# Modern Textual Criticism: Is it Reliable? Video 3



## CalvinandHodges (Aug 26, 2012)

Greetings All:

Below is a link to a third video in the series on the reliability of the Modern Textual Theory. I think this will be the last time I post such announcements here as it seems to me that only a few of the PB'ers find this at all helpful or profitable (there are about 300 views on my last post, but only about 100 views of the linked video). If you like, you can bookmark my YouTube channel and visit it once every week or two to find new videos (I plan on doing one every two weeks or so), or, you can subscribe to my YouTube channel and get notified when I do post new videos. In any case here is the new link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txvr9zrZuJY&feature=plcp

This video explores the question raised by PB'er Rick from Missouri concerning the Conflation of the New Testament text.

Blessings in Jesus,

Rob


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 2, 2012)

Hey Rob,

I just got a chance to view this your 3rd video on the textual issues. I thought it was one of the better ones you've done. Perhaps you aren't getting more views or responses due to the fact you are dealing with technical matters in textual criticism, and not all are interested in this.

One of the things I didn't like in your second video was that your manner of presentation was sort of halting, unsure of yourself – as though you hadn't prepared the presentation well, i.e., gotten the material down pat – but the material was good.

This last video, you used the word "jive" but should have used "jibe", and you called Pickering "Pinkerton" toward the end! The written things you show on screen you should do without backgrounds, as they tend to obscure the print. Make them easy to read – the artistry be hanged!

Actually there _is_ a KJVO pastor by name of Dr. Gibbs, so I can see where you got it mixed up with Gipp.

Re my critique above of your 2nd video, I don't know if I could do it any better – as going on camera is not an easy thing to do! I am planning to do a podcast (mostly on Revelation, the state of the world today, and the urgent necessity of cultivating a close walk with the Lord), though I may do a brief video or two just to let people see what I'm like. Preaching before congregations for 6 or 7 years has been a help, but I'm still not sure if I'm photogenic enough to do well on camera!

So take heart and just continue – you will get better with practice and experience! And don't worry if you only get 100 views or so, it's sure better than 5 or 10! And you don't know who you'll touch. Work on polishing your presentation – do it again and again if you must.


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz (Sep 3, 2012)

Hi Rob, thanks for your post. I'm sorry that it seems not that many are making use of your hard work. Perhaps its because some of us are a little newer and aren't quite at your level yet. However, please keep posting! Us newbies are reading all the old posts to learn all the stuff you learned years ago so that we can catch up! Someday we will be ready to understand your hard work. The old forumns stay open like a library to us. We might not be ready for solid food yet but give us a year and we will come back to these posts.  I read more old posts to fill the gaps in my knowledge than probably new posts on PB.

That being said, although I am newer, I watched this last video and it made sense!!! If I had known this had to do with the Geneva Bible+KJV Bible original manuscripts TR vs Westcott & Hort's Alexandrian texts, it would have made sense to me and interested me in the subject. But the title "Modern Textual Criticism: Is it Reliable? Video 3" and your announcement is above my head in terms of words used to "sell it" to me. If you had mentioned KJV+Geneva TR manuscripts are better than NIV ESV Westcott & Hort's Alexandrian manuscripts, it would spur PBers like me to jump to it excitedly instead of the reason I did watch - Rob said if I won't watch he won't post them anymore and I don't want to lose valuable knowledge! haha... 

But "Modern Textual Criticism: Is it Reliable? Video 3" sounded SOOOOO above my head because I'm not a textual critic. I only have "how did they put the bible together" books under my belt. I assumed I wouldn't understand a bit of it. It sounds like "Greek" and I don't know the least bit of Greek yet. But now having watched the video, I hope other PB'ers watch the video. It really isn't above our heads! If a newbie girl like myself can understand and benefit and be VERY glad I watched, you guys will be glad you watched too!

Tell me if I got this right. So, from my newbie brain in lay terms, this video is about: Demonstrating the Greek NT Byzantine Textus Receptus TR text that is used in the Geneva and KJV Bibles is NOT more "conflated/mixed/corrupted" than the Greek NT Alexandrian texts that are used in the NIV and NASB and ESV bibles. Westcott & Hort's claim on why we should do away with the TR and replace it with the Alexandrian Greek NT texts is FALSE according to Rob's video. I always had a suspicion this was true! 

