 |  |
The Alexandrian Manuscript.
A great deal of controversy has gathered around the Alexandrian manuscript which is
to be seen in the British Museum. Since this came to England 250 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 to-day, 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 (1628-1652) read
Theos is certain. Young communicated the various readings of A to Abp. Ussher; and
the latter, prior to 1652, 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 Polygott in 1657. Bp. 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. Bp. Fell, who published an edition of the N.T. in 1675, certainly considered
Theos the reading of Codex A. Mill, who was at work on the text of the N.T. 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 Wetstein 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 I Tim. 3: 16 in 1737-8), attests emphatically that he had seen it also. `If therefore'
(he adds) `at any time hereafter the old line should become altogether undiscoverable,
there will never be just cause to doubt but that the genuine, and original reading of the
MS was THEOS: and that the new strokes, added at the top and in the middle by the
corrector were not designed to corrupt or falsify, but to preserve and perpetuate the true
reading, which was in danger of being lost by the decay of Time'." (Dean Burgon).
To this testimony must now be added that of modern photography. The camera has
not only revealed the faded bar that proves that Theos is the true reading; it has also
restored other faded parts of letters about which no controversy has arisen, but which
might have become the basis of argument had the words been vital.
After reviewing the testimony of the different cursive copies of the epistles of Paul
that are known, Dean Burgon says:--