Westcott & Hort

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, let me cite two of your texts:

1) Matt. 15:32--" . . . I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now continued with Me three days and have nothing to eat. And I do not want to sent them away hungry, lest they faint on the way."

2) Mark 8:3--" And if I send them away hungryto their own houses, they will faint on the way; for some of them have come from afar."

Please tell me the translation of the Bible that is reflected above.

I will give you a hint:

1) It is a translation that is based upon the same text as was used by the King James.

2) It is a translation that is ". . . in conformity to . . . the 1611 Bible.

Now, can you tell me the translation that I have cited.

Answer: I have quoted from the New King James Bible!

The NKJ uses the word "fasting" is some of the places that you have cited.

It does not use the word "fasting" in the passages that I have cited and in others because the translators of the NKJV did not believe that today the English word "fasting" properlly translated the MSS. It was not because they objected to the idea of fasting and they used that word in other places.

Translators, such as Wescott and Hortt translate. They do not ammend the text. The NKJV clearly supports, in the passages that I have cited, the same readings as the NIV--not the origonal KJV reading. And, the NKJV translators used the same MSS as did the KJV translators, in general.

[Green Cochoa]

Gregory,

The NKJV leaned toward the modern versions based on a reading of the "Neutral Text" or the "NU" in a few places. Isaiah 14:12 is one of them. It is true that the NKJV mostly comes from the Majority Text/Textus Receptus line, but there are spots where it deviated. As such, while I still accept the NKJV, especially for those who prefer it due to limited English ability, I much prefer the KJV.

That said, you may have a valid point on those texts. I put every NT text which uses "fasting" in the KJV in the table in an attempt to be comprehensive. This does not mean all of those verses are important to the doctrine of fasting. The ones that are more important are the ones that the NIV did more than change the wording...it eliminated it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[John317]

... 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.

Are you talking about Matt 17: 21, Mark 9: 29, Acts 10: 30 and 1 Cor 7: 5?

I believe those are the only verses in the W & H Greek text which omit reference to fasting. (Let me know if you find others.)

There are at least two important issues involved here:

1) Is there legitimate textual reasons for the omission? Or are the omissions due to Westcott and Hort's ulterior motive to deceive and change doctrine?

2) Does the doctrine of fasting depend on those 4 texts? That is to say, are there other Scriptures which support the teaching that fasting is part of God's plan for His people?

First of all, please notice that even the SDA Bible Commentary on Matt 17: 21 tells us that the textual evidence for inclusion of this verse in the NT is divided.

Also notice the same Bible commentary on Mark 9: 29 says that "textual evidence favors the omission" of the word "fasting." So it is saying the textual evidence for Mark 9: 29 is stronger than the evidence for Matt 17: 21. I agree with this.

I personally find that the textual evidence favoring inclusion of "fasting" at Mark 9: 29 is indeed far stronger than the evidence supporting it at Matt 17: 21. While I disagree with the decision of the editors, I can understand why it's been omitted in both verses. It is clear that the decision to omit them was not owing to a personal desire to change doctrine. It was omitted because of the textual philosophy of the editors, not only of W&H but of the modern editors of the printed Critical Texts, the UBS 1 to 4 and N/A 25 to 27. All of these printed texts contain introductions in which the editors set forth the grounds on which they made their decisions with regard to the NT text.

Having said that, though, I believe the evidence is such that "and fasting" ought to be included in Mark 9: 29. It is supported by Papyrus 45, a manuscript dated to the third century AD. It is also supported by thousands of manuscripts; whereas its omission is indicated by only 4 manuscripts. But the primary reason it has been omitted is that it does not occur in the Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. (Whenever these two codices are in agreement, it often does not matter what the other manuscripts show; the editors of the Critical Texts typically, though not always, follow the testimony of those two witnesses.)

The second editor of the Sinaiticus "corrected" it so that it reads "and fasting," and it is also included in the Codex Alexandrinus of the fifth century, besides being in the vast number of manuscripts that are included in the Majority Text.

As for 1 Cor 7: 5, I agree with the SDA Bible Commentary that "textual evidence attests the omission" of the words "fasting and." The textual evidence is very strong against it.

At Acts 10: 30, it's all of the Coptic texts (4th and 5th century codices) plus Papyrus 45 (dated 300 AD) versus the Majority Text.

