Westcott and Hort controversy

TimRout · Oct 10, 2009

JohnDB said:
If only it were...

But I understand that you cannot accept anything this uneducated person says...I have no letters behind my name and I am not published...and in fact many who are published that are not Calvinists are also rejected out of hand by Calvinists.

little wonder to this at all.

But there are a great many who have studied the anthropology of that day and time who will vehemently disagree with you.

John, it's not about education. It's about exegesis. If one considers the first chapter of Hebrews to be the preamble, the first "therefore" appears in 2:1.

"For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it." [NASB]

...or 3:1

"Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession." [NASB]

It seems highly unlikely the author was writing to unsaved Pharisees. Indeed, it seems more likely this epistle was directed to Jewish believers living in Italy [13:24].

JohnDB · Oct 10, 2009

Tim,
Maybe I am reading your post wrong or something...

But when exactly do you think that the bible was chapter and verse numbered?

and you think that these numbers are important how and why?

I am getting very confused by your post.

TimRout · Oct 10, 2009

JohnDB said:
Tim,
Maybe I am reading your post wrong or something...

But when exactly do you think that the bible was chapter and verse numbered?

and you think that these numbers are important how and why?

I am getting very confused by your post.

John, I offer the addresses merely for reference. It is the text, not the enumeration, that is inspired. I am surprised you find this confusing. :scratch:

JohnDB · Oct 10, 2009

TimRout said:
John, I offer the addresses merely for reference. It is the text, not the enumeration, that is inspired. I am surprised you find this confusing.

I was wondering because of what you had posted...OK...thank you for that clarification.

I still vehemently disagree...with your position about Westcott or Hort. They weren't exactly atheists. LOL

But I do understand that you won't agree or admit that I'm right and you will use any excuse possible to maintain that position. Even if the bible that you regularly use is based, in part, upon work that these two men did. ^_^

TimRout · Oct 10, 2009

JohnDB said:
I was wondering because of what you had posted...OK...thank you for that clarification.

I still vehemently disagree...with your position about Westcott or Hort. They weren't exactly atheists. LOL

But I do understand that you won't agree or admit that I'm right and you will use any excuse possible to maintain that position. Even if the bible that you regularly use is based, in part, upon work that these two men did.

To my knowledge John --- and do correct me if I've missed something --- I have yet to comment on W&H. :o

JohnDB · Oct 10, 2009

If you haven't then my apologies...

It gets to a point where all them calvinists look alike to me after a while.

But what is apparent to me...and a whole host of others who aren't in this forum...

Is that Westcott and Hort were experts in ANE (Ancient Near Eastern) literature...and based their opinions on that literature on that knowledge...not on any theology that any one particular group held. Their own personal theologies being across the board. So...when they surmise that the writing was to a group of Pharisees in Jerusalem...I tend to believe their credibility over yours...

FreeinChrist · Oct 11, 2009

JohnDB - the Westcott and Hort controversy is NOT a Calvinist vs. nonCalvinist issue. Let's NOT got there in this thread.

As to the idea that Hebrews was written to the Pharisees, I hardily disagree. They were not Christians. There is nothing in the text itself saying it was just to the Pharisees. And I doubt the Phraisees are the ones referred to here:

Hbr 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

Hbr 6:1¶Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine
of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

Hbr 6:9¶But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
Hbr 6:10 For God [is] not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
Hbr 6:11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:

Hbr 10:19¶Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

Hbr 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Hbr 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

The letter is written to Hebrew Christians. It shows how the New Covenant is tied to the Old Covenant and how Jesus is the better than the angels, and was the better sacrifice made with better blood offered in a better santuary and is a better Mediator and High Priest - and that His sacrifice removes sin and doesn't just cover it. He fulfilled the Law.

As for some references as to who it is written to:

Matthew Henry:
"The design of this epistle was to persuade and press the believing Hebrews to a constant adherence to the Christian faith, and perseverance in it, notwithstanding all the sufferings they might meet with in so doing. "

Check this:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. H[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]eb 10:32-34; 12:3-13 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The intended readers have undergone persecution in the past (Heb 10:32-34) and seem to be undergoing some sort of persecution in the present (Heb 12:3-13). Details concerning this most recent persecution, however, are not forthcoming from text, except, perhaps, that their persecution has not yet consisted of the shedding of blood (Heb 12:4). Which persecution the intended readers have undergone and are undergoing is impossible to determine, since there is a lack of historical detail.[/FONT]

The Pharisees were not persecuted - they persecuted. Saul, before he was Paul, was a Pharisee and persecuted Christians.

