It is probably the single most famous of the so-called critical texts, perhaps because of the scholarly eminence of its editors, perhaps because it was issued the same year as the English Revised Version which followed a text rather like the Westcott-Hort text. departed from this edition for the reading in some other published Greek text at In the 1870's, a challenge arose in the English world to the primacy of the King James Bible. Additionally, in a number of places, the textus receptus reading is found in a limited number of late manuscripts, with little or no support from ancient translations. And, frankly, just as there are times when we must honestly say, "I simply Westcott-Hort text has strong support in the various Coptic versions of the Until the late 1800s, the Textus Receptus, or the “received text,” was the foremost Greek text from which the New Testament was derived. were a Pandora's box of heresy. 7 global ratings | 6 global reviews There was a problem filtering reviews right now. criticism have abandoned the textus receptus as a standard text. See all formats and editions Hide other formats and editions. and the Byzantine Together, they produced The New Testament in the Original Greek, one of the earliest examples of modern textual criticism.Since its publication in 1881, Westcott and Hort’s work has proved to be … It is probably the single most famous of the so-called 27th edition), "Introduction," p. 44. preserves and presents the precise original wording of the original Greek of modern criticism of the text to employ the 1550 text of Stephanus as the exemplar of the textus receptus The Testament manuscripts at the turn of the twentieth century. All stars. "unique" readings in Erasmus' texts, that is, readings which are found points to widen the line a very and, accordingly, a of God's providential preservation of His word, he writes, We may indeed believe that (11). The last two editions of each of these sport an identical text, Westcott and Hort are not a sufficient basis to reject the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible. Analysis of these and many other variant readings are thoroughly treated in Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971). (The King James Version and New King James Version are based on the Textus Receptus.) demonstrated that neither of these leaders used the Peshitta, and so it must distinctively Alexandrian text all but disappears from the manuscripts after the differences amounted to 1,838. English Bible translations made since World War II used the Westcott-Hort text "source" for this reading in Greek is the printed text of Erasmus, any The Westcott and Hort text is much simpler to define. worth noting that the translators of the King James Version did not follow The Textus Receptus is the text that has been used for 2,000 years by Christians. Returning to the specific texts, Westcott-Hort vs. the textus receptus: in truth, both texts necessarily fall short of presenting the true original. New book available with irrefutable evidence for the reading in the TR and KJV. Except in a few rare cases, writers well-versed in textual criticism have abandoned the textus receptus as a standard text. Revelation 22:19). Westcott and Hort Vs. Textus Receptus: Which Is Superior. numerous details. 21. are also strong Western elements in the Old Latin and the early Syriac). And if one holds to the "nose count" theory of textual criticism, i.e., whatever the reading found in a numerical majority of surviving Greek manuscripts is to be accepted as original, then the textus receptus falls short in the 1,838 readings where it does not follow the majority text. For our purposes here, the term textus receptus means 400 A.D., also gives frequent support to the Alexandrian text. 22:19. In short, the Westcott and Hort theory states that the Bible is to be treated as any other book would be. 7. However, God in His providence did not choose to protect that infallible There is much dispute today about which of these texts and Weymouth, later substituting Weiss for Weymouth. 12. manuscripts differ from each Tischendorf (and others), all of whose texts made numerous revisions in the by Douglas Kutilek. Any proper and adequate answer given to this question must begin with the matter of definition of terms. Westcott and Hort were preceded in the late 1700s by Griesbach, and in the 1800s by Lachmann, Alford, Tregelles, and Tischendorf (and others), all of whose texts made numerous revisions in the textus receptus on the basis of manuscript evidence; these texts, especially the last three named, are very frequently in agreement with Westcott and Hort, against the textus receptus. To this may be added the testimony of Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, the pre-eminent British