Forgive me and correct me if I'm wrong here but I read on my most loved Wikipedia and on google that Westcott & Hort might not have even been Christians yet somehow the majority of Christians followed their teaching and replaced the TR with these new Greek Texts. Why would Christians follow men who had a pre-determined hatred of the TR, who held the bible to not be infallible and who held different views on Jesus not being God and Mary being worthy of worship? There are also many rumors they were into the occult and Wescott was friends with Madam Blavatsky (New Age) but I don't know if these have any truth to them.
- "Westcott and Hort believed the Greek text which underlies the KJV was perverse and corrupt. Hort called the Textus Receptus vile and villainous (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.211)."
- "I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207). 
- "Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that, Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration." (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212)
- "He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297). 
- "(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).
- "(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created." (Hort, Revelation, p.36).
- "I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77). 
- "I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid. )



So what does this mean for us? So now I should tuck my NIV away and pull my Geneva Bible off the shelf?


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 3, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> there are about 300 views on my last post, but only about 100 views of the linked video



Rob, that actually is a pretty good "conversion" ratio. 

There are all sorts of reasons for people not clicking on a video link, like my most common reason: I don't always have access to inexpensive broadband and end up using 3G pay as you go. Loading videos takes time and costs money.

Carry on, brother.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 3, 2012)

Greetings:

Thanks all for your input! You got my hearty thumbs up for them.

Steve: These videos are ad libbed. The only thing I know going in is the subject and the quotes that I put up on the screen. Everything else is done at the moment. I think your suggestion of writing it down first, or, at least making an outline is very helpful - thanks. I think that you would do well on video: Looking at your picture, and hearing you talk eloquently would make your appearance sagelike - though do not expect any Oscars! 

Jackie: Thanks for your encouragement! I am trying to keep these videos as simple as possible - thus they are only 15 minutes long, and deal with only one subject at a time. Your questions, and the questions of others, would be of great benefit to me in helping to communicate correctly. One of the things I will talk about in future videos, Lord willing, is that the Modern Textual Critics have engaged themselves in using technical terms, Latin phrases, and long vocabulary words (such as "conflation") which either inadvertently or purposefully distances the "ordinary" Christian (no Christian is "ordinary"!) from Textual Criticism. In my next video, I think, I will try to address your concerns above: I will try to point out why Textual Criticism is important, that it is easily accessible to the "ordinary" Christian, and that every Christian can engage intelligently in it for his own spiritual profit. God has not put his Word in the hands of scholars, but in the Church. Though some in the Church may be scholars, like Paul, others are more like me - Peter! (I don't put myself on that high a pedestal - though I think you get my meaning).

You wrote:



> Tell me if I got this right. So, from my newbie brain in lay terms, this video is about: Demonstrating the Greek NT Byzantine Textus Receptus TR text that is used in the Geneva and KJV Bibles is NOT more "conflated/mixed/corrupted" than the Greek NT Alexandrian texts that are used in the NIV and NASB and ESV bibles. Westcott & Hort's claim on why we should do away with the TR and replace it with the Alexandrian Greek NT texts is FALSE according to Rob's video. I always had a suspicion this was true!


Yes! That is exactly right. I am also trying to give you the tools to answer these men intelligently. When one of them talks about "Conflation" you can now present the facts to him: 7400 verses in the Bible (there are more than that I am just being conservative), 49 clear examples of "conflation" 13 are Byzantine, 6 of the 13 are attested to by early witnesses, etc...

As far as the Wikipedia article - I would ignore it. Even if Westcott and Hort are unbelievers such does not mean that God cannot use them. After all, God used a donkey to speak to Baalim! Character assassination is one of the primary means of discounting a man's philosophy - we see such in American politics almost daily - it is effective, but not conductive to the truth. What is more important are the doctrines they teach. I believe that the Westcott and Hort Theory (also called Eclecticism) is a false philosophy. It is pure fiction not at all based upon reality or the facts. If I can prove this to you, then what does it matter their character or Christian deportment? Godly men can make mistakes - it is their doctrine that we need to investigate.

