From: 	 heb_roots_chr@mail.geocities.com
Sent: 	 Thursday, November 27, 1997 6:08 PM
To: 	 Hebraic Heritage Newsgroup
Subject: Re: Westcott & Hort

>
> From: Ray Hagerty 
> To: heb_roots_cha@mail.geocities.com
> Subject: Westcott & Hort
> 
> What are Westcott & Hort (mentioned in the Bible uproar) textural
> principles, and why would they be offensive? This was interesting to me
> as a Precept Teacher, because we use and recommend NAS for study. It has
> been said that there are problems with the text the KJ was translated
> from and that the text the NAS came from was more reliable, which by the
> way, how do they (whoever they are) know that one is more reliable than
> another? Kay Author, the founder of Precept Ministries has NEVER seemed
> anti Jewish to my gentile understanding. I get weary of dividing into
> camps over non-salvation issues, but perhaps this one has some merit. 
> My personal Bible at the time is NKJ.
> 
> Marenatha en tachi
> Deborah
> 
> ********************************************************************
>

From:          Jeff Dickerson 
To:            heb_roots_chr@geocities.com
Subject:       Re: Westcott & Hort
 
The primary problem with doctors Hort and Westcott were that they were,
by virtually every indication, unregenerate men. Their "higher
criticism" placed them in the same camp as those modern critics who
attempt to discredit many of the sayings of Messiah as found in the
B'rit Chadasha. This gave them a loose approach to Holy Writ, and a
willingness to "fudge" with the Word of G-d.

The KJV was translated from the Greek text known as, "the Received Text
(Textus Receptus)." Today, a large number of Greek manuscripts are said
to survive. Of those manuscripts, it is said that 80-90% contain the
Greek text that resembles the kind of text which is the basis for the
KJV. Since the overwhelming majority of Greek Texts tend to support the
text used to translate the KJV, the revisionists had to manufacture
reasons to reject the "Received Text."

Westcott, Hort, and their ilk attacked the KJV text basically on three
grounds:

1.  "The oldest manuscripts do not support the Received Text."

This assumes that the "oldest" are the "best." There is simply no way to
prove this. For example, since there are differing versions, we know
that corruptions have occurred in the text. But did the corruptions
occur in the texts found in Egypt (where the "oldest" manuscripts were
found), in other parts of the world (where the larger percentage of
manuscripts were found), or in both. The fact is that Westcott and Hort
used a very small number of divergent texts to put together a hybrid of
what THEY considered to be the most likely wordings, and had the nerve
to call it scripture.

2.  "The Received Text is a revised, secondary form of the Greek Text."

The logical problem here is in explaining why the overwhelming majority
of extant texts support the "Received Text"--in other words, how did so
many separate texts rise together in relative conformity to each other
in various parts of the world?

3.  "The readings from the Received Text are inferior to the earlier
manuscripts."

Another logical wasteland here. The text is supposed to better, because
the individual "readings" are better. And why are the "readings" better?
Because the text is better. We are left to rely on the judgment of
modern critics and their circular reasoning to tell us what is more
accurate. And all they rely on is their own intellect (and ingenuity!).


I prefer a more pragmatic approach. I like to start at the beginning. 
With the Hebrew Scriptures, we are given the key to understanding the
B'rit Chadasha. With a Hebrew mindset and the indwelling of the Ruach
HaKodesh, we "will know the truth and the truth shall set [us] free."

The introduction of a newer Greek text should not cause us much
consternation--not if we approach it with an understanding of the nature
of the text, who put it together, and the nature of Greek thought behind
it. We should, with any text, JUDGE it according to its faithfulness to
the Hebrew Scriptures. Then, comparing it to other Greek texts, we may
get a fuller picture of what G-d is saying.

I think the main problem is that our English bibles often rely too
heavily on Greek thought in their translations. So Bible teachers often
do the same. Thankfully, perfect understanding in all these things is
not what it takes to attain the olam haba (world to come). Otherwise,
we'd all be in trouble. 

We need to pray for Bible teachers the world over who have been
"over-Greeked" in their training. Ask HaShem to help them--and to help
us all--rediscover our Hebrew roots.

Jeff Dickerson

**********************************************************************

From:          Bruce Barham 
To:            heb_roots_chr@geocities.com
Subject:       Re: Westcott & Hort

Deborah,

You may be referring to my original email which mentioned Westcott and
Hort.

There is a book, NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS, which discusses this.  The
author rambles a bit, but she presents convincing evidence that
Westcott and Hort were into the occult and other questionable
activities.  It also makes fools of those that insist the transcripts
used by the KJV translators are inferior to those use by NIV, NASB,
etc.  They point out how a major member of the translation team of the
NASB actually made a public confession and repentance of his work on
the translation committee - saying the translation was bad.  

Many other things are discussed in the book, some of which I disagree
with; however, there are lots of very disturbing points made which
ultimately convinced me most modern translations are trash being
introduced to an unsuspecting world and slowly dilluting pure Truth. 
It is working because, unfortunately, "ease of reading" has become
more important than accuracy for most "Christians".  Whenever someone
suggests the KJV is "too hard to read" I suggest it may be because
they so rarely read it!  Personally, I refuse to use NIV, etc.  After
reading the aforementioned book I literally filled a trash can with
bibles - most of which were NIV.

Undoubtedly, many will disagree or question my opinion and the book;
however, until they read it perhaps they should reserve judgment.

Having said all this...I feel only the original Hebrew is error free.
As a matter of fact, since I believe the gospels were originally
written in Hebrew (a theory rapidly becoming fact as evidence grows),
I would even question some of the Greek text.  

Of course, since most of us do not read Hebrew or Greek, we are forced
to choose a translation.  I am confident the Holy One will graciously
overlook any errors in our faith which are due to inaccurate
translations.  The Lord is looking for sincere hearts.  If our hearts
are sincere as we study, I am certain we are in good hands.  

On a different note - I think those that claim the KJV is the "pure
Word" are living in fantasy.  These people remind me of the "divine
name" fanatics that insist if you don't use the correct name for G-d
and the Messiah, you will "burn in hell".  The KJV is definitely
inaccurate in areas; my reason for using it is that I feel, as far as
English translations, it is the most accurate and based upon less
questionable transcripts.  Also, I think modern translators,
influenced by liberalism, have far less respect for the Word than the
more ancient translators.

I think having a Hebrew-Greek Lexicon, Strong's concordance, Bible
Dictionary,  David Stern's excellent New Testament Commentary, and
other reference materials are vital if we are to really get serious
about Bible study.  I NEVER read the New Testament without Dr. Stern's
commentary by my side.

I read the Jewish Publication Society's translation of the Tanakh (Old
Testament).  Since Jews have FARRR more respect for the "Old"
Testament than Christians, I suspect they take more care in it's
translation.  It is the first major translation since the LXX
translation.  I usually read both it and the KJV and have found very
few differences.

I have lots I could rant-n-rave about on this subject, but I'll shut
up.  Bottom Line - find a Bible and READ IT.  Thankfully, there is no
"entrance exam" to get into the Kingdom; otherwise, none of us would
make it.  Praise G-d, He gives us a passing grade because of His grace
and love!  :)

Bruce

***********************************************************************