Very Important Information about Bible Translations

WordSword · Sunday at 7:25 PM

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.

Reluctant Theologian · Sunday at 11:15 PM

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.

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 · Monday at 1:28 PM

Reluctant Theologian said:
First of all - Westcott & Hort's Greek text was not the first critical text

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.

Reluctant Theologian said:
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).

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

Reluctant Theologian said:
The current Nestle-Aland critical Greek Text of the NT is not a reprint of the Westcott & Hort text

"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

Reluctant Theologian · Monday at 11:19 PM

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

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 · Tuesday at 9:21 AM

Reluctant Theologian said:
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.

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!!

Reluctant Theologian · Tuesday at 4:57 PM

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!!

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 · Tuesday at 7:20 PM

Reluctant Theologian said:
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 ..

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!

Reluctant Theologian · Tuesday at 8:34 PM

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!

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?

WordSword · 2025-08-21T11:14:10-0500

Reluctant Theologian said:
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.

Hi RT, and really appreciate your replies. Many do not realize Erasmus had access to the Vaticanus but referred to it very little: "Erasmus did have access to and used readings from the Codex Vaticanus. While he initially focused on producing a fresh Greek text for his New Testament, he later engaged with the Vaticanus through correspondence and received specific readings from it. Some scholars even believe he had access to the manuscript itself during his time in Rome." -Google AI

"Erasmus did not use Codex Vaticanus extensively in his Greek New Testament; instead, he had contact with it through correspondence, receiving a transcript of some verses from it. Erasmus classified the Vatican text as a "back-translation" of the Latin Vulgate, which he considered inferior to the Greek manuscripts he used for his editions, and he rejected its distinctive readings." -Google AI

Reluctant Theologian said:
'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 ..

I can't see God going 3500 years with the traditional Bibles and then suddenly changing us to these modern versions. Some say they are so the same Bibles that no doctrines are affected; and they are much affected, there are so many passages omitted and many transposed and interpolated that there cannot be a possibility of any of them (they all use the same copies) containing the entire Word of God (Mat 4:4).

Reluctant Theologian said:
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?

The manuscripts that parallel one another (5000 manuscripts of the Majority Text) are the only ones used by the scribes, and abandoned the 4 corrupt texts of the Western Text (Alexandrian Text-type); and is why they did not wear out like the traditional text.

WordSword · 2025-08-21T12:13:38-0500

"Pope Damasus I commissioned Jerome to produce a revised Latin version of the Bible, known as the Vulgate, starting around 382 AD." -AI Google. The reason why the Pope wanted him to do this was "to hide the Word from Greek speaking people."- "Which Bible" by David Otis Fuller, D. D.

"Greek was a common language to most people during the Hellenistic period, following the conquests of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BCE, and continuing through the Roman and early Byzantine Empires until around the 6th century CE. This common, simplified form of Greek was known as Koine Greek, which spread as a lingua franca across the Mediterranean and Near East and became the language of the New Testament." -Google AI

Reluctant Theologian · 2025-08-22T02:11:06-0500

WordSword said:
Hi RT, and really appreciate your replies. Many do not realize Erasmus had access to the Vaticanus but referred to it very little: "Erasmus did have access to and used readings from the Codex Vaticanus. While he initially focused on producing a fresh Greek text for his New Testament, he later engaged with the Vaticanus through correspondence and received specific readings from it. Some scholars even believe he had access to the manuscript itself during his time in Rome." -Google AI

"Erasmus did not use Codex Vaticanus extensively in his Greek New Testament; instead, he had contact with it through correspondence, receiving a transcript of some verses from it. Erasmus classified the Vatican text as a "back-translation" of the Latin Vulgate, which he considered inferior to the Greek manuscripts he used for his editions, and he rejected its distinctive readings." -Google AI

I can't see God going 3500 years with the traditional Bibles and then suddenly changing us to these modern versions. Some say they are so the same Bibles that no doctrines are affected; and they are much affected, there are so many passages omitted and many transposed and interpolated that there cannot be a possibility of any of them (they all use the same copies) containing the entire Word of God (Mat 4:4).

The manuscripts that parallel one another (5000 manuscripts of the Majority Text) are the only ones used by the scribes, and abandoned the 4 corrupt texts of the Western Text (Alexandrian Text-type); and is why they did not wear out like the traditional text.

You're making some broad assumptions and sweeping statements here I cannot agree with, and the far majority of Bible Scholars have the same opinion.

The 'Protestant' Bible Book collection has only existed for 400-500 years, not 3500 years. We don't possess any original manuscript from the original authors anymore, so the only thing any generation of Bible Scholars can and should do is reconstruct that original text to the best of their abilities with the knowledge/evidence available at that point in time, and create translations as needed for the reader of that era. That changes as time progresses - so from that follows the Critical Text may change somewhat and our translations are updated or modernised. One has to accept we cannot be 100% sure of the original manuscripts to the very character in detail. That is true for both the OT and NT texts.

