Which Bible, Which Version?
Please turn in your Bibles to 1 John chapter 4, verse 1. There is an important admonition for all Christians in this verse.
KJV 1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Now in the context here, when John admonishes us to try the spirits, meaning test the spirits, whom is he talking about? Of whom are we to test the spirits? Truck drivers? Housewives? Nurses? Food service workers?
Well, we could test their spirits, if the need arises. But in this context set forth by the apostle John, I just heard somebody in the audience say it: Yes, preachers.
In this context, John is explicitly warning us to test the spirits of those who are in the religious arena. Preachers, teachers, and those who claim to be prophets.
Why? Because John says there are false prophets out there. By the way, that word prophet does not mean only those who foretell the future. It has a much wider application, meaning those who forth-tell the gospel, the good news, the Bible, the Scriptures.
A prophet can be anyone who tells forth, or preaches, or who teaches God’s Word in whatever manner they do, be it as ordained ministers, or as someone leading a Bible study, or as Bible college and university scholars and professors—Yes, men like Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott and Dr. Fenton John Anthony Hort.
So let us first of all apply a little common sense as we test the spirits. And that word spirit, by the way, can mean the motive, or the motivation, or the driving force, the energizing motivation behind a person’s actions. So what were Westcott and Hort’s motives?
Here is my thinking. And I will begin with a short excerpt from a book called Which Bible? Page 111. This is from a discourse by George Sayles Bishop, preached June 7, 1885, soon after the Revised Version of the Bible first appeared. He said, QUOTE:
The point at issue in the whole controversy with modern criticism is whether the Bible can be placed upon the same plane with other merely human literature and treated accordingly, or whether, as a divine revelation, it addresses us with a command and sanction.
The power of the Book, [meaning the Bible, capital B], the power of the book is shaken from the moment we deny it is an a priori binding claim on our belief and obedience.
The Book is a royal document or series of documents issued by the King of kings and binding upon every subject. The Book, then, is to be received with reverence by one who falls upon his bended knees beneath the only shaft of light, which from unknown eternity brings to the soul the certainties of God. END QUOTE.
I think that is quite eloquent. This man was not saying we are to bow down and worship this book. He is saying we are to bow down on bended knees because we reverence that it is a document coming from the King of kings, the Lord of the universe.
Now, here is my thinking. Follow this. Number one, the art of textual criticism presupposes a divinely inspired and inerrant original text. If you think about it, that is a given.
But since you in this room do not have time to think about it before I go on, let me suggest this line of thinking in that area. Let us suppose that when God gave the original writings to Moses or Isaiah or Daniel, Jeremiah, whoever, suppose that there were some errors mixed in. Suppose that some of the words were wrong, whatever. Then I ask you, is there any point in textual criticism?
It would be a futile pursuit, would it not? The entire motivation behind the careful study of the ancient manuscripts is based upon the premise of there being original inerrancy.
What good would it do to painstakingly trace back to whatever we surmise would be the original words if the original words were sometimes in error? How are we going to know which were in error and which were not?
Therefore, we see that textual criticism must presuppose an inerrant original.
Number two: if Westcott and Hort denied the verbal inerrancy of Scripture—as they most certainly did—then why did they devote most of their adult lives to the pursuit of textual criticism, allegedly seeking to find the original words of the Scriptures?
There must have been some other motive, some other spirit at work in them. Was it money? No, there does not seem to be much, if any, evidence for that.
Was it fame? Was that the motivating spirit? Well, a certain degree of fame seems to come with the territory of what they did, most of it after they were dead.
However, I do not see in their writings much evidence that seeking fame was their primary motivation either.
Was it power? Well, they did not go into politics, but there does come, in some religious occupations, a certain measure of power over people. This is most clearly demonstrated in the Catholic Church. And in a number of other large cults—the Jehovah’s Witnesses come to mind.
But again, I do not see that motivation ever openly referred to in either of their writings. But yet that, too, came with the territory.
In terms of influencing the course of future generations, they have certainly enjoyed, again if only posthumously, a certain degree, in fact, a tremendous degree of power, but not in their own lifetimes, not a whole lot of individual or personal power.
But I believe, therefore this is speculation, I believe their primary motivation was simply to prepare the way for reunion with Rome. But in order to do that, they had to do two things.
First, they realized that they first had to change the Protestants’ Bible, which meant that they had to tear down its underlying textual base, which is the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text, etc.
Then, number two, they had to offer something else in its place. Voila! The Westcott and Hort Greek Text, which is based primarily upon the Vatican (back-to-Rome) manuscript.
We have already shown you their affinity towards Rome. Let me now quote from The Life of Hort once again to show you his attitude towards the Textus Receptus while a graduate student at Cambridge.
This is from a lengthy letter to the Reverend John Ellerton written over the course of two days, December 29 and 30, 1851, as found in Volume 1, page 211. Hort writes:
QUOTE: I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. … [Then, a couple sentences later, he says:] Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late manuscripts. It is a blessing there are such early ones. END QUOTE.
So here, Hort, for the first time, realizes the importance of the Greek texts underlying the English translation. Patently, though, he has already been poisoned by someone to take such a passionate stand against the Textus Receptus, to call it villainous and vile. Now I want to continue reading right on into the very next paragraph in Hort’s letter.
He changes the subject entirely, and it is off topic for us right now, except that I want you to realize that at the very same time that Hort exhibits this most vehement and scathing attitude towards the Traditional Text, the Byzantine Text, Textus Receptus, Common Text—remember all those synonymous terms?— that at the same time he is exhibiting that scathing attitude towards the Traditional or the Textus Receptus, is the very same time that he and some friends organize a most unusual club. Now, we back up just a sentence and continue right on.
QUOTE: Think of that vile Textus Receptus, leaning entirely on late manuscripts. It is a blessing there are such early ones. Westcott, Gorham, C. B. Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Luard, etc., and I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to believe that such things really exist and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere subjective delusions; we shall be happy to obtain any good accounts well authenticated with names.
Westcott is drawing up a schedule of questions. Cope calls us the Cock and Bull club. Our own temporary name is the Ghostly Guild. END QUOTE.
Is this mere graduate school curiosity? Perhaps. I am sure it was curiosity to begin with. They were so young and these were simply childish pursuits, you say? No, this was to be the beginning of lifelong endeavors of many of these men, including Westcott and Hort, Gorham and Benson.
Do you recall how I suggested you remember that name, Benson? He later became Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest position in the Anglican Church. Simultaneously, he continued to be active in such pursuits as we will see in the next chapter of our series.
These men got involved in what is called necromancy, which is trying to contact the spirits of the dead. This practice is strictly forbidden in the Bible. Remember King Saul and the Witch of Endor? He tried to contact the spirit of the dead prophet Samuel.
We’re going to go into this matter of the Ghostly Guild in much great depth later on. But for now, the point is made that Hort had a seemingly irrational disdain for the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus. So sad! Yet all in the Plan of our Father!
(To be continued.)
~END~
