False Bibles and their Translators
The Two Most Prominent Translators of Modern Versions of the Bible
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901)
|
Fathers of modern Bible versions.
|
John Anthony Hort (1828-1892)
|
Brooke Foss Westcott (an Anglican bishop and professor at Cambridge University) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (also an ordained priest and professor at Cambridge) produced a Greek New Testament in 1881 based on the findings of Tischendorf. This Greek New Testament was the basis for the Revised Version of that same year. They also developed a theory of textual criticism which underlay their Greek New Testament and several other Greek New Testaments since (including the Nestle-Aland text).
Greek New Testaments such as these produced most of the modern English translations of the Bible we have today.
On one side, their supporters have heralded them as great men of God, having greatly advanced the search for the original Greek text. On the other side, their opponents have leveled charges of heresy, infidelity, apostasy, and many others, claiming that they are guilty of wreaking great damage on the true text of Scripture.
I have no desire to sling mud nor a desire to hide facts. I just want to share the truth about these men. So, put on your seatbelt, and get ready for a quick ride through the beliefs of Westcott and Hort. . .
In order to give you an idea of what they REALLY believed and what their REAL intentions were when creating their Greek New Testament, I will let the men speak for themselves. I will tell you nothing. I will merely let these two men speak for themselves. The rest of this page will be only quotations. If this makes you angry, don't be angry with me...I'm just giving you the words of Westcott and Hort...
TELLING QUOTATIONS FROM WESTCOTT AND HORT
Concerning the Deity of Christ:
"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).
"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).
Concerning the Scriptures:
"I reject the infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).
"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).
"Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)
Concerning Hell:
"(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits. (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).
"We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).
Concerning Creation:
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).
"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)
Concerning the Atonement:
"I think I mentioned to you before Campbell's book on the Atonement, which is invaluable as far as it goes; but unluckily he knows nothing except Protestant theology." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 322)
"The popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...nothing can be more unscriptural than the the limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." (Hort to Westcott, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 430)
"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).
Concerning Man:
"It is of course true that we can only know God through human forms, but then I think the whole Bible echoes the language of Genesis 1:27 and so assures us that human forms are divine forms." (Hort to Westcott, August 14, 1860)
"Protestants (must) unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of Priesthood." (Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp. 49-51)
Concerning Roman Catholicism:
"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid. )
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-Worship and Jesus-Worship have very much in common." (Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp. 49-51)
"The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)
"I agree with you in thinking it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates purgatory . . . the idea of purgation, cleansing by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. II, pp. 336,337)
Concerning the Cumulative Effect of Multiple Changes to the Manuscripts:
"It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first. . . The difference between a picture, say of Raffaelle, and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences. . . We have successfully resisted being warned off dangerous ground, where the needs of revision required that it should not be shirked. . . It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol.I, pp. 138,139)
-------------------------------------------------------------
It is one thing to have doctrinal differences on baby-sprinkling and perhaps a few other interpretations. It is quite another to be a Darwinian theologian who rejects the authority of scriptures, Biblical salvation, the reality of hell, substitutionary atonement, makes Christ a created being to be worshipped with Mary his mother, and to openly admit that your "trifling alterations" with the Greek Text have begun a "new period in Church history"!! Yet, these were the views of both Westcott and Hort!! This is UNBELIEVABLE!! No less significant is the fact that both men were involved with the occult and were members of spiritist societies (the Hermes Club and the Ghostly Guild), and both men supposedly "talked" to Spirits of the dead.
Greek New Testaments such as these produced most of the modern English translations of the Bible we have today.
On one side, their supporters have heralded them as great men of God, having greatly advanced the search for the original Greek text. On the other side, their opponents have leveled charges of heresy, infidelity, apostasy, and many others, claiming that they are guilty of wreaking great damage on the true text of Scripture.
I have no desire to sling mud nor a desire to hide facts. I just want to share the truth about these men. So, put on your seatbelt, and get ready for a quick ride through the beliefs of Westcott and Hort. . .
In order to give you an idea of what they REALLY believed and what their REAL intentions were when creating their Greek New Testament, I will let the men speak for themselves. I will tell you nothing. I will merely let these two men speak for themselves. The rest of this page will be only quotations. If this makes you angry, don't be angry with me...I'm just giving you the words of Westcott and Hort...
TELLING QUOTATIONS FROM WESTCOTT AND HORT
Concerning the Deity of Christ:
"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).
"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).
Concerning the Scriptures:
"I reject the infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).
"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).
"Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)
Concerning Hell:
"(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits. (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).
"We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).
Concerning Creation:
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).
"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)
Concerning the Atonement:
"I think I mentioned to you before Campbell's book on the Atonement, which is invaluable as far as it goes; but unluckily he knows nothing except Protestant theology." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 322)
"The popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...nothing can be more unscriptural than the the limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." (Hort to Westcott, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 430)
"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).
Concerning Man:
"It is of course true that we can only know God through human forms, but then I think the whole Bible echoes the language of Genesis 1:27 and so assures us that human forms are divine forms." (Hort to Westcott, August 14, 1860)
"Protestants (must) unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of Priesthood." (Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp. 49-51)
Concerning Roman Catholicism:
"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid. )
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-Worship and Jesus-Worship have very much in common." (Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp. 49-51)
"The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)
"I agree with you in thinking it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates purgatory . . . the idea of purgation, cleansing by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. II, pp. 336,337)
Concerning the Cumulative Effect of Multiple Changes to the Manuscripts:
"It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first. . . The difference between a picture, say of Raffaelle, and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences. . . We have successfully resisted being warned off dangerous ground, where the needs of revision required that it should not be shirked. . . It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol.I, pp. 138,139)
-------------------------------------------------------------
It is one thing to have doctrinal differences on baby-sprinkling and perhaps a few other interpretations. It is quite another to be a Darwinian theologian who rejects the authority of scriptures, Biblical salvation, the reality of hell, substitutionary atonement, makes Christ a created being to be worshipped with Mary his mother, and to openly admit that your "trifling alterations" with the Greek Text have begun a "new period in Church history"!! Yet, these were the views of both Westcott and Hort!! This is UNBELIEVABLE!! No less significant is the fact that both men were involved with the occult and were members of spiritist societies (the Hermes Club and the Ghostly Guild), and both men supposedly "talked" to Spirits of the dead.
THE WESTCOTT AND HORT ONLY CONTROVERSY
By: Dr. Phil Stringer
This message was given at the 33rd. Annual Meeting and Conference of the GraceWay Bible Society meeting,
Saturday, October 27th., 2001, held at Brampton Ontario, Canada.
I. The King James Only Controversy.
You don’t have to read very much in contemporary, fundamentalist, Baptist literature to come across warnings about the "King James only controversy."
Dr. Jerry Falwell announces that he is hiring Dr. Harold Rawlings to "refute the ‘King James Only’ cultic movement that is damaging so many good churches today."
Dr. Robert Sumner warns about the "veritable fountain of misinformation and deceptive double talk on the subject of ‘King James Onlyism’."
Dr. J. B. Williams refers to those who advocate the King James Only as "misinformers" and as "a cancerous sore."
Dr. Robert Joyner calls King James Bible loyalists, "heretics".
Dr. James R. White warns about King James Bible proponents "undercutting the very foundations of the faith itself".
Such references to the King James Only Controversy are very common. Some refer to loyal supporters of the King James Bible as the "King James Only Cult". Another common term is the sneering reference to the "King Jimmy Boys."
However the use of the "King James Bible only" wasn’t always so controversial.
II. The Primacy of the King James Bible
God was doing a great work in England in the early 1600's. The preaching of the gospel of Christ out of the Matthew’s Bible and the Geneva Bible was leading to multitudes of conversions. Evangelicals and Puritans were becoming a stronger and stronger force in the Church of England and in English culture.
Yet many were concerned that the final translation work into the English language had not been done. King James was persuaded to authorize a new translation. The King James Bible was printed in 1611.
At first there were questions and concerns about this new Bible translation. This was as it should be. No one should accept a Bible translation lightly. By 1640 however, the King James Bible was clearly the Bible of the English people. The Geneva and Matthew’s Bible, once greatly used of God, went out of print. There was simply no demand for them anymore.
The Church of England, with its official evangelical doctrinal statement, used the King James Bible exclusively. It was the Bible of the Puritans, both inside and outside the Church of England. In fact the Puritans began to use the distinctive Biblical English of the King James Bible in the day to day speech.
The King James Bible was the Bible of the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, and the Quakers. It was clearly the Bible of the Baptists. By 1640 it was the Bible of the Pilgrims (some had used the Geneva Bible earlier).
The King James Bible was the Bible of evangelicals in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. It became the Bible of the English colonies across the Atlantic Ocean. The only religious group of any size or importance in England that didn’t use the King James Bible was Roman Catholicism. All non-Catholics could have been referred to as "King James only people." When the Methodist Revival stirred England in the 1700's, it did so with the preaching of the King James Bible. John Wesley, one of the founders of the Methodists, made his own translation of the New Testament. However, it found little acceptance, even among Methodists. Only the King James Bible was in common use.
When English colonies flourished in Australia and New Zealand, the King James Bible was the common Bible of the settlers. When President George Washington took the first presidential oath of office in the new United States of America, he did so with his hand on a King James Bible. Every American president since, with the exception of Franklin Pierce, has done the same.
Over one hundred fifty English translations were produced between 1611 and 1880. However, they found no audience except in a few cults. Most went out of print quickly. The English speaking, Christian world was truly "King James only".
Baptist preachers produced a Baptist translation of the Bible. They replaced the word baptism with the word immersion. They replaced the word church with the word assembly. However, they found no audience, not even among Baptists. Their translation was soon out of print. The Baptists were truly "King James only".
As hard as it may be for the liberals and secularists to admit, the American public schools were built around the King James Bible. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, (not exactly a religious right publication), describes the early public schools this way, "Public schools had a distinctly Protestant flavor, with teachers leading prayers and scripture reading from the King James Bible in their lessons". The Roman Catholic minority objected to the King James Bible and so they developed their own school system. With the exception of the Catholics, the United States was clearly King James only.
Russell Kirk (a Roman Catholic historian) describes the influence of the King James Bible on the United States, "The book that was to exert a stronger influence than any other in Americas was not published until 1611, a few years after the first Virginian settlement: the ‘King James’ translation of the Bible, the Authorized Version, was prepared by English scholars for King James I. Read from American pulpits and in the great majority of American households during colonial times, the Authorized Version shaped the style, informed the intellect, affected the laws, and decreed the morals of the North American Colonies." Truly the early United States was King James only.
According to Winston Churchill, ninety million copies of the King James Bible had been printed by the mid-twentieth century.
The King James Bible was the Bible of the great modern missions movement of the 1700's and 1800's. The missionaries from England and the United States were saved, called to the mission field, and trained under the preaching of the King James Bible. They traveled around the world, introducing the gospel of grace to millions. Many of these missionaries knew little or no Greek and Hebrew. They translated the Bible into 760 languages from the King James Bible. Truly the modern missions movement was a King James only movement.
III. The Westcott and Hort Theory.
In the 1870's, a challenge arose in the English world to the primacy of the King James Bible. There had always been a challenge from Roman Catholicism, but this challenge came from men who were officially Protestants: Church of England Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott and Cambridge University Professor Fenton John Anthony Hort.
The heart of the Wescott and Hort theory was that the New Testament was preserved in almost perfect condition in two Greek texts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaticus. Sinaticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Momentary (near Mt. Sinai) in 1844 by Constantin von Tischendorf. The Vaticanus was found in the Vatican library in 1475 and was rediscovered in 1845.
The King James New Testament was translated from a different family of Greek texts. To Westcott and Hort, the King James Bible was clearly an inferior translation. It must be replaced by a new translation from texts that they considered to be older and better. They believed that the true work of God in English had been held back by an inferior Bible. They determined to replace the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus. In short, their theory suggests that for fifteen hundred years the preserved Word of God was lost until it was recovered in the nineteenth century in a trash can and in the Vatican Library. [Editor RAB: that's where they belong.]
Hort clearly had a bias against the Textus Receptus, calling it "villainous" and "vile". Hort aggressively taught that the School at Antioch (associated with Lucian) had loosely translated the true text of Scripture in the second century A. D. This supposedly created an unreliable text of Scripture which became the Textus Receptus. This was called the Lucian Recension Theory.
