Furthermore, textual criticism is not "scientific" because over the years nearly all of its leading proponents have systematically ignored the massive contrary evidence, refusing to give serious consideration to the objections, questions, and deliberations of the men who present such hostile testimony against their liberal views. It is not scientific because it continues to scorn and disregard the vast majority of manuscript data even though the supposed justification for so doing, the late text hypothesis and that of the Antiochian recension, has been completely exposed as untrue and baseless. Indeed, the notable works of Burgon, Miller, Hoskier, Scrivener, Hills, Pickering, and others who have championed the antithetical position have yet to obtain the hearing they deserve; yet such should be found in a truly open "scientific" forum where the supposed objective is to examine all the data and arrive at the truth. Today, extremely few Greek New Testament students have ever heard of these men, other than perhaps a few aside derogatory remarks such as "Burgon was the champion of lost causes", much less seen a copy of their works or actually read them.

Yet Burgon, despite his witticisms and taunts, presented innumerable documented hard facts and in so doing followed along a true scientific approach much more so than did Westcott and Hort who, lacking hard proof, often resorted to fanciful imagination. Nevertheless W&H have been allowed a full hearing and attracted a large following. And why is this so? Part of the answer may be seen in Hoskier's remark: "The reason is sadly obvious, the latter method is taken easy, and at first sight plausible to the beginner. The former is horribly laborious, although precious in results."¹

Moreover, the undeniable truth, as Letis has been documenting for the past several years, is that textual criticism leads to higher criticism which inevitably leads to the rejection of the historical and miraculous in the Word of God. Further, the 18th-century myth that "text criticism does not affect doctrine or the fundamental truths of Christianity" seizes, mesmerizes, and seduces all who have been formally instructed at educational institutions of higher learning, especially those who have attained advanced theological training.² Indeed, it is precisely the denial of these points that has lead to the destruction the faith of many of today's pastors and priest with regard to the written Word of the Living God and has, since about the turn of the century, allowed for the free promotion of the modern translations which are all founded on the critical (eclectic) text.

Kenyon's words: "It is true (and cannot be too emphatically stated) that none of the fundamental truths of Christianity rests on passages of which the genuineness is doubtful"³ are simply naive in the extreme as well as untrue. Regardless of the eminence of whosoever utters Kenyon's sentiment - it is a deception devoid of truth. Again, the plain errors of fact and contradictions incorporated in the eclectic text of the New Testament invalidates the doctrine of Divine Inspiration as it thereby becomes relative as well as rendering untenable the doctrine of the Scriptures as being the infallible deposit of God's Word to man.

Finally, this author concludes with Hoskier that without a demonstrable history of the transmission of the text (sans flights of the imagination) as well as an understanding of the interaction of the versions upon each other and upon the Greek texts, text criticism can never be said to rest on a "scientific" foundation.⁴ Indeed, Hoskier stated that it was this lack of scientific basis in the field of textual criticism that most concerned Dean Burgon.⁵

2 Letis, in 1-12-1992, 4-6-1992 and 3-17-1993 correspondence from Edinburgh, Scotland.

3 Kenyon, Our Bible And The Ancient Manuscripts, op. cit., pp. 3-4; also see p. 55 in the 1958 edition for a similiar remark.

4 Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 415.

5 Ibid.