T
Part Two: Riders of the Wrecking Machine, Westcott and Hort Versus the Textus Receptus and KJV
CREATORS AND DRIVERS OF THE WRECKING MACHINE
Two 19th century English professors created the new Greek text which became the basis for almost all the new Bible versions. These were:
Brooke Foss Westcott 1825-1901, professor of divinity at Cambridge. With F. J. A. Hort, he published The New Testament in the Original Greek (2 vol., 1881) Fenton J. A. Hort 1828-1892, was also a Professor at Cambridge In 1881 when Westcott and Hort published their Greek text, the English Revised Version of the New Testament was published, based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text, instead of the Textus Receptus.
Westcott and Hort used two main Greek texts as their sources for their Greek text:
THE VATICANUS: The Vaticanus was discovered in the Vatican library in the year 1481. It was written in the 4th century. Yet it omits Genesis 1:1 to 46:28, Psalms 106 to 138, Matthew 16:2-3, all the Pauline Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy through Titus) Hebrews 9:14-13:25 and all of the book of Revelation.
THE SINIATICUS: Siniaticus is a manuscript which was found in 1844 by Constantin (von) Tischendorf on a trash pile outside the walls of St. Catherine's Monastery, at the base of what some believe is the mountain where Moses was given the Ten Commandments, Mount Sinai. The riders of the Wrecking machine are the followers of the seminary trained professional Christians who have promoted the new Bible versions.
Westcott and Hort (1881) wrote that the Bible is to be considered as an ancient manuscript, no better and no worse than other ancient manuscripts. This starting point denies that the Bible is inspired by God, and that God has control over all that goes on in this world.
The reference (1881) above is: B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1881, and Introduction and Appendix, authored by Hort, appeared in 1882 (revised edition by F. C. Burkitt in 1892). In it Hort gives the theories, or assumptions, they used as the basis for selecting the Greek texts.. But the problem with starting from the assumption that the Bible is just like any other old book is that the meaning of Scripture is given by the Holy Spirit. And if a textual critic does not have the Holy Spirit, he is likely to make mistakes in handing the word of God. John 16: 13 says "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth..."
Westcott and Hort did not believe in many of the teachings of the Old and New Testaments and very likely were not inspired by the Spirit. John Burgon, Dean of Chichester in England during the late 19th century said the following about the inclusion of a Unitarian on the 1881 Revision Committee led by Westcott & Hort that: "But even if the Unitarian [Vance Smith] had been an eminent Scholar, my objection would remain in full force; for I hold (and surely so do you!), that the right Interpretation of God's Word may not be attained without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whose aid must first be invoked by faithful prayer."
The 1881 committee's purpose was to consider the issue of revising the King James translation. Dean Burgon and F. H. Scrivener lost their battle with Westcort and Hort over the revision of the King James Version. Textual criticism is concerned with finding errors in texts. Supposedly, the goal of textual criticism of the New Testament is to recreate, as closely as possible, the original writings of the apostles. This is the smokescreen that Westcott and Hort used to pull off their great swindle. They managed to establish as a basis for translation a Greek text based on Alexandarian manuscripts which dilute, abbreviate leave out, and cast doubt upon many New testament doctrines and teachings.
Westcott and Hort set out to discredit the Textus Receptus. And before they began to create the machine to wreck the Textus Receptus, Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812), an earlier textual critic, published some critical rules for accepting or rejecting New Testament wordings. One of Griesback's critical rules was that "the hardest reading is best." Another was"the shorter reading is best, based on the idea that scribes were more likely to add than to delete. These are really assumptions which have little if any empirical evidence to support them.
Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort in the 1881 edition of their Greek New Testament also proposed critical rules, including the rule, or assumption, that the shorter reading is best, meaning it is assumed to be closer to the original writing of the apostles. In part, with this and other assumptions,Westcott and Hort justified to their many followers the undermining of the text of the King James Version and the Textus Receptus.
In time the substitution of their 1881 Greek text for the Textus Receptus led mainstream evangelicals to turn to the new translations and reject the King James Version. A summary of the assumptions of Westcott and Hort that they used to select the Alexandrian Greek texts and reject the Textus Receptus can be found in the book by Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. http://www.biblebeliever.co.za/King James/believes_westcott_hort.htm The stuff below is from this link:
ASSUMPTIONS OF WESTCORT AND HORT:
1. Earlier Greek manuscripts are closer to the original writings of the Apostles
2. A scribe usually went about blending the texts available to him trying to make improvements to the text; This is what they call conflation.
3. Older manuscripts have fewer corruptions.
4. Shorter readings are preferred.
5. More awkward sentence grammar is preferred.
Westcott and. Hort claimed that a shorter reading of a New Testament verse is closer to the original autograph and should be used in translation. But what they did, in effect, was set up their critical rules to reject many longer verse readings in the Textus Receptus and accept the shorter readings of the Alexandrian Greek texts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They rationalized this rule by claiming a shorter reading is more accurate because of the assumed blending together of two or more different shorter Greek verses practiced by the scribes. The scribes, they assumed, merged verse wordings from different Greek texts into one new reading. But typists, or ancient scribes who copied manuscripts by hand, it would seem, are more likely to leave out words than they are to add words to merge two different versions of a Bible verse into a new verse.