VictorBravo: Thanks for pointing that out - I did not consider it.

Thanks and Blessings to you all!

-Rob


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 3, 2012)

Rob, I believe there _is_ information pertaining to the sayings, teachings, and beliefs of Westcott and Hort which does bear on their fitness to handle the Greek manuscripts, and which I enter below. For instance, a pregnant mother seeing a doctor as her Ob/Gyn who has for decades strictly specialized in abortions would not be a wise move. Likewise with these men. Assess the info below, and see.


Hello Jackie,

You have a quote of Westcott above which says, “I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly. (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).”

But the full quote in context is this:

"5th May 1860. My dear Hort - I am very glad to have seen both your note and Lightfoot's - glad too that we have had such an opportunity of openly speaking. For I too 'must disclaim setting forth 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 presumption in favor of the absolute truth - I reject the word infallibility - of Holy Scripture overwhelming. Of course I feel difficulties which at present I cannot solve, and which I never hope to solve." This was taken, as yours purported to be, from _The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott_, Vol. I, p.207, by his son Arthur. I have the biographies of both Westcott and Hort – each written by their sons – in hard copy.

Sorry to correct you on this, but in these discussions it is important to be minutely accurate, as we can be discredited and dismissed if we are not. One must vet quotes and sources, especially from Wiki. Please do not think I am a fan of Messrs. Westcott and Hort (W&H), it is just that our credibility is on the line when we quote them, as there is much disinformation blowing around.

But to examine these men a little, to get an idea of their hearts and minds. It was important to them that the things they believed and did were kept secret, as they well knew they were at odds with orthodox Christian faith, even in the ailing Anglican Church. In a letter to Westcott, in April of 1861, while they were unofficially[1] working on their revision of the Greek text, Hort wrote,

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 to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not easily be banished by subsequent alarms.[2]​ 
Hort was worldly-wise in this, for it was not until dogged research by scholars in the 20th century unearthed their “dangerous heresy”[3] (though “damnable” be a more apt description) in _many_ areas, that we have learned things about them their contemporaries were unaware of. In a letter to Lightfoot in May of 1860, concerning a proposed commentary they would write with Westcott on the New Testament, Hort said,

Depend on it, whatever either you or I may say in an extended commentary, if only we speak our mind, we shall not be able to avoid giving grave offence to…the miscalled orthodoxy of the day.[4]​ 
He was surely right in this! He was not a believer, and it was easily apparent in his views! We shall see in a moment that both he and Lightfoot were involved in spiritualism (along with Westcott and Benson), and although having respect to the COE and its traditions, the group of them were but secular classicists highly trained in classical Greek. They approached the New Testament Scriptures as they did any other Greek classics, with worldly, rationalist presuppositions and critical methods. In other words, their spiritualism was not their only heresy.

In answer to an Oxford undergraduate’s questions (in 1886) about the COE’s Thirty Nine Articles of Faith, with regard to Article IX (concerning the doctrine of Original Sin), Hort answered thus,

The authors of the Article doubtless assumed the strictly historical character of the account of the Fall in Genesis. This assumption is now, in my belief, no longer reasonable.[5]​ 
One might understand why he would think this way from his view of Darwin’s _Origin of Species_. In a letter to Westcott (1860) he says,

…Have you read Darwin?…In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book.”[6]​ 
To his friend John Ellerton, he wrote (in 1860),

But _the_ book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with…at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable[7] (emphasis his).​ 
We see Westcott was of the same mind:

No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history—I never could understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did…[8]​ 
The implications of these views are immense. If the Book of Genesis is not true history, then it is either error, or allegory masquerading as history. If Genesis is not true history, Jesus was in error asserting the historicity of Adam and Eve[9], and Paul likewise in error in Romans and 1 Corinthians. If there was no actual fall of an actual Adam and Eve, the atonement of Christ was but a meaningless fiction. The Book of Genesis is foundational for all of God’s revelation concerning salvation. But such supposed errors were in accord with W&H’s view of the _errancy_ of Scripture.

