From: heb_roots_chr@mail.geocities.com Sent: Monday, December 1, 1997 1:12 AM To: Hebraic Heritage Newsgroup Subject: Westcott & Hort
heb_roots_chr@mail.geocities.com wrote: > 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: Philip Nowland Subject: Westcott & Hort To: "heb_roots_chr@geocities.com" <heb_roots_chr@geocities.com> Shalom Ray It is a fact of life that there are many manuscripts of the New Testament, ranging from minute portions, dated as early as 45 to 55 CE, right through to whole copies of the New Testament dating as early as the middle 300's CE, and many more that are later than that, right up to around 1000 CE. No one claims to have any portion of the original documents themselves, and so everything of antiquity available to us are copies (of copies etc). This all took place before the printing press. The copyists of the New Testament text were generally quite accurate in their work, but not as accurate as the Jewish copyists of the Hebrew Scriptures. There were mistakes made, but not usually significant. Most people do not bother to count copies of the New Testament that are younger than 1000 CE as significant in determination of the most accurate text. On such a basis there are around 28,000 manuscripts or parts of, that are considered as old enough to have any bearing on what would determine an accurate representation of the original Greek text. Such a large number of manuscripts provide a sufficient enough amount of data to compare each, and in doing so generally iron out any mistakes made by copyists. Although it does seem to some extent logical that the older the manuscript it is less likely to be influenced by scribal error. Although, such a conclusion is challenged by some of the most eminent of commentators on this matter. Most early translations into English, the first of which took place around the end of the 1300's CE were made from a very early Latin translation, made by Jerome, called the Vulgate. However, there arose a very strong desire to present an accurate edition of the Greek text of the New Testament. Names like Stephen (1550 CE) and Elzevir (1624 CE) represent serious attempts to present working editions of the Greek text. The methods they used were simply to sift through whatever was available and make a decision about what each manuscript available to them said, and include what looked like a general consensus of accuracy into their text. They were guided to some extent by what had been considered traditionally by the church, and its theologians, as an accurate representation of the original text. That is, what which had been received by the church through the ages. Thus the general description of the resultant text has become to be known as the "Received Text" (sometimes known by its Latin title - Textus Receptus). This forms the basis of the work of the above editors, and many others of the time. By the time of the translation of the 1611 King James Version of the Bible, the edition known as the Received Text was generally accepted as the most accurate representation of the Greek New Testament. That was used by the translation committee of that version. In the late 1800's a significant ancient Greek manuscript became available - this became to be known as Codex Sinaiaticus, and currently resides in the British Museum in London. Its significance in the discussion as to the accuracy of the 15th and 16th Century editions of the Greek New Testament, can be seen in that it is the oldest complete copy of the New Testament and dates to around 340 CE. At last, it was believed, a very ancient manuscript that could confirm or validate the work of the Erasmus, Stephens and Elzevir. There arose a consensus of opinion in this area of discussion that the most ancient manuscripts were the most accurate. This had not been the opinion of the 15th and 16th Century editors, who had followed rather a loose majority text opinion. This more modern idea, that the oldest manuscripts were the most accurate, began to be widely adopted by editors, and forms the basis of the principles of Wescott and Hort. Largely speaking that position has prevailed in the region of textural criticism since the latter half of the 19th Century, and is still held by many today. The text that we refere to as the Westcott and Hort text, although it is known by some other descriptions, is largely based upon the Codex Sinaiaticus, and highlights some significant differences with that presented in the Received Text. However, the theory that antiquity carries authenticity has some serious flaws. The reason why it was adopted, was simply because, it was assumed that people do not take things out of a text, they more likely add things to it. The older the manuscript the less likely to be the errors. Yet this is simply not true. You can just as easily remove things in error as well as you may add things in error. One reason why there are not so many really old documents is that they get damaged and deteriorate in use. To find a very ancient complete manuscript of the New Testament actually implies that it had not been used, which carries and inherent suggestion of unacceptability. Another difficulty with the school of thought that surrounded the editions