THE WESTCOTT AND HORT ONLY CONTROVERSY

No. I was looking at UBS 2. There are so many it is hard to keep track of them. USB is now up to 4 and NA is somewhere around 27! It is interesting that the bible has changed since the publication of UBS 2!

 

One last comment ... famous last words from a preacher eh???

It was not off point. The statement I understood you to make was that the committee "ignored" the Byzantine manuscripts. My point (and one made very ably by Chick as well) is that these Byzantine readings were considered by the committee as evidenced by their inclusion in the apparatus. They were simply not given the priority you think they should have been given because the committee considered them inferior readings. However, they were considered; they were not ignored.

You make an interesting statement to Chick (okay so I was fibbing about the one last comment ). You talked about the Bible changing from the 2nd to the 4th UBS. (I realize you were speaking somewhat "tongue in cheek" -- at least I think you were.) But it raises a question to me: I wonder how you feel about the TR changing over the years and the various editions and revisions of the Majority Text. Would you consider earlier versions of the TR or one of the differing editions of the Majority text that you do not prefer as "corrupt" or as "inadequate"? In short, do you consider the editions of the TR and Majority Text with which you differ on the same plane as the eclectic text?

 

Regarding Phil 1:14 Thomas said,

The problem Thomas is that D is Western, not Alexandrian, K is Byzantine, not Alexandrian, 181 contains only a portion of Acts, so I am not sure why its in your list, the same goes for 614, 630 is not Alexandrian, 1739 is a 10th century (late) Alexandrian, 1881 is a 14th century manuscript that has Alexandrian features, and I am not sure about your last two as being Alexandrian. Your best case for your argument is P46 which is old and is usually Alexandrian, but in Philippians 1:14 argues for a Byzantine reading.

Furthermore, it would be unfortunate to suggest that situations must be found where distinctively Byzantine readings appear in the critical text or else the critical text editors are being unfair with the Byzantine text-type. I know of no example in the UBS4 text where the Western "D" stands alone with a few other western text-type manuscripts and all the Byzantines and Alexandrian readings are put in the footnote. Does this mean that the critical text editors are being unfair to the Westerns? hardly!

The reasoned eclectic views the Byzantines to be important, and they are shown in the UBS4 to have weighed heavily in the debate (see 2 Cor 1:14 discussion above).

Make no mistake, I view the Byzantines to be a valuable, I will go so far as to say VERY valuable part of the overall manuscript evidence taken into consideration, I simply do not believe that they are the only part that should be considered. When the whole body of evidence is considered, sometimes the Byzantines contribute to the correct reading, sometimes they don't and sometimes they are split.

Best wishes,

Chick

 

Also, Thomas, regarding James 5:4, don't forget that the UBS, by the time they reached the 4th edition, has become so Byzantine oriented, that they gave the Byzantine reading an A rating! They all agreed and considered it a slam-dunk! I believe the UBS4 to be a very balanced text. The last vestiges of hard-core Westcott-Hort's attitude about Aleph/B has been swept away, and the the text-types are on much more equal footing. While none of us will agree with the committee's decision on every varient, that is what the apparatus is for, to allow us to make up our own mind, using our own biases

 

Chick, do you know how many differences in the text there are between UBS3 and UBS4? I have UBS3 with the 2nd Textual Commentary which is based on UBS4 I believe. My understanding is that some of the ratings have changed but none or very little of the text has.

For instance in James 5:4 (UBS3), apesteremenos is in the text with no notes in the apparatus about it. They did not even give it a rating.

 

I suspect what you are failing to consider is that the readings in question were included in UBS not because of the overwhelming evidence of the Byzantine textform, but because the Alexandrian textform included these readings. Had there been no Alexandrian MSS which contained these readings there is no chance it would have been included in the text of UBS/NA. Regardless of the strength of the Byzantine evidence, unless there is strong confirmation from Alexandrian witnesses, there is no possibility it will be given sufficient weight to displace the Alexandrian reading.

And we have had this discussion regarding a "Western" texttype before so rehashing it will be useless.

 

As I said earlier, D is mixed, and I, along with the best textual critics no longer see "Western" as a distinct texttype. And, it was the corrector of D that included the reading. The original text did not contain it.

