Critique of James White & Wretched TV #1326

[Logan]

It appears Westcott and Hort had Catholic leanings, and serious deficiencies of understanding.

For a minute I thought you were talking about Erasmus

 

[GraceOverwhelmsMe]

Nor should we trust someone who does not believe the Scriptures with the honest handling of the Scriptures.

You believe this of WH because of what? Some random quote you saw? You believe they are apostates because of those same sources?

Pray tell - were the majority of the absolutely terrible stuff you've read about these men written by KJVO or TR-only advocates?

I've searched into these guys a lot more since joining into this discussion and from what I'm seeing, the majority of the people who are vehemently attacking these guys are KJVO folks.

 

[Pergamum]

God seems to use devils to persecute us into faithfulness (water outside the boat), instead of the devils within the church (water inside the ship)...

But yes, I suppose God can do this....he used Constantine as well to protect the Church from Arianism.

I concede that God's standard and ordinary usage of "devils" stems from their work on the outside. I just tend to have general malice toward genetic fallacies. So many people who have had otherwise amazing work have said and done some amazingly stupid stuff. Tossing out everything they've done because of what they did prior to their work or after their work was complete isn't cool.

If the critical eye has continued to see and approve the work done by these men, then that is fine with me. It's not like we're talking the Joyce Meyer annotated AMP version of the Bible here that is leading people toward the WoF movement. We're talking a couple guys that have have been quoted by ripping their statements out of context. They could mean what the quotes say, but unless I see the full context of the statement, I will not deem them by-and-large heretics. Let's be honest - we've all said or thought heretical things at least once in our lives, either because we were legitimately in error, or because something came out of our mouths or pens that we didn't mean.

Do you believe Westcott and Hort were solid bible scholars?

 

[GraceOverwhelmsMe]

Do you believe Westcott and Hort were solid bible scholars?

I believe they were solid Greek scholars. I believe they came up with a great Greek text. I believe it was a great basis for the Critical Text we have today. I believe that if it leaned toward their apparent heresies, it would have been caught and fixed since 1881.

I believe God preserved His Word no matter what errors W&H may have had in theology.

 

[Pergamum]

It appears Westcott and Hort had Catholic leanings, and serious deficiencies of understanding.

For a minute I thought you were talking about Erasmus

Ow, that hurts! Good point.

 

[Pergamum]

Do you believe Westcott and Hort were solid bible scholars?

I believe they were solid Greek scholars. I believe they came up with a great Greek text. I believe it was a great basis for the Critical Text we have today. I believe that if it leaned toward their apparent heresies, it would have been caught and fixed since 1881.

I believe God preserved His Word no matter what errors W&H may have had in theology.

So all the bad things said about W and H were from weird KJV-Only guys? W&H may have been Anglican, but you don't think they are errant beyond the point of trustworthiness? That is one major slander-job by the KJV-Onlyists, then.

I just found this site, which looks intriguing: http://westcotthort.com/faqs.html

 

[God'sElectSaint]

