Westcott & Hort's Greek Text & Theory Refuted
Westcott & Hort's Greek Text & Theory Refuted
Westcott & Hort's Greek Text & Theory Refuted
Taken from
Dr. Scriveners Comments on Westcott & Horts Revised Greek Text & Theory
There is little hope for the stability of their imposing structure, if its foundations have been laid on the sandy ground of ingenious conjecture. And, since barely the smallest vestige of historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the views of these accomplished editors, their teaching must either be received as intuitively true, or dismissed from our consideration as precarious and even visionary. [Dr. F. H. A. Scriveners Plain Introduction, 1883, p. 531, quoted by Dean John W. Burgon, Revision 2 Revised, p. iv].
Dr. Scriveners Comments on Westcott & Horts Revised Greek Text & Theory
Dr. Horts System is entirely destitute of historical foundation. We are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our strong conviction that the Hypothesis to whose proof he has devoted so many laborious years, is destitute not only of historical foundation, but of all probability, revealing from the internal goodness of the Text which its adoption would force upon us. [Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener's Plain Introduction, 1883, pp. 537, 542, quoted by Dean John W. Burgon, Revision 3 Revised, p. iv].
But I more than long,I fairly ache to But long, have done with Controversy, and to be free to devote myself to the work of Interpretation. My apology for bestowing so large a portion of my time on Textual Criticism, is Davids when he David s was reproached by his brethren for appearing on the field of battle,Is battle, Is there not a cause? [Dean John W. cause? Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. xxix]. Revised, xxix].
13
Two Irresponsible Scholars (Westcott & Hort) Silently Revised the Greek Text
But instead of all this, a Revision of the But English Authorised Version having been sanctioned by the Convocation of the Southern Province in 1871, the opportunity was eagerly snatched at by two irresponsible scholars of the University of Cambridge for obtaining the general sanction of the Revising body, and thus indirectly of Convocation, for a private venture of their own, own, 14
Two Irresponsible Scholars (Westcott & Hort) Silently Revised the Greek Text
their own privately devised Revision of their the Greek Text. On that Greek Text of Text. theirs, (which I hold to be the most depraved which has ever appeared in print), with some slight modifications, print), our Authorised English Version has been silently revised: silently, I say, for in the margin of the English no record is preserved of the underlying Textual changes which have been introduced by the Revisionists. [Dean John W. Burgon, Revisionists. 15 Revision Revised, pp. xxx]. Revised, xxx].
If all this does not constitute a valid If reason for descending into the arena of controversy, it would in my judgment be impossible to indicate an occasion when the Christian soldier is called upon to do so:the rather because certain of these so: who, from their rank and station in the who, Church, ought to be the champions of the Truth, are at this time found to be among its most vigorous assailants. assailants. [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. Revised, 16 xxxi-xxxii]. xxxi- xxxii].
Gods Threefold Means of Preservation of His Written Words True, that millions of the copies True, so produced have long since perished; but it is nevertheless a plain fact that there survive of the Gospels alone upwards of one thousand copies in the present day. day. [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. 8Revised, 9].
18
Gods Threefold Means of Preservation of His Written Words The two Egyptian translations The are referred to the 3rd and 4th. 4th. The Vulgate (or revised Latin) and the Gothic are also claimed for the 4th; the Armenian and possibly the Aethiopic, belong Aethiopic, to the 5th. 5th. [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 9]. Revised,
20
Burgon Defended the Traditional Text Against the Westcott & Hort Text in These Verses:
l l l l l l l Mark 2:1-12 (pp. 30-34) Luke 11:2-4 (pp. 34-36) Mark 16:9-20 (pp. 36-40) Luke 2:14 (pp. 41-51) Acts 27:37 (pp. 51-53) Acts 18:7 (pp. 53-54) Matthew 11:23 & Luke 10:15 (pp. 54-56)
29
Burgon Defended the Traditional Text Against the Westcott & Hort Text in These Verses:
l l l l l l l l
Mark 11:3 (pp. 56-58) Mark 11:8 (pp. 58-61) Luke 23:45 (pp. 61-66) Mark 6:20 (pp. 66-70) Mark 9:24 (pp. 70-71) Matthew 14:30 (p. 71) Mark 15:39 (pp. 71-72) Luke 23;42 (p. 72)
30
Burgon Defended the Traditional Text Against the Westcott & Hort Text in These Verses:
l l l l l
14:4 (pp. 72-73) 6:1 (pp. 73-75) 22:19-2032 words (pp. 75-79) 22:19-20 22:43-4426 words (pp. 79-83) 22:43-44 23:3412 words (pp.82-85) 23:34
31
Burgon Defended the Traditional Text Against the Westcott & Hort Text in These Verses:
l Luke 23:38--7 words (pp. 85-88) l Luke 24:1,3,6,9,1237 words (pp. 24:1,3,6,9,12 88-90) l Luke 24:40,42,51-5323 words 24:40,42,51-53 (pp. 90-91) l Matthew 27:21 (pp. 91-92) l Matthew 28:11 (pp. 92-93)
32
Burgon Defended the Traditional Text Against the Westcott & Hort Text in These Verses:
Luke 9:55-56 (p. 93) Luke 24:41 (p. 93) Luke 6:1 (pp. 93-98) 1 Timothy 3:16 ("God manifest in the flesh") (pp. 98-106, and pp. 424-491) 424-491) l 2 Peter 2:22 (p. 106) l l l l
33
Errors in Dr. Horts Theory The actual difference between The Lachmanns Text and those of Lachmann s the earlier Editors is that his documentary documentary authority authority is partial, narrow, selfcontradictory; and is proved to be untrustworthy by a free appeal to Antiquity.