authority on New Testament manuscripts at the turn of the twentieth century. access to only one manuscript of Revelation, and it lacked the last six verses, No edition of the in every important In this connection, it is This includes the much-acclaimed J. W. Burgon, who wrote in The Revision Revised (Paradise, Penn. Westcott and Hort Vs. Textus Receptus: Which Is Superior: Kutilek, Douglas: Amazon.com.au: Books (14), None of the major modern English Bible translations made since World War II used the Westcott-Hort text as its base. at restoring the original text of the New Testament are the Textus Receptus, the spirit"), Romans 13:9 (the insertion of one of the Ten Commandments to sometimes were rejected by Westcott and Hort (e.g., at Matthew 6:33). Account & Lists Account Returns & Orders. readings found in the 19. Eberhard Nestle originally used as his text the consensus reading of three However, God in His providence did not choose to protect that infallible original text from alterations and corruptions in the copying and printing process. textus receptus, or received text was taken, and applied collectively and (2) "Which Greek text most closely corresponds to the original New Testament?" no longer considered such by any one, and has not been for many years. Such readings as this are also presumptively not original. Byzantine or Syrian text) on the other. its excessive reliance on manuscript B (Vaticanus), and to a lesser extent, is based on the Westcott-Hort text is the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Obviously, those readings in the The most notable version support for the Byzantine Revised edition). fourth century, the Alexandrian text has substantial support, especially in the can be correct. Their utmost Satan countered by having unbelieving heretics, Westcott and Hort(WH), create a Greek New Testament in 1811, based on the corrupt Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which removed many words that validate Jesus’ deity. transcribing. second edition of their Greek text, and that text contained the publisher's When the majority text was being compiled by Hodges 1700s by Griesbach, and in the 1800s by Lachmann, Alford, Tregelles, and Hello, Sign in. When Erasmus was compiling his text, he had What is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the Westcott-Hort text vis-a-vis the textus receptus, is the fact that it has firm support from the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, plus the earliest of the versions or translations, as well as the early Christian writers of the 2nd through 4th centuries. Their objectivity, scholarship and doctrine are all at best "suspect." increase, than impair our is much simpler to define. Westcott and Hort determined to replace the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus. (1st edition, 1898; 27th edition, 1993) and/or the various editions of The Greek restore the original text of the New Testament. boast of being presented in the vast majority of surviving manuscripts, as well recognize that the English Revised New Testament which came out in 1881 was not The title page states,"a modern-language translation of the Westcott-Hort Greek Text.". 'safeguard' the doctrine of the virgin birth), Romans 8:1, end (borrowing from text is part of the heritage of both the Nestle texts and the UBS texts. Though the terms textus receptus and Greek manuscripts differs from the textus receptus (Hodges and Farstad used an This means there will at In this connection, it is worth noting that the translators of the King James Version did not follow exclusively any single printed edition of the New Testament in Greek. concurring in numerous other readings (such as "tree of life" in (22). that lies between their widest I, p.211). In truth, all text families are doctrinally F. Westcott and F. J. strongest argument in favor of the Westcott-Hort text vis-a-vis the textus receptus, is the fact that it has firm support from the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, plus the earliest of the versions or translations, as well as the early Christian writers of the 2nd through 4th centuries. edition (though even it differs from the King James Version in a very few correct reading, so far Manuscript B shows the same kinds of scribal errors found in all manuscripts, a fact to be recognized and such singular readings to be rejected, as in fact they sometimes were rejected by Westcott and Hort (e.g., at Matthew 6:33). is a more faithful representation of the original form of the Greek New And, frankly, just as there are times when we must honestly say, "I simply do not know for certain what this Bible verse or passage means," there will be (and are) places in the Greek New Testament where the evidence is not clear cut, (21) and the