JohnDB · Oct 11, 2009

FreeinChrist said:
JohnDB - the Westcott and Hort controversy is NOT a Calvinist vs. nonCalvinist issue. Let's NOT got there in this thread.

As to the idea that Hebrews was written to the Pharisees, I hardily disagree. They were not Christians. There is nothing in the text itself saying it was just to the Pharisees. And I doubt the Phraisees are the ones referred to here:

Hbr 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

Hbr 6:1¶Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine
of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

Hbr 6:9¶But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
Hbr 6:10 For God [is] not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
Hbr 6:11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:

Hbr 10:19¶Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

Hbr 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Hbr 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

The letter is written to Hebrew Christians. It shows how the New Covenant is tied to the Old Covenant and how Jesus is the better than the angels, and was the better sacrifice made with better blood offered in a better santuary and is a better Mediator and High Priest - and that His sacrifice removes sin and doesn't just cover it. He fulfilled the Law.

As for some references as to who it is written to:

Matthew Henry:
"The design of this epistle was to persuade and press the believing Hebrews to a constant adherence to the Christian faith, and perseverance in it, notwithstanding all the sufferings they might meet with in so doing. "

Check this:

The Pharisees were not persecuted - they persecuted. Saul, before he was Paul, was a Pharisee and persecuted Christians.

There were many Pharisees and grammitons/lawyers/experts in the Law who had become believers over the years. Yes, many of them, like Saul/Paul, had been involved in persecuting them...but there also were many of them that had abandoned Judaism and had now joined with the Christians (aka...The Way) and were now also suffering persecution. These people had become religious leaders due again in part to their extensive knowledge of the scriptures and the Law.
The writer of Hebrews was addressing these guys primarily becuase they were responsible for leading the others. Christians in Israel and Jerusalem was numbering in the thousands by the time of the writing of this letter...and gaining ground the whole way.

As far as persecution goes...little wonder that the Christians would get special treatment...just about everyone was persecuted in Jerusalem for one reason or another. Hellenistic Jews were persecuted, Samaritans were persecuted, Jews were persecuted by Romans...the list was rather long and endless as to who was persecuting whom and for what reasons. The Christians at first were too small a group to be persecuted...but as they grew in number to a sufficient size their persecution obviously had to begin...They now had sufficient size to be a recognized group and were someone that could be persecuted.

The Letter to Hebrews was indeed for everyone in Jerusalem and Israel...but primarily it was to those with extensive knowledge of sifre, talmuds, and midrash due to the many references to those literary writings. Your common man, where able to read, wasn't fluent in these writings as they weren't that widely available. But to a Pharisee or a grammiton/lawyer/expert in the law, they would have been.

Because of the many references to these writings, at first glance and with a flat reading of Hebrews, the letter appears to be rather boring and un exciting. The writings aren't something that are regularly preached upon stirring excitement such as the Gospels are. So...the writing of Hebrews has relatively gone unchanged...there has been no political pressure applied or centered around it or theology that has been a hotbed of controversy inside the church.

HOWEVER

When the knowledge of those writings becomes known and understood and put together with the writing in the book of Hebrews the book comes alive and very intelectually thick in nature. And many of the controversial topics are addressed in Hebrews by a variety of references that goes unnoticed...

Matthew Henry was a good scholar of the scriptures....but he has several shortcomings as well. His lack of knowledge of Israel Geography and anthropology being cheif among them. He also wasn't a student of ANE writings like Westcott or Hort. He also didn't face persecution for his commentary on the scriptures the way that Westcott and Hort feared for their lives for the work that they did on securing copies of manuscripts that were more accurate than the ones we had before. Matthew Henry was a Calvinist living in the heart of Calvinistic territory commenting in a manner that was consistant with those views...That isn't neccesarily as courageous a position as these two men.

Granted any time you have a noted scholar who completes a "new" and/or great Religious work there is going to be detractors somewhere who are going to slander the character of them. Even Billy Graham who was a wonderful evangelist has his detractors as well...everyone looking to take the man down...and where some of what they say may in fact be true...what of it?
I still see him as a hero of the faith...and right on more than he got wrong.

