Very Important Information about Bible Translations

[NetChaplain]

What most are unaware of is that Westcott and Hort were first formers of the creation of a critical text of the New Testament Westcott and Hort text. Their work, published in 1881 as The New Testament in the Original Greek, became a highly influential critical edition of the Greek New Testament.

This was the first translation from the three ancient manuscripts recently discovered (19th century: Vaticanus, Sinaticua and Alexzandrinus.) Their translation from these manuscript copies are what all modern translations are derived from.

I wanted you to know that these two scholars were members of a cult group: B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were members of a group known as the “Ghostly Gilled,” formed in 1850. This club, also referred to as the “Bogie Club”, focused on investigating paranormal phenomena, including ghosts and supernatural occurrences, as members were “disposed to believe that such things really exist”. Some sources suggest that a previous club organized by Westcott at Cambridge named “Hermes” may have been a precursor to the Ghostly Guild. The Ghostly Guild later evolved into The Society for Psychical Research, a key player in the 19th-century spiritualism movement.”

The two scholars who used Westcott and Hort’s translation were Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland (whom you’re probably familiar with). Nestle and Aland’s text is where today’s modern translations come from.

 

[mikesw]

This video seems to reveal that lies and slander have been made against Westcott and Hort. Their look into supernatural stuff also seems to be pushing for inferences that exceed the reality of their participation or interest in the supernatural. You may wish to investigate further and determine whether such posts could be promoting lies and slander, especially if against orthodox Christians.

My finding is that the changes in the Greek have been done with careful consideration and arguments for finding the best Greek. Also, I was noting that John 1:18 testifies well to the divinity of Christ with the Greek text used in newer translations.

 

[mikesw]

The reminder given in the video is not to continue (i.e. one should repent ) bearing false witness -- if the points shared in this video prove to be valid. If someone still likes the KJV, do so just more humbly.

One interesting video shared that the question of the longer version of Mark had been represented in copies made of the gospels in Greek where it appears the decision was tentatively made to exclude the questionable text (Mark 16:9-20) as shown by leaving space where the passage could fit. This could be allowing room in case someone later wants to add it or, alternatively, it could be (as my additional thought) the preservation of columns of the gospel in each copy -- maybe preserving convention where to find the start of the next gospel.

 

[NetChaplain]

This video seems to reveal that lies and slander have been made against Westcott and Hort. Their look into supernatural stuff also seems to be pushing for inferences that exceed the reality of their participation or interest in the supernatural. You may wish to investigate further and determine whether such posts could be promoting lies and slander, especially if against orthodox Christians.

My finding is that the changes in the Greek have been done with careful consideration and arguments for finding the best Greek. Also, I was noting that John 1:18 testifies well to the divinity of Christ with the Greek text used in newer translations.

You may already know that there are only two groups of manuscript copies: Minority Text (Min T) and Majority Text (Maj T). The Min T only uses 5% of all extant copies, because they are older but not consistent enough with the Maj T. They were abandoned for 1500 years because the scribes would reject them. These just involve a few manuscripts: codex Vaticanus; codex Sinaiticus; codex Alexandrinus. Not much manuscript evidence.

 

[mikesw]

That could be that some favored the text they found more often but there is no reason to give false witness about Westcott and Hort for sharing the older texts -- if that is what is happening. Also, I do not see a concern against the older texts.

 

[NetChaplain]

That could be that some favored the text they found more often but there is no reason to give false witness about Westcott and Hort for sharing the older texts -- if that is what is happening. Also, I do not see a concern against the older texts.

The oldest texts are older because they missed them for 1500 years. Scribes rejected them for copying purposes. Of all the available extant copies, the Minority text only uses 5% of the manuscript copies; the Majority Text used 90% of the extant copies. That's 5000 copies compared to a the few in the Minority Text.

 

[mikesw]

The oldest texts are older because they missed them for 1500 years. Scribes rejected them for copying purposes. Of all the available extant copies, the Minority text only uses 5% of the manuscript copies; the Majority Text used 90% of the extant copies. That's 5000 copies compared to a the few in the Minority Text.

How do we know they rejected ones for good reason? They may have just had best access to those that were being copied more often. This would cause the same versions to be copied simply due to convenience. The older could even be rejected because they did not match the newer ones.
Anyhow, I do not see a big reason to have concern with either Greek sources.

 

[NetChaplain]

How do we know they rejected ones for good reason? They may have just had best access to those that were being copied more often. This would cause the same versions to be copied simply due to convenience. The older could even be rejected because they did not match the newer ones.
Anyhow, I do not see a big reason to have concern with either Greek sources.

They omit much Scripture, and they changed a lot of passages by transposing and interpolating. The omissions are the worst because one should have the entire Word, which is only in the Majority Text (Mat 4:4).

 

[mikesw]

They omit much Scripture, and they changed a lot of passages by transposing and interpolating. The omissions are the worst because one should have the entire Word, which is only in the Majority Text (Mat 4:4).

That is actually the question at hand rather than being a final determination. Also, you have to determine that man misses what God says if extra text is added beyond the original writings. Anyhow, there are variations of text, all pretty minor, between all the old sources. Again, that means that the best text needs to be determined carefully, not just assumed from one tradition.
Anyhow, the ending of Mark 16 still has big debating on the best option, so it is not a losing argument to say the later verses should be included.
Anyhow, the text variations have not made a different on main doctrines and history in scriptures.

Here's a link pro Mark 16:9-20

Are Older Manuscripts More Reliable? - Textus Receptus Bibles

Are Older Manuscripts More Reliable?

www.textusreceptusbibles.com

Here's a link on the issues in copying ancient texts

Don’t Hate the Scribes: Understanding the Role and Realities of Ancient Old Testament Copyists - Updated American Standard Version

Discover why ancient Old Testament scribes deserve grace, not criticism, for their faithful transmission of Scripture despite human copying challenges.

uasvbible.org

A case against the longer ending:

A Case against the Longer Ending of Mark by Peter Head

An argument that Mark 16:9–20 is not original and so not inspired Scripture Peter Head considers the evidence against the Longer Ending and concludes by reflecting on how we should treat it today.

textandcanon.org

 

[NetChaplain]

Anyhow, the text variations have not made a different on main doctrines and history in scriptures.

There's going to be some Scriptures are are correct, to show they are not that bad, but the main issue is are they the entirety of the Word? I believe God gave us His complete (perfect) Word, to which many passages attest that God's Word is complete in the correct translations. The Minority Text, from which all modern translations derive from have too many omissions, transpositions and interpolations to claim they are the complete Word.

 

[mikesw]

There's going to be some Scriptures are are correct, to show they are not that bad, but the main issue is are they the entirety of the Word? I believe God gave us His complete (perfect) Word, to which many passages attest that God's Word is complete in the correct translations. The Minority Text, from which all modern translations derive from have too many omissions, transpositions and interpolations to claim they are the complete Word.

There appears to be margin notes added to any lineage of copies. But it does make sense that many of the oldest copies can have such issues more often in cases where people needed copies where fewer "experts" were available. That does not diminish the testimony of the scriptures at that time. I would not think that their contributions are any less significant than the contributions of the later texts that you enjoy. All is in God's hands.
So I think it is more of a preference one might have for the majority texts and not a reason to warn against the work of Westcott and Hort.

 

[NetChaplain]

There appears to be margin notes added to any lineage of copies.

The marginal notes at the bottom of the modern translations are there to attempt to discredit the Word, wondering whether a passage should not be included.