47
Errors of Intrinsic & Transcriptional Probability Let the study of Documentary Let Evidence be allowed to take its place. Notions of Probability Probability are the very pest of these departments of Science which admit of an appeal to Fact. Fact. [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. 251-52]. Revised,
51
The False Syrian Text Recension (250 & 350 A.D.) Refuted
Hort & Westcott wrote: The Syrian The Text must in fact be the result of a Recension, Recension, . . . performed deliberately by Editors, and not merely by Scribes. (Introduction, p. Scribes. (Introduction, 133). Dean Burgon answers: But 133). But why must it? Instead of must in must must fact, we are disposed to read fact, 56 mayin fiction. may fiction.
The False Syrian Text Recension (250 & 350 A.D.) Refuted
The learned Critic can but mean that, on The comparing the Text of Fathers of the 4th century with the Text of codex B, it becomes to himself self-evident that one of the two has been fabricated. Granted. Then,Why should not the solitary Codex Then, be the offending party? . . . why (we ask) should codex B be upheld contramundum ? contramundum? [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. 272-73].57 Revised,
The False Syrian Text Recension (250 & 350 A.D.) Refuted
Apart however from the gross intrinsic Apart improbability of the supposed Recension,the utter absence of one Recension, particle of evidence, traditional or otherwise, that it ever did take place, must be laid to be fatal to the hypothesis that it did. did. It is simply incredible that an incident of such magnitude and interest would leave no trace of itself in history. history. 58
The False Syrian Text Recension (250 & 350 A.D.) Refuted
As As a conjecture(and conjecture it only professes to be a conjecture)Dr. conjecture) Horts notion of how the Text of the Hort s Fathers of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries,which, as he truly remarks, centuries, is in the main identical with our own Received Text,came into being, must Text, be unconditionally abandoned. [Dean abandoned. John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. Revised, 59 293-94].
Westcott & Horts Admission that the T.R. is 4th Century The fundamental text of the The late extant Greek MSS generally is, beyond all question, identical with [what Dr. Hort chooses to call] the dominant Antiochian or GraecoGraecoSyrian text of the second half of the 4th century . . .
62
for they will have reduced the for supposed consent of Fathers consent Fathers to the reproduction of one and the same single primary primary documentary witness: . . . witness : Upset the hypothesis on the other hand, and all is reversed in a moment. moment.
68
Fallacy of Worshiping B
And then, by an unscrupulous use of And the process of Reiteration, accompanied by a boundless exercise of the imaginative faculty, we have reached the goal to which all that went before has been steadily tending; viz. the absolute supremacy of codices B and Aleph above all other codices,and when they differ, then of codices, 71 codex B.
Fallacy of Worshiping B
And And yet, the immunity immunity from substantive error of a lost Codex of error imaginary date and unknown history cannot but be a pure imagination,(a imagination, mistaken one, as we shall presently show,)of these respected Critics: show,) while their proposed practical inference from it,(viz. to regard two remote and it, confessedly depraved Copies of that original, as a safe criterion of a genuineness,) genuineness, ) 72
Fallacy of Worshiping B
this, at all events, is the reverse this, of logical. In the meantime, the presumed proximity of the Text of Aleph and B to the Apostolic age is henceforth discoursed of as if it were no longer a matter of conjecture. conjecture. [Dean John W. Burgon, Revision Revised, p. Revised, 304].
73
He wrote: With regard to the great bulk of the words of the With New Testament, as of most other ancient writings, there is NO VARIATION or other ground of doubt, and therefore no room for textual criticism;... The proportion of words virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt is VERY GREAT, not less, on a rough computation, than SEVEN EIGHTHS OF THE WHOLE. The REMAINING EIGHTH therefore, formed in great part by changes of order and other comparative trivialities, constitutes the whole area of criticism. [Hort, INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW criticism. TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK, p. 2, B.F.T. GREEK, #1303] 85
#1 Horts Estimate of the Proportion of the Greek New Testament that Was Virtually Accepted by Everyone.
