Indeed, the fact is that inversions do exist.1 Furthermore, of the few passages which they offered, Mark 8:26, Luke 11:54 and Luke 12:18 are not conflate readings of a Neutral and Western tradition, and it is doubtful that Mark 6:33 and Luke 9:10 are. Moreover, it is just as reasonable that the truth is the reverse of their explanation - namely, that the longer Syrian is the original text and that the shorter readings resulted from omissions made in copying that original.

THE QUOTES FROM THE "FATHERS"

The crucial external evidence that Westcott and Hort offered in support of their theory was that there were no Syrian readings in the Fathers' quotes prior to A.D. 350.2 They maintained that Chrysostom, who died in 407, was the first father to habitually use the Syrian. However, these statements are simply not consistent with the facts. In the first place, Chrysostom did not just give Syrian quotes.3 Furthermore, according to Edward Miller's exhaustive compilation of the writings of the church "Fathers", Origen (185? - 254?) gave 460 quotes which agree with the readings of the Traditional Text and 491 quotes siding with the "Neologian" text.4 In view of this, how then could Hort declare that Origen's quotations "exhibit no clear and tangible traces of the Syrian text"?5

Miller's study also revealed that Irenaeus, a second century church Father who according to Hort represented the "Western" text, gave 63 quotes from the Syrian (Traditional Text) text with only 41 from the so-called "Neologian" family.6 It should be noted that when referring to the "Fathers", this author is not endorsing their doctrines but merely recognizing and emphasizing what they accepted and believed to be Scripture at that early date. Miller further found that prior to Origen, the Traditional Text was quoted two to one over all others of the Fathers' quotes if we omit Justin Martyr, Heraclean, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian.7 Why should we omit them? They were carried away with Origen's confusion. Yet even if we include them, Miller's study showed that the ratio still favored the Traditional Text 1.33 to 1. Thus it is seen that Hort lied about the quotes from the Fathers and gave no actual statistics.

Miller, posthumous editor to Burgon, made full use of Burgon's patristic citations with regard to the testimony of the ante-Nicene Fathers. His work covered 86,489 extant citations from seventy-six of these Fathers. Of those who died before 400 A.D., the Traditional Text ("twin brother" and virtually identical to the text of the Textus Receptus)8 wins out 3 to 2 over all the other variant readings.9 Moreover, if we consider only the Greek and Latin Fathers (Syriac not included) who died prior to

1 Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 60. B conflates in Col.1:12; II Thes.3:4; Mar.1:28, 1:40 and Joh.7:39. The "Western" text conflates the "Syrian" and "Neutral" readings in Mat.4:13; Joh.5:37 and Acts 10:48. Codex Sinaiticus conflates Joh.13:24; Rev.6:1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 17:4; etc.

2 Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 91; also see p. 1 in this (FNJ's) work. The reader will be interested to discover the prejudicious and subjective approach used by the modern critic in dismissing the vast damaging evidence that the Fathers writings place against their theories: "When the manuscripts of a Father differ in a given passage, it is usually safest to adopt the one which diverges from ... the Textus Receptus ..." Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, op. cit., p. 87.

3 Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., pp. 62-63. Dr. Hills makes the same observation citing, as does Dr. Pickering, the study by Geerlings and New (Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 179).

4 Burgon, The Traditional Text, op. cit., pp. 100, 121. This work of Burgon's was completed and edited by his friend and colleague, Edward Miller, who was - like the Dean - also an Anglican Priest. It was published in 1896, after the Dean's death in 1888. Miller's term "Neologian" included both "Neutral" and "Western" readings. It was, in fact, the Greek text pieced together by the revisers who produced the English Revised Version of 1881. Indeed, Miller stated that when the issue was at all doubtful, he decided against the Textus Receptus and that in the final tabulation he omitted many small instances favorable to the Textus Receptus (Ibid., pp. 94-122).

5 Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 114.

6 Burgon, The Traditional Text, op. cit., p. 99.

7 Ibid., pp. 99-101.

8 Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 191.

9 Burgon, The Traditional Text, op. cit., pp. ix-x.

87


continued...