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.

[placebofactor]

Before I continue with this discussion, I have a question to ask you. What Bible or Bibles are you attempting to support? Is it the N.W.T., or NIV, or Bible like the NIV, or both that use Westcott and Hort's finished work on the A. and B. manuscripts? I will wait for your answer.

The questions for debate that you claimed are these:

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?

In order to address them, I'm adjusting them a bit so that the discussion hopefully makes a little more sense:

• Were Westcott and Hort qualified to perform textual criticism?
• Is their process of textual criticism valid?
• Did they have ulterior motives apart from restoring an original text?

At this point, I'm not supporting a particular translation. I do have opinions about various translations, but so far the discussion has just involved your claims about Westcott and Hort. My claim will be that the overall process of textual criticism could in principle lead us to a text that more closely matches the original texts of the original authors, that the work of Westcott and Hort and their successors likely did so, and that there was no significant alternate agenda behind their work.

My question is extremely important. Why? Because the results of Westcott and Hort's work can be found in the N.I.V., the second most popular Bible on the market today. There's no guesswork involved. Their finished work can be read in many new renderings of Bible on the market today. The differences between the NIV and King James are obvious. Also, it can be found in similar renderings of Westcott and Horts finished work, as the N.A.S.V., etc. The N.W.T. uses their work, and other manuscripts I have never heard of, and they quote commentators I have never heard of either. It's a mix of everything, including their own opinions and a hodgepodge of words and phrases that cannot be found in any concordances.

So, we can compare Westcott and Hort's finished work with the King James. I started a new thread comparing the two Bibles. If you read it, you can then tell me if there are any obvious differences.

So, the question is, does a person's position about a particular belief affect their work? Would the reflections of men like Westcott and Hort affect the way they would translate a certain manuscript, especially if the manuscript already has 10,000 changes made before they began their work? Absolutely—a person's beliefs and worldview can influence their work, especially in fields like translation, interpretation, or historical analysis, where nuance and judgment play a major role.

In the case of Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, their theological views and scholarly priorities did shape their approach to biblical manuscripts. Here's how: Translators inevitably make choices about which manuscripts to prioritize, how to interpret ambiguous phrases, and which variants to include or exclude. Westcott and Hort favored older Alexandrian manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, believing these were closer to the original texts, corrupted by old. They were skeptical of the Textus Receptus, the basis for the King James Version. Skeptical because they did not believe Jesus was God.

Hort, in particular, expressed critical views of traditional evangelical doctrines, including substitutionary atonement and biblical infallibility. Westcott held nuanced views on Genesis and biblical literalism, which some critics argue could have influenced his textual decisions.

Their work sparked intense debate—some accused them of allowing theological bias to shape their editorial choices. The idea that a manuscript had “10,000 changes” before Westcott and Hort began their work likely refers to the many textual variants across centuries of transmission. So yes, their reflections and beliefs did influence their work.

[historia]

Absolutely—a person's beliefs and worldview can influence their work, especially in fields like translation, interpretation, or historical analysis, where nuance and judgment play a major role.

In the case of Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, their theological views and scholarly priorities did shape their approach to biblical manuscripts.

Now do Erasmus.

He did the lion share of the work on the Greek text used by the KJV. And yet, for some odd reason, KJV-only advocates never talk about his Catholic beliefs or the fact he was a Jesuit.

Erasmus' theological positions and views on the Bible are probably even further away from your own than those of Wescott and Hort. So, surely, that must case doubt on his judgements, too, right?

[placebofactor]

Before I continue with this discussion, I have a question to ask you. What Bible or Bibles are you attempting to support? Is it the N.W.T., or NIV, or Bible like the NIV, or both that use Westcott and Hort's finished work on the A. and B. manuscripts? I will wait for your answer.

The questions for debate that you claimed are these:

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?

In order to address them, I'm adjusting them a bit so that the discussion hopefully makes a little more sense:

• Were Westcott and Hort qualified to perform textual criticism?
• Is their process of textual criticism valid?
• Did they have ulterior motives apart from restoring an original text?

At this point, I'm not supporting a particular translation. I do have opinions about various translations, but so far the discussion has just involved your claims about Westcott and Hort. My claim will be that the overall process of textual criticism could in principle lead us to a text that more closely matches the original texts of the original authors, that the work of Westcott and Hort and their successors likely did so, and that there was no significant alternate agenda behind their work.

It is estimated that 90% or more of the readings in modern critical texts align with Westcott and Hort’s original choices. The foundation of these Bibles is based on their work on the Codex Alexandrinus manuscript, the A text. Even Bruce Metzger, a leading textual critic, acknowledged that the Nestle-Aland committee began with Westcott and Hort’s text and made changes only as necessary. So while modern Bibles don’t explicitly credit Westcott and Hort, their fingerprints are all over the pages. Their work has shaped the landscape of how the New Testament is read, studied, and translated today.

