Successfully reported this slideshow.
You’ve unlocked unlimited downloads on SlideShare!
Where Did the King James Bible Come From?
Adapted from LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton. Concerned that the whole issue of "Which
Bible?" was confusing members of his church, Burton wrote this easy-to-read summary of the research of
many gifted men in the field of Bible translation. Here is just a small portion of this very readable book.
There Are Two Kinds of Manuscripts:
These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the "Textus
Receptus" or Received Text was taken.
They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and
have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries.
It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.
These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible, also known as
the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even
agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of
this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the
modern versions rely so heavily.
There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the
New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The
other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern
The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the
majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the
Textus Receptus disagreed with the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they
preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus.
That accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Even these two
manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus much of the time. When they do
not agree, it is because Marcion (120-160 AD) or Origin (184-254 AD) or
whoever, corrupted them.
Now, the fact has been established that the modern versions are different
than the King James Bible (see LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE for
numerous, verse by verse examples). But, we still need to answer the
question: Why are they different?
There are at least 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts which contain all or part
of the New Testament. Plus, there are translations into different languages
which date back to within 100 years of the disciples. For example, the Peshitta
is a Syrian translation from the 2nd century.
These manuscripts agree with each other about 95% of the time. The problem
is, how does one determine what is right in the 5% of the places where the
manuscripts do not agree?
(Modern versions) "The Bible is just like any other book. It is not liable to
Satanic attack. In order to find out what the original copy probably said, you
just find the oldest copies available and use them.
"We don't have the exact word of God now anyway, so a few disagreements
will not matter."
(King James Bible) "The Bible is not ‘just like any other book.' Satan hates it
because it is the Word of God. Satan has been trying to destroy it ever since
the Garden of Eden.
"However, God has preserved His Word for us. He preserved the Old
Testament through the Levites as priests and He has preserved the New
Testament through the body of believers through the witness of the Holy
The vast majority of Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been
passed down through the centuries by true Bible-believing Christians.
In 1516 Erasmus compiled, edited, and printed the Greek "Textus Receptus"
(received text). This is the text that the Protestants of the Reformation knew to
be the Word of God (inerrant and infallible). The King James Bible was
translated from the "Textus Receptus."
The debate continues:
(Modern versions) The oldest surviving manuscripts must be the most reliable.
Therefore, when determining what manuscripts to depend on, the Vaticanus
(350 AD) and the Sinaiticus (about 350 AD) should be accepted as correct
(even if 998 other manuscripts disagree with them).
(King James) The oldest manuscripts (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) are not
reliable at all! But wait, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other
over 3,000 times in the gospels alone!
Facts About the Vaticanus
It was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent
condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 AD. In spite of being in
excellent condition, it omits:
Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 46:28
The Pauline Pastoral Epistles
These parts were probably left out on purpose.
Besides all that, in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and
748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as
having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same
places and the same sentences in the same places.
The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the King James Bible, but
they didn't use it because they knew it is unreliable. The Vaticanus also
contains the Apocrypha.
Facts About the Sinaiticus
The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St.
Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr. Tischendorf. It
contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the "Shepherd of
Hermes" and the "Epistle of Barnabas" to the New Testament.
The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript
itself. John Burgeon spent years examining every available manuscript of the
New Testament. He writes about the Sinaiticus:
"On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very
Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or
begun and immediately canceled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause
is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause
preceding, occurs no less that 115 times in the New Testament."
That's not all!
On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions,
done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the
same time that it was copied, but most of them were made in the 6th or 7th
Phillip Mauro was a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the
Supreme Court in April 1892. He wrote a book called "Which Version" in the
early 1900's. He writes concerning the Sinaiticus:
"From these facts, therefore, we deduce: first that the impurity of the Codex
Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best
acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was
finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose."
The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are the oldest, but they are not the
That's where the modern translators went wrong! They foolishly accepted the
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus simply because they were old.
