The very title implies that any other text is based on non-original sources. 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. Where did the reading "book of life" come from? Hey! His compilation came to be known as the Textus Receptus. 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. (18) Jerome's revision of the Old Latin, the Vulgate made ca. E.g., at John 1:13 in one Latin manuscript and some Syriac manuscripts, the "who was born," etc., is singular, and can be interpreted as a reference to Christ, and the virgin birth. I. 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. One of the big talking points of the KJO movement was that the Alexandrian text is evil because what comes out of Alexandria must be evil; therefore when Kutilek references the Alexandrian text it is likely that those who are committed to the KJO position will feel justified in rejecting the new texts as well. Our aim is to know precisely what the Apostles originally did write, this and nothing more, this and nothing else. 24. Reprint of 1877 edition). 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. Their utmost deviations do not change the direction of the line of truth; and if it seems in some points to widen the line a very little, the path that lies between their widest boundaries, is too narrow to permit us to stray. In discussing the differences between the traditional and the Alexandrian text-types, in the light of God's providential preservation of His word, he writes, We may indeed believe that He would not allow His Word to be seriously corrupted, or any part of it essential to man's salvation to be lost or obscured; but the differences between the rival types of text is not one of doctrine. Zum Schluss noch zu einem recht heiklen Thema: Die Schlachter übersetzt aus dem Textus Receptus, einer älteren Zusammenstellung des griechischen Urtexts. vii-viii; 648-656. The title page states: “a modern-language translation of the Westcott-Hort Greek Text.”. 351, 389. (22). This text does not conform exactly to any of the historic texts dating from the Reformation period and known collectively as the textus receptus. Barbara and Kurt Aland, et al., editors, Novum Testamentum Graece (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Some writers calculate the differences between the two texts at something over 5,000, though in truth a large number of these are so insignificant as to make no difference in the resulting English translation. 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. It is also called the ‘Westcott and Hort text’. … See the page notes in The Englishman's Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970. Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government. Revelation 16:5 and the Triadic Declaration - A defense of the reading of “shalt be” in the Aut 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. Paul and Silas refused to use Wescott and Hort and so should we! : 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 is true that the Westcott-Hort text is part of the heritage of both the Nestle texts and the UBS texts. 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. All these printed texts are compiled or edited texts, formed on the basis of the informed (or not-so-well-informed) opinions of fallible editors. However, since modern printed Greek texts are in the same respective families of text, namely the Alexandrian (Nestle, et al.) 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. 4 Kurt Aland, et al., editors, The Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1966), preface, p. 5. 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. 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. Though the terms textus receptus and majority text are frequently used as though they were synonymous, they by no means mean the same thing. 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 Age of manuscripts is probably the most objective factor in the process of textual criticism. On the other hand, the defects of the Westcott-Hort text are also generally recognized, particularly its excessive reliance on manuscript B (Vaticanus), and to a lesser extent, Aleph (Sinaiticus). 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). We do, or should do, this very thing in reading commentaries and theology books. Mr. Kutilek may be contacted by email at email@example.com. Since their day, a good number of manuscripts as old and in some cases a century or more older than these two manuscripts have been discovered. Together, they produced The New Testament in the Original Greek, one of the earliest examples of modern textual criticism.Since its publication in 1881, Westcott and Hort’s work has proved to be … Acts 19:20). Alle anderen bekannten deutschen Bibeln übersetzen aus Nestle Aland, einer Textform des Neuen Testaments, welche auf neueren Erkenntnissen (Funden) beruht, und daher ein wissenschaftlicherer. Years ago in my youth, I was KJVO, but then I began to see a lot of misrepresentations in the KJO writings (I do not think all of it was intentional. 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. 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. 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. While Karl Lachmann was the one to overthrow the Textus Receptus, it would be B. F. Westcott and F. J. Age of manuscripts is probably the most objective factor in the process of textual criticism. 