And what about character witnesses? Aleph and B were not copied, to speak of, by the church. That being true, it follows that the early church at large must have rejected their form of text.1 Hence, in their day they simply were not respected by the true believers, and that speaks ill of them.

WEIGH, BUT THEN COUNT2

After weighing the witnesses, they must be counted. However, before doing so prudence would demand that we examine to determine possible collusion between the witnesses. Those mutually dependent must be lumped together as only one voice. Westcott and Hort were right in maintaining the correctness of that axiom. Only then should each witness appearing to be both independent and trustworthy have a vote.

If several hundred such witnesses agree against three or four inveterate liars, can any doubt really exist as to the true reading? If a manuscript goes wrong continually, as a witness he is of low character. Again, the oldest extant uncial manuscripts, when viewed objectively, habitually are shown to be liars.3

For example, in the last three chapters of Luke (22-24) Codex D omits 329 words from what Westcott and Hort considered to be the true text. In addition, Codex D was judged to have added 173 words, substituted 146 words and made 243 transpositions to the Received Text by these same men. Yet in eight places they omitted material from the text of the Textus Receptus based solely on the witness of Codex D. As Pickering exclaimed, how can any value be given to the depraved testimony of Codex D in these chapters, much less prefer it above the united voice of all other witnesses?4

The focus here is not as much on Codex D as it is on the men, Westcott and Hort. They selected readings from an area in a MS which they acknowledged as having been heavily altered and yet chose them in eight places in those three chapters because they liked what D said. The point is made that textual criticism, by utilizing subjective methods, has been reduced to nothing more than the intellect of the scholar and his personal views.

Modern texts are based 90% on Vaticanus B, 7% on A, about 2.5% on Alexandrinus A and the remaining 1/2% on a few other early MSS. Convicted liars all! Textual critics have ignored the consideration of respectability as an objective and very necessary criterion in weighing.5 However, if respectability is considered and implemented, the result will be the complete overthrow of the type text currently in vogue and return us to the Textus Receptus.

THE IMPORTANCE OF VARIETY IN SELECTING EVIDENCE6

The use of a variety of evidence will support the Textus Receptus, return the body of Christ to it as its final source of authority, and return to the Church absolute confidence that we still possess the

1 Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 127.

2 Ibid., pp. 127, 134-137. Again Pickering is heavily leaned upon. See Burgon's criteria or "Seven Notes of Truth" which he advocated in determining the identity of the N.T. text: The Traditional Text, op. cit., p. 29.

3 Burgon, The Revision Revised, op. cit., pp. 16-18, 30-31; Burgon, The Traditional Text, op. cit., p. 84. Also Hoskier, Codex B And Its Allies, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 1, etc.

4 Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 136.

5 Ibid., p. 135.

6 Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., pp. 132-133. This is another of Burgon's "Seven Notes of Truth"; see: The Traditional Text, op. cit., pp. 29, 49-52.

101


continued...