• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Bible Version Comparison

Status
Not open for further replies.

Davy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟291,297.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
To understand the 'conspiracy' of modern Textual Criticism against the Traditional Greek New Testament texts (Majority texts), it's important to understand what changed in the mid 1850s.

1. The Greek Codex Sinaiticus manuscript was discovered in a Greek monastery in 1844, in a trash bin. Tischendorf in 1859 claimed to have found more additional leaves. He had it published. Along the same era, the Vatican's Greek Bible the Codex Vaticanus, a Greek manuscript discovered in 1475, was published.

2. The publishing of the Greek Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus caused English Bible scholars to come together in 1870 for a proposed revision of the 1611 King James Authorized Bible.

3. The revision committee was led by British scholars Brooke Wescott and Fenton Hort.

4. Wescott and Hort fabricated the theory that the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which existed few in number, were the oldest, and thus the best Greek manuscripts, which of course has never been proven. It has only been assumed based on a further theory of theirs...

5. Wescott and Hort presented their theory that the Traditional Greek text was corrupt. The Traditional text is about the Majority text, called Majority because they make up the majority of existing Greek NT manuscripts and exist in the thousands. The reason why the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus were 'shorter' they claimed, was because of additions added over the centuries involving the Majority Greek texts, which of course was just a theory of theirs and has never been proven. Thus they claimed their manuscripts were more accurate because of lack of additions.

6. Wescott and Hort for eleven years worked on 'their' new Greek text translation from the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus Greek manuscripts, and Griesbach's critical text used by the Unitarians (liberal leftist views) . Wescott and Hort published their new Greek translation in 1881, and SECRETLY presented it to the revision committee of scholars to be used for the revision.

7. Thus the Greek text used by the Revision committee was a 'new'... Greek translation Wescott and Hort did from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and the critical text of the 1770s German scholar Griesbach. The purpose for the Revision committee was to only make necessary 'changes' to the 1611 KJV translation, not re-write the whole New Testament with a NEW Greek translation that Wescott and Hort sneaked into the revision committee!

8. Wescott and Hort's personal letters were published after their death, and reveal they conspired against the Textus Receptus translation from Traditional Greek texts that Erasmus made in 1516-1535. The Textus Receptus was the first Greek NT translation published. It is what Martin Luther and Tyndale used for their Bible versions, and also one of the main sources the English translators used for their 1611 King James Version Bible.

9. Thus the revision committee of the 1880s, of which Wescott and Hort were the overseers pushing in secret to the committee to use their new Greek translation from completely different Greek texts, and rejecting the Traditional Majority Greek texts, began a conspiracy against the Greek New Testament texts traditionally used by the Christian Church based from Antioch.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟168,898.00
Faith
Baptist
6. Wescott and Hort for eleven years worked on 'their' new Greek text translation from the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus Greek manuscripts, and Griesbach's critical text used by the Unitarians (liberal leftist views) . Wescott and Hort published their new Greek translation in 1881, and SECRETLY presented it to the revision committee of scholars to be used for the revision.
The extreme erroneousness of this “information” has already been brought to the light in other posts, but here it is again! The work by Westcott and Hort referred to in this post is NOT a “translation” from any ancient Greek manuscripts or any other Greek manuscripts. It is an edition of the Greek text of the New Testament with the title The New Testament in the Original Greek that was published in 1881. Furthermore, the scholar referred to in this post as Wescott was Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901), a Brilliant British biblical scholar and theologian who was appointed Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University in 1870 where he served in that capacity for 20 years and then served as the as Bishop of Durham from 1890 until his death. He is known today for his excellent commentary on John (1881), and his excellent commentaries on The Epistles of John (1881) and the Epistle to the Hebrews (1883 and 1889.

Furthermore, The New Testament in the Original Greek was superseded in 1898 by Eberhard Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece (The New Testament in Greek), and further significantly superseded in 1901 by the third edition of Eberhard Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece. The current edition of Novum Testamentum Graece is the 28th edition popularly cited as the NA28. The 29th edition is expected to be released next year. Hence, The New Testament in the Original Greek has long since become an historic relic and no translations of the New Testament have been based upon it for 140 years!
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟291,297.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Rebuttle to PrincetonGuy's False Posts:

"The extreme erroneousness of this “information” has already been brought to the light in other posts, but here it is again! The work by Westcott and Hort referred to in this post is NOT a “translation” from any ancient Greek manuscripts or any other Greek manuscripts. It is an edition of the Greek text of the New Testament with the title The New Testament in the Original Greek that was published in 1881."

