Westcott and Hort

[placebofactor]

The Bible warns that there would be those who would corrupt the word of God (2nd Corinthians 2:17) and handle it deceitfully (2nd Corinthians 4:2). There would arise false gospels with false epistles (2nd Thessalonians 2:2), along with false prophets and teachers who would not only bring in damnable heresies but would seek to make merchandise of the true believer through their own feigned words (2 Peter 2:1-3).

Westcott and Hort were responsible for the greatest feat in textual criticism. They were responsible for replacing the Universal Text of the Authorized Version with the Local Text of Egypt, and the Roman Catholic Church. Both Westcott and Hort were known to have resented the preeminence given to the Authorized Version and its underlying Greek Text. They had been deceived into believing that the Roman Catholic manuscripts, Vaticanus and Aleph, were better because they were older. This they believed, even though Hort admitted that the Antiochian or Universal Text was equal in antiquity.

Hort said: "The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century." (Hort, The Factor of Genealogy, page 92—as cited by Burgon, Revision Revised, page 257).

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) produced a Greek New Testament in 1881 based on the findings of Tischendorf. They also developed a theory of textual criticism that underlay their Greek N.T. and several other Greek N.T. such as Nestle's text and the United Bible Society's text. Westcott and Hort believed the Greek text that underlies the K.J.V. was perverse and corrupt. Hort called the Textus Receptus vile and villainous (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.211).

Here's what Westcott and Hort said about the Scriptures: "I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207). "Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

Concerning Hell: Westcott wrote, "(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits." (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).

Hort wrote, "We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).
Concerning Creation:

Westcott wrote, "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible? Page 191).

Hort wrote, "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible? p. 189)

Hort said, "Now if there be a devil, he cannot merely bear a corrupted and marred image of God; he must be wholly evil, his name evil, his every energy and act evil. Would it not be a violation of the divine attributes for the Word to be actively the support of such a nature as that?"

Hort also shrank from the belief in a literal, eternal hell. He said, "I think Maurice's letter to me sufficiently showed that we have no sure knowledge respecting the duration of future punishment, and that the word eternal has a far higher meaning than the merely material one of excessively long duration; extinction always grates against my mind as something impossible.

There was also his rejection of Christ's atoning death for the sins of all mankind. Hort wrote, "The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins." 103

He also considered the teachings of Christs atonement as heresy! "Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed, that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." 104

The fact is, that Hort believed Satan more worthy of accepting Christ's payment for sins than the Father. He said, "I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan, though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it. But I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father."
There is so much more, but I will stop here.

[Difflugia]

What's the question for debate?

[placebofactor]

What's the question for debate?

Were Westcott and Hort qualified for the work of translating manuscripts that had already had 15,000 changes made to them before others who used their work began translating all the corrupt Bibles that have come into existence since they finished adding more confusion to the manuscripts. Also, did they have an agenda before they started, an agenda like supporting the Arian heresy?

[Difflugia]

Were Westcott and Hort qualified for the work of translating manuscripts

Westcott and Hort didn't publish translations. Or is this a hypothetical question, like, if Westcott and Hort had been translators, would they have been qualified?

Considering their work with New Testament textual criticism, I'm assuming they would have been qualified as translators.

Also, did they have an agenda before they started, an agenda like supporting the Arian heresy?

According to their introduction to their critical edition of the Greek New Testament, their agenda was to "attempt to present exactly the original words of the New Testament, so far as they can now be determined from surviving documents."

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

[placebofactor]

Were Westcott and Hort qualified for the work of translating manuscripts

Westcott and Hort didn't publish translations. Or is this a hypothetical question, like, if Westcott and Hort had been translators, would they have been qualified?

Considering their work with New Testament textual criticism, I'm assuming they would have been qualified as translators.

Excuse me for being ignorant; my 88-year-old brain is wearing out.

Also, did they have an agenda before they started, an agenda like supporting the Arian heresy?

According to their introduction to their critical edition of the Greek New Testament, their agenda was to "attempt to present exactly the original words of the New Testament, so far as they can now be determined from surviving documents."

You are probably correct, but why waste time on a document that had 15,000 changes made to it by unknown hands, when they could have worked on the other 5500 manuscripts that had no changes, and were all pretty much in agreement concerning basic fundamental doctrines?

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

My first post should answer some of your questions. Also, if you are truly interested, I would do thorough research on these two individuals. Personally, what I have read about the two, I wouldn't trust them because of their many negative comments, both written and spoken, and what I believe was an Arian agenda. My objections to their work are not personal.

[Difflugia]

Excuse me for being ignorant; my 88-year-old brain is wearing out.

I've no problem excusing ignorance, but you're trying to pass off nonsensical claims as fact.

You are probably correct, but why waste time on a document that had 15,000 changes made to it by unknown hands, when they could have worked on the other 5500 manuscripts that had no changes, and were all pretty much in agreement concerning basic fundamental doctrines?

The unironic answer is to seek as much of the original Bible text as possible. You claim to have studied, but the fruits of that study seem only to be a list of disconnected statements and an equally disconnected conclusion. You've offered no coherent synthesis of those data, just a list of claims that you think justify KJV-onlyism.

