 |  |
Later on, in his examination of the theory of Westcott and Hort, he writes:
"Strange, that you should not perceive that you are the dupes of a fallacy which is
even transparent. You talk of `antiquity'. But you must know very well that you actually
mean something different. You fasten upon three, or perhaps four, or two, or perhaps
three--or one, or perhaps two--documents of the ivth and vth century. But then
confessedly, there are one, two, three, or four specimens only of Antiquity, not
`Antiquity' itself. And what if they should prove to be unfair samples of Antiquity?
Thus, you are observed always to quote Cod. B (The Vatican) or at least Aleph (The
Sinaiticus). Pray, why may not the truth reside instead with A (The Alexandrian) or C
(The Rescript) or R (The Bezae)? You quote the old Latin or the Coptic. Why may not
the Peschito or the Sahidic be right rather? You quote either Origen or else Eusebius, but
why not Didymus and Athanasius, Epiphanius and Basil, Chrysostom and Theodoret, the
Gregories and the Cyrils? . . . . . It will appear therefore that we are every bit as strongly
convinced as you can be of the paramount claims of `Antiquity' but that, eschewing
prejudice and partiality, we differ from you only in this, viz. that we absolutely refuse to
bow down before the particular specimens of Antiquity which you have arbitrarily
selected as the object of your superstition. You are illogical enough to propose to include
within your list of `Ancient Authorities' Cod. 1, 33 and 69--which are severally MSS of
the xth, xith and xivth century. And why? Only because the Text of those 3 copies is
observed to bear a sinister resemblance to that of Codex B (The Vatican). But then why,
in the name of common sense, do you not show corresponding favour to the remaining
997 cursive copies of the N.T.--seeing that these are observed to bear the same general
resemblance of Codex A (The Alexandrian)?"
Neither the reader nor the writer can be regarded as "textual critics". No mere
intuition can ever constitute a qualification for such an important office. The only basis
for true and stable progress towards the attainment of the original Greek text is the exact
collation of all existing MSS, Versions, Fathers and Lectionaries. "We may safely keep
our `theories' back till we have collated our MSS, re-edited our Versions, indexed our
Fathers. They will be abundantly in time then."
Before concluding this article, which is only intended to show the seriousness of
unqualified acceptance of the R.V. Greek Text, we give in our own words Dean Burgon's
summary.
Dr. Hort says of the text of Lachmann, made in 1831, that it is "the first founded upon
documentary authority". We discover, however, that Lachmann arbitrarily swept aside
"Antiquity" and relied on one or two MSS of the ivth and vth centuries. The Received
Text (the text of the A.V.) edited by Erasmus (1516) and Stunica (1522), exhibits a
traditional text "the general purity of which is demonstrated by all the evidence which
350 years of subsequent research have succeeded in accumulating; and which is
confessedly the text of A.D.375".
In the "History of this Edition" of the R.V. Greek Text, there are many and serious
occasions where "W" disagrees with "H". As Dean Burgon says:
"We are reminded of what was wittily said concerning Richard Baxter, viz., that even
if no one but himself existed in the church `Richard' would still be found to disagree with
`Baxter', and we read with uneasiness that `No individual mind can ever act with perfect