Westcott and Hort controversy

[JohnDB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JohnDB]

OOOPS....forgot to include a link to an article about all of this.

Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?

Check it out and read it for yourself if you like.

 

[JustAsIam77]

Thank you for bringing these names to my attention. I'm not familiar with them. I've googled amazon to see what their history involves and came up with this quote:

"Prior to Wescott and Hort's 'revisions' there was NO KJV controversy. There was simply 'The Holy Bible'. Since Wescott and Hort's badly poisoned greek text revision and 'new bible', there has been a "KJV vs (insert your version here)' controversies. I ask you: What was the fruit of Wescott and Hort's efforts? More unity? More fellowship? NO! More Strife? More division?, More confusion! YES!"

More research needed on my part.

 

[mlqurgw]

Thank you for bringing these names to my attention. I'm not familiar with them. I've googled amazon to see what their history involves and came up with this quote:

"Prior to Wescott and Hort's 'revisions' there was NO KJV controversy. There was simply 'The Holy Bible'. Since Wescott and Hort's badly poisoned greek text revision and 'new bible', there has been a "KJV vs (insert your version here)' controversies. I ask you: What was the fruit of Wescott and Hort's efforts? More unity? More fellowship? NO! More Strife? More division?, More confusion! YES!"

More research needed on my part.

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

 

[JohnDB]

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

Correct according to the article link that I posted only the Jehovah Witnesses use their greek manuscript today.

That aside...

Wescott's commentary on the Book of Hebrews is mostly exegetical in nature...it does carry some opinion and that is cast aside.

But his work in identifying what was written and how it was written is accurate.

For those ignorant of what is being discussed.

Westcott and Hort wrote a new Greek Manuscript based upon texts that they compiled together outside of the Latin Vulgate and recieved texts of the Catholic Church. That particular manuscript is based on syriac and alexandrian texts. Both of which are still used today along with many other manuscripts in determining the UBS Version 4 which is used to translate into the many modern bible translations used today.

Westcott and Hort's original manuscript is considered to be incomplete and containing errors. No major revisions actually exist in their text...but decidedly their work did shape much of the work done today in the Modern English Bible translations.

 

[JohnDB]

Here is an excerpt of a Westcott Commentary on Hebrews 5:8

Heb. 5:8. kaiper ön huios...] though He was Son...The clause has been taken with the words which precede (‘being heard not as Son but for His godly fear&#8217, and with those which follow (‘though Son went through the discipline of suffering to obedience&#8217. The latter connexion is most in accordance with the whole scope of the passage. Though Son and therefore endowed with right of access for Himself to the Father, being of one essence with the Father, for man's sake as man He won the right of access for humanity. In one sense it is true that the idea of Sonship suggests that of obedience; but the nature of Christ's Sonship at first sight seems to exclude the thought that He should learn obedience through suffering.
For kaiper see Heb. 7:5; 12:17; Phil. 3:4; 2 Pet. 1:12.
In Heb. 5:5 the title ‘Son’ has been used of the Sonship of the exalted Christ in His twofold nature. Here it is used of the eternal, divine relation of the Son to the Father. There is a similar transition from one aspect to the other of the unchanged Personality of the Lord in Heb. 1:1-4. The Incarnation itself corresponds with and implies (if we may so speak) an immanent Sonship in the Divine Nature. Thus, though it may be true that the title Son is used of the Lord predominantly (at least) in connexion with the Incarnation, that of necessity carries our thoughts further. Comp. John 5:19 ff.
Chrysostom gives a personal application to the lesson: ei ekeinos huios ön ekerdanen apo tön pathëmatön tën hupakoën pollö mallon hëmeis.
emathen...tën hupak.] learned obedience... The spirit of obedience is realised through trials, seen at least to minister to good. Sufferings in this sense may be said to teach obedience as they confirm it and call it out actively. The Lord ‘learned obedience through the things which He suffered,’ not as if the lesson were forced upon Him by the necessity of suffering, for the learning of obedience does not imply the conquest of disobedience as actual, but as making His own perfectly, through insight into the Father's will, that self-surrender which was required, even to death upon the cross (comp. Phil. 2:8).
The Lord's manhood was (negatively) sinless and (positively) perfect, that is perfect relatively at every stage; and therefore He truly advanced by ‘learning’ (Luke 2:52, 40 plëroumenon), while the powers of His human Nature grew step by step in a perfect union with the divine in His one Person.
tën hupakoën] obedience in all its completeness, the obedience which answers to the idea. It is not said that the Lord ‘learned to obey.’ For the difference between emathen tën hupak. and em. hupak. see 1 John 3:10 note; and contrast 2 Cor. 10:5 eis tën hupak. t. chr. with Rom. 1:5 eis hupak. Pist. The word ‘obedience’ contains a reference to the occasion of sin. Man's fall was due to disobedience: his restoration comes through obedience. Comp. Rom. 5:19.
The alliteration in the phrase emathen aph hön epathen is common in Greek literature from the time of Herodotus downwards: Hdt. 1.207 ta de moi pathëmata eonta acharista mathëmata gegonen. AEsch. Agam. v.177 pathei mathos (comp. 250); Philo, de Somn. ii. § 15 (1.673 M.) anaphthegxetai ho (so read, not ho) pathön akribös emathen. de spec. leg. 6 (2.340 M.) hina ek tou pathein mathë. Wetstein has collected many examples.

