The King James Bible: The Westcott And Hort Textual Theory

EARNESTLY CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH:
THE KING JAMES BIBLE:
THE WESTCOTT AND HORT TEXTUAL THEORY

THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS
GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH.
THAT IS WHY HE IS GOD

Do you know for a fact that if you were to
die today that you would not go to hell?
If you do not know, click here.

WESTCOTT AND HORT TEXTUAL THEORY TENETS

    I have included this condensed version of the major tenets of the Westcott and Hort Textual Theory as a web page here to illustrate the intellectual chicanery and dishonesty of these two heretics that have become the darlings of modern bible scholars and textual critics. This condensed version is quoted word for word from Jack Moorman’s book, Forever Settled. Pages 70-80 of Jack Moorman’s Forever Settled fills in many more details. For a detailed destruction of this Satanic textual theory see pages 41-97 of Wilbur N. Pickering’s book, The Identy of the New Testament Text (INTT), available from Bible For Today. Wilbur N. Pickering is no friend of the King James Bible either. Our comments in the following paragraphs are in red letters enclosed in brackets.

    These are briefly listed below. Beginning on page 70, we showed the fallacy of several of the more important principles of their theory. See INTT for a complete refutation.

    1)     In textual criticism the N.T. is to be treated like any other book. [The New Testament is not just any book]
    2)     There are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text. [Yeh and there are no signs of deliberate false doctrine in the church today either. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.]
    3)     The numerical preponderance of the Received Text can be explained through genealogy. Basically this means frequent copying of the same kind of "defective" manuscripts. [Yeh and your having 98 points at the end of a 100 point football game does not make you the winner either]
    4)     Despite its numerical advantage, the Received Text is merely one of several competing text types. [There are only two text types: pure and corrupted]
    5)     The fact that the Received Text is fuller is because it is a conflated text. It was combined with the shorter readings of the other competing text types. This conflation was done with the official sanction of the Byzantine church during the 4th century. [Honest biblical scholarship will DEFLATE any intellectually bloated textual critic whose knowledge is conflated from two wicked wicked demons – Vaticanus and Sinaiticus]
    6)     There are no distinctive Received Text readings in the writings of the Church Fathers before 350 A.D. [Yeh and Dean John William Burgon only documented over 80,000 quotes from the so called church fathers in support of the Received Text]
    7)     Where there are several variant readings, the right one can be determined by two kinds of internal evidence. The first is "intrinsic, probability," i.e. which reading best fits the context and conforms to the author's style and purpose? The second is "transcriptional probability." Whereas the first has to do with the author, the second concerns the copyist. What kind of error did he make deliberately or through carelessness? Under transcriptional probability, two basic norms were established. One: the shorter reading is to be preferred (on the assumption that a scribe would be more likely to add material). Two: the harder reading is to be preferred (on the assumption that the scribe has attempted to simplify). [In other words, if you do not know, just take a wild guess. It is literally a stab into the darkness of the unbelieving translator's and Bible critic's mind]
    8)     The primary basis for a Greek Text is to be found in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. [Yeh and you can set those two wicked Roman Catholic idols up in my church also]
    9)     Harmonization. Parallel passages in the N.T. were made to say the same thing. [A careful reading of the so-called paralell passages in the bible will reveal that the details in many of them are different. That means that they are either complimentary or report different, but similar events. Who is to say that Christ only accomplished each miracle that is reported of him one time? Why is it that the textual critic assumes that each miracle or event that is reported only happened once? The textual critics start out by assuming that certain narratives report identical incidents, or events, and then when the details appear not to be identical they further confound their error by assuming that there are contradictions. Now, there are no gaping holes in those ships on the sea of confusion!!? The problem with the textual critic and unbelieving bible scholar is that theY limit the Holy One of Israel in their minds. “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”]

    Most of the above points have been, I feel satisfactorily answered in this paper. One that has not, deals with "the shorter reading is to be preferred." This is Hort's response to the fact that the TR is longer and fuller (in addition to conflation).
    Quoting INTT:
    Perhaps the canon most widely used against the "Byzantine" text is brevior lectio potior the shorter reading is to be preferred. As Hort stated the alleged basis for the canon, "In the New Testament, as in almost all prose writings which have been much copied, corruptions by interpolation are many times more numerous than corruptions by omission." Accordingly it has been customary since Hort to tax the Received Text as being full and interpolated and to regard B and Aleph as prime examples of non-interpolated texts.
    But is it really true that interpolations are "many times more numerous" than omissions in the transmission of the New Testament?
    Pickering then marshalls strong evidence against this conclusion. One quotation will have to suffice here.
    The whole question of interpolations in ancient MSS has been set in an entirely new light by the researches of Mr. A. C. Clark, Corpus Professor of Latin at Oxford……In the “Descent of Manuscripts”, an investigation of the manuscript tradition of the Greek and Latin Classics, he proves conclusively that the error to which scribes were most prone was not interpolation but accidental omission ……Hitherto the maxim brevior lectio potior…… has been assumed as a postulate of scientific criticism. Clark has shown that, so far as classical texts are concerned, the facts point entirely the other way. ¹

[NONE ARE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE!]

¹Jack Moorman, Forever Settled, pp. 262-263