6 Stephen W. Frary Revised.9 Interestingly, much of the evidence he proposed is still attacked today in offering evidence against the Byzantine reading, so it is appro- priate that it be addressed in any current discussion of external evidence. If it can be shown that his argument has some basis in fact we will at least have established reasonable doubt concerning current assumptions that the MSS evidence is indisputable and definitive, thus heightening the importance of correctly interpreting internal evidence. The external evidence treated by text critics falls into three categories: MSS, the citations of the passage by the Fathers, and the early versions of the NT translated into other languages. The controversy concerning the Greek MSS centers on whether Θεός or ὅς is the original reading of A, (representative in the epistles of the Alexandrian text type and one of the three codices commonly referred to in commentaries as the “oldest and best manuscripts,”10) of C, and of F and G, (Western in the Pauline Epistles.) Since these are all uncials, written entirely in upper case, and since ΘΕOC was abbreviated to Θ̅C̅, the only difference with the relative pronoun OC is the presence of two horizontal strokes. Burgon presents copious evidence for doubting the reading OC in each of these MSS, and it is beyond the scope of this paper to deal with each. We will deal briefly with Alexandrinus, though, as it is the oldest of the uncials containing the passage, and would, if Θ̅C̅ were original, establish a Byzantine reading in a 4th century Alexandrian MS, disputing Metzger’s claim from his Commentary that no uncial prior to the 8th or 9th century so attests. There is no doubt that in A these strokes are now present. At issue is whether or not they are original, since in the twelfth century A was “cor- rected” and the letters either retouched as they were or changed to Θ̅C̅. Under ideal circumstances, one would look at the manuscript to settle the issue. However, Burgon states that Woide, “the learned and conscien- tious editor of the Codex, declares that so late as 1765 he had seen traces of [the stroke in] Θ which twenty years later... were visible to him no longer.”11Assuming that the issue must be decided by earlier eyes, Burgon It should be stated at the outset that Burgon’s argument was presented in the form of 9 a running dialog in the Quarterly Review with Bishop C.J. Ellicott, a leader in the effort to revise the English Bible based on the WH text. By current standards, this exchange lacked the courtesy and collegiality which is expected in academic circles today. Burgon’s invective is a temptation to dismiss his arguments without dealing with their substance. It is not the purpose of this paper to adjudicate the dispute that current or past scholars have with Burgon or his defenders, nor to vindicate Burgon’s position. The second of the three, ), undisputedly reads ὅς. The third, codex B, is missing 1 Tim 10 through Phlm and 1 Tim exists in none of the papyri known at present. J.W. Burgon, The Revision Revised (Paradise, PA 1883) 434. NB: The date of publica- 11 tion of this reprint is not mentioned.