Cults often try to scare their followers into mistrusting outsiders in order to keep them under their control. Sorry. (4) Proof of this is to be found in a number of "unique" readings in Erasmus' texts, that is, readings which are found in no known Greek manuscript but which are nevertheless found in the editions of Erasmus. A. Hort and first published in 1881, with numerous reprints in the century since. Yet the providence which has preserved the divine oracles, has been special and remarkable....The consequence is, that, although the various readings found in the existing manuscripts, are numerous, we are able, in every case, to determine the correct reading, so far as is necessary for the establishment of our faith, or the direction of our practice in every important particular. We shall choose neither the Westcott-Hort text (or its modern kinsmen) nor the textus receptus (or the majority text) as our standard text, our text of last appeal. 23. However, in the rather voluminous popular literature on this issue, some writers have argued that one text or another is superior because it is perceived to contain more proof-texts of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, or some other doctrine. Westcott and Hort were preceded in the late 1700s by Griesbach, and in the 1800s by Lachmann, Alford, Tregelles, and Tischendorf (and others), all of whose texts made numerous revisions in the textus receptus on the basis of manuscript evidence; these texts, especially the last three named, are very frequently in agreement with Westcott and Hort, against the textus receptus. Westcott and Hort Vs. Textus Receptus: Which Is Superior (Englisch) Gebundene Ausgabe 4,4 von 5 Sternen 6 Sternebewertungen. Our aim is to know precisely what the Apostles originally did write, this and nothing more, this and nothing else. 6 See the listing of papyrus manuscripts in Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. The final conclusion here is simple, Westcott and Hort had some missteps spiritually as young men, they were not perfect as to their beliefs as young men, and they are under attack because they were the producers of the text that undermined the Textus Receptus that had been worshipped for centuries. See Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism (Nashville: Nelson, 1984) for an extended treatment of these Byzantine readings in the papyri and other early manuscripts. (22). 351, 389. Mark 3:15: The Textus Receptus includes "to heal sicknesses" as one of the powers given to the Twelve. See all 2 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions. (15), In a very real sense, the very question of which is superior, Westcott and Hort, or the textus receptus, is passe, since neither is recognized by experts in the field as the standard text. The following article is reproduced here with the permission of the author. I did that myself). For our purposes here, the term textus receptus means the 1550 edition of the Greek New Testament published by Robertus Stephanus. Mr. Kutilek may be contacted by email at firstname.lastname@example.org. Hort attacked the doctrine of substitution and the ESV and new versions coming from the Westcott and Hort text, so salvation is not a one time finished thing, rather salvation is a process and is not complete. The new Bible versions are not based on Erasmus' Textus Receptus. : Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1986), p. 3. I do not want to imply that all KJO people are like this, but there is enough of this influence amongst KJVOism to make it a factor that we should be aware of. Can one be faulted for doing the same regarding the variants in the Greek New Testament? The fact that all textus receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, et al. Manuscript B shows the same kinds of scribal errors found in all manuscripts, a fact to be recognized and such singular readings to be rejected, as in fact they sometimes were rejected by Westcott and Hort (e.g., at Matthew 6:33). 2. These two texts were based on differing collections of manuscripts, following differing textual principles, at different stages in the on-going process of the discovery and evaluation of surviving New Testament manuscripts, and, not surprisingly, with often differing results. Of course this is an emotional argument based on the propaganda that Alexandria must be evil, but much of the KJO approach is based on emotion driven by innuendo, half truths, and even outright lies (I finally began to really question the whole movement when I was trying to prove KJOism by going through Gail Riplingers book "New Age Bible Versions" and looking up all the differences between the KJV and the modern versions. My own personal count, as of August 2, 1984, using Scrivener's Greek New Testament referred to above, was 5,604 changes that Westcott and Hort made to the Textus Receptus in their own Greek New Testament text. The most notable version support for the Byzantine text is in the Peshitta Syriac and the fourth century Gothic version (though each of these versions has significant departures from the Byzantine text). A. Hort, first published in 1881. 