That above of course is a fabrication.

One can EASILY go to archive.org and find Wescott and Hort's 'revised' GREEK text.

Some folks, like the erroneous complainer above, evidently cannot read that "The Text Revised by..." line on the cover below.



HortText.JPG




In REALITY... Wescott and Hort IN THEIR PERSONAL LETTERS that were published, are REVEALED their conspiracy against the Textus Receptus (Greek text based from Traditional Majority text).

Also per Hort's letters, he was involved in the Ghost Guild club that experimented in Spiritism (seances, occult phenomena).



From Wikipedia:
The New Testament in the Original Greek is a Greek-language version of the New Testament published in 1881. It is also known as the Westcott and Hort text, after its editors Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–1892). Textual scholars use the abbreviations "WH" [1] or "WHNU".[2] It is a critical text, compiled from some of the oldest New Testament fragments and texts that had been discovered at the time.


Wow! That Greek New Testament REVISION even uses Wescott and Hort's initials (WH) to define ITS EDITORS!

But that final statement above is the kicker, "It is a critical text, compiled from some of the oldest New Testament fragments and texts that had been discovered at the time." What NT fragments and texts DISCOVERED AT THE TIME? The Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus Greek manuscripts that were published in their day, which was the reason for the 1870 revision committee. And once again, those corrupt Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus Greek texts they used Wescott and Hort made the false claim that they were the oldest and best Greek NT texts, which has NEVER been proven. They just thought it up on NO historical evidence and pushed their lie.


And for knuckleheads who cannot understand that REVISION did not just come about in 1881 when it was published, Wescott and Hort worked on it for years BEFORE THE REVISION COMMITTEE!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟291,297.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Much was revealed by the publication of Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort. Again this is public information on archive.org.

"Two other societies of widely different aims were started in this same year, in both of which Hort seems to have been the moving spirit; one a small club formed for the practice of choral music, the other called by its members the 'Ghostly Guild,' the object of which was to collect and classify authenticated instances of what are now called 'psychical phenomena', for which purpose an elaborate schedule of questions was issued. The 'Bogie Club,' as scoffers called it, aroused a certain amount of derision, and even some alarm; it was apparently born too soon." (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol.1, chapter IV, pp.171-172.)

That reveals Hort as initiating the Occult club at Cambridge called the 'Ghostly Guild'. That club would later become The Society For Psychical Research of which many famous Occultists became associated with.


In one of Hort's letters to Wescott...

"Also--but this may be cowardice--I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way into regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms. Of course I felt this doubt all along, but made it give way to the necessities of our joint plan of essays; now, however, it returns upon me." (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vo.1, Letter to the Rev. B. F. Wescott, St. Ippolyts, April 12, 1861, p.445)

Hort also spoke favorably on Mary-worship, suggesting it is co-equal with Christ-worship. Hort exposes in his letters his propensity towards the Church of Rome, than Protestant worship...


"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and results. Perhaps the whole question may be said to be involved in the true idea of mediation, which is almost universally corrupted in one or both of two opposite directions. On the one hand we speak and think as if there were no real bringing near, such as the N.T. tells us of, but only an interposition between two permanently distant objects. On the other we condemn all secondary human mediators as injurious to the One, and shut our eyes to indestructible fact of existing human mediation which is to be found everywhere. But this last error can hardly be expelled till Protestants unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of priesthood." (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol.II, pp.50-51)

In Hort's letter to Rev. Dr. Lightfoot, Hort admitted to being a "staunch sacerdotalist" (a sacerdotalist is one who believes that a priesthood, like the Catholic priesthood, is still necessary. But the New Testament teaches against that idea with saying there is only One Mediator between GOD and man, and that is the man Jesus Christ. 1 Timothy 2:5-6)


Hort also had a problem with the Christian doctrine of 'substitution', i.e. that Christ Jesus' death on the cross serves as a substitution (or sacrifice) for our sins...