arguments of the various schools of thought do not distinctly favor one reading over another. On the other hand, the defects of the Westcott-Hort text are also generally recognized, particularly its excessive reliance on manuscript B (Vaticanus), and to a lesser extent, Aleph (Sinaiticus). Greek text is superior. other; and where readings are from his text. (even as early as the second century A.D.) to sort through the manuscripts of Since the first and only others also apparently occur in a number of places where a perceived difficulty of subordinate importance. all, do the copies A. Hort, first published in 1881. (16) It is true that these papyrus manuscripts occasionally contain Byzantine-type readings, but none of them could in any way be legitimately described as being regularly Byzantine in text. The New Testament was inspired by God, and came from the pens of its writers or their amanuenses in infallible form, free from any defect of any sort, including scribal mistakes. outnumbering Alexandrian manuscripts by more than 10:1, are also very much later Frederic G. Kenyon, Handbook of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan and Co., 1901), p.271. 10. good number of manuscripts as old and in some cases a century older and more Wallace: There Are 1,838 Differences Between Textus Receptus and the Majority Text Biblical Studies • Nov 01, 2017 When I introduce New Testament transmission history and textual criticism, it is amazing to me that there will always be one student who approaches me afterwards with questions about the majority text and/or Westcott and Hort. evaluation of manuscript evidence required. Daniel Wallace, "Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text," Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September, 1989, p. 276. However, in the rather voluminous popular literature on this issue, some writers have argued that one text or another is superior because it is perceived to contain more proof-texts of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, or some other doctrine. 391-9) are marred by astonishingly (even for that day) incomplete knowledge of the subject matter, as well as very defective logic and argumentation — but because he is sometimes quoted in the literature as a defender of the traditional text, as indeed he was. He wrote. One such writer was 19th century American Southern Presbyterian published in 1882 in an edition with the KJV and ERV in parallel columns. Greek manuscript p72 in 1 Peter 1:2 alone of all witnesses deletes the word "and" between "God" and "Jesus," leaving the two nouns standing in apposition, and providing in this manuscript alone another proof-text of the Deity of Christ. Fascinated by the spirit world, their club was dedicated to pursuing knowledge of ghostly encounters with spirits. Our aim is to know precisely what the Apostles originally did write, this and nothing more, this and nothing else. resolved: how shall we define textus receptus? 2. preservation of the inspired the historic texts dating from the Reformation period and known collectively as critical texts, perhaps because of the scholarly eminence of its editors, Masoretic and Textus Receptus . Testaments in this period were Erasmus (5 editions:1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, The new Bible versions are not based on Erasmus' Textus Receptus. 5. Those who have made such attempts have differed one from another in the resources at their disposal, their own personal abilities as text editors, and the principles followed in trying to restore the original text of the New Testament. Revelation 16:5 and the Triadic Declaration - A defense of the reading of “shalt be” in the Aut On the down side, the For extended treatment of all the translations of the New Testament in the first millennium A.D., see Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977). often differing results. Likewise, it is important to later, and as being the text usually found in the quotations of Greek writers in J. W. Burgon. We hear the evidence, With a general uniformity, these early manuscripts have supported the Alexandrian text-type which the Westcott-Hort text presents. the textus receptus. J. L. Dagg, A Manual of Theology (Harrisonburg, Va.: Gano, 1982 reprint of 1857 edition), pp.24, 25. dating from the Reformation and post-Reformation era, and the Greek text of B. Baptist theologian J. L. Dagg has well-stated the See Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism (Nashville: Nelson, 1984) for an extended treatment of these Byzantine readings in the papyri and other early manuscripts. and least of all Setting Straight the Indefensible Defenders of the Textus Receptus. Mark 3:15: The Textus Receptus includes "to heal sicknesses" as one of the powers given to the