Westcott & Hort

[Gregory Matthews]

Green: Thank you for correcting me on the name. I do appreciate correction of factual errors on my part as I do not and have never claimed to be free of error.

As to Wilkinson's background: Your biographical note presents him as primarily an administrator, rather than a scholar. It fails to list his doctoral background which would indicate his area of expertese. It fails to mention any publications in peer-reviewed journals. In short, it failed to present him as an expert in anything. He may very well have been an expert in something. I just do not know what that might be and it is not indicated in your posts.

[Gregory Matthews]

As copied by Jackson, Wilkinson is cited as saying:

Quote:

This arrangement left the committee at the mercy of a determined triumvirate to lead the weak and to dominate the rest. All reports indicate that an iron rule of silence was imposed upon these Revisers during the ten years. The public was kept in suspense all the long weary ten years. And only after elaborate plans had been laid to throw the Revised Version all at once upon the market to effect a tremendous sale, did the world know what had gone on.”{ibid, p 86)}

Phrases like: "mercy of a determined triumvirate," "iron rule of silence," "public kept in suspense," "long weary ten years," and "elaborate plalns . . . to throw the Revised Version all at once upon the market to effect a tremendous sale," tend to inflame people, are judgemental and unsupported by fact as well as being speculative. They consist of opinion, that is not supported by fact.

Here is what Hall said, in the URL that I provided:

Quote:

How these widely separated Companies have done their cooperative work, is a matter that will interest those who now enjoy its results. The mode of operation may be briefly described thus: The English Companies upon both Testaments transmit from time to time, confidential copies of their revision to the American Companies, and the American Companies send the results of their labors to The British Companies, likewise in the strictest confidence. A second revision on the part of both Committees then follows, with a view to harmonize whatever differences may appear in the two revisions, and the results of this revision are interchanged.

If any differences remain after the final revision, they will be indicated in an appendix, or by some such means. Doubtless these will be few and unessential as compared with the large number of improvements already adopted.

This work is not distributed among sub-committees, as was the case with the Revisers of King James, but the whole Old Testament Company is going through all the books of the Old Testament, and the New Testament Company as a whole, has gone through those of the New. In this way far better results will be secured than is possible under any other system.

This revision has been carried on without publicity, and the actual results of the work were in no case made known until the recent issue of the completed New Testament. By this wise course the Committees have saved themselves an incalculable amount of profitless controversy. All professed quotations from their work and statements of changes at one point or another, made at an earlier date, have been wholly unauthorized.

Hall gives facts. He limits his opinon. His statements do not inflame, but allow people to determine for themselves whether or not he is correct when he states an opinion.

In short, Wilkinson writes in a manner that sober (not related to alcohol), reflective people are unlikely to see as vaulable.

There are major differences between the two statements.

[Green Cochoa]

Green: Thank you for correcting me on the name. I do appreciate correction of factual errors on my part as I do not and have never claimed to be free of error.

As to Wilkinson's background: Your biographical note presents him as primarily an administrator, rather than a scholar. It fails to list his doctoral background which would indicate his area of expertese. It fails to mention any publications in peer-reviewed journals. In short, it failed to present him as an expert in anything. He may very well have been an expert in something. I just do not know what that might be and it is not indicated in your posts.

Gregory,

Unless you were born about 1920 and have specific knowledge to the contrary that I may not be privy to regarding journalistic standards in those days, my sources tell me that such a practice was not common until the mid-twentieth century, some decades after Dr. Wilkinson published his books. I should not think your requirement that he be peer-reviewed in order to have had credibility is quite fair.

I am not here to defend Dr. Wilkinson. I will simply say that he studied deeply into the subject, he had experience working in many countries, with many languages and cultures and would certainly have had some wisdom of experience that would not be reflected on an academic degree with respect to the topic of translations and of linguistic matters. This would have uniquely qualified him as deserving our respect in treating upon the subject of Biblical translation. I realize, Gregory, that some people might only be satisfied by double-doctorate, Nobel-winning laureates who deserved more praise than the humble words of the scriptures themselves. I am not among those. I believe that the scriptures teach a different Source of wisdom than that which is applauded by society. One does not need a doctorate in Biblical literature to be able to expound on Bible truth. Praise God!