Hort did not have a single historical reference to support the idea that such a recension took place. He simply theorized that it must have taken place. In spite of the fact that there is not a single historical reference to the Lucian Recension, many Bible colleges teach it as a historical fact. [Editor RAB: sad but true. One of my professors was one of the contributing editors to the NIV, he did one of the minor prophets. I was not even a year old in Christ when I went off to seminary. I was not brought up in church, and never owned a Bible until my girlfriend gave me one as a gift before I went to seminary. The night I was saved I borrowed a Bible from a Muslim, (THAT IS ANOTHER STORY}. What was so disturbing to me was my professor. I felt he was trying to undermine my faith in the Bible and I told him so. By the way, my girlfriend gave me a King James Bible and told me it was the Word Of God. I married her while I was in seminary. Praise the Lord for a godly wife with godly convictions concerning the Bible. AMEN.]
IV. Westcott and Hort Only!
It is clear that the modern movement to revise the English Bible is based completely on the works of Westcott and Hort.
K.W. Clark writes, "...the Westcott-Hort text has become today our Textus-Receptus. We have been freed from the one only to become captivated by the other...The psychological chains so recently broken from our fathers have again been forged upon us, even more strongly."
E.C. Colwell writes, "The dead hand of Fenton John Anthony Hort lies heavy upon us. In the early years of this century Kirsopp Lake described Hort’s work as a failure, ...But Hort did not fail to reach his major goal. He dethroned the Textus Receptus. ...This was a sensational achievement, an impressive success. Hort’s success in this task and the cogency of his tightly reasoned theory shaped - and still shapes - the thinking of those who approach the textual criticism of the New Testament through the English language."
Zane Hodges, a long time professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, writes, "Modern textual criticism is psychologically addicted to Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort in turn, were rationalists in their approach to the textual problem in the New Testament and employed techniques within which rationalism and every other kind of bias are free to operate."
Alfred Martin, former Vice-President at Moody Bible Institute, wrote in 1951, "The present generation of Bible students having been reared on Westcott and Hort have for the most part accepted this theory without independent or critical examination. ...if believing Bible students had the evidence of both sides put before them instead of one side only, there would not be so much blind following of Westcott and Hort."The two most popular Greek manuscripts today, Nestles-Aland and UBS (United Bible Society), differ very little from the Westcott and Hort text.
V. WHAT YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TO ACCEPT THE WESTCOTT AND HORT THEORY.
You have to believe that people who believed in the Deity of Christ often corrupt Bible manuscripts.
You have to believe that people who deny the Deity of Christ never corrupt Bible manuscripts.
You have to believe that people who died to get the gospel to the world couldn’t be trusted with the Bible.
You have to believe that their killers could be trusted.
You have to believe that the Celtic Christians, Waldenses, Albigenses, Henricians, Petrobrussians, Paulicians, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Protestant churches, the Anabaptists and the Baptists all did not have the pure word of God.
You have to believe that the Roman Catholics and the nineteenth century rationalists did have the pure word of God.
VI. ARE WESTCOTT AND HORT INFALLIBLE?
Even though many evangelicals treat the Westcott and Hort Theory as proven fact, there have always been serious textual scholars that challenged it.
The brilliant textual scholar, Dean John Burgon, referred to Westcott and Hort’s "violent recoil from the Traditional Text" and "their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text". He refers to their theory as "superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents."
Another famed textual scholar and contemporary of Westcott and Hort, F.H.P. Scrivener wrote, "Dr. Hort’s system therefore is entirely destitute of historical foundation. He does not so much as make a show of pretending to it; but then he would persuade us, as he persuaded himself...".
It is a phony claim to scholarship to simply parrot the ideas of Westcott and Hort and pretend that you are superior to those who don’t accept their ideas. Those who wish to change the King James Bible, so long greatly used of God and cherished by the English speaking people, need to give clear reasons why!
How do you know that the "older" Vaticanus and Sinaticus manuscripts aren’t corrupt manuscripts? How do you know that the Lucian Recension ever took place? Why do you believe that the evangelicals throughout the centuries were using a corrupt text? Why would you trust Westcott and Hort only?
VII. WHO WERE WESTCOTT AND HORT?
B.F. Westcott was born in 1825. F.J.A. Hort was born in 1828. They were members of the Broad Church (or High Church) Party of the Church of England. They became friends during their student days at Cambridge University. They worked for over thirty years together on the subject of the Greek text of the New Testament.
Westcott went on to become the Bishop of Durham (England) and served for a while as chaplain to Queen Victoria. Hort is best remembered as a Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University.
Both men wrote several books. They are best remembered for their edition of the Greek New Testament entitled, "The New Testament in the Original Greek". They are also remembered for being the two most influential members of the English Revised Version committee which produced a new English translation. Scrivener thought that they exercised too much influence on this committee.
Westcott died in 1901. Hort passed away in 1892. Both men had sons who collected their personal correspondence and who wrote biographies about them.
VIII. THE DOCTRINE OF WESTCOTT AND HORT.
The Scripture
It is clear that neither Westcott nor Hort held anything even faintly resembling a conservative view of Scripture. According to Hort’s son, Dr. Hort’s own mother (a devout Bible believer) could not be sympathetic to his views about the Bible. Westcott wrote to Hort that he overwhelmingly rejected the "idea of the infallibility of the Bible". Hort says the same thing, the same week, in a letter to Bishop Lightfoot.
When Westcott became the Bishop of Durham, the Durham University Journal welcomed him with the praise that he was "free from all verbal or mechanical ideas of inspiration".
Salvation
Hort called the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement "immoral". In doing so he sided with the normal doctrine of the High Church Party of the Church of England. The Low Church Party was generally evangelical, teaching salvation through personal faith in Jesus Christ. The High Church Party taught salvation by good works, including baptism and church membership.
Westcott and Hort wrote many commentaries that include references to classic passages about salvation. Repeatedly their commentary is vague and unclear.and unclear. Westcott taught that the idea of "propitiating God" was "foreign to the..New Testament". He taught that salvation came from changing the character of the one who offended God. This is consistent with his statement that, "A Christian never is but is always becoming a Christian."
Again and again, Westcott’s vague comments about salvation are easy to interpret as teaching universal salvation.
The Doctrine of Christ
It was common in the days of Westcott and Hort for those in the Church of England who denied the Deity of Christ to speak in vague terms! To clearly deny the Deity of Christ was to jeopardize your position in the Church of England. Many High Church modernists learned to speak of the Deity of Christ in unclear terms as a way to avoid trouble.
Many statements by both Westcott and Hort fall into that category of "fuzzy" doctrinal statements about Christ. Westcott and Hort were brilliant scholars. Surely they were capable of expressing themselves clearly on the doctrine of Christ if they wanted to. At best they are unclear; at worst, they were modernists hiding behind the fundamental doctrinal statement of the Church of England.
Other Teachings of Westcott and Hort
There are many other areas that cause fundamental Bible believers to have serious questions about Westcott and Hort. Westcott denied that Genesis 1 through 3 were historically true. Hort praised Darwin and his theory of evolution. Both Westcott and Hort praised the "Christian socialist" movement of their day. Westcott belonged to several organizations designed to promote "Christian socialism" and served as President of one of them (the Christian Social Union).
Both Westcott and Hort showed sympathy for the movement to return the Church of England to Rome. Both honored rationalist philosophers of their time like Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Dr. Frederick Maurice, and Dr. Thomas Arnold. Both were serious students of the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle.
There is much about the teaching of Westcott and Hort to deeply trouble any objective Bible believer.
IX. WERE WESTCOTT AND HORT SAVED MEN?
The evangelical defenders of Westcott and Hort are quick to assert that they were saved men even if some of their ideas seem a little strange in our day. They remind people that both were ordained preachers in the evangelical Church of England.
However, there is no doubt that there were many Church of England preachers that were not true evangelicals. The High Church party was well known to teach salvation by works. Within the Church of England there was a vigorous debate between true evangelicals and those who taught baptismal regeneration or some other system of works for salvation. In their lengthy writings, neither Westcott nor Hort ever give an account of their own conversion. They never identified with the evangelicals in the Church of England. They were never accepted by the evangelicals in the Church of England. They were associated with various occult figures, but never with evangelicals.
While Westcott and Hort praised evolutionists, socialists, and modernists, they were bitterly critical of evangelical soulwinners. Westcott criticized the work of William Booth and the Salvation Army. Hort criticized the crusades of D.L. Moody. Hort criticized the soulwinning Methodists.
Both criticized evangelicals. Neither gave anyone any reason to believe that he had ever trusted Christ as his personal Saviour.
X. THE WORK OF THE ENGLISH REVISION COMMITTEE
In 1870, the English Parliament authorized a revision of the King James Bible. Two teams of translators were hired. Most translators were from the Church of England but there were also seven Presbyterians, four Congregationalists, two Baptists, two Methodists and one Unitarian. The translators were instructed to make as few alterations to the King James Bible as possible.
A similar committee was developed in the United States at the same time. The two committee’s exchanged copies of their work. Several thousand Church of England preachers signed a petition protesting the inclusion of a Unitarian, Dr. Vance Smith, on the Revision Committee. They felt that only saved men should be involved in translating the Bible. Proper translation required the illumination of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Both Westcott and Hort defended Smith and lobbied for his presence on the committee. Westcott threatened to quit if Smith was not included. Westcott and Hort supplied everyone working on the committee with a private copy of their new Greek text. Hort lobbied (some would say intimidated) committee members to follow the Westcott and Hort text. Westcott, Hort, and Bishop Lightfoot pressured the committee to go beyond their mandate for doing a revision of the King James Bible. Dr. Frederick Scrivener opposed many of the changes to be made on the basis of the new Westcott and Hort Greek Text. Committee meetings were referred to as "... a kind of critical duel between Dr. Hort and Dr. Scrivener".
Arthur Hort described his father’s method for describing the right reading of the text as "to settle the question by the light of his own inner consciousness". Dean Burgon spoke of Hort’s method as deciding by "the ring of genuiness". Hort was far more concerned about his feelings than he was about the textual debate over any passage. Westcott referred to the debate over textual readings as "hard fighting" and "a battle royal".
The original chairman, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, resigned after referring to the project as "this most miserable business".
Westcott and Hort eventually won most of the debates. After the new English Revision was published, both Scrivener and Burgon published lengthy refutations of the Revision. Burgon attacked the Revision strongly, calling it "excursions into cloud land" and "blowing smoke". The people of England largely rejected the new translation. Attempts to make it the new Authorized Version of the Church of England met with such protest that Queen Victoria abandoned the idea.
Neither the English nor the American Revision sold very well. They were both soon replaced by other versions. However, the multitude of new English versions were all based upon the same Westcott and Hort Greek text and upon the theories of Westcott and Hort. Their English translation failed but their principles won the day. Even though vangelicals rejected the English Revision and the Westcott and Hort text, it did find supporters. Modernists and rationalists, both within and without the Church of England, praised their work. Theosophy founder, Helen Blavatsky, wrote at great length in praise of the new Greek text.
The defenders of Westcott and Hort claimed that the evangelicals were too simple-minded and unlearned to understand the work of Westcott and Hort and other English "scholars". Evangelicalism was presented as unscholarly. After a generation, many evangelicals began to feel uncomfortable at always being labeled as unscholarly and uneducated. Some evangelical leaders began to look for ways to reconcile the historic Christian faith with the theories of Westcott and Hort.
These theories and the Greek text of Westcott and Hort began to find their way into evangelical seminaries and Bible colleges on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.
Two generations after the failure of the English Revision, the theories of Westcott and Hort had become majority opinion in evangelical Bible colleges and seminaries in both the United States and England. Their theories were universally accepted in modernist seminaries. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cults bragged about having Bible translations based upon the Westcott and Hort theory.
Compromising evangelicals were suddenly proud of having "scholarship" accepted by the world. They used the same Greek text as the Roman Catholic Church, the modernists and the cults.
A relative handful of Bible believers refused to accept the Greek text and theory of Westcott and Hort. Such holdouts became an irritation to the "scholarly" evangelicals. As study of the issue increased, opposition to the Westcott and Hort theory grew. "Westcott and Hort only" no longer seemed an adequate reason for abandoning the King James Bible. The "scholarly evangelicals" began to react harshly to their "King James only" critics.
XI. WERE WESTCOTT AND HORT SECRET PRACTITIONERS OF THE OCCULT?
In 1993, Gail Riplinger published New Age Bible Versions. In this book, she alleges that Westcott and Hort were practitioners of the occult. It is indicated that they provide a bridge between apostate Christianity and the occult and the New Age Movement.