TimRout · Oct 11, 2009

JohnDB said:
There were many Pharisees and grammitons/lawyers/experts in the Law who had become believers over the years. Yes, many of them, like Saul/Paul, had been involved in persecuting them...but there also were many of them that had abandoned Judaism and had now joined with the Christians (aka...The Way) and were now also suffering persecution.

On what biblical basis do you make this assertion? I can see a possible case for Pharisees like Nicodemus [Jn. 3:1] or Gamaliel [Ac. 5:34], but your broad and sweeping statement that MANY came to Christ, seems inconsistent with the testimony of Scripture.

JohnDB said:
These people had become religious leaders due again in part to their extensive knowledge of the scriptures and the Law.

No. In fact Pharisees were generally born into their "calling" [Ac. 23:6]. Where are you getting this from, John?

JohnDB said:
The writer of Hebrews was addressing these guys primarily becuase they were responsible for leading the others.

Again, on what biblical basis are you making this assertion? Show me from Hebrews that your claims are correct. Indeed, as FreeinChrist has pointed out, your position is quite baseless.

JohnDB said:
Christians in Israel and Jerusalem was numbering in the thousands by the time of the writing of this letter...and gaining ground the whole way.

Your point?

JohnDB said:
As far as persecution goes...little wonder that the Christians would get special treatment...just about everyone was persecuted in Jerusalem for one reason or another. Hellenistic Jews were persecuted, Samaritans were persecuted, Jews were persecuted by Romans...the list was rather long and endless as to who was persecuting whom and for what reasons. The Christians at first were too small a group to be persecuted...but as they grew in number to a sufficient size their persecution obviously had to begin...They now had sufficient size to be a recognized group and were someone that could be persecuted.

Fair enough. But how does this support your assertion that Pharisees were the intended audience of Hebrews?

JohnDB said:
The Letter to Hebrews was indeed for everyone in Jerusalem and Israel...but primarily it was to those with extensive knowledge of sifre, talmuds, and midrash due to the many references to those literary writings. Your common man, where able to read, wasn't fluent in these writings as they weren't that widely available. But to a Pharisee or a grammiton/lawyer/expert in the law, they would have been.

The chief stylistic province of Hebrews is neither Talmudic, nor Midrashim, but rather Prophetic-Epistliary. In fact, about 50% of the text of Hebrews comes straight from the pages of the Old Testament. Perhaps you could demonstrate from the text of Hebrews that your above assertion is correct? Frankly, I see no basis for it.

JohnDB said:
Because of the many references to these writings, at first glance and with a flat reading of Hebrews, the letter appears to be rather boring and un exciting.

Talk about a subjective assertion.... I find Hebrews absolutely thrilling. So what? That's not an argument! Show me those so called Talmudic references.

JohnDB said:
The writings aren't something that are regularly preached upon stirring excitement such as the Gospels are. So...the writing of Hebrews has relatively gone unchanged...there has been no political pressure applied or centered around it or theology that has been a hotbed of controversy inside the church.

Are you suggesting the Gospels have fallen prey to political pressure? I don't understand this statement, John. Perhaps you could clarify.

JohnDB said:
HOWEVER

When the knowledge of those writings becomes known and understood and put together with the writing in the book of Hebrews the book comes alive and very intelectually thick in nature. And many of the controversial topics are addressed in Hebrews by a variety of references that goes unnoticed...

Are you talking about the integration of Gospel theology into Hebrews, or the application of your Talmudic theory? It seems rather troublesome, John, that you won't permit Hebrews to speak for itself. Is it not incumbent upon the biblical exegete to begin with the text of the Book itself, and move outward from there?

JohnDB said:
Matthew Henry was a good scholar of the scriptures....but he has several shortcomings as well. His lack of knowledge of Israel Geography and anthropology being cheif among them. He also wasn't a student of ANE writings like Westcott or Hort.

Henry stayed with the text of Scripture. Your approach seems to import a great deal of extracanonical data through your hermeneutic. Yet for the life of me, I can't seem to figure out how this impacts your reading of Hebrews, since for all your verbage, you have yet to exposit a single passage.

JohnDB said:
He also didn't face persecution for his commentary on the scriptures the way that Westcott and Hort feared for their lives for the work that they did on securing copies of manuscripts that were more accurate than the ones we had before. Matthew Henry was a Calvinist living in the heart of Calvinistic territory commenting in a manner that was consistant with those views...That isn't neccesarily as courageous a position as these two men.