"... To-day's post brought also your letter to the Eggisch-horn, which I should have been very sorry to have missed. I entirely agree--correcting one word--with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years having believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit." (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol.1, Letter to the Rev. B.F. Wescott, p.430)


See Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort --
Vol.I -- Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort : Hort, Fenton John Anthony, 1828-1892 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Vol.II -- Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D., D.C.L., LL. D. : sometime Hulsean professor and Lady Margaret's reader in divinity in the University of Cambridge : Hort, Fenton John Anthony, 1828-1892 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟168,898.00
Faith
Baptist
Rebuttle to PrincetonGuy's False Posts:

"The extreme erroneousness of this “information” has already been brought to the light in other posts, but here it is again! The work by Westcott and Hort referred to in this post is NOT a “translation” from any ancient Greek manuscripts or any other Greek manuscripts. It is an edition of the Greek text of the New Testament with the title The New Testament in the Original Greek that was published in 1881."

That above of course is a fabrication.

One can EASILY go to archive.org and find Wescott and Hort's 'revised' GREEK text.

Some folks, like the erroneous complainer above, evidently cannot read that "The Text Revised by..." line on the cover below.



View attachment 330836



In REALITY... Wescott and Hort IN THEIR PERSONAL LETTERS that were published, are REVEALED their conspiracy against the Textus Receptus (Greek text based from Traditional Majority text).

Also per Hort's letters, he was involved in the Ghost Guild club that experimented in Spiritism (seances, occult phenomena).



From Wikipedia:
The New Testament in the Original Greek is a Greek-language version of the New Testament published in 1881. It is also known as the Westcott and Hort text, after its editors Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–1892). Textual scholars use the abbreviations "WH" [1] or "WHNU".[2] It is a critical text, compiled from some of the oldest New Testament fragments and texts that had been discovered at the time.


Wow! That Greek New Testament REVISION even uses Wescott and Hort's initials (WH) to define ITS EDITORS!

But that final statement above is the kicker, "It is a critical text, compiled from some of the oldest New Testament fragments and texts that had been discovered at the time." What NT fragments and texts DISCOVERED AT THE TIME? The Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus Greek manuscripts that were published in their day, which was the reason for the 1870 revision committee. And once again, those corrupt Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus Greek texts they used Wescott and Hort made the false claim that they were the oldest and best Greek NT texts, which has NEVER been proven. They just thought it up on NO historical evidence and pushed their lie.


And for knuckleheads who cannot understand that REVISION did not just come about in 1881 when it was published, Wescott and Hort worked on it for years BEFORE THE REVISION COMMITTEE!
A revision is NOT a translation!

The New Testament in the Original Greek was a revision of the Greek texts of Karl Lachman, Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, and Constantin von Tischendorf. It was exclusively a Greek text without a translation! A precisely accurate and objective statement of thoroughly documented facts is not a fabrication.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟168,898.00
Faith
Baptist
Much was revealed by the publication of Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort. Again this is public information on archive.org.

"Two other societies of widely different aims were started in this same year, in both of which Hort seems to have been the moving spirit; one a small club formed for the practice of choral music, the other called by its members the 'Ghostly Guild,' the object of which was to collect and classify authenticated instances of what are now called 'psychical phenomena', for which purpose an elaborate schedule of questions was issued. The 'Bogie Club,' as scoffers called it, aroused a certain amount of derision, and even some alarm; it was apparently born too soon." (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol.1, chapter IV, pp.171-172.)

That reveals Hort as initiating the Occult club at Cambridge called the 'Ghostly Guild'. That club would later become The Society For Psychical Research of which many famous Occultists became associated with.


In one of Hort's letters to Wescott...

"Also--but this may be cowardice--I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way into regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms. Of course I felt this doubt all along, but made it give way to the necessities of our joint plan of essays; now, however, it returns upon me." (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vo.1, Letter to the Rev. B. F. Wescott, St. Ippolyts, April 12, 1861, p.445)

Hort also spoke favorably on Mary-worship, suggesting it is co-equal with Christ-worship. Hort exposes in his letters his propensity towards the Church of Rome, than Protestant worship...