This charge created a sensation and generated a tremendous amount of criticism for Mrs. Riplinger. It is, of course, a very important charge. An objective look at the evidence for such a charge is important.
Along with Bishop Edward White Benson, Westcott and Hort founded the Ghostly Guild. This club was designed to investigate ghosts and supernatural appearances. The club was based upon the idea that such spirits actually exist and appear to men. According to The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, the members of the Ghostly Club would "relate personal experiences concerned with ghosts.
This club would eventually become the Society for Psychical Research. According to James Webb in The Occult Underground and W.H. Solter, The S.P.R. - An Outline of It’s History, this club became a major factor in the rise of spiritualism among the elite of English society in the late 1800's. Many leading occult figures belonged to the Society.
Along the way, Westcott and Hort dropped out of the Ghostly Guild. However, they had plenty of opportunity to be exposed to the occult and demonism before they withdrew.
Westcott’s son refers to his father’s life long faith in spiritualism (Archbishop Benson’s son referred to Benson in the same way). Communion with spirits became quite fashionable in the late 1800's in British society. Even Queen Victoria, who normally led a responsible Christian life, dabbled in spiritualism. However, it was considered unseemly for Church of England clergymen, and Wescott had to keep his ideas quiet. According to Wescott’s son, Arthur, Dr. Wescott practiced the Communion of the Saints. This was a belief that you can fellowship with the spirits of those who died recently.
Bible translator J. B. Phillips also believed in the Communion of Saints. He believed that the spirit of C.S. Lewis visited him after his death. According to Arthur Wescott, Bishop Wescott also had such experiences with spirits. His son writes, "The Communion of Saints seems particularly associated with Peterborough. He had an extraordinary power of realizing this Communion. It was his delight to be alone at night in the great Cathedral, for there he could meditate and pray in full sympathy with all that was good and great in the past. . . There he always had abundant company." Wescott’s daughter met him returning from one of his customary meditations in the solitary darkness of the chapel at Auckland castle. She said to him, " I expect you do not feel alone?" "Oh, no," he said, "It is full."
Either Dr. Wescott’s children lied about him or Dr. Wescott was used to meeting with spirits. Bible believers recognize these spirits as demons. Wescott and Hort both joined a secret society called, The Apostles. It was limited to 12 members. One of the other members Henry Sidgwick. He was also stated to have led several professors at Trinity College into secretly practicing the occult. Wescott, his close friend, was also a professor at Trinity College. Strange company for a Christian teacher and Bible translator.
In 1872 Wescott formed a secret society, the Eranus Club. Members included Hort, Sidgwick, Arthur Balfour (future prime minister of England), Archbishop Trench and Dean Alford. Both Trench and Alford would be involved in Bible revision work. Balfour became famous for his seances and practice of spiritualism. The Eranus Club would eventually become known as an occult secret society.
Wescott’s defenders point out that Wescott also eventually dropped out of Eranus. Still he was certainly allied with practioners of the occult in a secret society for a period of time.
Balfour and Sedgwick were involved in several occult organizations, socialism and Theosophy. How many Christians have so many friends prominent in the practice of the occult?
Balfour would also be involved in the founding of the League of Nations and in forming a secret society with Cecil Rhodes (the Round Table and the Council on Foreign Relations).
The evidence for Mrs. Riplinger’s assertions is strong. Would Westcott and Hort’s defenders accept anyone today who had such connections? They were clearly in contact with people who were "familiar" with spirits. There is every reason to suspect that they might also have been in contact with spirits. Based upon their associations, there is no clear reason to reject the suggestion that they were involved in the occult. The balance of evidence creates, at the very least, a strong suspicion of occult influence on both Wescott and Hort (especially Dr. Wescott).
XII. THE FUNDAMENTALIST DEFENDERS OF WESTCOTT AND HORT
There are fundamentalists who refuse to accept the characterization of Westcott and Hort as liberals (much less occultists)! J. B Williams writes, "I have three of Wescott’s commentaries in my library, and I challenge anyone to find one sentence that would be a departure from Fundamentalist doctrine."
Keith Gephart writes, "In reality, Wescott had made clear statements affirming orthodox doctrines such as the deity of Christ, in no way was he guilty of heresy and apostasy." In responding to a critic of Westcott and Hort, Gephart wrote this, "I cannot help but suspect that . . . some blinding presupposition . . .drives you to prove him a heretic at any cost."
Dr. Stewart Custer writes, "Especially when these men have written in their mature years book after book defending the conservative interpretation of scripture, it is unjust to characterize their whole ministries by a few misinterpretations that they may have been guilty of."
Evangelist Robert Sumner admits that Westcott and Hort were liberal in theology but he still believes that they were trustworthy to "restore the original text."
It would be easy to ask at this point if everyone is reading from the same books. How can there be such a difference of opinion about what these men believed and wrote?
It is true that these men (especially Westcott) wrote commentaries in which they used the great doctrinal terms of the Christian faith in a positive way. They used terms that were part of the official doctrinal position of the Church of England (in which they both held prominent positions).
Almost all denominational liberals use the terms expected of them. This is important in maintaining their income, position and influence. The important thing is how they explain those doctrinal terms (or fail to explain them).
Unless you are determined not to see it, it is clear from their commentaries that they put a liberal interpretation on many Christian doctrines. Both of their sons admit that they were accused of heresy because of their books. This understanding of these statements in their commentaries are supported by several external facts.
Westcott and Hort identified with the High Church Party (Broad Party) within the Church of England. In contrast with the more evangelical and conservative Low Church, modernism found it’s home in the High Church Party.
Westcott and Hort constantly praised theological liberals, socialists and other radicals like Coleridge and Darwin.
No similar praise is found for evangelicals or fundamentalists, either in or out of the Church of England. They are normally ignored! When they are mentioned at all, like D. L. Moody, it is with disdain!
Their private correspondence reveals their liberal drift much more clearly then their commentaries. Of course, it was safer for them to admit what they really believed in this forum. Their correspondence also shows that they had concerns that they could not afford to have all of their beliefs known by the general public.
The biographies of Westcott and Hort written by their sons clearly reveal that they were not in harmony with the official positions of the Church of England. Their sons had no reason to lie about them. Certainly their sons had no King James only bias.
It is interesting that some men can’t face the real record about Wescott and Hort. In fact, some who are quick to attack even minor differences with living preachers, take a blind eye to Westcott and Hort.
However, this is easy to understand. Their campaign to replace the King James Bible has been based upon the work of Wescott and Hort only. To admit these men were not trustworthy would be to admit that they have been wrong in a major premise of their entire ministry.
Perhaps we must be forced to suspect that some blinding presupposition drives them to prove that Westcott and Hort were not heretics at any cost. It appears that "scholarship" requires only a shallow reading of Westcott and Hort and ignorance of their personal letters and correspondence. Their defenders do not spend anytime quoting their personal correspondence or the biographies written by their sons.
Their defenders never recount the testimonies of their conversion because no such testimonies exist.
XIII. IN CONCLUSION.
Dean John Burgon was a contemporary and acquaintance of both Westcott and Hort. He was a firm opponent of the Westcott and Hort theory, their new Greek text and the revision of the English Bible that they so heavily influenced. In an article entitled "The Secret Spanking of Westcott and Hort" Burgon wrote: "the text of Drs. Westcott and Hort is either the very best which has ever appeared or else it is the very worst; the nearest to the sacred autographs or the furthest from them. There is no room for both opinions, and there cannot exist any middle view." In other words things that are different are not the same.
Millions of professing evangelicals have never heard of Westcott and Hort. None the less, their approach to the Scripture is based upon the theory of Westcott and Hort — Westcott and Hort only. No matter how many books, professors, colleges and denominational leaders these theories are filtered through, they are still the work of Westcott and Hort only.
Those who challenge the primacy of the King James Bible in the English speaking world depend on the work of Westcott and Hort.
Westcott and Hort are not a sufficient basis to reject the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible. Their objectivity, scholarship and doctrine are all at best "suspect." There is no reason to believe that they were saved men. 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.
Perhaps the "King James Only Controversy" is misnamed. It is really a "Westcott and Hort Only" controversy.
Are you willing to abandon the historic contributions of the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible for Westcott and Hort, Westcott and Hort Only.
By: Dr. Phil Stringer
This message was given at the 33rd. Annual Meeting and Conference of the GraceWay Bible Society meeting,
Saturday, October 27th., 2001, held at Brampton Ontario, Canada.
I. The King James Only Controversy.
You don’t have to read very much in contemporary, fundamentalist, Baptist literature to come across warnings about the "King James only controversy."
Dr. Jerry Falwell announces that he is hiring Dr. Harold Rawlings to "refute the ‘King James Only’ cultic movement that is damaging so many good churches today."
Dr. Robert Sumner warns about the "veritable fountain of misinformation and deceptive double talk on the subject of ‘King James Onlyism’."
Dr. J. B. Williams refers to those who advocate the King James Only as "misinformers" and as "a cancerous sore."
Dr. Robert Joyner calls King James Bible loyalists, "heretics".
Dr. James R. White warns about King James Bible proponents "undercutting the very foundations of the faith itself".
Such references to the King James Only Controversy are very common. Some refer to loyal supporters of the King James Bible as the "King James Only Cult". Another common term is the sneering reference to the "King Jimmy Boys."
However the use of the "King James Bible only" wasn’t always so controversial.
II. The Primacy of the King James Bible
God was doing a great work in England in the early 1600's. The preaching of the gospel of Christ out of the Matthew’s Bible and the Geneva Bible was leading to multitudes of conversions. Evangelicals and Puritans were becoming a stronger and stronger force in the Church of England and in English culture.
Yet many were concerned that the final translation work into the English language had not been done. King James was persuaded to authorize a new translation. The King James Bible was printed in 1611.
At first there were questions and concerns about this new Bible translation. This was as it should be. No one should accept a Bible translation lightly. By 1640 however, the King James Bible was clearly the Bible of the English people. The Geneva and Matthew’s Bible, once greatly used of God, went out of print. There was simply no demand for them anymore.
The Church of England, with its official evangelical doctrinal statement, used the King James Bible exclusively. It was the Bible of the Puritans, both inside and outside the Church of England. In fact the Puritans began to use the distinctive Biblical English of the King James Bible in the day to day speech.
The King James Bible was the Bible of the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, and the Quakers. It was clearly the Bible of the Baptists. By 1640 it was the Bible of the Pilgrims (some had used the Geneva Bible earlier).
The King James Bible was the Bible of evangelicals in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. It became the Bible of the English colonies across the Atlantic Ocean. The only religious group of any size or importance in England that didn’t use the King James Bible was Roman Catholicism. All non-Catholics could have been referred to as "King James only people." When the Methodist Revival stirred England in the 1700's, it did so with the preaching of the King James Bible. John Wesley, one of the founders of the Methodists, made his own translation of the New Testament. However, it found little acceptance, even among Methodists. Only the King James Bible was in common use.
When English colonies flourished in Australia and New Zealand, the King James Bible was the common Bible of the settlers. When President George Washington took the first presidential oath of office in the new United States of America, he did so with his hand on a King James Bible. Every American president since, with the exception of Franklin Pierce, has done the same.
Over one hundred fifty English translations were produced between 1611 and 1880. However, they found no audience except in a few cults. Most went out of print quickly. The English speaking, Christian world was truly "King James only".
Baptist preachers produced a Baptist translation of the Bible. They replaced the word baptism with the word immersion. They replaced the word church with the word assembly. However, they found no audience, not even among Baptists. Their translation was soon out of print. The Baptists were truly "King James only".
As hard as it may be for the liberals and secularists to admit, the American public schools were built around the King James Bible. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, (not exactly a religious right publication), describes the early public schools this way, "Public schools had a distinctly Protestant flavor, with teachers leading prayers and scripture reading from the King James Bible in their lessons". The Roman Catholic minority objected to the King James Bible and so they developed their own school system. With the exception of the Catholics, the United States was clearly King James only.
Russell Kirk (a Roman Catholic historian) describes the influence of the King James Bible on the United States, "The book that was to exert a stronger influence than any other in Americas was not published until 1611, a few years after the first Virginian settlement: the ‘King James’ translation of the Bible, the Authorized Version, was prepared by English scholars for King James I. Read from American pulpits and in the great majority of American households during colonial times, the Authorized Version shaped the style, informed the intellect, affected the laws, and decreed the morals of the North American Colonies." Truly the early United States was King James only.
