Westcott & Hort fraud??

RSS
Email

0 Kudos

Author	Comment
rjjjjj6	Westcott & Hort fraud??	Lead	[-]
Posts: 8 (12/09/2003 14:57:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Tags : None Westcott & Hort fraud?? -------- Any comments on the following posts on Westcott & Hort??: 71 Re: FWD: Westcott & Hort fraud Gayle Simmons truthnow46202 Mon 12/8/2003 groups.yahoo.com/group/bi...message/71 72 Re: [loisy] [Bible_Versions_and_Translations] Westcott & Hort fraud Gayle Simmons truthnow46202 groups.yahoo.com/group/bi...message/72
BrianT	Re: Westcott & Hort fraud??	#1	[-]
Posts: 2094 (12/09/2003 15:01:46) ezOP Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	> Any comments on the following posts on Westcott & Hort??: Yes. My first comment is that those posts are exceptionally long. My second comment(s) will come later this evening or tomorrow, when I have more time. Brian
gconan	Re: Westcott & Hort fraud??	#2	[-]
Posts: 1192 (12/09/2003 17:16:34) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The artical was written by someone who knows virtually nothing on the subject. Bad artical.
BrianT	Re: Westcott & Hort fraud?? - Part 1	#3	[-]
Posts: 2094 (12/10/2003 12:29:16) ezOP Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Whew, that's a whopper of an article. I will address it in parts, as I have time. For the most part, I am disappointed but not really surprised at the general tone of the article. The author seems bent on dressing up the facts in the cloak of his own opinion - in other words, he's making things seem much worse than they actually are, and trying to draw on emotional response, etc. For example: > They were responsible for undermining the > text of the Authorised Version (the KJV), which led to its eventual > abandonment by all mainstream Christian Churches. The KJV has not been abandoned. > KJV New Testament was, of course, based on the Greek text that is > known as the Majority/Byzantine text. Not, it was based on the TR, which is not quite the same thing. > this traditional text was abandoned, and it was > replaced... with Hort's own creation! No, it was not abandoned, or replaced (with a "creation"). It was revised based on textual critical evidence. That sentence sounds like W&H dumped the existing Bible in the garbage, and made a new one up from scratch, which is of course ludicrous. > So this was published first in >1881, and it took the world by storm. 99% of the world didn't even notice or care. And very few that did notice and care, did not find great cause for concern. > So then what was the basis of Hort's 1881 edition? It was based on a > small handful of Egyptian Greek manuscripts dated to the 4th and 5th > centuries. But there are many problems with these manuscripts, > because they constantly disagree with each other -- in thousands of > passages... So how did he decide which of them to use for any > particular verse of his brand-new text that he was building up? > Essentially, when all is said and done, he based his decisions upon > his own authority. This paragraph shows a woefully lacking understanding of textual criticism. Yes, some ancient Egyptian manuscripts were used, even favored, in the process. But no two manuscripts are in 100% agreement, even excluding these manuscripts. ALL textual criticism, whether done by Erasmus, the KJV translators, Westcott & Hort, etc, involves evaluating the available evidence and making a judgment call. > As a result, in the 4 gospels alone, Hort's text has about 6000 > differences from the traditional Byzantine text. Many of these > differences are very substantial indeed How many is "many"? Is "Christ Jesus" substantially different from "Jesus Christ", etc? 6000 differences in the gospels alone includes minor things like accent marks, etc. Similiar to the "thousands of differences" between the 1611 and 1769 editions of the KJV, if you include spelling, punctuation, etc. How many translational differences are there? Only about 4000 across the entire NT, and most of these are minor and would only show up in a strictly literal translation (such as the LITV, etc.) According to various sources, the number of words in the KJV is 783,137 (give or take a few, depending on the publisher and edition). Let's quadruple those 4000 differences, just to be generous (converting phrases into words), and estimate there are 16,000 word differences that affect translation (in those 4000 places). That sounds big at first, but 16,000/783,137 = 2.04% All this commotion 2 percent! And what is more interesting, to me anyways, is that this 2% is spun, using various figures and analogies, to sound like we're comparing the Bible with the Koran or something. > and affect all sorts of matters of biblical interpretation. Interpretation is a separate process, and is not dependent on the ink on paper, but upon the guiding of the Holy Spirit. Two people can read the same words, and come to different interpretations. Two other people can read different words and come to the same interpretation. > So this is what the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars, as > well the