WESTCOTT AND HORT
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) produced a
Greek New Testament in 1881 based on the findings of Tischendorf. Westcott and Hort’s Greek NT
was the basis for the Revised Version of that same year. (The English Revised Version (ERV) that Westcott and Hort helped
translate from Greek and was intended to replace the 300 year old 1611 KJV. The Revised Version became the forerunner of modern translations and is
Westcott and Hort also developed a
theory of textual criticism which underlined their Greek NT and several other Greek New Testaments
since (such as the Nestle's text and the United Bible Society's text). Greek New Testaments such as
these produced the modern English translations of the Bible we have today such as the NIV, ESV,
RSV, NEB, etc. So it is important for us to know something about the two men who have so greatly
influenced modern textual criticism.
largely identical to the American Standard Version, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Version ).
Westcott and Hort believed that the Greek text which underlined the NT of the KJV was
perverse and corrupt. Hort called the Textus Receptus vile and villainous (Life and Letters of Fenton
John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.211). (Textus Receptus or the “received text” is part of the Majority Text which represents 96% of all
available NT manuscripts and other textual fragments. The Textus Receptus was the basis for the 1611 KJV English translation of the NT.) Both
Westcott and Hort believed that the Traditional Text (Traditional Text is another reference for the Textus Receptus, Majority
Text, or Byzantine Text) did not exist until the fourth century and was created by Lucian of Antioch as an act
of a Church council to unify the Western and Alexandrian lines of manuscripts. This mixing of the two
lines and filling them with additional texts is called conflation. (Note: There are three major text traditions: Alexandrian,
Byzantine, and “Western” although it should be noted that there is very little evidence for the Western tradition today. The Byzantine tradition is extremely
unified and represents the vast majority of all available Greek manuscripts and fragments and therefore is frequently referred to the as the basis for the
Majority Text. The Alexandrian tradition, which should not be confused with the “Alexandrian Manuscript” or Codex A which is in line with the
Byzantine tradition, is primarily supported by the two manuscripts from Egypt, the “Sinaiticus” and “Vaticanus”. Westcott and Hort rejected the Byzantine
The manuscripts of
“Sinaiticus” and “Vaticanus” are considered neutral by Westcott and Hort as stated in their book The
New Testament in the Original Greek. So, according to this theory, the text of the KJV is conflated by
using both the Western and Alexandrian lines, and adds to the Bible with its own additions. The two
manuscripts “Sinaiticus” and “Vaticanus”, which in theory are supposed to be neutral texts, have now
become the textual foundation of most modern translations.
tradition/Majority Text on the unproven theory that it was a conflation of the Western and Alexandrian traditions.)
There are several problems with Westcott and Hort’s theory. First, many of the early Church
Fathers’ citations reflect the Traditional text with the fuller readings long before the fourth century.
Second, there is no evidence that there ever was a council or even a conference of scholars in Antioch
to produce this “conflated” Byzantine text. Even Kenyon, who supports modern versions, wrote, “We
know the names of several revisers of the Septuagint and Vulgate, and it would be strange if historians
and Church writers had all omitted to record or mention such an event” (Handbook to the Textual
Criticism of the New Testament, p.302). Thirdly, since God has told us that we are not to add to His
word, it would be a strange thing indeed for Him to support a Greek line of manuscripts and bless an
English translation of the Bible that added to His word. Yet the line of manuscripts which Biblebelieving Christians have read, used, and believed for almost two thousand years is of the Traditional
text. Furthermore, no English translation has been so greatly used and blessed by God as the KJV. If
the KJV is based on the erroneously adding to the word of God (conflation) as claimed by Westcott and
Hort, why has God then blessed it so richly for the past 400 years? Additionally, if Westcott and Hort
are the fathers of modern textual criticism and the restorers of the “true” text, should we not know
something of their beliefs to see if they are consistent with Scripture? This would be harmonious with
the teaching found in 1 John 4:1 and Matthew 7:17.
WHAT DID WESTCOTT AND HORT BELIEVE?
The Scriptures
“I reject the word ‘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)
Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that, “Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration.” (The Identity of the
New Testament Text, p.212)
Perhaps this is why both the RV (which Westcott and Hort helped to translate) and the American
edition of it, the ASV, translated 2 Tim. 3: 16 as, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for
teaching” instead of “All scripture is given by inspiration of God…” (KJV).
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).
“(Revelation 3: 14) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created. (Hort,
Revelation, p.36). This is a quote by Hort regarding Revelation 3:14 which reads “And unto the
angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true
witness, the beginning of the creation of God.”
Perhaps this is why Westcott and Hort’s American translation has a footnote concerning John 9:38
“And he said, Lord I believe and he worshipped him.” which said, “The Greek word denotes an act of
reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here, or to the Creator.” Thus calling Christ “a creature.”
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)
Salvation
“The thought (of John 10:29) is here traced back to its most absolute form as resting on the
essential power of God in His relation of Universal Fatherhood.” (Westcott, St. John, p. 159).
“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).
Perhaps this is why their Greek text adds the words “to salvation” in 1 Peter 2:2. And why their English
version teaches universal salvation in Titus 2:11 “For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing
salvation to all men,” (ASV). Compare with KJV: “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath
appeared to all men.”
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).
Perhaps this is why their Greek text does not have Mark 9:44 “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire
is not quenched” (KJV), and their English translation replaces “everlasting fire” [Matt. 18:8] with
“eternal fire” and changes the meaning of eternal as cited by Hort in the above quote.
Romanism
“I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears
witness.” (Westcott, Ibid.)