Lastly, however, even if we go along with the translations based on the Critical Text, I don't believe the doctrine of fasting depends on Matt 17: 21, Mark 9: 29, Acts 10: 30, and 1 Cor 7: 5.

There are many other texts in the Bible which support the practice of fasting, although Jesus Himself did not approve or disapprove of the Jews' traditions of ritualistic fasting twice a week. All Jesus said about fasting (Matt 6: 16-18)is that we should do it sincerely, and not in order to be seen by other people. Without the above verses, while we don't have any specific requirement from God to fast, yet the Bible does support voluntary and sincere fasting in the following texts: Deut. 9: 18; 1 Sam 7: 6; Ps. 35: 13; 69: 10; 109: 24; 2 Chron 20: 3; Ezra 8: 21; 10: 6; Neh. 1: 4; 9: 1; Jer. 36: 6; Daniel 9: 3; 10: 1-3; Jonah 3: 5-10;; Joel 1: 14; Joel 2: 12-13; Matt 6: 16-18; Matt 9: 14-15; Luke 2: 37; Acts 9: 9; 13: 2-3; 14: 23.

[John317]

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.

I don't believe they did this, but I am willing to look at your evidence.

What manuscripts do you have in mind, and what particular verses or words were changed by W&H?

[John317]

Here is a link to some scholarly material written by someone who reads the Bible in Greek, English and Italian.

The Majority Text of the New Testament (PDF)

Excellent resource. Thank you for posting this.

[Gregory Matthews]

John 317 said:

Quote:

It is clear that the decision to omit them was not owing to a personal desire to change doctrine. It was omitted because of the textual philosophy of the editors, not only of W&H but of the modern editors of the printed Critical Texts, the UBS 1 to 4 and N/A 25 to 27. All of these printed texts contain introductions in which the editors set forth the grounds on which they made their decisions with regard to the NT text.

And, he said itmuch better than I.

That is my fundamental point. One can make valid arguments as to the textual MSS that should be used. Scholars do disagree on that point. There are valid arguments that may be made about the decisions that W & H made. But, those arguments are far different from the arguments that accuse W & H of intentionally changing the texts and/or bias.

Those arguments are simply not fair and often reflect an ignorance of what everyone has to do in preparing to translate the Bible.

Green's listing of examples where translators have replaced the word "fasting" is simply one example of an inappropriate argument. To be appropriate, Green should in every example, discuss the MSS basis that the translator used and tell us that there is a more appropriate MSS any why.

[John317]

...

Which Bible was this [that Ellen White quoted, using the W &H text,ed], 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.

The NT of the English Revised was based on the W&H Greek text, and was first published in 1881, 1885. The American Standard Version as first published in 1901.

Ellen White quoted both of these.

By quoting them, as when she quoted the KJV, Ellen White was not suggesting that those translations were perfect and had no need of revision.

Quote:

English Revised Version (1881-1895)

New Testament 1881. C.J. Ellicott, et al., The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Translated out of the Greek: Being the Version Set Forth A.D. 1611, Compared with the Most Ancient Authorities and Revised, A.D. 1881. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1881.

The New Testament version commonly called the “Revised Version” (RV) or the “English Revised Version” (ERV) of 1881, of which the American Standard Version was an American edition. This version is a revision of the King James version made on the basis of Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857. The readings adopted by the committee of revisers were presented in a continuous Greek text in Palmer 1881, which includes marginal notes showing every departure from the Greek text presumed to underlie the King James version (for which see Scrivener 1881). See the version’s preface for detailed explanations of the principles and method of revision.

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

[John317]

The NKJV leaned toward the modern versions based on a reading of the "Neutral Text" or the "NU" in a few places. Isaiah 14:12 is one of them. It is true that the NKJV mostly comes from the Majority Text/Textus Receptus line, but there are spots where it deviated. As such, while I still accept the NKJV, especially for those who prefer it due to limited English ability, I much prefer the KJV.

In Isaiah 14: 12, the Hebrew texts are all the same. If there is any difference in translations based on the Hebrew, it is due simply to the decision of the translators to put the meaning of "Lucifer" into modern English-- "O day star," ASV-- instead of transliterating it as was done in the KJV and the NKJV.

"The Majority Text," "Neutral Text," and "NU" are terms that only apply to the New Testament.