It seems that the textual and translation issue breeds a lot of division, stereo-typing, and simply behavior that doesn't become Christians. I have myself have engaged in this type of discourse in times past and am trying to repent and handle this matter very differently. Pastor Truelove, first and foremost I want to commend you for being, from what I have seen thus far from your YouTube page, an excellent Minister and for rightly dividing the Word of Truth in your sermons. I have enjoyed them and been edified by them. I watched both your video's in response to James White and watched his response to this video last night on the Dividing Line. Mr. Truelove I appreciate your zeal for God's Word and what you believe to be the most accurate representation thereof, but I think you did err a little in your video. I think James White made good points on the Dividing Line that the video in question from "Wretched" was at the end of a larger presentation and the question posed to him was about KJV onlyism though Todd threw a little mention of Greek manuscripts in his initial question. James was addressing KJV onlyism for the most part in his answer and as he said on the Dividing Line "the making of the Textus Receptus is certainly relevant to refuting KJV onlyism"(I am paraphrasing) But I would have to agree with him there and say that your video was a little unfair to James and you did take it out of context. That is not to refute the points you made on your video because you made some good ones. I actually agree quite a bit with your version of the "Traditional Text position". I myself do favor the "TR" over the eclectic text for a number of reasons. But In my opinion the "TR" is not perfect neither is the KJV but nevertheless I love the KJV and it is my translation of choice. I have great trust and faith in the KJV and believe I am reading the living Word of God when I pick it up and read it. I hope that everyone of God's elect can hold their version of God's word with the same confidence whether Greek,English,Chinese,Spanish,ect. I think we must be careful not to diminish the faith anyone has in their bible(within reason of course their unacceptable translations out their,NWT, and some of the paraphrases) Which I think Pastor Truelove has tried to avoid doing. Your opinion is a reasonable one,I considered to be reasonable, but I think you did treat James White unfairly in this particular video. I enjoy Dr.White personally and have been edified by much of his work and will continue to be so. I think all sides should tread lightly and pray over this issue. I also think Christians, even laity, should study and research the matter and understand why they choose the text and translation they do to read. Their is good material on both sides of the fence to look into. I personally will continue to read the KJV with confidence in it and I pray Brian will do the same with his ESV, and Jimmy with his KJV & NIV, and Pastor Truelove with his KJV. I remind everyone of the words of the Apostle Paul, "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations."(Rom 14:1) and "Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.' (14:22) I realize the context of Romans 14 is not manuscripts and translations but it's implications can benefit us nevertheless. Grace,mercy,and peace be unto all my PB brethren!

 

[GraceOverwhelmsMe]

Do you believe Westcott and Hort were solid bible scholars?

I believe they were solid Greek scholars. I believe they came up with a great Greek text. I believe it was a great basis for the Critical Text we have today. I believe that if it leaned toward their apparent heresies, it would have been caught and fixed since 1881.

I believe God preserved His Word no matter what errors W&H may have had in theology.

So all the bad things said about W and H were from weird KJV-Only guys? W&H may have been Anglican, but you don't think they are errant beyond the point of trustworthiness? That is one major slander-job by the KJV-Onlyists, then.

You completely misrepresented what I said either due to lack of careful reading or lack of charity. As such, I am removing myself from this discussion on WH.

Should the conversation return to the original point of the OP, if I have anything to contribute, I will do so at that point.

 

[Pergamum]

Do you believe Westcott and Hort were solid bible scholars?

I believe they were solid Greek scholars. I believe they came up with a great Greek text. I believe it was a great basis for the Critical Text we have today. I believe that if it leaned toward their apparent heresies, it would have been caught and fixed since 1881.

I believe God preserved His Word no matter what errors W&H may have had in theology.

So all the bad things said about W and H were from weird KJV-Only guys? W&H may have been Anglican, but you don't think they are errant beyond the point of trustworthiness? That is one major slander-job by the KJV-Onlyists, then.

You completely misrepresented what I said either due to lack of careful reading or lack of charity. As such, I am removing myself from this discussion on WH.

Should the conversation return to the original point of the OP, if I have anything to contribute, I will do so at that point.

No, it is an honest question. If they were, in fact, apostates, we should question all that they write. Thus, the question about their alleged apostasy is vital to the question of how the Church treats their textual work.

But...several posters above seem to indicate that W&H were not, in fact, apostates.

The bad things said about W&H appear to actually stem from several men in the KJV-Only movement. W&H were Anglican and thus differ theologically a bit from the Reformed. I am open to the possibility that the accusations of W&H's apostasies, were, in fact, a big slander job by several within in the KJV-Only movement. Here is a weblink defending W&H: http://westcotthort.com/faqs.html

 

[GraceOverwhelmsMe]

No, it is an honest question.

"So all the bad things said about W and H were from weird KJV-Only guys?" is not an honest question. It is a leading question and it is framed in a way that is not representative of anything I've said. It is for that question that I no longer want to debate.

If they were, in fact, apostates, we should question all that they write. Thus, the question about their alleged apostasy is vital to the question of how the Church treats their textual work.

And I have said to you, time and time again, that their work has been looked at by scholars since 1881, and there has been nothing indicating they did anything but their best at preserving the Word of God. If it was common belief that these men were heretics, liars, cheats, "devils," and apostates, the WH would have been thrown out and somebody would have started over. Unfortunately for the "weird KJV-Only guys" this hasn't occurred.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

Thus, the question about their alleged apostasy is vital to the question of how the Church treats their textual work.

