The reading of the text cavriti qeou' ( by the grace of God ) is given with
two exceptions by all Greek MSS. including a ABCD 2, by all Latin MSS. by Syr hl and me. For these words M 2 and 67 ** (which has remarkable coincidences with M 2, e.g., 1:3; 3:6) give cwri;" qeou' ( apart from God ) with later MSS. of Syr vg.
The MSS. of the Syriac Vulgate (Peshito) present a remarkable variety of readings. The text of Widmanstadt, followed by Schaaf, gives:
for God Himself
(literally
for He God
)
in His goodness tasted death for every man.
(So
B. M. Rich 7160 A.D. 1203; Rich 7162 saec. xiv.) The important MS. of Buchanan in the University Library, Cambridge, reads:
for He in His goodness, God, tasted death for every man;
and this was evidently the original reading of B. M. Rich 7157 (finished A.D. 768). The MSS. in the Brit. Mus. Rich 7158 (saec. xi) and Rich 7159 (saec. xii) both give:
for He, apart from God, for every man tasted death;
and this is the reading of the very late corrector of Rich 7157.
Tremellius gives from a Heidelberg MS. for He, apart from God, in His goodness tasted death for every man , which combines both readings.
It appears therefore that, as far as known, no text of Syr vg exactly corresponds with either Greek reading. The connecting particle presupposes gavr for o{pw" , which has no other authority; and on the whole it is likely that the rendering of cwriv" was introduced after that of cavriti , and that the earliest reading, which represents cavriti qeov" , is due to a primitive corruption of the Greek or Syrian text which was corrected in two directions.
Both readings were known to Origen; and the treatment of the variants by the writers who were acquainted with them offers remarkable illustrations of the indifference of the early Fathers to important points of textual criticism, and of their unhistorical method of dealing with them.
Origen refers to the two readings several times, but he makes no attempt to decide between them. The MS. which he used when he was writing the first part of his commentary on St John appears to have read cwri;" qeou' . He notices cavriti qeou' as read in some copies: cwri;" ga;r qeou' uJpe;r panto;" ejgeuvsato qanavtou, o{per (H. and R. by conj. h] o{per wrongly) e[n tisi kei'tai th'" pro;" JEbraivou" ajntigravfoi" cavriti qeou' ( In Joh. Tom. i. § 40); and in a passage written at a later time he uses the phrase cwri;" qeou' in a connexion which seems to indicate that he took it from the text of this passage: movnou jIhsou' to; pavntwn th'" aJmartiva" fortivon ejn tw'/ uJpe;r tw'n o{lwn cwri;" qeou' staurw'/ ajnalabei'n eij" eJauto;n kai; bastavsai th'/ megavlh/ aujtou' ijscuvi> dedunhmevnou ( In Joh. Tom. xxviii. § 41; he has said just before: sugcrhvsetai tw'/ o{pw" cavriti h] &lsquo cwri;" qeou' ... kai; ejpisthvsei tw'/ uJpe;r panto;" kai; tw'/ cwri;" qeou' uJpe;r pantov" ). Both readings seemed to him to give good sense, and he was unwilling to sacrifice either.
Eusebius, Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria read cavriti qeou' , and do not notice the variation cwri;" qeou' .
Ambrose twice quotes sine Deo without any notice of another reading: de Fide ii. § 63; id. v. § 106; and explains the phrase in the latter place: id est, quod creatura omnis, sine passione aliqua divinitatis, dominici sanguinis redimenda sit pretio (Rom. 8:21).
The same reading is given by Fulgentius ad Tras. 3.20 with the comment: sine Deo igitur homo ille gustavit mortem quantum ad conditionem