They did not attempt to find out why they were so vastly different from the
Greek text that real Christians have known to be the infallible Word of God.
When the modern versions say in the footnotes, "Some of the oldest mss. do
not contain vv. 9-20," or "This verse not found in the most ancient authorities,"
they are taking their information from the corrupt and unreliable Vaticanus and
Don't fall for the "oldest are the best" line! The oldest are not the best! For
example, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus both leave out the last 12 verses of
Mark, concerning the resurrection of Christ.
But, there is not one other manuscript, either uncial or cursive, that leave out
this passage. There are 18 other uncial (capital letter) manuscripts that have
the passage in and at least 600 cursives (small letter) manuscripts that all
contain these verses.
The evidence is at least 618 to 2 against the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Yet,
look in your modern version.
The New American Standard Bible puts all these verses (Mark 16:9-20) in
brackets, saying that these verses probably were not in the original writings.
The other versions use brackets or footnotes.
That's ridiculous!!! In a court of law, if you had 618 witnesses that saw
something happen, and you had two witnesses that said they did not see it
happen, would you accept the testimony of the 618 or the testimony of the 2?
You see, it is foolish for any translator to accept a manuscript simply because
of age, without checking to find out where it came from and if it was reliable or
A manuscript is a hand-copied document. This was the method used for
writing and duplicating existing literature prior to the invention of printing.
There are over 5,300 (5,309 to be exact) existing manuscripts of the Scriptures.
Some of these manuscripts contain a large portion of scripture, while other are
Let us first consider certain Greek texts from which all New Testament
translations are derived:
1. the Majority Texts (Textus Receptus), and
2. the Minority Texts (primarily the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, based
primarily on the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus).
For obvious reasons, the Textus Receptus is also referred to as the "Majority
Text" since the majority (95% or more) of existing manuscripts support this
reading. These extant manuscripts were brought together by various editors
such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevir
brothers. The most notable editor of all was Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536)
one of the greatest scholars the world has ever known. When the early
Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries decided to translate the
scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they
selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document.
The NASB, the NIV, the Jehovah's Witness bible ("New World Translation"),
and most modern translations and paraphrases use the Westcott and
Hort Greek Text, which is supported by only a small portion (5% or less) of
existing manuscripts, including Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus,
Alexandrian Codex, Parisian Codex, and Codex Bezae.
For obvious reasons, this text is referred to as the "Minority Texts." Westcott
and Hort relied heavily on the Vaticanus andSinaiticus for their Greek Text,
which is particularly odd, considering the fact that these two codices As
stated above, there are more than 5,300 manuscripts in existence. These
manuscripts are divided into several different formats:
1. Papyrus fragments -- papyrus was relatively inexpensive compared to
vellum (animal skins), and therefore was widely used. However, it was
not very durable and copies would wear out rather rapidly through
usage. The size of these papyrus fragments range from a few verses to
large portions of an entire book.
2. Unical -- these are copies that were written in capital letters.
3. Cursive -- those written in small hand.
Of these 5,300+ existing manuscripts, over 95% are in agreement with, and
form the basis for the Textus Receptus, which is the text which the King James
translators used. Strange as it may seem, Westcott and Hort threw out the
preponderance of manuscript evidence and opted rather to go with the
Minority Texts! Hence we have inherited an ongoing struggle among New
Testament critics, accompanied by havoc and confusion in churches caused
by the introduction of these conflicting New Testament Greek texts. Since
1881, most subsequent versions have followed the Minority Texts.
