"Modern Bibles" Are Based on Wescott and Hort - Who Were They? Part I

by Perry 105 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  BurnTheShips

  "Modern Bibles" Are Based on Wescott and Hort

  I thought most modern Bibles are based on Nestle-Aland master text, and not Westcott and Hort.

  Am I wrong here?

  BTS
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Apparently no fundy trash

  I don't see why the fundies take such issue with these other texts. It makes no sense to me.

  BTS
• 

  Narkissos

  I thought most modern Bibles are based on Nestle-Aland master text, and not Westcott and Hort.

  It depends what you mean by "modern". The initial edition by Eberhard Nestle was in 1898. It was based on the previous critical editions by Tischendorf, Westcott & Hort, and Weymouth (from 1901 onward Weiss' edition was included). Eberhard Nestle's son Erwin was responsible from the 13th edition (1927) onward. Kurt Aland joined him on the 21th edition of 1952. From 1963 on (25th edition) the Nestle-Aland text became the main scholarly reference. In collaboration with the United Bible Societies it was thoroughly revised (taking into account the huge imput from papyrii digged up and published in the 20th century) into the 26th edition (1979 = GNT 3, 1975). The vast majority of Bible translators since have been working on this edition and the 27th, where the main text is unchanged but the critical apparatus has been further developed.

  I don't see why the fundies take such issue with these other texts. It makes no sense to me.

  Because they (I mean "ultra-fundies," not mainstream Evangelical and conservative scholars who have contributed a lot to the above editions) are not satisfied with the classical Evangelical doctrine that the Bible is inerrant in the (lost) originals -- leaving room for the task and uncertainties of textual criticism. They want an actual infallible text, and they can't bear with the idea that this text was not available to the founding Fathers of Protestantism. So ironically their unavowed agenda is to ascribe infallibility to the classic Bibles of the Reformation (Luther and the KJV in particular, because those have remained in use since, which is not the case of French Protestant Bibles which were constantly revised). That such an agenda runs contrary to the spirit of Reformation, which readily accepted the early "scientific" approach of Humanism, is lost on them.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Thanks Narkissos, I knew Nestle-Aland was newer than W-H and drew from the latest finds of the 20th century. When I said "modern" I was thinking more along the lines of the last 50 years or so. NASB, NIV, New Jerusalem (I think), etc. etc.

  BTS
• 

  Perry

  My own research has shown to me that bibles based on the Nestle-Aland Text differ little than those from Wescott / Hort. It's almost as if another Greek text was needed under a different name that wasn't associated with spiritism like the Wescott and Hort names are. What difference does the two texts make if they are virtually identical?

  The reason that more and more people are rejecting the modern versions is simply because those versions do not support fundamental Christian doctrines. It matters not whether you use Wescott and Hort or Nestle Aland; you are still going to end up with a net textual loss equilivant to 1 and 2 Peter. These losses are in critical areas that dramaticall change God's Word in subtle but doctrinally cheapening ways. The problem of their word changes and interpretations is a whole another area for the sacred text to be perverted even furter.

  Essentially Christians need to determine for themselves, through their own research which family of texts they trust .... the 99% Antioch family or the 1% Alexandrian family; Should I trust 47 world class Christian scholars or a couple of "dead spirit" communicating occultists named Wescott and Hort.

  Found this on Nestle:

  The Text of the Nestle-Aland actually is the "text" Nestle, a German Textual Critic.

  He Chose primarily to use 2 sources for his Greek New Testament Collation.

  Those 2 Sources were:

  1. The fraudulent text of Westcott & Hort (Codex Vaticanus)

  and

  2. The fraudulent text of Tischendorf (Codex Sinaiticus)

  But don't take our word for it.

  Here -below - is the preface to the Greek Text of Nestle in 1936, where

  Nestle Jr. explains the choice of his father, Eberhard Nestle, and how it was his plan

  and his conscious intention to replace the Greek New Testament used by Protestants

  with Nestle's text (based on Westcott & Hort/Tischendorf).

  Notice the clever slam against the Textus Receptus, attributing it to Erasmus, rather than to

  the 99% of the Ancient Greek Manuscripts that Agree with the Textus Receptus.

  Notice also how he credits Eberhard Nestle with the compliment of conducting was their premise that anything resembling true Christian faith or faith in Salvation through Christ alone was something which was not "Scientific" .

  That was a good one. It was clear that the person chosing between the Greek Manuscriptsof Tischendorf or Westcott & Hort- forthe initial Greek NT of Nestle-Aland was Nestle -, yet this is downplayed. He remains the one responsible for his collation of this Greek manuscript.

  You might have caught the slant (bias), where the work of Westcott & Hortis actually also referred to - as "Scientific".

  Like Westcott & Hort & Tischendorf, and their invented texts, Nestle continued the trend that they had started, thereby adding to the confusion for us today, and taking the Biblical text very far from the Rest of the Ancient Bible manuscripts in Greek, the overwhelming majority of which disagree with Westcott & Hort, Tischendorf and Nestle.
• 

  bluesapphire

  for later reading
• 

  Satanus

  Can you present a simple list, starting w the most important, of doctrines that the evil westcot and hort bastards expunged or perverted? Can you provide the appropriate vss from each version family, that reads most clearly, so that a layperson can clearly see how the devil changed the bible through these agents of his? Ten points would be ample.
  
  S
• 

  hillary_step

  Satanus,

  Can you present a simple list, starting w the most important, of doctrines that the evil westcot and hort bastards expunged or perverted?

  If it is online, however mutated and macerated by Fundie agendas it may be, Perry will find it, and Burn will misread it. Like taxes and death, these are immutable truths.

  Common sense however, is apparently much more difficult to dig up.

  HS
• 

  Satanus

  HS
  
  'If it is online, however mutated and macerated by Fundie agendas it may be, Perry will find it, and Burn will misread it. Like taxes and death, these are immutable truths.'
  
  This is going to be much more fun than going digging for it, like a hog snuffling for truffles.
  
  S waiting for his chocolate coated truffles:))
• 

  Narkissos

  LOL.

  The most important (in quantitative terms) examples of differences correspond to the famous list of so-called "missing verses" in the NWT and other recent translations (because the traditional numeration of verses was made on the TR, the shorter critical text skips a verse number). But there are many more minor differences ("missing" or, more exactly, added explicitating words like "Jesus," "Christ" or "Lord" for an ambiguous pronoun for instance).

  Now the real fun begins when TR apologists try to read a consistent doctrinal conspiracy into the "changes". Because the vast majority of these textual differences either don't change the general meaning of the text at all, or were simply transferred into the passage from another scriptural context (which means they are still in the critical editions, just not at the same place, and once instead of twice for instance).

  Besides the obviously spurious comma Johanneum (see above), you will notice the evil suppression of the angel (Jacuzziel?) responsible for moving the water in the pool of Bethzatha (John 5), the dark heretical motive of which still escapes me...