King James Only Movement

[jaybird0827]

Now that I have been convinced of both the textual argument and the received text only, the only Bible I will read is the KJV.

With all this proliferation of Bible translations, paraphrases, versions, renditions, etc., etc. it's a wonder to me that the KJV hasn't been taken from us altogether. I thank God for his providential preservation of this faithful translation and for churches that still use it.

 

[KMK]

How does this relate to the discussion here?

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; (Matt. v. 18) so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. (Isa. viii. 20; Acts xv. 15; John v. 39, 46.) 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 (John v. 39.), therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, (Cor. xiv. 6, 9,11, 12, 24, 27, 28). that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner (Col. iii. 16.), and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

For one thing, in order to be truly confessional, you must subscribe to the view that the TR is the Word of God because that is the 'OT' and the 'NT' to which the Divines are referring. The CT (which was known and rejected by Erasmus) is not the 'NT' to which the Divines were referring.

 

[SolaGratia]

Now that I have been convinced of both the textual argument and the received text only, the only Bible I will read is the KJV.

With all this proliferation of Bible translations, paraphrases, versions, renditions, etc., etc. it's a wonder to me that the KJV hasn't been taken from us altogether. I thank God for his providential preservation of this faithful translation and for churches that still use it.

Now all you have to do its to know is strengh and weaknesses of the KJV text. Mind you, they are mostly strenghts and very few weaknesses. But once you know how to differentiate them you will learn to appreciate it and you will read it more and more.


I usually recommend this KJV bible even though it was put together by Baptist Fundamentalist/Dispensationals, but it is a good bible to start.

Here: Reformation Heritage Books

 

[Galatians220]

How does this relate to the discussion here?

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; (Matt. v. 18) so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. (Isa. viii. 20; Acts xv. 15; John v. 39, 46.) 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 (John v. 39.), therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, (Cor. xiv. 6, 9,11, 12, 24, 27, 28). that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner (Col. iii. 16.), and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

For one thing, in order to be truly confessional, you must subscribe to the view that the TR is the Word of God because that is the 'OT' and the 'NT' to which the Divines are referring. The CT (which was known and rejected by Erasmus) is not the 'NT' to which the Divines were referring.

Thank you! I've read that the CT was *not* unknown to the translators of the KJB, contrary to what some think. They studied it and discarded it as being non-canonical. (If I'm wrong about that, I'll stand gratefully corrected.) The "older and better manuscripts" argument flies for about five and a half seconds and then falls flat.

Manuscripts that were kept from the Reformers and from other godly men and women for almost 1,900 years, until two founding members of Britain's Ghost Guild dug 'em out of trashcans and other forgotten places in Egypt and the Vatican? God preserved His word that way?

No. The Westminster men had their Bible, and so do we.

Guess who it really is that wants Bible studies not to be studies of God's word and of the work of salvation that His precious Son did, but rather to consist mostly of discussions along the lines of, "the NASB says this..." and "the NIV renders the verse this way...", "but 'The Message' puts it this way...", etc., etc.? God is not the author of confusion, after all, but someone else is. Someone who should be rebuked at every opportunity (Jude 9).

Margaret

 

[mossy]

Margaret,
I can't believe anyone actually takes you seriously.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Manuscripts that were kept from the Reformers and from other godly men and women for almost 1,900 years, until two founding members of Britain's Ghost Guild dug 'em out of trashcans and other forgotten places in Egypt and the Vatican? God preserved His word that way?

The "Ghost Guild" was some stupid thing done as college students. Westcott at least quit it because it "led to no good".

And if you've read about where Tischendorf found Codex Siniaticus, he found some pages used to build a fire, yes. But the manuscript itself was in the possession of an abbot who kept it as a valued treasure.

Let's try to argue this from Scripture, not emotion. I find God has used some modern translations in a major way, and don't feel the need to be limited to just one 400 year old edition commissioned by an Anglican, anti-puritan and anti-Calvinist king. (I for one think Geneva is far superior to the KJV, but will concede the KJV is superior to many modern editions. I just don't see where not using it alone is heretical.)