As you can see the main focus is on the writing and the style and manner of what is written...picking out the opinion is rather easy to do here.

 

[mlqurgw]

Correct according to the article link that I posted only the Jehovah Witnesses use their greek manuscript today.

That aside...

Wescott's commentary on the Book of Hebrews is mostly exegetical in nature...it does carry some opinion and that is cast aside.

But his work in identifying what was written and how it was written is accurate.

For those ignorant of what is being discussed.

Westcott and Hort wrote a new Greek Manuscript based upon texts that they compiled together outside of the Latin Vulgate and recieved texts of the Catholic Church. That particular manuscript is based on syriac and alexandrian texts. Both of which are still used today along with many other manuscripts in determining the UBS Version 4 which is used to translate into the many modern bible translations used today.

Westcott and Hort's original manuscript is considered to be incomplete and containing errors. No major revisions actually exist in their text...but decidedly their work did shape much of the work done today in the Modern English Bible translations.

I would have to honestly question the exposition of anyone with so many heretical views. To assume that his heresies didn't color his exposition is to put blinders on. As far as his comments on who the book of Hebrews was written to and how it was written are debatable at the very least. The text itself gives evidence that it was written to a general Jewish audience. Unlike most Jews today those of that time were all very familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures. During the time between Malachi and Matthew the Jews never again turned to idols but developed the system of laws that were the centerpeice of their religion in the time of Christ and the Apostles. Those things were taught to them from their youth.

 

[FaithGuyX]

Everything I've found thus far via google are links to KJVonlyists against Westcott and Hort.

 

[mlqurgw]

Everything I've found thus far via google are links to KJVonlyists against Westcott and Hort.

Yeah I know. I am still trying to remember where I had read of them in one of my books which isn't KJV only but for the life of me I can't. My remeberer just ain't what it used to be. I guess that is what happens when you get old. sigh. I know it is in the hermenutics section of my library but I don't remember which one.

 

[JohnDB]

Ya know....ummm
I have posted an unbiased article link on the second post of this thread...as well as an excerpt of a section of the man's commentary which clearly shows his exegesis of the scriptures...

Hebrews is actually one of the least controversial books of the bible in regards to content...the largest controversy regarding Hebrews is the authorship...not content.

I don't see why you cannot click the link and read the well written article for yourself.

 

[DeaconDean]

OOOPS....forgot to include a link to an article about all of this.

Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?

Check it out and read it for yourself if you like.

And let me include this:

Ya know....ummm
I have posted an unbiased article link on the second post of this thread...as well as an excerpt of a section of the man's commentary which clearly shows his exegesis of the scriptures...

Hebrews is actually one of the least controversial books of the bible in regards to content...the largest controversy regarding Hebrews is the authorship...not content.

I don't see why you cannot click the link and read the well written article for yourself.

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

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

See the page notes in The Englishman's Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970. Reprint of 1877 edition). Caspar Rene Gregory states that in the Epistle to the Hebrews, when the texts of Tregelles, Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort are compared, Tregelles stands alone in only ten very minor matters, Westcott-Hort in seven, and Tischendorf only four. Canon and Text of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907), p. 527.

Footnote #11

Source

And that footnote is attached to:

It needs to be stated clearly that the text of Westcott and Hort was not the first printed Greek Testament that deliberately and substantially departed from the textus receptus on the basis of manuscript evidence. Westcott and Hort were preceded in the late 1700s by Griesbach, and in the 1800s by Lachmann, Alford, Tregelles, and Tischendorf (and others), all of whose texts made numerous revisions in the textus receptus on the basis of manuscript evidence; these texts, especially the last three named, are very frequently in agreement with Westcott and Hort, against the textus receptus.

Source

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

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

the man's commentary which clearly shows his exegesis of the scriptures...

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

But I can offer what Arthur W. Pink wrote in his commentary of Hebrews:

1. Its Addressees.

In our English Bibles we find the words "TheEpistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews" as the address. Perhaps some of our readers are not aware that the titles found at the head of the different books of the Bible are not Divinely inspired, and therefore are not accounted canonical as are the contents. No doubt these titles were originated by the early scribes, when making copies of the original manuscripts—manuscripts, all traces of which have long since disappeared. In some instances these titles are unsatisfactory; in a few, grossly erroneous. As an example of the latter, we may refer to the final book of Scripture. Here the title is "The Revelation of St. John the Divine," whereas the opening sentence of the book itself designates it "The Revelation of Jesus Christ!"

While treating in general with the titles of the books of Scripture, we may note that in almost all of the Epistles there is a Divinely-named addressee in the opening verses. But we may add, the contents of each Epistle are not to be restricted to those immediately and locally addressed. It is important that the young Christian should grasp this firmly, so that he may be fortified against ultra-dispensational teaching. There are some, claiming to have great light, who would rob the saints today of the Epistle of James because it is addressed to "the Twelve Tribes which are scattered abroad." With equal propriety they might take from us the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians because they were addressed only to the saints in those cities! The truth is that what Christ said to the apostles in Mark 13:37—"What I say unto you, I say unto all"— may well be applied to the whole of the Bible. All Scripture is needed by us (2 Tim. 3:16, 17), and all Scripture is God’s word to us. Note carefully that while at the beginning of his Epistle to Titus Paul only addresses Titus himself (Titus 1:4), yet at the close of this letter he expressly says, "Grace be with you all!" (Titus 3:15)

Ignoring then the man-made title at the head of our Epistle, we are at once struck by the absence of any Divinely-given one in the opening verses. Nevertheless, its first sentence enables us to identify at once those to whom the Epistle was originally sent: see Hebrews 1:1, 2. They to whom God spake through the prophets were the children of Israel, and it was also unto them He had spoken through His Son. In Hebrews 3:1, we find a word which, however, narrows the circle to which this Epistle was first sent. It was not the Jewish nation at large which was addressed, but the "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling" among them. Clear confirmation of this is supplied in the Epistles of Peter. His first was addressed, locally, to "the elect sojourners of the Dispersion (Heb. 1:1—Gk., "eklektois parepidenois diasporas"). His second Epistle (see Hebrews 3:1) was addressed, locally and immediately, to the same company. Now in 2 Peter 3:15 the apostle makes specific reference to "our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you." Thus all doubt is removed as to whom our Epistle was first sent.

The Epistle itself contains further details which serve to identify the addressees. That it was written to saints who were by no means young in the faith is clear from Hebrews 5:12. That it was sent to those who had suffered severe persecutions (cf. Acts 8:1) is plain from what we read in Hebrews 10:32. That it was addressed to a Christian community of considerable size is evident from Hebrews 13:24. From this last reference we are inclined to conclude that this Epistle was first delivered to the church in Jerusalem (Acts 11:22), or to the churches in Judea (Acts 9:31), copies of which would be made and forwarded to Jewish Christians in foreign lands. Thus, our Epistle was first addressed to those descendants of Abraham who, by grace, had believed on their Savior-Messiah.