I agree but that claim would have to be well substantiated because it is a bold accusation against them. We should tread lightly and investigate any claim of apostasy towards any man. I have not researched W&H enough to make an educated assessment on that, but if indeed they were or anyone is for that matter an apostate, I agree that the text produced/worked on by a an affirmed apostate must come under high scrutiny. And I would disagree with the notion that God would use 'devils" or apostates to handle His sacred texts. I see this supported no where in scripture. I see the devil used to build up,humble and refine and prove the faith of godly men but the only accounts of satan in regards to the use of God's Word is him perverting and misusing it.(Matt 4:6,Gen 3:1) I am not claiming the W&H or the modern eclectic text is a product of satan but personally would disagree that the heathen should be trusted with the text of scripture in anyway.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Brian,

Are you familiar with Theodore Letis, Wilbur Pickering, Jacob Van Bruggen, John William Burgon, Jay Green Sr. Edward F. Hill, or any others who desire the group of manuscripts that don't come from the Alexandria line? The argument does not necessarily depend upon who W&H are but why do you think they believe they are justified in making the decisions and choices they made. Some very true scholars believe that Warfield himself changed the argument and point of reference concerning the discussion from Preservation to Innerrancy. Thus he also changed the Church's focus away from our confession 1.8,9 from God preserving His word and it being infallible to something he believed we would achieve by finding, because it had been lost. But that simply has not happened. There are also some doctrinal issues at hand despite what some people think.

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

Steve wrote about Warfield year's ago on the Puritanboard.

[

JM,

Have you read Letis' article, “B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism”? There Letis documents Warfield's departure from what had been the standard view of preservation, as noted in WCF 1:8. In particular Letis looks at Warfield's re-defining the Confession's statement, so that the meaning the framers intended was changed. The article got some critical acclaim, as is seen in an appendix. I quote this below from the thread,
"What is the authentic New Testament Text",

---------

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield [made his higher-critical views widely known] when he wrote to the general Christian public in Sunday School Times 24 in 1882, that Mark’s long ending was “no part of God’s word,” and therefore “we are not to ascribe to the verses the authority due to God’s Word.” [Cited from Theodore P. Letis’ The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind, p. 53]. In naming him thus be it understood I mean not at all to demean “the mighty Warfield,” as other than in the area of text criticism I honor and love him. But when a man is wrong we sin if we do not decry that error which causes harm to the flock of God.

To his credit, Warfield’s intentions were good; he hoped to disarm the threat posed by text criticism in the hands of liberal and unbelieving scholars by redefining the Westminster Confession’s statement on Scripture to refer to the inerrant autographs (anciently lost and beyond reach) instead of the apographs (the copies; texts in the hands of the Westminster divines). I quote from Letis’ essay “B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism” (in The Ecclesiastical Text”, pp. 26-27):

Only eight years after Warfield’s death [in Feb 1921], the higher criticism entered Princeton and the seminary was reorganized to accommodate this. The facile certainty that Westcott and Hort’s system seem to offer Warfield evaporated. Later text critics abandoned the hope of reconstructing a “neutral” text and today despair of ever discovering an urtext, the final resting ground of Warfield’s doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy. Warfield had given earnest expression to his hope that,

The autographic text of the New Testament is distinctly within the reach of criticism….we cannot despair of restoring to ourselves and the church of God, His book, word for word, as He gave it by inspiration to men. [“The Rights of Criticism and of the Church”, The Presbyterian (April 13, 1892):15]​

Fifty years later, the Harvard text critic, Kirsopp Lake, offered a more modest assessment:

In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort….we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall. [Family 13 (The Ferrar Group (Phila., The Univ. of Penn. Press, 1941), p. vii]​

Warfield’s Common Sense adoption of German methods would be more fully developed by others at Princeton who would no longer find his appendage of the inerrant autographs theory either convincing, or any longer relevant for N.T. studies.​

Make no mistake about it, Warfield’s textual theories, taken in good faith from Westcott and Hort – which he was open to after his studies in German criticism at the University of Leipzig in 1876 – single-handedly turned the Reformed Communities from their former view of the WCF and its prizing the texts-in-hand to the (what turned out to be) never-to-be-found-or-restored autographic texts. This was the watershed. And today men of good intentions seek to make the best of it, developing theories and stances so as to defend what they say is a trustworthy Bible.