 

[JohnGill]

Manuscripts that were kept from the Reformers and from other godly men and women for almost 1,900 years, until two founding members of Britain's Ghost Guild dug 'em out of trashcans and other forgotten places in Egypt and the Vatican? God preserved His word that way?

The "Ghost Guild" was some stupid thing done as college students. Westcott at least quit it because it "led to no good".

And if you've read about where Tischendorf found Codex Siniaticus, he found some pages used to build a fire, yes. But the manuscript itself was in the possession of an abbot who kept it as a valued treasure.

Let's try to argue this from Scripture, not emotion. I find God has used some modern translations in a major way, and don't feel the need to be limited to just one 400 year old edition commissioned by an Anglican, anti-puritan and anti-Calvinist king. (I for one think Geneva is far superior to the KJV, but will concede the KJV is superior to many modern editions. I just don't see where not using it alone is heretical.)

The Life and Letters of Westcott are available here: Internet Archive Search: westcott Go to the Flip Book and type in "Ghostlie Guild" to find the relevant information. They were trying to bring the light of science on it.

The Life and Letter of Hort are available here: Internet Archive Search: Fenton Hort

Theodore Letis' short and succinct refutation of Gail Riplinger is available here: Theodore P. Letis Resources

Scroll down til you see "Reviews of James R. White's The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Versions? (1994) and Gail Riplinger's New Age Versions (1993)"

 

[JohnGill]

How does this relate to the discussion here?

For one thing, in order to be truly confessional, you must subscribe to the view that the TR is the Word of God because that is the 'OT' and the 'NT' to which the Divines are referring. The CT (which was known and rejected by Erasmus) is not the 'NT' to which the Divines were referring.

Thank you! I've read that the CT was *not* unknown to the translators of the KJB, contrary to what some think. They studied it and discarded it as being non-canonical. (If I'm wrong about that, I'll stand gratefully corrected.) The "older and better manuscripts" argument flies for about five and a half seconds and then falls flat.

Not the critical text. It was either Vaticanus or Sinaiticus. I can't remember which right now.

 

[Marrow Man]

And if you've read about where Tischendorf found Codex Siniaticus, he found some pages used to build a fire, yes. But the manuscript itself was in the possession of an abbot who kept it as a valued treasure.

This was an interesting link. It claims that the copies that were being burned were from the LXX, not Siniaticus. If so, this is new info to me. It's always presented that the monks were burning Siniaticus, but this does appear to be the case.

Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[JM]

Is the use of the AV a sign of "mirco-presbyterianism?"

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Is the use of the AV a sign of micro-presbyterianism?"

Some micro-churches use the AV exclusively (WPCUS, Presbyterian Reformed, Covenant Reformed PC, American PC) as a rule of unity, but I don't think they hold to anything like a David Cloud would promote, to say nothing of Ruckmanism. (The only one I know that seems adamantly for the AV and against modern translations is the Free PC of Ian Paisley.)

Others do not promote AV exclusivity; I know Joe Morecraft (RPCUS) uses the NKJV and I think has used the NIV, and I would guess the RPCGA doesn't mandate it either.

Incidentally...

I haven't read much Letis, but I'm willing to look at some of him when I have some spare time. I have leanings toward the Majority Text, but no qualms with the CT or the TR, and not enough reading of MT or TR proponents. Would have been interesting for the HCSB to go MT as it originally did. I do like how the NAS Bible includes some of the Byzantine readings.

I do have a knee-jerk reaction to AV-Only folks because the ones I have run into in person and on the internet have often been irrational, judgmental, schismatic, and base all their arguments on emotion:

• "Get a real bible with thees and thous"
• "God wants us to have to dig deep to understand His word, so we can't translate it today"
• "God blessed the KJV for 400 years, so we shouldn't change it" (which sounds a lot like what Rome said about the Vulgate during the time of the Reformation)
• "Your "bible" sends people to hell"
• "If it was good enough for Paul, it is good enough for me." (not seriously)
• And so on.

 

[JohnGill]

But Paul Did Use The AV!!!!!

Is the use of the AV a sign of micro-presbyterianism?"