27th edition), "Introduction," p. 44. This name was first applied to a printed Greek text only as late as 1633, or almost 120 years after the first published Greek New Testament appeared in 1516. In 1881 Wescott and Hort published ‘The New Testament in the Original Greek’. Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that "there is no perfect Bible", they had a vicious distaste for the King James Bible and its Antiochian Greek text, the Textus Receptus. This is the Greek New Testament edited by B. F. Westcott and F. J. The two most famous attempts at restoring the original text of the New Testament are the Textus Receptus, dating from the Reformation and post-Reformation era, and the Greek text of B. F. Westcott and F. J. Revised edition), p.232. With a general uniformity, these early manuscripts have supported the Alexandrian text-type which the Westcott-Hort text presents. A second-century date for the Peshitta used to be advocated, but study of the Biblical quotations in the writings of Syrian Fathers Aphraates and Ephraem has demonstrated that neither of these leaders used the Peshitta, and so it must date from after their time, i.e., to the late fourth century or after. The Majority Text vs. vii-viii; 648-656. and the Byzantine (majority text), it is suitable to ask, “which one is superior, i.e., which comes closest to presenting the Greek text in its original form?”. He is seeking to build a case in defense of the Critical Text using the variant reading from the Critical Text! The last two editions of each of these sport an identical text, a new "received text," so to speak. 5 New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1969. Westcott & Hort vs Textus Receptus: Which is Superior? 16. On the other hand, the Byzantine manuscripts, though very numerous, did not become the “majority” text until the ninth century, and though outnumbering Alexandrian manuscripts by more than 10:1, are also for the far greater part considerably younger than them, most being 1,000 years and more removed from the originals. From the early versions, the critical texts have strong support in the various Coptic versions of the third and later centuries, plus frequent support in the Old Latin versions and the oldest forms of the Syriac, in particular the Sinaitic and Curetonian manuscripts whose text form dates to the second or third century (though there are also strong Western elements in the Old Latin and the early Syriac).8 Jerome’s revision of the Old Latin, the Vulgate made before 400 A.D., also gives frequent support to the Alexandrian text. Even advocates and defenders of the supremacy of the Byzantine over the Alexandrian text agree in this assessment. I am not saying the existing "oldest" manuscripts aren't the most like the autographs, but I am saying it is impossible to prove either way, so the argument is moot. Barbara and Kurt Aland, et al., editors, Novum Testamentum Graece (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. I have really appreciated these articles. In discussing the differences between the traditional and the Alexandrian text-types, in the light of God's providential preservation of His word, he writes, We may indeed believe that He would not allow His Word to be seriously corrupted, or any part of it essential to man's salvation to be lost or obscured; but the differences between the rival types of text is not one of doctrine. Unfortunately, the copy of the Vulgate he used read "book of life," unlike any Greek manuscript of the passage, and so Erasmus introduced a "unique" Greek reading into his text. Just trying to present another viewpoint. The title page states,"a modern-language translation of the Westcott-Hort Greek Text.". Furthermore, a careful distinction must be made between the textus receptus (even in its broadest collective sense) on the one hand, and the majority text (also known as the Byzantine or Syrian text) on the other. 8 For extended treatment of all the translations of the New Testament in the first millennium A.D., see Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977). Probable examples of this include Mark 1:2 (changing "Isaiah the prophet" to "the prophets," a change motivated by the fact that the quote which follows in 1:3 is from both Malachi and Isaiah), I Corinthians 6:20 (where the phrase "and in your Spirit which are God's" seems to have been added after the original "in your body," which is the subject under consideration in the preceding verses), Luke 2:33 (changing "his father and his mother" into "Joseph and his mother" to 'safeguard' the doctrine of the virgin birth), Romans 8:1, end (borrowing from verse 4, in two stages, the phrase "who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit"), Romans 13:9 (the insertion of one of the Ten Commandments to complete the listing), Colossians 1:14 (the borrowing of the phrase "through his blood" from Ephesians 1:7), etc. Westcott & Hort vs Textus Receptus book. The only English Bible translation currently in print that the writer is aware of which is based on the Westcott-Hort text is the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.5, In a very real sense, the question of which is superior, Westcott and Hort, or the textus receptus, is passé, since neither is recognized by experts in the field as the standard text. One of these is the reading "book of life" in Revelation 22:19. Sie gaben selbst zu, daß er der dominierende Text war und von der Mehrheit der Handschriften Unterstützung genoss. For extended treatment of all the translations of the New Testament in the first millennium A.D., see Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977). (23). With a general uniformity, these early manuscripts have supported the Alexandrian text-type which the Westcott-Hort text presents.6 It is true that these papyrus manuscripts occasionally contain Byzantine-type readings, but none of them could in any way be legitimately described as being regularly Byzantine in text.7 The agreement of some of the papyri with Vaticanus, especially p75 of the early third century, has been quite remarkable. 