Westcott & Hort

[Green Cochoa]

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html

The above link may be of value in this discussion.

[Gregory Matthews]

There is much that may be said that is valid criticism of the work of Westcott and Hort. Their work in preparing a text has been criticized from the day it was published.

They can be criticized for their selection of the major MSS upon which to base their textual work.

They may be criticized for their personal theology. However, in doing so, one should be able to show that their personal theology resulted in a bias in their work.

In short, the scholarly world today believes that others have done much better work than they did. However, just because their is major, valid, criticism of their work does not mean that all criticism of their work is valid. In my thinking, comments to the effect that they colluded with the Roman Catholic Church in an effort to change the MSS are simply beyond what can be demonstrated and reflect a misunderstanding of the MSS and how they were put together to form our Bible.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

The above shows a systematic effort to edit the original manuscripts and to make them "acceptable" to the general public. Notice the "commission" from the pope to do this work of editing.

Yes, the Roman Catholic church has throughout history prepared critical editions of the Bible. That has been the work of textual scholars throughout history to include those who are not Roman Catholic. Our Bibles today have come from those critical editions of the MSS.

It is valid to debate the validity of the critical editions. There is much valid criticism of the work of Westcott & Hort. And valid criticism may be raised about the work of others.

The Internet is full of criticism of W & H. Some of it is valid and some of it is not. Some of it simply reflects ignorance of basic textual work.

[John317]

Green Cochoa, what doctrine(s) cannot be found in the Westcott and Hort Greek NT that can be found in the Textus Receptus? In other words, what is the essential difference in terms of Bible doctrine between the TR and the texts which Wescott and Hort supposedly corrupted?

If they were interested in changing the Bible's doctrine's, wouldn't you expect there to be some significant doctrinal differences between them? So, what are they?

[John317]

The Catholics are saying opening that they have edited "the ancient MSS." of the Bible. They give a list of some of those who have contributed to this work. Westcott and Hort are in their list.

They did not make changes to the ancient manuscripts. You're evidently misunderstanding what they're saying. They're talking about making new editions of the printed texts of the Greek New Testament. They're not talking about making changes in the ancient manuscripts themselves.

[John317]

....Mrs. White speaks of the lineage of Bibles held by the Waldenses as being "unadulterated." They held Bibles of the "Majority Text" line, as their copies were obtained before the Catholics had begun editing the "ancient" manuscripts--a work done through the centuries, and quite possibly still continuing.

There's a difference between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus (the text on which the KJV was based). They are not one and the same.

Again, they did not make changes to the ancient manuscripts of the NT. What they did was make printed texts of the NT. The ancient manuscripts and codices themselves have not been altered. Some of those ancient manuscripts date back to the second and third centuries, and a few portions of manuscript (papyrus) are dated to the first century.

[Ron Amnsn]

Check to see if it is copyrighted.

The Word of God unchanged cannot be copyrighted.

Gibs, the KJV is still copyrighted in England, where it was first published.

[John317]

Mrs. White speaks of the lineage of Bibles held by the Waldenses as being "unadulterated." .... Here is her statement on this:

The Waldenses were the first of all the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures. Hundreds of years before the Reformation, they possessed the Bible in manuscript in their native tongue. They had the truth unadulterated, and this rendered them the special objects of hatred and persecution. They declared the Church of Rome to be the apostate Babylon of the Apocalypse, and at the peril of their lives they stood up to resist her corruptions. While, under the pressure of long-continued persecution, some compromised their faith, little by little yielding its distinctive principles, others held fast the truth. Through ages of darkness and apostasy, there were Waldenses who denied the supremacy of Rome, who rejected image worship as idolatry, and who kept the true Sabbath. Under the fiercest tempests of opposition they maintained their faith. Though gashed by the Savoyard spear, and scorched by the Romish fagot, they stood unflinchingly for God's Word and his honor. {GC88 65.1}

As Gail already pointed out, Ellen White used the English Revised Version as well as the ASV (1901), both of which were translations of the W & Hort Greek text. Would Ellen White have used translations based on the Westcott and Hort Greek text if she had believed they were false or adulterated? I know she wouldn't have.

If you study closely what she said in the above quote, you will see that Ellen White is not saying that the manuscripts the Waldenses used as the basis of their translations were superior to those used in making the critical text today. She is saying, rather, that since the Waldenses made accurate translations into their own language, they had "the truth unadulterated." One can teach just as easily from the Vulgate and the Critical Texts that the Church of Rome is apostate Babylon as one can teach it from the Textus Receptus. It makes no difference.