As others have mentioned, this subject is unrelated to the Calvinist/Arminian debate. Your need to continuously take it there is perplexing.

JohnDB said:
Granted any time you have a noted scholar who completes a "new" and/or great Religious work there is going to be detractors somewhere who are going to slander the character of them. Even Billy Graham who was a wonderful evangelist has his detractors as well...everyone looking to take the man down...and where some of what they say may in fact be true...what of it?
I still see him as a hero of the faith...and right on more than he got wrong.

Two thoughts:

1. It should be noted that the vast majority of English translations do not come from W&H, but the NA27/UBS4 text...which are by no means slavish reproductions of W&H.

2. It should be noted that your presentation above rests, once again, with your own unsubstantiated imaginings, and not with the text of Scripture.

FreeinChrist · Oct 11, 2009

JohnDB said:
There were many Pharisees and grammitons/lawyers/experts in the Law who had become believers over the years. Yes, many of them, like Saul/Paul, had been involved in persecuting them...but there also were many of them that had abandoned Judaism and had now joined with the Christians (aka...The Way) and were now also suffering persecution. These people had become religious leaders due again in part to their extensive knowledge of the scriptures and the Law.

If that is so, then they ceased to be Pharisees and were Hebrew Christians. The book of Hebrews is written to Hebrew Christans. Many Hebrew Christians (and all Christians) needed to have it reinforced that they were not abandoning the Law - the Law pointed to Jesus and He fulfileed the Law.

The writer of Hebrews was addressing these guys primarily becuase they were responsible for leading the others. Christians in Israel and Jerusalem was numbering in the thousands by the time of the writing of this letter...and gaining ground the whole way.

As far as persecution goes...little wonder that the Christians would get special treatment...just about everyone was persecuted in Jerusalem for one reason or another. Hellenistic Jews were persecuted, Samaritans were persecuted, Jews were persecuted by Romans...the list was rather long and endless as to who was persecuting whom and for what reasons. The Christians at first were too small a group to be persecuted...but as they grew in number to a sufficient size their persecution obviously had to begin...They now had sufficient size to be a recognized group and were someone that could be persecuted.

The persecution of Christians happened all over, not just in Jerusalem. Paul was stoned away from Jersulem on a mssionary trip. In the towns he visited, it was the Jews who objected to the message and then persecuted the new believers.

The Letter to Hebrews was indeed for everyone in Jerusalem and Israel...but primarily it was to those with extensive knowledge of sifre, talmuds , and midrash due to the many references to those literary writings. ]/quote]
It was to all Hebrew Christians - including those outside of Isreal. And everything written in Hebrews relating to the Law can be found in the OT. It has little if anything to do with other writings.

Your common man, where able to read, wasn't fluent in these writings as they weren't that widely available. But to a Pharisee or a grammiton/lawyer/expert in the law, they would have been.

Click to expand...

Jewish children spend time in the temple or synogogue and were the more educated of folks.
The letter, lke the letters of Paul or Peter, were copied and spread. There is good reason to believe that it was written originally in Helenistic Greek so it could be understood better by those Hebrew Christians living away from Israel.

Because of the many references to these writings, at first glance and with a flat reading of Hebrews, the letter appears to be rather boring and un exciting. The writings aren't something that are regularly preached upon stirring excitement such as the Gospels are. So...the writing of Hebrews has relatively gone unchanged...there has been no political pressure applied or centered around it or theology that has been a hotbed of controversy inside the church.

Click to expand...

Actually, the two classes I took studying Hebrews was two of the more interesting. It is not a boring book.

Those actually has nothing to do with the discussion.

HOWEVER

When the knowledge of those writings becomes known and understood and put together with the writing in the book of Hebrews the book comes alive and very intelectually thick in nature. And many of the controversial topics are addressed in Hebrews by a variety of references that goes unnoticed...

Click to expand...

This really has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. .

Matthew Henry was a good scholar of the scriptures....but he has several shortcomings as well. His lack of knowledge of Israel Geography and anthropology being cheif among them. He also wasn't a student of ANE writings like Westcott or Hort. He also didn't face persecution for his commentary on the scriptures the way that Westcott and Hort feared for their lives for the work that they did on securing copies of manuscripts that were more accurate than the ones we had before. Matthew Henry was a Calvinist living in the heart of Calvinistic territory commenting in a manner that was consistant with those views...That isn't neccesarily as courageous a position as these two men.