Study the information in the following table. Although this data was
compiled in 1967, recent archeological discoveries will not significantly effect
the results. This data illustrates why the Textus Receptus is referred to as the
Total # of this
Papyrus 88 13 (15%) 75 (85%)
Unical 267 9 (3%) 258 (97%)
Cursive 2764 23 (1%) 2741 (99%)
Lectionary*** 2143 0 2143 (100%)
* WH indicates Westcott-Hort Greek Text (Minority Text)
** TR indicates Textus Receptus (Majority Text)
*** A lectionary is a book that contains a collection of scripture readings
The table gives the approximate number and percent of each type of Greek
manuscript that supports the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, as well as the
number and percent of each class that supports the Textus Receptus Greek
text. These approximations are taken from the careful research of Dr. Jack
Moorman in his book Forever Settled. [From: THE FOUR-FOLD
SUPERIORITY OF THE KING JAMES VERSION By Dr. D.A. Waite]
There are a few other old manuscripts, even including fragmentary Greek
papyri, whose textual character seems to conform more to the Codex
Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus than to the Textus Receptus. However, these
all have been traced (by liberal and conservative scholars alike) to a probable
source in Alexandria, Egypt, in the 2nd or 3rd century. The most influential
man among the "intellectual" community of Alexandria was the
learned Origen, and it is believed by many that he was largely instrumental in
developing the so-called "Alexandrian" text of the New Testament (of which
the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts are representative), in contrast to the
"Byzantine" text, from which the Textus Receptus has largely come.
With all his immense learning and zeal, however, Origen was a heretic. Like
modern theistic evolutionists, he felt constrained to harmonize Christianity
with pagan philosophy, especially that of Plato and the Stoics. This led him
into excessive allegorization of Scripture, especially Genesis, and into
denigrating the actual historical records of the Bible, even that of the bodily
resurrection of Christ, as well as the literal creation of the world.
Whether or not Origen and his associates were first responsible for the
differences in the Alexandrian text from the Byzantine, the fact remains that
significant differences do exist, and that practically all modern English
translations have been heavily influenced (via Westcott and Hort, etc.) in
favor of the former, whereas the King James translation has its basis primarily
in the latter.
The only place where these error laden, unreliable manuscripts excel is in the
quality of the materials used on them. They have good bindings and fine
animal skin pages. Their physical appearance, contrary to their worthless
texts, are really rather attractive. But then we have all heard the saying, "You
can't judge a book by its cover." The covers are beautiful but their texts are
And yet in spite of these well-known corruptions, they are the basis for many
new versions such as the NIV and the NASB, rendering these
versions critically flawed and unreliable. I will give many, many examples of
these errors and omissions when I deal with the altered verses. Many of the
differences between the manuscripts involve significant watering down of
even such basic doctrines as Biblical inerrancy and the perfect divine/human
nature of Christ.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Please remember that, while the modern versions of
the Bible do water down the truth and are not the BEST translations, they
certainly do not completely eliminate these key doctrines, so it is still
possible to discern these doctrines and to find the true gospel and way of
salvation in many of the new texts or translations. My wife, for instance, was
saved while reading the Good News Bible, which is a paraphrase based on the
Minority Texts, which were corrupted. So you see, God uses even the flawed
translations to accomplish His purposes and decrees.
contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone.
Think about it . . . can you really imagine the Lord of Lords, the Holy One of Israel
hiding Codex Vaticanus away for over 1,000 years in the Vatican Library till 1481? Or
better yet, can you imagine Him prompting the monks of St Catherine's Monastery to
dump Codex Sinaiticus into a waste basket?
Remember, the early Christians REJECTED these manuscripts. So, they went into secret
libaries…and there they lay…until they were later dug up as "ancient manuscripts."
So here's what likely happened: the corrupt Alexandrian text (also called the "Egyptian" or
"Hesychian" type text) found it's way into Constantine's bible (viaOrigen and Eusebius), one of
which was the Vatican manuscript and another of which was the Sinai manuscript, but they
were rejected and "thrown in the closet" by Christians of that day. However, after hundreds of
years, they eventually were revived via the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, and finally crept into
the new "Bible" versions in your local "Christian" bookstore.
The Devil is sneaky, isn't he??