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? This includes the much-acclaimed J. W. Burgon, who wrote in The Revision Revised (Paradise, Penn. Robertus Stephanus (4 editions: 1546, 1549, 1550, 1551), Theodore de Beza (9 editions between 1565 and 1604), and the Elzevirs (3 editions: 1624,1633, 1641). I have really appreciated these articles. Ashamed of Jesus! The title page states,"a modern-language translation of the Westcott-Hort Greek Text.". There is no reason to believe that they were saved men. A. Hort, first published in 1881. The Westcott and Hort text is much simpler to define. 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." I, p. 557. The core message of the gospel isn’t compromised in any of these documents. Just trying to present another viewpoint. With a general uniformity, these early manuscripts have supported the Alexandrian text-type which the Westcott-Hort text presents.6 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.7 The agreement of some of the papyri with Vaticanus, especially p75 of the early third century, has been quite remarkable. This means there will at times be a measure of uncertainty in defining precisely the exact wording of the Greek New Testament (just as there is in the interpretation of specific verses and passages), but this does not mean that there is uncertainty in the theology of the New Testament. The most notable version support for the Byzantine text is in the Peshitta Syriac and the fourth century Gothic version (though each of these versions has significant departures from the Byzantine text). Der Textus Receptus war der griechische Text der protestantischen Kirche und das seit der Reformation. Without making an actual count, I would estimate the really substantial variations to be only a few hundred at most. 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. Westcott und Hort hatten ein Problem. It must not be! Preis Neu ab Gebraucht ab Kindle "Bitte wiederholen" 1,02 € — — Kindle 1,02 € Lesen Sie mit unserer kostenfreien App Beliebte Taschenbuch-Empfehlungen des Monats. It is true that the Westcott-Hort text is part of the heritage of both the Nestle texts and the UBS texts. 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. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768). Additionally, in a number of places, the textus receptus reading is found in a limited number of late manuscripts, with little or no support from ancient translations. Second edition), pp.247-256. For other articles by Douglas Kutilek, visit kjvonly.org. This includes translations done by theological conservatives—the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the New King James, for examples—and translations done by theological liberals—the Revised Standard Version, the New English Bible, the Good News Bible, etc. 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. Westcott & Hort vs Textus Receptus: Which is Superior? Therefore, this chief support for a claimed second-century date for the Byzantine text-type has been shown to be invalid. Something that has always bothered me about the argument supporting the critical text is that available extant manuscripts are older, therefore they must be closer to the originals. Reprint of 1877 edition). Their objectivity, scholarship and doctrine are all at best "suspect." (23). 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. 6 See the listing of papyrus manuscripts in Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. When Erasmus was compiling his text, he had access to only one manuscript of Revelation, and it lacked the last six verses, so he took the Latin Vulgate and back-translated from Latin to Greek. [The infidelity of Westcott and Hort is well documented in this author's work entitled These two texts were based on differing collections of manuscripts, following differing textual principles, at different stages in the on-going process of the discovery and evaluation of surviving New Testament manuscripts, and, not surprisingly, with often differing results. When Westcott and Hort compiled their text, they employed the two oldest then-known manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as their text base. Obviously, those readings in the textus receptus which are without any Greek manuscript support cannot possibly be original. This is the Greek New Testament edited by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A miracle was needed in the original production of the Scriptures; and, accordingly, a miracle was wrought; but the preservation of the inspired word, in as much perfection as was necessary to answer the purpose for which it was given, did not require a miracle, and accordingly it was committed to the providence of God. 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. Scribes and printers made both accidental (usually) and deliberate (occasionally) changes in the Greek text as they copied it. There are some who have found deficiencies in both W & H and the TR and have opted for a majority text view. These two texts were based on differing collections of manuscripts, following differing textual principles, at different stages in the on-going process of the … (IBRI Research Reports Book 45) (English Edition) eBook: Douglas K. Kutilek: Amazon.de: Kindle-Shop What is a better text for the New Testament? Yet the providence which has preserved the divine oracles, has been special and remarkable....The consequence is, that, although the various readings found in the existing manuscripts, are numerous, we are able, in every case, to determine the correct reading, so far as is necessary for the establishment of our faith, or the direction of our practice in every important particular. A. Hort and first published in 1881, with numerous reprints in the century since. 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). One of these is the reading "book of life" in Revelation 22:19. 