has of, sooner or later, begetting offspring in its own likeness. Happily, to this second

mistake the sole surviving witness is the Codex Claromontanus of the sixth century (D):

the only Patristic evidence in its favour being Gelasius of Cyzicus (whose date is

A.D.476): and the unknown author of a homily in the appendix to Chrysostom. Over

this latter reading, however, we need not linger, seeing that ho, "which", does not find a

single patron at the present day.

Theos is the reading of all the uncial copies extant but two, and of all the cursives but

one. The universal consent of the Lectionaries proves that Theos has been read in all the

assemblies of the faithful since the fourth or fifth century of our era. At what earlier

period of her existence is it then supposed that the church availed herself of the privilege

to substitute Theos for hos or ho, whether in error or in fraud? Nothing short of a

conspiracy, to which every region of the Eastern Church must have been a party, would

account for the phenomenon.

We enquire for the testimony of the Fathers; and we discover that, (1) Gregory of

Nyssa quoted Theos no less than twenty-two times.  That Theos is also recognized by

(2) his namesake of Nazianzus in two places; as well as by (3) Didymus of Alexandria;

and (4) by pseudo Dionysius of Alexandria. It is also recognized (5) by Diodorus of

Tarsus, and (6) Chrysostom quotes I Tim. 3: 16 in conformity with the Received Text

at least three times.  In addition there are twelve others, bringing the number up to

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 manifested", 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:--