Here's the proof. The KJV, of course, is translated from the Traditional Text, also called the TR. The New American Bible (Catholic) is faithfully translated from the Critical Texts (i.e., United Bible Society's 1975 edition and the Nestle/Aland 1979 edition). When you closely compare these translations of the book of Revelation, you will find that they teach the same thing regarding the fallen church. If you find that they don't, please give your evidence showing this.

[John317]

Have any of you found any damnable heresy from translations other than from the Received Text?

We can't legitimately blame the heretical, or poor, translations on the underlying Greek texts. It isn't the fault of a Greek text if some translators are so lacking in their knowledge of biblical languages that they don't know how to translate Greek into English.

[Green Cochoa]

Green Cochoa, what doctrine(s) cannot be found in the Westcott and Hort Greek NT that can be found in the Textus Receptus? In other words, what is the essential difference in terms of Bible doctrine between the TR and the texts which Wescott and Hort supposedly corrupted?

If they were interested in changing the Bible's doctrine's, wouldn't you expect there to be some significant doctrinal differences between them? So, what are they?

Those are good questions, and very pertinent to the whole discussion. The answers may not be as simple as one might wish. To illustrate the difficulty, let me recall some facts in the case, as well some unknowns.

FACTS:

1) Satan battles against God and His Word in any way he can.

2) Satan is happy to mix a small error with a larger amount of truth.

3) Small errors can add up to large problems.

UNKNOWNS:

1) The exact changes Westcott and Hort may have made are difficult to ascertain.

2) The motives or ultimate goals of Westcott and Hort are questionable.

3) The full impact of their work with the original-language manuscripts is unknown.

The best way of knowing whether or not to accept the work of Westcott and Hort, to my mind, is to follow the Bible's own counsels. The Bible suggests several things by which a Disciple of Christ should discern between truth and error.

1) "By their fruits ye shall know them."

What "fruits" have come about as a result of the work of Westcott and Hort? This question is complicated by the fact that anyone exposed to the Word of God may be elevated somewhat by it, in spite of errors that may have been introduced into it. So the answer to this question gives us a clue, but is not decisive.

2) "If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Here we are given something more solid. And this is much more definitive. Not only is it "definitive," it is "categorical." God is warning us to completely reject that which deviates from His Word, counting such as having "no light." This is interesting, because Satan is quite willing to use truth, mixing just a little error into it. God tells us to be careful not to accept such mixed messages.

There are a few other notable principles given in God's Word that we may come to later on, but for now, let us start with these two. Does Westcott's and Hort's so-called "neutral text" agree with the "majority text?" (Why should they want to "neutralize" the Bible anyhow?) If not, where does it not, and what doctrine is altered?

As I understand it, this matter of agreement is basically your question.

There are multiple doctrines touched by W&H and altered. The evidence for this is to be found in the translations made from their text. One of the most obvious doctrines, though not the most important, is that of fasting.

"But that's not one of our 28 Fundamental Beliefs!" some might object. Perhaps it is not, but we Adventists are supposed to accept doctrines that are Biblical, not simply doctrines that are decided upon by a special committee. Jesus Himself taught His disciples the importance of fasting.

But W&H apparently wanted to make things "easier" for you. They have omitted all of the New Testament texts that would require you to fast, or have changed their wording so that the doctrine is no longer there. They have allowed only the historical use of the concept--for example, they do report that Jesus fasted for 40 days in the wilderness--but they do not include texts which indicate that one should fast.

This post is getting long, so I will stop here for now.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

There are multiple doctrines touched by W&H and altered. The evidence for this is to be found in the translations made from their text.

In order to support the above statement, you would have to show that their translation was NOT based upon textual MSS

AND that it was a mistranslation. You fail to do that.

[Gregory Matthews]

http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Exegetical/NIV_defense.htm

The above may be of interest in this discussion.

[Green Cochoa]

Quote:

There are multiple doctrines touched by W&H and altered. The evidence for this is to be found in the translations made from their text.

In order to support the above statement, you would have to show that their translation was NOT based upon textual MSS

AND that it was a mistranslation. You fail to do that.

Gregory,

I was not speaking of translations made by Westcott and Hort themselves. I said "translations made from their text." In other words, they changed the original manuscripts. Others then used those manuscripts to translate our modern Bible versions. Look at those translations to see what came out from their manuscripts.

