Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
I ask "why?";
"In the words of Dr. Alfred Martin (see Which Bible?, p. 254) "The (Westcott and Hort) theory was hailed by many when it came forth as practically final, certainly definitive... (?)
"Some of the followers of W & H have been almost unreasoning in their devotion to the theory; (?)
Why should they be practically worshipped as idols, to the extent that it is "considered textual heresy to deviate from their position"?
Why, in the Name of God, has there been no universal question mark placed on these two rascals? and the works produced from their efforts?
"All modern translations are based upon the reconstructed Greek text of Westcott and Hort, two Romanist-oriented scholars, whose purpose was to replace the Protestant and Baptist text with those of the Roman Church and thereby wean back Protestants to the Roman fold.
"These two men denied the blood atonement of Jesus Christ, exalted Mary worship and the Romanish mass, denied the Genesis record, and were ardent evolutionists and had universalist tendencies.
"About 95 percent of all Greek manuscripts that we have are of the Byzantine type.
"This means that the Westcott and Hort texts disagree with 95 percent of extant sources, including Scripture quotations from the writings of the early church fathers, who antedated the texts on which the Westcott and Hort reconstruction was based.
"The Westcott and Hort texts came from Rome and Egypt, depicted as God's enemies in Scripture, whereas the text of the KJV came from Syria and Greece, the areas of the initial outreach of Christianity.
"All translations since 1611 have not been made entirely from the Textus Receptus.
"These did include some of the Textus Receptus but they largely depended on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Codex Vaticanus was found in the pope's library in A. D. 1481 and Codex Sinaiticus was taken from a waste basket on a Mt. Sinai monastery in 1859.
"Both of these manuscripts include the apocryphal books outside of the New Testament canon.
"This makes the new translations based largely on these texts essentially Roman Catholic translations.
"They resemble Jerome's Latin Vulgate and the Rheims-Douai versions of 1582 authorized by the Roman Catholic Church at the infamous Council of Trent."
From: Why I Use The KJV by Elder Milburn Cockrell - Sovereign Grace Landmark Baptist Pastor - Now In Glory
"Two hundred and seventy years passed which brings us to 1881 and the publication of the Revised Version. Three brilliant scholars dominated the whole committee; Brooke Foss Westcott (later Bishop of Durham) and Fenton John Anthony Hort, both professors at Cambridge University;
"Bishop Ellicott, Chairman of the committee who some years before was solidly in favor of the Received Text and the position of John Burgon.
"Ellicott was swung over to the position of Westcott and Hort, so much so that he aided and abetted them in the pledging of the rest of the committee to absolute secrecy when each received a copy of the newly published Westcott and Hort Greek text.
"Why the secrecy?
"That remains to be seen.
"Our study, over a period of ten years, of this whole subject has confirmed the conviction that this was what Burgon calls, in his own language, "a conspiracy."
"Neither Westcott nor Hort ever stated or believed that the Bible was the Verbally Inspired, Inerrant Word of God.
"They have gone on record as saying it was to be treated like any other book.
"It is our studied belief that this was one of Satan's subtlest assaults on the purity and integrity of God's Holy Word and the repercussions of this assault have been felt through the decades to this very hour.
"All of this has to do with the Westcott and Hort Textual theory which the vast majority of evangelicals have accepted at its face value without being given the truth about it.
"Both of these Cambridge professors, for one thing, elevated antiquity above accuracy and thus championed the two oldest manuscripts of the Scriptures in existence, Codex Aleph or Sinaiaticus and Codex B or Vaticanus, both dating from the 4th century. Both of these have been branded by Herman Hoskier, John Burgon, and Prebendary Scrivener as being filled with errors and contradictions; two of the "foulest" of manuscripts, in the words of Burgon.
"W & H (Westcott and Hort) put all of their eggs in these two baskets, completely ignoring and at times deprecating the hundreds of Greek manuscripts which agreed with the Received Text, on which the King James Version was founded, in 90 to 95 percent of their contents.
"It is clearly shown in the writings of some of the greatest scholars in Which Bible? that the oldest manuscripts have been proved more often than not to be the worst and the least trustworthy.
"W & H invented some clever cliches' and plausible arguments in favor of their theory such as "intrinsic probability," "transcriptional probability,"
"Syrian recension," etc., all of which prove to be entirely subjective with no real facts to substantiate them save the opinion of the scholar.
"This method is much easier than the very laborious one of comparing manuscript with manuscript and thus establishing a sound factual basis for their conclusions.
"Practically every version of the Bible from the publication of the Revised Version of 1881 down to the present has followed the Westcott and Hort Greek text and theory almost in full.
"In the words of Dr. Alfred Martin (see Which Bible?, p. 254) "The theory was hailed by many when it came forth as practically final, certainly definitive. It has been considered by some the acme in the textual criticism of the New Testament.
"Some of the followers of W & H have been almost unreasoning in their devotion to the theory; and many people even today, who have no idea what the Westcott-Hort theory is, or at best only a vague notion, accept the labors of those two scholars without question.
"During the past seventy years it has often been considered textual heresy to deviate from their position or to intimate that, sincere as they undoubtedly were, they may have been mistaken."
"To continue Dr. Martin's presentation. "Most work in textual criticism today has at least a Hortian foundation;
"nevertheless there are fashions in criticism as in women's clothing, and the trend of scholars in more recent years has been away from the original Westcott-Hort position.
. . . An amusing and amazing spectacle presents itself; many of the textbooks, books of Bible interpretation, and innumerable secondary works go on repeating the W & H dicta although the foundations have been seriously shaken even in the opinion of former Hortians and those who would logically be expected to be Hortians."
