The Westcott and Hort Theory

Westcott and Hort, two Anglican clergymen, were liars and cheats. They were messengers of evil, being raised up to destroy the faith once delivered to the saints. This we can say without any apologies whatsoever: it is the Truth.

They were Romanising in their theology and most suspect in all their dealings during the supposed revision of the Authorized Version. They wanted the proceedings to be kept secret; they wanted the sources for the new Translation to be hid also.

Their theory undermined the credibility of the preservation of the New Testament, since they preferred corrupt texts which they claimed to be older and disregarded 95% of the manuscript evidence (which makes up the Majority Text from which the Authorized is translated).

A theory may appear to be reasonable, but after all is said and done, a theory remains a theory, simply an educated guess. Our scholarship must be based on facts, not guesswork. The Westcott and Hort texts are not based on fact: another point of suspicion. They are grounded rather on probability and conjectures.

Their theory is grounded on three (false) principles:

1. That the True text was lost at around the fourth century (and that the Lord therefore did not keep His promise to preserve His Word, Matthew 24:35);

2. That they could and did (as they falsely claimed) restore the lost test by collation.

If we are to accept their theory, then we have to admit that the Lord of Absolute Truth entrusted the re-discovery and re-publication of His Word to cheats and charlatans.

3. The last principle is that the two pseudo-scholars considered the manuscripts of the Bible as of the same value with the manuscripts of ancient pagan literature. What could happen to one might also happen to the other.

According to the critics Westcott and Hort, the New Testament critic must be a Trained scholar having a general knowledge of what must be look for in order to make a choice of readings. This is True as far as it goes, but we must add that our approach to Scripture must be reverent and believing. Westcott and Hort are known to have said and wrote that the Bible is to be considered as an ancient manuscript, no better and no worse than other ancient profane manuscripts. Where does the providence of God come in here? Such a presupposition is humanistic; it denies the superintending control of God in the affairs of the world, and most especially where His written Word comes in. We must always maintain that the Bible is supernatural in its origin, its aim, and its preservation. It is unique; it can never be placed on a par with other kinds of literature.

The same critics also claimed that the sources of the text must be sifted and classified, and the authorities for the variants must be weighed rather than numbered. But weighed by whom, by bigoted men who are persuaded that the New Testament was lost during the Middle Ages, even up to the late nineteenth century? And why are the number of manuscripts in favour of one reading unimportant? It is both biblical and logical that the more the witnesses the more credible the thing.

Westcott and Hort asserted that one independent manuscript may be worth a score that were copied from the same original. But who is to judge whether this MS or the other were copies from the same source?

They also asserted that the ancestry of a manuscript must be Traced as far back as possible. But they only insisted on this because their two favourite MSS, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, were somewhat older than the majority of the others. Their prejudice shows.

Another Westcott and Hort dogma was that in general, the shorter reading is preferable to the longer, because insertions and additions are more probably than omissions. But...who says so? Were Wescott and Hort there in the second century or any other century except the 19th? How could they verify this dogma?

Furthermore they claimed that the more difficult and obscure reading is preferable to the one that is more simple and easy in construction. A difficult reading might Trouble a scribe and lead to a change. Again, we retort, considering the seriousness and commitment of the scribe, being fully aware of what he was undertaking, it is exceedingly difficult to imagine him changing the text at will. And why should the more difficult reading be the genuine reading? This is subjective reasoning, to say the least.

They say that the reading which bears the earmarks of doctrinal controversy should be ruled out in favour of one to which no suspicion is attached. But by this reasoning, “Who was manifest in the flesh” is to be preferred to “God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16). Do Westcott and Hort want us to have a New Testament drained of its doctrine? How foolish!

Their prejudice shows forth in their dictum that the primary uncials, Sinaitic, Vatican, Ephraem, and Alexandrian, especially the first two, if sustained by ancient versions and ante-Nicene citations, outweigh all later authorities, and give us presumably the original text. But by what twisted logic have they, quite capriciously, selected just two MSS and make them judges over all the others? This is nothing else but textual nepotism!

Admittedly their favourite manuscripts are somewhat older than all the others. But age may not be the determining factor in the authenticity of a given manuscript. Manuscripts which were not used (because corrupt!) would naturally last longer than manuscripts where were in constant use.

These critics of the Textus Receptus say that this line of manuscripts is recent and not reflective of early manuscripts.

It is admitted that the majority of all Greek manuscripts date after 1000 AD but to insinuate that there is no textual support for this line before that date is both absurd and without informative substance. All these texts came from somewhere and had some other texts to support them (which obviously were lost). They did not originate in a vacuum.

But to the evidence! The Chester Beatty Papyri, one of the most ancient extant MS, has readings that reflect the TEXTUS RECEPTUS against all other line of manuscripts!

Scholarship is to be promoted in every way and by all legitimate means, but when man arrogantly sits in judgement over God’s Word then scholarship betrays its devilish character (“Yea, hath God said...?”), Rather than proving to be of benefit, it will be the ruin of those who disregard the concrete evidence...which is in favour of the Textus Receptus!