In the event someone says, but this is _argumentum ad hominem_ (criticism of an opponent’s character or motives, rather than of the person’s argument or beliefs), a person’s character and motives will certainly bear on their spiritual views, and hence on their doctrines and related textual matters. As the Lord Jesus said, “…a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” (Matthew 7:17, 18)

Footnotes:
[1] They did not receive their official appointment to revise the New Testament – not the Greek text, but make minor revisions in the English text – until 1871.
2 _Life of Hort_, Vol. I, page 445.
3 2 Peter 2:1 more accurately classifies theirs as “damnable heresies” – there being a distinction between the two types.
4 Ibid., page 421.
5 Ibid., Vol. II, page 329.
6 Ibid., Vol. I, page 414.
7 Ibid., page 416.
8 _Life of Westcott_, Vol. II, page 69.
9 Matthew 19:4-6
*----------*

To be fair, Dr. Theodore Letis (for whom I have high respect) was of the view that Westcott, if not Hort, was a genuine believer, and just caught up in the thinking of the day. He didn’t convince me, though.

Here is more data concerning these men:

It was the scandal of England at the time that the openly Arian, Unitarian pastor Dr. Vance Smith was on the Revision Committee. When he was told by the Church of England he must resign his position Westcott threatened to resign himself if Smith was forced to leave.[1] Vance Smith caused an uproar when he attended a Communion Service and refused to say the Nicene Creed (affirming that Christ is God), although Hort loved it! He says,

…that marvelous Communion…It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment. But it is strange that they should not ask themselves…what is really lost…by the union, for once, of all English Christians around the altar of the Church…[2]​ 
For the unregenerate Hort the Christ-denying Unitarian was a true “English Christian,” part of the good-ol’-boys’ religious club of academics and intellectuals who wear the frock, and not to be denied either the Lord’s Supper or a place in determining genuine Scripture. When Hort said, “So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment,” he wasn’t referring only to the Communion service, but to the results of the Unitarian on the Committee for Revision. There were many small but highly significant changes to the text they would eventually be publishing. Regarding the Revision, he said, “It is quite impossible to judge of the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearing which few would think of at first…the difference between a picture say of Raffaelle and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences.”[3]

One of these highly significant changes – “trifling alterations” Hort would say, perhaps – was the unwarranted deletion of the word “God” in the text of 1 Timothy 3:16, where the Scripture in speaking of Jesus talks of “the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh”. The Revisers replaced it with “who”. The Unitarian Dr. Smith later wrote,

The old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament…It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times…to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as “God manifested in the flesh”.[4]…It has been frequently said that the changes of translation…are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view…[A]ny such statement [is]…contrary to the facts.[5]

The only instance in the N.T. in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: ‘At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,’ [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read ‘in the name.’ Moreover, *no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ.*[6] [Emphasis added]​ 
A.G. Hobbs, in his Forward to the reprint of Burgon’s _The Revision Revised_, wrote,

Here is a real shocker: Dean Stanley, Westcott, Hort, and Bishop Thirwall all refused to serve if Smith were dismissed [in the face of the public outcry at his presence on the Revision Committee]. Let us remember that the Bible teaches that those who uphold and bid a false teacher God speed are equally guilty. ‘For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds’ (2 John 9-11). No wonder that the Deity of Christ is played down in so many passages.[7]​ 
Does it not make sense what was happening? Unregenerate men had infiltrated the church, and not only the church, but the inner precincts of scholarship and textual reproduction. The enemy had taken the inner stronghold, and put unholy hands on the written Word of God, to alter it.

Footnotes

[1] _Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott_, by his son Arthur Westcott (Macmillan, London, 1903) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume I, page 394.
2 _Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort_, by his son, Arthur Fenton Hort (Macmillan, London, 1896) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume II, page 139.
3 Ibid.
4 _Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed_, by Dr. Vance Smith (London: 1881), pages 39, 47. Cited in _Revision Revised_, by Burgon, pages 515, 513.
5 Ibid., page 45. 
6 _Texts and Margins_, Smith, page 47. Cited in, _For Love of the Bible: The Battle for the King James Version and the Received Text from 1800 to Present_, by David W. Cloud (WA: Way of Life Literature, 1997), page 31.
7 _The Revision Revised_, by John William Burgon (Centennial Edition, Fifth printing, 1991), Forward [no page #]. See also, _Life of Westcott_, Vol I, page 394. 
*
----------*