majority of the rank-and-file Christians, of course, still > use today... Actually, this isn't exactly true. Westcott & Hort's work might be considered the basis upon which further study and textual work has been done, but it is extremely rare for someone to use W&H's work and methods "as is". Most have intergrated their work, but not follow it exclusively. > After studying these matters for years, I've concluded that the > "improved text", so-called, that Hort & Co. introduced was not an > improvement at all, but a total and unqualified DISASTER -- far > inferior to the traditional Majority/Byzantine text. By "WHOSE AUTHORITY" should we believe that? > But the problem is > that, over the years... virtually all of his theories have now been > completely abandoned by the mainstream textual critics! If "virtually all of his theories have now been completely abandoned by the mainstream textual critics", then this abandonment would indicate they would revise his work accordingly, which is the opposite of what was said earlier (where it was said that W&H's text was what "the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars, as well the majority of the rank-and-file Christians, of course, still use today".) > There's virtually nothing left out there of Hort's original > theorising, what actually _paved the way_ for that big 19th century > take down of the Majority text... There's nothing left there at all > but an Empty Shell! Let's put things into perspective. This "empty shell" has resulted in the most serious and detailed examination of Biblical manuscripts in the entire history of the world. This "empty shell" has opened the door into an area of Bible history that was largely unexplored and undocumented previously. The changes that this "empty shell" has resulted in is less than 5% change of the NT text (most of which is not consequencial), while at the same time vastly increasing understanding and assurances of the variations that do exist. We should be greatful for the work they did, even if we disagree with their conclusions! More later, as the next section deals with quotes, and I want to look them up myself later at home. I'll post more of my response tomorrow. God bless, Brian
napnip	He shoots himself in the foot	#4	[-]
Posts: 919 (12/10/2003 13:24:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* They were responsible for undermining the text of the Authorised Version (the KJV), which led to its eventual abandonment by all mainstream Christian Churches. and *Quote:* this traditional text was abandoned, and it was replaced... with Hort's own creation! If that's true, then so much for the "standard" argument. If all mainstream Christian Churches abandoned his beloved "standard", then his "standard" didn't have much staying power. ----------------- "Whatever happens, I'll leave it all to chance. Another heartache, another failed romance. On and on....Does anybody know what we are living for?" - Queen
BrianT	Re: Westcott & Hort fraud?? - Part 2	#5	[-]
Posts: 2094 (12/11/2003 16:09:42) ezOP Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* "It will not be out of place to add here a distinct expression of our belief that even among the numerous unquestionably spurious readings of the New Testament there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes." (Westcott and Hort, "The New Testament in the Original Greek", London: Macmillan and Co., 1881, Vol. 2, p. 282) What an amazing blooper! The meaning of this, essentially, is that there was NO EDITING OF THE GOSPELS AT ALL BASED ON THEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS! Unfortunately I don't have that volume, to examine the context of the quote. But I suspect the "blooper" is by the person writing the article, for a simple look at Westcott's book "A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament" devotes entire chapters (like chapter 4, "The Early Heretics", pages 246-299) to describing how early heretics mutiliated the Canon and passages in the Canon, textually and interpretationally, to suit their own purposes. The reason we know early heretics corrupted scripture is by reading the writings of the early church fathers. Westcott and Hort were exceptionally well-versed on the early church fathers (in English, as well as the Greek and Latin the writings were written in), and the concept that they was unaware of such intentional corruption is basically inconceivable. In this book, Westcott discusses "a mutilated and interpolated text used by the Ebionites" (pg. 260), noting that Valentinus is "said to have introduced verbal alterations, 'correcting without hesitation' as well as 'introducting new explanations. And his followers acted with greater boldness, if the words of Origen are to be taken strictly, in which he says that 'he knows none other who have altered the form of the Gospel beside the followers of Marcion, of Valentinus, and, as he believes, of Lucanus.'" (pg. 270), "Heracleon was forced to turn and modify much that he found in St. John" (pg. 275). Wescott says that Marcion's Gospel "was a recension of St Luke with numerous