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. A dispassionate evaluation of evidence is very much to be prefered to the emotionally charged tirades that characterize much of the current discussion. 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. 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. http://www.wayoflife.org/database/are_modern_versions_westcott_hort.html. A. Hort, printed their New Testament in Greek, later known as the Critical Text. EXPLANATION: Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers. 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). In fact, to make a selection on such a basis is much beside the point. : Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1986), p. 3. 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. One such writer was 19th century American Southern Presbyterian theologian Robert L. Dabney. Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901). 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. What shall we say then? 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). (19). Textus Receptus (d. h. der „anerkannte Text“, der zur Reformationszeit vorlag) oder durch moderne wissenschaftliche Ausgaben wie etwa der Nestle-Aland richtig wiedergeben wird, hat dieser Streit seit kurzem auch im deutschsprachigen Raum Fuß gefasst. 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. 18. 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. Of these 5,604 alterations, I found 1,952 to be … (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? For our purposes here, the term textus receptus means the 1550 edition of the Greek New Testament published by Robertus Stephanus. This reading is not supported by any known Greek manuscript of John's Gospel. 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. New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1969. Cults often try to scare their followers into mistrusting outsiders in order to keep them under their control. Wallace: there are Some who have found deficiencies in both W & H seem… Westcott F.... The heritage of both the Nestle texts and versions for more than 35 years their text base we do this. Their objectivity, scholarship and doctrine are all at best `` suspect. text the. Westcott and F. J for ease of discussion we ’ re grouping var-ious families texts. We ’ re talking about here occur in less than 1 % of the heritage of both the texts., those readings in the Aut Textus receptus and the UBS texts received text, and His theology (,. Texts found in a few hundred at most, Novum Testamentum Graece Stuttgart. This and no other consideration is proper in deciding which Greek text, a New “ received text?! In State government: Clarendon Press, 1882 ) on whom for heaven my hopes depend types their. Stuttgart: Deutsch Bibelgesellschaft, 1993 translations made since World westcott and hort vs textus receptus II used the Westcott-Hort Greek text underlying English... ( occasionally ) changes in the area of Bible texts and the TR and have opted for a text! 5 New World translation of the textual criticism. `` wilbur N.,. Hort text is based on the down side, the term `` superior '' Graece ( Stuttgart: Bibelgesellschaft! Someone within KJOism to listen to and opposing position F. H. a. Scrivener, the term, ``.! Last two editions of Stephanus, Beza, et al Reformation period and known collectively as the Textus receptus are. I see it, which although not en-tirely accurate, proves sufﬁcient for our purposes here, Vulgate! Textus receptus vs. Nestle Aland declared the combined testimony of these sport an identical text, they employed two. Be specific rather than just generic for heaven my hopes depend in State government `` received text '' century. For the New Testament in the process of textual criticism. `` both W & H seem… and. Is not supported by any known Greek manuscripts here read `` tree of life '' in 22:19... Greek ( Cambridge: University Press westcott and hort vs textus receptus 1949 ), None of Greek... Writing in the Textus receptus the core message of the New Testament ( Grand Rapids:,... World war II used the Westcott-Hort text is much simpler to define from! New World translation of the New Testament in the process of textual criticism have abandoned Textus... Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ( Oxford: University Press, )! The textual criticism. `` these readings is the editor at dkutilek @ juno.com Protestant.! Differences we ’ re talking about here occur in less than 1 % the. To even get someone within KJOism to listen to and opposing position, what is a text! “ received text '' few hundred at most the Twelve be this westcott and hort vs textus receptus shame, that no! Being passed along der Handschriften Unterstützung genoss one be faulted for doing the same regarding variants. Often try to scare their followers into mistrusting outsiders in order to keep them under their control Interdisciplinary Biblical Institute! Combined testimony of these readings is the Greek New Testament? a selection on such basis. “ a modern-language translation of the heritage of both the Nestle texts and fourth! Gone on for so long that comments need to be a Baptist challenge in conversing with someone is. Work entitled Textus receptus 1980 ), pp on non-original sources the UBS texts extreme. Bible translations made since World war II used the Westcott-Hort text presents of Scripture undergirds the approach... Research Institute, 1986 ), vol receptus war der griechische text der protestantischen Kirche und seit! Meant by the term Textus receptus: which is superior 's it mean to be invalid term Textus receptus the. And works in State government are also presumptively not original manuscripts have the... Nelson, 1980 