"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and results. Perhaps the whole question may be said to be involved in the true idea of mediation, which is almost universally corrupted in one or both of two opposite directions. On the one hand we speak and think as if there were no real bringing near, such as the N.T. tells us of, but only an interposition between two permanently distant objects. On the other we condemn all secondary human mediators as injurious to the One, and shut our eyes to indestructible fact of existing human mediation which is to be found everywhere. But this last error can hardly be expelled till Protestants unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of priesthood." (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol.II, pp.50-51)

In Hort's letter to Rev. Dr. Lightfoot, Hort admitted to being a "staunch sacerdotalist" (a sacerdotalist is one who believes that a priesthood, like the Catholic priesthood, is still necessary. But the New Testament teaches against that idea with saying there is only One Mediator between GOD and man, and that is the man Jesus Christ. 1 Timothy 2:5-6)


Hort also had a problem with the Christian doctrine of 'substitution', i.e. that Christ Jesus' death on the cross serves as a substitution (or sacrifice) for our sins...

"... To-day's post brought also your letter to the Eggisch-horn, which I should have been very sorry to have missed. I entirely agree--correcting one word--with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years having believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit." (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol.1, Letter to the Rev. B.F. Wescott, p.430)


See Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort --
Vol.I -- Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort : Hort, Fenton John Anthony, 1828-1892 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Vol.II -- Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D., D.C.L., LL. D. : sometime Hulsean professor and Lady Margaret's reader in divinity in the University of Cambridge : Hort, Fenton John Anthony, 1828-1892 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Some people dig for gold; other people dig for dirt.

Philippians 4:8. Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. (RSV)
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟291,297.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What's with this guy? The 1881 Revision by Wescott and Hort was not a new 'translation'? Of course it was not a new 'English' translation silly!!! It was a NEW GREEK translation from the Greek Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus and Griesbach's Greek text!!!

Doesn't this guy know that the Textus Receptus text Erasmus put together in 1516 was a GREEK compilation from various GREEK manuscripts? Erasmus compiled the Textus Receptus from various Greek manuscripts of the Majority texts and put it in print. The Textus Receptus thus was the 1st printed Greek text of the New Testament.

Wescott and Hort did the SAME thing with compiling a NEW GREEK TEXT, but used the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus and Griesbach's Greek text, to compile a totally DIFFERENT Greek text than what Erasmus did.

Luther used Erasmus' Greek text, as Tyndale did also, as the 1611 KJV translators used for their English translation of the New Testament.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟291,297.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The reality about Hort was that he and Wescott went rogue against the British Church, and sided with Catholic doctrine, John Newman's conversion from the British Church to Rome, Mary-worship, and even his support of a priesthood like Rome. He showed doubt about Christ's Atonement on the cross also. In just about every area of Christian thought Hort had problems. That is why he wrote about his fear of being brandished with heresy before they could get his new text out, the reason being because of some of his heretical beliefs. Hort's beliefs aligned with the Jesuit counter-reformation against the Protestant Evangelical Church.

So why... in the world would any Protestant Bible scholar want to adopt the Jesuit's doctrines like Wescott and Hort did with pushing their 'new' Greek New Testament they compiled?

Moreover, Hort having started the 'Ghostly Guild' at Cambridge with experimenting with Spiritism and thus the Occult, is also a MAJOR PROBLEM with his character. Messin' around with Spiritism means trying to purposefully contact evil spirits of the dead! And just what do those evil spirits offer? Definitely not the Truth. So why should Christianity want to follow an individual like Hort who presented a new Greek NT text based on corrupt Alexandrian-type texts?
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟168,898.00
Faith
Baptist
What's with this guy? The 1881 Revision by Wescott and Hort was not a new 'translation'? Of course it was not a new 'English' translation silly!!! It was a NEW GREEK translation from the Greek Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus and Griesbach's Greek text!!!

Doesn't this guy know that the Textus Receptus text Erasmus put together in 1516 was a GREEK compilation from various GREEK manuscripts? Erasmus compiled the Textus Receptus from various Greek manuscripts of the Majority texts and put it in print. The Textus Receptus thus was the 1st printed Greek text of the New Testament.

