 |  |
"Singular to relate, the first, second, fourth and fifth of these codices (B, Aleph, C, D),
but especially B and Aleph, have within the last twenty years established a tyrannical
ascendancy over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a
blind superstitution. It matters nothing that all four are discovered on careful scrutiny to
differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant
MSS besides, but even from one another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their
corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked" (Burgon).
If we take the two most important of these MSS, we find that they differ markedly on
ever page. Collating them with the Received Text, in the Gospels alone we find the
followings:
"The Vaticanus is found to omit at least 2877 words; to add 536, to substitute 935; to
transpose 2098; to modify 1132 (in all 7578)--the corresponding figures for the
Sinaiticus being severally 3455, 839, 1114, 2299, 1265 (in all 8972). And be it
remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions and modifications,
are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in
which these two MSS differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which
they entirely agree" (Burgon).
Bishop Ellicott, the Chairman of the Revisionists, speaks of these four manuscripts as
follows:
"The simplicity and dignified conciseness of the Vatican Manuscript (B); the great
expansiveness of our own Alexandrian (A); the partially mixed characteristics of the
Sinaitic (Aleph); the paraphraistic tone of the singular codex Bezę (D) are now brought
home to the student" (Considerations on Revision 1870).
Dean Burgon asks:
"Could ingenuity have devised severer satire than such a description of four
professing transcripts of a book: and that book, the everlasting gospel itself?"
Dean Burgon suggests that the reader should take a copy of the Greek N.T., using
Lloyd's edition, and turn to page 189, which contains ten verses of Luke's Gospel
(chapter 8: 35-44). Upon collating the five codices, the following result is obtained:
"A stands alone twice, B 6 times, Aleph 8 times; C 15 times; D 93 times . . . . . AB,
stand together by themselves once; Aleph C once; C D once . . . . . Lastly, they are never
once found to be in accord in respect to any single various reading. Will any one, after a
candid survey of the premises, deem us unreasonable, if we avow that such a specimen of
the concordia discors which everywhere prevails between the oldest uncials, but which
especially characterizes Aleph, B, D, indisposes us greatly to suffer their unsupported
authority to determine for us the text of Scripture?"
Bishop Ellicott's view was that the best way of proceeding with the work of revision
was "to make the Textus Receptus the standard, departing from it only when critical or
grammatical considerations show that it is clearly necessary".
Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf, however, followed a different line: