Very Important Information about Bible Translations

WordSword said:

What most are unaware of is that Westcott and Hort were first formers of the creation of a critical text of the New Testament Westcott and Hort text. Their work, published in 1881 as The New Testament in the Original Greek, became a highly influential critical edition of the Greek New Testament.

This was the first translation from the three ancient manuscripts recently discovered (19th century: Vaticanus, Sinaticua and Alexzandrinus.) Their translation from these manuscript copies are what all modern translations are derived from.

I wanted you to know that these two scholars were members of a cult group: B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were members of a group known as the “Ghostly Gilled,” formed in 1850. This club, also referred to as the “Bogie Club”, focused on investigating paranormal phenomena, including ghosts and supernatural occurrences, as members were “disposed to believe that such things really exist”. Some sources suggest that a previous club organized by Westcott at Cambridge named “Hermes” may have been a precursor to the Ghostly Guild. The Ghostly Guild later evolved into The Society for Psychical Research, a key player in the 19th-century spiritualism movement.”

The two scholars who used Westcott and Hort’s translation were Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland (whom you’re probably familiar with). Nestle and Aland’s text is where today’s modern translations come from.

Click to expand...

This is a highly inaccurate and flawed claim - it uses the 'guilty by association' method to frame any translation >= 19th century CE as faulty or suspicious.

First of all - Westcott & Hort's Greek text was not the first critical text - Erasmus' Greek text 'Novum Instrumentum' (1516, 1522, 1527, 1535) also was a critical text given the manuscripts available to him at that time. His text was the basis for the translations of o.a. Martin Luther (in German, 1522), William Tyndale (in English, 1526), Geneva Bible (in English, 1560), King James (in English, 1611) and the Statenvertaling (in Dutch, 1637).

Erasmus' text already used the critical method - trying to carefully distinguish what was most likely the original text - recognising modifications sometimes were made throughout history. Erasmus famously argued against the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8) as non-authentic, something also confirmed by analysis of the writings of St Augustine of Hippo.

Erasmus remained a Roman Catholic all his life - and disagreed with Martin Luther on the Reformation. He also was a humanist.

Secondly, the many manuscript discoveries after Erasmus' time make his Greek NT text less accurate than what is now reconstructable using all that new evidence/witness material (the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are only two yet important elements of that evidence). Having those many more recently discovered manuscripts available simple means one has to reconstruct a new critical text; otherwise one is deluding oneself into thinking that Erasmus' text was infallible (i.e. by divine guidance). And if one does so by definition the 'Sola Scriptura' doctrine has been violated anyway.

The current Nestle-Aland critical Greek Text of the NT is not a reprint of the Westcott & Hort text (it uses many other manuscript witnesses unavailable to Westcott & Hort) but it has a strong commonality: it leans towards the Alexandrian text-tradition, but it differs with the Westcott & Hort text in hundreds of specific readings.

If Westcott and Hort had not existed as scholars in the 19th century AD other Textual Criticism scholars in our era would have arrived at the roughly the same result - and this remains on ongoing process of course. E.g. suppose the original Hebrew/Aramaic text for the Gospel of Matthew would be found, this would no doubt influence new translations.

WordSword said:

Hi, and appreciate your reply! True, and appreciate the correction. Erasmus produced the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. He also included in his text "the Codex Montfortianus (Greek early 16th cent.), which he named the Codex Britannicus" (-AI Google). This was used in later editions that contained the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8); though he doubted the originality of this manuscript, other scholars encouraged him to include it.

The Eclectic Text (also known as the Critical Text or Minority Text or Alexzandrian Text) was available to Erasmus but he did not refer to them (Vaticanus, Sinaitcus, Alexandrinus). "Erasmus did not use an eclectic text in the modern sense when preparing his Textus Receptus. While he did consult multiple Greek manuscripts, his primary focus was on producing a Greek text that aligned with the existing Latin Vulgate, rather than constructing a text based on a comprehensive comparison and evaluation of diverse textual witnesses."-AI Google

"Early editions of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament were indeed initially based on the text of Westcott and Hort. Specifically, the first two editions of Nestle's text used Westcott and Hort's work, along with Tischendorf's, as a foundation. Later editions incorporated the work of other scholars like Bernhard Weiss. While the Nestle-Aland text has evolved and incorporated new manuscript discoveries over time, the influence of Westcott and Hort remains significant, and many modern translations still rely on the Nestle-Aland/UBS text, which has roots in Westcott and Hort's work.” –AI Google

Click to expand...