[end of quote from previous post]
----------

It goes to show how one person can influence great multitudes, for good or for ill.

Steve

Steve has done a lot of work on this topic. He has also done it in a most congenial spirit. I believe he has a lot of this on his Puritanboard blog

So, there are people who do have issues with the things being discussed. They have pointed out those issues. And they are not nut cases.

http://www.puritanboard.com/entry.php/268-Jerusalem-Blade-s-textual-posts-(a-partial-compilation)

http://www.puritanboard.com/entry.php/196-Tying-up-some-loose-ends

 

[GraceOverwhelmsMe]

Brian,

Are you familiar with Theodore Letis, Wilbur Pickering, Jacob Van Bruggen, John William Burgon, Jay Green Sr. Edward F. Hill, or any others who desire the group of manuscripts that don't come from the Alexandria line? The argument does not necessarily depend upon who W&H are but why do you think they believe they are justified in making the decisions and choices they made. Some very true scholars believe that Warfield himself changed the argument and point of reference concerning the discussion from Preservation to Innerrancy. Thus he also changed the Church's focus away from our confession 1.8,9 from God preserving His word and it being infallible to something he believed we would achieve by finding, because it had been lost. But that simply has not happened. There are also some doctrinal issues at hand despite what some people think.

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

JM,

Have you read Letis' article, “B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism”? There Letis documents Warfield's departure from what had been the standard view of preservation, as noted in WCF 1:8. In particular Letis looks at Warfield's re-defining the Confession's statement, so that the meaning the framers intended was changed. The article got some critical acclaim, as is seen in an appendix. I quote this below from the thread,
"What is the authentic New Testament Text",

---------

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield [made his higher-critical views widely known] when he wrote to the general Christian public in Sunday School Times 24 in 1882, that Mark’s long ending was “no part of God’s word,” and therefore “we are not to ascribe to the verses the authority due to God’s Word.” [Cited from Theodore P. Letis’ The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind, p. 53]. In naming him thus be it understood I mean not at all to demean “the mighty Warfield,” as other than in the area of text criticism I honor and love him. But when a man is wrong we sin if we do not decry that error which causes harm to the flock of God.

To his credit, Warfield’s intentions were good; he hoped to disarm the threat posed by text criticism in the hands of liberal and unbelieving scholars by redefining the Westminster Confession’s statement on Scripture to refer to the inerrant autographs (anciently lost and beyond reach) instead of the apographs (the copies; texts in the hands of the Westminster divines). I quote from Letis’ essay “B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism” (in The Ecclesiastical Text”, pp. 26-27):

Only eight years after Warfield’s death [in Feb 1921], the higher criticism entered Princeton and the seminary was reorganized to accommodate this. The facile certainty that Westcott and Hort’s system seem to offer Warfield evaporated. Later text critics abandoned the hope of reconstructing a “neutral” text and today despair of ever discovering an urtext, the final resting ground of Warfield’s doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy. Warfield had given earnest expression to his hope that,

The autographic text of the New Testament is distinctly within the reach of criticism….we cannot despair of restoring to ourselves and the church of God, His book, word for word, as He gave it by inspiration to men. [“The Rights of Criticism and of the Church”, The Presbyterian (April 13, 1892):15]​

Fifty years later, the Harvard text critic, Kirsopp Lake, offered a more modest assessment:

In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort….we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall. [Family 13 (The Ferrar Group (Phila., The Univ. of Penn. Press, 1941), p. vii]​

Warfield’s Common Sense adoption of German methods would be more fully developed by others at Princeton who would no longer find his appendage of the inerrant autographs theory either convincing, or any longer relevant for N.T. studies.​

Make no mistake about it, Warfield’s textual theories, taken in good faith from Westcott and Hort – which he was open to after his studies in German criticism at the University of Leipzig in 1876 – single-handedly turned the Reformed Communities from their former view of the WCF and its prizing the texts-in-hand to the (what turned out to be) never-to-be-found-or-restored autographic texts. This was the watershed. And today men of good intentions seek to make the best of it, developing theories and stances so as to defend what they say is a trustworthy Bible.