It is included in the critical apparatus on page 682 of UBS 2. Also, my information is that 181 is a 15th century minuscule MS of Revelation, not Acts or Philippians.

Yet the passage in question is only given a {D} level or certainty! 100% of the Byzantine evidence (400+ MSS) and over half of the Alexandrian evidence, the Old Latin, Old Syriac, plus a rather lengthy list of patristic quotes, and still only a {D} level of certainty? And you don't think that represents an anti-Byzantine bias?

 

No, I don't think it represents an anti-Byzantine bias. 2 Corinthians 1:14 has a {C} rating in the UBS4. And quickly scanning the UBS4 apparatus, I see only p46 for Alexandrian support against the reading adopted in the text, but they marked p46 with vid which means that the passage in question is in a bad state of damage making the reading difficult to determine. Then I count 8 uncials and 18 miniscules along with some lectionaries, almost all versions and some fathers that favor the reading adopted in the text. No doubt at least some of the miniscules in support of the reading adopted in the text are Byzantine in nature. The reading rejected (which is the shorter reading) is supported by the difficult to read p46, the Byzantines, 2 version, and 2 fathers. My point earlier is that if the Byzantines had been on the side of reading adopted, then no doubt an {A} rating would have been employed, hence the value of the weight of the Byzantine manuscripts.
In summary, all of the alexandrians (-p46) and some byzantines, along with most versions and fathers and lectionaries, get the nod with a cautious {C} rating against most of the Byzantines and 1 difficult to read Alexandrian. I fail to see any bias here.

 

BTW, I also highly question whether or not Western is a legitimate distinct text-type.

 

Dr. Cassidy, How can you embrace the writer of this article or "Little Light" as allies when you know that so much of what they are writing is false? Much of that article is not even in dispute, it is either willing ignorance or lies.

You may be right about all of this against most of those who have dealt with the issue in an honest, scholarly way. However, each time you find the one little grain of truth in an ocean of falsehood and cling to it, you become less believable. Each time Riplinger is indirectly defended, you look like someone who is not willing to deal with the whole body of evidence and more like someone who picks and chooses the things that support the desired outcome.

I have learned a great deal from what you have written. I hope that you are right about Erasmus and that we will get to rejoice with him in heaven. I hope you are right about many of the things you have addressed here. But I am confident that you are not right about who you think your allies are. The KJVO's and TRO's who deny the facts are far more damaging to your position and credibility than those who disagree with your interpretation of the facts.

 

Who on this forum holds to the Byzantine primacy position and has gotten ugly or engaged in name calling? Point out the post and I will delete it.</font>[/QUOTE]Since we can't undo the past, I'll trust you to monitor your own posts and support me in deleting others who do this. Do I have your word since you said this?

 

The only thing I "embrace" about either Phil Stringer or Little Light is that both are my brothers in Christ, even when they are wrong. As to your assertion that so much that was in the article was false, I don't dispute the fact that some of the information is ill conceived, and some of the conclusions fanciful, but I will not condemn Little Light or Phil Stringer. Deal with the facts, don't attack the person.

I really don't care whether or not you consider me believable. I only care that the bible is not attacked and that brothers and sisters in Christ are not maligned and demeaned. If we cannot support our positions without demeaning and attacking our brothers and sisters in Christ, then our position on the textual issue is moot and we should be spending more time learning how to live a Christ-like life.

I am not seeking allies nor do I care about damaging my position, whatever you may believe that to be. I simply do not agree to see good and honest people attacked for what they believe. One of the Baptist distinctives is that we have often been persecuted but never the persecutor. Unfortunately all too many Baptists today seem all too willing to abandon that spiritual high ground. I am not.

 

Thank you, Brother Tom, for publicly questioning my word and concomitantly my honesty.

[ March 07, 2002, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

My web site on the NIV is worth your time...

NIV web site

PLEASE READ....

