text which is already well represented by copies of that time."1 This argument forms the background for all those who consider it justifiable to ignore all, or at least nearly all, of the minuscules (cursives).

The only argument which would justifiably allow the critics to circumvent the task of studying all the late mss would be that there exists among the early uncials a relatively uncorrupted tradition which shows all other text-types of the period to be secondary and corrupted.2 Only if this position can be proved, and if it is clear from some sampling that late mss fall predominantly in the tradition of one of the corrupted texts, could they justify the omission of a full study of these late minuscules. Yet A and B, the two main pillars of the critical text, exhibit 3,036 clear differences in the Gospels; what candidate can they propose as a "relatively uncorrupted tradition"? They have none! Yet they continue to keep the TR/KJB dishonestly shrouded – out of public sight, without giving all of the witnesses an opportunity to speak.3

The point that we wish to make clear at this occasion is that anyone who seeks to gather Byzantine manuscript evidence from the standard sources (Alford, Tischendorf, Souter, Merk, Vogels, Nestle, Aland, or von Soden) is really getting only a few scraps from the table.4 The interests and energies of these men have been expended elsewhere. Their labors with regard to the great mass of Byzantine mss have been limited to those places where there has been departure from the TR.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Recently, some well meaning brothers have attempted to allow the mss a voice by utilizing the massive 1913 work of Hermann von Soden to assist them in producing a "Majority Text". However, von Soden's enterprise represents only a very small portion of the total. He merely made a cursory sampling of the vast numbers of mss. Moreover Herman C. Hoskier thoroughly documented that while hoping to find "great things" from von Soden's final volume he was forced, albeit regrettably, to have to strongly condemn it. Hoskier stated that the work was not only "honeycombed" with errors, many documents which should have been recollated had not been touched whereas others were only partially so done with many others having been incorrectly handled.5

Wisse informs us that von Soden collated a significant number of MSS only partially. After his test check on a weighty portion of von Soden's data, Frederik Wisse adds "Once the extent of error is seen, the word 'inaccuracy' becomes a euphemism. ... von Soden's inaccuracies cannot be tolerated for any purpose. His apparatus is useless for a reconstruction of the text of the mss he used."6 It is worthy of mention that, although von Soden viewed the Byzantine text as being un-derived from and possibly as old as Aleph-B (a departure from standard W-H dogma), in all other matters he was so strongly Alexandrian that Hoskier reported: "von Soden's text is so thoroughly Alexandrian that it falls into line with Hort, irrespective of MS evidence."7

By now we trust that our reader can discern that our extant manuscripts reflect but do not determine the text of Scripture.8 The text was determined by God from the beginning (Psa.119:89

1 Wisse, The Profile Method for Classifying and Evaluating Manuscript Evidence, op. cit., pp. 1-2.

2 Ibid., p. 2.

3 Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, op. cit., p. 7.

4 Ibid., p. 11.

5 Herman C. Hoskier, The Journal of Theological Studies, 15, (London: Oxford University Press, 1914), p. 307. Hoskier continues over the next 20 pages documenting a most withering indictment.

6 Wisse, The Profile Method for Classifying and Evaluating Manuscript Evidence, op. cit., pp. 16-17.

7 Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 461.

8 Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, op. cit., p. 27.

127


continued...