According to Winston Churchill, ninety million copies of the King James Bible had been printed by the mid-twentieth century.
The King James Bible was the Bible of the great modern missions movement of the 1700's and 1800's. The missionaries from England and the United States were saved, called to the mission field, and trained under the preaching of the King James Bible. They traveled around the world, introducing the gospel of grace to millions. Many of these missionaries knew little or no Greek and Hebrew. They translated the Bible into 760 languages from the King James Bible. Truly the modern missions movement was a King James only movement.
III. The Westcott and Hort Theory.
In the 1870's, a challenge arose in the English world to the primacy of the King James Bible. There had always been a challenge from Roman Catholicism, but this challenge came from men who were officially Protestants: Church of England Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott and Cambridge University Professor Fenton John Anthony Hort.
The heart of the Wescott and Hort theory was that the New Testament was preserved in almost perfect condition in two Greek texts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaticus. Sinaticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Momentary (near Mt. Sinai) in 1844 by Constantin von Tischendorf. The Vaticanus was found in the Vatican library in 1475 and was rediscovered in 1845.
The King James New Testament was translated from a different family of Greek texts. To Westcott and Hort, the King James Bible was clearly an inferior translation. It must be replaced by a new translation from texts that they considered to be older and better. They believed that the true work of God in English had been held back by an inferior Bible. They determined to replace the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus. In short, their theory suggests that for fifteen hundred years the preserved Word of God was lost until it was recovered in the nineteenth century in a trash can and in the Vatican Library. [Editor RAB: that's where they belong.]
Hort clearly had a bias against the Textus Receptus, calling it "villainous" and "vile". Hort aggressively taught that the School at Antioch (associated with Lucian) had loosely translated the true text of Scripture in the second century A. D. This supposedly created an unreliable text of Scripture which became the Textus Receptus. This was called the Lucian Recension Theory.
Hort did not have a single historical reference to support the idea that such a recension took place. He simply theorized that it must have taken place. In spite of the fact that there is not a single historical reference to the Lucian Recension, many Bible colleges teach it as a historical fact. [Editor RAB: sad but true. One of my professors was one of the contributing editors to the NIV, he did one of the minor prophets. I was not even a year old in Christ when I went off to seminary. I was not brought up in church, and never owned a Bible until my girlfriend gave me one as a gift before I went to seminary. The night I was saved I borrowed a Bible from a Muslim, (THAT IS ANOTHER STORY}. What was so disturbing to me was my professor. I felt he was trying to undermine my faith in the Bible and I told him so. By the way, my girlfriend gave me a King James Bible and told me it was the Word Of God. I married her while I was in seminary. Praise the Lord for a godly wife with godly convictions concerning the Bible. AMEN.]
IV. Westcott and Hort Only!
It is clear that the modern movement to revise the English Bible is based completely on the works of Westcott and Hort.
K.W. Clark writes, "...the Westcott-Hort text has become today our Textus-Receptus. We have been freed from the one only to become captivated by the other...The psychological chains so recently broken from our fathers have again been forged upon us, even more strongly."
E.C. Colwell writes, "The dead hand of Fenton John Anthony Hort lies heavy upon us. In the early years of this century Kirsopp Lake described Hort’s work as a failure, ...But Hort did not fail to reach his major goal. He dethroned the Textus Receptus. ...This was a sensational achievement, an impressive success. Hort’s success in this task and the cogency of his tightly reasoned theory shaped - and still shapes - the thinking of those who approach the textual criticism of the New Testament through the English language."
Zane Hodges, a long time professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, writes, "Modern textual criticism is psychologically addicted to Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort in turn, were rationalists in their approach to the textual problem in the New Testament and employed techniques within which rationalism and every other kind of bias are free to operate."
Alfred Martin, former Vice-President at Moody Bible Institute, wrote in 1951, "The present generation of Bible students having been reared on Westcott and Hort have for the most part accepted this theory without independent or critical examination. ...if believing Bible students had the evidence of both sides put before them instead of one side only, there would not be so much blind following of Westcott and Hort."The two most popular Greek manuscripts today, Nestles-Aland and UBS (United Bible Society), differ very little from the Westcott and Hort text.
V. WHAT YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TO ACCEPT THE WESTCOTT AND HORT THEORY.
You have to believe that people who believed in the Deity of Christ often corrupt Bible manuscripts.
You have to believe that people who deny the Deity of Christ never corrupt Bible manuscripts.
You have to believe that people who died to get the gospel to the world couldn’t be trusted with the Bible.
You have to believe that their killers could be trusted.
You have to believe that the Celtic Christians, Waldenses, Albigenses, Henricians, Petrobrussians, Paulicians, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Protestant churches, the Anabaptists and the Baptists all did not have the pure word of God.
You have to believe that the Roman Catholics and the nineteenth century rationalists did have the pure word of God.
VI. ARE WESTCOTT AND HORT INFALLIBLE?
Even though many evangelicals treat the Westcott and Hort Theory as proven fact, there have always been serious textual scholars that challenged it.
The brilliant textual scholar, Dean John Burgon, referred to Westcott and Hort’s "violent recoil from the Traditional Text" and "their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text". He refers to their theory as "superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents."
Another famed textual scholar and contemporary of Westcott and Hort, F.H.P. Scrivener wrote, "Dr. Hort’s system therefore is entirely destitute of historical foundation. He does not so much as make a show of pretending to it; but then he would persuade us, as he persuaded himself...".
It is a phony claim to scholarship to simply parrot the ideas of Westcott and Hort and pretend that you are superior to those who don’t accept their ideas. Those who wish to change the King James Bible, so long greatly used of God and cherished by the English speaking people, need to give clear reasons why!
How do you know that the "older" Vaticanus and Sinaticus manuscripts aren’t corrupt manuscripts? How do you know that the Lucian Recension ever took place? Why do you believe that the evangelicals throughout the centuries were using a corrupt text? Why would you trust Westcott and Hort only?
VII. WHO WERE WESTCOTT AND HORT?
B.F. Westcott was born in 1825. F.J.A. Hort was born in 1828. They were members of the Broad Church (or High Church) Party of the Church of England. They became friends during their student days at Cambridge University. They worked for over thirty years together on the subject of the Greek text of the New Testament.
Westcott went on to become the Bishop of Durham (England) and served for a while as chaplain to Queen Victoria. Hort is best remembered as a Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University.
Both men wrote several books. They are best remembered for their edition of the Greek New Testament entitled, "The New Testament in the Original Greek". They are also remembered for being the two most influential members of the English Revised Version committee which produced a new English translation. Scrivener thought that they exercised too much influence on this committee.
Westcott died in 1901. Hort passed away in 1892. Both men had sons who collected their personal correspondence and who wrote biographies about them.
VIII. THE DOCTRINE OF WESTCOTT AND HORT.
The Scripture
It is clear that neither Westcott nor Hort held anything even faintly resembling a conservative view of Scripture. According to Hort’s son, Dr. Hort’s own mother (a devout Bible believer) could not be sympathetic to his views about the Bible. Westcott wrote to Hort that he overwhelmingly rejected the "idea of the infallibility of the Bible". Hort says the same thing, the same week, in a letter to Bishop Lightfoot.
When Westcott became the Bishop of Durham, the Durham University Journal welcomed him with the praise that he was "free from all verbal or mechanical ideas of inspiration".
Salvation
Hort called the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement "immoral". In doing so he sided with the normal doctrine of the High Church Party of the Church of England. The Low Church Party was generally evangelical, teaching salvation through personal faith in Jesus Christ. The High Church Party taught salvation by good works, including baptism and church membership.
Westcott and Hort wrote many commentaries that include references to classic passages about salvation. Repeatedly their commentary is vague and unclear.and unclear. Westcott taught that the idea of "propitiating God" was "foreign to the..New Testament". He taught that salvation came from changing the character of the one who offended God. This is consistent with his statement that, "A Christian never is but is always becoming a Christian."
Again and again, Westcott’s vague comments about salvation are easy to interpret as teaching universal salvation.
The Doctrine of Christ
It was common in the days of Westcott and Hort for those in the Church of England who denied the Deity of Christ to speak in vague terms! To clearly deny the Deity of Christ was to jeopardize your position in the Church of England. Many High Church modernists learned to speak of the Deity of Christ in unclear terms as a way to avoid trouble.
Many statements by both Westcott and Hort fall into that category of "fuzzy" doctrinal statements about Christ. Westcott and Hort were brilliant scholars. Surely they were capable of expressing themselves clearly on the doctrine of Christ if they wanted to. At best they are unclear; at worst, they were modernists hiding behind the fundamental doctrinal statement of the Church of England.
Other Teachings of Westcott and Hort
There are many other areas that cause fundamental Bible believers to have serious questions about Westcott and Hort. Westcott denied that Genesis 1 through 3 were historically true. Hort praised Darwin and his theory of evolution. Both Westcott and Hort praised the "Christian socialist" movement of their day. Westcott belonged to several organizations designed to promote "Christian socialism" and served as President of one of them (the Christian Social Union).
Both Westcott and Hort showed sympathy for the movement to return the Church of England to Rome. Both honored rationalist philosophers of their time like Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Dr. Frederick Maurice, and Dr. Thomas Arnold. Both were serious students of the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle.
There is much about the teaching of Westcott and Hort to deeply trouble any objective Bible believer.
IX. WERE WESTCOTT AND HORT SAVED MEN?
The evangelical defenders of Westcott and Hort are quick to assert that they were saved men even if some of their ideas seem a little strange in our day. They remind people that both were ordained preachers in the evangelical Church of England.
However, there is no doubt that there were many Church of England preachers that were not true evangelicals. The High Church party was well known to teach salvation by works. Within the Church of England there was a vigorous debate between true evangelicals and those who taught baptismal regeneration or some other system of works for salvation. In their lengthy writings, neither Westcott nor Hort ever give an account of their own conversion. They never identified with the evangelicals in the Church of England. They were never accepted by the evangelicals in the Church of England. They were associated with various occult figures, but never with evangelicals.
While Westcott and Hort praised evolutionists, socialists, and modernists, they were bitterly critical of evangelical soulwinners. Westcott criticized the work of William Booth and the Salvation Army. Hort criticized the crusades of D.L. Moody. Hort criticized the soulwinning Methodists.
Both criticized evangelicals. Neither gave anyone any reason to believe that he had ever trusted Christ as his personal Saviour.
X. THE WORK OF THE ENGLISH REVISION COMMITTEE
In 1870, the English Parliament authorized a revision of the King James Bible. Two teams of translators were hired. Most translators were from the Church of England but there were also seven Presbyterians, four Congregationalists, two Baptists, two Methodists and one Unitarian. The translators were instructed to make as few alterations to the King James Bible as possible.
A similar committee was developed in the United States at the same time. The two committee’s exchanged copies of their work. Several thousand Church of England preachers signed a petition protesting the inclusion of a Unitarian, Dr. Vance Smith, on the Revision Committee. They felt that only saved men should be involved in translating the Bible. Proper translation required the illumination of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Both Westcott and Hort defended Smith and lobbied for his presence on the committee. Westcott threatened to quit if Smith was not included. Westcott and Hort supplied everyone working on the committee with a private copy of their new Greek text. Hort lobbied (some would say intimidated) committee members to follow the Westcott and Hort text. Westcott, Hort, and Bishop Lightfoot pressured the committee to go beyond their mandate for doing a revision of the King James Bible. Dr. Frederick Scrivener opposed many of the changes to be made on the basis of the new Westcott and Hort Greek Text. Committee meetings were referred to as "... a kind of critical duel between Dr. Hort and Dr. Scrivener".
Arthur Hort described his father’s method for describing the right reading of the text as "to settle the question by the light of his own inner consciousness". Dean Burgon spoke of Hort’s method as deciding by "the ring of genuiness". Hort was far more concerned about his feelings than he was about the textual debate over any passage. Westcott referred to the debate over textual readings as "hard fighting" and "a battle royal".
The original chairman, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, resigned after referring to the project as "this most miserable business".
Westcott and Hort eventually won most of the debates. After the new English Revision was published, both Scrivener and Burgon published lengthy refutations of the Revision. Burgon attacked the Revision strongly, calling it "excursions into cloud land" and "blowing smoke". The people of England largely rejected the new translation. Attempts to make it the new Authorized Version of the Church of England met with such protest that Queen Victoria abandoned the idea.