Wescott and Hort did the SAME thing with compiling a NEW GREEK TEXT, but used the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus and Griesbach's Greek text, to compile a totally DIFFERENT Greek text than what Erasmus did.

Luther used Erasmus' Greek text, as Tyndale did also, as the 1611 KJV translators used for their English translation of the New Testament.
The New Testament in the Original Greek is NOT “a NEW GREEK translation” into any language. It is a compiled Greek text of the New Testament based upon the most reliable Greek manuscripts available to the editors, primarily the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Moreover, the English substantive “translation” is the cognate noun of the verb “translate” meaning to express in a receptor language a concept expressed in a source (or donor) language.

Furthermore, as I posted above, The New Testament in the Original Greek was superseded in 1898 by Eberhard Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece (The New Testament in Greek), and further significantly superseded in 1901 by the third edition of Eberhard Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece. The current edition of Novum Testamentum Graece is the 28th edition popularly cited as the NA28. The 29th edition is expected to be released next year. Hence, The New Testament in the Original Greek has long since become an historic relic and no translations of the New Testament have been based upon it for 140 years!
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟291,297.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The New Testament in the Original Greek is NOT “a NEW GREEK translation” into any language.
I NEVER inferred Wescott & Hort's NEW Greek text was a 'translation' into ANY OTHER language. That is YOUR FALSE PLOY to draw attention AWAY from the fact that they COMPILED A NEW GREEK NEW TESTAMENT from totally different Greek manuscripts than the Traditional Greek text the early Church used.

And I have shown, as history also has, the Greek manuscripts Wescott and Hort drew their NEW Greek New Testament from were the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Griesbach's Greek text. Those were their main manuscript sources for their NEW GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, corrupt sources whose authenticity has NOT been confirmed, only discovered in 1475 (Vaticanus), and 1844 (Sinaiticus). And when considering Griesbach's Greek text, Griesbach was claimed to have been the father of 'Textual Criticism' that early on attacked the Textus Receptus and Traditional Greek text which the early Church used prior to the 1900s.


Notice in the title below, 'THE TEXT REVISED BY... BROOKE FOSS WESCOTT, D.D. ... AND FENTON JOHN ANTHONY HORT, D.D.'.


HortText.JPG
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟291,297.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So brethren in Christ Jesus, just like everything else involving the Church and Christianity, the devil has been busy attacking the Word of God in print also. Some Christian fathers from the early centuries Alexandrian school at Alexandria, Egypt, like Origen, was excommunicated by the Church because of heresy against God's Word, joining Gnostic doctrine with God's Word to produce a 'liberal' interpretation instead of the divine revelation of God's Word. Their early school at Alexandria was surrounded by pagan philosophy, especially from the many years influence of the Library at Alexandria that stored the writings of Greek philosophers like Aristotle, Plato, Sophocles, etc.


The Christian Publishing House blog made a statement about the Alexandrian Greek texts that was interesting:

"The Alexandrian text-type is the form of the Greek New Testament that predominates in the earliest surviving documents, as well as the text-type used in Egyptian Coptic manuscripts. In later manuscripts, from the 9th century onwards, the Byzantine text-type became far more common and remains as the standard text in the Greek Orthodox Church and also underlies most Protestant translations of the Reformation era.

Consequently, surviving Greek New Testament manuscripts from before the 9th century are relatively rare, but nine (over half of the total that survived) witness a more-or-less pure Alexandrian text. These include the oldest near-complete manuscripts of the New Testament: Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 and Codex Sinaiticus (believed to date from the early fourth century CE).
_________________________________________________________________


Thus the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus which Wescott and Hort used for their NEW 1881 Greek text are mainly from the Alexandrian text, associating it with the Gnostic influence of the Alexandria, Egypt school.

In early in Christian history, the different New Testament text type reveals variances in Christian doctrine between the first Christian traditions derived from Antioch with the Byzantine text type, and the Egyptian Christian traditions at the school of Alexandria, Egypt with the Alexandria text type. Then also an early claim with the Aramaic Peshitta, which western scholars disregard, even though Aramaic was the actual language the Jews converted to while in Babylon, and later used during Jesus' day also.