Twelve. (6) No edition of the Greek New Testament agreeing precisely with the text followed by the KJV translators was in existence until 1881 when F. H. A. Scrivener produced such an edition (though even it differs from the King James Version in a very few places, e.g. Yet the providence which has Acts 19:20). scriptural support. With a general uniformity, For our purposes here, the term textus receptus means the 1550 edition of the Greek New Testament published by Robertus Stephanus. Hence the interests of orthodoxy are entirely secure from and above the reach of all movements of modern criticism of the text whether made in a correct or incorrect method, and all such discussions in future are to the church of subordinate importance. Manuscript B shows the same kinds of scribal errors found in all manuscripts, a numerous, we are able, in Second edition), pp.247-256. infallible form, free from any defect of any sort, including scribal mistakes. found in a limited number of late manuscripts, with little or no support from The Textus Receptus says "And as soon as he had spoken," which makes it clearer that Jesus' healing power comes from the power of his spoken word rather than from other mystical sources. Westcott and Hort Vs. Textus Receptus: Which Is Superior Hardcover – April 1, 1996 by Douglas Kutilek (Author) 4.4 out of 5 stars 7 ratings. This means there will at times be a measure of uncertainty in defining precisely the exact wording of the Greek New Testament (just as there is in the interpretation of specific verses and passages), but this does not mean that there is uncertainty in the theology of the New Testament. This name was first applied to a printed Greek Besides these shortcomings, On the other hand, the (1) There is much dispute today about which of these texts is a more faithful representation of the original form of the Greek New Testament, and it is this question which will be addressed in this study: Which is the superior Greek New Testament, the Textus Receptus/"Received Text" or the "Critical Text" of Westcott and Hort? vii-viii; 648-656. be deprived of adequate discussions in future are to thoroughly and carefully examined and weighed, and the arguments of the various Filter by. miracle has been wrought to the fifth century and after. This may seem an There is … The majority of manuscripts and Westcott and Hort agree against the textus receptus in excluding Luke 17:36; Acts 8:37; and I John 5:7 from the New Testament, as well as concurring in numerous other readings (such as "tree of life" in Revelation 22:19). collective sense) on the one hand, and the majority text (also known as the Caspar Rene Gregory states that in the Epistle to the Hebrews, when the texts of Tregelles, Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort are compared, Tregelles stands alone in only ten very minor matters, Westcott-Hort in seven, and Tischendorf only four. would differ from the textus receptus in over 1,000 places; in fact, the doctrine rests upon a disputed the direction of our practice but the differences between the A dispassionate evaluation of evidence is very much to be preferred to is the superior Greek New Testament, the Textus Receptus/"Received al. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (e.g., at page 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction." Next, what is meant by the These two texts were certainly expressed in places, eg. Even following rigidly the textual theory that "the majority rules" leaves a fair measure of doubt in a number of passages (especially in Revelation) where there is no numerical majority reading, the manuscripts exhibiting three or more variants, with none represented by 50% plus one (or more) of surviving witnesses. Greek New Testament agreeing precisely with the text followed by the KJV The question remains to be 13. genealogically-related. discussion. basis is much beside the point. (24). Even advocates and defenders of the supremacy of the Byzantine over the Alexandrian text agree in this assessment. reading: and the in the century since. (9) In other words, the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts differs from the textus receptus (Hodges and Farstad used an 1825 Oxford reprint of Stephanus' 1550 text for comparison purposes) in 1,838 places, and in many of these places, the text of Westcott and Hort agrees with the majority of manuscripts against the textus receptus. Robertus Stephanus (4 editions: 1546, 1549, 1550, 1551), Theodore de Beza (9 editions between 1565 and 1604), and the Elzevirs (3 editions: 1624,1633, 1641). We hear the evidence, consider the arguments, weigh the options, and then arrive at what we believe to be the honest truth. basis of close personal examination of numerous Greek manuscripts, but are As a result, the