To quote One who never graduated from high school, "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Johann]

It is interesting that Benjamin G. Wilkinson was endorsed by Baptist David Otis Fuller who sent him straight to heaven when he died in 1968. http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_great_which_bible.htm

[Johann]

Quote:

Fuller dedicated much of his life to the defense of the Byzantine text-type as embodied in the Textus Receptus and, largely, the King James Version...

Fuller’s three volumes on the subject of texts and versions contain the full or summarized works of many older authorities on the textual issue. The most notable influence being Benjamin G. Wilkinson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Otis_Fuller

Wilkinson appears to be promoted now by Hartland.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green: I will grant you your point on peer-reviewed articles.

However, on the following:

Quote:

I will simply say that he studied deeply into the subject, he had experience working in many countries, with many languages and cultures and would certainly have had some wisdom of experience that would not be reflected on an academic degree with respect to the topic of translations and of linguistic matters.

No evidence is presented as to his deep study.

Experience in working in many countries with many languages and cultures: The Biblical MSS/text date from hundreds of years of age. The languages and culture of the times in which the MSS were written were far different from the languages and cultures in the modern countries.

That is a major error made by the earliest of Biblical translators. E.G. They did not realize that the Biblical Greek differs from modern Greek. The same is true for Hebrew. I trust that you will NOT tell us that the Biblical Aramaic is similar to a modern language!

I have to assume that your reference to Wilkinson's experience in many languages and culture is that of modern languages and cultures. I certainly do not think that you intended to tell us that he personally experienced the ancient languages and cultures of the Biblical writers.

So, I repeat my comment: There is no evidence to indicate that Wilkinson had any expertese in the subject matter of which he wrote. Perhaps he did? But, nothing that you have said indicates that he did.

[Gregory Matthews]

Aramaic: Yes there is a modern Aramaic. Over its 3,000 yeara written history, Aramaic developed in a family of what might be called languages or dialects. One form has survived in leturgical useage. There is a modern form which exists today.

As Wikepedia says:

Quote:

However, Jewish Aramaic was different from the other forms both in lettering and grammar. Parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Jewish Aramaic showing the unique Jewish lettering, related to the unique Hebrew script.

Biblical Aramaic differs from any modern language today.

Wilkinson could never have gaines a personal knowledge of the language and culture of those who wrote in the Aramaic of the Bible.

[Green Cochoa]

Gregory,

Which modern languages do you know? How much translation experience do you have?

I speak, read and write multiple languages. I have done a fair bit of translating. I do not have to know Biblical Hebrew, Greek, or Chaldean/Aramaic to understand some of the issues involved with their translation. My comment did not intend to address whether Dr. Wilkinson spoke Greek, ancient or modern. I have been to Greece. I have worshiped in an Adventist church in Athens. I am well aware of the distinction between modern Greek and that which was used anciently.

Do you know which languages Dr. Wilkinson knew or translated? Are you certain that he did not study Biblical Greek? You are making statements without supporting them, as if the full burden of proof was upon the hearer of the statements being made, instead of the speaker.

When you say, "there is no evidence," how hard have you looked? Do you have support for that statement from elsewhere?

These are just questions. I do not have time to respond to everything I see posted here. But I hope that we are not posting errors out of the abundance of ignorance. I know you have a lot of experience as a chaplain. Perhaps you overlooked adding to your statements the support for them which you have.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Green Cochoa]

No evidence is presented as to his deep study.

I have presented a link to one of his books. Here is a link to the major book of his which has been under discussion here.

Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.

If one takes time to read through his materials carefully, whether or not one in the end agrees with them, it is likely that the reader will acknowledge the depth to which Dr. Wilkinson has gone to research his subject and to present his materials.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Gregory Matthews]

I have studied five (5)ancient and modern languages and am fluent only in English. You probably know more than I. I do not claim to be an expert in any of them.