Neither the English nor the American Revision sold very well. They were both soon replaced by other versions. However, the multitude of new English versions were all based upon the same Westcott and Hort Greek text and upon the theories of Westcott and Hort. Their English translation failed but their principles won the day. Even though vangelicals rejected the English Revision and the Westcott and Hort text, it did find supporters. Modernists and rationalists, both within and without the Church of England, praised their work. Theosophy founder, Helen Blavatsky, wrote at great length in praise of the new Greek text.
The defenders of Westcott and Hort claimed that the evangelicals were too simple-minded and unlearned to understand the work of Westcott and Hort and other English "scholars". Evangelicalism was presented as unscholarly. After a generation, many evangelicals began to feel uncomfortable at always being labeled as unscholarly and uneducated. Some evangelical leaders began to look for ways to reconcile the historic Christian faith with the theories of Westcott and Hort.
These theories and the Greek text of Westcott and Hort began to find their way into evangelical seminaries and Bible colleges on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.
Two generations after the failure of the English Revision, the theories of Westcott and Hort had become majority opinion in evangelical Bible colleges and seminaries in both the United States and England. Their theories were universally accepted in modernist seminaries. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cults bragged about having Bible translations based upon the Westcott and Hort theory.
Compromising evangelicals were suddenly proud of having "scholarship" accepted by the world. They used the same Greek text as the Roman Catholic Church, the modernists and the cults.
A relative handful of Bible believers refused to accept the Greek text and theory of Westcott and Hort. Such holdouts became an irritation to the "scholarly" evangelicals. As study of the issue increased, opposition to the Westcott and Hort theory grew. "Westcott and Hort only" no longer seemed an adequate reason for abandoning the King James Bible. The "scholarly evangelicals" began to react harshly to their "King James only" critics.
XI. WERE WESTCOTT AND HORT SECRET PRACTITIONERS OF THE OCCULT?
In 1993, Gail Riplinger published New Age Bible Versions. In this book, she alleges that Westcott and Hort were practitioners of the occult. It is indicated that they provide a bridge between apostate Christianity and the occult and the New Age Movement.
This charge created a sensation and generated a tremendous amount of criticism for Mrs. Riplinger. It is, of course, a very important charge. An objective look at the evidence for such a charge is important.
Along with Bishop Edward White Benson, Westcott and Hort founded the Ghostly Guild. This club was designed to investigate ghosts and supernatural appearances. The club was based upon the idea that such spirits actually exist and appear to men. According to The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, the members of the Ghostly Club would "relate personal experiences concerned with ghosts.
This club would eventually become the Society for Psychical Research. According to James Webb in The Occult Underground and W.H. Solter, The S.P.R. - An Outline of It’s History, this club became a major factor in the rise of spiritualism among the elite of English society in the late 1800's. Many leading occult figures belonged to the Society.
Along the way, Westcott and Hort dropped out of the Ghostly Guild. However, they had plenty of opportunity to be exposed to the occult and demonism before they withdrew.
Westcott’s son refers to his father’s life long faith in spiritualism (Archbishop Benson’s son referred to Benson in the same way). Communion with spirits became quite fashionable in the late 1800's in British society. Even Queen Victoria, who normally led a responsible Christian life, dabbled in spiritualism. However, it was considered unseemly for Church of England clergymen, and Wescott had to keep his ideas quiet. According to Wescott’s son, Arthur, Dr. Wescott practiced the Communion of the Saints. This was a belief that you can fellowship with the spirits of those who died recently.
Bible translator J. B. Phillips also believed in the Communion of Saints. He believed that the spirit of C.S. Lewis visited him after his death. According to Arthur Wescott, Bishop Wescott also had such experiences with spirits. His son writes, "The Communion of Saints seems particularly associated with Peterborough. He had an extraordinary power of realizing this Communion. It was his delight to be alone at night in the great Cathedral, for there he could meditate and pray in full sympathy with all that was good and great in the past. . . There he always had abundant company." Wescott’s daughter met him returning from one of his customary meditations in the solitary darkness of the chapel at Auckland castle. She said to him, " I expect you do not feel alone?" "Oh, no," he said, "It is full."
Either Dr. Wescott’s children lied about him or Dr. Wescott was used to meeting with spirits. Bible believers recognize these spirits as demons. Wescott and Hort both joined a secret society called, The Apostles. It was limited to 12 members. One of the other members Henry Sidgwick. He was also stated to have led several professors at Trinity College into secretly practicing the occult. Wescott, his close friend, was also a professor at Trinity College. Strange company for a Christian teacher and Bible translator.
In 1872 Wescott formed a secret society, the Eranus Club. Members included Hort, Sidgwick, Arthur Balfour (future prime minister of England), Archbishop Trench and Dean Alford. Both Trench and Alford would be involved in Bible revision work. Balfour became famous for his seances and practice of spiritualism. The Eranus Club would eventually become known as an occult secret society.
Wescott’s defenders point out that Wescott also eventually dropped out of Eranus. Still he was certainly allied with practioners of the occult in a secret society for a period of time.
Balfour and Sedgwick were involved in several occult organizations, socialism and Theosophy. How many Christians have so many friends prominent in the practice of the occult?
Balfour would also be involved in the founding of the League of Nations and in forming a secret society with Cecil Rhodes (the Round Table and the Council on Foreign Relations).
The evidence for Mrs. Riplinger’s assertions is strong. Would Westcott and Hort’s defenders accept anyone today who had such connections? They were clearly in contact with people who were "familiar" with spirits. There is every reason to suspect that they might also have been in contact with spirits. Based upon their associations, there is no clear reason to reject the suggestion that they were involved in the occult. The balance of evidence creates, at the very least, a strong suspicion of occult influence on both Wescott and Hort (especially Dr. Wescott).
XII. THE FUNDAMENTALIST DEFENDERS OF WESTCOTT AND HORT
There are fundamentalists who refuse to accept the characterization of Westcott and Hort as liberals (much less occultists)! J. B Williams writes, "I have three of Wescott’s commentaries in my library, and I challenge anyone to find one sentence that would be a departure from Fundamentalist doctrine."
Keith Gephart writes, "In reality, Wescott had made clear statements affirming orthodox doctrines such as the deity of Christ, in no way was he guilty of heresy and apostasy." In responding to a critic of Westcott and Hort, Gephart wrote this, "I cannot help but suspect that . . . some blinding presupposition . . .drives you to prove him a heretic at any cost."
Dr. Stewart Custer writes, "Especially when these men have written in their mature years book after book defending the conservative interpretation of scripture, it is unjust to characterize their whole ministries by a few misinterpretations that they may have been guilty of."
Evangelist Robert Sumner admits that Westcott and Hort were liberal in theology but he still believes that they were trustworthy to "restore the original text."
It would be easy to ask at this point if everyone is reading from the same books. How can there be such a difference of opinion about what these men believed and wrote?
It is true that these men (especially Westcott) wrote commentaries in which they used the great doctrinal terms of the Christian faith in a positive way. They used terms that were part of the official doctrinal position of the Church of England (in which they both held prominent positions).
Almost all denominational liberals use the terms expected of them. This is important in maintaining their income, position and influence. The important thing is how they explain those doctrinal terms (or fail to explain them).
Unless you are determined not to see it, it is clear from their commentaries that they put a liberal interpretation on many Christian doctrines. Both of their sons admit that they were accused of heresy because of their books. This understanding of these statements in their commentaries are supported by several external facts.
Westcott and Hort identified with the High Church Party (Broad Party) within the Church of England. In contrast with the more evangelical and conservative Low Church, modernism found it’s home in the High Church Party.
Westcott and Hort constantly praised theological liberals, socialists and other radicals like Coleridge and Darwin.
No similar praise is found for evangelicals or fundamentalists, either in or out of the Church of England. They are normally ignored! When they are mentioned at all, like D. L. Moody, it is with disdain!
Their private correspondence reveals their liberal drift much more clearly then their commentaries. Of course, it was safer for them to admit what they really believed in this forum. Their correspondence also shows that they had concerns that they could not afford to have all of their beliefs known by the general public.
The biographies of Westcott and Hort written by their sons clearly reveal that they were not in harmony with the official positions of the Church of England. Their sons had no reason to lie about them. Certainly their sons had no King James only bias.
It is interesting that some men can’t face the real record about Wescott and Hort. In fact, some who are quick to attack even minor differences with living preachers, take a blind eye to Westcott and Hort.
However, this is easy to understand. Their campaign to replace the King James Bible has been based upon the work of Wescott and Hort only. To admit these men were not trustworthy would be to admit that they have been wrong in a major premise of their entire ministry.
Perhaps we must be forced to suspect that some blinding presupposition drives them to prove that Westcott and Hort were not heretics at any cost. It appears that "scholarship" requires only a shallow reading of Westcott and Hort and ignorance of their personal letters and correspondence. Their defenders do not spend anytime quoting their personal correspondence or the biographies written by their sons.
Their defenders never recount the testimonies of their conversion because no such testimonies exist.
XIII. IN CONCLUSION.
Dean John Burgon was a contemporary and acquaintance of both Westcott and Hort. He was a firm opponent of the Westcott and Hort theory, their new Greek text and the revision of the English Bible that they so heavily influenced. In an article entitled "The Secret Spanking of Westcott and Hort" Burgon wrote: "the text of Drs. Westcott and Hort is either the very best which has ever appeared or else it is the very worst; the nearest to the sacred autographs or the furthest from them. There is no room for both opinions, and there cannot exist any middle view." In other words things that are different are not the same.
Millions of professing evangelicals have never heard of Westcott and Hort. None the less, their approach to the Scripture is based upon the theory of Westcott and Hort — Westcott and Hort only. No matter how many books, professors, colleges and denominational leaders these theories are filtered through, they are still the work of Westcott and Hort only.
Those who challenge the primacy of the King James Bible in the English speaking world depend on the work of Westcott and Hort.
Westcott and Hort are not a sufficient basis to reject the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible. Their objectivity, scholarship and doctrine are all at best "suspect." There is no reason to believe that they were saved men. 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.
Perhaps the "King James Only Controversy" is misnamed. It is really a "Westcott and Hort Only" controversy.
Are you willing to abandon the historic contributions of the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible for Westcott and Hort, Westcott and Hort Only.
Click
Westcott and Hort Were Pro-Catholic!
Please use scroll slide to right to read entire document!
The Two Streams (lineage) from which Bibles have come
Antioch the true and Alexandria the false
A Brief History Of English Bible Translations
By Dr. Laurence M. Vance
The following is an attempt to comprehensively tabulate all English translations of the Bible since 1611. As the body of this work, the focus of this Appendix is on complete Bibles or separate Old or New Testaments. After the year is given, the complete title is supplied if known. In the case of extremely lengthy or obscure titles, a partial or descriptive title is provided. Unless specified otherwise, each version should be considered a complete Old and New Testament. If the title does not indicate whether the version is a complete Bible or an Old or New Testament, that designation is furnished. The translators names are given, if produced by one or two individuals, but not if by a group or committee since it would be infeasible to do so. Many of these ensuing translations do not appear in the body of the work simply because nothing else is known about them other than the title, year, and translator.
1653 A Paraphrase, and Annotations Upon all the Books of the New Testament; Henry Hammond.
1657 The Dutch Annotations upon the whole Bible; Theodore Haak.
1685 New Testament with a paraphrase and notes; Richard Baxter.
1690 The Holy Bible; Samuel Clarke.
1703 Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament; Daniel Whitby.
1718 The New Testament; Cornelius Nary.
1724 The Common translation corrected, with a paraphrase and notes (NT); Edward Wells.
1729 The New Testament in Greek and English; Daniel Mace.
1730 Annotations on the New Testament of Jesus Christ; Robert Witham.
1730 The New Testament; William Webster.
1745 Primitive New Testament; William Whiston.
1752 Exposition of the New Testament in the form of a Paraphrase; John Guyse.
1755 Explanatory Notes on the New Testament; John Wesley.
1756 Family Expositor, or, a Paraphrase and Version of the New Testament; Philip Doddridge.
1761 An Interpretation of the New Testament; John Heylin.
1764 A new and literal translation of all the books of the Old and New Testament; Anthony Purver.
1764 The New Testament: carefully collated with the Greek, and corrected; Richard Wynne.
1765 A New Translation of the New Testament; Samuel Palmer.
1765 Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament; John Wesley.
