Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901). Even though the Textus Receptus is not as old, I believe it is still more reliable because there are 5000 copies of them in print and ninety-some percent of them agree with one another. 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). The new Bible versions are not based on Erasmus' Textus Receptus. 21. For our purposes here, the term textus receptus means the 1550 edition of the Greek New Testament published by Robertus Stephanus. 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. Just trying to present another viewpoint. (11). In fact, to make a selection on such a basis is much beside the point. 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. Because the word m 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). The question remains to be resolved: how shall we define textus receptus? His compilation came to be known as the Textus Receptus. All known Greek manuscripts here read "tree of life" instead of "book of life" as in the textus receptus. 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. 22. (19). First, we should reiterate that the differences we’re talking about here occur in less than 1% of the New Testament. 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. I have really appreciated these articles. Second edition), pp.247-256. It is probably the single most famous of the so-called critical texts, … Of these 5,604 alterations, I found 1,952 to be … … Textus Receptus vs. Nestle Aland. Dismissing the Textus Receptus as an inferior text rife with errors, Westcott and Hort compiled a new Greek text, with special focus on two fourth-century manuscripts, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Westcott & Hort vs Textus Receptus: Which is Superior? Answer: Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort were 19th-century theologians and Bible scholars. 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. It is also called the ‘Westcott and Hort text’. Neither Erasmus nor Westcott and Hort (nor, need we say, any other text editor or group of editors) is omniscient or perfect in reasoning and judgment. Obviously, those readings in the textus receptus which are without any Greek manuscript support cannot possibly be original. A. Hort in 1881 who would put the nails in the coffin of the Textus Receptus. Scribes and printers made both accidental (usually) and deliberate (occasionally) changes in the Greek text as they copied it. 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. On the other hand, the Byzantine text-type, of which the textus receptus is a rough approximation, can boast of being presented in the vast majority of surviving manuscripts, as well as several important versions of the New Testament from the fourth century or later, and as being the text usually found in the quotations of Greek writers in the fifth century and after. (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. (10). 17. Therefore, we refuse to be enslaved to the textual criticism opinions of either Erasmus or Westcott and Hort or for that matter any other scholars, whether Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Burgon, Hodges and Farstad, or anyone else. Hello, Sign in. 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). His writings have appeared in numerous publications. On the down side, the distinctively Alexandrian text almost disappears from the manuscripts after the 9th century, following, not insignificantly, the violent and destructive Moslem conquest of Mesopotamia, the Holy Land and Levant, and all of North Africa, destroying or enslaving the Christian community in all these locations, destroying churches and Bible manuscripts. 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. Where did the reading "book of life" come from? 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. Account & Lists Account Returns & Orders. The edition most closely followed by them was Beza's edition of 1598, but they departed from this edition for the reading in some other published Greek text at least 170 times, and in at least 60 places, the KJV translators abandoned all then-existing printed editions of the Greek New Testament, choosing instead to follow precisely the reading in the Latin Vulgate version. 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. Whilst it is true that they used original sources, they omitted to tell readers that those sources were considered to be corrupt, by many centuries of biblical theologians, and so were not used for the famed 1611 KJV. Cults often try to scare their followers into mistrusting outsiders in order to keep them under their control. Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government. Second edition), pp.247-256. 13. 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. 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. The Western text-type is much older, but tends to paraphrase, so according to the critical text view also lacks dependability. However, since modern printed Greek texts are in the same respective families of text, namely the Alexandrian (Nestle, et al.) 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. (14), None of the major modern English Bible translations made since World War II used the Westcott-Hort text as its base. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Westcott and Hort Vs. Textus Receptus: Which Is Superior (Englisch) Gebundene Ausgabe 4,4 von 5 Sternen 6 Sternebewertungen. Revised edition). Likewise, it is important to recognize that the English Revised New Testament which came out in 1881 was not directly based on the text of Westcott and Hort, although in many particulars they are the same. On the down side, the distinctively Alexandrian text all but disappears from the manuscripts after the 9th century. Having been in the KJO movement and having read the KJO literature extensively I see a lot in common with the isolationism of the cults by causing mistrust of others. He wrote, This received text contains undoubtedly all the essential facts and doctrines intended to be set down by the inspired writers; for if it were corrected with the severest hand, by the light of the most divergent various readings found in any ancient MS. or version, not a single doctrine of Christianity, nor a single cardinal fact would be thereby expunged....If all the debated readings were surrendered by us, no fact or doctrine of Christianity would thereby be invalidated, and least of all would the doctrine of Christ's proper divinity be deprived of adequate scriptural support. These two texts were based on differing collections of manuscripts, following differing textual principles, at different stages in the on-going process of the … Westcott-Hort’s text. Mark 3:15: The Textus Receptus includes "to heal sicknesses" as one of the powers given to the Twelve. The question remains to be resolved: how shall we define textus receptus? 