Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
Hi Tim,
There's more data concerning them. A closer examination of these men’s minds:
----------
To be fair, Ted Letis 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's yet more of data regarding these men:
There's more data concerning them. A closer examination of these men’s minds:
First we will look at some further beliefs and statements of W&H, to get an idea of the hearts and minds of these men. 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,
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,
He was surely right in this! He was not a believer, and it was easily apparent in his views! Remember, 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,
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,
To his friend John Ellerton, he wrote (in 1860),
We see Westcott was of the same mind:
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) Their beliefs will of course impact their doctrines.
Footnotes:
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 Life of Hort, Vol. I, 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
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! Remember, 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) Their beliefs will of course impact their doctrines.
Footnotes:
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 Life of Hort, Vol. I, 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, Ted Letis 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's yet more of data regarding 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,
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,
A.G. Hobbs, in his Forward to the reprint of Burgon’s The Revision Revised, wrote,
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
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.
…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]
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
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.
Last edited:
