The "majority" manuscripts agree with one another closely enough to justify the contention that they all contain essentially the same text but not so closely as to give any grounds to the belief that this uniformity of text was produced: (1) by the labors of editors, (2) from some decree by an ecclesiastical leader, or (3) from mass production on the part of some scribes at any one place at any one time.1 If the Traditional Text were a late development as proposed by the W-H Theory, how could it so completely displace an earlier and better text already in use by the church? All explanations offered to date, as we have noted, are totally lacking in substance and fact.

We have already seen that, contrary to the theory of Westcott and Hort, there was no ecclesiastical revision ordered by the church. The late conservative Christian text critic, Edward Freer Hills, attests that the scribes who produced the Western text regarded themselves more as interpreters rather than copyists hence they made bold alterations consisting principally of numerous additions to the Scriptures.2 The Alexandrian text makers (which in fact includes the so-called "Neutral" text family) conceived of themselves as being grammarians; thus their chief aim was to improve the style of the text.3 They made a few additions indeed, but primarily removed Scripture and also shortened the readings.

It has already been shown that the Westcott-Hort critical theory is fallacious in every proposition. Indeed, nearly all modern critics agree that the so-called "Lucianic Recension" (see p. 1) was Hort's invention. The significance of the failure of this canon of the W-H theory cannot be over-stressed as the following quotes illustrate. Regarding the W-H text, K.W. Clark writes: "The textual history postulated for the textus receptus which we now trust has been exploded."4 Eldon J. Epp correctly states: "the establishment of the NT text can be achieved only by a reconstruction of the history of that early text ..."5 Epp then confesses: "we simply do not have a theory of the text."6 Colwell adds his confirming voice: "Without a knowledge of the history of the text, the original reading cannot be established."7 Aland acknowledges: "Now as in the past, textual criticism without a history of the text is not possible."8 Hort himself stated the very same:

Knowing this, Hort invented a history of the text which he and many others have since followed. And remember, it has already been noted (see p. 1) that one of the fundamental deficiencies of the eclectic method of textual criticism is that it ignores the history of the text! Then where does all of this leave modern criticism? K.W. Clark correctly states the dismal situation:

1 Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., pp. 182-183.

2 Ibid., pp. 183-184.

3 Ibid.

4 K.W. Clark, "Today's Problems with the Critical Text of the New Testament", Transitions in Biblical Scholarship, ed. J.C.R. Rylaarsdam, (Chicago: Uni. of Chicago Press, 1968), p. 162. The credit for the devastating sumarizing rebuttal in this paragraph rightly belongs to the peerless efforts of Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering (see "conclusion" to ch. four: Identity, op. cit., pp. 91-92).

5 Epp, "The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism", op. cit., p. 401.

6 Ibid., p. 403.

7 E.C. Colwell, "The Greek New Testament with a Limited Critical Apparatus: its Nature and Uses", Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, ed. D. E. Aune, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), p. 37. This theme pervades Colwell's "Hort Redivivus".

8 Kurt Aland, "The Present Position of New Testament Textual Criticism", Studia Evangelica, ed. F. L. Cross et al., (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1959), p. 731.

9 Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 40.

91


continued...