Here is another aspect of Messrs. W&H, not often spoken of. I have lifted most of this from a paper I wrote on the Authorized Version, from a section concerning its background:

--------

But there was more in the air of the times in England (19th and early 20th centuries) than liberalism, Catholicism, and love of the classics. Although Westcott and Hort were nominal members of the Church of England, they evidently had no fear of God in the Biblical sense. In 1845, as an undergraduate, Westcott and some of his friends founded a club at Cambridge which eventually took the name Hermes Society[1]. That of itself might not be so bad, even though Hermes is widely known, not only as a god in Greek mythology, but a major figure in the occult, from notorious occultist H.P. Blavatsky’s equating of Hermes with Satan[2] (this latter entity not being evil in her eyes) to Carl Jung, as editor, including in a book of his, “Hermes is Trickster in a different role as a messenger, a god of the crossroads, and finally the leader of souls to and from the underworld.…Hermes recovered attributes of the bird life [wings] to add to his chthonic [underworld] nature as serpent.”[3] Occultism and spiritualism were exploding into manifestation in 19th century England, and Hermes was esteemed in these groups. What leads us to think Westcott’s Hermes club was not innocent of occult involvement are the name and the activities of his next club, founded in 1851: the Ghostly Guild. 

James Webb, a secular historian of the occult, notes in his book, _The Occult Underground_, in the section, “The Necromancers,”

In 1882 the Society for Psychical Research was founded. In effect it was a combination of those groups already working independently in the investigation of spiritualist and other psychic phenomena (telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.). Of these the most important was that centered round Henry Sidgwick, Frederick Myers and Edmund Gurney, all Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge, and deriving its inspiration from the Cambridge University Ghost Society, founded by no less a person than Edward White Benson, the future Archbishop of Canterbury. As A.C. Benson wrote in his biography of his father, the Archbishop was always more interested in psychic phenomena than he cared to admit. Two members of the Ghost club became Bishops, and one a Professor of Divinity. 

…The S.P.R. was a peculiar hybrid of Spiritualistic cult and dedicated rationalism; the S.P.R. fulfilled the function of Spiritualist Church for the intellectuals.[4]​ 
We learn from Hort himself who some of the members were:

Westcott, Gorham, C.B. Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Laurd, etc., and I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to believe that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere subjective delusions; we shall be happy to obtain any good accounts well authenticated with names. Westcott is drawing up a schedule of questions.[5]​ 
The Society For Psychical Research, in its history written by one of its presidents, acknowledges its origins in “The Cambridge ‘Ghost Society’ ” and says, under the section of that title,

Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort were among its members…Lightfoot and Westcott both became bishops, and Hort Professor of Divinity. The S.P.R. has hardly lived up to the standard of ecclesiastical eminence set by the parent society.[6]​ 
The believing church, however, does not consider this “ecclesiastical eminence”! There is more that can be said about their continued occult involvement, including other secret societies they founded or were part of, having others be the officers in (and “founders” of) these clubs while they remained generally unnamed and (to public scrutiny) in the background, but this is not the place for a thorough exposé. That they were practicing spiritualists – “necromancer” is the Biblical word – is beyond dispute. It is enough to note the Lord’s judgment on this matter:

There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire [i.e., to be burned as a child sacrifice], or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or *a consulter with familiar spirits,* or a wizard, or *a necromancer.* For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD… (Deuteronomy 18:10-12)

And *the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits*, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people. (Leviticus 20:6)

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, *witchcraft*, hatred…murders, drunkenness…they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)

Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, *and sorcerers*, and whoremongers, and murderers… (Revelation 22:14, 15)​ 
Another secular historian looking at this time in English history says,

In this same period a group of young dons from Trinity College, Cambridge, were also turning to psychic research as a substitute for their lost evangelical faith…spiritism as a substitute for Orthodox Christian faith.[7]​ 
It should be clear that these men were not Christians, although they were baptized when infants in the Church of England. These were worldly men, unregenerate. 

