|
|
 | | From: | admin | | Subject: | THE HORTIAN-ECLECTIC THEORY REFUTED #6 | | Date: | Thu, 18 Nov 2004 05:35:04 GMT |
|
|
 | This 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
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. 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. 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. 30) 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." 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 ..." Epp then confesses: "we simply do not have a
theory of the text." Colwell adds his confirming voice: "Without a knowledge
of the history of the text, the original reading cannot be established."
Aland acknowledges: "Now as in the past, textual criticism without a history
of the text is not possible." Hort himself stated the very same:
"ALL TRUSTWORTHY RESTORATION OF CORRUPTED TEXTS IS FOUNDED ON THE STUDY OF
THEIR HISTORY."
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. 30)
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:
"The textual history that the Westcott-Hort text represents is no longer
tenable in the light of newer discoveries and fuller textual analysis. In
the effort to construct a congruent history, our failure suggests that we
have lost the way, that we have reached a dead end, and that only a new and
different insight will enable us to break through." (author's emphasis)
These candid admissions by such renown scholars from the opposing viewpoint
who have been at the forefront of the controversy are remarkable, yet their
disciples and other pundits continue on along much the same paths seemingly
unaware of the significance of that which their colleagues have conceded. Of
course as Hort's theory was never tenable in the first place, Clark's frank
incredulous admission is what the present author (along with Burgon, Miller,
Scrivener, Nolan, Hills,. Fuller, Pickering, Waite, Letis, etc.) has been
maintaining all along. Clark's needed "new insight" is actually no more than
a return in the "logic of faith" to trusting in God's promise that He would
forever preserve His Word and to see that throughout history He has so done
through the Reformation text as Nolan's research concluded. This last point
shall be enlarged upon presently
|
|
|
