) and ΘC (a nomen sacrum for θεός), or an intentional theological clarification to explicitly state Christ’s deity and resolve the apparent grammatical difficulty. The neuter reading ὃ is supported by D* (original hand of Codex Bezae) and virtually the entire Latin tradition. This reading is understood as a scribal “correction” to achieve grammatical agreement with μυστήριον, indirectly supporting the originality of ὃς by demonstrating that earlier scribes encountered and attempted to resolve the perceived grammatical irregularity.
Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG):
- μυστήριον (mystērion): In Hellenistic Greek, this term often referred to a secret ritual or doctrine revealed only to initiates. In the New Testament, particularly in Paul, it denotes a truth previously hidden but now revealed by God, typically concerning Christ and the salvation plan (BDAG, s.v. “μυστήριον”). It is not merely an enigma but a divine disclosure, a “revealed secret.” The post clarifies that it refers to the “Gospel message” or “revealed religious truth” in a Christian context.
- εὐσεβείας (eusebeias): The genitive form of εὐσέβεια (eusebeia), meaning “godliness,” “piety,” or “reverence” towards God. It denotes proper worship and right conduct resulting from a devout attitude (BDAG, s.v. “εὐσέβεια”). In 1 Timothy, it is a key ethical and theological concept for Christian living.
- σαρκί (sarki): The dative form of σάρξ (sarx), meaning “flesh,” often used in the New Testament to refer to human nature, humanity in its corporeal aspect, or sometimes human frailty (BDAG, s.v. “σάρξ”). Here, “ἐν σαρκί” signifies the Incarnation, Christ’s manifestation in human form.
Translation Variants
The grammatical challenge of 1 Timothy 3:16 lies in the use of the masculine relative pronoun ὃς following the neuter noun μυστήριον. Several interpretations attempt to reconcile this apparent gender discordance:
1. Constructio ad sensum (Agreement to Sense): This is a widely accepted grammatical explanation. Proponents argue that the pronoun ὃς, while grammatically masculine, agrees with the *implied* or *conceptual* antecedent rather than the strict grammatical gender of μυστήριον. Since the “mystery of godliness” (τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον) is clearly understood to be a reference to Jesus Christ, the masculine pronoun is used to refer to Christ as the person embodying this mystery. Examples from the New Testament demonstrate this phenomenon:
- John 6:9: Ἔστιν παιδάριον ὧδε ὃς ἔχει πέντε ἄρτους κριθίνους καὶ δύο ὀψάρια (“There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish”). Here, παιδάριον (paidarion, “boy/child”) is neuter, but ὃς (hos, masculine relative pronoun) refers to the boy personally.
- Colossians 2:19: καὶ οὐ κρατῶν τὴν κεφαλήν, ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων ἐπιχορηγούμενον καὶ συμβιβαζόμενον αὔξει τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ θεοῦ. (“And not holding fast to the head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God”). Κεφαλή (kephalē, “head”) is feminine, but ἐξ οὗ (ex hou, “from whom”) uses a masculine/neuter genitive pronoun, referring to Christ as the head.
- Revelation 13:14: λέγων τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ποιῆσαι εἰκόνα τῷ θηρίῳ, ὃς ἔχει τὴν πληγὴν τῆς μαχαίρης καὶ ἔζησεν. (“telling those who dwell on earth to make an image for the beast, who has the wound of the sword and lived”). θηρίον (thērion, “beast”) is neuter, but ὃς (hos, masculine relative pronoun) refers to the beast as a personal entity.
This approach emphasizes that grammar serves context, and an author may prioritize the semantic meaning over strict syntactic rules, especially when referring to a person implied by a preceding concept. The rhetorical effect is a direct, personal identification of the “mystery” with Christ.
2. Hymn Theory / External Antecedent: Many scholars, particularly since the late 19th century, have posited that 1 Timothy 3:16 is an embedded fragment of an early Christian hymn, confession, or liturgical statement. In this view, the masculine relative pronoun ὃς refers to an antecedent (Christ) that existed in the original hymn but is not explicitly present in the preceding syntax of 1 Timothy. This theory explains the perceived grammatical disjunction by suggesting the passage functions as a quotation, where the original context of the hymn provided the clear antecedent. While this theory offers a solution to the grammatical problem, it relies on positing an unpreserved external source, which moves the discussion beyond purely internal NT grammatical analysis.
3. Grammatical Solecism: Some commentators have viewed the construction as genuinely ungrammatical or an “apparent solecism.” This perspective suggests that the author either made a grammatical error or intentionally used an irregular construction, possibly for emphasis or due to the unique theological nature of the statement. However, given the evidence for constructio ad sensum in other biblical and classical Greek texts, and the literary sophistication of Pauline writings, simply labeling it a solecism is often seen as an oversimplification that fails to seek a meaningful explanation for the author’s choice.
The rhetorical force of ὃς, whether via constructio ad sensum or as part of a hymn, is to underscore the person of Christ as the embodiment and content of the “mystery of godliness.” It shifts the focus from the abstract concept of “mystery” to the concrete reality of “the one who” (Christ) was manifested, justified, seen, preached, believed, and received into glory.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The analysis of 1 Timothy 3:16 reveals a complex interplay of textual criticism, grammar, and theological interpretation. The overwhelming textual evidence supports ὃς over θεός or ὃ in critical editions like NA28 and SBLGNT. The grammatical challenge posed by the masculine relative pronoun ὃς following the neuter μυστήριον is best understood through the lens of constructio ad sensum. This grammatical device, attested elsewhere in the New Testament and classical Greek, allows the pronoun to refer to the conceptual or personal referent (Christ) rather than strictly adhering to the grammatical gender of the preceding noun. This interpretation, supported by various scholarly insights, allows for a coherent understanding of the text without resorting to positing an unseen external source or an ungrammatical error.
The passage powerfully identifies Christ as the living embodiment of the revealed truth (the mystery of godliness), emphasizing his manifestation, vindication, proclamation, and glorification. This theological density is preserved and even highlighted by the deliberate use of the masculine pronoun.
Based on this exegetical study, here are three translation suggestions for the pertinent part of 1 Timothy 3:16:
- And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness: the one who was manifested in the flesh…
This translation prioritizes a literal rendering of the masculine relative pronoun ὃς (“the one who”) while acknowledging its implicit reference to Christ, embodying the concept of constructio ad sensum. - And great indeed is the mystery of godliness, namely, Christ, who was revealed in the flesh…
This translation explicitly inserts “Christ” as an explanatory bridge to clarify the implied antecedent, making the constructio ad sensum explicit for the English reader, while still using “who” to maintain the personal reference. - And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh…
This option uses “He who,” a more traditional English phrasing for the masculine relative pronoun, directly connecting the “mystery” to a personal agent (Christ) as the subject of the subsequent participial clauses, echoing a hymnic or confessional style.
“`