Some micro-churches use the AV exclusively (WPCUS, Presbyterian Reformed, Covenant Reformed PC, American PC) as a rule of unity, but I don't think they hold to anything like a David Cloud would promote, to say nothing of Ruckmanism. (The only one I know that seems adamantly for the AV and against modern translations is the Free PC of Ian Paisley.)

Others do not promote AV exclusivity; I know Joe Morecraft (RPCUS) uses the NKJV and I think has used the NIV, and I would guess the RPCGA doesn't mandate it either.

Incidentally...

I haven't read much Letis, but I'm willing to look at some of him when I have some spare time. I have leanings toward the Majority Text, but no qualms with the CT or the TR, and not enough reading of MT or TR proponents. Would have been interesting for the HCSB to go MT as it originally did. I do like how the NAS Bible includes some of the Byzantine readings.

I do have a knee-jerk reaction to AV-Only folks because the ones I have run into in person and on the internet have often been irrational, judgmental, schismatic, and base all their arguments on emotion:

• "Get a real bible with thees and thous"
• "God wants us to have to dig deep to understand His word, so we can't translate it today"
• "God blessed the KJV for 400 years, so we shouldn't change it" (which sounds a lot like what Rome said about the Vulgate during the time of the Reformation)
• "Your "bible" sends people to hell"
• "If it was good enough for Paul, it is good enough for me." (not seriously)
• And so on.

Yes, the title is a joke.

There are some good articles in support of the TR at the Trinitarian Bible Society

Some of Letis' work is available online here: Theodore P. Letis Resources

Westcott & Hort's Introduction to the Greek New Testament is at either Google Books or archive.org. It explains their methodology of textual criticism. Eberhard Nestle's book is online at Google Books. Burgon's works are online at the same places and ccel.org. At any of the three you will be able to find H. C. Hoskier's Codex B & Its Allies, a refutation of Aleph & B, and Scrivener's A Plain Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism. John Owen's commentary on the apographa is available at godrules.net Here are the links:

http://www.godrules.net/library/owen/131-295owen_p5.htm

http://www.godrules.net/library/owen/131-295owen_p6.htm

http://www.godrules.net/library/owen/131-295owen_p7.htm

Hope this helps begin some of your research. The sources are from both sides of the issue.

BTW "Get a real bible with thees and thous"!!

 

[KMK]

I know Joe Morecraft (RPCUS) uses the NKJV

Doesn't Joe Morecraft use NASB?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Some clarity concerning Tischendorf's discovery of Sinaiticus from his own account: Biblical Preservation #3

and: Biblical Preservation #4

the link (in the first post) to Tischendorf's entire account seems to be broken, but here's a Google cache of it: Tischendorf, Codex Sinaiticus

It was Vaticanus (B) Erasmus [and the Reformation textual editors] had access to (from friends in the Vatican), and as Westcott and Hort made this MS the primary exemplar of their "neutral" Critical Text of the Greek New Testament (Sinaiticus was right after it in priority), one can say that B is representative of the modern Critical Text -- particularly in its unique readings / omissions.

The Old Testament portion of Vaticanus, written in Greek, is the main version of the LXX extant; Siniaticus as well has most of the OT in Greek, also a version of the LXX.

I take Margaret seriously; why shouldn't I?

Hello Johnathan! Welcome to PB! There are some fairly irenic and scholarly King James Bible / Textus Receptus defenders here at PB, who deal more with light than heat; here's one of them: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/what-authentic-new-testament-text-15134/

and: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/answering-alan-kurschner-aomin-24839/

Steve

 

[Galatians220]

I respectfully differ with the conclusion that I'm dealing with the subject of the CT, the TR and/or the KJV from an emotional standpoint. I don't think I've yelled and screamed on here... I'm totally puzzled. I think I've offered only reasoned and restrained support of, actually, the TR rather than the KJV only. My Bible of preference at the moment is the 1599 Geneva, to tell the absolute truth, and it has been since I bought a "personal size" one last fall. My husband and I also own a larger, more cumbersome 1560 version.

For the record, I believe Peter Ruckman to be quite a poor excuse of a professing Christian for his denunciations of fellow Christians. I've stated that implicitly before on this board. Long ago, I was appalled by the garbage that he had on his web site and I concede nothing to him in the area of textual scholarship, acumen or expertise.