Source

And nowhere is it asserted that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written to the Pharisees as one person has stated.

The recipients of this letter to the Hebrews were Pharisees...

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[visionary]

Who Were Wescott & Hort?

has some interesting quotes of what they thought on different subjects.

 

[visionary]

And the rebuttal..

Westcott and Hort Resource Centre - FAQs

 

[DeaconDean]

And the rebuttal..

Westcott and Hort Resource Centre - FAQs

Now please choose your words very carefully as you are not Baptist, you are not entitled to debate here.

In the link you provided, where does it address the commentary on Hebrews?

Where does it address the topic that the Epistle of Hebrews was written to the Pharisees?

The recipients of this letter to the Hebrews were Pharisees...

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[the particular baptist]

But I can offer what Arthur W. Pink wrote in his commentary of Hebrews:

A.W. Pink is the man, and i own the hard copy of his commentary on Hebrews. Highly recommended.

 

[JohnDB]

The reason that I have come to the conclusion is the many recitations of Sifre, Midrash, and Talmud...something that the "common man" would not have access to in order to read often enough to become well versed in their contents.

The writer of Hebrews spoke in such a manner as which the recipients automatically knew the content of these and understood the principles of these other documents.

The same way Jesus used "call tags" of famous lines out of Psalms to illustrate points the writer of Hebrews used these writings and "call tags" of various points made within them.

Hebrews 5:7 is just such a passage. According to Hebrew thought there were three kinds of Prayers,

Petitions: These were memorized prayers recited. (usually they also had a title or name)

Loud Cries: These were usually emotion driven, they wern't static memorized prayers at all but given when there was an urgent need.

Tears: These tears of a righteous man cut through every barrier and God instantly pays attention to the cry of one of his Children.

Heb 5:7 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.

ONE of the many documents that Westcott had read and remembered and coordinated with this passage of scripture shows us that the recipients were educated well....and much farther beyond that of a common man who struggled with knowledge of the Torah. (Not that they didn't know it...but the complete memorization of the Torah was essential (in their minds) before learning the other books of the bible or any other writings. These guys had to be grammitons and Pharisees to whom were more accustomed to following the Law than the freedom of life without the Law.

 

[DeaconDean]

The reason that I have come to the conclusion is the many recitations of Sifre, Midrash, and Talmud...something that the "common man" would not have access to in order to read often enough to become well versed in their contents.

The writer of Hebrews spoke in such a manner as which the recipients automatically knew the content of these and understood the principles of these other documents.

The same way Jesus used "call tags" of famous lines out of Psalms to illustrate points the writer of Hebrews used these writings and "call tags" of various points made within them.

Hebrews 5:7 is just such a passage. According to Hebrew thought there were three kinds of Prayers,

Petitions: These were memorized prayers recited. (usually they also had a title or name)

Loud Cries: These were usually emotion driven, they wern't static memorized prayers at all but given when there was an urgent need.

Tears: These tears of a righteous man cut through every barrier and God instantly pays attention to the cry of one of his Children.

Heb 5:7 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.

ONE of the many documents that Westcott had read and remembered and coordinated with this passage of scripture shows us that the recipients were educated well....and much farther beyond that of a common man who struggled with knowledge of the Torah. (Not that they didn't know it...but the complete memorization of the Torah was essential (in their minds) before learning the other books of the bible or any other writings. These guys had to be grammitons and Pharisees to whom were more accustomed to following the Law than the freedom of life without the Law.

And thus we have it, it is your opinion only.

The article you quoted say nothing about the Epistle of Hebrews being addressed to the Pharisees.

Your opinion. Point made.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[JohnDB]

If only it were...

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

little wonder to this at all.

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

 

[Bro_Sam]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess I must not get out much, because I wasn't aware of this. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.