With that said, when we compare the modern-day Bibles with the King James, the Bishops Bible, Douay, many differences stand out concerning certain important doctrines. For example, is Jesus the only begotten of the Father, or is he the Westcott and Hort version "the one and only son?" Only begotten in Greek holds a significant meaning concerning the Son, where "one and only" is vague because we are all called sons, but "only begotten" belongs to Jesus alone.

My overview of the subject. 97% of the 5800 manuscripts agree with the received text of the King James. Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the King James. The King James has not changed for the past 400 years and, as of today, remains the best seller. The NIV has Westcott and Hort's fingerprints on every page. If you sit down and compare it with the KJB, you will understand the many differences. And I would say, Westcott and Hort's attitude toward the 97% was more negative than positive. I believe their words, recorded for us, do indicate their biases. I read them, and in my mind, disqualifies them and their work. That's my take on the subject.

When I started to study the Bible some 45 years ago, I was collecting books. I had some 4000, some dating back to the late 1700s. When I became interested in Christianity, I went through my library and discovered over 20 different Bibles. Like you, I had little understanding of the differences, and my choice would be based on a lot of research. After several years, the King James surfaced, and from that point forward, I use it for quoting Bible verses because the words in it are closer to the original words used in the Old English and in the English of the ancient poets and writers.

[Capbook]

With that said, when we compare the modern-day Bibles with the King James, the Bishops Bible, Douay, many differences stand out concerning certain important doctrines. For example, is Jesus the only begotten of the Father, or is he the Westcott and Hort version "the one and only son?" Only begotten in Greek holds a significant meaning concerning the Son, where "one and only" is vague because we are all called sons, but "only begotten" belongs to Jesus alone.

May I beg to differ to your Westcott and Hort's use of "the one and only son," as you will see below Mounce lexicon definition of the Greek word "monogenes" in John 1:18 as only-begotten and etc.

And besides if you compare Westcott and Hort with NAS95 in rendering of the text, it says "the only-begotten God" which was supported by the oldest manuscripts the papyrus 66 and papyrus 75, a contrast to the Arians beliefs of Jesus nature.

May we know what is your interpretation of the KJV translation of 1 John 5:7?
And why the text differs to many translations?

(Westcott and Hort+) Jhn 1:18 θεον G2316 N-ASM  ουδεις G3762 A-NSM-N  εωρακεν G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT  πωποτε  G4455 ADV  μονογενης G3439 A-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ο G3588 T-NSM  ων G1510 V-PAP-NSM  εις G1519 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  κολπον G2859 N-ASM  του G3588 T-GSM  πατρος G3962 N-GSM  εκεινος G1565 D-NSM  εξηγησατο G1834 V-ADI-3S 

(NAS95+) Jhn 1:18  R1 No G3762  one G3762  has seen G3708  God G2316  at any G4455  time G4455 ;  R2 the only G3439  begotten G3439  God G2316  who is  R3 in the bosom G2859  of the Father G3962 ,  R4 He has explained G1834  Him.

G3439 (Mounce)
μονογενής monogenēs
9x: only-begotten, only-born, Luk 7:12; Luk 8:42; Luk 9:38; Heb 11:17; only-begotten in respect of peculiar generation, unique, Jhn 1:14; Jhn 1:18; Jhn 3:16; Jhn 3:18; 1Jn 4:9.

[placebofactor]

With that said, when we compare the modern-day Bibles with the King James, the Bishops Bible, Douay, many differences stand out concerning certain important doctrines. For example, is Jesus the only begotten of the Father, or is he the Westcott and Hort version "the one and only son?" Only begotten in Greek holds a significant meaning concerning the Son, where "one and only" is vague because we are all called sons, but "only begotten" belongs to Jesus alone.

May I beg to differ to your Westcott and Hort's use of "the one and only son," as you will see below Mounce lexicon definition of the Greek word "monogenes" in John 1:18 as only-begotten and etc.

And besides if you compare Westcott and Hort with NAS95 in rendering of the text, it says "the only-begotten God" which was supported by the oldest manuscripts the papyrus 66 and papyrus 75, a contrast to the Arians beliefs of Jesus nature.

May we know what is your interpretation of the KJV translation of 1 John 5:7?
And why the text differs to many translations?