[end of quote from previous post]
----------

It goes to show how one person can influence great multitudes, for good or for ill.

Steve

Steve has done a lot of work on this topic. He has also done it in a most congenial spirit. I believe he has a lot of this on his Puritanboard blog

So, there are people who do have issues with the things being discussed. They have pointed out those issues. And they are not nut cases.

http://www.puritanboard.com/entry.php/268-Jerusalem-Blade-s-textual-posts-(a-partial-compilation)

http://www.puritanboard.com/entry.php/196-Tying-up-some-loose-ends

I'm familiar with none of the work by these men, nor am I a scholar in Greek or Hebrew. I am also not schooled in the history of the texts.

I am also not denying that there are likely some errors in the CT. I don't doubt there are legitimate concerns over it.

My argument toward W&H was just to caution to do actual research before labeling a person a heretic, apostate and especially a "devil". I am neither a proponent of the CT or the TR. I hold no allegiance. My tale is simply a cautionary one.

I don't presume to discuss the pros and cons of any of the texts, though I am aware of many of them. I just don't like when I hear people call people out on an issue that they were neither attacking nor defending, and when people start giving ugly labels to people that have mostly been used by the fringe group of vehemently opposed people to the CT.

 

[GraceOverwhelmsMe]

Thus, the question about their alleged apostasy is vital to the question of how the Church treats their textual work.

I agree but that claim would have to be well substantiated because it is a bold accusation against them. We should tread lightly and investigate any claim of apostasy towards any man. I have not researched W&H enough to make an educated assessment on that, but if indeed they were or anyone is for that matter an apostate, I agree that the text produced/worked on by a an affirmed apostate must come under high scrutiny. And I would disagree with the notion that God would use 'devils" or apostates to handle His sacred texts. I see this supported no where in scripture. I see the devil used to build up,humble and refine and prove the faith of godly men but the only accounts of satan in regards to the use of God's Word is him perverting and misusing it.(Matt 4:6,Gen 3:1) I am not claiming the W&H or the modern eclectic text is a product of satan but personally would disagree that the heathen should be trusted with the text of scripture in anyway.

What about the Word of God? God gave special revelation in various forms to Egyptian leaders, false prophets, and other gentile leaders. If they can be trusted with the Word of God in that capacity , why wouldn't he trust a couple guys who were among the top scholars in the languages to handle the texts?

I'm not saying that they are not heretics. I'm not saying they are heretics. I'm just saying.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Brian,

Many would think you have entered a fringe group by adhering to Confessional Christianity. I don't think you will be seeing much accusation here on this forum that cant't be backed up. Violations of the 9th commandment are taken pretty seriously around here. I imagine if you dig a little deeper you will find the information concerning W&H. They are not coming from just nut cases like Jack Chick. And character does matter as do intentions. It is not uncommon knowledge that most of the gnosticism and Arian heresies had deep root in Alxexandria. Motive and character do matter.

I am hoping a friend will chime in on this to help. He is better at addressing these things. Just be patient brother.
For now let me refer you to one of Steve's posts concerning W&H.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...-Hort-manuscripts-are-bad?p=188993#post188993

It is referenced.

Here is something he posted earlier in that thread.

Nor would I allow either of these two men, Westcott or Hort, despite their ecclesiastical “attainments,” to preach or teach in the church I serve, seeing as they were heretics and reprobates, both in belief and in conduct, which assertions are documented. I find there is much secular attestation, beside the testimony of their sons in their respective unabridged biographies of their fathers, to their spiritualism.

In a book, a former president of The Society For Psychical Research acknowledged its origins in “The Cambridge ‘Ghost Society’” formed by Westcott and Hort:

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. (The Society For Psychical Research: An Outline Of Its History, by W.H. Salter (President, 1947-8), (London, Society For Psychical Research, 1948), pages 6, 7.)

