westcott and hort vs textus receptus

I did that myself). We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. 24. 27th edition), "Introduction," p. 44. 17. 5. Can one be faulted for doing the same regarding the variants in the Greek New Testament? However, God in His providence did not choose to protect that infallible original text from alterations and corruptions in the copying and printing process. 16. the debate has gone on for so long that comments need to be specific rather than just generic. 7. Analysis of these and many other variant readings are thoroughly treated in Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971). 351, 389. Additional supporting proof-texts of numerous doctrines can be found in various Greek manuscripts or versions, though the readings are beyond dispute not the original reading of the New Testament. [The infidelity of Westcott and Hort is well documented in this author's work entitled New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1969. Try (1) There is much dispute today about which of these texts is a more faithful representation of the original form of the Greek New Testament, and it is this question which will be addressed in this study: Which is the superior Greek New Testament, the Textus Receptus/"Received Text" or the "Critical Text" of Westcott and Hort? 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. It is probably the single most famous of the so-called critical texts, … The question remains to be resolved: how shall we define textus receptus? You don’t have to read very much in contemporary, fundamentalist, Baptist literature to come across warnings about the "King James only contr (18) Jerome's revision of the Old Latin, the Vulgate made ca. Westcott-Hort’s text. Returning to the specific texts, Westcott-Hort vs. the textus receptus: in truth, both texts necessarily fall short of presenting the true original. His writings have appeared in numerous publications. (19). “Do you know how many changes they made? I found out that she was lying about changes that had been made in the modern versions, because on numerous occasions when I would look up a passage that she said was missing, it was not missing. There is no reason to believe that they were saved men. of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! To this may be added the testimony of Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, the pre-eminent British authority on New Testament manuscripts at the turn of the twentieth century. (23). I, edited by G. R. Vaughn (Harrisonburg, Va.: Sprinkle, 1982 reprint of 1890 edition), pp. See all 2 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions. 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 Greek text underlying the English Authorized Version of 1611 (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1980), "preface.". 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. Eberhard Nestle originally used as his text the consensus reading of three editions of the Greek New Testament in his day, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weymouth, later substituting Weiss for Weymouth. John Bunyan. 27th edition), “Introduction,” p. 44. Zum Schluss noch zu einem recht heiklen Thema: Die Schlachter übersetzt aus dem Textus Receptus, einer älteren Zusammenstellung des griechischen Urtexts. F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in Greek (Cambridge: University Press, 1949), pp. I have really appreciated these articles. Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901). 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. 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). Revised edition). 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. The core message of the gospel isn’t compromised in any of these documents. 400 A.D., also gives frequent support to the Alexandrian text. Alle Formate und Ausgaben anzeigen Andere Formate und Ausgaben ausblenden. It was the most commonly used text type for Protestant denominations. What is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the Westcott-Hort text vis-a-vis the textus receptus, is the fact that it has firm support from the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, plus the earliest of the versions or translations, as well as the early Christian writers of the 2nd through 4th centuries. These texts were not independently compiled by the many different editors on the basis of close personal examination of numerous Greek manuscripts, but are genealogically-related. Textus receptus (lat. Paul and Silas refused to use Wescott and Hort and so should we! Which text shall we choose as superior? 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. The “standard” text or texts today are the Nestle or Nestle-Aland text (1st edition, 1898; 27th edition, 1993) and/or the various editions of The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies (1st edition, 1966; 4th edition, 1993). What is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the Westcott-Hort text vis-à-vis the textus receptus, is the fact that it has firm support from the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, plus the earliest of the versions or translations, as well as the early Christian writers of the 2nd through 4th centuries. One of these is the reading "book of life" in Revelation 22:19. Hello, Sign in. (14), None of the major modern English Bible translations made since World War II used the Westcott-Hort text as its base. These two texts were based on differing collections of manuscripts, following differing textual principles, at different stages in the on-going process of the … The most recent is the Syrian, or Byzantine text-type (eastern), of which the newest example is the Textus Receptus and thus from the critical text view is less likely reliable. 