"Most modern New Testaments are based on what is called “reasoned eclecticism”, such as that of the Novum Testamentum Graece, in formulating a Greek text. That invariably results in a text that is strongly Alexandrian in character."

And FYI, the Novum Testamentum Graece compiled by Nestle & Aland follows the NEW 1881 Greek text that Wescott and Hort compiled.


So in Summary:

1. The 'Traditional Greek text' of the New Testament, of the Byzantine text type, is what the early 'western' Christian Church used, which involved the majority of existing New Testament Greek manuscripts, called the Majority Text. They reveal a 'common usage' by the early Church because of so many existing copies showing heavy usage. From various of these Majority Greek manuscripts Erasmus in 1516 made his Textus Receptus (Received Text) Greek text, the first Greek New Testament text made available in print. All printed Bibles of the New Testament originated from these Greek texts until... the 1900s.

2. The 'Critical Text' of the field of Textual Criticism is derived mainly from the Alexandrian text type, the NEW Greek New Testament REVISION, edited and compiled and printed in 1881 by Wescott and Hort, and used by the revision committee of that era. The Nestle & Aland Greek New Testament versions are also BASED on Wescott and Hort's NEW Greek New Testament derived from Greek Alexandrian manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,725
5,560
European Union
✟227,014.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
1. The 'Traditional Greek text' of the New Testament, of the Byzantine text type, is what the early 'western' Christian Church used
The "Western" Christianity used Latin. Thats why the "Eastern" Byzantian Greek textual type became the "majority Greek text".

The Byzantian Greek text is a late text (since the 5th century), not found in the earliest manuscripts or Latin. It became dominant in the 9th century, perhaps because the spread of Islam stopped the Alexandrian textual type from being reproduced in the amount it was produced before.

91b2-160.png
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟168,898.00
Faith
Baptist
I NEVER inferred Wescott & Hort's NEW Greek text was a 'translation' into ANY OTHER language. That is YOUR FALSE PLOY to draw attention AWAY from the fact that they COMPILED A NEW GREEK NEW TESTAMENT from totally different Greek manuscripts than the Traditional Greek text the early Church used.
As I posted above, “the English substantive ‘translation’ is the cognate noun of the verb ‘translate’ meaning to express in a receptor language a concept expressed in a source (or donor) language." Therefore, a translation ALWAYS involves two languages, the source language and the receptor language. Westcott and Hort’s The New Testament in the Original Greek involves only one language—Greek. However, your post that began this discussion says, “Wescott and Hort for eleven years worked on 'their' new Greek text translation from the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus Greek manuscripts, and Griesbach's critical text….”

Your posts demonstrate a radical misunderstanding of the difference between a revision of a text and a translation of a text. Furthermore, in your posts, the name Westcott is consistently misspelled and even the word “rebuttal” is misspelled; and yet you severely deny the competency of Westcott and Hort—two of the finest biblical scholars of all time.
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟291,297.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The "Western" Christianity used Latin. Thats why the "Eastern" Byzantian Greek textual type became the "majority Greek text".

The Byzantian Greek text is a late text (since the 5th century), not found in the earliest manuscripts or Latin. It became dominant in the 9th century, perhaps because the spread of Islam stopped the Alexandrian textual type from being reproduced in the amount it was produced before.

91b2-160.png

The MAJORITY TEXT means the majority of Greek texts in existence, which means what? It means those show the HEAVIEST AND MOST COMMON USAGE. The Alexandrian text do NOT show heavy and thus common usage, which is why they are RARE. That evidence right there is enough to show your theory as false, because if the Alexandrian text was the most popular, then it SHOULD show the WIDEST AND MOST COMMON USAGE BY THE EARLY CHURCH. It doesn't.
 
Upvote 0

PsaltiChrysostom

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2018
1,047
1,005
Virginia
✟79,486.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
A revision is NOT a translation!