Obviously, if they changed something, don't expect the translation based upon their change to remain the same as it always has, right?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Green Cochoa]

http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Exegetical/NIV_defense.htm

The above may be of interest in this discussion.

Yes, that is relevant, but perhaps biased back the other direction--which is what I believe may have been the ultimate intent of Gail Riplinger. I think she may have been a behind-the-scenes supporter of all of the modern versions who chose to use reverse-psychology to cause people to reject the arguments against them. In any case, her book has had that effect.

I like the KJV. I recognize that no version or translation is perfect--and it is debatable whether any translation could ever be so. The KJV has some errors.

It is true that the modern versions have much more egregious errors. But Gail Riplinger was so far out in what she wrote, so lacking in actual facts, so immoderate in her presentation of things, often misquoting a source entirely by taking it out of context or using inappropriate ellipses that her book inspires a "gag reflex" in any reasonable person who reads it.

I will say this, Gregory: If you can prove that any statement I make here about Westcott and Hort can only be sourced in her book, I will readily retract it. I will not knowingly use any of her material to support any case regarding Bible versions. I don't trust anything she said.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Green Cochoa]

Here is a link to some scholarly material written by someone who reads the Bible in Greek, English and Italian. He supports the KJV translation to English, and analyzes the work of Westcott and Hort. I present it simply as further material worth studying for those who are desirous of finding the truth about the Bible manuscripts.

The Majority Text of the New Testament (PDF)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Green Cochoa]

Originally Posted By: Gibs

The KJV is not copyrighted, it is still the very best from the best manuscripts.

People will vehemently defend the corrupt versions but have at it.

You are forgetting that EGW used a Hort/Westcott bible.

Which Bible was this, and which year was it published? The reason I ask is that the Hort/Westcott text was not completed until 1881, the very year that the American Standard Bible, quoted by Mrs. White more than once, was first published. The Bible cannot have been translated in that same year, so unless the translators were at that same time cooperating with Westcott and Hort, tying their version to it will be difficult.

I know Mrs. White did quote from a few other versions, but I think she seldom did so. Remember, she quoted from many people extensively, including D'Aubigne for "The Great Controversy." God gave her wisdom to recognize what was truth and what was not. She did not quote from everyone in her day, nor did she always quote everything. God gave her discernment. She was a prophet.

We are not always gifted to that same degree. If Mrs. White quoted from a particular version and verse, I would feel comfortable accepting said verse from said version. But that does not mean that every verse from that version is safe.

Interestingly, there are a few notable verses in the KJV which Mrs. White never used. One of them is 1 John 5:7. Whether that was to stay out of the controversy over the Johannine Comma or whether that was to say that the verse was an uninspired addition, we may never know this side of Heaven. But, based on her unwillingness to use that text to support the Godhead doctrine that she clearly taught, I also am reticent to defend its authenticity or to enter into argument about it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Gibs]

But the fact is we can know that 1 John 5:7 is correct as Jesus told us so too.

For the context I put in verses, 28,29,

Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

And then of the Holy Spirit Jesus tells us,

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

It cannot be denied, 1 John 5:7 stays and the old KJV is correct.

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

1Jo 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

1Jo 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said:

Quote:

In other words, they changed the original manuscripts.

That is where you simply do not understand what you are talking about.

Valid arguments may be made in regard to their selection of MSS. That is where the fundamental issue lies: What are the MSS that should be used in translating the Bible?

For those who would like to know more on this subject I will suggest the following book which has been well recieved by the scholarly world:

Guglliotto, Lee J. HANDBOOK FOR BIBLE STUDY: A GUIDE OT UNDERSTANDING, TEACHING, AND PREACHING THE WORD OF GOD. Review & Herald Publishing Assoc., 1995 & 2000, 464 pages. See: Chapter 13, "Is the King James the Most Accurate Version of the New Testament? Pages 313 - 347.

You will find in that chapter much of interest to this discussion.

NOTE: The so-called "Neutral Text" ascribed to Westcott & Hort is actually the Alexandrian Text.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

But the fact is we can know that 1 John 5:7 is correct as Jesus told us so too.

The fact that a verse correctly states a doctrine does not mean that the verse belongs in the Bible.

[Gibs]

From what I've read, Erasmus questioned if 1 John 5:7 should be there and asked for reliable manuscript and they gave him some and so he was obliged put it there.