From:
Is the King James Version Nearest
to the Original Autographs?
by David Otis Fuller
"In the words of Dr. Alfred Martin (see Which Bible?, p. 254) "The (Westcott and Hort) theory was hailed by many when it came forth as practically final, certainly definitive... (?)
"Some of the followers of W & H have been almost unreasoning in their devotion to the theory; (?)
Why should they be practically worshipped as idols, to the extent that it is "considered textual heresy to deviate from their position"?
Why, in the Name of God, has there been no universal question mark placed on these two rascals? and the works produced from their efforts?
"All modern translations are based upon the reconstructed Greek text of Westcott and Hort, two Romanist-oriented scholars, whose purpose was to replace the Protestant and Baptist text with those of the Roman Church and thereby wean back Protestants to the Roman fold.
"These two men denied the blood atonement of Jesus Christ, exalted Mary worship and the Romanish mass, denied the Genesis record, and were ardent evolutionists and had universalist tendencies.
"About 95 percent of all Greek manuscripts that we have are of the Byzantine type.
"This means that the Westcott and Hort texts disagree with 95 percent of extant sources, including Scripture quotations from the writings of the early church fathers, who antedated the texts on which the Westcott and Hort reconstruction was based.
"The Westcott and Hort texts came from Rome and Egypt, depicted as God's enemies in Scripture, whereas the text of the KJV came from Syria and Greece, the areas of the initial outreach of Christianity.
"All translations since 1611 have not been made entirely from the Textus Receptus.
"These did include some of the Textus Receptus but they largely depended on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Codex Vaticanus was found in the pope's library in A. D. 1481 and Codex Sinaiticus was taken from a waste basket on a Mt. Sinai monastery in 1859.
"Both of these manuscripts include the apocryphal books outside of the New Testament canon.
"This makes the new translations based largely on these texts essentially Roman Catholic translations.
"They resemble Jerome's Latin Vulgate and the Rheims-Douai versions of 1582 authorized by the Roman Catholic Church at the infamous Council of Trent."
From: Why I Use The KJV by Elder Milburn Cockrell - Sovereign Grace Landmark Baptist Pastor - Now In Glory
"Two hundred and seventy years passed which brings us to 1881 and the publication of the Revised Version. Three brilliant scholars dominated the whole committee; Brooke Foss Westcott (later Bishop of Durham) and Fenton John Anthony Hort, both professors at Cambridge University;
"Bishop Ellicott, Chairman of the committee who some years before was solidly in favor of the Received Text and the position of John Burgon.
"Ellicott was swung over to the position of Westcott and Hort, so much so that he aided and abetted them in the pledging of the rest of the committee to absolute secrecy when each received a copy of the newly published Westcott and Hort Greek text.
"Why the secrecy?
"That remains to be seen.
"Our study, over a period of ten years, of this whole subject has confirmed the conviction that this was what Burgon calls, in his own language, "a conspiracy."
"Neither Westcott nor Hort ever stated or believed that the Bible was the Verbally Inspired, Inerrant Word of God.
"They have gone on record as saying it was to be treated like any other book.
"It is our studied belief that this was one of Satan's subtlest assaults on the purity and integrity of God's Holy Word and the repercussions of this assault have been felt through the decades to this very hour.
"All of this has to do with the Westcott and Hort Textual theory which the vast majority of evangelicals have accepted at its face value without being given the truth about it.
"Both of these Cambridge professors, for one thing, elevated antiquity above accuracy and thus championed the two oldest manuscripts of the Scriptures in existence, Codex Aleph or Sinaiaticus and Codex B or Vaticanus, both dating from the 4th century. Both of these have been branded by Herman Hoskier, John Burgon, and Prebendary Scrivener as being filled with errors and contradictions; two of the "foulest" of manuscripts, in the words of Burgon.
"W & H (Westcott and Hort) put all of their eggs in these two baskets, completely ignoring and at times deprecating the hundreds of Greek manuscripts which agreed with the Received Text, on which the King James Version was founded, in 90 to 95 percent of their contents.
"It is clearly shown in the writings of some of the greatest scholars in Which Bible? that the oldest manuscripts have been proved more often than not to be the worst and the least trustworthy.
"W & H invented some clever cliches' and plausible arguments in favor of their theory such as "intrinsic probability," "transcriptional probability,"
"Syrian recension," etc., all of which prove to be entirely subjective with no real facts to substantiate them save the opinion of the scholar.
"This method is much easier than the very laborious one of comparing manuscript with manuscript and thus establishing a sound factual basis for their conclusions.
"Practically every version of the Bible from the publication of the Revised Version of 1881 down to the present has followed the Westcott and Hort Greek text and theory almost in full.
"In the words of Dr. Alfred Martin (see Which Bible?, p. 254) "The theory was hailed by many when it came forth as practically final, certainly definitive. It has been considered by some the acme in the textual criticism of the New Testament.
"Some of the followers of W & H have been almost unreasoning in their devotion to the theory; and many people even today, who have no idea what the Westcott-Hort theory is, or at best only a vague notion, accept the labors of those two scholars without question.
"During the past seventy years it has often been considered textual heresy to deviate from their position or to intimate that, sincere as they undoubtedly were, they may have been mistaken."
"To continue Dr. Martin's presentation. "Most work in textual criticism today has at least a Hortian foundation;
"nevertheless there are fashions in criticism as in women's clothing, and the trend of scholars in more recent years has been away from the original Westcott-Hort position.
. . . An amusing and amazing spectacle presents itself; many of the textbooks, books of Bible interpretation, and innumerable secondary works go on repeating the W & H dicta although the foundations have been seriously shaken even in the opinion of former Hortians and those who would logically be expected to be Hortians."
From:
Is the King James Version Nearest
to the Original Autographs?
by David Otis Fuller