I could go on with documentation of their unbelief in the historicity of the opening chapters of Genesis (and affirming solidarity with Charles Darwin and his theory), and other evidences of their unregenerate state. (To deny the historicity of Genesis, is to deny the Fall, the sinful condition of the human race, the need for an atoning sacrifice, etc etc.) That they fiercely demanded the presence of a notorious Unitarian on their revision committee , Dr. Vance Smith (who later published, gloatingly, of the textual damage done regarding the deity of Jesus Christ in the revision), indicating they considered him a brother Christian nonetheless, says something about their hearts.

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.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

One more thing... Personally, I don't think I have ever turned to discuss THE MOTIVES OR CHARACTER of W&H. it is more of a distraction. There is enough information out there to help us know God has preserved the text for us so that we may believe and have confidence that we have his word. The early church fathers wrote using the Scriptures and referenced them as well as many other things. W&H may actually be a distraction. The word of God testifies of its own origin and of its preservation. I read the ESV as well as other translations. My main translation is the Authorized Version. I became a Christian reading a paraphrased bible, the Living Bible. The first Time I read the Old Testament through was in the New International Version. I have benefitted from many translations. At the same time I still believe there is a good solid reason for believing that God has done what he said he would do. I also believe there is a fallen creature who desires to misuse and even destroy the testimony of God. Why shouldn't we believe that and know that to be true. But God is Sovereign and no one or nothing can thwart His plan and will.

Just an FYI. I know I don't chime in much anymore. I usually just read posts and keep a low profile. Many of the new guys might not know much about me. So if you are interested you can read my testimony at the following link. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...eived-testimony-of-christs-work-in-my-life-2/

 

[MW]

W&H may actually be a distraction.

I think the concentration on their personal views is a distraction. Their text-critical views paved the way for an anti-TR position which has become entrenched in academia, so that should be the more obvious focus.

 

[JimmyH]

I don't think you will be seeing much accusation here on this forum that cant't be backed up. Violations of the 9th commandment are taken pretty seriously around here.

Glad to hear that. Can you point to any works by BF Westcott that you've personally read demonstrating that he was not a devout believer ? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[alexandermsmith]

And I wonder if there's nothing wrong with the word that you use asterisks instead of just writing the word out.

I didn't. The forums did it.

it's the TR that I referred to as being divinely preserved

How do you/can you know this? Is it sinful to read and believe what is written in a Bible that utilizes the critical text? If I believe the CT is superior to the TR and is more faithful to the original manuscripts, does that put my salvation in jeopardy? Am I not properly able to "hear my Shepherd's voice" if I don't believe the TR is divinely preserved?

You say the KJV is the "superior translation." Why? How can the superiority of a translation be an objective thing? If I believe the ESV to be the superior translation, am I wrong? How can you be sure? By pointing to the differences between the KJV and the ESV and saying that since the KJV says one thing and the ESV says the same thing slightly differently, that the ESV is automatically in the wrong and has thus "changed" the Word of God?

To make a point that the TR is divinely preserved as if it is as true of a statement as "Jesus rose from the dead" just boggles my mind. It's as if saying that a Bible that does not stem from the TR means that it cannot be used as a means of grace for folks. What happens to a person who picks up an NIV and is taught from the NIV? Must they drop the NIV at the moment of their conversion and seek out a TR-based Bible?

It's talk like THIS is what is making people question the Bible they have in their lap. It's not that we're picking on one or two translations like the NWT. This kind of talk makes it seem like the vast majority of the Bibles on the shelves are not the Bible at all, and are simply satanic propaganda.

This statement is so obtuse to me that I can't even fathom it.

The KJV is the superior English translation because it is the only English translation fully based on the TR. Even the NKJV utilised the CT. Furthermore, the NKJV has in its Introduction the statement, and I paraphrase: there are footnotes throughout the text which give alternative readings, or disputed passages, so that the reader can determine for himself whether the passage in the text should be there or not. This is a trustworthy version? One which encourages the reader to add or subtract passages as he deems fit?

Of course people can come to faith reading other translations. But it's like the argument some people make about Spurgeon: Spurgeon used hymns and many people were converted, therefore hymns can't be wrong. The argument assumes that Spurgeon's preaching was blessed because of the use of hymns, rather than despite their use. The same would apply to other translations being blessed to readers.