Therefore, when you hear or read of someone "correcting" the King James
Bible with "older" or "more authoritative" manuscripts, you are simply
hearing someone trying to use a corrupted, pagan, gnostic,
ecumenical, Roman Catholic text to overthrow the God-honored text of the
Protestant Reformation and the great revivals.
(also known as Codex Aleph)
Codex Sinaiticus was discovered by Constantin von Tischendorf, a German evolutionist
theologian, at St. Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai. He discovered the first part in
1844 and the second part in 1859.
Following is the story of how Tischendorf found the Codex Sinaiticus:
"In the year 1844, whilst travelling under the patronage of Frederick Augustus King of
Saxony, in quest of manuscripts, Tischendorf reached the Convent of St. Catherine, on
Mount Sinai. Here, observing some old-looking documents in a basketful of papers
ready for lighting the stove, he picked them out, and discovered that they were forty-three
vellum leaves of the Septuagint Version. Some enemies of the defense of the King
James Bible have claimed that the manuscripts were not found in a "waste basket," but
they were. That is exactly how Tischendorf described it. "I perceived a large and wide
basket full of old parchments; and the librarian told me that two heaps like this had been already
committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers..." (Narrative
of the Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript, p. 23). John Burgon, who was alive when
Tischendorf discovered the Codex Sinaiticus and also personally visited St. Catherine's
to research ancient manuscripts, testified that the manuscripts "got deposited in the waste-paper
basket of the Convent." (The Revision Revised, 1883, pp. 319, 342)
So, it certainly appears to me that the Orthodox monks evidently had long
since decided that the numerous omissions and alterations in the manuscript
had rendered it useless and had stored it away in some closet where it had
remained unused for centuries. Yet Tischendorf promoted it widely and
vigorously as representing a more accurate text than the thousands of
manuscriptssupporting the Textus Receptus. Furthermore, he assumed that it
came from about the 4th century, but he never found any actual proof that it
dated earlier than the 12th century.
Consider these facts and oddities relating to the Codex Sinaiticus:
1. The Sinaiticus was written by three different scribes and was corrected
later by several others. (This was the conclusion of an extensive
investigation by H.J.M. Milne and T.C. Skeat of the British Museum,
which was published in Scribes and Correctors of Codex Sinaiticus,
London, 1938.) Tischendorf counted 14,800 corrections in this
manuscript (David Brown, The Great Uncials, 2000). Dr. F.H.A.
Scrivener, who published A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus in
1864 testified: "The Codex is covered with alterations of an obviously
correctional character—brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of
them systematically spread over every page, others occasional, or limited to
separate portions of the manuscript, many of these being contemporaneous with
the first writer, but for the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh
century." Thus, it is evident that scribes in bygone centuries
did not consider the Sinaiticus to represent a pure text. Why it should
be so revered by modern textual critics is a mystery.
2. A great amount of carelessness is exhibited in the copying and
correction. "Codex Sinaiticus 'abounds with errors of the eye and pen to an
extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of
first-rate importance.' On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are
dropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even whole
sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately
cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it
happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than
115 times in the New Testament." (John Burgon, The Revision Revised)It
is clear that the scribes who copied the Codex Sinaiticus
were not faithful men of God who treated the Scriptures with utmost
reverence. The total number of words omitted in the Sinaiticus in the
Gospels alone is 3,455 compared with the Greek Received Text (Burgon,
3. Mark 16:9-20 is omitted in the Codex Sinaiticus, but it was originally
there and has been erased.
4. Codex Sinaiticus includes the apocryphal books (Esdras, Tobit, Judith, I
and IV Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus) plus two heretical writings,
the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The apocryphal
Epistle of Barnabas is filled with heresies and fanciful allegorizing,
claiming, for example, that Abraham knew Greek and baptism is
necessary for salvation. The Shepherd of Hermas is a gnostic writing
that presents the heresy that the "Christ Spirit" came upon Jesus at his
5. Lastly, Codex Sinaiticus (along with Codex Vaticanus), exhibits
clear gnostic influence. In John 1:18 "the only begotten Son" is changed to
"the only begotten God," thus perpetuating the ancient Arian heresy that
disassociates the Son Jesus Christ with God Himself by breaking the
clear connection between "God" of John 1:1 with "the Son" of John 1:18.