1768 A Liberal Translation of the New Testament; Edward Harwood.
1770 The New Testament or New Covenant of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; John Worsley.
1773 The Universal Family Bible; Henry Southwell.
1774 The Old Testament; Anselm Bayly.
1778 The Bible in Verse; John Fellows.
1791 A Translation of the New Testament; Gilbert Wakefield.
1795 A Translation of the New Testament from the original Greek; Thomas Haweis.
1795 The New Testament; Samuel Clarke and Thomas Pyle.
1796 The New Testament; William Newcome.
1798 A Translation of the New Testament from the Original Greek; Nathaniel Scarlett.
1799 A Revised Translation and Interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures; J.M. Ray.
1808 The Holy Bible containing The Old and New Covenant; Charles Thomson.
1808 The New Testament, in an improved version; Thomas Belsham.
1812 A modern, correct, and close translation of the New Testament; William Williams.
1816 The New Testament; William Thomson.
1817 A new family Bible, and improved version; Benjamin Boothroyd.
1822 The Holy Bible, Hebrew and English (OT); A. Alexander.
1823 The New Testament; Abner Kneeland.
1824 Revised Testament (NT); John Wilkins
1824 The Holy Bible; J. Watson.
1826 The Sacred Writings of the Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ (NT); Alexander Campbell.
1828 The Gospel of God’s Anointed (NT); Alexander Greaves.
1828 The New Testament in the Common Version; John Palfrey.
1833 The Holy Bible; Noah Webster.
1833 A New and Corrected Version of the New Testament Rodolphus Dickinson.
1834 The Holy Bible; George Townsend.
1835 The Holy Writings of the First Christians (NT) J.M. Caldecott.
1836 The Book of the New Covenant (NT); Granville Penn.
1840 The New Testament; Edgar Taylor.
1841 The Holy Bible; J.T. Conquest.
1842 The Holy Bible; A.C Kendrick (NT).
1844 The Holy Bible, T J Hussey.
1844 The Septuagint version of the Old Testament; Lancelot Brenton.
1848 The New Testament; Jonathan Morgan.
1849 The New Testament; J.W. Etheridge.
1849 The Good News of Our Lord Jesus, the Anointed; Nathan Wbiting.
1850 The New Testament; Spencer Cone and William Wyckoff.
1851 The New Testament; James Murdock.
1852 An Exposition of the New Testament; Hezekiah Woodruff.
1853 The Twenty-Four Books of the Holy Scriptures (OT); Isaac Leeser.
1854 The Emphatic New Testament; John Taylor.
1857 The New Testament; John Bengel.
1857 The New Testament; J.A. Giles.
1858 The New Testament, Translated from the Original Greek; Leicester Sawyer
1858 The Old Testament Scriptures; Alexander Vance.
1860 The Holy Bible; Francis Kenrick.
1861 Jewish School and Family Bible (OT); A. Benisch.
1861 The New Testament; Leonard Thorn.
1862 The Holy Scriptures of the Old Covenant (OT).
1862 A Revised Translation of the New Testament; H. Highton.
1863 The Holy Bible; Robert Young.
1864 An English Version of the New Testament; Herman Heinfetter.
1864 American Bible Union Version (NT).
1864 The Emphatic Diaglott (NT); Benjamin Wilson.
1864 The New Testament; Henry Anderson.
1865 The Holy Bible; Samuel Sharpe.
1865 The Twofold New Testament; Thomas Green.
1867 The Holy Scriptures; Joseph Smith.
1869 The New Testament: Authorized Version Revised; Henry Alford.
1869 The New Testament; George Noyes.
1869 The New Testament; Robert Ainslie.
1870 The Holy Bible; F.W. Gotch (OT), GA. Jacob (NT).
1870 The New Testament translated from the purest Greek; J. Bowes.
1873 The School and Children’s Bible.
1873 The Story of the Bible; Charles Foster.
1875 The New Testament; John McClellan.
1875 The New Testament; Samuel Davidson.
1876 The Holy Bible; Julia Smith.
1877 Revised English Bible.
1877 The New Testament; John Richter.
1880 The Holy Bible (OT); Hermann Gollancz.
1881 Revised Version.
1881 Jewish Family Bible (OT); Michael Friedlander.
1881 The New Testament Englished; William Crickmer.
1883 The New Testament; Cortes Jackson.
1884 The Englishman’s Bible; Thomas Newberry.
1885 The Teaching and Acts of Jesus of Nazareth and His Apostles (NT); W.D. Dillard.
1885 The New Covenant (NT); John Hanson.
1885 A New Translation; John Darby.
1885 A translation of the Old Testament Scriptures from the original Hebrew; Helen Spurrell.
1893 Scriptures, Hebrew and Christian; John Peters and Edward Bartlett.
1892 Biblia Innocentium; John Mackail.
1897 The New Testament Emphasized; Horace Morrow.
1897 The New Dispensation (NT); Robert Weekes.
1898 American Revised Version.
1898 The Woman’s Bible.
1901 The Historical New Testament, James Moffatt.
1901 American Standard Version
1901 The Modem American Bible; Frank Ballentine
1902 Translation of the New Testament from the Original Greek; W.B. Godbey.
1902 The Testament of our Lord (NT); James Cooper and A.J. MacLean.
1902 Twentieth Century New Testament.
1902 The Emphasized Bible; Joseph Rotherham.
1903 The Holy Bible: Marginal Readings Adopted.
1903 The New Testament in Modern Speech; Richard Weymouth.
1903 The Holy Bible in Modern English; Ferrar Fenton.
1904 The Corrected English New Testament; Samuel Lloyd.
1904 The New Testament Revised and Translated; Adolphus Worrell.
1906 The New Testament; Thomas Lindsay.
1907 The Modern Reader’s Bible; Richard Moulton.
1908 The Holy Bible for Daily Reading; J.W. Genders.
1909 The University New Testament; S. Townsend Weaver.
1909 The Shorter Bible.
1909 The Bible in Modem English (NT); Frank Ballentine
1910 The Restored New Testament; James Pryse.
1911 The 1911 Tercentenary Commemoration Bible.
1912 The Holy Bible: An Improved Edition.
1913 The Literary Man’s New Testament, W.L. Courtney.
1913 The New Testament; Edward Clarke.
1914 The New Covenant (NT); Edward Cunnington.
1914 The New Testament from the Greek text as established by Bible Numerics; Ivan Panin.
1916 The Historical Bible; Charles Kent.
1916 The Twenty-Four Books of the Old Testament; Alexander Harkavy.
1917 The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text (OT).
1918 The New Testament; Henry Anderson.
19l9 The Messages of the Bible; Frank Sanders and Charles Kent.
1919 The Adelphi New Testament; E.E. Cunnington.
1921 A Plain Translation of the New Testament; By a student.
1921 The Shorter Bible.
1922 The Children’s Bible; Henry Sherman and Charles Kent.
1922 A Plainer Bible (NT); Frank Ballentine.
1923 Simplified New Testament; D.A. Sommer.
1923 The Riverside New Testament; William Ballantine.
1924 Centenary Translation of the New Testament; Helen Montgomery.
1924 The Everyday Bible; Charles Sheldon.
1924 The Older Children’s Bible.
1924 The New Covenant: Labor Determinative Version (NT).
1925 The People’s New Covenant (NT); Arthur Overbury.
1926 The Holy Bible: A New Translation (NT); James Moffatt.
1926 Concordant Version (NT); A.E. Knoch.
1926 The Western New Testament; E.E. Cunningtan.
1927 The Student’s Old Testament; Charles Kent.
1928 The Student’s Greek Testament; A. Hamilton.
1928 The Christian’s Bible: New Testament; George LeFevre.
1928 The Living Bible; Bolton Hall.
1928 The Authentic Literature of Israel (CT); Elizabeth Czarnomska.
1928 The Cambridge Shorter Bible.
1929 The New Testament in blank verse; George Wolff
1929 A Homiletical and Exegetical Version of the Bible; Charles MacLean.
1931 The Complete Bible: An American Translation; J.M. Smith and Edgar Goodspeed.
1933 Short Bible; J.M. Smith and Edgar Goodspeed.
1934 The Documents of the New Testament; G.W. Wade.
1934 Old Testament in Colloquial English.
1934 The Child’s Story Bible; Catherine Vos.
1935 The Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures (NT)
1935 The New Testament; Fernand Faivre.
1936 The West China Union University Version (NT).
1936 The Aldine Bible: The New Testament; M.R. James and Delia Lyttelton.
1936 The Bible Designed to be Read as Living Literature; Ernest Bates.
1937 The New Testament in the Language of the People; Charles B. Williams.
1937 The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; Francis Spencer.
1937 The New Testament critically reconstructed and retranslated; William Martin.
1937 The New Testament A New Translation and Explanation; Johannes Greber.
1938 The Book of Books (NT); R. Mercer Wilson.
1938 The New Testament: A Translation; Clementson.
1939 The Book of Life (NT); Zed Copp.
1939 The New Testament Shortened; W.K. Clarke.
1940 The Bible (A Condensed Version); Howard Welsch.
1941 The Confraternity Version (NT).
1945 New Testament: A Translation, Harmony and Annotations; Erwin Stringfellow.
1946 Pathways through the Bible (OT); Mortimer Cohen.
1947 The New Testament; George Swann.
1948 The Holy Bible Adapted for Young Christians.
1948 The Letchworth Version in Modern English; T.F. Ford and RE. Ford.
1949 The Bible in Basic English.
1950 The New Testament of our Messiah and Saviour Yahshua, A.B. Traina.
1950 The Dartmouth Bible.
1950 The Holy Bible for Young Readers (NT); J.W. Mackail.
1951 The Authentic Version (NT).
1951 Bible in Brief; Peter Ross.
1951 The Shorter Oxford Bible.
1951 The New Testament in Modern English Olaf Norlie.
1952 The New Testament: A New Translation in Plain English. Charles K. Williams.
1952 Olive Pell Bible; Olive Bible.
1952 The Living Bible; Robert Ballou.
1952 Revised Standard Version.
1953 The New Testament: A New, Independent, Individual Translation; George Moore.
1954 The New Testament Rendered From the Original Greek; James Kleist and Joseph Lilly.
1954 The New Testament in Cadenced Form; Morton Bradley.
1954 The Septuagint Bible (OT); C.A. Muses.
1955 The Authentic New Testament; Hugh Schonfield.
1955 The Holy Bible: A Translation from the Latin Vulgate; Ronald Knox.
1955 The Compact Bible; Margaret Nicholson.
1955 The Clarified New Testament; P.G. Parker.
1956 The Bible for Family Reading; Joseph Gaer and Chester McCown.
1957 The Holy Bible from Ancient Manuscripts; George Lamsa.
1958 The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed; James Tomanek.
1958 A Beginner’s Bible; Margherita Fanchiotti.
1958 The New Testament in Modern English; J.B. Phillips.
1958 The Self-Interpreting; Ashley Johnson.
1959 The Holy Bible: The Berkeley Version in Modern English; Gerrit Verkuyl.
1960 The Children’s King James Bible: New Testament; Jay Green.
1960 A Critical Emphatic Paraphrase of the New Testament; Vincent Roth.
1961 The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; Fan Noli.
1961 New World Translation.
1961 The New Testament: An Expanded Translation; Kenneth Wuest.
1961 The Jesus People New Testament; Olaf Norlie.
1961 Simplified New Testament in Plain English; Olaf Norlie.
1962 Teen-age Version; Jay Green.
1962 Modem King James Version; Jay Green.
1962 The Children’s Version of the Holy Bible; Jay Green.
1963 The Holy Name Bible; A.B. Traina.
1963 The New Testament in the Language of Today; William Beck.
1965 The Amplified Bible.
1966 Jerusalem Bible.
1966 The Bible in Simplified English.
1966 The Living Scriptures; Jay Green.
1967 Bible for Young Christians (NT); AM. Cocaqnac and Rosemary Haughton.
1967 New World: The Heart of the New Testament in Plain English; Alan Dale.
1967 New Scofleld Reference Bible.
1967 The Christ Emphasis New Testament; Edward Craddock.
1969 The New Testament: A New Translation; William Barclay.
1969 The Children’s New Testament; Gleason Ledyard.
1969 Modern Language Bible; Gerrit Verkuyl.
1969 The Bible Reader.
1970 New American Bible.
1970 King James II Version; Jay Green.
1970 New Testament in Shorter Form.
1970 New English Bible.
1970 The Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible.
1971 New American Standard Bible.
1971 The Living Bible; Kenneth Taylor.
1972 The New Testament in Modem English; J.B Phillips.
1972 The Bible in Living English; Steven Byington.
1973 A Child’s Bible; Anne Edwards and Shirley Steen.
1973 The Translator’s New Testament.
1973 Cotton Patch Version (NT); Clarence Jordan.
1973 Common Bible.
1973 The Better Version of the New Testament; Chester Estes.
1974 The New Testament in Everyday English; Do Klingensmith.
1975 The Word Made Fresh; Andrew Edington.
1976 An American Translation; William Beck.
1976 The Concise Jewish Bible (OT); Philip Birnbaum.
1976 Good News Bible.
1977 The Jerusalem Bible (OT); Harold Fisch.
1977 The Christian Counselor’s New Testament; Jay Adams.
1977 The Holy Bible for Children; Allan Johsmann.
1978 Holy Name Bible.
1978 New International Version.
1978 Simple English Bible (NT).
1979 The New Testament in Everyday English; Jay Adams.
1980 The Distilled Bible: New Testament; Roy Greenhill.
1981 The Sacred Scriptures.
1981 The Compact Bible (NT); Pat Excel.
1982 The Readers Digest Bible.
1982 The New Testament; Richard Lattimore.
1982 New King James Version.
1984 The New Accurate Translation (NT); Julian Anderson.
1985 Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures (OT).
