Westcott and Hort

Bismarck,

Westcott and Hort claimed that the readings found in the older MSS were actually and consistently older than the readings found in newer MSS, and therefore the older MSS were better on those grounds. Can you argue a few places where Westcott and Hort may have been wrong? Of course I'm asking you for arguments regarding internal evidence of readings that contradict those of Westcott and Hort at any given place in the Greek NT.

 

I do think I witnessed a couple of theological "drive-by shootings" on page 1 in this thread. Or is that just me?
Ed

 

O look! Does PeterAV now embrace odd errors?

Yet this is exactly what happens when he and other KJBOs quote selectively from WH to demonise them.

See what happens when the shoe's on the other foot!

 

Would you check John 7:39 where NA says " Pneuma" without Hagion, while TR says Pneuma Hagion.

Now W-H may claim the Rule _ The Older, The Better, The Oldes is the Best.
What about p66, which has Pneuma Hagion but dates back to around AD 125, much earlier than B, Aleph which date back to around 350?

Do they claim that Hagion was inserted later on?

Would you check this photo? I believe this is one of the powerful evidence denying W-H claim.

http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/p66.html

After clicking please check the sentence where you find Πνα αγιον (6th line), do you think somebody inserted Agion by making a niche there?

 

My understanding is that p66 exclude only verses 2-4 of Jn 8, not entire portion. I don't what is the reason for that, maybe a certain damage.

I recommend you to click on the site and check carefully, as they say there are scars on there which tried to remove Hagion. If that's the case, there might have been another attempt to delete pericope adulterare too, and that is why it doesn't have verse 2-4.

p66 is really interesting!

 

Would you check John 7:39 where NA says " Pneuma" without Hagion, while TR says Pneuma Hagion.

Now W-H may claim the Rule _ The Older, The Better, The Oldes is the Best.
What about p66, which has Pneuma Hagion but dates back to around AD 125, much earlier than B, Aleph which date back to around 350?

Do they claim that Hagion was inserted later on?

Would you check this photo? I believe this is one of the powerful evidence denying W-H claim.

http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/p66.html

After clicking please check the sentence where you find Πνα αγιον (6th line), do you think somebody inserted Agion by making a niche there? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]To compare the differennce between KJV and modern versions reflecting to P66 on this verse is clearly seen. The KJV contains "Holy", but MVs OMITTED "Holy." Shame on MVs!

 

Dr Cassidy,

Do you have any Info on p66 regarding Jn 8:1-11, because I am not sure it deletes verse 2-4 or verse 1 only?
If so,in which way does it omit the verse?

 

Are you really that ignorant of this subject?

W-H, right or wrong, didn't come up with a dynamic way of translating Greek. They came up with a somewhat scientific means for critically evaluating manuscript evidence.</font>[/QUOTE]Oh, thanks for asking. W-H used scientific ways to refute God's Word. Now I am not as ignorant as i used to be!

Again, thank you for clearing up my dark train of thought that somehow Darwin and W-H were closely related in their philosophical approach to things that are already established fact. All three, by your admission, used questionable means to come to a presupposed conclusion, but that conclusion deserves much criticism. Change, yes, especially since their methods are exposed as misleading as to try and prove those same presuppositons. Review? Why? Once they had been exposed, no sense in any further review.

I would deduce that some one of your caliber would reckon these facts for themselves and make some changes instead of holding to any presuppositional philosophies. (being that you did say their works are "presuppositional"

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Did you just slam Spurgeon and Burgon?

 

Did you just slam Spurgeon and Burgon?

It's a "slam" to say that Spurgeon and Burgon didn't demonize Westcott and Hort? What planet are you on?

 

Are you really that ignorant of this subject?

W-H, right or wrong, didn't come up with a dynamic way of translating Greek. They came up with a somewhat scientific means for critically evaluating manuscript evidence.</font>[/QUOTE]Oh, thanks for asking. W-H used scientific ways to refute God's Word. Now I am not as ignorant as i used to be! </font>[/QUOTE] Apparently you are if you can make a statement like this in good faith. W-H for all their real and possible flaws were not attempting to refute God's Word. They made a scholarly effort toward reconstructing the originals based on what they thought were good evidences and assumptions.

It is blatantly un-Christian and dishonest to demonize a person's motives without reason simply because they disagree with you.