The New Testament in the Original Greek was a revision of the Greek texts of Karl Lachman, Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, and Constantin von Tischendorf. It was exclusively a Greek text without a translation! A precisely accurate and objective statement of thoroughly documented facts is not a fabrication.
Princeton,
What do these revisions typically consist of? Are archeologists still coming across texts that have something more than just minor variants? I don't know a lot about manuscript analysis so I'm genuinely curious.
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,725
5,560
European Union
✟227,014.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The MAJORITY TEXT means the majority of Greek texts in existence, which means what? It means those show the HEAVIEST AND MOST COMMON USAGE. The Alexandrian text do NOT show heavy and thus common usage, which is why they are RARE. That evidence right there is enough to show your theory as false, because if the Alexandrian text was the most popular, then it SHOULD show the WIDEST AND MOST COMMON USAGE BY THE EARLY CHURCH. It doesn't.
If English will disappear from the world and only one part of it will use English for another 1000 years, then, of course, their English version will ultimately become a majority text.
But that says nothing about the quality of their text or about its authenticity.

Similarly, the Alexandrian text is the majority text in early centuries and after the Greek language was not used in the world except of the Byzantine Empire, the Byzantine version became the majority text in later centuries.

91b2-160.png


The reasons why the Alexandrian text stepped back seem to be twofold: Islam and Latin. If you counted the Latin manuscripts, the Byzantine version would become a minority of Scriptures even after the 9th century.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,685
7,904
...
✟1,317,383.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Most do not know that all Modern Bibles are influenced by the Vatican.

Here it is straight out of the Nestle and Aland Critical Text 27th Edition (New Testament Greek text). Note: The Nestle and Aland Critical Text is in it’s 28th edition now and it is the basis for most of the Modern English Bibles printed today. But the 27th edition below says this…

full


I am going to repeat the text and highlight the key points.

The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to inter confessionals relationships.

So…

#1. The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies.
#2. Following an agreement between the Vatican and United Bible Societies
#3. It has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. (Note: What is the word “it” referring to in this sentence? This could be referring to the text and it is the basis (foundation) for new translations and revisions (Modern Bibles)).
#4. The text is the basis for new bible translations made under their supervision (the Vatican) which marks a significant step in regards to inter confessional relationships. Why does it mark a significant step? Because Carlo Martini (A Catholic cardinal) is an editor on the Nestle and Aland Critical Text.

In fact, let's check out the Nestle and Aland Critical Text page at Wikipedia called:

“Novum Testamentum Graece”

full

Novum Testamentum Graece - Wikipedia

Scroll down the page, and you will see pictures of Nestle, and Aland.
Note: Nestle worked on the Critical Text years before Aland.
Kurt Aland is the one who worked on the Critical Text involving the Vatican. How so?

Notice the highlighted words in the pic below.

Carlo Maria Martini.

full


If you were to zoom in and look at the picture below Kurt Aland:

full


Again, who is Carlo Maria Martini?

As I said before, he is a Catholic cardinal.

full

Source:
Carlo Maria Martini - Wikipedia

Important Note: JUST CLICK ON THE LINK FOR CARLO MARIA MARTINI MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE).

But wait. There’s more. Let’s look at Kurt Aland again. I circled his picture below for you to see him. You can see his name next to his picture.

full


Now in this photo, you can see Kurt Aland with the pope:

full


Why?

Because of this:

full


“The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to inter confessionals relationships.”

Source:
Nestle and Aland Critical Text - 27the Edition.

But why bring this up?
See my next post.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Davy
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,685
7,904
...
✟1,317,383.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Please also see this video other here at YouTube (by Brandon Peterson), too.
It compares the classic Bible with the Modern Translations.
It is almost an hour long and is really good if you are serious about learning more on this topic.

May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,685
7,904
...
✟1,317,383.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
As for a defense of 1 John 5:7, check out this short trailer video here:


If you are interested (after watching the trailer), you can click on the channel, and check out the seven part series in defense for the Johannine comma.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟168,898.00
Faith
Baptist
I believe that the Bible is the word of God given to man that through it he might become a believer in Jesus and a faithful follower of Him. We have nearly two thousand years of proof that the words of the Bible are effectual in accomplishing its purpose. Most unfortunately, however, in modern times there have come to be persons who take delight in attacking God, His people, and His word as presented to us by God in the most accurate renderings of His word.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.