Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Quotes against Westcott and Hort from scholars of their time

INVENTION UPON IMAGINATION UPON CONJECTURE: Prebendary Scrivener, assessing the textual theory of Westcott and Hort that defends the use of the Alexandrian Greek texts in the revision of 1881:
1) There is little hope for the stability of their imposing structure, if its foundations have been laid on the sandy ground of ingenious conjecture. And, since barely the smallest vetige of historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the views of those accomplished Editors, their teaching must either be received as intuitively true, or dismissed from our consideration as precarious and even visionary.

2) Dr. Hort's System is entirely destitute of historical foundation.

3) We are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our strong conviction that the Hypothesis to whose proof he has devoted so many laborious years, is destitute not only of historical foundation, but of all probability...

4) "We cannot doubt" (says Dr. Hort) "that S. Luke 23:34 comes from an extraneous source." Nor can we, on our part, doubt, (rejoins Dr. Scrivener) that the System which entails such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned.
[quoted in Burgon's Revision Revised as the frontispiece, from Scrivener's "Plain Introduction, 1882 edition].
The "System" he is talking about is the same reasoning that is now enshrined as Text Critical gospel in such ideas as that the texts underlying the KJV were "conflated," which is an idea they made up in order to support the other ideas they made up, such as that the Alexandrian texts they favored were closer to the original [Burgon denounces them as corrupted], and, to explain how it is that it wasn't the Alexandrian texts that got passed down through the centuries, but the texts that fed into the Textus Receptus, they added the further ingenious conjecture that eminent leaders of the early churches must have gotten together to decide on the text that came down to the translators of the KJV, now called the Textus Receptus, which ingenious conjecture was treated as fact by them. [Burgon has a lengthy section in Revision Revised demonstrating the utter stupidity of such a conjecture for supporting W&H's ideas, and showing how in fact if it were true it would demonstrate the authenticity of the Textus Receptus instead]. There isn't a shred of support for their insane historical fantasy/theory, it is all "ingenious conjecture" as Scrivener says. But over and over on Christian radio I hear otherwise good preachers reject the KJV's choice of a word ON THE VERY BASIS OF HORT'S insane purely imaginary theory.*

Bishop Wordsworth, another of their contemporaries, commenting on the English translation of the Westcott and Hort revision:

I fear that we must say in candour that in the Revised Version we meet in every page with small changes, which are vexatious, teasing and irritating, even the more so because they are small; which seem almost to be made for the sake of change . . . .

[The question arises,] -- Whether the Church of England, ---, which ... sanctioned a Revision of her Authorized Version under the express condition ... that no Changes should be made in it except what were absolutely necessary, could consistently accept a Version in which 36,000 changes have been made; not a fiftieth of which can be shown to be needed, or even desirable.
-- Bishop Wordsworth, Address to Lincoln Diocesan Conference (quoted in Revision Revised, p. 368)
Just as I hear good preachers on the radio rationalize preferring a false word based on the 1881 fraud over the KJV's, I also cringe abd groan over the multitude of UNNECESSARY WORD SUBSTITUTIONS I hear in every quoted portion of scripture that comes from one of the modern versions.

But hey, it's supposed to be just WONDERFUL that we have all these OPTIONS. Who needs a standardized Bible anyway, that all English-speaking people could share with each other without stumbling, could memorize and trust? Who cares that centuries of English preaching not to mention literature of all sorts QUOTE THE KJV where these idiotic substitutions now reign in its place and make a confused wreck of English history? Who cares that language has been trashed like this? Who cares that the Bible has been turned into a Babel of awkward phrasing and meaningless word downgrades anyway?

Excuse me while I scream and tear out my hair.

After that rant I realize I have to add, to make it clear again, that I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THE KJV AS OUR STANDARD JUST AS IT IS. THERE NEEDS TO BE AN UPDATING OF SOME OF ITS LANGUAGE AND A REVISION OF SOME OF ITS ERRORS, which they COULD have done in 1881 but didn't. I've been wondering if perhaps Scrivener detailed what he thought were the NEEDED CORRECTIONS to the KJV in the 1881 revision because that might be the place to start. The revision that is needed would be as conservative as the revision of 1881 was supposed to be. It would respect the historical value of the KJV and not affect the best known of the KJV's expressions unless there is some absolutely compelling need for such a change. There would not be anything like 36,000 changes, probably less than a tenth of that many, even only a fiftieth if Bishop Wordsworth is correct, in the revision that is still needed. And the Alexandrian texts would have no part in it but go back to the wastebasket to be burned where Tischendorf found one of them anyway. And of course all the modern versions that have built upon Westcott and Hort need to be retired.

* I've been getting the impression for some time now that we might as well think of the 19th century as the century of fantasy being taken for theory. That's what Darwinianism is -- just pure conjecture off the top of his head that is now enshrined as fact, and that's what Marxism is too, utterly out of touch with reality but the darling of way too many who think of themselves as scholarly, intellectual and compassionate. Same with Westcott and Hort, who were true to the mindset of the 19th century when they concocted their view of textual criticism and the history of the texts out of hot air, based only on their feelings about it and the one and only fact that the Alexandrian texts happen to be older copies, and somehow it's now THE scholarly position and the ENTIRE CHURCH follows them, with few exceptions.

This post is intended to be a reminder of the theme of this blog since I haven't been getting to it lately. These quotes alone ought to alert anyone who is half awake that there is something very very wrong with today's W&H-contaminated Bibles.

When I can get to it I want to add some quotes from Burgon I've also posted elsewhere, showing the corruption of the Alexandrian texts.