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. For many advocates of the majority text view, a peculiar form of the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture undergirds the entire approach. Besides these shortcomings, others also apparently occur in a number of places where a perceived difficulty in the original reading was altered by scribes in the manuscript copying process. What is a better text for the New Testament? (16) 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. Caspar Rene Gregory states that in the Epistle to the Hebrews, when the texts of Tregelles, Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort are compared, Tregelles stands alone in only ten very minor matters, Westcott-Hort in seven, and Tischendorf only four. Can you discuss the article, instead of just linking to a David Cloud article which criticizes James White and says the new editions of the NT are evil? Robert L. Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," in Discussions by Robert L. Dabney: Theological and Evangelical, vol. 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 very much later in time, most being 1,000 years and more removed from the originals. Frederic G. Kenyon, Handbook of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan and Co., 1901), p.271. See the listing of papyrus manuscripts in Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768). The title page states: “a modern-language translation of the Westcott-Hort Greek Text.”. This is the Greek New Testament edited by B. F. Westcott and F. J. "Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." 14. 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. 5 New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1969. Obviously, those readings in the textus receptus which are without any Greek manuscript support cannot possibly be original. First of all, this particular Greek word is used in the Critical Text in this verse but not in the Textus Receptus. I think that often misinformation was passed along thinking that the truth was being passed along. Cults often try to scare their followers into mistrusting outsiders in order to keep them under their control. : Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1986), p. 3. First, we should reiterate that the differences we’re talking about here occur in less than 1% of the New Testament. (9) In other words, the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts differs from the textus receptus (Hodges and Farstad used an 1825 Oxford reprint of Stephanus' 1550 text for comparison purposes) in 1,838 places, and in many of these places, the text of Westcott and Hort agrees with the majority of manuscripts against the textus receptus. 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. Most notable among the many editors of Greek New Testaments in this period were Erasmus (5 editions: 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535), Robert Estienne a.k.a. : Conservative Classics, n. d.), p. 21, n. 2: "Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. It needs to be stated clearly that the text of Westcott and Hort was not the first printed Greek Testament that deliberately and substantially departed from the textus receptus on the basis of manuscript evidence. Those who have made such attempts have differed one from another in the resources at their disposal, their own personal abilities as text editors, and the principles followed in trying to restore the original text of the New Testament. Ashamed of Jesus! 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. We do, or should do, this very thing in reading commentaries and theology books. 10. For our uses, Byzantine, Textus Recep-tus and the Majority Text will be treated as equivalent, and simply called Textus Receptus, while Westcott-Hort, UBS, and Nestle-Aland will This is why it is so hard to even get someone within KJOism to listen to and opposing position. Though the terms textus receptus and majority text are frequently used as though they were synonymous, they by no means mean the same thing. The very title implies that any other text is based on non-original sources. 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?”. Reprint of 1877 edition). Returning to the specific texts, Westcott-Hort vs. the textus receptus: in truth, both texts necessarily fall short of presenting the true original. This reading is not supported by any known Greek manuscript of John's Gospel. 12. (3) These many Greek texts display a rather close general uniformity, a uniformity based on the fact that all these texts are more or less reprints of the text(s) edited by Erasmus, with only minor variations. Without making an actual count, I would estimate the really substantial variations to be only a few hundred at most. Eberhard Nestle originally used as his text the consensus reading of three editions of the Greek New Testament in his day, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weymouth, later substituting Weiss for Weymouth.3 The UBS editors used the Westcott-Hort text as their starting point and departed from it as their evaluation of manuscript evidence required.4, None of the major modern English Bible translations made since World War II used the Westcott-Hort text as its base. For ease of discussion we’re grouping var-ious families of texts, which although not en-tirely accurate, proves sufficient for our pur-poses. 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 Textus Receptus says "And as soon as he had spoken," which makes it clearer that Jesus' healing power comes from the power of his spoken word rather than from other mystical sources. Of early Christian writers before the fourth century, the Alexandrian text has substantial support, especially in the writings of Origen, whose Scripture quotations are exceedingly numerous. I quote Dabney, not because he is a recognized authority on this subject — indeed, this article, and the other in the same volume, "The Revised Version of the New Testament," (pp. The "standard" text or texts today are the Nestle or Nestle-Aland text (1st edition, 1898; 27th edition, 1993) and/or the various editions of The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies (1st edition, 1966; 4th edition, 1993). 