#1 Horts Estimate of the Proportion of the Greek New Testament that Was Virtually Accepted by Everyone.
Since the whole in numbers of Greek words and whole pages in the Greek New Testament, as seen in the table above, is 140,521 Greek words (100%=647 pages), Hort's 7/8ths of the Greek New Testament virtually agreed to by all would be 122,956 Greek words (87.5%=566 pages). Hort's 1/8th of the Greek N.T. that he claimed was in dispute would be 17,565 Greek words (12.5%=81 pages). In point of fact, as seen in the above table, the area of dispute between the Westcott and Hort Greek text as opposed to the Textus Receptus that underlies the KING JAMES BIBLE is only 9,970 Greek words (7%=45.9 pages). So Horts estimate in this area is Hort s 86 incorrect.
He wrote: If the principles followed in the present edition If are sound, this area may be very greatly reduced. Recognising to the full the duty of abstinence from peremptory decision in cases where the evidence leaves the judgment in suspense between two or more readings, we find that, setting aside differences of orthography, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt only make up about ONE SIXTIETH of the whole New Testament. Testament. [Hort, INTRODUCTION, loc. INTRODUCTION, 87 cit.] cit.]
#2 Horts Estimate of the Proportion of the Greek New Testament that Would Still be in Doubt if His Principles Were Followed.
#2 Horts Estimate of the Proportion of the Greek New Testament that Would Still be in Doubt if His Principles Were Followed.
Since the whole in numbers of Greek words and pages in whole the Greek New Testament, as seen in the table above, is 140,521 Greek words (100%=647 pages), Horts 1/60th of the Hort s Greek New Testament still subject to doubt if his principles were followed, would be 2,342 Greek words. This represents 1.76% of the Greek words, or 11.4 pages in a Greek New Testament if put all in one place. But we dont follow Horts don t Hort s principles at all. Because of this, we who hold to the principles Greek text that underlies the KING JAMES BIBLE are still disputing 9,970 Greek words (rather than only 2,342 Greek words). This represents 7% of the Greek words (rather than only 1.76%), or 45.9 pages in a Greek New Testament if the words were put in one place (rather than only 11.4 pages). So Hort's estimate in this area is incorrect again. We still again. maintain that the of Greek words in dispute are vastly more 88 in number than Hort has stated.
#3 Horts Estimate of the Proportion of the Greek New Testament that Contains SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION. He wrote: In this second estimate the proportion In of comparatively trivial variations is beyond measure larger than in the former; so that the amount of what can in any sense be called SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than A THOUSANDTH PART of the entire text. text. [Hort, INTRODUCTION, loc. cit.] cit.] 89
#3 Horts Estimate of the Proportion of the Greek New Testament that Contains SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION.
Since the whole in numbers of Greek words and pages whole in the Greek New Testament, as seen in the table above, is 140,521 Greek words (100%=647 pages), Horts Hort s 1/1000th of the Greek New Testament that he thought could be called SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION would be SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION 140.5 Greek words (.1%=.647 pages). This would be a little over one half a page in the Greek New Testament. This is extremely wide of the mark of truth! Since we dont follow Horts principles at all, we who hold to the don t Hort s principles Greek text that underlies the KING JAMES BIBLE are still disputing, either in SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION or SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION otherwise, a total of 9,970 Greek words (7%=45.9 pages). It is Horts last estimate that has been seized by his Hort s modern day puppets and grossly distorted in order to fool people into thinking that the problem is very tiny, when in reality, it is much, much larger! 90
#3 Horts Estimate of the Proportion of the Greek New Testament that Contains SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION.
Horts Hort s pupils are either knowingly or unknowingly, misquoting their teacher. They want to make the DIFFERENCES in the Greek texts very, very slight so as to minimize the arguments against the false Westcott and Horttypes Greek text. From the above quotations from Horts INTRODUCTION, his differences in Hort s INTRODUCTION, Greek texts would be either 81 pages (1/8th), or 11.4 pages (1/60th), or .647 pages (1/1000th). Rather than merely a little over one half a a page, Horts 1/8th of total differences would page, Hort s amount to 81 pages. In reality, we are faced 91 with 45.9 pages of difference!
#3 Horts Estimate of the Proportion of the Greek New Testament that Contains SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION.
A current illustration of this practice of distorting the facts in this area is found in a tape-recorded message given by Dr. Kenneth Barker, the chairman of the translation committee responsible for the NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. Dr. Barker VERSION. spoke in the Sunday evening service, September 12, 1993, at the SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH in Greenville, South Carolina. A friend recorded the message and gave me a copy. 92