from Uncial D (which is extremely corrupt), and the small remainder from Codex L and a few other manuscripts.1 For the most part, this is as close as the destructive critics have thus far come to "recovering" the original text. Hence, the Scriptures are seen as being in somewhat of a state of "evolution" by those who reject the fact of God's having preserved His Word for its constant availability and use by the body of believers as He indicated He would do.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (II Tim.3:16-17)
Thus the very same fault for which the critics have derided Erasmus so relentlessly over the years - namely, that he only used five manuscripts2 - is far more true of their own modern rendition of the Greek New Testament. Remember, their charge is not completely justifiable concerning Erasmus for he studied several hundred Greek manuscripts and prepared notes on the variant readings found therein.3 And yet Westcott and Hort basically used only five, in fact, almost only one manuscript! Indeed, for the most part the same may be said for their modern eclectic counterparts.
As Burgon rightly perceived:
"... the whole controversy can be reduced to the narrow issue - does the truth of the text of the Scriptures dwell in the vast multitude of the copies, be they uncials, or cursive - or is it to be supposed that the truth abides exclusively with a small handful of manuscripts which differ from the great bulk of the witnesses and, strangely, also among them-selves?"4
ARE THE OLDEST MSS THE BEST?
But are not the oldest manuscripts the best - the most reliable? Of course, as Burgon attested, this would normally be true:
"The more ancient testimony is probably the better testimony. That it is not by any means always so is a familiar fact. ... But it remains true, notwithstanding, that until evidence has been produced to the contrary in any particular instance, the more ancient of two witnesses may reasonably be presumed to be the better informed witness."5
However, we have earlier demonstrated from Scripture that this is not necessarily true with regard to the text of the N.T.6 Furthermore, the actual contrary evidence says that most of the variant readings found in the Greek manuscripts were introduced by A.D. 200. Text critics themselves generally concede this, thus we find Scrivener writing: "It is no less true than paradoxical in sound that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within a hundred years after it was composed".7 Over half-a-century later Colwell agreed declaring: "The overwhelming majority of readings were created before the year 200"8 and Zuntz followed suit in
1 Unfortunately, this reference has been misplaced, but the percentages given are accurate and well attested.
2 Stephens and Elzevir used c.twenty to twenty-five manuscripts plus Erasmus' edition in bringing the TR into its final form.
3 Nolan, An Inquiry, op. cit., p. 413; Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 198.
4 Burgon, The Traditional Text, op. cit., pp. 16-17.
93 Ibid., p. 40.
5 II Corinthians 2:17; 4:2; II Peter 3:16, see p. 8.
6 F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., ed. Edward Miller, 2 Vols., (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), Vol. II, p. 264; see Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., pp. 108-109.
7 Colwell, "The Origin of Texttypes of New Testament Manuscripts", op. cit., p. 138.
96
continued...