In the theory they concocted to justify their use of the Alexandrian Greek texts, Westcott and Hort implied that Christian scribes had deliberately changed some verses of the Scriptures. But the problem with their Greek text is that some verses, different in wording from the Textus Receptus, appear to be in agreement with gnostic theology, which existed in Alexandria, Egypt at the about the time the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus came into existence.
The main assumption of Hort in his Introduction and Appendix (1882) to the Westcott-Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881) was that the Textus Receptus was a late Greek text and therefore not as close to the original writings of the apostles as the fourth century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. A key part of Hort's theory was his argument on the lateness of the Byzantine text which was used to create the Textus Receptus.
To treat the Scriptures as any other book means that Westcott and Hort and their followers who ride their Wrecking Machine (1) ignored the reality of Satan who tries to change God's Word (2) had little faith in God's promise to preserve His Word. Since Satan has tried to inspire scribes and theologians to change the word of God, we might expect to find that some copies of the New Testament were changed to support gnostic or other false doctrines - at least some changes were made. Large changes in doctrines might have been rejected even by Christians in Egypt in the fourth and fifth centuries and so the changes had to be subtle.
In II Corinthians 2:17 Paul says "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."
Colwell,(1952), who once was a follower of Westcott and Hort, but who changed his position, says that: "The majority of the variant readings in the New Testament were created for theological or dogmatic reasons. Most of the manuals and handbooks now in print (including mine!) will tell you that these variations were the fruit of careless treatment which was possible because the books of the New Testament had not yet attained a strong position as 'Bible.' The reverse is the case. It was because they were the religious treasure of the church that they were changed ... most variations, I believe, were made deliberately. ... scholars now believe that most variations were made deliberately"4 E.C. Colwell, What is the Best New Testament?(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952), pp. 53, 58 & 49.
J. Gresham Machen in his book, Christianity and Liberalism, warned what would happen if the liberals gain control of the evangelical churches. They would retain the name and some of the trappings of genuine Christianity but the substance would be lost. The liberals, or academics, who, for the most part, do not have the Holy Spirit, and do not believe all the teachings of the Bible, have not only taken over the evangelical churches, they have also taken over the seminaries that train the preachers. The Declension of American Revivalism
Apparently the Church of England theologians, Westcott and Hort, would have qualified as liberals.
CREATORS AND DRIVERS OF THE WRECKING MACHINE
Two 19th century English professors created the new Greek text which became the basis for almost all the new Bible versions. These were:
Brooke Foss Westcott 1825-1901, professor of divinity at Cambridge. With F. J. A. Hort, he published The New Testament in the Original Greek (2 vol., 1881) Fenton J. A. Hort 1828-1892, was also a Professor at Cambridge In 1881 when Westcott and Hort published their Greek text, the English Revised Version of the New Testament was published, based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text, instead of the Textus Receptus.
Westcott and Hort used two main Greek texts as their sources for their Greek text:
THE VATICANUS: The Vaticanus was discovered in the Vatican library in the year 1481. It was written in the 4th century. Yet it omits Genesis 1:1 to 46:28, Psalms 106 to 138, Matthew 16:2-3, all the Pauline Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy through Titus) Hebrews 9:14-13:25 and all of the book of Revelation.
THE SINIATICUS: Siniaticus is a manuscript which was found in 1844 by Constantin (von) Tischendorf on a trash pile outside the walls of St. Catherine's Monastery, at the base of what some believe is the mountain where Moses was given the Ten Commandments, Mount Sinai. The riders of the Wrecking machine are the followers of the seminary trained professional Christians who have promoted the new Bible versions.
Westcott and Hort (1881) wrote that the Bible is to be considered as an ancient manuscript, no better and no worse than other ancient manuscripts. This starting point denies that the Bible is inspired by God, and that God has control over all that goes on in this world.
The reference (1881) above is: B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1881, and Introduction and Appendix, authored by Hort, appeared in 1882 (revised edition by F. C. Burkitt in 1892). In it Hort gives the theories, or assumptions, they used as the basis for selecting the Greek texts.. But the problem with starting from the assumption that the Bible is just like any other old book is that the meaning of Scripture is given by the Holy Spirit. And if a textual critic does not have the Holy Spirit, he is likely to make mistakes in handing the word of God. John 16: 13 says "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth..."
Westcott and Hort did not believe in many of the teachings of the Old and New Testaments and very likely were not inspired by the Spirit. John Burgon, Dean of Chichester in England during the late 19th century said the following about the inclusion of a Unitarian on the 1881 Revision Committee led by Westcott & Hort that: "But even if the Unitarian [Vance Smith] had been an eminent Scholar, my objection would remain in full force; for I hold (and surely so do you!), that the right Interpretation of God's Word may not be attained without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whose aid must first be invoked by faithful prayer."