You probably know quite a bit about issues in translation.

When I said that there was no evidence, I meant within the context of what had been posted about him. E.G. You have never claimed him to be knowledgeable in any specific language. General statements were made about him that were not specific. My comment was to the effect that such general statements were not evidence.

Green, My comments generally in this thread have been related to the posts, rather than the subject matter itself. e.g. I have clearly stated that there are valid criticisms that can be made about modern translations and their foundational texts. But, the posts here have not generally gone in that direction. Rather they have spoken about a lot of other trash that simply does not constitute a valid criticism.

Take a look again at the citations from Hall and Wilkinson. Hall raises issues that people could object to. Wilkinson goes beyond to make unfounded statements that have a basis of truth but not as he stated them.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, a superficial review of Wilkinson's book shows it to be dated and lacking much of what we know today but was not known at the time he worte it.

[Green Cochoa]

Gregory,

Translation (written) is part of my current job. I'm not technically the translator, but I'm a translator's assistant in terms of the technological support needed, and it is necessary that I be literate with the language in order to provide this support. I am also on a translation committee. This is with Asian languages which radically differ from the European ones--of which I am fluent in a couple. I have studied more than half a dozen modern languages, I guess, but am not fluent in all of them. I have worked as an oral translator (simultaneous translation), and have taught English as a foreign language to speakers of multiple languages.

Hebrew and Greek have some similarities to the Asian languages, and some similarities, at times, to European languages. Understanding that no translation is "perfect," nor "word-for-word" literal comes with the territory of one who speaks multiple languages. In the course I took entitled "Translation and Interpretation," it was emphasized that "interpretation" is a necessary part of any good translation, simply because the words do not always exist in both languages. Sometimes a concept simply cannot be translated. Sometimes an idiom fails to achieve its intended impact because it doesn't sound good anymore after having required a couple of sentences to explain it.

The Bible is no stranger to some of these issues. The translation made from Hebrew/Greek to any modern language will suffer and lose a certain percentage of the original thought. (This is one reason I enjoy reading the Bible in multiple languages.) The goal, of course, is to convey the most important points as much as possible. But it is not always easy to achieve.

Westcott and Hort did not seem, however, to have this goal. That is why I take issue with them. They seemed to set out to abbreviate and/or truncate the Word of God. At least 17 whole verses from the New Testament are removed by them, and there are many other indications that they did not respect "every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Gibs]

There is a tremendous amount of peoples defending the "new age versions" of the Bible.

I cannot hold with them. I find Dr. Wilkerson is credible and G A Riplinger wrote an excellent book about them. I've read other works too and uphold the same.

The KJV is far out in front for the Bible, the others are but books in my opinion. Too many additions and other places too much left off.

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.

[Johann]

What was the original purpose of the KJV version?

Quote:

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

Quote:

James I and Richard Bancroft, Bishop of London, later to become Archbishop of Canterbury, drew up instructions for the translators which would ensure that the new version would conform to the theology of the Church of England. http://www.kingjamesbibletrust.org/the-king-james-bible/kjv-timeline

Did the translators make sure that female pastors were not permitted?

[Gibs]

My KJV leads me to believe that God is the only one who truly can ordain and if it is a woman that is fine.

The ordination of men means little, God only knows the ones with His Spirit of truth that will not weave in error.

This not being the topic here I will cease.

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, I understand and agree with all that you said, until the last paragraph.

In order to make the last paragraph a valid statement, you should support it on the basis of the text/MSS. The text is the foundation for all Biblical translation. One cannot say that a specific Biblical translation is wrong unless one cites that text that the translator used.

One can always say that one should have used another Biblical MSS. But, that takes the discussion out of the translation mode.

One might make a valid claim about W & H. But, you and many who argue with them, make claims that should be based upon the text/MSS but instead fault them for their translation, as you have often done. That is where I have argued with you.

Due to past conversations with you, I considered you to have more than minimal knowledge of at least one Asian language. From this perspective, I have never understood how you could make some of the statements that you have made as I believed you to know better.