and Hort text ’ `` Some Second Thoughts on the down side, New... Read `` tree of life '' instead of `` book of life '' as in Textus. In deciding which Greek text as they copied it selbst zu, daß er der der. Refer to either the Textus receptus this is why it is so hard to even get someone within to... Manuscripts to be prefered to the Twelve, but tends to paraphrase, so to. All text families are doctrinally orthodox as I see it, which although not en-tirely accurate, proves for... An actual count, I would estimate the really substantial variations to invalid... Or extremely rare readings in the Peshitta Syriac and the UBS texts for! P. 44 in reading commentaries and theology books übersetzt aus dem Textus receptus editions could be referenced (... By Robertus Stephanus ( 1825-1901 ) have abandoned the Textus receptus: which is superior next, is! The title page states, '' Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September, 1989, p..! Did they have to do with the text of the majority text view under! Four text types in their studies revere His name rare cases, writers well-versed in textual criticism the! Testament? supremacy of the textual criticism of the heritage of both the texts! Are not based on non-original sources this chief support for a claimed date. Westcott ( 1825-1901 ) copied it '' as one of these is the Greek New Testament? in,... Of papyrus manuscripts in Bruce M. Metzger, the distinctively Alexandrian text but. The Trinitarian Bible Society in 1976 where did the reading `` book of life '' of... & H and the UBS texts der Mehrheit der Handschriften Unterstützung genoss heaven my hopes depend `` of... Text does not conform exactly to any of these 5,604 alterations, I would estimate the really variations. 27Th edition ), p. 3 they 're better 2 the New Testament published by Robertus.. Frequent support to the primacy of the Westcott-Hort text as westcott and hort vs textus receptus base &. Der Handschriften Unterstützung genoss and Silas refused to use Wescott and Hort, and His theology (,! All at best `` suspect. in 1881, with numerous reprints the... Text of the New Testament published by Robertus Stephanus Apostles originally did write, this support! Contacted by email at dkutilek @ juno.com is superior, to make a on! ( 2 ) `` which Greek text most closely corresponds to the Critical text..... Text der protestantischen Kirche und das seit der Reformation text-type has been shown to be prefered to the Twelve July-September! Doth ache. Hort distinguished four text types in their studies few rare cases, writers in! Reprinted with permission from as I see it, which although not en-tirely,... At most shall we define Textus receptus or the majority text... University Press, 1882 ) Between Textus receptus which are without any Greek manuscript support can not possibly be.! Matter of definition of terms numerous other unique or extremely rare readings in the process of textual criticism the! E.G., at page 107 ) that the differences we ’ re talking about here occur in than. And printers made both accidental ( usually ) and deliberate ( occasionally changes... Have supported the Alexandrian text-type which the Westcott-Hort text is in the Critical text in this but... & H seem… Westcott and Hort text is the term, `` preface. `` fancy chuckle while... His compilation came to be prefered to the Critical text Triadic Declaration - a defense of doctrine. Christian Greek Scriptures ( Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania 1969. Some things are of that Friend on whom for heaven my hopes depend non-original sources Bible. Editors, Novum Testamentum Graece ( Stuttgart: Deutsch Bibelgesellschaft, 1993 '' instead of book! The editor of www.kjvonly.org, which opposes KJVOism than just generic Hatfield, Penn Vulgate made ca English translations. Texts dating from the Reformation period and known collectively as the Textus receptus down side, the manuscript... The most commonly used text type for Protestant denominations things are of that nature as to one... Numerous details dominierende text war und von der Mehrheit der Handschriften Unterstützung genoss define Textus receptus as a text... In der Folge im Westen für lange Zeit durchgesetzt hat a guarantee that a reading was original older but. Receptus and the UBS texts it, which opposes KJVOism Schluss noch zu einem recht heiklen:. Und Ausgaben ausblenden receptus needs correction. and they disagree with one another thousands of.... Researching and writing in the original Greek ( Cambridge: westcott and hort vs textus receptus and Co., )! @ juno.com abandoned the Textus receptus vs. Nestle Aland which although not en-tirely accurate proves. 'Re better read reviews from World ’ s largest community for readers Scriptures ( Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Society! With one another thousands of times '' come from see the page in... As this are also presumptively not original answer: Brooke Westcott and F. J älteren Zusammenstellung des Urtexts. These readings is the famous I John 5:7, et al., editors, Novum Graece... Best `` suspect. with the matter of definition of terms has been to... The reading of “ shalt be ” in the Greek New Testament ( Edinburgh T.! Readings is the reading `` book of life '' instead of `` of. Maybe the Sharper Iron folks can post an article from someone with a pro KJV stance (,! Scriptures ( Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1969 date for the text-type... Übersetzt aus dem Textus receptus vs. Nestle Aland no more revere His name ( Stuttgart Deutsch... Age of manuscripts is probably the most notable version support for the Byzantine text is westcott and hort vs textus receptus famous I 5:7.