omissions and variations from the received text" (pg. 284) and that "Some of the omissions can be explained at once by his peculiar doctrines" (pg. 285), etc. I will try to acquire the book containing the quote above, so I can examine its context. I will not be at all surprised if the context reveals the quote has been used to deliberately misrepresent Wescott and Hort. The article goes on to say: *Quote:* It never even occurred to them that something might be wrong with their beloved Nestle/Aland's Greek text, which is of course 99.5% identical to Hort's creation! Which is also 95-97% identical to the TR as well. *Quote:* And here we have the whole 6000 words and phrases that Hort has changed around in one fell swoop... And nobody seems to care about it much! There are 140,521 words in the TR (give or take, depending on edition. 6,000 / 140,521 = 4.27%, and most of these are fairly minor. The author is trying to make things sound much worse than they actually are. God bless, Brian
rjjjjj6	FWD: RE: [loisy] RE: Westcott & Hort fraud?? - Part 1	#6	[-]
Posts: 8 (12/11/2003 17:22:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	FWD: RE: [loisy] RE: Westcott & Hort fraud?? - Part 1 -------- In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: From: Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:00 pm Subject: Re: [loisy] FWD: [EZ Board] Westcott & Hort fraud?? - Part 1 pub1.ezboard.com/bbibleve...ssionboard pub1.ezboard.com/fbibleve...boardfrm21 pub1.ezboard.com/fbibleve...ic&index=3 Bible Versions Discussion Board -- Westcott and Hort: Subject: RE: Westcott & Hort fraud?? - Part 1 Posted By: BrianT - ezOP Posted At: (12/10/03 12:29 pm) BrianT wrote: Whew, that's a whopper of an article. I will address it in parts, as I have time. For the most part, I am disappointed, but not really surprised, at the general tone of the article. The author seems bent on dressing up the facts in the cloak of his own opinion -- in other words, he's making things seem much worse than they actually are, and trying to draw on emotional response, etc. In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: So I guess Brian agrees with me that things are pretty bad with W&H text, but he'll still try to argue that they are not quite as bad as I think? -- BrianT wrote: For example: In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: They were responsible for undermining the text of the Authorised Version (the KJV), which led to its eventual abandonment by all mainstream Christian Churches. BrianT wrote: The KJV has not been abandoned. In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: But in the academic circles it's pretty well abandoned... -- In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: KJV New Testament was, of course, based on the Greek text that is known as the Majority/Byzantine text. BrianT wrote: Not, it was based on the TR, which is not quite the same thing. In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: Yes, I'm well aware that there are various technical distinctions between the Majority text, the Byzantine text, and the TR (various forms of it). Nevertheless, all these texts are pretty close together. -- In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: this traditional text was abandoned, and it was replaced ... with Hort's own creation! BrianT wrote: No, it was not abandoned, or replaced (with a "creation"). It was revised based on textual critical evidence. That sentence sounds like W&H dumped the existing Bible in the garbage, and made a new one up from scratch, which is of course ludicrous. In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: Well, this is merely an argument about the semantics... Not a substantial argument. -- In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: So this was published first in 1881, and it took the world by storm. BrianT wrote: 99% of the world didn't even notice or care. In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: Are you one of these 99%, Brian? If not, what is the point of your objection? BrianT wrote: And very few that did notice and care, did not find great cause for concern. In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: Well, some people do care about the text of the Bible, including myself. If the majority of Christians don't care, this is a cause for concern, rather than for celebration. -- In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: So then what was the basis of Hort's 1881 edition? It was based on a small handful of Egyptian Greek manuscripts dated to the 4th and 5th centuries. But there are many problems with these manuscripts, because they constantly disagree with each other -- in thousands of passages... So how did he decide which of them to use for any particular verse of his brand-new text that he was building up? Essentially, when all is said and done, he based his decisions upon his own authority. BrianT wrote: This paragraph shows a woefully lacking understanding of textual criticism. In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: Really? BrianT wrote: Yes, some ancient Egyptian manuscripts were