Please do not misunderstand me. I consider you to be sincere, and dedicated to the Lord. I value that in a person, such as you.

[John317]

John317,

I believe our basic doctrines can be found in the Book of Mormon. Did you know the Book of Mormon speaks of the Sabbath?

No, this is not true-- that all of the Bible's doctrines can be found in the Book of Mormon. I've read it at least three times all the way through, and I can tell you that there are many Bible doctrines (and particularly many SDA doctrines) which can't be found in it

It may speak of the Sabbath, but the important question is, what does it say about the Sabbath?

Joseph Smith claims that God told him that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday so that the first day of the week is now the Holy Sabbath day.

[Gail]

What was the original purpose of the KJV version?

Quote:

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

Quote:

James I and Richard Bancroft, Bishop of London, later to become Archbishop of Canterbury, drew up instructions for the translators which would ensure that the new version would conform to the theology of the Church of England. http://www.kingjamesbibletrust.org/the-king-james-bible/kjv-timeline

Did the translators make sure that female pastors were not permitted?

Which would explain using the word "hell" for Sheol instead of grave.

[John317]

...The KJV says it best on that one.

Here's a Catholic translation of Isaiah 33: 14

The sinners in Zion are afraid;

trembling has seized the godless:

“Who among us can dwell with the devouring fire?

Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings?” (NRSV, Catholic edition)

And the NIV--

The sinners in Zion are terrified;

trembling grips the godless:

“Who of us can dwell with the consuming fire?

Who of us can dwell with everlasting burning?”

[John317]

Quote:

James I and Richard Bancroft, Bishop of London, later to become Archbishop of Canterbury, drew up instructions for the translators which would ensure that the new version would conform to the theology of the Church of England. http://www.kingjamesbibletrust.org/the-king-james-bible/kjv-timeline

Did the translators make sure that female pastors were not permitted?

Haven't most modern translations and the standard Greek-English lexicons been in agreement with the KJV in those verses dealing with women in the NT?

[John317]

... The translation made from Hebrew/Greek to any modern language will suffer and lose a certain percentage of the original thought. (This is one reason I enjoy reading the Bible in multiple languages.) The goal, of course, is to convey the most important points as much as possible. But it is not always easy to achieve.

Westcott and Hort did not seem, however, to have this goal. That is why I take issue with them. They seemed to set out to abbreviate and/or truncate the Word of God. At least 17 whole verses from the New Testament are removed by them, and there are many other indications that they did not respect "every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God."

To draw your conclusion legitimately, you would need to show evidence from the manuscripts that there was no good reason to make those changes.

Did Westcott and Hort remove verses that proceeded from the mouth of God-- or did thy remove verses that never proceeded from God's mouth in the first place?

We have to look carefully at the evidence and draw our conclusions before we can know whether W&H set out to "truncate the word of God."

If W&H really wanted to change the word of God, why didn't they change it so that it doesn't teach all the doctrines?

And since the Critical Text teaches all the same doctrines as the Majority Text and the TR, what would have been their motive to make the changes they made, except to get closer to what they genuinely believed is the original text of the NT?

It's important to keep in mind that W&H's work on the NT manuscripts has been closely and continuously examined ever since the 1880s by hundreds of textual scholars.

[Green Cochoa]

Here's a little "tidbit" of a fact regarding Westcott--a paragraph, unabridged, of his own writing on the topic of mission work. It is taken from his book titled "On Some Points in the Religious Office of the Universities," published in 1873. This would have been written during the time he was preparing his Greek New Testament. I have had to transcribe this from its PDF image form, so if there is a typo or two, bear with me.

