Westcott and Hort

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On Mon, 27 Jan 1997 11:30:43 -0500, you wrote:

>     Has anyone done any investigation on the two translators of the Nestle 
>     Greek text?  These two individuals, who are Wescott and Hort, are the 
>     translators of the Nestle text which was written and published in the 
>     late 1800's.  By far, the majority of the versions of the Bible 
>     published today are written from the Nestle text.

Thats right. One source of a pretty good run down on the background of
this is Bro Seagrave's book "In Seach of the Word of God". 

Actually, I have a great deal of research on this subject here. if you
like, Bro Kimbrell, I will try to pack up what I have digitzed and
sent it to you. There is much commentary and opinoion, but this kind
subject requires a LOT of reading to go beyond being opinionated by
the opinion of another :-)

Here is a little scrap from one writer, on the subject (sorry that I
have misplaced the credit for this)

"While the Majority Text is represented in thousands of Greek
manuscripts, the Minority Text is formed essentially by five
manuscripts. The most important of the five are Codex Sinaiticus
(Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B). When these two manuscripts differ,
which they do in thousands of places (it is easier to find a verse in
which they differ than where they agree, preference is given to B.

The first edition of this new minority text was first created by the
eclecticism of Westcott and Hort, the two cheif translators on the
committee to produce the Revised Version of 1881. They had
collaborated on the text prior to beginning the work of translating,
using the recently discovered Aleph and B.

The translating committee was dominated by liberal, even unbelieving
churchmen. It included a Unitarian minister who rejected the deity of
Christ and rejoiced at the new rendering of 1 Tim 3:16. Both Westcott
and Hort were sympathetic with Romanism. Another member did not
beleive the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, and did beleive that
the Word of God dwelt in many sacred books other than the Bible."

Here the writer says that Dr Westcott  (and his colleage Dr Hort) were
both sympathetic with Romanism. After my own research I personally
believe that the during the 1800s, the Vatican mounted an effort to
restore the corrupt Vulgate-type of text to prominence after 300 years
of publication and the failure of the Holy Office (i.e. Inquisition)
to deal with maintaining the control of scriptures by the church
seemed to indicate a need to compete or loose. 

The Romans were badly damaged by the TR based King James and
derivatives. In "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated", Benjamin G.
Wilkinson clarifies the concept that there are fundimentally only two
Bibles, but there ARE two. I believe this, and see evidence of the use
of this other Bible to compete with the real work of God. 

History seems to illuminate how God allowed the importation to europe
(in the middle ages) of many many Byszantine manuscripts, right at a
time when the scholars were facinated with the study of Hebrew and
Greek and it was of great interest to read the word of God and
translated it.. In this, I believe God undid some of the problems
introduced by Roman transposition. The schismed east, not under rule
of a single Bishop (as in the west) had not consolidated control over
ancient manuscripts. hence, when the time came, these mss were
imported to the west (after political chaos came to the east) by
people fleeing Muslims. these form the basis of the TR alternative to
the Roman texts. How wonderful!

Now, in the 1800s, the two uncial mss mentioned above (Aleph and B)
were "discovered", and the translation craze began. It seems entirely
motivated by as opposition to the TR based Bible. Frankly, we cannot
find any plain reason why the Nestle-Aland text is so greatly prefered
today. many explainations are given, but none really addres the issue
basically, IMO. 

Returning to your inquiry about Westcott, here are some quotes written
by his hand:

To the archibishop of Canterbury  5/4/1890 - "No one now, I suppose,
holds that the first three chapters, for example, gives a literal
history. I could never understand how anyone rading them with open
eyes could think they did"

To archbishop Benson 11/17/1865 - "I wish I could see to what 
forgotten truth Mariolity bears witness"

>From Hort - other telling comments:

To Westcott 10/17/1865 - "I have been persuaded for many years that
Mary Worship and Jesus worship  have very much in common in theor
causes and their effects.

To Dr Lightfoot 10/26/1867 - "But you know I am a staunch
sacredotalist"

To Westcott 9/23/1864  - "Perfect Catholicism has been no where since
the reformation"

Anyway, I might be able to prepare at least a bibliography.

To Westcott: "


-mw bassett
milford, ct
http://eli.wariat.org/~mbasset