(Westcott and Hort+) Jhn 1:18 θεον G2316 N-ASM  ουδεις G3762 A-NSM-N  εωρακεν G3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT  πωποτε  G4455 ADV  μονογενης G3439 A-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ο G3588 T-NSM  ων G1510 V-PAP-NSM  εις G1519 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  κολπον G2859 N-ASM  του G3588 T-GSM  πατρος G3962 N-GSM  εκεινος G1565 D-NSM  εξηγησατο G1834 V-ADI-3S 

(NAS95+) Jhn 1:18  R1 No G3762  one G3762  has seen G3708  God G2316  at any G4455  time G4455 ;  R2 the only G3439  begotten G3439  God G2316  who is  R3 in the bosom G2859  of the Father G3962 ,  R4 He has explained G1834  Him.

G3439 (Mounce)
μονογενής monogenēs
9x: only-begotten, only-born, Luk 7:12; Luk 8:42; Luk 9:38; Heb 11:17; only-begotten in respect of peculiar generation, unique, Jhn 1:14; Jhn 1:18; Jhn 3:16; Jhn 3:18; 1Jn 4:9.

Let me end with this. If you are comfortable using the N.W.T. or the N.I.V. or a similar work, that's up to you; it will be your choice. But as you read and study, please don't forget to pray that the Holy Spirit can help you get through the tangle of confusion.

[historia]

It's clear that you don't think that they shared your own, peculiar brand of fundamentalism, but I'd guess that very few do share it.

Indeed, taken as a whole, what these quotes show is that Wescott and Hort were 19th Century Anglicans, and not, say, modern-day fundamentalist Baptists.

But, it's also the case that some of these quotes have been decidedly -- and I would suggest deceptively -- taken out of context in an attempt to exaggerate some of those differences.

Let's look at the first three quotes from the OP, as they concern Wescott and Hort's view of Scripture, and so are the most relevant to this thread.

I'll give the (truncated) quote as placebofactor rendered it, and then a fuller quote from the source cited (with a link so anyone interested can see the full context). I've bolded the truncated portion within the fuller quote for reference.

"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

Here's a fuller quote from Life and letters of Brooke Foss Westcott (1903), pg. 207:

All I hold is, that the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumption in favour of the absolute truth -- I reject the word infallibility -- of Holy Scripture overwhelming. Of course I feel difficulties which at present I cannot solve, and which I never hope to solve.

Wescott isn't saying here that he overwhelmingly rejects the infallibility of Scripture. But rather that he overwhelmingly believes in the "absolute truth" of Scripture, and that any "difficulties" (read: apparent errors or contradictions) are simply due to his own ignorance. He just rejects the word infallibility.

"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

This book is actually called A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (1875). On page vii, Wescott wrote:

Hitherto the co-existence of several types of Apostolic doctrine in the first age and of various parties in Christendom for several generations afterwards has been quoted to prove that our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise. But while I acknowledge most willingly the great merit of the Tübingen School in pointing out with marked distinctness the characteristics of the different books of the New Testament, and their connexion with special sides of Christian doctrine and with various eras in the Christian Church, it seems to me almost inexplicable that they should not have found in those writings the explanation instead of the result of the divisions which are traceable to the Apostolic times.

Clearly, Wescott isn't saying here that he believes "our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." He's saying other people have said this, while he personally finds it "almost inexplicable" that they have reached this conclusion.

This is literally ascribing to Westcott a view he sets out to disprove in this text!

"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)

Here's the full quote from Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort (1896), pg. 400:

I have a deeply-rooted agreement with High Church men as to the Church, Ministry, Sacraments, and, above all, Creeds, though by no means acquiescing in their unhistorical and unphilosophical treatment of theology, or their fears and antipathies generally. The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue.

There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible and this alone would make my position among you sufficiently false in respect to the great questions which you will be chiefly anxious to discuss.

Regarding the first part here:

Clearly, Hort isn't saying that Evangelicals are perverted, as if he were commenting on the moral behavior of people. Rather, he's saying that, especially when it comes to ecclesiology, he agrees with other High Church Anglicans over against Low Church Evangelicals. But even then he finds the Evangelicals' doctrines to be distorted (= "perverted") rather than outright "untrue."

Regarding the second part:

This letter was written by Hort to Roland Williams, one of the most famous Anglican theologians of the 19th Century, concerning William's invitation to Hort to contribute an article to a collected volume edited by John William Parker called Essays and Reviews. Hort is explaining why he rejected the invitation.

The "us" that Hort is referring to here when he says there are "still more serious differences between us" is between himself and Williams. Williams and the other authors of the Essays were more liberal than Hort when it came to the authority of the Bible, and so he didn't want to be associate with them.

In the OP, the quote has been edited in such a way as to give the impression that Hort is saying his disagreement on the authority of the Bible is with Evangelicals. But he's actually saying nearly the opposite here!