We know that God wasnot begotten; it was the Son who was begotten
in the incarnation.
Codex Vaticanus is considered to be the most authoritative of the Minority
Texts, although it is responsible for over 36,000 changesthat appear today in
the new versions.
This manuscript was "found" in 1481 in the Vatican library in Rome, where it is
currently held, and from whence it received its name. It is written on expensive vellum,
a fine parchment originally from the skin of calf or antelope. Some authorities claim that
it was one of a batch of 50 Bibles ordered from Egypt by the Roman
Emperor Constantine; hence its beautiful appearance and the expensive skins which
were used for its pages. But alas! this manuscript, like its corrupt Egyptian
partner Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) is also riddled with omissions, insertions and
The corrupt and unreliable nature of Codex B is best summed up by one who has
thoroughly examined them, John W Burgon: "The impurity of the text exhibited by these
codices is not a question of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves
out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless
transcriptions on every page…"
According to The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, "It should be noted . . . that there is
no prominent Biblical (manuscripts) in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty
grammar, and omission, as in (Codex) B."
Consider these facts and oddities relating to the Codex Vaticanus:
1. It was corrected by revisers in the 8th, 10th, and 15th centuries (W.
Eugene Scott, Codex Vaticanus, 1996).
2. The entire manuscript has been mutilated...every letter has been run
over with a pen, making exact identification of many of the characters
impossible. Dr. David Brown observes: "I question the 'great witness'
value of any manuscript that has been overwritten, doctored, changed and
added to for more than 10 centuries." (The Great Unicals).
3. In the Gospels it leaves out 749 entire sentences and 452 clauses, plus
237 other words, all of which are found in hundreds of other Greek
manuscripts. The total number of words omitted in Codex B in the
Gospels alone is 2,877 as compared with the majority of manuscripts
(Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 75).
4. Vaticanus omits Mark 16:9-20, but a blank space is left for that section of
Scripture. The following testimony is by John Burgon, who examined
Vaticanus personally: “To say that in the Vatican Codex (B), which is
unquestionably the oldest we possess, St. Mark’s Gospel ends abruptly at the
eighth verse of the sixteenth chapter, and that the customary subscription (Kata
Mapkon) follows, is true; but it is far from being the whole truth. It requires to
be stated in addition that the scribe, whose plan is found to have been to begin
every fresh book of the Bible at the top of the next ensuing column to that which
contained the concluding words of the preceding book, has at the close of St.
Mark’s Gospel deviated from his else invariable practice. HE HAS LEFT IN
THIS PLACE ONE COLUMN ENTIRELY VACANT. IT IS THE ONLY
VACANT COLUMN IN THE WHOLE MANUSCRIPT -- A BLANK
SPACE ABUNDANTLY SUFFICIENT TO CONTAIN THE TWELVE
VERSES WHICH HE NEVERTHELESS WITHHELD. WHY DID HE
LEAVE THAT COLUMN VACANT? What can have induced the scribe on
this solitary occasion to depart from his established rule? The phenomenon (I
believe I was the first to call distinct attention to it) is in the highest degree
significant, and admits only one interpretation. The older manuscript from
which Codex B was copied must have infallibly contained the twelve verses in
dispute. The copyist was instructed to leave them out -- and he obeyed; but he
prudently left a blank space in memoriam rei. Never was a blank more
intelligible! Never was silence more eloquent! By this simple expedient,
strange to relate, the Vatican Codex is made to refute itself even while it seems
to be bearing testim ony against the concluding verses of St. Mark’s Gospel, by
withholding them; for it forbids the inference which, under ordinary
circumstances, must have been drawn from that omission. It does more. By
leaving room for the verses it omits, it brings into prominent notice at the end
of fifteen centuries and a half, a more ancient witness than itself.”
(Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of St. Mark Vindicated,
1871, pp. 86-87)
5. Similar to Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus identifies itself as a
product of gnostic corruption in John 1:18, where “the only begotten Son”
is changed to “the only begotten God,” thus perpetuating the ancient
Arian heresy that disassociates the Son of God Jesus Christ from God
Himself by claiming that the Word was not the same as the Son. John’s
Gospel identifies the Son directly with the Word (John 1:1, 18), but by
changing "Son" to "God" in verse 18, this direct association is broken.
6. Linguistic scholars have observed that Codex Vaticanus is reminiscent
of classical and Platonic Greek, not Koine Greek of the New Testament
(see Adolf Deissman's Light of the Ancient East). Nestle admitted that
he had to change his Greek text (when using Vaticanus and Sinaiticus)
to make it "appear" like Koine Greek.
7. Codex Vaticanus contains the false Roman Catholic apocryphal books
such as Judith, Tobias, and Baruch, while it omits the pastoral epistles (I
Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book
of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a veryconvenient stopping point for the
Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10 and
exposes the mass as totally useless as well!).
Brooke Foss Westcott (an Anglican bishop and professor at Cambridge
University) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (also an ordained priest and
professor at Cambridge) produced a Greek New Testament in 1881 based on
the findings of Tischendorf. This Greek New Testament was the basis for the
Revised Version of that same year. They also developed a theory of textual
criticism which underlay their Greek New Testament and several other Greek
New Testaments since (including the Nestle-Aland text).
Greek New Testaments such as these produced most of the modern English
translations of the Bible we have today.
On one side, their supporters have heralded them as great men of God,
having greatly advanced the search for the original Greek text. On the other
side, their opponents have leveled charges of heresy, infidelity, apostasy, and
many others, claiming that they are guilty of wreaking great damage on the
true text of Scripture.
I have no desire to sling mud nor a desire to hide facts. I just want to share the
truth about these men. So, put on your seatbelt, and get ready for a quick ride
through the beliefs of Westcott and Hort. . .
In order to give you an idea of what they REALLY believed and what
their REAL intentions were when creating their Greek New Testament, I will
let the men speak for themselves. I will tell you nothing. I will merely let
these two men speak for themselves. The rest of this page will be only
quotations. If this makes you angry, don't be angry with me...I'm just giving
you the words of Westcott and Hort...
TELLING QUOTATIONS FROM WESTCOTT AND HORT
Concerning 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).
Concerning the Scriptures:
"I reject the 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,
"(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).
"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)
Concerning the Atonement:
"I think I mentioned to you before Campbell's book on the Atonement, which
is invaluable as far as it goes; but unluckily he knows nothing except
Protestant theology." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 322)
"The popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material
counterfeit...nothing can be more unscriptural than the the limiting of
Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only
one aspect of an almost universal heresy." (Hort to Westcott, Life and Letters,
Vol. I, p. 430)
"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).
"It is of course true that we can only know God through human forms, but
then I think the whole Bible echoes the language of Genesis 1:27 and so
assures us that human forms are divine forms." (Hort to Westcott, August 14,
"Protestants (must) unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of Priesthood."
(Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp. 49-51)
Concerning Roman Catholicism:
"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the
Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid. )
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-Worship and Jesus-
Worship have very much in common." (Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp.
"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)
"I agree with you in thinking it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates
purgatory . . . the idea of purgation, cleansing by fire, seems to me
inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements."
(Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. II, pp. 336,337)
Concerning the Cumulative Effect of Multiple Changes to the Manuscripts:
"It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appear to be trifling
alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they
have often important bearings which few would think of at first. . . The
difference between a picture, say of Raffaelle, and a feeble copy of it is
made up of a number of trivial differences. . . We have successfully resisted
being warned off dangerous ground, where the needs of revision required
that it should not be shirked. . . It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a
new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their
astonishment." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol.I, pp. 138,139)
It is one thing to have doctrinal differences on baby-sprinkling and perhaps
a few other interpretations. It is quite another to be a Darwinian theologian
who rejects the authority of scriptures, Biblical salvation, the reality of hell,
substitutionary atonement, makes Christ a created being to be worshipped
with Mary his mother, and to openly admit that your "trifling alterations"
with the Greek Text have begun a "new period in Church history"!! Yet,
these were the views of both Westcott and Hort!! This is UNBELIEVABLE!!
No less significant is the fact that both men were involved with the occult
and were members of spiritist societies (the Hermes Club and the Ghostly
Guild), and both men supposedly "talked" to Spirits of the dead.
Adamantius Origen (A.D. 184-254), was born in Alexandria, Egypt, and was
one of the most famous "church fathers," was instrumental in editing
manuscripts upon which the NIV, NASB, and all modern versions, are based.
He attended the School of Alexandria, which was a theological school and
was established in the 2nd century after Christ. This school mixed Greek
philosophy or Gnostic beliefs (secret mystical occult knowledge) with Biblical
Origen taught many non-Christian doctrines (see below). He stated that he
would not hand down Christian teachings, pure and unmixed, but
rather clothed with the precepts of pagan philosophy. Adam Clarke says
Origen was the first "Christian" teacher of purgatory. A pupil of the Gnostic
star worshipper Clement of Alexandria, Origin lightly esteemed the Bible's
historical basis. "The Scriptures," Origen maintained, "are of little use to those
who understand them as they are written." He is known for the Old
Testament six-column Bible called the "Hexapla" in which each column had a
different version of the Bible. Origen was well known for his labor to produce
a "so-called" correct text of the Greek New Testament. He was known for
spiritualizing or turning biblical events into allegories.
Origen greatly influenced Eusebius (260-340), who produced 50 copies of an
"ecumenical" Bible (at the behest of EmperorConstantine). Although
Constantine is remembered for establishing Sunday worship and the
"Christian" (Catholic) Church as the state religion, his action in choosing
Eusebius' rendition of Origen's Bible was perhaps more important, since ALL
MODERN VERSIONS are based on the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex
Sinaiticus, which are of the Eusebio-Origen type. Many authorities believe
they were actually 2 of the 50 Constantine Bibles.
Some of Origen's Beliefs:
Origen believed that man was divine.
He believed in the pre-existence of souls
He taught that everyone, including the Devil, would eventually be saved.
He described the Trinity as a "hierarchy," not as an equality of Father, Son, and
He believed in baptismal regeneration.
He believed in purgatory.
He taught that the Holy Spirit was the first creature made by God.
He believed Christ was created.
He taught transmigration (this is the belief that at death the soul passes into
He denied a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation, taught that it was a
"myth" and taught that there was no actual person named "Adam."
He taught that Christ "became" God at His baptism.
He taught, based on Matthew 19, that a true man of God should be castrated,
which he did to himself.
He denied the physical resurrection of believers.
Jack Moorman author of the book Forever Settled writes: "He (Origen) is
considered by many to be the most profound mind in the history of the church. But in
fact it may be said that he had a greater corrupting influence on the early church
and on the Bible itself than any man."
According to Les Garrett in his book Which Bible Can We Trust?, "Origen,
being the textual critic, is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of the sacred
manuscripts. Evidence to the contrary shows that he changed them to agree
with his human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus, through
deceptive scholarship of this kind, certain manuscripts became corrupt."
The Textus Receptus is the text that has been used for 2,000 years by
Christians. This is also the text that agrees with more than 95% of the Bible
Manuscripts in Koine (common) Greek. It is known by other names, such as
the Traditional Text, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, or Syrian Text.