1985 The Recovery Version (NT).
1985 New Jerusalem Bible.
1985 Original New Testament; Hugh Schonfield.
1986 International Children’s Bible.
1986 New Life Version; Gleason Ledyard.
1987 Easy to Read Version.
1987 A Literal Translation of the Bible; Jay Green.
1987 English Version for Deaf.
1987 New Century Version.
1988 Revised New Testament: New American Bible.
1988 New Evangelical Translation.
1988 Christian Community Bible.
1988 The New Testament; Hugo McCord
1989 God’s New Covenant (NT); Heinz Cassirer.
1989 New Revised Standard Version.
1989 Jewish New Testament; David Stern.
1989 Revised English Bible.
1990 The New Translation (NT).
1990 Simplified Living Bible.
1990 Modern King James Version; Jay Green.
1991 21st Century King James Version (NT).
1991 Contemporary English Version (NT).
Vance Publications
P.O. Box 11781
Pensacola, FL 32524
850-474-1626
1653 A Paraphrase, and Annotations Upon all the Books of the New Testament; Henry Hammond.
1657 The Dutch Annotations upon the whole Bible; Theodore Haak.
1685 New Testament with a paraphrase and notes; Richard Baxter.
1690 The Holy Bible; Samuel Clarke.
1703 Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament; Daniel Whitby.
1718 The New Testament; Cornelius Nary.
1724 The Common translation corrected, with a paraphrase and notes (NT); Edward Wells.
1729 The New Testament in Greek and English; Daniel Mace.
1730 Annotations on the New Testament of Jesus Christ; Robert Witham.
1730 The New Testament; William Webster.
1745 Primitive New Testament; William Whiston.
1752 Exposition of the New Testament in the form of a Paraphrase; John Guyse.
1755 Explanatory Notes on the New Testament; John Wesley.
1756 Family Expositor, or, a Paraphrase and Version of the New Testament; Philip Doddridge.
1761 An Interpretation of the New Testament; John Heylin.
1764 A new and literal translation of all the books of the Old and New Testament; Anthony Purver.
1764 The New Testament: carefully collated with the Greek, and corrected; Richard Wynne.
1765 A New Translation of the New Testament; Samuel Palmer.
1765 Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament; John Wesley.
1768 A Liberal Translation of the New Testament; Edward Harwood.
1770 The New Testament or New Covenant of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; John Worsley.
1773 The Universal Family Bible; Henry Southwell.
1774 The Old Testament; Anselm Bayly.
1778 The Bible in Verse; John Fellows.
1791 A Translation of the New Testament; Gilbert Wakefield.
1795 A Translation of the New Testament from the original Greek; Thomas Haweis.
1795 The New Testament; Samuel Clarke and Thomas Pyle.
1796 The New Testament; William Newcome.
1798 A Translation of the New Testament from the Original Greek; Nathaniel Scarlett.
1799 A Revised Translation and Interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures; J.M. Ray.
1808 The Holy Bible containing The Old and New Covenant; Charles Thomson.
1808 The New Testament, in an improved version; Thomas Belsham.
1812 A modern, correct, and close translation of the New Testament; William Williams.
1816 The New Testament; William Thomson.
1817 A new family Bible, and improved version; Benjamin Boothroyd.
1822 The Holy Bible, Hebrew and English (OT); A. Alexander.
1823 The New Testament; Abner Kneeland.
1824 Revised Testament (NT); John Wilkins
1824 The Holy Bible; J. Watson.
1826 The Sacred Writings of the Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ (NT); Alexander Campbell.
1828 The Gospel of God’s Anointed (NT); Alexander Greaves.
1828 The New Testament in the Common Version; John Palfrey.
1833 The Holy Bible; Noah Webster.
1833 A New and Corrected Version of the New Testament Rodolphus Dickinson.
1834 The Holy Bible; George Townsend.
1835 The Holy Writings of the First Christians (NT) J.M. Caldecott.
1836 The Book of the New Covenant (NT); Granville Penn.
1840 The New Testament; Edgar Taylor.
1841 The Holy Bible; J.T. Conquest.
1842 The Holy Bible; A.C Kendrick (NT).
1844 The Holy Bible, T J Hussey.
1844 The Septuagint version of the Old Testament; Lancelot Brenton.
1848 The New Testament; Jonathan Morgan.
1849 The New Testament; J.W. Etheridge.
1849 The Good News of Our Lord Jesus, the Anointed; Nathan Wbiting.
1850 The New Testament; Spencer Cone and William Wyckoff.
1851 The New Testament; James Murdock.
1852 An Exposition of the New Testament; Hezekiah Woodruff.
1853 The Twenty-Four Books of the Holy Scriptures (OT); Isaac Leeser.
1854 The Emphatic New Testament; John Taylor.
1857 The New Testament; John Bengel.
1857 The New Testament; J.A. Giles.
1858 The New Testament, Translated from the Original Greek; Leicester Sawyer
1858 The Old Testament Scriptures; Alexander Vance.
1860 The Holy Bible; Francis Kenrick.
1861 Jewish School and Family Bible (OT); A. Benisch.
1861 The New Testament; Leonard Thorn.
1862 The Holy Scriptures of the Old Covenant (OT).
1862 A Revised Translation of the New Testament; H. Highton.
1863 The Holy Bible; Robert Young.
1864 An English Version of the New Testament; Herman Heinfetter.
1864 American Bible Union Version (NT).
1864 The Emphatic Diaglott (NT); Benjamin Wilson.
1864 The New Testament; Henry Anderson.
1865 The Holy Bible; Samuel Sharpe.
1865 The Twofold New Testament; Thomas Green.
1867 The Holy Scriptures; Joseph Smith.
1869 The New Testament: Authorized Version Revised; Henry Alford.
1869 The New Testament; George Noyes.
1869 The New Testament; Robert Ainslie.
1870 The Holy Bible; F.W. Gotch (OT), GA. Jacob (NT).
1870 The New Testament translated from the purest Greek; J. Bowes.
1873 The School and Children’s Bible.
1873 The Story of the Bible; Charles Foster.
1875 The New Testament; John McClellan.
1875 The New Testament; Samuel Davidson.
1876 The Holy Bible; Julia Smith.
1877 Revised English Bible.
1877 The New Testament; John Richter.
1880 The Holy Bible (OT); Hermann Gollancz.
1881 Revised Version.
1881 Jewish Family Bible (OT); Michael Friedlander.
1881 The New Testament Englished; William Crickmer.
1883 The New Testament; Cortes Jackson.
1884 The Englishman’s Bible; Thomas Newberry.
1885 The Teaching and Acts of Jesus of Nazareth and His Apostles (NT); W.D. Dillard.
1885 The New Covenant (NT); John Hanson.
1885 A New Translation; John Darby.
1885 A translation of the Old Testament Scriptures from the original Hebrew; Helen Spurrell.
1893 Scriptures, Hebrew and Christian; John Peters and Edward Bartlett.
1892 Biblia Innocentium; John Mackail.
1897 The New Testament Emphasized; Horace Morrow.
1897 The New Dispensation (NT); Robert Weekes.
1898 American Revised Version.
1898 The Woman’s Bible.
1901 The Historical New Testament, James Moffatt.
1901 American Standard Version
1901 The Modem American Bible; Frank Ballentine
1902 Translation of the New Testament from the Original Greek; W.B. Godbey.
1902 The Testament of our Lord (NT); James Cooper and A.J. MacLean.
1902 Twentieth Century New Testament.
1902 The Emphasized Bible; Joseph Rotherham.
1903 The Holy Bible: Marginal Readings Adopted.
1903 The New Testament in Modern Speech; Richard Weymouth.
1903 The Holy Bible in Modern English; Ferrar Fenton.
1904 The Corrected English New Testament; Samuel Lloyd.
1904 The New Testament Revised and Translated; Adolphus Worrell.
1906 The New Testament; Thomas Lindsay.
1907 The Modern Reader’s Bible; Richard Moulton.
1908 The Holy Bible for Daily Reading; J.W. Genders.
1909 The University New Testament; S. Townsend Weaver.
1909 The Shorter Bible.
1909 The Bible in Modem English (NT); Frank Ballentine
1910 The Restored New Testament; James Pryse.
1911 The 1911 Tercentenary Commemoration Bible.
1912 The Holy Bible: An Improved Edition.
1913 The Literary Man’s New Testament, W.L. Courtney.
1913 The New Testament; Edward Clarke.
1914 The New Covenant (NT); Edward Cunnington.
1914 The New Testament from the Greek text as established by Bible Numerics; Ivan Panin.
1916 The Historical Bible; Charles Kent.
1916 The Twenty-Four Books of the Old Testament; Alexander Harkavy.
1917 The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text (OT).
1918 The New Testament; Henry Anderson.
19l9 The Messages of the Bible; Frank Sanders and Charles Kent.
