Hort's first step in solving the problem was to take the position that the New Testament could be treated as any other book. In other words, that it was not of a supernatural origin. This allowed the use of the genealogical (family tree) method, developed by the students of the classics, to be applied to the Greek manuscripts.¹ Such a technique is only applicable if there has been no deliberate altering of the text. However, as already cited, Second Corinthians 2:17 tells us that the text was being altered even as far back as the time of Paul. One of the great enemies of God, Marcion the gnostic (fl. c.140 A.D.) deliberately altered, shortened and removed from the mss to which he had access any Scripture which taught the deity of Christ.

How did Hort deal with the problem of potential text tampering? He won the day by simply authoritatively proclaiming that the text showed "no signs of deliberate falsification ... for dogmatic (theological) purposes".² Amazingly, this brash misstatement of fact went practically unchallenged.

Let us examine how the genealogical method worked.³ Westcott and Hort applied this technique in order to get to the place where the witness of one manuscript could outweigh that of many. Beginning with the apostles' autographs, i.e., the original copies of the New Testament written by the apostles, let us suppose that two copies were produced from these originals and identified as "Copy 1" and "Copy 2". If seven copies were made from Copy 2, they would represent the third generation (the apostles' autographs being the first generation, Copies 1 and 2, the second).

GENEALOGY:

If c - 2 is lost, then c - 1 outweighs 1 - 7. True, but only if no malice has entered

Now if Copy 2 were lost, Copy 1 would "outweigh" the combined testimony of the seven copies which are of the third generation because copy 1 was of the second generation, hence nearer to the original reading. That would be true if malice had not entered into the history of MS transmission, but once malice has entered, we cannot know if someone has deliberately falsified Copy 1. Thus, one may no longer assert that Copy 1 outweighs the seven copies of the third generation. This method was used to justify the rejection of the majority text. It was W-H's most invaluable tool. Its application enabled them to overthrow the testimony of nearly 95% of the manuscripts.

Hort used this tool to reduce the manuscripts into four families (voices or witnesses). These four families or voices Hort assigned the designations "Neutral" (consisting primarily of Vaticanus B and

1 Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1977), p. 32.

2 Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 282.

3 E. C. Colwell, "Genealogical Method: Its Achievements and its Limitations", Journal of Biblical Literature, LXVI, (1947): p. 111.