In his essay Texual Criticism, Dr. Thomas Cassidy writes: "The Traditional text
of the New Testament has existed from the time of Christ right down to the present. It
has had many different names down through the years, such as Byzantine Text,
Eastern Text, Received Text, Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and others. Although
no complete Bible manuscripts have survived which would allow us to date the
Traditional text to the first century, there is a strong witness to the early existence
and use of the Traditional text by the early church in its lectionaries."
A few facts showing the respected historical position of the Textus Receptus
are in order. Its prominence and respect did not begin in 1611 with the KJV
translators. They merely recognized (as others before them had), that the
Textus Receptus was God's preserved word in the original New Testament
Consider the following:
Prior to the 20th century, all English Bibles since Tyndale's first New Testament
(1526) were based on the Textus Receptus. This includes: Miles Coverdale's Bible
(1535), Matthew's Bible (1500-1555), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Version
(1560), The Bishops' Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611). [STORY OF
OUR ENGLISH BIBLE, by W. Scott]
Ancient Versions followed the reading of the Textus Receptus. These versions
include: The Peshitta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The
Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177),
The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian
Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The
Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech
Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox
Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox
Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran]
In his excellent book, Truth Triumphant: The Church in the Wilderness,
Benjamin Wilkinson writes, "The Protestant denominations are built upon that
manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called Textus Receptus, or
the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the
apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch and other
languages. During the dark ages the Received Text was practically unknown outside
the Greek Church. It was restored to Christendom by the labours of that great
scholar Erasmus. It is altogether too little known that the real editor of the
Received Text was Lucian. None of Lucian's enemies fails to credit him with this
work. Neither Lucian nor Erasmus, but rather the apostles, wrote the Greek New
Testament. However, Lucian's day was an age of apostasy when a flood of
depravations was systematically attempting to devastate both the Bible manuscripts
and Bible theology. Origen, of the Alexandrian college, made his editions and
commentaries of the Bible a secure retreat for all errors, and deformed them with
philosophical speculations introducing casuistry and lying. Lucian's unrivalled
success in verifying, safeguarding, and transmitting those divine writings left a
heritage for which all generations should be thankful."
Why did the early churches of the 2 nd and 3rd centuries and all the
Protestant Reformers of the
15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the
The answer is because of the following:
Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (over 95%) of the 5,300+
Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called
the Majority Text.
Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and
amendments, as is the Minority Text.
Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the
Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic
Bible(AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200
years before the Minority Texts (like Vatican and Sinai) favored by
theRoman Catholic Church.
Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations
from scripture by the early church fathers.
Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the
Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus
Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection,
his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!
Textus Receptus was (and still is) the enemy of the Roman Catholic
Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind.
Constantine von Tischendorf discovered the Codex Sinaiticus at St.
Catherine’s Monastery (Mount Sinai). It is significant to remember that it was
the premise of Tischendorf that the Textus Receptus, which had been used by
the Christian Church for 1850years (in his day), was to be REJECTED,
because (according to him) it were erroneous & false texts.
He never proved or demonstrated the errors in the Textus Receptus ... this was simply
what he had been taught by his university professors. At the time, Tischendorf was at
the apex of German textual criticism, and had (unfortunately) accepted the premise
which his God-hating professors had taught him: namely that the Bible is fake, the
texts of the Bible are fake and we can never really know what was in the original
letters of the Bible. The fact that most of these professors wereenemies of the
Bible and hated God has often overlooked.
Having accepted the premises of his professors, Tischendorf decided to find the "real"
Bible on his own.
Following in the tradition of "textual criticism," he began substituting other
Greek Texts for the traditional Textus Receptus. Tischendorf believed that the
Church had been deceived for over 1,800 years.
Sadly, he did not accept that the Bible was the inspired word of God. As a
matter of fact, I have never seen any evidencethat Tischendorf
even claimed to have been a Christian.