--------

Footnotes

1 _Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott_, by his son Arthur Westcott (Macmillan, London, 1903) Reprint by the Bible for Today, Vol. I, p 47.
2 _The Secret Doctrine_, by Helena P. Blavatsky (the Theosophical Publishing Society, 1893), Vol. II, page 30.
3 _Man and His Symbols_, Edited by Carl G. Jung (Dell Pub. Co., 1964); “Part 2: Ancient Myths and Modern Man,” by Joseph L. Henderson, page 155.
4 _The Occult Underground_, by James Webb (Open Court Pub. Co. 1974), page 36.
5 _Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort_, by his son, Arthur Fenton Hort (Macmillan, London, 1896) Reprint by the Bible for Today, Vol. I, page 211.
6 _The Society For Pyschical Research: An Outline Of Its History, _by W.H. Salter (President, 1947-8), (London, Society For Pyschical Research, 1948), pages 6, 7.
7 _The Fabians_, by Norman and Jeanne MacKenzie (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1977), page 18.

--------------

It was the academic attainments and so-called “ecclesiastical eminence” of Westcott, Hort, Lightfoot, and Benson (who was to become the Archbishop of Canterbury) which gave a “respectability” and credence to occultism in England heretofore unknown.

Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, a notorious occultist and co-founder of the Theosophical Society (with Henry Steel Olcott), also popularized occultism and spiritualism. After her came Annie Besant, C.W. Leadbeater, and others who widely promoted their teachings. While Aleister Crowley exemplified the demonic aspects of magic and the occult, Blavatsky and the Theosophists held themselves up as “white” magicians in alignment with ascended Masters and divine truths. 

By these people, who – each in their own way – belittled the Christian faith and held up contrary teachings, the public awareness of spiritualism and occult practices grew.

Today such beliefs and practices are part of the postmodern spiritual buffet banquet, all meals declared equal, according to one’s taste.

*----------*

Although I have learned of some of these quoted items from various sources, I have obtained (and possess) hardcopy originals myself so as to verify them (save the Blavatsky one, as I threw her book into the East River when I became a Christian in 1968 – perhaps I vetted that info from an online edition).

Rob, sorry to digress from your topic – I just want to enter some factual data into the record. Men proven to be worldly, and disdainful of the Christian faith, who develop textual methodologies which arise from both rationalistic approaches to Bible mss and actual malice toward the Traditional Text of the Church, such men have such strong bias as ought to disqualify them from putting their hands on the Church's Bible, as is the case with Bart Ehrman. But this latter person is apparently the dean of textual criticism today, having inherited the mantle from from his mentor, Bruce Metzger.

If you would like me to remove this disgressive post I will!


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 4, 2012)

Greetings:

Steve: Keep the post. I was by no means aware of the depth of wickedness that these men have engaged themselves in their lives. Such, though, should not surprise me as their philosophy of textual criticism holds no truth-content nor is it realistic in any sense of the word.

My concern is that there are many godly men who have embraced their views of textual criticism - B.B. Warfield, James White, D.A. Carson, and Daniel Wallace - thus, to go after the lifestyle of their "mentors" (Westcott and Hort) may seem like an ad hominen argument, or, casting aspersions on their own godliness. For me it is enough to prove their philosophy wrong, and to leave their salvation in the hands of Jesus, 1 John 4:1-6; Matthew 7:1-6. I have skimmed over some of these arguments by KJO types, but, again, because they did not engage in what W&H were teaching - these points seem more like attempts at character assassination and ad hominen arguments - thus, they did not impress me.

So, I can agree with you that the information is important, but, what seems more important to me is to show that their philosophy of textual criticism is neither Biblical nor Reformed.

Your posts are always welcome to me, Steve, and, as I have said before, and am not ashamed to say it, I believe you know more on this subject then myself.

Blessings in Jesus,

Rob


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 4, 2012)

Hi Rob,

Thanks. And I agree with your saying, "what seems more important to me is to show that their philosophy of textual criticism is neither Biblical nor Reformed". It is in fact more important than the info I brought forward. You do well dealing with the theories W&H propounded and refuting them, for that is where their influence has impacted many, both in the field as well as among non-professionals. Such assertions of theirs, like the supposed "Antiochian recension" in the 4th century accounting for the numerical preponderance of the Byzantine manuscripts, need to be laid to rest – again and again, it seems, as people forget this and other ideas of theirs have been amply refuted by Burgon, Maurice Robinson, Pickering, et al – so that sense can be made of the textual data. I think your approach is correct; I just wanted to bring a little background information to light.