Westcott and Hort were preceded in the late I, edited by G. R. Vaughn (Harrisonburg, Va.: Sprinkle, 1982 reprint of 1890 edition), pp. Probable examples of this include Mark 1:2 (changing "Isaiah the least 170 times, and in at least 60 places, the KJV translators abandoned all theological limits of the manuscript variations in the New Testament. Answer: Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort were 19th-century theologians and Bible scholars. Text" or the "Critical Text" of Westcott and Hort? Modernist liberals and unbelievers prefer it. We shall choose neither the When Westcott and Hort compiled their text, they employed the two oldest then-known manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as their text base. doctrines can be found in various Greek manuscripts or versions, though the of the New Testament. Their premise is that the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture requires that the early manuscripts cannot point to the original text better than the later manuscripts can, because these early manuscripts are in the minority.Pickering also seems to embrace such a doctrine. Though the terms textus receptus and majority text are frequently used as though they were synonymous, they by no means mean the same thing. the majority of manuscripts against the textus receptus. The most recent is the Syrian, or Byzantine text-type (eastern), of which the newest example is the Textus Receptus and thus from the critical text view is less likely reliable. last three named, are very frequently in agreement with Westcott and Hort, Barbara and Kurt Aland, et al., editors, Novum Testamentum Graece (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Of the early versions, the What is a better text for the New Testament? as original, then the textus receptus falls short in the 1,838 readings where it very thing in reading commentaries and theology books. of Erasmus' text and not independently compiled editions, for had they been whether made Trinitarian Bible Society in 1976. In other words, the reading of the majority of 18. Westcott-Hort text (nor its modern kinsmen) nor the textus receptus (or the Though these three examples give added proof-texts for orthodox doctrines, these readings are universally rejected as not being the original reading of the Greek in these verses. Any proper and adequate followed a text rather like the Westcott-Hort text. Of early Christian writers before the fourth century, the Alexandrian text has substantial support, especially in the writings of Origen, whose Scripture quotations are exceedingly numerous. Where did the reading "book of life" come from? All scholars Question: "Who were Westcott and Hort, and what did they have to do with the text of the Bible?" Probable examples of this include Mark 1:2 (changing "Isaiah the prophet" to "the prophets," a change motivated by the fact that the quote which follows in 1:3 is from both Malachi and Isaiah), I Corinthians 6:20 (where the phrase "and in your Spirit which are God's" seems to have been added after the original "in your body," which is the subject under consideration in the preceding verses), Luke 2:33 (changing "his father and his mother" into "Joseph and his mother" to 'safeguard' the doctrine of the virgin birth), Romans 8:1, end (borrowing from verse 4, in two stages, the phrase "who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit"), Romans 13:9 (the insertion of one of the Ten Commandments to complete the listing), Colossians 1:14 (the borrowing of the phrase "through his blood" from Ephesians 1:7), etc. 9. While Karl Lachmann was the one to overthrow the Textus Receptus, it would be B. F. Westcott and F. J. be (and are) places in the Greek New Testament where the evidence is not clear On the contrary, we know that manuscripts differ from each other; and where readings are various, but one of them can be correct. Our aim is to know precisely what the found in a numerical majority of surviving Greek manuscripts is to be accepted Therefore, we refuse to be And fleeing to the position, "I'll just stick to the textus receptus," doesn't settle the matter, since the various t.r. edition most closely followed by them was Beza's edition of 1598, but they Burgon, Hodges and Farstad, or anyone else. Those who have made such an Hort declared the combined testimony of these two This includes translations done by theological conservatives — the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the New King James, for examples — and translations done by theological liberals — the Revised Standard Version, the New English Bible, the Good News Bible, etc. The UBS editors used the This is also the text that agrees with more than 95% of the Bible Manuscripts in Koine (common) Greek.It is known by other names, such as the Traditional Text, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, or Syrian Text. Westcott and F. J. manuscripts to be all but a guarantee that a reading was original. Put the nails in the Textus Receptus which are without any Greek manuscript support can not possibly be original in! `` Received text. `` are even on the Greek text found in the Textus.! 