Why wouldn't you want to read the most faithful, accurate translation of God's Word? In order to do that one needs to read a translation fully based upon the TR: that is the KJV. To deny that God has preserved a faithful copy of the autographs is to say we do not have a trustworthy Bible we can read. Either we have a divinely preserved copy of the autograph (which could only be the TR) or we don't have a Bible we can trust.

I haven't said anything about things being "satanic", so please don't put words into my mouth. I'm making a logical argument: if there is no divinely preserved text, there is no trustworthy Bible. And we see that again and again when we have translations removing sections which have been there for centuries; making changes purely to meet copyright requirements.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Whilst you may argue that times change, meanings of words change, I disagree.

How about the word "pisseth" in the KJV? That word without the "eth" is considered an expletive in 2015. You say you have to go pee, not pisseth otherwise you're being crude. How about the word for donkey? 300 years ago, when somebody said "ass", it always meant donkey. When Luther called Erasmus an "ass", he was calling him stubborn like a donkey. We read Luther's letter today and gasp at the language because when we call people that, we're not calling them a donkey. There are Bible translations that call Balaam's ass, Balaam's donkey as to not be offensive to modern readers.

Yes... The meaning of words change. Above I demonstrate that even Biblical words that were at one time not used as expletives, are now considered to be expletives. The reverse can also be true.

"Ass" is still used in that older manner today, as in "the law is an ass". I heard that on Question Time in the UK one, two years ago; I wouldn't say that I need to go "p**" (and I did insert the asterisks) because such language is crude and childish. "Pisseth" is in the Bible, as are other words which, removed from the context of Scripture are usually profane but do have legitimate uses in secular discussion. The word used in the video does not fall under such a category and if any of these words used in the KJV were used as an expletive, then that would be wrong.

 

[JOwen]

Pray tell - were the majority of the absolutely terrible stuff you've read about these men written by KJVO or TR-only advocates?

Now who's spouting generic fallacy?

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

And I would disagree with the notion that God would use 'devils" or apostates to handle His sacred texts.

What's your opinion of the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament?

 

[JimmyH]

It always fascinates me that in all of these recurring debates the same people rush to say the TR is Divinely inspired, the CT is the product of those devils, Westcott & Hort, but "I am not KJVO".

And have you read the things which Westcott and Hort wrote?

As to my hyperbolic comment noted above, I've read that some people believe the TR, and for that matter the AV, are divinely inspired. I haven't come across an example I can quote. As to the question I asked another member, you're answering my question with a question ? I have read some of what Brooke Foss Westcott wrote in the 76 years in which he devoted his entire adult life to Christian study and ministry. Thirty of those years in the compilation of the W&H Greek NT.

I've got commentaries by him on John's Gospel, and epistles. I cannot say I've read them cover to cover, but enough to know that he was a devout believer. If you go to the wiki article on him here, and scroll downpage to 'works', you'll find online access to much of his voluminous writings. Take the time and trouble to read from his "Lessons From Work", published the year he died, it is a testimony to his belief. https://archive.org/stream/lessonsfromwork00westuoft#page/n77/mode/2up

 

[Logan]

To deny that God has preserved a faithful copy of the autographs is to say we do not have a trustworthy Bible we can read. Either we have a divinely preserved copy of the autograph (which could only be the TR) or we don't have a Bible we can trust.

There are several "TRs". Which one is the divinely preserved one? Was it Erasmus' first edition without the Comma Johanneum and many other problems (that Luther used) or was it his second or third edition? Or was it Stephanus' 1550 or either of his two prior editions? Or maybe Beza's 1590 that the KJV translators seem to have relied on most heavily (but certainly not exclusively)? Or the Elzevir's 1633? Or maybe it's the one that Scrivener put together in 1894 as sort of a KJV TR that doesn't read exactly like any Greek manuscripts and that the TBS now distributes as the "TR"?