1919 The Adelphi New Testament; E.E. Cunnington.
1921 A Plain Translation of the New Testament; By a student.
1921 The Shorter Bible.
1922 The Children’s Bible; Henry Sherman and Charles Kent.
1922 A Plainer Bible (NT); Frank Ballentine.
1923 Simplified New Testament; D.A. Sommer.
1923 The Riverside New Testament; William Ballantine.
1924 Centenary Translation of the New Testament; Helen Montgomery.
1924 The Everyday Bible; Charles Sheldon.
1924 The Older Children’s Bible.
1924 The New Covenant: Labor Determinative Version (NT).
1925 The People’s New Covenant (NT); Arthur Overbury.
1926 The Holy Bible: A New Translation (NT); James Moffatt.
1926 Concordant Version (NT); A.E. Knoch.
1926 The Western New Testament; E.E. Cunningtan.
1927 The Student’s Old Testament; Charles Kent.
1928 The Student’s Greek Testament; A. Hamilton.
1928 The Christian’s Bible: New Testament; George LeFevre.
1928 The Living Bible; Bolton Hall.
1928 The Authentic Literature of Israel (CT); Elizabeth Czarnomska.
1928 The Cambridge Shorter Bible.
1929 The New Testament in blank verse; George Wolff
1929 A Homiletical and Exegetical Version of the Bible; Charles MacLean.
1931 The Complete Bible: An American Translation; J.M. Smith and Edgar Goodspeed.
1933 Short Bible; J.M. Smith and Edgar Goodspeed.
1934 The Documents of the New Testament; G.W. Wade.
1934 Old Testament in Colloquial English.
1934 The Child’s Story Bible; Catherine Vos.
1935 The Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures (NT)
1935 The New Testament; Fernand Faivre.
1936 The West China Union University Version (NT).
1936 The Aldine Bible: The New Testament; M.R. James and Delia Lyttelton.
1936 The Bible Designed to be Read as Living Literature; Ernest Bates.
1937 The New Testament in the Language of the People; Charles B. Williams.
1937 The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; Francis Spencer.
1937 The New Testament critically reconstructed and retranslated; William Martin.
1937 The New Testament A New Translation and Explanation; Johannes Greber.
1938 The Book of Books (NT); R. Mercer Wilson.
1938 The New Testament: A Translation; Clementson.
1939 The Book of Life (NT); Zed Copp.
1939 The New Testament Shortened; W.K. Clarke.
1940 The Bible (A Condensed Version); Howard Welsch.
1941 The Confraternity Version (NT).
1945 New Testament: A Translation, Harmony and Annotations; Erwin Stringfellow.
1946 Pathways through the Bible (OT); Mortimer Cohen.
1947 The New Testament; George Swann.
1948 The Holy Bible Adapted for Young Christians.
1948 The Letchworth Version in Modern English; T.F. Ford and RE. Ford.
1949 The Bible in Basic English.
1950 The New Testament of our Messiah and Saviour Yahshua, A.B. Traina.
1950 The Dartmouth Bible.
1950 The Holy Bible for Young Readers (NT); J.W. Mackail.
1951 The Authentic Version (NT).
1951 Bible in Brief; Peter Ross.
1951 The Shorter Oxford Bible.
1951 The New Testament in Modern English Olaf Norlie.
1952 The New Testament: A New Translation in Plain English. Charles K. Williams.
1952 Olive Pell Bible; Olive Bible.
1952 The Living Bible; Robert Ballou.
1952 Revised Standard Version.
1953 The New Testament: A New, Independent, Individual Translation; George Moore.
1954 The New Testament Rendered From the Original Greek; James Kleist and Joseph Lilly.
1954 The New Testament in Cadenced Form; Morton Bradley.
1954 The Septuagint Bible (OT); C.A. Muses.
1955 The Authentic New Testament; Hugh Schonfield.
1955 The Holy Bible: A Translation from the Latin Vulgate; Ronald Knox.
1955 The Compact Bible; Margaret Nicholson.
1955 The Clarified New Testament; P.G. Parker.
1956 The Bible for Family Reading; Joseph Gaer and Chester McCown.
1957 The Holy Bible from Ancient Manuscripts; George Lamsa.
1958 The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed; James Tomanek.
1958 A Beginner’s Bible; Margherita Fanchiotti.
1958 The New Testament in Modern English; J.B. Phillips.
1958 The Self-Interpreting; Ashley Johnson.
1959 The Holy Bible: The Berkeley Version in Modern English; Gerrit Verkuyl.
1960 The Children’s King James Bible: New Testament; Jay Green.
1960 A Critical Emphatic Paraphrase of the New Testament; Vincent Roth.
1961 The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; Fan Noli.
1961 New World Translation.
1961 The New Testament: An Expanded Translation; Kenneth Wuest.
1961 The Jesus People New Testament; Olaf Norlie.
1961 Simplified New Testament in Plain English; Olaf Norlie.
1962 Teen-age Version; Jay Green.
1962 Modem King James Version; Jay Green.
1962 The Children’s Version of the Holy Bible; Jay Green.
1963 The Holy Name Bible; A.B. Traina.
1963 The New Testament in the Language of Today; William Beck.
1965 The Amplified Bible.
1966 Jerusalem Bible.
1966 The Bible in Simplified English.
1966 The Living Scriptures; Jay Green.
1967 Bible for Young Christians (NT); AM. Cocaqnac and Rosemary Haughton.
1967 New World: The Heart of the New Testament in Plain English; Alan Dale.
1967 New Scofleld Reference Bible.
1967 The Christ Emphasis New Testament; Edward Craddock.
1969 The New Testament: A New Translation; William Barclay.
1969 The Children’s New Testament; Gleason Ledyard.
1969 Modern Language Bible; Gerrit Verkuyl.
1969 The Bible Reader.
1970 New American Bible.
1970 King James II Version; Jay Green.
1970 New Testament in Shorter Form.
1970 New English Bible.
1970 The Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible.
1971 New American Standard Bible.
1971 The Living Bible; Kenneth Taylor.
1972 The New Testament in Modem English; J.B Phillips.
1972 The Bible in Living English; Steven Byington.
1973 A Child’s Bible; Anne Edwards and Shirley Steen.
1973 The Translator’s New Testament.
1973 Cotton Patch Version (NT); Clarence Jordan.
1973 Common Bible.
1973 The Better Version of the New Testament; Chester Estes.
1974 The New Testament in Everyday English; Do Klingensmith.
1975 The Word Made Fresh; Andrew Edington.
1976 An American Translation; William Beck.
1976 The Concise Jewish Bible (OT); Philip Birnbaum.
1976 Good News Bible.
1977 The Jerusalem Bible (OT); Harold Fisch.
1977 The Christian Counselor’s New Testament; Jay Adams.
1977 The Holy Bible for Children; Allan Johsmann.
1978 Holy Name Bible.
1978 New International Version.
1978 Simple English Bible (NT).
1979 The New Testament in Everyday English; Jay Adams.
1980 The Distilled Bible: New Testament; Roy Greenhill.
1981 The Sacred Scriptures.
1981 The Compact Bible (NT); Pat Excel.
1982 The Readers Digest Bible.
1982 The New Testament; Richard Lattimore.
1982 New King James Version.
1984 The New Accurate Translation (NT); Julian Anderson.
1985 Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures (OT).
1985 The Recovery Version (NT).
1985 New Jerusalem Bible.
1985 Original New Testament; Hugh Schonfield.
1986 International Children’s Bible.
1986 New Life Version; Gleason Ledyard.
1987 Easy to Read Version.
1987 A Literal Translation of the Bible; Jay Green.
1987 English Version for Deaf.
1987 New Century Version.
1988 Revised New Testament: New American Bible.
1988 New Evangelical Translation.
1988 Christian Community Bible.
1988 The New Testament; Hugo McCord
1989 God’s New Covenant (NT); Heinz Cassirer.
1989 New Revised Standard Version.
1989 Jewish New Testament; David Stern.
1989 Revised English Bible.
1990 The New Translation (NT).
1990 Simplified Living Bible.
1990 Modern King James Version; Jay Green.
1991 21st Century King James Version (NT).
1991 Contemporary English Version (NT).
Vance Publications
P.O. Box 11781
Pensacola, FL 32524
850-474-1626
Use Scroll bar to view entire document, thanks to Scribd.
|
 |
|
See How Westcott and Hort Removes, Deletes and Omits Scriptures
Now on to Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge!
(Part 1: Matthew - John)
(Part 1: Matthew - John)
| Matthew | |
| 1:25 | And knew her not till she had brought forth her |
| 5:44 | But I say unto you, Love your enemies, |
| 6:13 | And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: |
| 6:33 | But seek ye first the kingdom |
| 8:29 | And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, |
| 9:13 | But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners |
| 12:35 | A good man out of the good treasure |
| 13:51 | |
| 15:8 | This people |
| 16:3 | And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. |
| 16:20 | Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was |
| 17:21 | |
| 18:11 | |
| 19:9 | And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: |
| 19:17 | And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, |
| 20:7 | They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; |
| 20:16 | So the last shall be first, and the first last: |
| 20:22 | But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, |
| 23:14 | |
| 25:13 | Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour |
| 27:35 | And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: |
| 28:9 | And |
| Mark | |
| 1:14 | Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel |
| 1:31 | And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and |
| 2:17 | When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners |
| 6:11 | And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. |
| 6:16 | But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen |
| 7:8 | For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, |
| 7:16 | |
| 9:24 | And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, |
| 9:42 | And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe |
| 9:44 | |
| 9:46 | |
| 9:49 | For every one shall be salted with fire, |
| 10:21 | Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, |
| 11:10 | Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh |
| 13:14 | But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, |
| 13:33 | Take ye heed, watch |
| 14:68 | But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; |
| 15:28 | |
| 16:9-20 | |
| Luke | |
| 1:28 | And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: |
| 4:4 | And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, |
| 4:8 | And Jesus answered and said unto him, |
| 4:41 | And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art |
| 7:31 | |
| 9:54-56 | And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, |
| 11:2-4 | And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father |
| 11:29 | And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas |
| 17:36 | |
| 21:4 | For all these have of their abundance |
| 22:31 | |
| 22:64 | And when they had blindfolded him, |
| 23:17 | |
| 23:38 | And a superscription also was written over him in |
| 23:42 | And he said unto Jesus, |
| 24:6 | |
| 24:40 | |
| 24:49 | And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city |
| 24:51 | And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, |
| John | |
| 1:14 | And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only |
| 1:27 | He it is, who coming after me is |
| 3:13 | And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man |
| 3:15 | That whosoever believeth in him |
| 4:42 | And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed |
| 5:3-4 | In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, |
| 6:47 | Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth |
| 6:69 | And we believe and are sure that thou art |
| 11:41 | Then they took away the stone from the place |
| 16:16 | A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, |
| 17:12 | While I was with them |
Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge!
(Part 2: Acts - Revelation)
| Acts | |
| 2:30 | Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, |
| 7:30 | And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel |
| 7:37 | This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; |
| 8:37 | |
| 9:5-6 | And he said, Who art thou, Lord? |
| 10:6 | He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: |
| 16:31 | And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus |
| 17:26 | And hath made of one |
| 20:25 | And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom |
| 20:32 | And now, |
| 23:9 | And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, |
| 24:6-8 | Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, |
| 24:15 | And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection |
| 28:16 | And when we came to Rome, |
| 28:29 | |
| Romans | |
| 1:16 | For I am not ashamed of the gospel |
| 1:29 | Being filled with all unrighteousness, |
| 8:1 | There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, |
| 9:28 | For he will finish the work, and cut it short |
| 10:15 | And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel |
| 11:6 | And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. |
| 13:9 | For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, |
| 14:21 | It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, |
| 15:29 | And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fulness of the blessing |
| 16:24 | |
| 1 Corinthians | |
| 1:14 | |
| 5:7 | Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed |
| 6:20 | For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, |
| 7:5 | Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to |
| 10:28 | But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: |
| 11:24 | And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, |
| 11:29 | For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the |
| 15:47 | The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is |
| 16:22-23 | If any man love not the Lord |
| 2 Corinthians | |
| 4:6 | For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of |
| 5:18 | And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by |
| 11:31 | The God and Father of our Lord Jesus |
| Galations | |
| 1:15 | But when it pleased |
| 3:1 | O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, |
| 3:17 | And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God |
| 4:7 | Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God |
| 6:15 | For |
| 6:17 | From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the |
| Ephesians | |
| 3:9 | And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things |
| 3:14 | For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father |
| 5:30 | For we are members of his body, |
| 6:1 | Children, obey your parents |
| 6:10 | Finally, |
| Philippians | |
| 3:16 | Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, |
| Colossians | |
| 1:2 | To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and |
| 1:14 | In whom we have redemption |
| 1:28 | Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ |
| 2:11 | In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of |
| 3:6 | For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh |
| 1 Thessalonians | |
| 1:1 | Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, |
| 2:19 | For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus |
| 3:11 | Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus |
| 3:13 | To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus |
| 2 Thessalonians | |
| 1:8 | In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus |
| 1 Timothy | |
| 1:17 | Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only |
| 2:7 | Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth |
| 3:16 | And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: |
| 4:12 | Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, |
| 6:5 | Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: |
| 2 Timothy | |
| 1:11 | Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher |
| 4:1 | I charge thee therefore before God, and the |
| 4:22 | The Lord |
| Titus | |
| 1:4 | To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and |
| Philemon | |
| 1:6 | That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ |
| 1:12 | Whom I have sent again: thou therefore |
| Hebrews | |
| 1:3 | Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had |
| 2:7 | Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst |
| 3:1 | Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, |
| 7:21 | (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever |
| 10:30 | For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, |
| 10:34 | For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have |
| 11:11 | Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, |
| 1 Peter | |
| 1:22 | Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth |
| 4:1 | Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered |
| 4:14 | If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: |
| 5:10-11 | But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ |
| 2 Peter | |
| 2:17 | These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved |
| 1 John | |
| 1:7 | But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. |
| 2:7 | Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had |
| 4:3 | And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus |
| 4:9 | In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only |
| 4:19 | We love |
| 5:7-8 | |
| 5:13 | These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, |
| Jude | |
| 1:25 | To the only |
| Revelation | |
| 1:8 | I am Alpha and Omega, |
| 1:11 | Saying, |
| 2:13 | I know |
| 5:14 | And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped |
| 6:1 | And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come |
| 11:17 | Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, |
| 12:12 | Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the |
| 12:17 | And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus |
| 14:5 | And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault |
| 16:17 | And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple |
| 20:9 | And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from |
| 21:24 | And the nations |
"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:19 |
Click Contact to Email Us
Powered by