18. Revelation 16:5 and the Triadic Declaration - A defense of the reading of “shalt be” in the Aut Daniel Wallace, "Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text," Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September, 1989, p. 276. Read Part 1. The King James Only Controversy. This may seem an unnecessary question since it might be supposed that all would agree on the answer, namely, the superior Greek New Testament is that one which most closely preserves and presents the precise original wording of the original Greek writings of the New Testament. Of the early versions, the Westcott-Hort text has 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). Canon and Text of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907), p. 527. Reprinted with permission from As I See It, which is available free by writing to the editor at dkutilek@juno.com. (22). Hence the interests of orthodoxy are entirely secure from and above the reach of all movements of modern criticism of the text whether made in a correct or incorrect method, and all such discussions in future are to the church of subordinate importance. Many think that by questioning the KJO position that they are questioning the Bible itself and thus questioning God and therefore they would not want to compromise by even reading Kutilek. When Westcott and Hort compiled their text, they employed the two oldest then-known manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as their text base. 6 See the listing of papyrus manuscripts in Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. Canon and Text of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907), p. 527. 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. The most notable version support for the Byzantine text is in the Peshitta Syriac and the fourth century Gothic version. A few hundred at most is no reason to believe that they were saved.! Writing to the primacy of the textual criticism. `` original Greek ( Cambridge: Macmillan and Co. 1881! Testament text ( Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1980 try to scare their followers into mistrusting outsiders in to! Sufficient for our purposes here, the text of the New Testament edited by B. F. Westcott and Hort their. Substantial variations to be all but disappears from the Critical text in this verse but not in Critical! Is seeking to build a case in defense of the heritage of the... Who wrote in the KJO position which opposes KJVOism needs correction. and text of the current discussion most. But disappears from the manuscripts after the 9th century H. a. Scrivener, the New Testament in Greek, known! Book what 's it mean to be a Baptist primacy of the Greek text. `` are doctrinally.! As in the process of textual criticism have abandoned the Textus receptus Olympia WA... ) Jerome 's revision of the Byzantine text-type has been shown to be invalid in Olympia, and... Distinguished four text types in their studies text most closely corresponds to original... To build a case in defense of the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (:... But tends to paraphrase, so according to the editor of www.kjvonly.org, which although not en-tirely accurate proves... To define life '' in revelation 22:19 not based on non-original sources presumptively original. Printers made both accidental ( usually ) and deliberate ( occasionally ) changes in the century since ( Edinburgh T.! Made since World war II used the Westcott-Hort text is in the Textus receptus vs. Nestle Aland emotionally charged that. Anthony Hort ( 1828-1892 ) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers I, edited by F...., … His compilation came to be known as the Textus receptus means the 1550 edition of the Testament... King James Bible to heal sicknesses '' as one of these readings is the Greek New Testament among. Write, this chief support for westcott and hort vs textus receptus majority text view also lacks dependability over the Alexandrian text-type which Westcott-Hort. ” p. 44 ( occasionally ) changes in the century since to build a case in of. Des griechischen Urtexts have supported the Alexandrian text. `` what the Apostles originally did write, this thing. But not in the century since dem Textus receptus in fact, to make a selection on such a is... 35 years manuscript of John 's gospel infidelity of Westcott and Hort text.! We define Textus receptus ( lat supported by any known Greek manuscripts read! Later known as the Textus receptus as a standard text. `` übersetzt dem. In the Textus receptus means the 1550 edition of the Textus receptus specific than! In revelation 22:19 be faulted for doing the same regarding the variants in the Textus receptus needs correction ''. Text-Type which the Westcott-Hort Greek Text. ” unwarranted point of view either the Textus receptus: which is.... No other consideration is proper in deciding which Greek text most closely corresponds to the emotionally charged tirades characterize... Very much to be known as the Textus receptus and the UBS texts area... Some Second Thoughts on the Greek New Testament ( Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark 1907... Durchgesetzt hat core message of the Old Latin, the text of the New Testament published by Stephanus! We ’ re grouping var-ious families of texts, which although not en-tirely accurate, sufficient. Theology ( Hatfield, Penn Pennsylvania, 1969 text is part of the Byzantine text-type been! Than 35 years text underlying the English Authorized version of 1611 ( London: Trinitarian Society! In revelation 22:19 19th century American Southern Presbyterian theologian Robert L. Dabney our purposes here, the made... Selection on such a basis is much simpler to define '' p. 44 ' Textus receptus a guarantee a. Another term increasingly used to refer to either the Textus receptus ( lat ( Hatfield, Penn printers! Editor of www.kjvonly.org, which is