I also prefer to the KJV, but I do often use the NKJV, RSV, NASV, and many others. One of my favorite is the ESV Study Bible.

By the way, at Jude 5 the ESV follows UBS 2 and reads, "Jesus saved the people out of the land of Egypt."

[John317]

x10

[Gregory Matthews]

Why am I so concerned over this issue?

I happen to beleive that while the Bible is a mixture of the human and the devine, God has preserved its essential message and that it is trustworthy and can be depended upon.

I do not have a problem acknowledgine some human error that in my opinion does not affect the Bible's foundational truth. It is not a problem for me that some can claim that the name of the Egyptan city Ramses is improperly used in the book of Genesis. NOTE: There is a good answer for that one.

But, I happen to believe that much of what is typically raised in objections tends to destroy faith in what God has revealed. In my thinking, this applies to much of what is said about the KJV, Westcott & Hort and modern translations. The effect is to destroy faith in the Word of God.

There are valid questions that can be raised and answered. I feel most strongly about this when I see people making statements that are simply false and/or have an incorrect premise. These, I beleive come from the one known as the Father of Lies, who has the goal to destroy faith in the Word of God.

I do not accuse anyone posting here of intentional falsehood. I do not accuse anyone here of working with the Father of Lies.

But, this is why I react so strongly.

[phkrause]

Why am I so concerned over this issue?

I happen to beleive that while the Bible is a mixture of the human and the devine, God has preserved its essential message and that it is trustworthy and can be depended upon.

I do not have a problem acknowledgine some human error that in my opinion does not affect the Bible's foundational truth. It is not a problem for me that some can claim that the name of the Egyptan city Ramses is improperly used in the book of Genesis. NOTE: There is a good answer for that one.

But, I happen to believe that much of what is typically raised in objections tends to destroy faith in what God has revealed. In my thinking, this applies to much of what is said about the KJV, Westcott & Hort and modern translations. The effect is to destroy faith in the Word of God.

There are valid questions that can be raised and answered. I feel most strongly about this when I see people making statements that are simply false and/or have an incorrect premise. These, I beleive come from the one known as the Father of Lies, who has the goal to destroy faith in the Word of God.

I do not accuse anyone posting here of intentional falsehood. I do not accuse anyone here of working with the Father of Lies.

But, this is why I react so strongly.

[Green Cochoa]

Gregory,

I agree that the last thing we should be doing is undermining faith in the Bible. But, from my perspective, that is exactly what the devil has been working at doing via the modern versions of the Bible. Each one says different things. They introduce contradictions into the word of God, and skeptics are given fodder for their arguments. If Christians had soundly rejected the modern versions as being perversions of the pure Word of God, the skeptics would not have much leg to stand on. As it is, the devil laughs, for he sees all of the confusion he has succeeded in creating over the matter, as each Christian is forced to wade through a decision about which Bible is best.

Saying that God has preserved truth in all of the versions is like saying God has preserved truth in all churches. It is true, of course, that He has. But does that mean they are all equivalent sources of truth? I do not believe they are.

If I, having studied the matter carefully, have come to know that one source is superior to the others, is it not my duty to make this fact known to others? We are not supposed to hide our lights under bushels. Let the truth be taught.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Gibs]

Weave in just a mite of error and it is no longer truth.

[Gail]

Weave in just a mite of error and it is no longer truth.

So, translating "sheol" as hell, not grave, is an error found in the KJV. Does that make the KJV a bad translation or negate its truth?

[Gail]

Instead of using the KJV to support the popular idea of an everlasting hell, it would be wise to acknowledge that the translators were influenced by their education

[Green Cochoa]

Instead of using the KJV to support the popular idea of an everlasting hell, it would be wise to acknowledge that the translators were influenced by their education

Hell fire is everlasting. This is one of the more commonly misunderstood principles of the Bible. The punishment administered to the wicked is not everlasting, however, and most in our church correctly understand that part.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

If Christians had soundly rejected the modern versions as being perversions of the pure Word of God, . . .

This is exactlly what the Father of Lies would wish to be said. It is a generalization that you apply broadly to the many. It reduces faith in the Word of God and God's ability to preseve that word for us today.

A better course of action would be to teach people of the differences in the purpose and place of the translations. Scholars generally place translations of the Bible in two or three catagories. All agree that the first two are "formal" and "dynamic" translations. Some add "paraphrased" as a third catagory and others make it a sub-catagory of the dynamic. I personally suspect that there will be a forth cathagory that either will be a sub-catagory of the dynamic or perhaps an additional catagory.