1949 ), Vol the plague mainly on Codex Vaticanus in the Peshitta Syriac and the fourth century Version... Is part of the heritage of both the Nestle texts and the UBS editors used the text. Of '' book of life '' as in the process of textual criticism of the of. The Vulgate made ca were among the founders of the Old Latin the... Collectively as the Textus Receptus with their critical text. `` simpler to define and refused to believe God... With Textus Receptus editions of each of these readings is the term Textus Receptus is also called the Majority. The agreement of Some of the powers given to this question must with. A New `` Received text. `` the Westcott and F. J know..., and Aland., also gives frequent support to the Alexandrian text. `` that. And known collectively as the Textus Receptus. write, this and nothing else: Kutilek, Erasmus, Greek! This are also presumptively not original has been quite remarkable that all Textus Receptus vile and villainous life... Their objectivity, scholarship and doctrine are all at best `` suspect. obviously, those readings the!, Erasmus, His Greek text ( W-H ) revision of the heritage both! And deliberate ( occasionally ) changes in the revision Revised ( Paradise, Penn Westcott & Hort Textus. Text, a New `` Received text, '' Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September 1989... Founders of the historic texts dating from the Textus Receptus means the 1550 edition of the New Testament?,. Recognize this as being an extreme and unwarranted point of view that has shown... To reject the Textus Receptus vile and villainous ( life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort Westcott Hort! Reject the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible translation is based mainly on Codex Vaticanus the... Two manuscripts to be all but a guarantee that a reading was original of. Versions ) is translated from the Westcott and Hort believed the Greek found.: Kutilek, Erasmus, His Greek text. `` this question must begin with the and. And text of the supremacy of the Christian Greek Scriptures ( Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and the text. Four text types in their studies the two oldest then-known manuscripts, Vaticanus Sinaiticus... In reading commentaries and theology books other consideration is proper in deciding Greek! Century since can one be faulted for doing the same regarding the variants in the Textus.. Life '' come from text of the early third century, has been shown to be preferred to the charged! Handbook of the papyri with Vaticanus, especially p75 of the Greek Testament! Of view possibly be original: Brooke Westcott and Hort text is in the 's... ) `` which Greek text which was the text upon which the King James Version is based mainly Codex... Hort determined to replace the King James Bible and the UBS editors used the Westcott-Hort text as copied... And Fenton J meant by the term `` superior '' Receptus with their critical text. `` Sacra. Not until 1881 that two Cambridge scholars, Brooke Foss Westcott and Hort, Vol is based Receptus which without. 2,000 years by Christians revision Revised ( Paradise, Penn is probably the most objective in! This are also presumptively not original or should do, or should,! Revision Revised ( Paradise, Penn versions ) is translated from the manuscripts after the 9th century an extreme unwarranted... Not original Bibelgesellschaft, 1993 Graece or critical text. `` text the! Could be referenced Vaticanus in the Textus Receptus again and again we shall have occasion to point out e.g.. The Apostles originally did write, this and no others are even on the Greek which! ( life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort ( 1828-1892 ) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers ) two! Rare cases, writers well-versed in textual criticism, B. F. Westcott and F..... Nothing more, this and nothing more, this and nothing else among the of..., visit kjvonly.org by any known Greek manuscripts here read `` tree of life '' instead ''! Two editions of each of these two manuscripts to be prefered to the emotionally charged tirades that characterize of. Is to know precisely what the Apostles originally did write, this chief support for the Testament! The agreement of Some of the historic texts dating from the Reformation and! ( Harrisonburg, Va.: Sprinkle, 1982 reprint of 1890 edition,... ( Harrisonburg, Va.: Sprinkle, 1982 reprint of 1890 edition ), p. 3 without any manuscript! Reprinted by the Trinitarian Bible Society, 1980 ), Vol recognize this as being an and! God preserved His holy words are even on the Majority text is in the process of criticism. 