It seems to me that you would have to accept the "TR" as its own text family, and that family as divinely preserved, in which case you still have uncertainty, though perhaps it is the position of "maximum certainty" as Hills believed.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I don't think you will be seeing much accusation here on this forum that cant't be backed up. Violations of the 9th commandment are taken pretty seriously around here.

Glad to hear that. Can you point to any works by BF Westcott that you've personally read demonstrating that he was not a devout believer ? Inquiring minds want to know.

I openly admit that what I have read is second hand. Kind of like having a friend who has a scarred hand proclaiming that I shouldn't stick my hand in the fire. I no longer have access to the library and resources I once had access to as my old friend (Jay P. Green Sr.) has passed away. But someone who does have a library has given us much information on this Web site. And concerning matters like these I have found him to be very careful. I will lead you to one of his earlier posts.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...sm-Is-it-Reliable-Video-3?p=964533#post964533

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!

 

[JimmyH]

I don't think you will be seeing much accusation here on this forum that cant't be backed up. Violations of the 9th commandment are taken pretty seriously around here.

Glad to hear that. Can you point to any works by BF Westcott that you've personally read demonstrating that he was not a devout believer ? Inquiring minds want to know.

I openly admit that what I have read is second hand. Kind of like having a friend who has a scarred hand proclaiming that I shouldn't stick my hand in the fire. I no longer have access to the library and resources I once had access to as my old friend (Jay P. Green Sr.) has passed away. But someone who does have a library has given us much information on this Web site. And concerning matters like these I have found him to be very careful. I will lead you to one of his earlier posts.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...sm-Is-it-Reliable-Video-3?p=964533#post964533

Thanks for the reply. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if I ever get jumped by a gang of thugs in a dark alley, I only hope that Steve is there to help me. An indefatigable adversary. I don't have the volume of Westcott's letters, but I'll see about getting a copy.

If you were to google Westcott & Hort you'll find the Wiki article, and then page after page of KJVO attacks in website after website. This made me curious so I got hold of the commentaries on John's Gospel and epistles.

I cannot speak about Hort, I've not yet investigated him. Not that I doubt Steve, but I'd rather do my own research rather than accept someone else’s out of hand. Reading the book I linked to in my previous post, his last, I find a believer in the Gospel and Christ. I will continue to read him, and if I find I'm in error in my perception I'll certainly make it known on this board.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

Was it Erasmus' first edition without the Comma Johanneum and many other problems (that Luther used)

To be fair, I am almost positive Luther used the Second edition. Of course no Comma until the 3rd.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I'd rather do my own research rather than accept someone else’s out of hand.

Most quotes you will find online referring Wescott and Hort unorthodoxy are taken from the following works.



Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Wescott

Volume 1
https://archive.org/details/brookefosswestco00westuoft

Volume 2
https://archive.org/details/a613719002westuoft

Life and Letters of Fenton John Antony Hort

Volume 1
https://archive.org/details/lifelettersoffen01hortuoft

Volume 2
https://archive.org/details/lifelettersoffen02hortuoft

 

[JimmyH]

I'd rather do my own research rather than accept someone else’s out of hand.

Most quotes you will find online referring Wescott and Hort unorthodoxy are taken from the following works.



Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Wescott

Volume 1
https://archive.org/details/brookefosswestco00westuoft

Volume 2
https://archive.org/details/a613719002westuoft

Life and Letters of Fenton John Antony Hort

Volume 1
https://archive.org/details/lifelettersoffen01hortuoft

Volume 2
https://archive.org/details/lifelettersoffen02hortuoft

Thanks for the link. I'll look for used copies on bookfinder. Just reading the preface, (first link) by his son Canon FB Westcott, is very revealing. Pages viii and ix mention his son's surprise to learn that his father had suffered some doubts in his younger days. I too have dealt with my doubts, and had to say, "help my unbelief " in my younger days. I don't know about anyone else.

 

[TrustGzus]

How would things be different if W&H didn't come up with their Greek text?

The UBS and NA are based on manuscript evidence. W&H didn't create the ancient manuscripts. If they hadn't put together their Greek text, someone else would have done it.

I see all the discussion about them as a sideshow. Proving whether they were heretics or heterodox doesn't prove that any selection in the NA or UBS is wrong nor that a reading in any of the various TRs is correct.