# Westcott-Hort Spiritualists?



## 4ndr3w (Feb 19, 2005)

I recently attended a conference where a man named (Les Garrett) made some accusations about specific people. One of the accusations was made against Philip Schaff as mentioned in another thread: 

Philip Schaff ASV RSV

He also made several other accusations against Westcott, Hort (and Benson); however, due to the subject matter it seems best that I start this new thread concerning Westcott/Hort. 

The following was done via searching Google for “Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott”:

http://www.ibri.org/32erasms.htm

Note: Les Garrett also used the first quote mentioned below to prove Westcott a Mary worshiper:



> First, Wilkinson's case is substantially weaker than a casual reading may indicate. One the one hand, a number of the quotes are colorless. Hort is quoted as saying, "I am very far from pretending to understand completely the oft-renewed vitality of Mariolatry." Such a statement surely does not implicate Hort in Mary-worship. Who has not been surprised at the continued worship of Mary, including the construction of shrines with cement statues as found in the yards of many Catholics? Such idolatrous folly in otherwise educated people is indeed difficult to understand. This quotation proves nothing at all.
> On the other hand, Wilkinson has (wittingly or unwittingly) altered the thrust of at least one quote through deletion. Under the heading "Their Mariolatry," Westcott is quoted at length (p. 195):
> 
> 
> ...



Additionally, in the excerpt below, Dr. Sumner addresses the the claims that Westcott-Hort were "Spiritualists".



> WESTCOTT HORT —
> Were They Members of a "GHOST SOCIETY ?"
> by Dr. ROBERT SUMNER
> 
> ...



The above was found at:
http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/whghost.htm


I realize that much of this has already been addressed; however, there comes a time where you just want to be diligent and check things out for yourself. I'm off to the library to read Arthur Westcott's Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott and to refute/confirm all the quotes made by the KJOer's and non-KJOers alike. Westcott and Hort may not have been perfect but it seems obvious that they have been slandered.

If anyone has any related information concerning Westcott-Hort I would appreciate you sharing it.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 19, 2005)

Andrew,

It is stuff like this that prevents a useful discussion of text base issues, where there can be honest debate among critical text and majority text advocates, all in the context of a debate among believers who want the best for the Church.

This is classic KJVOnlyism - deceptive and shock value, lacking in truth.


----------



## 4ndr3w (Feb 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Andrew,
> 
> It is stuff like this that prevents a useful discussion of text base issues, where there can be honest debate among critical text and majority text advocates, all in the context of a debate among believers who want the best for the Church.
> ...






BTW: Thanks for helping me via IM. I must admit that I was unprepared for the "shock value" because I lacked knowledge concerning the data given to produce the shock. I do have other concerns because I have friends that at least have seemed to have fallen for the shock value. One such friend invited me to the conference to convince me of KJO. By gathering the information myself, rather than getting it second hand, I believe I can be more successful at convincing them of the deceptions. It's easy to say James White said this but when the credibility of James White has been torn down (at least in the minds of those deceived) by KJO advocates I am forced to produce only the original source.

I have also quickly found exactly what you have already said above. Thanks again for your help.


Also, I wanted to say that this is an excellent point that you have made. James White also makes it and tries not to waste too much time on KJOism.

[Edited on 2-19-2005 by 4ndr3w]


----------



## Philip A (Feb 19, 2005)

Yes, typical KJVO shock jockeying.

Here's something to think about:

The accusation is that, because Westcott may have had practices very close to Romanism, his manuscript work is therefore flawed. We should therefore only use the KJV, because it is based on the Textus Receptus, which of course, is flawless....

Apart from the other fallacies, the most interesting thing that I find in this (flawed) logic, is that Erasmus, who is the man behind the TR just as much as Westcott is one of the men behind the Critical Text, was indeed a Romanist.

So, therefore, if we can only use those texts that are _not_ influenced by Romanists, then _we have no Greek texts!_


----------



## Shane (Feb 20, 2005)

Couldn't have said it better Phillip

You guy must admith though, one seems to have to try to get past a total arrogance when debating this with KJ only advoctes. At least this has been my ecperience with a friend. This might be isolated though, it would be interesting to here if you guys have had the same feeling?


----------