used, even favored, in the process. But no two manuscripts are in 100% agreement, even excluding these manuscripts. ALL textual criticism, whether done by Erasmus, the KJV translators, Westcott & Hort, etc, involves evaluating the available evidence and making a judgment call. In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: But when a textual critic makes such judgement calls in regard to the variants within the Majority and Byzantine texts, for example, the latitude for error is far less, since the degree of agreement within these two texts is a lot greater... -- In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: As a result, in the 4 gospels alone, Hort's text has about 6000 differences from the traditional Byzantine text. Many of these differences are very substantial indeed BrianT wrote: How many is "many"? Is "Christ Jesus" substantially different from "Jesus Christ", etc? 6000 differences in the gospels alone includes minor things like accent marks, etc. Similiar to the "thousands of differences" between the 1611 and 1769 editions of the KJV, if you include spelling, punctuation, etc. How many translational differences are there? Only about 4000 across the entire NT, and most of these are minor and would only show up in a strictly literal translation (such as the LITV, etc.) According to various sources, the number of words in the KJV is 783,137 (give or take a few, depending on the publisher and edition). Let's quadruple those 4000 differences, just to be generous (converting phrases into words), and estimate there are 16,000 word differences that affect translation (in those 4000 places). That sounds big at first, but 16,000/783,137 = 2.04% All this commotion 2 percent! And what is more interesting, to me anyways, is that this 2% is spun, using various figures and analogies, to sound like we're comparing the Bible with the Koran or something. In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: I think Brian's argument is now about how many _substantial_ differences are there among these 6000 variations. Well, why doesn't he just give us his own estimate of how many? Myself, I think there are way too many to try to sweep this matter under the rug... -- In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: and affect all sorts of matters of biblical interpretation. BrianT wrote: Interpretation is a separate process, and is not dependent on the ink on paper, but upon the guiding of the Holy Spirit. Two people can read the same words, and come to different interpretations. Two other people can read different words and come to the same interpretation. In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: Are you now trying to say that interpretation is generally unaffected by textual variants??? -- In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: So this is what the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars, as well the majority of the rank-and-file Christians, of course, still use today... BrianT wrote: Actually, this isn't exactly true. Westcott & Hort's work might be considered the basis upon which further study and textual work has been done, but it is extremely rare for someone to use W&H's work and methods "as is". Most have intergrated their work, but not follow it exclusively. In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: In today's academic circles, Nestle/Aland Greek text rules. But, as I said in my article, this is 99.5% identical to W&H. -- In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: After studying these matters for years, I've concluded that the "improved text", so-called, that Hort & Co. introduced was not an improvement at all, but a total and unqualified DISASTER -- far inferior to the traditional Majority/Byzantine text. BrianT wrote: By "WHOSE AUTHORITY" should we believe that? In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: Hey, you don't have to believe my opinion... My own authority doesn't enter into it at all. I'm saying that Byz text has greater authority; I'm not saying that _I_ have the greater authority! -- In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: But the problem is that, over the years... virtually all of his theories have now been completely abandoned by the mainstream textual critics! BrianT wrote: If "virtually all of his theories have now been completely abandoned by the mainstream textual critics", then this abandonment would indicate they would revise his work accordingly, In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: Well, that would have been a logical conclusion... So why didn't this happen? BrianT wrote: which is the opposite of what was said earlier (where it was said that W&H's text was what "the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars, as well the majority of the rank-and-file Christians, of course, still use today".) In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: They use it, but they simply don't understand just how deficient it is... They've been hoodwinked! -- In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: There's virtually nothing left out there