1Timothy 3:16
The NWT says "Indeed the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great. HE was made manifest in the flesh..."
My belief is Jesus, but I know the WTS teaches this to be false.
Who was manifested in the flesh in this verse?
by bite me 6 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
bite me
-
Narkissos
My belief is Jesus, but I know the WTS teaches this to be false.
I don't think the WTS teaches otherwise on this specific text. At least the NWT "he" corresponds to the masculine gender of the Greek relative (hos), which is a grammatical oddity as referring back to the neuter to mustèrion (the mystery = sacred secret).
Cf. The Watchtower 1/15, 1990:
By divine inspiration, Paul answers that question. Here at 1 Timothy 3:16, he describes six facets of this sacred secret, saying: "He [1] was made manifest in flesh, [2] was declared righteous in spirit, [3] appeared to angels, [4] was preached about among nations, [5] was believed upon in the world, [6] was received up in glory." Who is the "He" who is made manifest? Obviously, "He" is the promised Seed, Jesus, who came to do God’s will. He is central to the sacred secret, making it truly great.
9
Trinitarians try to muddy up the understanding of the sacred secret by saying that "He" at 1 Timothy 3:16 is God himself. They base this on the King James Bible, which reads, "God was manifest in the flesh." However, what do the most reliable Greek manuscripts say? Consistently, they use the pronoun "He" instead of "God." Textual critics now agree that the insertion of "God" in this scripture is a scribal error. Thus, more recent translations, such as the AmericanStandardVersion,TheNewEnglishBible, and the NewWorldTranslation, correctly read: ‘He [or, He who] was manifest in the flesh.’ No, it was not God himself who appeared "in the flesh." Rather, it was his beloved Son and first creation, of whom the apostle John wrote: "So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth."—John 1:14. -
bite me
I like how WTS says "Trinitarians try to muddy up the understanding... and "what do the most reliable Greek Manuscripts say?" When they themselves go against this phrase when when they add "a" and "other" when it was not in the 'most reliable Greek manuscripts""
-
Carl_Hernz
Paul’s letter to Timothy is an exhortation to arm Timothy for the task of preserving sound
Christian conduct in the congregation at Ephesus. Paul writes in case he “should be delayed”
in his visit to Timothy, because the church, “the pillar and foundation of truth” is none
other than God’s. To impress this fact, Paul then appears to quote what scholars believe may
have been an early hymn or credo: “Undeniably great is the mystery of devotion,Who was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated in the spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed to the Gentiles,
believed in throughout the world,
taken up in glory.”1 Timothy 4:14-16.
The earliest readings of this text are in all reality “who.” It is predominantly only in
Western manuscripts that one finds the word “which,” and not “he” as the Watchtower states.
However, this statement by the Watchtower may have just been an error in scholarship as the
Greek word “which” harmonizes with the gender of the word for “mystery.” So technically you
can translate it with “he,” but this was likely inserted in these manuscripts so the pronoun
would match gender with the word “mystery.”Though I have never seen this data that the Watchtower claims regarding scribal errors of the
insertion of the word “God,” it is well known that from the eight/ninth century onward,
manuscripts (predominantly Byzantine) have the word “God” here, not as a mistake, but likely
for advancement of theological doctrine.As for who is being referred to here? Well, Paul says that the congregation or church is God’s
and for this reason Timothy should take his work seriously. Paul then makes that quote from the
hymn or credo that both he and Timothy obviously adhere to regarding this great “mystery”
(meaning “sacred truth”) of their “devotion” as worthy of preserving church teachings.Because Christ was the one “manifested in the flesh,” etc., even as the Watchtower admits, but
the context revolves around “God,” statements like these lead to what would eventually become the
foundations of the doctrine of the Incarnation. The use of “which” in the masculine would support
this view, suggesting a possible reason for this change in Western copies. After development of
the doctrine into the Trinity, this could explain why the later Byzantine texts read “God,”
and why the insertion is not a mistake but likely purposeful.Totally avoiding supporting or disagreeing with the Trinity doctrine, I am but giving a mere
history of the textual development and its relation to how it has come to be viewed today.
While scholastically speaking, and as taught by Trinitarians, the Trinity doctrine is not directly
derivative from Scripture, the reason why it became an issue in the first place is quite visible
from certain statements that seem to mention Christ and God as one, as many believe is happening
in this text.At best, in trying to remain totally neutral, one would have to say the text reads with some
obscurity to it. However, the Watchtower is never safe with obscure sections of Scripture
or letting the reader make up his mind (especially not at the cost of their anti-trinity stance),
therefore their explanation of it as cited by Narkissos. But their exegesis isn’t scholastically
acceptable due to the fact that there is no indication in Paul’s statement that he has stopped
talking about owing devotion to God and is now talking about owing devotion to another person. -
Carl_Hernz
Minor correction: The “he” is not in the manuscripts at all, only the “who” or “which,”
both neutral like the word “mystery.” I should have written in paragraph 2, “So, on the
basis of context, technically you can translate it with “he,” but the word “which” may
have been inserted in these manuscripts…” etc.In paragraph 5, I should have written: “The use of ‘he’ would support this view in
translation, suggesting a possible reason for change in Western copies, but never occurred.”I got a little too quick on the keyboard with this one. My apologies.
-
Narkissos
Carl,
I don't think the genitive occurrences of theos in v. 15 make a plausible backward reference for hos. Actually one would hardly think of it hadn't the late variant theos in v. 16 been popularised through the textus receptus. The formal construction break (anacolouthon) created by the masculine hos is best explained as the beginning of the (hymn) quotation. Strictly speaking, the antecedent of hos is in the unquoted part of the hymn, not in 1 Timothy. The abrupt start of the quotation might be rendered as: "(He) who was revealed in the flesh," etc.
-
Carl_Hernz
I totally agree. That is why I stated it is technically correct to render this as "he" when translating; current scholarship agree swith us on this.
I don't always state what I personally believe or agree with in a post like I just made. I generally try to give a statement based on the best research I have done on a subject to date. Often the research leads me to different personal views that I do not share. I try to be respectful of those who don't hold the same convictions I do by writing like this. So don't expect my writing to necessarily reflect my personal views.
Again, I agree totally with the rendering of "he," as do most modern translations. The oldest extant manuscripts and the latest in critical scholarship holds, however, that the hymn begins with "who." That is the conclusion of their work, not mine. In the midst of this, critical scholarship also agrees, however, that it is perfectly fine to render the "who" as "he."
Regardless of this, as an apologist I can only say that an expert opinion does not make something true. Neither does quoting one end an argument, nor can it be used to declare a successfully executed axiom according to the rules of apology. The latest critical scholarship is thus subject to evaluation as any other opinion. What is certain is that the Watchtower is not honest that such rules applies either to itself or its doctrine. While they may like to compare their work to that of an apologist, they do not allow the application of the scientific method to their reasoning as did the ancient church or modern textual scholars. Any organization that demonizes those who try to test their beliefs are subject to suspicion, at the least. That last statement is my opinion.