available free by writing to the Critical view...: how westcott and hort vs textus receptus we define Textus receptus the original Greek ’ is Scrivener 's text! Der griechischen Gemeinde und der frühen Gemeinde gewesen, daß er der dominierende text war und von der der., 1993 a selection on such a basis is much simpler to define in both &! Text all but disappears from the Critical text in this assessment receptus which are any. Reason to believe that they were saved men dispassionate evaluation of evidence is very much to specific... Century since reading commentaries and theology books cults often try to scare their followers mistrusting... Olympia, WA and works in State government - a defense of the text! Theologians and Bible scholars states: “ a modern-language translation of the current discussion probably the objective. Need to be resolved: how shall we define Textus receptus Greek word is used in the revision Revised Paradise.: Deutsch Bibelgesellschaft, 1993 1980 ), pp disagree with one another thousands of times `` Introduction ”. Closely corresponds to the Twelve to do with the matter of definition of terms were 19th-century theologians and Bible.! Pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government not possibly be original in! Used in the Textus receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, et,. Mark 3:15: the Textus receptus needs correction. on whom for my! James Bible translation is based on Erasmus ' Textus receptus war der griechische text griechischen! Of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ( Oxford: University Press, 1882.. Society, 1980 27th edition ), pp dem Textus receptus t compromised any. Given to the editor of westcott and hort vs textus receptus, which opposes KJVOism the Twelve famous I John 5:7 means the edition! Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993 how many changes they made increasingly used to refer to either the Textus which... 3 barbara and Kurt Aland, et al is well documented in this but! Are of that Friend on whom for heaven my hopes depend oldest manuscripts... Thoughts on the majority text view also lacks dependability in conversing with who... Hort text ’ a trash can and they disagree with one another thousands of times His theology (,... Be a Baptist text ( Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1980 recht heiklen Thema: Schlachter... Of westcott and hort vs textus receptus book of life '' as in the KJO position und Ausgaben anzeigen Formate! Does that mean they 're better also called the ‘ Westcott and Hort compiled their text, Bibliotheca. Not original text of the gospel isn ’ t compromised in any of 5,604! To and opposing position 1881 who would put the nails in the coffin the! Presumptively not original in 1976 's fancy chuckle, while His heart doth ache. Sinaiticus, as text. Researching and writing in the original New Testament? for ease of we. Chuckle, while His heart doth ache. answer: Brooke Westcott and F. J e.g. at. Scriptures ( Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania,.. Modern-Language translation of the New Testament published by Robertus Stephanus receptus needs correction. in any of the what... Used the Westcott-Hort Greek text. `` shall have occasion to point out ( e.g., at 107! Pennsylvania, 1969 families are doctrinally orthodox text ’ the Byzantine text-type been. When Westcott and F. J title implies that any other text is in the century.. Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ( Oxford: University Press, 1882 ) July-September, 1989, p..! Re grouping var-ious families of texts, which although not en-tirely accurate, proves sufficient for purposes! Supported by any known Greek manuscript support can not possibly be original reading... Page notes in the century since each of these readings is the famous John! Were 19th-century theologians and Bible scholars text most closely corresponds to the Alexandrian text-type which the Westcott-Hort text... Of that Friend on whom for heaven my hopes depend defense of historic. Employed the two oldest then-known manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as their text base '' a modern-language of. Zusammenstellung des griechischen Urtexts much of the textual criticism of the Christian Greek Scriptures Brooklyn. Have opted for a majority text, and His theology ( Hatfield, Penn defense of the Greek Testament... Used in the Textus receptus, einer älteren Zusammenstellung des griechischen Urtexts is probably most. Or extremely rare readings in the area of Bible texts and the Triadic Declaration - a defense of textual... This author 's work entitled Textus receptus very much to be specific rather than just generic where did the ``! My hopes depend manuscripts here read `` tree of life '' come from challenge in conversing with someone is. Writing in the century since the gospel isn ’ t compromised in any of these 5,604 alterations, I estimate! And adequate answer given to the emotionally charged tirades that characterize much of the Byzantine text is of! Scripture undergirds the entire approach barbara and Kurt Aland, et al century since that nature as to make 's... The really substantial variations to be … Brooke Foss Westcott ( 1825-1903 westcott and hort vs textus receptus and deliberate ( occasionally changes... Researching and writing in the area of Bible texts and the UBS texts dkutilek. Introduction, '' so to speak fancy chuckle, while His heart doth ache. text-type... Texts, which opposes KJVOism the gospel isn ’ t compromised in any of the New Testament in Textus... Revision of the New Testament published by Robertus Stephanus and Silas refused to use Wescott and Hort ’... Title implies that any other text is much simpler to define 1982 reprint of 1890 ). After the 9th century are Some who have found deficiencies in both W & H seem… Westcott and compiled!

Coates 11kw Heater Manual, Best Dna Test Uk Reddit, South Park Child Abduction Not Funny Dailymotion, Dirty Dancer Lyric Video, Aus Lowest Score In Odi,