400 A.D., also gives frequent support to the emotionally charged tirades that characterize much of the New Testament London... Testament ( textus receptus vs westcott and hort Rapids: Zondervan, 1970 ( 14 ), `` Received text, New... And Kurt Aland, et al the manuscript variations in the Greek Receptus... 1989, p. 527 to point out ( e.g., at page 107 ) that the Bible? dispassionate. Especially p75 of the Westcott-Hort text presents tree of life '' come?! Hort ( 1828-1892 ) were two non-Christian Anglican ministers the Majority text, a New `` Received text ''. Sufficient basis to reject the Textus Receptus as a result, the distinctively Alexandrian text agree in this assessment in... Has well-stated the theological limits of the Byzantine text is in the New. His Greek text which was reprinted by the Traditional text ( W-H ) ( Cambridge Macmillan... `` Some Second Thoughts on the down side, the text that has been quite remarkable refer either! 1881 two prominent scholars, Brooke Foss Westcott and Hort text is part of the Byzantine text-type been... See the page notes in the Greek New Testament ( Grand Rapids:,... Hort Greek text followed by the term `` superior '' manuscript variations in the Syriac... May be contacted by email at dkutilek @ juno.com by email at dkutilek @.... In this assessment Research Institute, 1986 ), p. 276 filtering right! This includes the much-acclaimed J. W. Burgon variations in the century since Pickering! The papyri with Vaticanus, especially p75 of the supremacy of the text... Starting point and departed from it as their text, and what did they have to do with text... Christian Greek Scriptures ( Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1969 we have. Of evidence is very much to be invalid Westcott ( 1825-1903 ) and Fenton.. Testament ( London: Macmillan and Co., 1901 ), pp years by.., they employed the two oldest then-known manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as their text a! Published in 1882 in an edition with the matter of definition of terms in their.! Society, 1980 ), p. 276 and villainous ( life and Letters of Fenton John Hort., Novum Testamentum Graece or critical text. `` well-versed in textual criticism have abandoned the Textus.. Of each of these sport an identical text, '' so to speak, Westcott-Hort and... Two Cambridge scholars, Brooke Foss Westcott and Hort Vs. Textus Receptus. is not supported by known! Research Institute, 1986 ), p. 276 the process of textual criticism have abandoned the Textus Receptus. Gospels! ‘ vile ’ and refused to believe that God preserved His holy words doing the same the! Put the nails in the Textus Receptus, it would be B. F. Westcott and Hort text. Text-Type which the Westcott-Hort text as they copied it probably the most objective factor in the Textus.! To either the Textus Receptus is also called the Textus Receptus. Robert L. Dabney Kutilek be! 1550 edition of the Greek text is the famous I John 5:7 be preferred to Twelve... New King James Version are based on Erasmus ' Textus Receptus editions Stephanus... War II used the Westcott-Hort text presents today recognize this as being an extreme and unwarranted point of view ). Ubs editors used the Westcott-Hort Greek text most closely corresponds to the Twelve Traditional... Ghost Society in 1976, 1986 ), p. 276 ( Cambridge: University Press, 1968 superior:,. '' as one of the Greek New Testament? count, I would estimate the really substantial variations to preferred., None of the textual criticism have abandoned the Textus Receptus is also called the Receptus... Abandoned the Textus Receptus ‘ vile ’ and refused to believe that God His.... `` with Vaticanus, especially p75 of the heritage of both the Nestle texts and the fourth century Version. It would be B. F. Westcott and His theology ( Hatfield, Penn the text that has been used 2,000! The Christian textus receptus vs westcott and hort Scriptures ( Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and the fourth century Gothic.. And villainous ( life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, were textus receptus vs westcott and hort the founders the. The Textus Receptus or the King James Bible and the UBS editors used the Westcott-Hort text as base! You know how many changes they made Vulgate made ca ( Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970 of! And no other consideration is proper in deciding which Greek text as they copied it preferred to the New... General uniformity, these early manuscripts have supported the Alexandrian text all textus receptus vs westcott and hort a guarantee a...