Interesting quotes from Westcott and Hort

[DaRev]

I think it needs to be noted that Westcott and Hort did not write a Greek text. They formed a compilation from a variety of Greek manuscripts and fragments. When we look at the texts, we don't go by someone elses commentary but rather on what the text says. The 4th century Siniaticus and Vaticanus texts are very reliable.

I went to the site you linked in post 12. We studied many of those passages at the sem. I'd have to dig through my notes to see what we discussed specifically. I do know that a couple of places on that site where they claim the composite text "changed" verses from the TR are actually places where additions were made to the TR. The Lord's prayer as recorded in Luke contains clear additions to the text. Also 1 John 5:7 contains an addition.

 

[RadMan]

• Some notes copied from the site. Comments?
• Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (over 95%) of the 5,300+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
• Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
• Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the Minority Texts (like Vatican and Sinai) favored by the Roman Catholic Church.
• Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
• Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
• Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!
• Textus Receptus was (and still is) the anathema of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[DaRev]

Some notes copied from the site. Comments?

Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (over 95%) of the 5,300+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.

The TR is not a good representation of the Majority Text-form, also known as the Byzantine text-form. The TR was based on a compilation by Erasmus in 1615, which was based upon 6 Greek manuscripts, some quotes by various Church fathers, and the Latin Vulgate. It differs quite a bit from the Byzantine/Majority Text in several places.

Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.

The TR contains many additons and variations that are not seen in any other Greek manuscript from prior to the 16th century.

Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the Minority Texts (like Vatican and Sinai) favored by the Roman Catholic Church.

Again, the TR contains many additions and variants that are not found in any Greek manuscript prior to the 16th century.

Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.

Basically because Erasmus used many quotations from the church fathers as a source of his compilation of the Greek text.

Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!

I'm not sure how any other Greek manuscripts teach otheriwse. These are basic Biblical doctrines. How are these denied in any Biblical text?

Textus Receptus was (and still is) the anathema of the Roman Catholic Church.

This I believe. Erasmus was an embarassment to the RCC.

 

[DaRev]

Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the Minority Texts (like Vatican and Sinai) favored by the Roman Catholic Church.
​

Again, the TR contains many additions and variants that are not found in any Greek manuscript prior to the 16th century.

I did a little digging and reading. While the TR does contain a number of variants that are not found in any Greek manuscript prior to the 16th century, many of these variants are found in some very early Latin manuscripts. This begs the question of the origin of these variants. Could they have come from some early unknown Greek MSS or were they unique to the Latin translations?
We do know that Erasmus used some Latin texts for his Greek translation because he did not have any complete Greek MSS. I believe that much of the last chapter of Revelation comes directly from the Latin. I also believe that the Luke text of the Lord's Prayer is based on the Didache.

Now, all that being said, I do believe that there is an argument in favor of an Eccesiastical Text, one that has been accepted and used by the Church over time. I'm not convinced that the TR is a good representation of the ET, but perhaps earlier Byzantine text forms are. I have a book on the ET by Theodore Letis somewhere, but I haven't been able to put my hands on it since I moved.
​

 

[Tofferer]

I just read through this and I found myself almost thoroughly confused. Usually when I get into KJV only arguments, I usually find myself having challenge the idea that somehow the KJV is the oldest known english bible (not true, but it is old). Compared to what I've read here, my debates are apparently really simplistic.

However, may I make a slight historical note? There were already two bibles written in english when Luther made his german translation. They were known as the Wycliffe and Tynsdale.

 

[RadMan]

I guess I shouldn't have started this thread till I had more time. I'll be gone for a few days.

 

[DaRev]

I guess I shouldn't have started this thread till I had more time. I'll be gone for a few days.

We'll wait for ya. It's an interesting topic.

 

[BigNorsk]

Many of the original books are online at more will be as they have time to scan them http://www.westcotthort.com/quotes.html

They are there for the simple reason that people say they said many things they did not. Sometimes the sentence is there, but it is taken out of context. Many other times, the words are changed in the quote. Usually the quotes are done with the idea of offending a group of people.

In any case, check them out. I would hope that people would quite committing false witness against these men, but I guess people who think Landmarkism is an accurate portrayal of history likely just take it at faith and continue to spread the lies thinking they are doing a good thing.

Marv

 

[Korah]

Deleted.

 

[RadMan]

Many of the original books are online at more will be as they have time to scan them http://www.westcotthort.com/quotes.html

They are there for the simple reason that people say they said many things they did not. Sometimes the sentence is there, but it is taken out of context. Many other times, the words are changed in the quote. Usually the quotes are done with the idea of offending a group of people.

In any case, check them out. I would hope that people would quite committing false witness against these men, but I guess people who think Landmarkism is an accurate portrayal of history likely just take it at faith and continue to spread the lies thinking they are doing a good thing.

Marv

'course this guy could be twisting facts to. Who knows who is wrong?

 

[BigNorsk]

Why don't you read the originals that are there in place. The site isn't spinning anything, they are providing copies of the original books so you can look for yourself.