You don't seem to understand the relationships between manuscripts, textual criticism, translation, and theology. Your arguments based on the current states of English translations are circular in that you've decided a priori that the KJV is correct in a way that necessarily validates traditional theology. Therefore, any difference between the KJV and any other translation is necessarily a corruption in the latter, especially if it impacts traditional theology. You know that the critical texts behind modern translations differ from the Textus Receptus of the KJV, but you don't seem to know which differences in the English are the result of differences in the Greek, which are the result of updated translation philosophy, and which are based on theological bias. You keep going on about the "15,000 changes" as though that alone discredits the critical use of Codex Sinaiticus. You seem to think that scholars somehow don't know the history of the text or what that history means. Its redactional history has been extensively and minutely studied in order to make the very decisions about its use in textual criticism that you wish to imply are merely arbitrary.

My first post should answer some of your questions.

You're right, it should. It doesn't, but it should.

Your first post is just a laundry list of things that you think discredits the work of Westcott and Hort. It doesn't, what with most of the list items being [i[non sequiturs[/i] and all, so it doesn't actually address any of the questions I've asked you.

Also, if you are truly interested, I would do thorough research on these two individuals. Personally, what I have read about the two, I wouldn't trust them because of their many negative comments, both written and spoken, and what I believe was an Arian agenda.

Has your "thorough research" actually extended to reading anything that they've written? If you'd like to be a little more thorough, you mind find it valuable to read the comprehensive introduction to their Greek critical text. Or is a list of mined quotes thorough enough?

My objections to their work are not personal.

Of course not.

[placebofactor]

Excuse me for being ignorant; my 88-year-old brain is wearing out.

I've no problem excusing ignorance, but you're trying to pass off nonsensical claims as fact.

You are probably correct, but why waste time on a document that had 15,000 changes made to it by unknown hands, when they could have worked on the other 5500 manuscripts that had no changes, and were all pretty much in agreement concerning basic fundamental doctrines?

The unironic answer is to seek as much of the original Bible text as possible. You claim to have studied, but the fruits of that study seem only to be a list of disconnected statements and an equally disconnected conclusion. You've offered no coherent synthesis of those data, just a list of claims that you think justify KJV-onlyism.

You don't seem to understand the relationships between manuscripts, textual criticism, translation, and theology. Your arguments based on the current states of English translations are circular in that you've decided a priori that the KJV is correct in a way that necessarily validates traditional theology. Therefore, any difference between the KJV and any other translation is necessarily a corruption in the latter, especially if it impacts traditional theology. You know that the critical texts behind modern translations differ from the Textus Receptus of the KJV, but you don't seem to know which differences in the English are the result of differences in the Greek, which are the result of updated translation philosophy, and which are based on theological bias. You keep going on about the "15,000 changes" as though that alone discredits the critical use of Codex Sinaiticus. You seem to think that scholars somehow don't know the history of the text or what that history means. Its redactional history has been extensively and minutely studied in order to make the very decisions about its use in textual criticism that you wish to imply are merely arbitrary.

My first post should answer some of your questions.

You're right, it should. It doesn't, but it should.

Your first post is just a laundry list of things that you think discredits the work of Westcott and Hort. It doesn't, what with most of the list items being [i[non sequiturs[/i] and all, so it doesn't actually address any of the questions I've asked you.

Also, if you are truly interested, I would do thorough research on these two individuals. Personally, what I have read about the two, I wouldn't trust them because of their many negative comments, both written and spoken, and what I believe was an Arian agenda.

Has your "thorough research" actually extended to reading anything that they've written? If you'd like to be a little more thorough, you mind find it valuable to read the comprehensive introduction to their Greek critical text. Or is a list of mined quotes thorough enough?

My objections to their work are not personal.

Of course not.

You should have read my original post more carefully. Here is only a part of who these two men were.

Here's what Westcott and Hort said about the Scriptures: "I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207). "Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

Concerning Hell: Westcott wrote, "(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits." (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).

Hort wrote, "We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).
Concerning Creation:

Westcott wrote, "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible? Page 191).

Hort wrote, "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible? p. 189)

Hort said, "Now if there be a devil, he cannot merely bear a corrupted and marred image of God; he must be wholly evil, his name evil, his every energy and act evil. Would it not be a violation of the divine attributes for the Word to be actively the support of such a nature as that?"

Hort also shrank from the belief in a literal, eternal hell. He said, "I think Maurice's letter to me sufficiently showed that we have no sure knowledge respecting the duration of future punishment, and that the word eternal has a far higher meaning than the merely material one of excessively long duration; extinction always grates against my mind as something impossible.

There was also his rejection of Christ's atoning death for the sins of all mankind. Hort wrote, "The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins." 103

He also considered the teachings of Christs atonement as heresy! "Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed, that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." 104

The fact is, that Hort believed Satan more worthy of accepting Christ's payment for sins than the Father. He said, "I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan, though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it. But I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father."