Corruptions of the Greek manuscripts: evidence from Burgon that is simply dismissed today

Burgon doesn't ascribe all the corruptions in the Alexandrian Greek manuscripts to the work of heretics, but discusses many different causes of such corruption, spending about fifty pages of Revision Revised on this topic. He even wrote an entire book on this subject. Some of it he does ascribe to heretical tampering, however.

I want to quote from a passage in which he is imagining a dialogue with a critic of his point of view and a defender of Westcott and Hort. Here he's quoting

a very ancient Father (Caius) writing against the heresy of Theodotus and others who denied the Divinity of Christ. He is bearing his testimony to the liberties which had been freely taken with the Text of the New Testament in his own time, viz. about A.D. 175-200:--"

The Divine Scriptures,' he says, 'these heretics have audaciously corrupted: . . . laying violent hands upon them under pretence of correcting them. That I bring no false accusation, any one who is disposed may easily convince himself. He has but to collect the copies belonging to these persons severally: then, to compare one with another; and he will discover that their discrepancy is extraordinary.

Those of Asclepiades, at all events, will be founmd discordant from those of Theodotus. Now, plenty of specimens of either sort are obtainable, inasmuch as these men's disciples have industriously multipled the (so-called) "corrected" copies of their respective teachers, which are in reality nothing else but "corrupted" copies. With the foregoing copies again, those of Hermophilus will be found entirely at variance. As for the copies of Apollonides, they even contradict one another. Nay, let any one compare the fabricated text which these persons put forth in the first instance, with that which exhibits their latest perversions of the Truth, and he will discover that the disagreement between them is even excessive.

Of the enormity of the offense of which these men have been guilty, they must needs themselves be fully aware. Either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures are the utterance of the Holy Ghost, -- in which case they are to be regarded as unbelievers: or else, they account themselves wiser than the Holy Ghost, -- and what is that, but to have the faith of devils? As for their denying their guilt, the thing is impossible, seeing that the copies under discussion are their own actual handywork; and they know full well that not such as these are the Scriptures which they received at the hands of their catechetical teachers. Else, let them produce the originals from which they made their transcripts. Certain of them indeed have not even condescending to falsify Scripture, but entirely reject Law and Prophets alike.

Now, the foregoing statement is in a high degree suggestive. For here is an orthodox Father of the IInd century inviting attention to four well-known families of falsified manuscripts of the Sacred Writings; -- complaining of the hopeless divergences which they exhibit (being not only inconsistent with one another, but with themselves); -- and insisting that such corrected, are nothing else but shamefully corrupted copies. He speaks of the phenomenon as being in his day notorious: and appeals to Recensions, the very names of whose authors -- Theodotus, Asclepiades, Hermophilus, Apollinides -- have (all but the first) long since died out of the Church's memory. You will allow therefore (will you not?), that by this time the claim of the oldest existing copies of Scripture to be the purest, has been effetually disposed of. For since there once prevailed such a multitude of corrupted copies, we have no security whatever that the oldest of our extant MSS. are not derived -- remotely if not directly -- from some of them. pp 323-4 Revision Revised

He goes on at length with this argument, showing that these corruptions belong to what are known as the Alexandrian text type. I may add more eventually. Presumably it can be read and decided in favor of Westcott and Hort. I decide it in favor of Burgon. Perhaps that is the best that can be said. I find his arguments convincing throughout his book.