The "formal" is best used for doctrinal study and for preaching.

The "dynamic" is best used for devotional study and by people who do not read English at the fifth grade level. NOTE: Are you aware of how many people in the U.S. do not read English at the 5th grade level.

Each catagory has it useage and its appropriate place. A person who does not read at the 5th grade level should be encouraged to read a Bible written at the level of the person's ability to read. He should not be discouraged from doing so by esoteric arguemenets that have no meaning to that person.

Green, I would like to see you encouraging people to read, study and understand the Bible in whatever version they are able to comprehend.

[Green Cochoa]

There is a distinct difference between the Majority Text and the Minority Text in many places. Luke 4:4, a verse that clearly speaks of "every word of God," is one of them.

King James Version (Majority Text)	Other Versions (Minority Text)
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. (Luke 4:4, KJV) (Verse quoted by Jesus) And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. (Deuteronomy 8:3)	Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone.’ ” (NIV)
	And Jesus answered unto him, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone. (ASV)
	And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.’” (NASB)
	And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone.'" (ESV)
	But Jesus told him, “No! The Scriptures say, ‘People do not live by bread alone.’” (NLT)
	Jesus answered by quoting Deuteronomy: "It takes more than bread to really live." (MSG)
Some versions are more flippant in their handling of the Word of God than others, but all of those shown on the right have omitted the “punchline” of the verse. They've left out the principal meaning. Sure, we're not to live by bread alone...upon what then? They leave the reader hanging, without the benefit of Christ's full message. They accept just a truncated version of His words, as if the rest of it weren't important anyway. The trouble is, the rest of it was the chiefest part! If they have no respect for “every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God,” how should we expect them not to have innumerable other alterations?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Green Cochoa]

Gregory,

There are parts of the Bible so plain a child can understand them. There are parts that are more difficult. God intended it this way. The fact that the Bible has some difficult portions is so much the more reason to believe in its Divine inspiration. After all, what kind of God do we serve? Is He truly intelligent? or does His vocabulary end at a fifth-grade level?

I would like to see church members encouraging the young people and others to study diligently, despite the effort it may require.

Far more might be accomplished in the work of self-education if we were awake to our own opportunities and privileges. True education means more than the colleges can give. While the study of the sciences is not to be neglected, there is a higher training to be obtained through a vital connection with God. Let every student take his Bible and place himself in communion with the great Teacher. Let the mind be trained and disciplined to wrestle with hard problems in the search for divine truth. {COL 334.2}

It is a law of the mind that it gradually adapts itself to the subjects upon which it is trained to dwell. If occupied with commonplace matters only, it will become dwarfed and enfeebled. If never required to grapple with difficult problems, it will after a time almost lose the power of growth. As an educating power, the Bible is without a rival. In the word of God the mind finds subject for the deepest thought, the loftiest aspiration. The Bible is the most instructive history that men possess. It came fresh from the fountain of eternal truth, and a divine hand has preserved its purity through all the ages. It lights up the far-distant past, where human research seeks vainly to penetrate. In God's word we behold the power that laid the foundation of the earth and that stretched out the heavens. Here only can we find a history of our race, unsullied by human prejudice or human pride. Here are recorded the struggles, the defeats, and the victories of the greatest men this world has ever known. Here the great problems of duty and destiny are unfolded. The curtain that separates the visible from the invisible world is lifted, and we behold the conflict of the opposing forces of good and evil, from the first entrance of sin, to the final triumph of righteousness and truth; and all is but a revelation of the character of God. In the reverent contemplation of the truths presented in his word, the mind of the student is brought into communion with the infinite mind. Such a study will not only refine and ennoble the character, but it cannot fail to expand and invigorate the mental powers. {CE 65.1}

To summarize, Mrs. White is essentially saying that the Bible presents "difficult problems" that the mind can grapple with to its own benefit. By these the mind is expanded, invigorated, strengthened, and ennobled. Praise God, then, for the "difficulties" in the Bible!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: Gail

Instead of using the KJV to support the popular idea of an everlasting hell, it would be wise to acknowledge that the translators were influenced by their education

Hell fire is everlasting. This is one of the more commonly misunderstood principles of the Bible. The punishment administered to the wicked is not everlasting, however, and most in our church correctly understand that part.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm positive Gail understands that. That isn't what she was addressing in her post. She was addressing the idea that the KJV endorses an everlasting punishing, not punishment.