The Vulgate was useful for when Latin became the dominant language in the Church - it was for from perfect but useful. Erasmus realised its shortcomings, and the Renaissance era brought the desire for translations in everyday language for plain believers (non-theologians). That process is still ongoing and will continue to do so.

You seem to be stuck in the fixation or assumption that only the majority text used as basis for the KJV was the 'perfect Word of God' and anything that conflicts with that therefore by definition must be wrong. But have you ever tried letting that assumption go?

Have you tried understanding how the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5 might have come into existence?

I'd like to add: let the details of Textual Criticism not overwhelm or overshadow the call to live like Christ - and it's good to realise many dedicated believers throughout history couldn't even read. Yet I realise sometimes those details do influence our beliefs and theology.

Aaron112 · 2025-08-22T02:29:37-0500

Reluctant Theologian said:
Have you tried understanding how the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5 might have come into existence?

No, never, and should not .....

When the Mighty All-Knowing King of the Jews, Messiah Yahshua, and His Father ABBA YAHWEH reveal the truth,
all human 'reason' / thinking fleshly and carnal/ is NOUGHT.

Reluctant Theologian · 2025-08-22T07:57:33-0500

Aaron112 said:
No, never, and should not .....

When the Mighty All-Knowing King of the Jews, Messiah Yahshua, and His Father ABBA YAHWEH reveal the truth,
all human 'reason' / thinking fleshly and carnal/ is NOUGHT.

Mm, do you mean that any effort at Textual Criticism / reconstructing the most original text is by definition fleshly or carnal?

Secondly, do you maintain the KJV-only/best position?

WordSword · 2025-08-22T12:49:31-0500

Reluctant Theologian said:
You're making some broad assumptions and sweeping statements here I cannot agree with, and the far majority of Bible Scholars have the same opinion.

I get my information from books I've been studying by David Otis Fuller D. D. : "Fuller (a conservative scholar) dedicated much of his life to the defense of the Byzantine text-type as embodied in the Textus Receptus and, largely, the King James Version. -Google AI. His books cover all the Textual Criticism about Bible translations, which many conservative scholars he quotes dates back to the start of the Protestant Reformation, October 31, 1517, when Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses in Wittenberg, Germany.

Reluctant Theologian said:
The 'Protestant' Bible Book collection has only existed for 400-500 years, not 3500 years. We don't possess any original manuscript from the original authors anymore, so the only thing any generation of Bible Scholars can and should do is reconstruct that original text to the best of their abilities with the knowledge/evidence available at that point in time, and create translations as needed for the reader of that era. That changes as time progresses - so from that follows the Critical Text may change somewhat and our translations are updated or modernised. One has to accept we cannot be 100% sure of the original manuscripts to the very character in detail. That is true for both the OT and NT texts.

Yes, I believe I got mix up there with a different issue. True, translations aren't perfect, but if it contains the entirety of the Word, God's Word is in the translation; which the Western Text is quite briefed concerning words and phrases in many passages, and many texts are changed via transpositions and interpolations.

Reluctant Theologian said:
You seem to be stuck in the fixation or assumption that only the majority text used as basis for the KJV was the 'perfect Word of God' and anything that conflicts with that therefore by definition must be wrong.

There are quite a few (not many) Bibles that use the same manuscript source as the traditional Bibles. The primary reason why I believe in the traditional manuscripts is because of the amount of passages that reveal the completeness (perfect) of the Word. I'm definitely sure and certain that God would not give us a Bible that is not complete in its texts. "God intended for people to have a complete and sufficient written revelation for their faith" -Google AI. Only Bibles translated from the majority of extant manuscripts can be considered complete (Mat 4:4). There are too many passages that demonstrate God declaring His Word to be complete in the correct translations; and I don't think Christ's Church and Body has missed it these last 500 years, in which the Majority Text and other manuscripts which agree with has been the sole source of manuscripts copies.

Reluctant Theologian said:
Have you tried understanding how the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5 might have the Johannine Comma

"The Greek manuscripts containing the Johannine Comma are primarily late and include Minuscule 629 (14th century), Minuscule 61 (16th century), Minuscule 918 (16th century), Minuscule 2473 (17th century), and Minuscule 2318 (18th century). The Comma is largely absent in earlier Greek manuscripts and is considered a later addition, appearing mostly in Latin manuscripts before finding its way into these specific Greek copies." Erasmus deemed it to be in the Word of God because that's how He wanted, otherwise it wouldn't be included. One must admit the this verse demonstrates the Trinity the best.

Reluctant Theologian said:
I'd like to add: let the details of Textual Criticism not overwhelm or overshadow the call to live like Christ

I really like what you said here! God's blessing to your Family and God be blessed!!

Very Important Information about Bible Translations

Well-Known Member

אַבְרָהָם

Well-Known Member

אַבְרָהָם

Well-Known Member

אַבְרָהָם

Well-Known Member

אַבְרָהָם

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

אַבְרָהָם

Well-Known Member

אַבְרָהָם

Well-Known Member

Similar threads