“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)
COMPARISON OF MODERN VERSIONS AND KJV EXAMPLE DIFFERENCES
1. Example to show how Gnostic influence evident in Sinaiticus & Vaticanus is carried
over into modern versions:
Luke 24:40—“He showed them his hands and feet”. In some of the modern versions based on
the Revised Greek text of Westcott and Hort this verse is omitted, in others it is footnoted as
“not found in many manuscripts”.
NOTE: If you did not believe that Jesus had a physical body you would not want this verse in
Scripture would you?
2. Examples of an attempt weaken the Doctrine of Christ’s Deity.
Mark 9:24—The man’s testimony that Christ is Lord is removed.
Mark 15:39—The centurion’s testimony of Christ’s deity is removed from the text or
questioned with a footnote.
Luke 2:33—The deity of Christ is attacked by changing “Joseph and his mother” to “father and
mother”.
Luke 2:43—Modern versions have “his parents” instead of the correct rendering of the KJV
“Joseph and his mother”.
John 1:14; 1:18; 3:16; 3:18—The NIV and most other modem versions omit “begotten”, thereby
removing an important witness to the uniqueness of Christ as the only begotten Son of God.
Christ is not the only son of God. Adam is called the son of God, angels are called sons of God,
and Christians are called sons of God. But Christ IS the only begotten Son of God just as the
KJV correctly affirms.
John 3:13—The modern versions omit “which is in heaven.” The KJV reads, “And no man hath
ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man WHICH IS
IN HEAVEN.” This testimony of the deity and omnipresence of Christ is removed from modem
translations.
John 9:4—The KJV reads, “I must work the works of him that sent me...” The new versions
read, “We must work the works of Him who sent me...” You can see that this slight change in
pronouns from “I” to “we” removes entirely this reference to Christ’s unique work.
Acts 8:37—The modern versions omit this verse and thereby remove the important testimony of
the Ethiopian treasurer to the incarnation and deity of Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:47—The KJV reads, “The first man is of the earth, earthly: the second man is
THE LORD from heaven.” The modern versions omit the words “the Lord” and say, “…the
second man is from heaven,…” thus removing this testimony that Christ is the Lord from
heaven.
1 Timothy 3: 16—The modern versions omit the key word in this verse, the word “God”. The
KJV reads: “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in
the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the
world, received up into glory.” The NIV reads, “Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness
is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached
among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. By replacing the word
“God” with the general pronoun “he” you remove one of the plainest witnesses to the deity of
Christ in the Bible.
There are many more such like examples that could be cited from modem versions of the Bible
based of the Revised Greek text of Westcott & Hort text, and although the deity of Christ is not
entirely removed from these Bibles, yet, the overall testimony to the doctrine of Christ's deity
has been weakened.
3. Examples where the doctrine of the atonement is weakened:
Colossians 1:14—The modern versions omit the all-important phrase “through his blood.”
Hebrews 1:3—The KJV reads “…when he had by himself purged our sins…” The NIV omits
“by himself” and reads “after he had provided purification for sins…” The two little words
omitted seriously weaken the testimony of this passage as to what Christ accomplished on the
Cross.
1 Peter 4:1—The modern versions omit “for us”. The KJV reads, “Forasmuch then as Christ
hath suffered FOR US in the flesh.”
4. Examples of obvious errors:
Luke 23:45—The KJV reads “the sun was darkened” showing that a miracle had occurred. The
Revised Greek Text, however, reads “the sun was eclipsed”. This is a physical impossibility
since Christ was crucified at the time of the Passover which was during a full moon.
Furthermore, a total eclipse of the sun in which the moon completely blocks out the sun lasts
only a few minutes, not three hours. Realizing this problem, the NIV translators decided not to
follow the Revised Text, but instead translated the text to read “the sun stopped shining”.
Another significant error is in the omitting of the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark.
Since this causes an abrupt ending to this gospel, it has been footnoted with “Ending has been
lost.” This is a direct denial of God’s promise to preserve His Word from generation to
generation.
These examples should give an idea of the character of the Revised Greek text based on the
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Manuscripts, one of which laid in the Vatican Library for 400 years
while the other, after receiving numerous changes and corrections, was eventually thrown into a
waste basket. In fact then, these manuscripts are not a more “pure” copy of the original
autographs lost to the church for 1400 years, but rather they are manuscripts with various
readings which the Church rejected before the end of the 4th Century. Under the care and
providence of God, more reliable manuscripts were multiplied and copied from generation to
generation, and the great majority of existing manuscripts exhibit a faithful reproduction of the
true text which was acknowledged and held in trust by the church throughout the Byzantine
period of AD 312-1453. These are the manuscripts which are represented in the KJV.
Summary:
It comes down to two choices: we either accept the Text handed down by the Church for nearly
2000 years or we accept a faulty Greek text which was introduced to the world by men who
were non-believers. This faulty text, and the versions that are founded upon it, weaken key
doctrines of the Christian faith and introduce error into the Word of God. Thousands of inspired
words are omitted, and the authority of the Bible has been weakened by replacing a clear "thus
saith the Lord" with "some manuscripts read. . . "
The proponents of the modem versions contend that the Reformation Bibles were based on an
inferior or secondary text and that the purest readings of Scripture were not then available until
they were re-discovered in the 19th Century, and therefore the KJV needed to be purified by
modem textual criticism.
Conclusion:
We reject the claims of modem textual critics and the resulting corrupted Revised Greek Text
and those versions of the Bible derived from it. We know that God would not allow His Holy
Scriptures to be corrupted; Psalm 12:6-7 promises “The words of the LORD are pure words: as
silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou
shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” God has jealously preserved the Bible
through the centuries. The preserved Word of God was not lost and forgotten in the Vatican
library and in a monastery for 1400 years, waiting to be rescued by modern textual critics.