 |  |
"Lachmann's text seldom rests on more than four Greek codices, very often on three,
not infrequently on two, sometimes on only one" (Scrivener).
Tregelles, whose indefatigable industry and conscientious labour surpass all praise,
nevertheless adopted Lachmann's leading fallacy and so spoilt his work. He persuaded
himself that eighty-nine ninetieths of our extant manuscripts and other authorities could
safely be rejected.
"The case of Dr. Tischendorf (proceeds Bishop Ellicott) is more easily disposed of.
Which of this most inconstant critic's texts are we to select? Surely not the last, in which
an exaggerated preference for a single manuscript which he has had the good fortune to
discover, has betrayed him into an almost child-like infirmity of critical judgment . . . . ."
The last to enter the field of textual criticism were Drs. Westcott and Hort, who
confess that they "have deliberately chosen on the whole to rely for documentary
evidence on the stores accumulated by their predecessors, and to confine themselves to
their proper work of editing the text itself".
These Editors take the Vaticanus as their standard together with its combinations with
the other primary Greek manuscripts. But, as Dean Burgon pertinently asks:
"Did it ever occur to these learned men to enquire how the Septuagint Version of the
Old Testament has fared at the hands of Codex B (The Vatican Manuscript)? They are
respectfully invited to address themselves to this very damaging enquiry."
The readings of the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus combined may safely be accepted as
genuine, say Westcott and Hort. But what is to be done when these two manuscripts
disagree? The answer is, that one takes the Vaticanus and any other primary manuscript
that agrees, as giving the true text because "on the closest scrutiny" they generally "have
the ring of genuineness", and hardly ever "look suspicious after full consideration".
With reference to the varied readings in Mark 2: 1-12 of the five manuscripts held in
such veneration by Westcott and Hort, Dean Burgon asks:
"What would be thought in a court of law of five witnesses, called up 47 times for
examination, who should be observed to bear contradictory testimony every time?"
On the surface, then, it appears that these five oldest manuscripts are not trustworthy
witnesses: and on closer investigation their testimony betrays the baseness of their
origin. Upon evidence such as this, in spite of the overwhelming unanimity of ancient
copies and versions, the R.V. would rob the Lord of His glory and the Church of the truth
in such a passage as I Tim. 3: 16.
When we learn that among the Revisionists was G. Vance Smith, a Unitarian Minister,
and read the following extracts from the writings of Westcott and Hort concerning such
important matters as Darwinism, Mariolatry and Romanism, we cannot help feeling that
such leanings must surely have coloured much of their labours on the Greek Text.