It seems to me that one can support error, of one form or another, from almost any Bible version in existence. However, I also believe God's promises, and He promised to lead us into all truth and to save to the uttermost those who trust in, rely on, and believe His word and Him.

As long as I ask for the Holy Spirit's guidance to lead me into what He wants me to learn and that I ask not study to support my own biases, then I will learn truth, no matter what version of the Bible I use. It's when we start relying on our own abilities, and I think this "version" argument is based upon this reliance of our own abilities to read, study and reason things out. Far less confidence in our abilities, and a greater confidence in God's abilities and promises would lead us to trust Him more with our eternal well-being, and to argue less over things like this.

[Gail]

Originally Posted By: Gail

Instead of using the KJV to support the popular idea of an everlasting hell, it would be wise to acknowledge that the translators were influenced by their education

Hell fire is everlasting. This is one of the more commonly misunderstood principles of the Bible. The punishment administered to the wicked is not everlasting, however, and most in our church correctly understand that part.

But it is not where they go when they die. They go to "sheol", the grave.

[Gail]

This is exactly what the Father of Lies would wish to be said. It is a generalization that you apply broadly to the many. It reduces faith in the Word of God and God's ability to preseve that word for us today.

A better course of action would be to teach people of the differences in the purpose and place of the translations. Scholars generally place translations of the Bible in two or three catagories. All agree that the first two are "formal" and "dynamic" translations. Some add "paraphrased" as a third catagory and others make it a sub-catagory of the dynamic. I personally suspect that there will be a forth cathagory that either will be a sub-catagory of the dynamic or perhaps an additional catagory.

The "formal" is best used for doctrinal study and for preaching.

The "dynamic" is best used for devotional study and by people who do not read English at the fifth grade level. NOTE: Are you aware of how many people in the U.S. do not read English at the 5th grade level.

Each catagory has it useage and its appropriate place. A person who does not read at the 5th grade level should be encouraged to read a Bible written at the level of the person's ability to read. He should not be discouraged from doing so by esoteric arguemenets that have no meaning to that person.

Green, I would like to see you encouraging people to read, study and understand the Bible in whatever version they are able to comprehend.

Amen, Greg! And I would add that if our people were more knowledgeable about the differences they would be able to study with people using their own Bibles rather than condemning them right off the bat. It is another one of these, "I'm right and you're wrong" cases that can be avoided so that actual Bible study can occur.

[Green Cochoa]

Gail,

I guess perhaps I was not clear enough in what I was responding to. You posted twice, once about the grave, and once about "everlasting hell." I didn't suppose you to be equating the two. If I was mistaken, please enlighten me. It might be helpful if you would suggest the specific verses that you are considering.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Gail]

But the translators of the KJV DID equate the two, that is the point. That is because that was their understanding in their day of the doctrine. It is a case where a preconceived idea got into the translation.

Interestingly, the Jerusalem Bible does render the word "grave". Catholic Bible.

I have found in my experience that there are just times when other translations are just so much clearer. If you include a number of them you will quickly discover which verses result from cloudy renderings in the original mss.

One example: I have been spending some time in 1 Cor.13. Now although I love the KJV, in this chapter the word, "charity" just doesn't impress my heart as deeply as "love". So for memorizing I think I will go with the ASV.

But there is a part that the translators of differing versions don't agree. It is the part about giving one's body over to be burned. Some versions render it like that. Others say something about having something of which to boast (as if giving your body to death for Christ is something to boast about, I guess).

Now, because I do not speak Greek, I wouldn't be able to tell which is the better or the intended (by the author) rendering. I can use my heart and pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance at this point. Someone who knows the original language would be a help, too, as well as digging into a Strong's.

But to me it seems better to be aware of BOTH ways that the verse is translated, so that I can be informed when in discussions.

In a nutshell, I am saying, Be aware... Know what your Bible study partner is using and use that to the Lord's advantage. Being dogmatic about the KJV might close off a crack of influence that you might otherwise gain.

[Green Cochoa]

But the translators of the KJV DID equate the two, that is the point.

May I have the privilege of an example or two of this?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.