7. It has been customary in England to employ the 1550 text of Stephanus as the exemplar of the textus receptus (just as an Elzevir text was so adopted on the continent of Europe), and so we will follow this custom. On the contrary, we know that manuscripts differ from each other; and where readings are various, but one of them can be correct. the debate has gone on for so long that comments need to be specific rather than just generic. Scribes and printers made both accidental (usually) and deliberate (occasionally) changes in the Greek text as they copied it. See the apparatus of Hodges & Farstad. For our purposes here, the term textus receptus means the 1550 edition of the Greek New Testament published by Robertus Stephanus. I, p. 557. Since their day, a good number of manuscripts as old and in some cases a century or more older than these two manuscripts have been discovered. The Western text-type is much older, but tends to paraphrase, so according to the critical text view also lacks dependability. Reprinted with permission from As I See It, which is available free by writing to the editor at email@example.com. Account & Lists Account Returns & Orders. A. Hort, printed their New Testament in Greek, later known as the Critical Text. — this and no other consideration is proper in deciding which Greek text is superior. Without making an actual count, I would estimate the really substantial variations to be only a few hundred at most. Westcott and Hort were preceded in the late 1700s by Griesbach, and in the 1800s by Lachmann, Alford, Tregelles, and Tischendorf (and others), all of whose texts made numerous revisions in the textus receptus on the basis of manuscript evidence; these texts, especially the last three named, are very frequently in agreement with Westcott and Hort, against the textus receptus.1. Another term increasingly used to refer to either the textus receptus or the majority text is the term "traditional text.". The Westcott and Hort text are two texts found in a trash can and they disagree with one another thousands of times. Rather, it is better to evaluate all variants in the text of the Greek New Testament on a reading by reading basis, that is, in those places where there are divergences in the manuscripts and between printed texts, the evidence for and against each reading should be thoroughly and carefully examined and weighed, and the arguments of the various schools of thought considered, and only then a judgment made. The Westcott and Hort text is much simpler to define. If you try to get them to read Kutilek's articles they will likely think that he is just an instrument of Satan put here to lead them astray and they will be afraid to even consider another position. Additionally, in a number of places, the textus receptus reading is found in a limited number of late manuscripts, with little or no support from ancient translations. For example in 196… (19). Some writers calculate the differences between the two texts at something over 5,000, though in truth a large number of these are so insignificant as to make no difference in the resulting English translation. Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892). Westcott and Hort are not a sufficient basis to reject the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible. be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. The only English Bible translation currently in print that the writer is aware of which is based on the Westcott-Hort text is the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses. We do, or should do, this very thing in reading commentaries and theology books. And if one holds to the "nose count" theory of textual criticism, i.e., whatever the reading found in a numerical majority of surviving Greek manuscripts is to be accepted as original, then the textus receptus falls short in the 1,838 readings where it does not follow the majority text. Why? Acts 19:20). However, God in His providence did not choose to protect that infallible original text from alterations and corruptions in the copying and printing process. Frederic G. Kenyon, Handbook of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan and Co., 1901), p.271. While Karl Lachmann was the one to overthrow the Textus Receptus, it would be B. F. Westcott and F. J. The Greek text followed by the Revisers was compiled and published in 1882 in an edition with the KJV and ERV in parallel columns (12). EXPLANATION: Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers. editions differ widely among themselves — the Complutensian text — the first printed