We are indebted to Dean Burgon for these facts and would strongly

recommend all who have any doubt as to the true reading to consult the

masterly investigation contained in the Dean's book, The Revision Revised.

Some may suppose that whether we read the A.V., `God was manifest', or

the R.V., `He Who was manifest', it comes to much the same thing, and

question the necessity of the foregoing investigation.  To such we would

explain that the reasons for our concern are:

We must resist, on principle, any tampering with the text,

irrespective of its immediate effect.

We must be on our guard against anything that would `modernize'

the teaching of the Word concerning the Person of the Lord Jesus.

We must remember that, sooner or later, they who adopt hos, who,

will slide into ho, which.  They will feel unsettled until they cut out

all reference to `God' and translate the passage `which was manifest'.

Dean Burgon expressed his thankfulness that there were no patrons for

the discredited reading `which'.  Yet we are sorry to say that this

reading is being revived, as it suits the teaching that subordinates

the `Word' from His true place in the Godhead.

A great deal of controversy has gathered around the Alexandrian manuscript

which is to be seen in the British Library.  Since this came to England 300

years ago the writing has faded considerably and we are not therefore to find

our warrant for substituting hos for Theos by what can be seen today, but by

what competent observers saw at the time of arrival of the manuscript.

That Patrick Young, the first custodian and collator of the Codex (1628

-52) read Theos is certain.  Young communicated the various readings of Codex

A to Archbishop Ussher; and the latter, prior to 1653, communicated them to

Hammond, who clearly knew nothing of hos.  It is plain that Theos was the

reading seen by Huish, when he sent his collation of the Codex (made,

according to Bentley, with great exactness) to Brian Walton, who published

the fifth volume of his Polyglott in 1657.  Bishop Pearson who was very

curious in such matters, says, `we find not hos in any copy', a sufficient

proof how he read the place in 1659.  Bishop Fell, who published an edition

of the New Testament in 1675, certainly considered Theos the reading of Codex

A. Mill, who was at work on the text of the New Testament from 1677 to 1707,

expressly declares that he saw the remains of Theos in this place.  Bentley

who had himself (1716) collated the ms.  with the utmost accuracy, knew

nothing of any other reading.  Emphatic testimony on the subject is borne by

Wotton in 1718.  `There can be no doubt (he says) that this ms. always

exhibited Theos.  Of this, anyone may easily convince himself who will be at

pains to examine the place with attention' (Dean Burgon).

Two years earlier (we have it on the testimony of Mr. John Creyk, of

St. John's College, Cambridge) `the old line in the letter theta was plainly

to be seen'.  It was `much about the same time' also (viz., about 1716), that

Westein acknowledged to the Rev. John Kippax, `who took it down in writing

from his own mouth -- that though the middle stroke of the theta has been

evidently retouched, yet the fine stroke which was originally in the body of

the theta is discoverable at each end of the fuller stroke of the corrector'.

And Berriman himself (who delivered a course of lectures on the true reading

of 1 Timothy 3:16 in 1737 -8), attests emphatically that he had seen it also.