You have made this charge repeatedly without providing any support. How about some evidence to back up your assertion that V and S are corrupt? And for that matter, how about a definition of "corrupt" as you are using it?
While this is off-topic, I will respond in detail, since detail is required, and I have generally kept my remarks brief.
PART 1
Modern naturalistic textual critics and scholars since the 18th century have been promoting the myth that
the oldest Bible manuscripts are the best, presumably because they are the closest to the original autographs. Nestle, Nestle-Aland, the United Bible Societies, Bruce Metzger, etc. are all committed to this fallacy.
But this fallacy also produced a deliberate deception –
a hoax – which asserted (without a scintilla of proof) that it was the Byzantine Text which was corrupt, and the corrupt text which was pure! This was the primary contribution of Westcott & Hort, and today almost the entire Christian world believes this lie. And we know who is the Father of Lies.
Under normal circumstances it would be reasonable to conclude that the oldest manuscripts were the best, but the Bible has always been under attack, so in the case of the Bible, the opposite is true.
The Word of God was being corrupted even while the apostle Paul was alive: For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. (2 Cor 2:17). While the Greek word καπηλεύοντες (kapeleuontes) literally means “peddle” (and the modern versions have resorted to this meaning), it has a deeper meaning, which is to corrupt or adulterate.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2585: καπηλεύω ... καπηλεύειν τί was also used as synonymous with to corrupt, to adulterate (Themistius, or. 21, p. 247, Hard. edition says that the false philosophers τόθειοτατον τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἀγαθῶν κιβδηλεύειντέ καί αἰσχύνειν καί καπηλεύειν); and most interpreters rightly decide in favor of this meaning (on account of the context) in 2 Corinthians 2:17, cf. δολουντόν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, 2 Corinthians 4:2. (Cf. Trench, § lxii.)
Dean John W. Burgon was one of the few leading conservative textual scholars of the 19th century,
who actually examined the Greek manuscripts personally, collated them, and wrote extensively about the corruption of the Greek text by Westcott & Hort, and their naturalistic predecessors (Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmanm, Tishendorf, Tregelles, etc., primarily German scholars influenced by Higher Criticism).
He thoroughly reviewed the corruption of manuscripts which occurred at a very early date, and F.H. A. Scrivener, the primary 19th century textual scholar, who also wrote extensively on this subject (and indeed produced the first textbook of textual criticism –
A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament ) agreed with him totally. Burgon summed up the corruption of the New Testament in his book --
The Revision Revised -- as follows:
‘We know that Origen in Palestine, Lucian at Antioch, Hesychius in Egypt, “revised” the text of the N. T. Unfortunately, they did their work in an age when such fatal misapprehension prevailed on the subject, that each in turn will have inevitably imported a fresh assortment of monstra into the sacred writings.
Add, the baneful influence of such spirits as Theophilus (sixth Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 168), Tatian, Ammonius, &c., of whom we know there were very many in the primitive age,—some of whose productions, we further know, were freely multiplied in every quarter of ancient Christendom:—add, the fabricated Gospels which anciently abounded; notably the Gospel of the Hebrews, about which Jerome is so communicative, and which (he says) he had translated into Greek and Latin:—lastly, freely grant that here and there, with well-meant assiduity, the orthodox themselves may have sought to prop up truths which the early heretics (Basilides, A.D. 134, Valentinus, A.D. 140, with his disciple Heracleon, Marcion, A.D. 150, and the rest,) most perseveringly assailed;—and we have sufficiently explained how it comes to pass that not a few of the codices of primitive Christendom must have exhibited Texts which were even scandalously corrupt.
“It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound,” writes the most learned of the Revisionist body, [Scrivener] “that the worst corruptions, to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenæus [A.D. 150] and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.” And what else are codices Aleph B C D but specimens—in vastly different degrees—of the class thus characterized by Prebendary Scrivener? Nay, who will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their preservation solely to the circumstance, that they were long since recognized as the depositories of Readings which rendered them utterly untrustworthy?’ (
Revision Revised, pp 55,56).
[Please note: Aleph is Codex Sinaiticus, B is Codex Vaticanus, both of which are related to each other. Then we have A (Codex Alexandrinus), C (Codex Epharaemi Rescriptus), and D (Codex Bezae). This group of manuscripts (along with a few others) is called the Alexandrian text-type or the Minority Text vs the Received Text (
Textus Receptus), which is also called the Byzantine text-type, and found in the MAJORITY of manuscripts. The so-called Majority Text edited recently is not a true Majority Text, since the vast number of manuscripts (including Lectionaries, have not even been touched].