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz (Sep 4, 2012)

What great information Steve. Thank you for correcting the quote on Wescott. I don't own any of the books, so it is great that someone does and can give an accurate unbiased quote. Of course the quote I got from the internet was anti-Westcott and anti-Hort so it might be biased/slanted. If you have time or care, I think your quotes should be added to Wikipedia!  Actually, Rob's info also should be added.  I know I use Wikipedia a lot for info but where else would I look? I don't own these books and don't have time to read/search 500 page books. Where do you guys get reliable info from? Britannica is biased also and not free. So shouldn't I continue to use Wiki and just be open to changing my views when someone wiser with the actual resources corrects me?
- So, help me out a bit here. What is Westcott saying? "I too must disclaim setting forth infallibility in front of my convictions." What does that mean? He does not claim infallibility? 
- "At the present I find the presumption in favor of absolute truth (I reject the word infallibility) of Hole Scripture overwhelming." What does that mean? Currently, he was in favor of absolute truth but yet he rejects the term infallibility? So does he reject infallibility or not? Sorry, I haven't gotten my PHD yet  heehee...

Steve, I found your indepth look into W&H's beliefs and lives fascinating. Thank you for taking the time to put all that together! It must have taken hours! But I am saving your post to refer back to at other times and to share with other believers around me. This one is going in my binder!

And Rob, I truly appreciate your looking and encouraging us to look at the facts rather than just character assassination.  Being young, I haven't grown up enough and often fall back into the character thing because it's easier to disregard someone based on known character flaws/theology flaws than reading their 300+ page books.  But your advice is staying with me also and I will not forget to focus more on the teachings than the man. Although I also do find that Steve said about the character of a man will lead to the teachings in some respects. But like you pointed out, not always are the two directly related.

Thanks you guys for these posts. I found them very educational


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz (Sep 4, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> In my next video, I think, I will try to address your concerns above: I will try to point out why Textual Criticism is important, that it is easily accessible to the "ordinary" Christian, and that every Christian can engage intelligently in it for his own spiritual profit. God has not put his Word in the hands of scholars, but in the Church. Though some in the Church may be scholars, like Paul, others are more like me - Peter! (I don't put myself on that high a pedestal - though I think you get my meaning).-Rob



Then I can't wait for the next video. Yes! The big words/terms make us "ordinary unschooled Christians" think we need a PHD to understand that stuff. Even the term "textual criticism" makes me think about greek and men who understand character structure down to a science and can tell one author from another just based on writing style and vocabulary. Yikes! Since I don't care about such minute details at this point in my life, I have little interest in any subject called "textual criticism." 

But if you tell me that you are looking at the debate between Geneva/KJV manuscripts verses NIV/NASB manuscripts, I think most Christians can understand enough to be interested in that debate. Because *all us lay unschooled Christians do care about the questions: "Aside from removing the Thees and Thous, why did we switch from KJV to NIV?" and "Which original manuscripts are more reliable/trustworthy?"* If you bring it down to the lay person and use terms like "original Greek manuscripts that KJV & Geneva are based on" (most people don't even know what the TR is) then I think it will broaded the audience tremendously. But words like "conflation" and "textual criticism" scare us away.

I would also be very interested in knowing more about the 6 conflations that were found. What are they and what is the difference between the Byz version of those verses vs the Alexandrian versions. If they claim these 6 are SOOO crucial that we should disregard the Byzantine text, why? I want to know exactly what is "so crucial". Are these material differences? Or are they being picky over word order or paraphrasing? Is anything really changed/lost/added?

Thanks, Rob!


----------



## Gord (Sep 4, 2012)

Thank you Rob. Well done, but I feel there is a LOT more to come.


----------



## Jesus is my friend (Sep 4, 2012)

Dude,You nailed it!,may I encourage you to continue exposing this issue,carry on brother!!


----------