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. A. Hort, first published in 1881. Though the terms textus receptus and majority text are frequently used as though they were synonymous, they by no means mean the same thing. John Bunyan. 20. Secondly, in every place where “ampheteros” is used in the Textus Receptus, the King James translators rendered it as “both” in English. Robert L. Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," in Discussions by Robert L. Dabney: Theological and Evangelical, vol. See the page notes in The Englishman's Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970. See all 2 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions. In the 1870's, a challenge arose in the English world to the primacy of the King James Bible. The New Testament was inspired by God, and came from the pens of its writers or their amanuenses in infallible form, free from any defect of any sort, including scribal mistakes. The King James Bible translation is based on the Greek text found in the Textus Receptus. The following article is reproduced here with the permission of the author. The Majority Text vs. It must not be! 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). J. L. Dagg, A Manual of Theology (Harrisonburg, Va.: Gano, 1982 reprint of 1857 edition), pp.24, 25. : Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1986), p. 3. : 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. Der Textus Receptus war der griechische Text der protestantischen Kirche und das seit der Reformation. Reprinted with permission from As I See It, which is available free by writing to the editor at dkutilek@juno.com. A. Hort and first published in 1881, with numerous reprints in the century since. What shall we say then? No fundamental point of doctrine rests upon a disputed reading: and the truths of Christianity are as certainly expressed in the text of Westcott and Hort as in that of Stephanus. Read reviews from world’s largest community for readers. It is true that the Westcott-Hort text is part of the heritage of both the Nestle texts and the UBS texts. Which text shall we choose as superior? Our aim is to know precisely what the Apostles originally did write, this and nothing more, this and nothing else. 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. It has been customary in England to employ the 1550 text of Stephanus as the exemplar of the textus receptus (just as the Elzevir text was so adopted on the continent of Europe), and so we will follow this custom. Metzger characterizes about three-fourths of these manuscripts as Alexandrian, with the rest being called Western or mixed in text; none carries a Byzantine-type text. Zum Schluss noch zu einem recht heiklen Thema: Die Schlachter übersetzt aus dem Textus Receptus, einer älteren Zusammenstellung des griechischen Urtexts. Westcott & Hort vs Textus Receptus book. One of these readings is the famous I John 5:7. The New Testament in the Original Greek (Cambridge: Macmillan and Co., 1881), vol. Reprint of 1877 edition). 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. (20) All scholars today recognize this as being an extreme and unwarranted point of view. 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. 3. vii-viii; 648-656. 8. On the contrary, we know that manuscripts differ from each other; and where readings are various, but one of them can be correct. On the other hand, the Byzantine text-type, of which the textus receptus is a rough approximation, can boast of being presented in the vast majority of surviving manuscripts, as well as several important versions of the New Testament from the fourth century or later, and as being the text usually found in the quotations of Greek writers in the fifth century and after. read with Erasmus shows that their texts were more or less slavish reprints of Erasmus' text and not independently compiled editions, for had they been edited independently of Erasmus, they would surely have followed the Greek manuscripts here and read "tree of life." Jahrhunderts zu finden ist und sich in der Folge im Westen für lange Zeit durchgesetzt hat. It is probably the single most famous of the so-called critical texts, perhaps because of the scholarly eminence of its editors, perhaps because it was issued the same year as the English Revised Version which followed a text rather like the Westcott-Hort text. 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. “Do you know how many changes they made? The title page states: “a modern-language translation of the Westcott-Hort Greek Text.”. 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?". 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. 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. Another term increasingly used to refer to either the textus receptus or the majority text is the term "traditional text.". 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. 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. Try 7 See Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Crticism (Nashville: Nelson, 1984) for an extended treatment of these Byzantine readings in the papyri and other early manuscripts. For other articles by Douglas Kutilek, visit kjvonly.org. 5 New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1969. Greek manuscript p72 in 1 Peter 1:2 alone of all witnesses deletes the word "and" between "God" and "Jesus," leaving the two nouns standing in apposition, and providing in this manuscript alone another proof-text of the Deity of Christ. Maybe the Sharper Iron folks can post an article from someone with a pro KJV stance. The Westcott and Hort text is much simpler to define. For our purposes here, the term textus receptus means the 1550 edition of the Greek New Testament published by Robertus Stephanus. 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. Preis Neu ab Gebraucht ab Kindle "Bitte wiederholen" 1,02 € — — Kindle 1,02 € Lesen Sie mit unserer kostenfreien App Beliebte Taschenbuch-Empfehlungen des Monats. Their premise is that the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture requires that the early manuscripts cannot point to the original text better than the later manuscripts can, because these early manuscripts are in the minority.Pickering also seems to embrace such a doctrine. 12. Sorry. The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (Oxford: University Press, 1882). I. 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?”. 