following the principles of Westcott and Hort, was simply that it was all too eclectic, and subject to the opinions of the editors. Evangelicals have looked for a less subjective approach to the matter. A number of evangelical scholars have pointed out the glaring problems of too closely following the Westcott and Hort type text, for there are occasions where a variant text is chosen which just does not accord with context. For example, in Luke 4:44 - the Wescott and Hort text says that Jesus continued to preach in the synagogues of Judea, when the passage immediately previous to it makes it very clear that he was nowhere near Judea, being continually located in Galilee at the time. This is echoed by the NIV and NASB translations which both, quite slavishly, follow the Wescott and Hort type text, and is so obviously wrong that it is surprising that the translators could stick to the text, yet they do acknowledge this in their footnotes. However, the New King James (NKJ) version, which follows a Majority Text position gets it right and translates the text to read that he continued preaching in the synagogues of Galilee, which admirably fits the context. Another example is found in John 1:28, where the NIV reflecting its Westcott and Hort background claims that John was baptising at Bethany which is the other side (meaning the eastern side) of the Jordan, which of course is simply incorrect, for Bethany is just a mile or two to the south east of Jerusalem and no-where near the Jordan, let alone the other side of it. The NKJ version, following the majority text, more accurately points out that John was baptising at Bethabara, which is on the eastern side of the river Jordan. Why we ask do the advocates of the Westcott and Hort principles stick to such obvious errors of presentation, if it is not to give the reader the general impression that errors reside in the New Testament text? Do they not realise that the original writers and their readers were so highly unlikely to have settled for such obvious errors, that as such they are clearly do not come from the original text. This and many other observations have caused evangelical scholars from all schools of thought to contend that the principles of Westcott and Hort are so seriously flawed that the editions of Greek that are espoused by them are just not trustworthy. Even the most recent editions of the NIV have been forced to acknowledge this, and while not completely eradicating the slavish attitudes of the early translation committee, they have been forced to re-instate into the text some passages, missing in the Westcott and Hort text, that were originally found only in footnotes. Recently, significant numbers of scholars have abandoned that principles outlined in the work of Wescott and Hort and have simply turned to a majority text position. That is where it is theorised that the burden of accuracy rests with the rendering that has the support of the largest number of manuscripts. This of course recognises the values of many manuscripts that were not available to the editors of the Greek Text at the time of the editors of the so called "Received Text". Surprisingly enough, the product of the modern Majority Text position is very much like the Received Text, and we are beginning to understand that the editors of the 15th and 16th Century were not so far from the truth. I trust that this little contribution assists to explain why you will often find believers who are critical of the Westcott and Hort text, and translations which follow it too closely. Yours in Yeshua's name Philip Nowland Huntingdon, England ***************************************************************** From: Patrice Stanton Organization: Extreme Computer Consulting and/or Radical Art To: heb_roots_chr@geocities.com Subject: Re: Westcott & Hort Deborah and other interested Rooters: Concerning (Mr. Brooke Foss) Westcott, and (Mr. Fenton John Anthony) Hort...for more background on them than you'll probably care to read! (and their influence on the creation of the more recent versions of the Bible, such as the NAS, NIV, etc.) I HIGHLY recommend the lengthy-though-hard-to-stop-reading "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger. Oh, was I fired up for the "KJV-only" after reading this nearly-700 page book! I've since come to realize that the KJV is far from "error-free," but I'm still very impressed with her extremely extensive research on IT vs. the "other" very popular Bible versions, research which clearly documents the occultic backgrounds and subversive intent of the above named Westcott and Hort. Read or even skim Riplinger's book and you'll never see your NAS, NIV, et.al. in the same light again! It truly is the wise student who reads several versions of the Bible. Sincerely, Patrice Stanton ******************************************************************** From: John Parsons To: <heb_roots_chr@geocities.com> Subject: Re: Westcott & Hort Does anyone know the ISBN# of the book "NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS"? I tried to special order it, but none of the bookstores in my area could even find it in "Books In Print." Todah, jj ***********************************************************************