The 1881 committee's purpose was to consider the issue of revising the King James translation. Dean Burgon and F. H. Scrivener lost their battle with Westcort and Hort over the revision of the King James Version. Textual criticism is concerned with finding errors in texts. Supposedly, the goal of textual criticism of the New Testament is to recreate, as closely as possible, the original writings of the apostles. This is the smokescreen that Westcott and Hort used to pull off their great swindle. They managed to establish as a basis for translation a Greek text based on Alexandarian manuscripts which dilute, abbreviate leave out, and cast doubt upon many New testament doctrines and teachings.
Westcott and Hort set out to discredit the Textus Receptus. And before they began to create the machine to wreck the Textus Receptus, Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812), an earlier textual critic, published some critical rules for accepting or rejecting New Testament wordings. One of Griesback's critical rules was that "the hardest reading is best." Another was"the shorter reading is best, based on the idea that scribes were more likely to add than to delete. These are really assumptions which have little if any empirical evidence to support them.
Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort in the 1881 edition of their Greek New Testament also proposed critical rules, including the rule, or assumption, that the shorter reading is best, meaning it is assumed to be closer to the original writing of the apostles. In part, with this and other assumptions,Westcott and Hort justified to their many followers the undermining of the text of the King James Version and the Textus Receptus.
In time the substitution of their 1881 Greek text for the Textus Receptus led mainstream evangelicals to turn to the new translations and reject the King James Version. A summary of the assumptions of Westcott and Hort that they used to select the Alexandrian Greek texts and reject the Textus Receptus can be found in the book by Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. http://www.biblebeliever.co.za/King James/believes_westcott_hort.htm The stuff below is from this link:
ASSUMPTIONS OF WESTCORT AND HORT:
1. Earlier Greek manuscripts are closer to the original writings of the Apostles
2. A scribe usually went about blending the texts available to him trying to make improvements to the text; This is what they call conflation.
3. Older manuscripts have fewer corruptions.
4. Shorter readings are preferred.
5. More awkward sentence grammar is preferred.
Westcott and. Hort claimed that a shorter reading of a New Testament verse is closer to the original autograph and should be used in translation. But what they did, in effect, was set up their critical rules to reject many longer verse readings in the Textus Receptus and accept the shorter readings of the Alexandrian Greek texts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They rationalized this rule by claiming a shorter reading is more accurate because of the assumed blending together of two or more different shorter Greek verses practiced by the scribes. The scribes, they assumed, merged verse wordings from different Greek texts into one new reading. But typists, or ancient scribes who copied manuscripts by hand, it would seem, are more likely to leave out words than they are to add words to merge two different versions of a Bible verse into a new verse.
In the theory they concocted to justify their use of the Alexandrian Greek texts, Westcott and Hort implied that Christian scribes had deliberately changed some verses of the Scriptures. But the problem with their Greek text is that some verses, different in wording from the Textus Receptus, appear to be in agreement with gnostic theology, which existed in Alexandria, Egypt at the about the time the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus came into existence.
The main assumption of Hort in his Introduction and Appendix (1882) to the Westcott-Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881) was that the Textus Receptus was a late Greek text and therefore not as close to the original writings of the apostles as the fourth century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. A key part of Hort's theory was his argument on the lateness of the Byzantine text which was used to create the Textus Receptus.
To treat the Scriptures as any other book means that Westcott and Hort and their followers who ride their Wrecking Machine (1) ignored the reality of Satan who tries to change God's Word (2) had little faith in God's promise to preserve His Word. Since Satan has tried to inspire scribes and theologians to change the word of God, we might expect to find that some copies of the New Testament were changed to support gnostic or other false doctrines - at least some changes were made. Large changes in doctrines might have been rejected even by Christians in Egypt in the fourth and fifth centuries and so the changes had to be subtle.
In II Corinthians 2:17 Paul says "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."
Colwell,(1952), who once was a follower of Westcott and Hort, but who changed his position, says that: "The majority of the variant readings in the New Testament were created for theological or dogmatic reasons. Most of the manuals and handbooks now in print (including mine!) will tell you that these variations were the fruit of careless treatment which was possible because the books of the New Testament had not yet attained a strong position as 'Bible.' The reverse is the case. It was because they were the religious treasure of the church that they were changed ... most variations, I believe, were made deliberately. ... scholars now believe that most variations were made deliberately"4 E.C. Colwell, What is the Best New Testament?(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952), pp. 53, 58 & 49.
J. Gresham Machen in his book, Christianity and Liberalism, warned what would happen if the liberals gain control of the evangelical churches. They would retain the name and some of the trappings of genuine Christianity but the substance would be lost. The liberals, or academics, who, for the most part, do not have the Holy Spirit, and do not believe all the teachings of the Bible, have not only taken over the evangelical churches, they have also taken over the seminaries that train the preachers. The Declension of American Revivalism
Apparently the Church of England theologians, Westcott and Hort, would have qualified as liberals.