People usually don't like things that conflict with existing tradition or established theology. Erasmus was challenged and then tricked into including the Johannine Comma later on when someone tabled a manuscript that had those verses. But he was absolutely right in his opinion this was not part of what John originally wrote. Compare St Augustine writings and see how the interpolation in 1 John 5 interrupt the natural flow of the surrounding verses, observe how the interpolation is missing from any pre-Nicean quotations - and it's easy to see Erasmus was correct in his assessment as this being non-authentic.

The key take-away from my contribution on the existing most modern Critical Text is that it is incorrect to reject that text as basis for modern translation because of Westcott & Hort. KJV-only people also don't reject the KJV because Erasmus was a staunch Roman Catholic.

Be blessed!

WordSword said:

I believe for whatever reason, God wanted that trinity passage in the Word, or it would not have made in! I also believe God left us an entire Word and not a partial testimony. It's easy for me to assume that if the entire Word is present, the translation will contain His entire Word. The translation isn't perfect, but the Word in the translation is, if it's a plenary version.

God gave us His Word for the last 400-500 years, and any translation that lacks much Scripture is not going to do any good. The modern version rave will soon fade, because it doesn't have the Word God gave us for the last 5 centuries; and there's no way believers will be able to use much verse memory with these translations, seeing the sources for the translations are textually in much disagreement with one another.

It didn't take long for Christians to stop studying the Word since the appearance of these translations. Satan cannot effect one's salvation, but he can keep saints from growing in Christ image, when they cease from studying the word.

I'm also convinced that this is Satan's continued attack on the Word, ever since the first strike, "Yea hath God said"
(Gen 3:1).

Appreciate much your replies! God bless!!

Click to expand...

Ah, now you seem to come-out as a KJV-only adherent? If you would have stated this belief in advance our whole discourse could have been skipped Because if that is your belief you will make anything (including your views on what is actually the Word of God, or the value of Textual Criticism) fit that narrative. What version of the KJV do you believe is the literal Word of God? And can you still manage to detect actual errors in the KJV?

Sigh ..

WordSword said:

I'm not a KJV-only but a KJV-best believer, because it's the only translation that you can efficiently use a concordance with when you need to locate a passage! Plus, the Minority Text only uses 10 to 20% of extant manuscript copies, so there is a great deal of Scripture you can't access.

"Generally, when referring to the "Minority Text" in the context of New Testament textual criticism, it refers to the readings supported by a smaller percentage of existing Greek manuscripts compared to the "Majority Text". The Majority Text, also known as the Byzantine Text-type, represents the readings found in the largest number of manuscripts.

"The Gospel Coalition states, "some 80% to 90% of known manuscripts represent the Majority text-type". This implies that the Minority Text is supported by the remaining 10% to 20% of manuscripts."
(and that percentage goes way down when you consider the Alexandrian Text doesn't contain the entire Word (Mat 4:4), due to the thousands of changes they made when translating it." -AI Google

Before they discovered those false manuscript copies everyone had to use the Majority text, there was no Minority text. So many abandoning what God had us using for 400 to 500 years. "Η ώρα πλησιάζει" (I óra plisiázei), i.e. Greek for "the hour is approaching."

May the Holy Spirit show us the truth of His Word! God bless, and God be blessed!

Click to expand...

When Erasmus would have had the manuscripts discovered after his time at his disposal he would have based his Greek Text primarily on those I'm sure.

'Majority used' text does not mean it's more authentic than a minority-used text that is proven to be much older. Bible scholars deal with these issues quite well. The current Nestle-Aland Greek Text reflects scholarly results, not a theological agenda. But it seems you don't like those results because it may conflict with your beliefs or preferences? I'm just asking ..

The fact that a particular text has been used for 400-500 years doesn't say anything about it's reliability or God's desire for that. The Latin Vulgate was used for more than a thousand years as the standard text in the Church - you think that's proof of its reliability or God's standard for a translation?