EARLY HERESIES
The Bible warns that there would be those who would "corrupt the word of God" (2 Corinthians 2:17) and handle it "deceitfully" (2 Corinthians 4:2). There would arise false gospels with false epistles (2 Thessalonians 2:2), along with false prophets and teachers who would not only bring in "damnable heresies" but would seek to "make merchandise" of the true believer through their own "feigned words" (2 Peter 2:1-3). It did not take long for this to occur.
In the days of the Apostles, and shortly afterwards, several doctrinal heresies arose. Their early beginnings are referred to in the New Testament in such places as Galatians 1:6-8; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7; and Jude 1:3-4. They not only plagued the early Church, but are still with us today, in modern form, in many contemporary Christian cults. These false doctrines influenced the transmission of scripture and account for some of the differences in the line of manuscripts.
WESTCOTT AND HORT
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) produced a Greek New Testament in 1881 based on the findings of Tischendorf. This Greek NT was the basis for the Revised Version of that same year. They also developed a theory of textual criticism which underlay their Greek NT and several other Greek NT since (such as the Nestle's text and the United Bible Society's text). Greek New Testaments such as these produced the modern English translations of the Bible we have today. So it is important for us to know the theory of Westcott and Hort as well as something of the two men who have so greatly influenced modern textual criticism.
In short, the Westcott and Hort theory states that the Bible is to be treated as any other book would be.
Westcott and Hort believed the Greek text which underlies the KJV was perverse and corrupt. Hort called the Textus Receptus "vile and villainous" (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.211).
If Westcott and Hort are the fathers of modern textual criticism and the 'restorers of the true text', should we not know something of their beliefs to see if they are consistent with Scripture? This would be harmonious with the teaching found in Matthew 7:17.
What they said about............
The Scriptures:
"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).
"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p.vii).
"Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)
Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that, "Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration." (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212)
Perhaps this is why both the RV (which Westcott and Hort helped to translate) and the American edition of it, the ASV, translated 2 Timothy 3:16 as, "Every scripture inspired of God" instead of "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," (KJV).
The Deity of Christ:
"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).
"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).
"(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created."(Hort, Revelation, p.36).
Perhaps this is why their Greek text makes Jesus a created god (John 1:18) and their American translation had a footnote concerning John 9:38 "And he said, Lord I believe and he worshipped him." which said, "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here, or to the Creator." (thus calling Christ "a creature.")
Salvation:
"The thought (of John 10:29) is here traced back to its most absolute form as resting on the essential power of God in His relation of Universal Fatherhood." (Westcott, St. John, p. 159).
"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).
Perhaps this is why their Greek text adds "to salvation" in 1 Peter 2:2. And why their English version teaches universal salvation in Titus 2:11 "For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men," (ASV).
Hell:
"(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits." (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).
"We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).
Perhaps this is why their Greek text does not have Mark 9:44, and their English translation replaces "everlasting fire" [Matt. 18:8] with "eternal fire" and change the meaning of eternal as cited by Hort in the above quote.
Creation:
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).
"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..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)
Romanism:
"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid. )
"The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)
It is one thing to have doctrinal differences on baby-sprinkling and perhaps a few other interpretations. It is another to be a Darwin-believing theologian who rejects the authority of scriptures, Biblical salvation, the reality of hell, and makes Christ a created being to be worshipped with Mary his mother. Yet, these were the views of both Westcott and Hort. No less significant is the fact that both men were members of spiritist societies (the Hermes Club and the Ghostly Guild).

 

while it's certainly laudable that u've done so much original research, which u've shared so freely, wld u be willing to post the context of each of these quotations so that we can form an opinion for ourselves?

 

why do you not go to the theological library and get the books put together by the sons of wetcott and hort and read what they really believed yourself. the page numbers are listed for you to see and you can get an education.

the life and times of westcott
and life and times of hort

bob

 

several reasons:

1. i don't have access to a theological library. do u (otherwise, what were ur secondary sources?)?

2. it was u who attempted to malign 2 ordained ministers/scholars.

3. u need to provide the context because quotations can (n have) been taken out of context, particularly by KJBOs.