[Green Cochoa]

NOTE: The so-called "Neutral Text" ascribed to Westcott & Hort is actually the Alexandrian Text.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

From what I've read, Erasmus questioned if 1 John 5:7 should be there and asked for reliable manuscript and they gave him some and so he was obliged put it there.

1) Erasmus did not ask for a "reliable MSS." He stated that he would use it if they could produce a single MSS.

2) They did. Erasmus did not consider it to be reliable and stated so. But, he kept his word. They produced a MSS, that he beleived had been erased and rewritten. So, he inserted it.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

The "neutral text" is not exactly any one manuscript.

Exactly true.

Quote:

Westcott and Hort edited their text from multiple sources, choosing the one they preferred for any given passage--or just eliminating the text altogether if they found a manuscript that lacked it.

While the above is somewhat simplistic, it is basicly true. That is exactly what any translator does in translating the Bible. It is exactly what has been done for every translation of the Bible that exists today.

The material that you have provided from their publication actually supports my position and not yours.

Every translator comes up with a text that contains MSS support for every verse. There is no one MSS that contains the entire Bible. The translator therefore has to decide what MSS will be the basis for the translation. Every basis for translation from the origonal languages does this and is based upon this. Those texts that are then prepared for translation useage contain the notes that provide the MSS support for the text.

Once this is done, the translator then translated from that text to the language which for me is English.

Wesstcott & Hort did not change the text. The text was based upon MSS support, right or wrong.

One can argue as to the decisions that they made. Bot, one should not say that they willy-nelly changed the text.

[Gail]

Originally Posted By: Gail

You are forgetting that EGW used a Hort/Westcott bible.

Which Bible was this, and which year was it published? The reason I ask is that the Hort/Westcott text was not completed until 1881, the very year that the American Standard Bible, quoted by Mrs. White more than once, was first published. The Bible cannot have been translated in that same year, so unless the translators were at that same time cooperating with Westcott and Hort, tying their version to it will be difficult.

I know Mrs. White did quote from a few other versions, but I think she seldom did so. Remember, she quoted from many people extensively, including D'Aubigne for "The Great Controversy." God gave her wisdom to recognize what was truth and what was not. She did not quote from everyone in her day, nor did she always quote everything. God gave her discernment. She was a prophet.

We are not always gifted to that same degree. If Mrs. White quoted from a particular version and verse, I would feel comfortable accepting said verse from said version. But that does not mean that every verse from that version is safe.

Interestingly, there are a few notable verses in the KJV which Mrs. White never used. One of them is 1 John 5:7. Whether that was to stay out of the controversy over the Johannine Comma or whether that was to say that the verse was an uninspired addition, we may never know this side of Heaven. But, based on her unwillingness to use that text to support the Godhead doctrine that she clearly taught, I also am reticent to defend its authenticity or to enter into argument about it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It was the RV, also known as the English Revised Version. To her it would have been a new translation.

You make a good point about discernment, and that needs to be our guide via the Holy Spirit whenever we study or even read the Bible or any other book, perhaps.

[Green Cochoa]

Going back to what I was saying earlier about fasting, as an example of some of the differences, take a look at the following table.