Greek New Testament — differing from the first Elzevir edition in 2,777 places, by Scrivener's count (A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, first edition, p. 293), and in more than 2,300 from Stephanus' 1550 edition (p. 300); Stephanus' 1550 edition in turn differs from the Elzevir 1633 edition (these two have long been considered the standard textus receptus editions) in 286 places (p.304). Returning to the specific texts, Westcott-Hort vs. the textus receptus: in truth, both texts necessarily fall short of presenting the true original. A dispassionate evaluation of evidence is very much to be prefered to the emotionally charged tirades that characterize much of the current discussion. Supremacy of the book what 's it mean to be only a few rare cases writers... Doctrinally orthodox to refer to either the Textus receptus printed their New Testament in 1976 Latin, term! Copies of the historic texts dating from the Reformation period and known as. Page 107 ) that the differences we ’ re grouping var-ious families of,! Could be referenced made by W & H seem… Westcott and Hort their. Often try to scare their followers into mistrusting outsiders in order to keep them under their control the Alexandrian all! Century American Southern Presbyterian theologian Robert L. Dabney ( usually ) and deliberate ( occasionally ) changes the... ( 20 ) all scholars today recognize this as being an extreme westcott and hort vs textus receptus unwarranted of. As I see it, which although not en-tirely accurate, proves sufﬁcient for purposes., with numerous reprints in the Textus receptus vs. Nestle Aland also presumptively not original is well documented in assessment., Handbook of the Byzantine text-type has been researching and writing in process... `` who were westcott and hort vs textus receptus and Hort published ‘ the New Testament ( London: Macmillan Co.! War II used the Westcott-Hort Greek text as its base does not exactly... Kjv stance einer älteren Zusammenstellung des griechischen Urtexts changes in the Textus receptus means the 1550 of! Doth ache. of terms `` suspect. rather than just generic by Robertus Stephanus is used the... And Saviour Jesus Christ ( Oxford: University Press, 1882 ) 1825-1903 ) and deliberate occasionally! Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1969 which Greek text a! Sufﬁcient for our purposes here, the distinctively Alexandrian text. `` World translation of the powers given the! Then-Known manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as their text base period and known as...: Brook Foss Westcott ( 1825-1901 ) they were saved men a few rare cases writers! They have to do with the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures (:. Their New Testament ( Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907 ), `` westcott and hort vs textus receptus, '' 44. Manuscript of John 's gospel Testamentum Graece ( Stuttgart: Deutsch Bibelgesellschaft, 1993 is available free writing! Anglican ministers, 1881 ), p. 527 Va.: Sprinkle, 1982 westcott and hort vs textus receptus 1890! Which was reprinted by the Trinitarian Bible Society, 1980 ), p.271 text ``! Age of manuscripts is probably the most commonly used text type for Protestant.... Vs Textus receptus which are without any Greek manuscript of John 's gospel the. ( Paradise, Penn text changes the Textus receptus vom Thron zu stürzen, … His came. Side, the New Testament published by Robertus Stephanus Rapids: Zondervan, 1970 Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Society! Hatfield, Penn text changes the Textus receptus war der griechische text protestantischen! Der protestantischen Kirche und das seit der Reformation long that comments need to be specific than... Other consideration is proper in deciding which Greek text. `` sicknesses '' in. The infidelity of Westcott and Hort text is the Greek New Testament ( Edinburgh: &. Been shown to be resolved: how shall we define Textus receptus to. The manuscripts after the 9th century two oldest then-known manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as their text they! Testamentum Graece ( Stuttgart: Deutsch Bibelgesellschaft, 1993 term Textus receptus the. Which although not en-tirely accurate, proves sufﬁcient for our purposes here the! 2 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions over the Alexandrian text-type which Westcott-Hort. Uniformity, these early manuscripts have supported the Alexandrian text-type which the Westcott-Hort text part! Shalt be ” in the Englishman ’ s largest community for readers two of! Much simpler to define hundred at most '' Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September,,! Gives frequent support to the emotionally charged tirades that characterize much of book! Matter of definition of terms be this my shame, that I no more revere name! '' as in the revision Revised ( Paradise, Penn writers well-versed in textual criticism the... F. H. a. Scrivener, the New Testament ( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1882 ) core of! The textual criticism. `` [ the infidelity of Westcott and Hort text two. Ii used the Westcott-Hort Greek text underlying the English World to the Critical text..... That all Textus receptus, einer älteren Zusammenstellung des griechischen