of Hort's original theorising, what actually _paved the way_ for that big 19th century take down of the Majority text... There's nothing left there at all but an Empty Shell! BrianT wrote: Let's put things into perspective. This "empty shell" has resulted in the most serious and detailed examination of Biblical manuscripts in the entire history of the world. In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: This is debatable... BrianT wrote: This "empty shell" has opened the door into an area of Bible history that was largely unexplored and undocumented previously. In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: I doubt it. BrianT wrote: The changes that this "empty shell" has resulted in is less than 5% change of the NT text (most of which is not consequencial), In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: There's no need to try and minimise these differences... BrianT wrote: while at the same time vastly increasing understanding and assurances of the variations that do exist. In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: How so? BrianT wrote: We should be greatful for the work they did, even if we disagree with their conclusions! In loisy@yahoogroups.com, Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...> wrote: I'm not grateful to Hort. I think he was a fraud. -- BrianT wrote: More later, as the next section deals with quotes, and I want to look them up myself later at home. I'll post more of my response tomorrow. -- Best regards, Yuri. Baqqesh shalom verodpehu -- Seek peace and pursue it (Psalm 34:15) Yuri Kuchinsky -- www.trends.ca/~yuku -- Toronto
BrianT	Let's do this right! :)	#7	[-]
Posts: 2094 (12/11/2003 17:43:35) ezOP Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I don't understand what is happening here. Are you using my response to the article to carry on a discussion with the author, on another board? This is extremely confusing, and I don't know where/how to reply. I don't even know who I should be replying to. Do we want to invite Yuri here? Should I go to that forum and make my response there? Let me know what makes the most sense. God bless, Brian
rjjjjj6	RE: Let's do this right! :)	#8	[-]
Posts: 8 (12/11/2003 18:06:46) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Subject: Let's do this right! Posted By: BrianT - ezOP Posted At: (12/11/03 5:43 pm) I don't understand what is happening here. Are you using my response to the article to carry on a discussion with the author, on another board? This is extremely confusing, and I don't know where/how to reply. I don't even know who I should be replying to. Do we want to invite Yuri here? Should I go to that forum and make my response there? Let me know what makes the most sense. God bless, Brian ------------------------ The best thing would be for you to join the following forum, because then you'd have a much better understanding of Yuri Kuchinski!!: groups.yahoo.com/group/loisy
BrianT	Re: RE: Let's do this right! :)	#9	[-]
Posts: 2094 (12/11/2003 18:50:28) ezOP Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Alright, sounds good. I'll post a reply there later tonight. God bless, Brian
rjjjjj6	RE: RE: Let's do this right! :)	#10	[-]
Posts: 8 (12/11/2003 20:38:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Subject: Re: RE: Let's do this right! Posted By: BrianT - ezOP Posted At: (12/11/03 6:50 pm) Alright, sounds good. I'll post a reply there later tonight. God bless, Brian ------------------------ #1. Also, when you have time, look at all of the other replies, & the fastest way to do that is to look at the following cross-posts, & the following loisy posts!!: 71 Re:FWD: Westcott & Hort fraud Gayle Simmons truthnow46202 Mon 12/8/2003 groups.yahoo.com/group/bi...message/71 72 Re:[loisy] [Bible_Versions_and_Translations] Westcott & Hort fraud Gayle Simmons truthnow46202 Tue 12/9/2003 groups.yahoo.com/group/bi...message/72 6626 Westcott & Hort fraud?? - Part 1 Chris chris_bitmead Wed 12/10/2003 groups.yahoo.com/group/lo...ssage/6626 6630 Re: FWD: RE: [EZ Board] Westcott & Hort fraud?? - Part 1 taino_leon taino_leon Thu 12/11/2003 groups.yahoo.com/group/lo...ssage/6630 6631 Re: FWD: RE: [EZ Board] Westcott & Hort fraud?? - Part 1 Yuri Kuchinsky yuku Thu 12/11/2003 groups.yahoo.com/group/lo...ssage/6631 6632 Re: Westcott & Hort fraud?? - Part 1 Yuri Kuchinsky yuku Thu 12/11/2003 groups.yahoo.com/group/lo...ssage/6632 -- #2. Also, you might be interested in the following post: 6624 Rich man's question (Mt 19:16-17) Yuri Kuchinsky yuku Tue 12/9/2003 groups.yahoo.com/group/lo...ssage/6624
Holy Bible	Re: Westcott & Hort fraud??	#11	[-]
Posts: 260 (07/08/2005 00:33:12) Banned User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Me thinks this person had a pretty good grip on things. [quote author=Scanner Comic relief,ya know.
amarillo	haha v funny n all	#12	[-]
Posts: 3728 (07/11/2005 13:40:33) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	n now let's see how the "Holy Bible" answers the fraud. Joseph Ng "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Westcott & Hort fraud??

Westcott & Hort fraud??