King James' Version (Translation from Majority Text)	New International Version (Translation from "Neutral Text"/NU)
Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way. (Matthew 15:32, KJV)	Jesus called his disciples to him and said, “I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way.” (Matthew 15:32, NIV)
The message is a little different in these two texts, though the difference is subtle. In the KJV rendition, it is implied that the people have been fasting already, and thus may "faint in the way." The NIV lacks the term "fasting" altogether and seems to speak as though the people had just run out of food yet have a bit of a journey ahead for which they have no stores. Ultimately, notice the aversion to the use of the word "fasting" in the NIV.
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. (Matthew 17:21, KJV)	ENTIRE VERSE OMITTED IN NIV
It's pretty clear what the NIV and/or underlying text did here, isn't it? Basically, the editors or translators faced a dilemma. If they omitted only the word "fasting," as they have done in some other places, it renders the translation almost ridiculous. After all, what is the difference between invoking Jesus' name when casting out demons and prayer? Anytime we call upon Jesus can be called prayer. So if it were to say "only by prayer," then the disciples would have had a case with Jesus, for had they not called on Him? "Now in the name of Christ they commanded the torturing spirit to leave his victim; but the demon only mocked them by a fresh display of his power." (EGW)
And if I send them away fasting to their own houses, they will faint by the way: for divers of them came from far. (Mark 8:3, KJV)	If I send them home hungry, they will collapse on the way, because some of them have come a long distance.” (Mark 8:3, NIV)
Again the NIV avoids the use of the word "fasting." Consider that "fasting" implies a voluntary action, whereas "hungry" is involuntary.
And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. (Mark 9:29, KJV)	He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer.”(Mark 9:29, NIV)
The NIV translation contains an alteration of Christ's words here, probably so as not to draw undue attention to the fact that for Matthew 17:21 they had omitted the entire verse. At least this time they leave half the message intact, however questionable it might seem.
And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. (Luke 2:37, KJV)	and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. (Luke 2:37, NIV)
The NIV turns the meaning of this verse into pure ridiculousness! The translators seem so worked up about eliminating all doctrine of "fasting" that they have overlooked the meaning they have now imposed upon the text! (They allow historical accounts of fasting, just not commands or examples to fast.) How can a woman be a widow all her life until the age of 84? This one is hilarious! The KJV is clear that fasting is a part of worship. The NIV might also imply this, but seems to account for it by the fact that the woman never even left the temple, as if it were one long, continuous fast! (I have yet to meet anyone who can fast for that long--84 years--and then find a husband in that condition!) Or are they trying to say that her fast is of a different sort? If the NIV translators were simply basing their translation on the text of Westcott and Hort, shouldn't they have caught this anomaly and looked for other manuscripts?
And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, (Acts 10:30, KJV)	Cornelius answered: “Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me (Acts 10:30, NIV)
This is a fairly important passage with respect to clean and unclean definitions. Many people understand it to speak of foods. The reference to fasting, only in the KJV, shows the humility of Cornelius and helps the reader to understand the true meaning of the passage.
And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. (Acts 14:23, KJV)	Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust. (Acts 14:23, NIV)
Since I've been quoting every single NT verse which uses the word "fasting" in the KJV, I went ahead and included this one. Both versions here record that they prayed and fasted. But this is not in command form, nor does it appear to necessarily recommend the custom. So the NIV translators left it alone this time. The more interesting change in this verse is that related to the concept of "ordained." NIV avoided that term here.
And while the day was coming on, Paul besought them all to take meat, saying, This day is the fourteenth day that ye have tarried and continued fasting, having taken nothing. (Acts 27:33, KJV)	Just before dawn Paul urged them all to eat. “For the last fourteen days,” he said, “you have been in constant suspense and have gone without food–you haven't eaten anything. (Acts 27:33, NIV)
Again, the NIV omits the word "fasting." In this particular case, it is unclear if the fast were on account of having no other option, or if it were voluntarily practiced. In either case, the NIV wastes no opportunity to shift to a different word.
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. (1 Corinthians 7:5, KJV)	Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (1 Corinthians 7:5, NIV)
Here again, in their haste to eliminate the doctrine of fasting, the NIV translators have turned this verse into a ridiculous one. First of all, does one need to abstain from marital relations in order to pray? How much sense would that make? Secondly, when fasting as a part of one's worship to God, an individual will be keeping their thoughts pure and have a greater measure of self-control (theoretically).It would seem, then, inadvisable to cease relations unless devoting oneself more completely to God in this manner, lest he or she be tempted as the text says. Now, notice what the NIV does with the meaning? This one gets reversed! Is it a "lack of self-control" to be able to refrain from marital relations while devoting time to God? The KJV, on the other hand, correctly speaks of the temptation which would result from a lack of continuance in the marital relation. Whether or not one deems himself to have self-control, this text, in the KJV, serves to warn him against prolonging such a fast.
In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; (2 Corinthians 6:5, KJV)	in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; (2 Corinthians 6:5, NIV)
Again, no mention of fasting in the NIV--only the involuntary counterpart.
In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. (2 Corinthians 11:27, KJV)	I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. (2 Corinthians 11:27, NIV)
Here, the KJV lists both the voluntary "fastings" and the involuntary "hunger and thirst." The NIV erases the voluntary form.

Any of the "NIV" errors in the above table may have been caused by the underlying Greek manuscripts which had been selected for the translation. Of course, inferior manuscripts will produce inferior translations--and inconsistencies in the final copy. When dealing with God's Word, inconsistencies are highly undesirable.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.