Click to expand...

Well, I am glad he didn't get influenced by a Westcott and Hort. Their views are unorthodox at times.

FreeinChrist · Oct 11, 2009

brinny · Mar 24, 2019

*bump*

ml5363 · Mar 30, 2019

Sadly most of modern versions and Latin Vulgate are based off westcott and hort

GreekOrthodox · Mar 31, 2019

Yall bumped a thread that hadnt been discussed in 10 years?

mark kennedy · Apr 3, 2019

GreekOrthodox said:
Yall bumped a thread that hadnt been discussed in 10 years?

Yea that's Brinny, she just does whatever she wants.

mark kennedy · Apr 3, 2019

JohnDB said:
I want to first thank some people who made me see this controversy and actually look it up...it was rather interesting.

From what I have been able to gather these two men (great scholars mind you in their fields of study...and recognized as such to this very day) put themselves and their lives on the line for the modern translations that we have today.

Granted...many of their theologies are not something that I would want to share in...

Those most opposed to them do seem to be those of the KJV only crowd. (a dubious group to begin with)

Those that most promote their work and theologies today are the Jehovah Witnesses.

Creating a rather unique set of circumstances...and rather strange at that.

These gentlemen were advocates of a new greek manuscript in which our english bibles to this day are somewhat based upon. Many others after them came along and did more work...completing the work that these two had started...which was to provide us all with a more accurate greek text more closer to the autographs that once existed than was available at that time. Their battle was against the Textus Receptus and the Latin Vulgate...

Their personal theologies were all over the place too. Sometimes siding with the Catholic Church, Sometimes with the Anglican Church, and sometimes with the Evangelicals...but mostly with nobody. No wonder nobody liked these guys. They crossed swords with everyone and every denominations. They felt that the evangelicals were more right but were still peverting the truth...LOL

I still find a lot of value in the work that they have done...they were conceincious about quoting from various Talmuds, Midrash, and Sifre when the scriptures did so...granting the fact that their conclusions about many subjects was wrong...but still...Protestantism was only 200 years in the making when these guys were doing their thing. They were one of the chief reasons that the revised verson was created...the forerunner to the Revised English version that is popular amongst Calvinists today. LOL

These two men deserve their seat at the table when on All Saint's Day we give thanks to God for the patriarchs of the Faith that we now hold...they weren't perfect men with perfect foresight...but they were stubborn and steadfast for what they believed in...and their scholarship was truly groundbreaking and visionary for their day and time.

I don't regard Westscott-Hort as controversial but I do prefer the KJV to modern translations.

chevyontheriver · Apr 11, 2019

brinny said:
*bump*

That was a nine and a half year bump. Still, it is an interesting topic.

brinny · Apr 11, 2019

chevyontheriver said:
That was a nine and a half year bump. Still, it is an interesting topic.

LOL!

ml5363 · Jun 15, 2019

mlqurgw said:
They are proven to be heretics by their own writings. I am no fan of KJV onlyism but the fact is they do a very good job of showing Wescott and Hort for what they were. Few today actually accept Wescott and Horts Greek manuscript.

Unfortunately though most versions stem from westcott/hort

now faith · Jun 28, 2019

DeaconDean said:
And let me include this:

I just read that article, please pull out the paragraph where there is a commentary on Hebrews.

The only thing in that article that even mentions the book of Hebrews is a foot note:

Footnote #11

Source

And that footnote is attached to:

Source

Friends, pull up the article for yourselves. Save yourself some time, at the top of the page under "Edit" click on the "Find" link, type in "Hebrews". See what that comes up with.

I am sorry, but after reading this, I still have a hard time finding:

God Bless

Till all are one.

I find it amazing that among Baptist , Christian's who use the King James are called a Dubious group.

Definition of dubious

1: unsettled in opinion : DOUBTFULI was dubious about the plan.
2: giving rise to uncertainty: such as
a: of doubtful promise or outcomea dubious plan
b: questionable or suspect as to true nature or qualitythe practice is of dubious legality

I suppose comments are made based on life experience and not reason.

No worries Deacon it's not another battle of the Bibles thread , just passing through.

Westcott and Hort controversy

Biblicist

Regular Member

Biblicist

Regular Member

Biblicist

Regular Member

CF Advisory team

Regular Member

Biblicist

CF Advisory team

CF Advisory team

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

Well-Known Member

Psalti Chrysostom

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Similar threads