Again, thank you for clearing up my dark train of thought that somehow Darwin and W-H were closely related in their philosophical approach to things that are already established fact. All three, by your admission, used questionable means to come to a presupposed conclusion, but that conclusion deserves much criticism.[/quote][/qb] No. I didn't admit any such thing.

W-H were more or less answering/questioning whether the mystical idea that the "traditional texts" preserved by catholicism were the best basis for the Bible.

A completely uncritical approach to the texts relies greatly on the assumption that the Catholic and Orthodox churches have made no significant errors or intentional changes in preserving the texts.

I'll answer what I think you mean...

Darwin presupposed a broad and very unlikely conclustion whose truth relies on acceptance of philosophical naturalism/materialism as absolute governing "truth".

W-H presumed that a scientific method for evaluating evidence would produce a text that was closer to the original autographs. They seemed to have assume that it would look like the older family- Alexandrian.

Their main flaws lie in the assumptions they used concerning how to weight texts. In particular, the oldest is not always the most reliable (Oh, but you would agree with W-H there wouldn't you? ). Another is the assumption that the most difficult reading is to be preferred... having managed data entry personnel who entered thousands of addresses daily... I am certain that no such rule is reasonable.

Because they haven't been exposed since there is no evidence they were hiding anything. They thought they could more accurately reproduce the original Bible texts.

What needs to be reviewed is where they went wrong... Assuming that the TR/KJV is correct isn't a reasonable or honest answer to the question of what the precise wording of the original autographs was.

I presuppose what the Bible clearly and unquestionably declares- That God would preserve His Word. From that starting point, it is perfectly reasonable and godly to seek the most accurate representation of that preservation... It is ungodly to make assumptions based on tradition that one version or text is "perfect" when God said no such thing nor promised that He would give us a word for word facsimile of the originals.

Not nearly as much so as KJVO's... even Darwinists can claim their theory can accommodate the evidence though the probability against their speculation being true is astronomical.

KJVO's continue to hold their theory in spite of evidence that directly contradicts and refutes it- both logical reasoning and historical fact stand in opposition to KJVOnlyism.

 

So are you saying that the MSS Westcott and Hort primarily relied on, Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B), actually do not have the oldest reading in Jn. 7:39, and therefore in other places, where they happen to be the oldest surviving MSS, that they may not have the oldest readings there either?

 

P66 did not contain John 7:53-8:11. These passages that were removed is "dispute" questionable.

I think these passages that were removed were occured at the silence of Greek Fathers because they did not know of manuscripts which contained these passages.

 

Duh! The Greek Fathers used the Byzantine text which contained the pericope! The problem is manuscript A, a very early (5th century) copy of the Byzantine Gospels which omits the verses as do the later Byzantine Gospels as contained in Delta, Theta, and Psi. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you disagree with Dean Burgon and Edward F. Hills concerning the pericope de adultera?

 

I would not be able to answer for generalizing this applicable to other verses. But I am sure W-H logic lost the ground in this case.
If we think about the longer ending of Mark 16, among 619 mss, 617 has longer ending, and it is included even in A, then I would not consider B and Aleph not more important than one of majority mss.
Whenever MV's claim the older the better, they should show the biblical evidence for that, and in this case, such logic didn't work on p66 at all.

http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/p66.html


If we read carefully, we can find a lot of intrinsic evidences supporting Jn 7:53-8:11, the Johannine style, connection with the next sentence, etc.
If we check further issues, again and again B, Aleph lose the ground repeatedly.

 

Now I confirmed about Pericope Adultera.
mss which omit it are p66,p75, B,Aleph,A,C total 6
mss which contain it are about 900.

Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad made the extensive analysis on this and reported in the introduction of NT Majority Text.
He pointed out the Johannine Style in the context. For example:
1) v 6 : this they said, tempting Him
as we can see in 6:6, 7:39, 11:51, 12:6,33, 21:19

2) v 11: sin no more
5:14 : sin no more lest a worse thing come unto thee
3) v 6 : that they might have to accuse Him
5:45 there is one that accuse you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

There are many more.

4) v 12 says I am the light of the world, which matches quite well with dawn break in verse 2.

These are the points pointed out by Zane Hodges and Art Farstad.

 

I see that p75, which is generally thought to be as old as p66, has the same reading of Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) in Jn. 7:39, i.e., omitting Gk. hAGION. So maybe this is not the best example to point to in support of your case?