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). It is Scrivener's 1881 text which was reprinted by the Trinitarian Bible Society in 1976. Age of manuscripts is probably the most objective factor in the process of textual criticism. Mr. Kutilek may be contacted by email at dkutilek@juno.com. F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in Greek (Cambridge: University Press, 1949), pp. http://www.wayoflife.org/database/are_modern_versions_westcott_hort.html. 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. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist? "Age of manuscripts is probably the most objective factor in the process of textual criticism.". Frederic G. Kenyon, Handbook of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan and Co., 1901), p.271. Reprint of 1877 edition). This is the Greek New Testament edited by B. F. Westcott and F. J. 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. Though the Westcott-Hort text was the “standard” critical text for a generation or two, it is no longer considered such by any one, and has not been for many years. He has a BA in Bible from Baptist Bible College (Springfield, MO), an MA in Hebrew Bible from Hebrew Union College and a ThM in Bible exposition from Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Such readings as this are also presumptively not original. In 1633, the Elzevirs of Leyden published the second edition of their Greek text, and that text contained the publisher's "blurb": textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, or, "therefore you have the text now received by all," from which the term textus receptus, or received text was taken, and applied collectively and retroactively to the series of published Greek New Testaments extending from 1516 to 1633 and beyond. And, frankly, just as there are times when we must honestly say, "I simply do not know for certain what this Bible verse or passage means," there will be (and are) places in the Greek New Testament where the evidence is not clear cut, (21) and the arguments of the various schools of thought do not distinctly favor one reading over another. 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. 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. (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? This text does not conform exactly to any of the historic texts dating from the Reformation period and known collectively as the textus receptus. Though these three examples give added proof-texts for orthodox doctrines, these readings are universally rejected as not being the original reading of the Greek in these verses. The Textus Receptus. There is a real challenge in conversing with someone who is heavily involved in the KJO position. be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. Westcott and Hort Vs. Textus Receptus: Which Is Superior: Douglas Kutilek: 9780944788455: Books - Amazon.ca Question: "Who were Westcott and Hort, and what did they have to do with the text of the Bible?" Though the Westcott-Hort text was the "standard" critical text for a generation or two, it is no longer considered such by anyone, and has not been for many years. As a result, the surviving manuscript copies of the New Testament differ among themselves in numerous details. 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. Returning to the specific texts, Westcott-Hort vs. the textus receptus: in truth, both texts necessarily fall short of presenting the true original. In Christianity, the term Textus Receptus (Latin for "received text") designates all editions of the Greek texts of the New Testament from the Novum Instrumentum omne established by Erasmus in 1516 to the 1633 Elzevier edition; the 1633 Elzevier edition is sometimes included into the Textus Receptus. The Greek text followed by the Revisers was compiled and published in 1882 in an edition with the KJV and ERV in parallel columns.2 It is true that the Westcott-Hort text and the English Revised New Testament of 1881 are rather similar to each other, but they are not identical. It is true that the Westcott-Hort text and the English Revised New Testament of 1881 are rather similar to each other, but they are not identical. See the listing of papyrus manuscripts in Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. Edward F. Hills, of those who could be called "competent" scholars, was virtually alone among mid-20th century writers who defended the supremacy of the textus receptus. (23). “The Westcott and Hort Text changes the Textus Receptus in over 5,600 places. There is more reason to believe that they were influenced by the occult than there is to believe that they were influenced by the Holy Spirit. Notice in the below verses that the KJV says "saved", while the ESV says "being saved" as also the below verses reveal. 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. Barbara and Kurt Aland, et al., editors, Novum Testamentum Graece (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. 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). It is true that the Westcott-Hort text is part of the heritage of both the Nestle texts and the UBS texts. Revelation 16:5 and the Triadic Declaration - A defense of the reading of “shalt be” in the Aut He is seeking to build a case in defense of the Critical Text using the variant reading from the Critical Text! Age of manuscripts is probably the most objective factor in the process of textual criticism. This reading is not supported by any known Greek manuscript of John's Gospel. 9. the debate has gone on for so long that comments need to be specific rather than just generic. of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! 27th edition), "Introduction," p. 44. One such writer was 19th century American Southern Presbyterian theologian Robert L. Dabney. The Westcott and Hort text is much simpler to define. (IBRI Research Reports Book 45) (English Edition) eBook: Douglas K. Kutilek: Amazon.de: Kindle-Shop 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. The fact that all textus receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, et al. When Westcott and Hort compiled their text, they employed the two oldest then-known manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as their text base. A. Hort and first published in 1881, with numerous reprints in the century since. 7. He has been researching and writing in the area of Bible texts and versions for more than 35 years. 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. A. Hort, first published in 1881. Read Part 1. 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? 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).
Krügerrand 1 Oz, Hoot Carl Hiaasen Pdf, Why Do Hospitals Have Unique Networking Requirements, Sc Teacher Scholarships, Ithaca College Football Roster 2017, Pasta With Chickpeas, Broccoli And Ricotta, Uber Connect Service, Cauliflower Mushroom Recipe,