BTW: Why is the charge of being "emotional" being lobbed in my direction in the first place? If my name were "Mark" rather than Margaret, I suspect that that wouldn't have been the case. (Not that I have even the slightest "feminist" sympathies in my entire person, but it is kind of obvious... ) Whatever, dudes. I'll make a mental note of it - not that I didn't already have a suspicion of these leanings from prior discussions; I'll keep it in mind for the future and move on.

Peace, and God bless all of you. I mean that.

Margaret

 

[KMK]

It was Vaticanus (B) Erasmus [and the Reformation textual editors] had access to (from friends in the Vatican), and as Westcott and Hort made this MS the primary exemplar of their "neutral" Critical Text of the Greek New Testament (Sinaiticus was right after it in priority), one can say that B is representative of the modern Critical Text -- particularly in its unique readings / omissions.

Thank you clarifying, Mr. Rafalsky.

 

[Stomata leontôn]

I find God has used some modern translations in a major way, and don't feel the need to be limited to just one 400 year old edition commissioned by an Anglican, anti-puritan and anti-Calvinist king. (I for one think Geneva is far superior to the KJV, but will concede the KJV is superior to many modern editions.

The Church of England at that time was Calvinist; agreement with the Calvinist 39 Articles was required and the Calvinist Homilies were required reading in churches. James VI was actually associated with the presbyterians of Scotland especially at the beginning of his reign; his son Charles I was the Protestant king whom the Puritans beheaded and thereafter established the dictatorship of Cromwell. James VI's most famous critics were English nationalists who resented paying respects to a sovereign who hailed from Scotland and who was associated with the radical English Borderers of the Scottish lowlands (whose ancestors settled Northern Ireland) and presbyterians they viewed as pesky, although James was criticized by Puritans on the other side of the spectrum as well.

 

[Galatians220]

I find God has used some modern translations in a major way, and don't feel the need to be limited to just one 400 year old edition commissioned by an Anglican, anti-puritan and anti-Calvinist king. (I for one think Geneva is far superior to the KJV, but will concede the KJV is superior to many modern editions.

The Church of England at that time was Calvinist; agreement with the Calvinist 39 Articles was required and the Calvinist Homilies were required reading in churches. James VI was actually associated with the presbyterians of Scotland especially at the beginning of his reign; Charles II was the Protestant king whom the Puritans beheaded and thereafter established the dictatorship of Cromwell. James VI's most famous critics were English nationalists who resented paying respects to a sovereign who hailed from Scotland and who was associated with the radical English Borderers of the Scottish lowlands (whose ancestors settled Northern Ireland) and presbyterians they viewed as pesky, although James was criticized by Puritans on the other side of the spectrum as well.

Um, I think it was Charles I... Reason I know is that one of my ancestors, Capt. Daniel Axtell, was a military leader of Cromwell's Roundheads and was executed at Tyburn for his part in the execution of Charles I...

Margaret

 

[Blueridge Believer]

I know Joe Morecraft (RPCUS) uses the NKJV

Doesn't Joe Morecraft use NASB?

I've heard Joe call the AV the "Anglican bible". I guess that makes the CT bibles "Catholic" bibles.

 

[Stomata leontôn]

Um, I think it was Charles I... Reason I know is that one of my ancestors, Capt. Daniel Axtell, was a military leader of Cromwell's Roundheads and was executed at Tyburn for his part in the execution of Charles I...

Margaret

Yep. You spotted that before I could fix it. Can you call it counting if I can't count past one?

 

[LawrenceU]

I find God has used some modern translations in a major way, and don't feel the need to be limited to just one 400 year old edition commissioned by an Anglican, anti-puritan and anti-Calvinist king. (I for one think Geneva is far superior to the KJV, but will concede the KJV is superior to many modern editions.