Take this one:
"I reject the infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

Had to do with the then current arguement over the use of the term infallible. I would note for instance that such groups as the LCMS still don't like to use the term infallible while still basically holding to the position. Westcott was similar he said: "For I too "must disclaim setting for infallibility" in the front of my convictions. All I hold is, that the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumpton in favour of the absolute truth-I reject the word infallibility- of Holy Scripture over whelming."

That's not the whole thing but enough to see what he is saying. The actual passage supposedly quoted. Note a few things, the quote they use to try and discredit him is not a quote. It is at best a paraphrase. He says he is in favour of the absolute truth of Holy Scripture, yet rejects the term infallibility.

It appears clear to me the nonquote is aimed at saying he said something he didn't say at all. Are you going to reject his work because he held to the absolute truth of Holy Scripture? Is that his position that was presented by his accusers? That's what the very passage quoted said his position was, the presumption of the absolute truth of Holy Scriptures.

That's one example.

I would suggest that if you read things written by cults that you should be naturally sceptical.

I'm not sure why you didn't check them out before posting them. It's really easy to find most of the quotes in the originals.

And I would encourage you to read more broadly Westcott and Hort's writings before condemning them on cherry picked quotes. I would think anyone who has seen how some people treat Luther would know that a sentence, even when it is accurate, can often misrepresent the whole.

Marv

 

[RadMan]

Why don't you read the originals that are there in place. The site isn't spinning anything, they are providing copies of the original books so you can look for yourself.

Take this one:
"I reject the infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

Had to do with the then current arguement over the use of the term infallible. I would note for instance that such groups as the LCMS still don't like to use the term infallible while still basically holding to the position. Westcott was similar he said: "For I too "must disclaim setting for infallibility" in the front of my convictions. All I hold is, that the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumpton in favour of the absolute truth-I reject the word infallibility- of Holy Scripture over whelming."

That's not the whole thing but enough to see what he is saying. The actual passage supposedly quoted. Note a few things, the quote they use to try and discredit him is not a quote. It is at best a paraphrase. He says he is in favour of the absolute truth of Holy Scripture, yet rejects the term infallibility.

It appears clear to me the nonquote is aimed at saying he said something he didn't say at all. Are you going to reject his work because he held to the absolute truth of Holy Scripture? Is that his position that was presented by his accusers? That's what the very passage quoted said his position was, the presumption of the absolute truth of Holy Scriptures.

That's one example.

I would suggest that if you read things written by cults that you should be naturally sceptical.

I'm not sure why you didn't check them out before posting them. It's really easy to find most of the quotes in the originals.

And I would encourage you to read more broadly Westcott and Hort's writings before condemning them on cherry picked quotes. I would think anyone who has seen how some people treat Luther would know that a sentence, even when it is accurate, can often misrepresent the whole.

Marv

Well I'm sure that you have read all of W&H's works otherwise you wouldn't be so supportive of them. It least you're giving us to believe that you are well versed with them.

Why is it that I can find multiple web pages that support what I've found and you can only find one that supports your views?

 

[filosofer]

Because inuendo is easier, spreads faster, and is "believable" even if not true. When someone has an agenda to discredit, it doesn't matter whether they have accurately presented the person's position, only what "I claim is their position". Sadly, this is far more common in theological dialogue than we are even aware.

I don't think that Marv is defending W & H or their doctrinal positions; rather he is stating that just because someone claims that W & H wrote or said something does not make it accurate or true.

 

[Edial]

...

Why is it that I can find multiple web pages that support what I've found and you can only find one that supports your views?

Websites are not being controlled for accuaracy.
These often are there to promote views.
But if we have a source, then we can compare such views to a source.
In this case, the source is the Westcott and Hortt original writings.
I did not read WR. No interest.
But I did go to a source on one or two of the controversial statements the KJV-Only or simple KJV websites promote.
I stopped looking further when I saw that their accuastions were distorted.

I, for example, overlook the majority of websites that say everything came to be due to evolution.
Oh, I believed that at first, because the amount of literature devoted to this is impressive.
Then I became a believer and learned another point of view.
And only then I started investigating the claims concerning the totality of evolution.
It was hard. Yet then I found out that the teaching for the totality of the evolution is not based on scientific facts.

We do have many English translations. And this is a problem we need to face.
Different languages have extremely few translations.

Even then, in Russian language there is a Synodal Translation. No one really knows how it came to be. But many suspect that Greek was not used, but the only known translation was used at the time - KJV was translated into Russian.
And today in Russia, people proposed a linguistic change to this translation, called Agape Translation. It uses the same text that the Synodal Translation uses, but changes the "thy" and "thee" and "wherewith" .
By the way, Russian old languare is significantly more difficult to understand by today's Russians than KJV is for us.
But the Russian Orthodox Church rejects the Agape Translation very strongly.
And I should note, today's KJV-Only defenders reject even the NKJV, which is also translated from Textus Receptus and just changed the "thy" and "thee" of the KJV.

Now, I am not a Greek scholar. But according to scholars, who base their opinions on facts, (and facts can be checked) the Greek text of Westcott and Hort is very, very reliable.

I know for example (doing this from memory) that only one manuscript was used in order to come up with the Revelation in Textus Receptus.
And now we know that there are simple mistakes in there.
I believe in the first chapter there is a statement that we will be made into "kings", while we know today, due to other more reliable manuscripts that we will be made into "kingdom".

But before I was investigating Textus Receptus Greek text vs Wescott and Hort one common sense question could not be avoided.

If Textus Receptus would be that reliable, why don't translators use that in order to produce modern English translations?

In my opinion, the KJV is becoming an idol in the eyes of too many who express their opinions (and in some occasions slander) on their websites.
And the idolaters do have a tendency to purposely tell a lie, in order for "a truth" to be protected.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[BigNorsk]

I owe no allegience to Westcott and Hort. I wouldn't agree with them on everything they did.

Matter of fact, their critieria aren't used for the text anymore. Not surprising that KJO advocates don't notice since to them textual criticism is completely moot.

They use the same type of ad hominem attacks against the manuscripts too. Claiming the Alexandrian come from false believers. Only there really isn't any evidence for that.

It would cause a problem for them if they paid attention since the book of Revelations is based on an incomplete single manuscript of the Alexandrian family of manuscripts.

If they have a problem with the critical text we use today, let them make an arguement against it. Not attack two fellows long dead to attempt to discredit it.

They have no arguement, so they make one up.

Marv

 

[RadMan]

OK then many people here seem to support W&H instead of Textus Receptus. It seems odd that the arguments that you people have advanced basically mentions that TR has been revised and edit way too many times but I find quotes that say the Sinaitcus and Vaticanus (sp?) have the same problem with credibility. Margins are filled with revisions. THousands of changes and revisions. Even the monks at Sanai pitched Sinaiticus becasuse they didn't think it was a reliable translation.

Constantine requesitioned 50 bibles from Alaxandria which was at that time a hot bed and cneter for secular, mystical thinking. Why would there be anycredibility for that version? After all he was trying to combine paganism and Christianity. All the Christian holidays are overlays of pagan holidays.

 

[filosofer]

No, don't read into our comments. The current textual base is not the same as what W & H put together. And I don't discount the TR stream of texts.

The reality is that every textual tradition, Byzantine (TR), Western, Eclectic, etc., is still an attempt to make sense of the many manuscripts. Why is it acceptable to acknowledge textual criticism within the TR, but not within all Greek manuscripts?

The real issue is what kind of textual analysis is done and how. Thus, while Mark 16:9-20 is most likely not part of the original text of the Gospel according to Mark, it is nevertheless canonical.

 

[Edial]

OK then many people here seem to support W&H instead of Textus Receptus. It seems odd that the arguments that you people have advanced basically mentions that TR has been revised and edit way too many times but I find quotes that say the Sinaitcus and Vaticanus (sp?) have the same problem with credibility. Margins are filled with revisions. THousands of changes and revisions. Even the monks at Sanai pitched Sinaiticus becasuse they didn't think it was a reliable translation.

Constantine requesitioned 50 bibles from Alaxandria which was at that time a hot bed and cneter for secular, mystical thinking. Why would there be anycredibility for that version? After all he was trying to combine paganism and Christianity. All the Christian holidays are overlays of pagan holidays.

Manuscripts are sompared with other manuscripts from different regions in order to see differences and similarities.
Was Alexandria a corrupt region? Perhabs.
But this really has very little to do with copying process of manuscripts.

If manuscripts of the same text from other regions and times agree, then there really is no problem.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Korah]

Manuscripts are sompared with other manuscripts from different regions in order to see differences and similarities.
Was Alexandria a corrupt region? Perhabs.
But this really has very little to do with copying process of manuscripts.

If manuscripts of the same text from other regions and times agree, then there really is no problem.

Thanks,
Ed

Well,Ed,
This and your longer previous post I fully agree with! Here is another issue on which we agree!
Korah

 

[Edial]

Well,Ed,
This and your longer previous post I fully agree with! Here is another issue on which we agree!
Korah

Korah. You are totally spoiling me. First in the ELCA thread and now this.

But seriously speaking, I appreciate these comments not because we agree, but because I do see clearer how your mind works.

I am not snooping ... because I also try presenting my mind as clear as a can. Not opinions, but my mind (and possibly heart).

In this faceless world of Internet it is hard to understand how one thinks. A clip here, a statement there ...

But how does one really think?
If we are a family here at TCL ... isn't this very important?

Is one arguing for the sake of arguing. We have this here.
Is one arguing because one was unfairly attacked?
We have this here more than we would like to admit to.
But how does one really think?
How does one's mind (and heart) work?

I do not know what a lot of people really think here in our TCL family.
Faceless interaction makes it kind of hard.
Oh, I know the positions they hold ... but that is not really enough.

Our past TCL reunion was very important in that sense.
We saw each other in everyday situations.
No theology ... we just talked and talked and ate and talked and saw sights and ate and talked some more.

I liked everybody. Not because I agreed with everybody, but because (primarily) these people spent their money ... just to meet.
And the ones that lived in St.Louis, like Flipper and Mr.Flipper were such sensitive hosts ... they cared very little about the views and opinions ... but they cared big times that we all will have a great time.

... this is turning into another long post ...

Thanks,
Ed