7 Who Was Manifested in the Flesh? A Consideration of Internal Evidence states that Johann Jakob Wettstein, the 1751-2 publisher of a critical edi- tion of the Elzevir Textus Receptus, had observed the codex around 1716 and decided “that though the middle stroke of the Θ has been evidently retouched, yet the fine stroke which was originally in the body of the Θ is discoverable at each end of the fuller stroke of the corrector.”12 Considering the versions, Gordon D. Fee flatly states that there was “not a single Latin-speaking Christian in the entire history of the church who knew the reading that emerged as that of the Majority text ... Moreover, the same thing is true of every other ancient version: Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Gothic—none of them reads ‘God.’”13 However, neither do the Latin versions read the relative pronoun “who” but rather “which,” unanimously considered to be a harmonization with “mystery”, which is neuter in both Latin and Greek. Likewise in Burgon’s discussion of the Syrian, Coptic, Gothic and other translations, the best he can claim is that due to disagreements in the gender of the pronoun used with the corresponding word for “mystery” these versions support neither “God” nor “who.” Burgon’s citation of patristic evidence parts from the UBSGNT apparatus in several significant instances. While both have Ps-Dionysius (400’s,) Diodore (d. after 394), Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394,) Didymus (d. 398. UBSGNT notes this as a disputed reading and lists Didymus as cer- tain in his support for ὅς), Chrysostom (347-407), and Theodoret (d. 466) as quoting Θεός, Burgon adds several witnesses in addition, claiming that Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), in a treatise addressed to the Empresses Arcadia and Marina, explicitly cites 1 Tim 3:16 to prove the deity of Christ. He cites Severus of Antioch (d. after 408) as supporting the By- zantine and also lists references from Gregory of Nazianzus (d. about 390), Macedonius (who was accused of manufacturing the reading in 511), and John of Damascus (d. before 754) as referring to the Byzantine reading of this passage.14 Burgon’s citation of the Fathers has been criticized as “indiscrim- inate”15 by Fee, who likewise dismisses his patristic sources as “uncriti- cal.”16 Fee warns, J. Berriman, Dissertation (London 1741) 156, quoted in Burgon, Revision Revised, 12 433. G.D. Fee, “The Majority Text and the Original Text of the New Testament,” in E.J. 13 Epp and G.D. Fee (eds), Studies in the Theory, and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI 1993) 206. Burgon, Revision Revised, 455-471. 14 G.D. Fee, “The Majority Text and the Original Text of the New Testament”, BT 31 15 (1980) 116. G.D. Fee, “A Critique of W.N. Pickering’s The Identity of the New Testament Text: A 16 Review Article”, WTJ 41 (1979) 417.