|
|
 | | From: | admin | | Subject: | The Hortian Eclectic Fraud theory Refuted #1 | | Date: | Thu, 18 Nov 2004 05:33:11 GMT |
|
|
 | following is a continuing post from the Book "Which Version is the
Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones. Chapter 7, pages 83-112
Which Version is the Bible?
Copyright 1995 · Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc.
All Rights Reserved. This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long
as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit
VII. THE HORTIAN-ECLECTIC THEORY REFUTED
THE GENEALOGICAL METHOD FRAUD
Is it not incredulous that we are expected to believe God would allow the
true text to sink into oblivion for fifteen hundred years only to have it
brought to light again by two Cambridge professors who did not believe it to
be verbally inspired? As we read over the work of Westcott and Hort, one
thing noticeable is the entire lack of their consideration of a supernatural
element with regard to the Scriptures. Thus having actually disavowed the
doctrine of verbal inspiration and the overshadowing hand of God on His
Word, their writings contain no sense of the divine preservation of the
text, a doctrine which should be present in Christian deliberations.
Of course everyone would like to have the readings taken directly from the
original manuscripts, but they are no longer in existence. So far, there
have not been found any autographs of the New Testament surviving today.
This we deem to be the wisdom of God for surely we would have made them
idols as the children of Israel did with the serpent of brass which Moses
had made nearly 800 years earlier (II Kings 18:4). Hezekiah had to destroy
the brazen serpent because the people began to worship it instead of the God
who had delivered them from the plague. People would do the same today -
worship the paper instead of the God about whom it was written. We do not
worship the Bible. We worship and serve the living God of whom it speaks.
With regard to the W-H theory, we reply that to treat the Scriptures as any
other book is to:
(1) ignore the reality of Satan who ever seeks to alter God's Word ("yea,
has God said!" Genesis 3); and (2) ignore God's promise to preserve His
Word.
But God promised to preserve His Word.
Hort said there were no signs of deliberate altering of the text for
doctrinal purposes, but the Scriptures and the church "Fathers" disagree
with him. Again, II Corinthians 2:17 says that "many" were corrupting the
Scriptures during the time of Paul. From the letters and works of the
Fathers, we know of Marcion the Gnostic who deliberately altered the text
for doctrinal purposes as early as 140 A.D. Other corrupters of Scripture
were named by the mid-second century by these church Fathers. For example,
Dionysius (Bishop of Corinth from A.D. 168 to 176) said that the Scriptures
had been deliberately altered in his day. Many modern scholars recognize
that most variations were made deliberately. Colwell, formerly agreeing with
Hort's assertion, has reversed his position:
"The majority of the variant readings in the New Testament were created for
theological or dogmatic reasons. Most of the manuals and handbooks now in
print (including mine!) will tell you that these variations were the fruit
of careless treatment which was possible because the books of the New
Testament had not yet attained a strong position as 'Bible.' The reverse is
the case. It was because they were the religious treasure of the church that
they were changed ... most variations, I believe, were made deliberately.
...... scholars now believe that most variations were made deliberately"
The fact of deliberate numerous alterations in the early years of the New
Testament's existence introduces an unpredictable variable which:
(1) the rules of internal evidence (transcriptional and intrinsic
probabilities) simply cannot handle, and (2) nullifies the genealogical
(family tree) method as a tool to recover the original (Hort knew that such
would be the case; hence his dishonest statement that there was no
deliberate altering).
The genealogical method rests on being able to identify unintentional error
as the clue to common ancestry. Agreement between manuscripts of this kind
is rarely a coincidence. Furthermore, it is now known that Westcott and Hort
never applied the genealogical method to the New Testament manuscripts! The
charts which they offered did not exhibit actual manuscripts. They were
hypothetical and imaginary ones - as they thought things should have been.
Hort did not actually demonstrate the existence of his historical facts. The
charts existed only in the minds of Hort and Westcott.
Other noted scholars have attested that the genealogical method not only has
never been applied to the N.T., they have added that it cannot be applied.
For example, Zuntz said it was "inapplicable", Aland that it "cannot be
applied to the NT", and Colwell concurred emphatically in stating "that it
cannot be so applied". Yet incredulously we read that with this method
Westcott and Hort "slew the Textus Receptus" in the minds of the critics.
However, as Pickering summed the matter, since the method has not actually
been used, the Textus Receptus must be alive and well! Hort claimed he used
this weapon and spoke of the results of having applied this method with such
confidence that he won the day. Amazingly, the fabrication was accepted as
FACT, so much so that - despite all that has been written to expose Hort's
dishonesty in this matter - since his day the genealogical method continues
dominating the handbooks as being the canonical method of "restoring" the
original text of the N.T. Present day scholars continue to go about their
work and talk as though the genealogical method not only can be, but has
actually been applied to the New Testaments manuscripts and base their
efforts on the supposed results.
|
|
|
