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?1 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.2 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.3 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"4

1 Fuller, Which Bible?, op. cit., p. 149.

2 Ibid., p. 165.

3 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, op. cit., Book IV, ch. 23.

4 E.C. Colwell, What is the Best New Testament?(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952), pp. 53, 58 & 49.

83


continued...