[George]

Great Job brother! I was concerned for you but, thank God, it sounds like the renowned "scholar" was a "lightweight". Keep up the good work and never let any "scholar" or "expert" ever get you down!

Let’s check out the “truth” of these 2 statements:

"No evidence that the Codexes are corrupt or mistaken"

"Guilt by association is wrong, you can't say that a codex is wrong just because it came from somewhere bad."

Here are some “FACTS” concerning three (3) of those “Codexes”:

The manuscript known as Vaticanus or manuscript B, ‘conveniently’ omits: Genesis 1:1-46; Psalms 108-138;the Pauline Pastoral Epistles;andinthebookof Hebrews - everything after Hebrews 9:14; and the entire Book of Revelation. And that’s not even counting the hundreds of other places it adds, subtracts, or changes verses and words from the “Textus Receptus”!

Is it a mere coincidence that a “bible” manuscript residing in the Vatican Library in Rome (which no one other than Roman Catholic ‘scholars’ can see or handle) doesn’t have the beginning, or the middle, or the end of the Bible? Don’t you think it’s just a little bit too ‘convenient’ that the Pauline Epistles-that describe the Biblical qualifications for a bishop or elder are also ‘missing’? And what about the ‘unfortunate loss’ of the chapters and verses from Hebrews 9:14 to Hebrews 13:25, which ‘just happen’ to contain some of the strongest and clearest verses in the Bible dealing with the ONE, Eternal, Effectual, Sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour! Quite a ‘coincidence’ for a manuscript found in the Pope’s Library wouldn’t you say?

The manuscript known as Sinaiticus or ‘Aleph’ is considered, to be the second most valuable manuscript (after Vaticanus) in existence. It is said, by the “scholars’”, to be in agreement with Vaticanus most of the time and has been placed in the so-called “Alexandrian Family” of manuscripts. There is evidence of approximately 10 “correctors” on the pages of this manuscript. That is, at one time or another and over the space of several hundred years, 10 different ‘scribes’ have tried their hand at ‘correcting’ this “venerated” manuscript!

The truth is that other than agreeing with Vaticanus in some vital areas against the Textus Receptus:

“It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree.”
(Page 12, The Revision Revised, 1883 – Dean John William Burgon)

Upon comparing B, Aleph, A, C, and D, Dean Burgon states:

“Singular to relate, the first, second, fourth, and fifth of these codices (B, Aleph, C, D), but especially B and Aleph, have within the last twenty years established a tyrannical ascendancy over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that all four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS, besides, but even from one another.”
(Pages 11-12, The Revision Revised, 1883 – Dean John William Burgon)

And again:

“Between the first two (B and Aleph) there subsists an amount of sinister resemblance, which proves that they must have been derived at no very remote period from the same corrupt original. . . . . . Yet do they stand asunder in every page; as well as differ widely from the commonly Received Text, with which they have been carefully collated. On being referred to this standard, in the Gospels alone, B is found to omit at least 2,877 words: to add, 536: to substitute, 935: to transpose, 2,098: to modify, 1,132 (in all 7,578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being severally 3,455, 839, 1,114, 2,299, 1,265 (in all 8,972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both.”
(Pages 11-12, The Revision Revised, 1883 – Dean John William Burgon)

According to the ‘scholars’ the next manuscript, Codex D, was produced about (400-500 A.D.)and was written in two languages (Greek and Latin). According to Dean Burgon:

“But by far the most depraved text is that exhibited by Codex D. No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations. It’s variations from the sacred Text are beyond all other example.” And again: “Though a large portion of the Gospels is missing, in what remains (tested by the same standard) we find 3,704 words omitted: no less than 2,213 added, and 2,121 substituted. The words transposed amount to 3,471: and 1,772 have been modified: the deflections from the Received Text thus amounting in all to 13,281.”

Please remember – these 13,281 “deflections” from the Received Text have been noted only in the Gospels and Codex D has “a large portion” of the Gospels MISSING! How many changes would there be if the whole manuscript were compared with the Received Text? Codex D is blatant proof that “older” is not always “better”. All manuscripts are individual witnesses to the text of Scripture. What kind of witnesses are Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Codex D?

What did the “scholar” say? There is: "No evidence that the Codexes are corrupt or mistaken"! ! ! Was he kidding? Are we to trade in our King James Bibles for a botched up mess like this?

And what about: "Guilt by association is wrong, you can't say that a codex is wrong just because it came from somewhere bad."

Almost all of these Codexes and most of the Papyrus fragments are said to be from one Geographical area – EGYPT! NOT – Jerusalem; or Caesarea; or Antioch (The Apostle Paul’s “Headquarters”). In addition, a study of any “reliable” church history will trace some of the most corrupt church “fathers” (Clement, Origen, etc.) to the same geographical area! "Coinkidence"? I trow not! Remember - “Birds of a Feather Flock Together” (I’ve forgotten the reference)

Let’s get one thing straight. No one knows for sure who wrote Vaticanus (B), Sinaiticus (Aleph), Alexandrinus (A), or Codex D. With the exception of the Gothic, Armenian, and Latin Vulgate Translations, we do not know the names of the scribes for the thousands of manuscripts in existence today. In other words these manuscripts have no real known history and the dates given to them are at best, just “educated guesses”.

John William Burgon was one of the pre-imminent New Testament ‘Scholars’ of the 19th. Century, and unlike Westcott and Hort, he traveled throughout Europe personally examining New Testament manuscripts (mss) collating and comparing them. He matriculated and lived in England for most of his life. See: http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/

Birth and Early Life. John William Burgon, the Dean of Chichester, was born on August 21, 1813, in Smyrna, a province of Greece. He has been called "the champion of the impossible."
Concern for Students. When Burgon was a pastor, he not only preached two or three times on Sunday, but also had Bible Study at seven o'clock in the early morning with the Oxford students. They came in the evening to study also.
Eight times in a term, Pastor Burgon met with young men. For four years he taught them the book of Genesis without completing the book during that time. Ninety-six nights of teaching! Not a word, a sentence, or a chapter was skipped. His plan was to make the Bible its own commentary. He was a teacher of minute details. The result was that his students came to know other books of the Bible at the same time.
Quotations of the Church Fathers. As a result of his research, Burgon compiled an index of sixteen folio volumes of more than 86,000 quotations of or allusions to Scripture which were used by the Church Fathers. These indexes were about 12" by 18" by 3" in size. They are presently in London's BritishMuseum. They have been catalogued by Dean Burgon and his associates. Each quotation or allusion is color-coded to show the exact page and version of the Church Fathers from which they were derived. These are very valuable indexes, but as yet are unpublished.

In addition to his monumental work on the church “fathers” (Never Published) - Burgon authored:

“The Last Twelve Verses in Mark”
“The Revision Revised”
“The Traditional Text”
“Causes of Corruption”

If you want to know about the Byzantine/Traditional/Textus Receptus “TEXT” – Burgon is your man. No one ‘scholar’ (before or after him) has ever matched him in his area of “expertise”.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You cannot trust these "scholars" to speak the "Truth"! The fact that some of them "may be" Christians doesn't change the reality - They are not to be trusted in the smallest of matters. None of them believe the Bible when it says: "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." [Galatians 5:9]