The Church of England at that time was Calvinist; agreement with the Calvinist 39 Articles was required and the Calvinist Homilies were required reading in churches. James VI was actually associated with the presbyterians of Scotland especially at the beginning of his reign; his son Charles I was the Protestant king whom the Puritans beheaded and thereafter established the dictatorship of Cromwell. James VI's most famous critics were English nationalists who resented paying respects to a sovereign who hailed from Scotland and who was associated with the radical English Borderers of the Scottish lowlands (whose ancestors settled Northern Ireland) and presbyterians they viewed as pesky, although James was criticized by Puritans on the other side of the spectrum as well.

That is an interesting take on the history of the period. James VI / I was an open sodomite who rejected the presbyterianism of his upbringing. While in theory Church of England was Reformed due to the 39 Articles, in practice under Archbishop Laud it was violently anti-Reformed. Many godly men were tortured and executed in Laud with his approval. Charles I was tyrannical in his treatment of Reformed Christians.

 

[Stomata leontôn]

That is an interesting take on the history of the period. James VI / I was an open sodomite who rejected the presbyterianism of his upbringing. While in theory Church of England was Reformed due to the 39 Articles, in practice under Archbishop Laud it was violently anti-Reformed. Many godly men were tortured and executed in Laud with his approval. Charles I was tyrannical in his treatment of Reformed Christians.

The rumors about James VI were circulated by wild papist sympathizers who disliked James VI's Calvinism and also by English nationalists who sought rebellion against a man who was the king of Scotland. The historical facts are that James VI was married, had children, and wrote many godly letters advising his extended family to read their Bibles, live moral lives, and study Calvinist doctrine. I have read several of them; they are almost as inspirational as those by Edward VI.

Although William Laud, a high-church Calvinist, himself was imprisoned and executed, the Calvinist Reformation in England is known for its noteworthy lack of torturing and executing men for religious beliefs which did characterize the bloody reign of the papist Mary Tudor.

Charles I, of course was himself a Reformed Christian, but implicitly weak in his faith since he married a papist. Indeed he is known for being a weak leader that did not stand up for his allies. His closest friend and strongest supporter was executed owing to this weakness, and that later led to his own execution under the secular dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell, a much stronger man.

As for the series of executions of authorities by the individualists, remember: Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God. (Rom. 13:1)

But this is off topic...

 

[Stomata leontôn]

Some clarity concerning Tischendorf's discovery of Sinaiticus from his own account: Biblical Preservation #3

and: Biblical Preservation #4

the link (in the first post) to Tischendorf's entire account seems to be broken, but here's a Google cache of it: Tischendorf, Codex Sinaiticus

It was Vaticanus (B) Erasmus [and the Reformation textual editors] had access to (from friends in the Vatican), and as Westcott and Hort made this MS the primary exemplar of their "neutral" Critical Text of the Greek New Testament (Sinaiticus was right after it in priority), one can say that B is representative of the modern Critical Text -- particularly in its unique readings / omissions.

The Old Testament portion of Vaticanus, written in Greek, is the main version of the LXX extant; Siniaticus as well has most of the OT in Greek, also a version of the LXX.

I take Margaret seriously; why shouldn't I?

Hello Johnathan! Welcome to PB! There are some fairly irenic and scholarly King James Bible / Textus Receptus defenders here at PB, who deal more with light than heat; here's one of them: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/what-authentic-new-testament-text-15134/

and: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/answering-alan-kurschner-aomin-24839/

Steve

That's an excellent post you link to there and worth careful studying.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

BTW: Why is the charge of being "emotional" being lobbed in my direction in the first place? If my name were "Mark" rather than Margaret, I suspect that that wouldn't have been the case. (Not that I have even the slightest "feminist" sympathies in my entire person, but it is kind of obvious... ) Whatever, dudes. I'll make a mental note of it - not that I didn't already have a suspicion of these leanings from prior discussions; I'll keep it in mind for the future and move on.

Trust me Margaret, your gender has nothing to do with it. I've found far more emotional folks in the fightin' fundamentalist camp, who have Y chromosomies, wear pants, and think the only woman who should be allowed to speak on religious issues is Gail A. "God And" Riplinger.

Again, nothing against you or your gender.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

I've heard Joe call the AV the "Anglican bible". I guess that makes the CT bibles "Catholic" bibles.