 

I do not have access to a theological library. However, I *do* own a few of the books quoted in my personal library. I looked up the quotes I could, and this is what I found. I have included the quote as posted by bob walker in [square brackets] to show it in relation to it's context, and bolded other sections I think were avoided by Mr. Walker for obvious reasons. :

Context (discussing why he wrote this book):

"...I have endeavoured to connect the history of the New Testament Canon with the growth and consolidation of the Catholic Church, and to point out the relation existing between the amount of evidence for the authenticity of its component parts, and the whole mass of Christian literature. Howver imperfectly this design has been carried out, I cannot but hope that such a method of inquiry will convey both the truest notion of the connexion of the written Word with the living body of Christ, and the surest conviction of its divine authority. Hither to the co-existence of several types of Apostolic doctrine in the first age and of various parties in Christendom for several generations afterwards has been quoted to prove that [our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise.] But while I acknowledge most willing the the great merit of the Tubingen School in pointing out with marked distictness the characteristics of the different books of the New Testament, and their connexion with special sides of Christian doctrine and with various eras in the Christian Church, it seems to me almost inexplicable that they shouuld not have found in those writings the explanation instead of the result of the divisions which are traceable to the Apostolic times."

Context makes it clear he is talking about *others* who have attempted to prove the Bible as well as our Faith was a mere compromise. In the immediately previous sentence, he asserted the "surest conviction" of scripture's "divine authority". How was this missed, mr. walker?

This verse is in discussion of John 20:28, where Thomas says "My Lord and my God". The entire paragraph reads:

"The words are beyond question addressed to Christ (saith unto him), and cannot but be understood as a confession of belief as to His Person (comp. 'Syn CEc.' v. Can. 12, De tribus capitulis) expressed in the form of an impassioned address. The discipline of self-questioning, followed by the revelation of tender compassion and divine knowledge, enabled St Thomas to rise to the loftiest view of the Lord given in the Gospels. His sublime, instantaneous confession, won from doubt, closes historically the progress of faith which St John traces. At first (ch. i. I) the Evangelist declared his own faith: and at the end he shews that this faith was gained in the actual intercourse of the disciples with Christ. The record of this confession therefore forms the appropriate close to his narrative; and the words which follow shew that the Lord accepted the declaration of His Divinity as the true expression of faith. [He never speaks of Himself as God (comp. v. 18), but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him.]"

Notice in the immediately previous sentence, Westcott *clearly* discusses the divinity of Christ, and even calls it "the true expression of faith". Why was this missed, mr. walker? Also, what Westcott says is true, BTW. Christ never did speak of himself as God. I cannot find one verse in the Gospels where Christ said "Hey guys, I'm God". That doesn't mean Westcott disbelieves in Christ's divinity. He was discussing how others came to this realization despite no explicit declaration from Christ himself.

Let's continue, shall we?

Wooo baby, this one was doctored pretty deceptively. Here's the REAL quote:

"The Evangelist takes for granted that his readers understand perfectly what he means by "the Word," "the Father." [He does not expressly affirm but assumes the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ] (v. 17)"

Why did you remove "but assumes" from the sentence, mr. walker? Your removal makes it appear that Westcott said the exact opposite of what he actually did. You also dropped the reference to "(v. 17)", by which he ties "Jesus Christ" to "the Word".

This is in discussion of John 10:28-29. Where you inserted "(of John 10:29)" actually says ", which is concrete in v. 28,". Also Westcott uses lowercase on "universal", not uppercase as you have indicated (in an attempt to make it appear new-age?). Westcott's next sentence, discussion the comparison of verse 28 with verse 29 says "The variations in expression all point in the same direction." In this, coupled with the discussion of the next verse (verse 30), Westcott clearly affirms the divinity of Christ, his unity of essence with the Father as God. What you attempting to portray Westcott as believing, I can only speculate, but undoubtedly you were wrong.

I don't have the resources to examine your other quotes, but I do know that many of Fuller's quotes in "Which Bible" (which you get some of your quotes from) are equally out of context as the ones I have addressed.

mr. walker, it appears someone went to a lot of work to gather these quotes. However, that person went to even more work in twisting them to sound like the exact opposite of what the context indicates. Why is that? Have you examined these quotes yourself, or are you just cutting-and-pasting the same old garbage, taken from someone so obviously schooled in the "Riplinger School of Slanderous (Mis)Quoting"?

I've already given this subject more attention that it deserves.

Brian

[ April 01, 2002, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

that's way-cool research, BrianT!!! and they didn't award u a PhD for it?



but hey, it doesn't take a CV of seminary and speech degrees and decades of Greek instructional experience to dig up the truth. it takes just a modicum of honesty.

did u see the new thread on the Retinue of Westcott Bashers? perhaps u cld check out some of the claims of the famed D.A. Waite and T. Holland.

Link here: http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000328