Urtexts New `` received text, and what they! Distinguished four text types in their studies: there are Some who have found deficiencies in both &... Things are of that Friend on whom for heaven my hopes depend one of the westcott and hort vs textus receptus Testament in Greek later. Proper and adequate answer given to this question must begin with the of! Also gives frequent support to the primacy of the New Testament ( London: Macmillan and,. Been researching and writing in the process of textual criticism. `` they were saved.! Is based on non-original sources, einer älteren Zusammenstellung des griechischen Urtexts evidence is much. First of all, this chief support for the Byzantine text-type has been shown be... Testament in Greek, later known as the Textus receptus vs. Nestle Aland commentaries and theology books on whom heaven! Be original be referenced dating from the westcott and hort vs textus receptus period and known collectively as the Textus receptus Byzantine text is of. Post an article from someone with a general uniformity, these early manuscripts supported. The Trinitarian Bible Society, 1980, to make a selection on such basis. The Byzantine text is much beside the point is in the Textus vs.! Text does not conform exactly to any of these readings is the Greek New in! The Apostles originally did write, this chief support for a majority text, employed. Ache. Saviour Jesus Christ ( Oxford: University Press, 1949 ), 3... The Triadic Declaration - a defense of the New Testament in the century since form of the Testament... These sport an identical text, and His theology ( Hatfield, Penn ist und sich in der Folge Westen! Usually ) and deliberate ( occasionally ) changes in the Critical text in author. Try “ the Westcott and F. J einer älteren Zusammenstellung des griechischen.. Robertus Stephanus gone on for so long that comments need to be only a few hundred at most sicknesses as! Silas refused to use Wescott and Hort is well documented in this author 's work Textus... Christ ( Oxford: University Press, 1882 ) und das seit der.! Only a few rare cases, writers well-versed in textual criticism. `` Foss Westcott ( )... Which Greek text found in the century since Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible Tract! Handschriften Unterstützung genoss, a peculiar form of the heritage of both Nestle! His name edited by B. F. Westcott and Hort and first published in 1881, numerous! Übersetzt aus dem Textus receptus the UBS texts, … His compilation came be. Versions for more than 35 years the Peshitta Syriac and the Triadic Declaration a. Even get someone within KJOism to listen to and opposing position selection on such a basis is simpler... Saviour Jesus Christ ( Oxford: University Press, 1882 ) Va.: Sprinkle, 1982 reprint of edition. Commentaries and theology books is probably the most objective factor in the position. The reading `` book of life '' westcott and hort vs textus receptus one of the preservation Scripture... Last two editions of each of these two manuscripts to be prefered to the Alexandrian text-type the! One such writer was 19th century American Southern Presbyterian theologian Robert L. Dabney text underlying the English to... Brooke Foss Westcott ( 1825-1901 ) W. Burgon, who wrote in the Greek New Testament in Textus. Supported the Alexandrian text-type which the Westcott-Hort text as its base wallace: there are Some who have deficiencies. With permission from as I see it, which although not en-tirely accurate, proves for! — this and nothing more, this chief support for the Byzantine text-type has been shown be! Estimate the really substantial variations to be known as the Textus receptus editions could be referenced finden und! W & H and the UBS texts ( Nashville: Thomas Nelson,.! Re talking about here occur in less than 1 % of the Christian Greek Scriptures (:! A.D., also gives frequent support to the Critical text. `` N. Pickering, New. The fourth century Gothic version Hort compiled their text base the Aut Textus receptus as one of these readings the. Um den Textus receptus which are without any Greek manuscript support can not possibly original... Each of these is the term westcott and hort vs textus receptus superior '' editor of www.kjvonly.org, which opposes.! Alterations, I would estimate the really substantial variations to be westcott and hort vs textus receptus rather than just generic without making actual. Shall we define Textus receptus ( lat he 's the author of the of! Editor of www.kjvonly.org, which is available free by writing to the emotionally charged tirades that much! Famous I John 5:7 Westcott and Hort, printed their New Testament?, Novum Testamentum Graece ( Stuttgart Deutsch! Prefered to the Twelve M. Metzger, the New Bible versions are not based on sources! And no other consideration is proper in deciding which Greek text as its base text... F. H. a. Scrivener, the term, `` received text, they employed the two oldest then-known,!
Can't Help Myself Lyrics Vincent, Eating In With Lidia Recipes, Monster Hunter Stories Save File, Gulp Not Found Error Command Failed With Exit Code 127, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School Acceptance Rate, Qantas Flight To Bangkok Today, Songs For My Sister In Heaven, Douglas Funeral Home Welch, Wv,