Sure, Catholics were involved in translating their Bibles as well as liberal (RSV/REB/NRSV), but what involvement did they have in the NIV, NAS, HCSB? Whereas the High-Church Anti-Puritan King James I commissioned the AV, and many Puritans avoided it because it was "too churchly" and "prelatical." They only gave up the Geneva when Charles I outlawed its printing.

 

[JM]

Wow, this thread took off!

 

[Stomata leontôn]

Sure, Catholics were involved in translating their Bibles as well as liberal (RSV/REB/NRSV), but what involvement did they have in the NIV, NAS, HCSB? Whereas the High-Church Anti-Puritan King James I commissioned the AV, and many Puritans avoided it because it was "too churchly" and "prelatical."

The following is from a little article by Ian Paisley who represents the whole KJV as a Puritan enterprise, EIPS - The translators of the English Authorised Version (KJV) of the Holy Bible are pre-eminent in their saintliness and scholarship.

Below are some highlights from the article.

- January 16th, 1604, Dr John Reynolds, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, a Puritan, proposed the translation to the king.
- "Dr Laurence Chaderton, one of the Cambridge delegates to the Hampton Court conference. He was Fellow of Christ's College, and afterwards Master of Emanuel. Chaderton entered Christ's College in 1564 and embraced the Reformed doctrines. He had been brought up as a Roman Catholic, and his father offered him an allowance of thirty pounds if he would leave Cambridge and renounce Protestantism - "Otherwise I enclose a shilling to buy a wallet - to go and beg. "He acquired a great reputation as a Latin, Greek and Hebrew scholar and was also proficient in French, Spanish and Italian." He was a Puritan.
- Dr Thomas Ravis, accepted some high offices in the Church of England and in 1609 became Bishop of Lichfield and Archbishop of Canterbury in 1611. He was regarded as the head of the Puritans within the Church of England.

In other words, not only was the head of the Church of England a Puritan, but the translation of the KJV was essentially a Puritan enterprise.

And the article is written by a Presbyterian of Northern Ireland!

-----

We need spiritual discernment to tell Puritans apart from the multitude of splinterers who were Zwinglians, anabaptists, secularists, separatists, and individualists. These sectarians made poor Calvinists. Indeed it was the Zwinglian/anabaptist sects that could not respect the lawful authorities as the Bible commands, executed a number of them who were believers and plunged England into a devastating civil war. I repeat, they were not good Calvinists.

The descendants of these Zwinglian/individualists the American South historically holds responsible for the invasion and burning of the South. It is dismaying to see some modern advocates loyal to them rather than to their own.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

In other words, not only was the head of the Church of England a Puritan, but the translation of the KJV was essentially a Puritan enterprise.

King James I was head of the church of England. Where is he a Puritan? As I understand, King Jimmy said "I will make them conform or I will harry them out of the land."

Also the Millenary Petition, out of which came the King James Bible, was rejected in every other point as the Puritans tried to get Romanism out of the CofE, and the King rejected the Calvinist upbringing of his youth.

The reason King James authorized the AV Bible had nothing to do with Puritan sympathies, but with the fact that he hated the Geneva translation. He also believed in the divine right of kings, and had Knox lived into his reign he would have criticized him as harshly as he did his papist mother.

Does this state that the KJV should not be used? Of course not. It has its majesty and its flaws. King James, thankfully, did not translate it, though he did issue some less than proper requirements upon the translators. The AV is good in spite of Jimmy, not because of him.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

A post somewhere above gave a link which dismissed the allegation of Westcott and Hort's involvement in the occult (on an anti-King James site), as though this were a hair-brained red herring; here is a post which provides some data to the contrary:

The Occult in the late 19th, early 20th centuries

 

[TimV]

Steve, I read through that post you linked to twice, and while I know nothing about Westcott and Hort, I don't see how you get from a group of English academics in a less sophisticated age studying clairvoyance, telepathy, spiritual manifestations etc.. to a group of warlocks bent on raising the dead. A recent thread where many of the posters on this forum expressed a belief in Bigfoot, Elves, unicorns, the Sidhe etc..made me feel a bit uncomfortable, but your judgment of W&H based on the information you provide

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

seems a bit narrow.