Our missionary teaching hitherto has been, I say, for the most part too defined and traditional. We have inherited a priceless treasure of elaborated doctrine, which represents the experience, the thought, the character of the West. We feel, more or less distinctly, how every detail of it is a pledge that Christianity answers to our special wants. We know that it has grown with our growth, even if we are tempted to overlook the present energy of the Divine Spirit by Whom it has been shaped. Our first impulse therefore is to offer exactly that which corresponds with our own position to men who are wholly different from us in history, in faculties, in circumstances of life. But in so doing we really contend, as far as lies in us, to impoverish the resources of humanity. We do dishonour to the infinite fulness of the Gospel. We forget that the value of words changes according to the conditions under which they are used; that the proportionate value of doctrines, if I may so speak, varies with the vicissitudes of the spiritual state; that our common manhood, which Christ redeemed, presents only in separate parts the whole richness of its capacities and wealth; that our essential Creed is a creed of facts which speak at once in the fulness of life to every form of life. The different characteristics of Greek and Latin and Teutonic Christianity are a commonplace with theological students; and can we doubt that India, the living epitome of the races, the revolutions, and the creeds of the East, is capable of adding some new element to the completer apprehension of the Faith? Can we doubt that the intellectual and spiritual sympathies of its leading peoples are with Syria and Greece, rather than with Rome and Germany; that they will move with greater freedom and greater power along the lines traced out by Origen and Athanasius, than along those of Augustine and Anselm, which we have followed? Orientals, in a word, must be guided backwards, that their progress may be more sure and more fruitful. If we could establish the loftiest type of western Christianity in India, as the paramount religion, and it is, I believe, wholly impossible to do so, our triumph would be in the end a loss to Christendom. We should lose the very lessons, which in the providence of God India has to teach us. We should lose the assurance of the true victory which comes from the preservation and development of every power in the new citizens of the kingdom of Christ. We should lose the integrity, the vitality, the infinity of our faith, in the proud assertion of our own supremacy.

For those who take time to read through this carefully, Westcott has preached a few surprising things.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Don777]

Westcott prints surprising thoughts?

For those who take time to read through this carefully, Westcott has preached a few surprising things.

Green, could you point to the sections which are surprising?

As I look this over, Westcott seems to be saying that we should be careful not to push the Western mindset on those in the East (India). As we examine Christianity, we see that such happened in the past.

The Indian people prefer Christian thought arising from Syria and Greece rather than from Rome and Germany; from Origen and Athanasius rather than from Augustine and Anselm.

Brooke Foss Westcott (1873). "On the religious office of the universities."

http://archive.org/stream/onthereligious...Christianity%22

[Gregory Matthews]

Strauss, Mark L., DISTORTING SCRIPTURE? THE CHALLENGE OF BIBLE TRANSLATION & GENDER ACCURACY. Intervarsity Press, 1998, 240 pages.

First, the above book is NOT a liberal book designed to promote a feminist agenda. If you know the Intervarsity Press, they are not considered to be such.

Rather this book is a serious attempt to inform lay people about the Bible and its translation into meaningful language today that preserves the Word of God. It does address issues raised by the “Feminist Versions” which the author identifies as the ILL, NTPI and INT.

In the Introduction the author gives a brief history of the English Bible. It is of interest, as he correctly notes, that the KJV was controversial when it was introduced. The Pilgrims, refused to allow it to be brought on board the Mayflower on its journey to the New World.

A leading Biblical scholar of that day, Hugh Broughton demanded that the KJV be burned, as was what happened when the RSV first appeared.

It is of interest to me that the author of this book clearly believes that the Bible establishes distinct and separate roles for men and women both in the Church and in the home. See page 25.

I find much of value in this book. I especially like Chapter 4, which is devoted to the question: What Is A Bible Translation? A rather funny example of issues related to translation is given from Ghana where the statement that a man got married could be literally translated into English by: “He ate a woman!”

Well, I have said enough. There is much more of value in this book which will be appreciated by many reading in this forum.

[Gail]

Interesting!

That book by Gugliotti (sp) that Gregory mentioned- I think it's now out of print but I managed to find and grab our last copy from the clearance section.

I'm at Camp and it hasn't officially started yet and I've already had my first discussion on Bible versions. Sold him a 400th anniversary edition of the KJV and suggested he research the Geneva Bible and Tyndale's.