This message was
given at the 33rd. Annual Meeting and Conference of the
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. The King James Only Controversy.
II. The Primacy of the King James Bible
III. The Westcott and Hort Theory.
IV. Westcott and Hort Only!
V. What You Have to Believe to Accept the Westcott
and Hort Theory
VI. Were Westcott and Hort Infallible?
VII. Who Were Westcott and Hort?
VIII. The Doctrine of Westcott and Hort.
IX. Were Westcott and Hort Saved Men?
X. The Work of the English Revision Committee.
XI. Were Westcott and Hort Secret Practioners of the Occult?
XII. The Fundamentalist Defenders of Westcott and
Hort!
XIII. In Conclusion.
I. The King James Only Controversy.
You don’t have to read very much in contemporary, fundamentalist, Baptist
literature to come across warnings about the “King James only controversy.”
Dr. Jerry Falwell announces that he is hiring Dr. Harold Rawlings to “refute
the ‘King James Only’ cultic movement that is damaging so many good churches
today.”
Dr. Robert Sumner
warns about the “veritable fountain of misinformation and deceptive double talk
on the subject of ‘King James Onlyism’.”
Dr. J. B. Williams
refers to those who advocate the King James Only as “misinformers”
and as “a cancerous sore.”
Dr. Robert Joyner
calls King James Bible loyalists, “heretics”.
Dr. James R. White
warns about King James Bible proponents “undercutting the very foundations of
the faith itself”.
Such references to the King James Only Controversy are very common. Some
refer to loyal supporters of the King James Bible as the “King James Only Cult”.
Another common term is the sneering reference to the “King Jimmy Boys.”
However the use of the “King James Bible only” wasn’t always so
controversial.
II. The Primacy of the King James
Bible
God was doing a great work in
Yet many were concerned that the final translation work into the English
language had not been done. King James was persuaded to authorize a new
translation. The King James Bible was printed in
1611.
At first there were questions and concerns about this new Bible
translation. This was as it should be. No one should accept a Bible translation
lightly. By 1640 however, the King James Bible was clearly the Bible of the
English people. The
The Church of England, with its official evangelical doctrinal statement,
used the King James Bible exclusively. It was the Bible of the Puritans, both
inside and outside the Church of England. In fact the Puritans began to use the
distinctive Biblical English of the King James Bible in the day to day speech.
The King James Bible was the Bible of the Presbyterians, the
Congregationalists, and the Quakers. It was clearly the Bible of the Baptists.
By 1640 it was the Bible of the Pilgrims (some had used the Geneva Bible
earlier).
The King James Bible was the Bible of evangelicals in
When English colonies flourished in
Over one hundred fifty English translations were produced between 1611
and 1880. However, they found no audience except in a few cults. Most went out
of print quickly. The English speaking, Christian world was truly “King James
only”.
Baptist preachers produced a Baptist translation of the Bible. They
replaced the word baptism with the word immersion. They replaced the word
church with the word assembly. However, they found no audience, not even among
Baptists. Their translation was soon out of print. The Baptists were truly “King
James only”.
As hard as it may be for the liberals and secularists to admit, the American public schools were built around the King
James Bible. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United
States, (not exactly a religious right publication), describes the early public
schools this way, “Public schools had a distinctly Protestant flavor, with
teachers leading prayers and scripture reading from the King James Bible in
their lessons”. The Roman Catholic minority objected to the King James Bible
and so they developed their own school system. With
the exception of the Catholics, the
Russell Kirk (a Roman Catholic historian) describes the influence of the
King James Bible on the United States, “The book that was to exert a stronger
influence than any other in Americas was not published until 1611, a few years
after the first Virginian settlement: the ‘King James’ translation of the
Bible, the Authorized Version, was prepared by English scholars for King James
I. Read from American pulpits and in the great majority of American households
during colonial times, the Authorized Version
shaped the style, informed the intellect, affected the laws, and decreed the
morals of the North American Colonies.” Truly the early
According to Winston Churchill, ninety million copies of the King James
Bible had been printed by the mid-twentieth century.
The King James Bible was the Bible of the great
modern missions movement of the 1700’s and 1800’s. The missionaries from
III. The Westcott and Hort Theory.
In the 1870’s, a challenge arose in the English world to the primacy of
the King James Bible. There had always been a challenge from Roman Catholicism,
but this challenge came from men who were officially Protestants: Church of
England Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott and Cambridge University Professor Fenton
John Anthony Hort.
The heart of the Westcott and Hort theory was that the New Testament was preserved in almost
perfect condition in two Greek texts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaticus. Sinaticus
was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Momentary (near
The King James New Testament was translated from a
different family of Greek texts. To Westcott and Hort, the King James
Bible was clearly an inferior translation. It must be replaced by a new
translation from texts that they considered to
be older and better. They believed that the true
work of God in English had been held back by an inferior Bible. They determined to replace the King James Bible and
the Greek Textus Receptus. In short, their theory
suggests that for fifteen hundred years the preserved Word of God was lost
until it was recovered in the nineteenth century in a
trash can and in the Vatican Library. [Editor
RAB: that’s where they belong.]
Hort clearly had a bias against the Textus Receptus, calling it “villainous”
and “vile”. Hort aggressively taught that the School at
Hort did not have a single historical reference to
support the idea that such a recension took place. He simply theorized
that it must have taken place. In spite of the fact that there is not a single
historical reference to the Lucian Recension, many
Bible colleges teach it as a historical fact. [Editor RAB: sad but true. One of my professors was
one of the contributing editors to the NIV, he did one
of the minor prophets. I was not even a year old in Christ when I went off to
seminary. I was not brought up in church, and never owned a Bible until my
girlfriend gave me one as a gift before I went to seminary. The night I was
saved I borrowed a Bible from a Muslim, (THAT IS ANOTHER STORY}. What was so
disturbing to me was my professor. I felt he was trying to undermine my faith
in the Bible and I told him so. By the way, my girlfriend gave me a King James
Bible and told me it was the Word Of God. I married
her while I was in seminary. Praise the Lord for a godly wife with godly
convictions concerning the Bible. AMEN.]
IV.
Westcott and Hort Only!
It is clear that the modern movement to
revise the English Bible is based completely on the works of Westcott and Hort.
K.W. Clark writes, “...the Westcott-Hort text has become today our
Textus-Receptus. We have been freed from the one only to become captivated by
the other...The psychological chains so recently broken from our fathers have
again been forged upon us, even more strongly.”
E.C. Colwell writes, “The dead hand of Fenton John Anthony Hort lies
heavy upon us. In the early years of this century
Zane Hodges, a long time professor at Dallas Theological Seminary,
writes, “Modern textual criticism is psychologically
addicted to Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort in turn, were
rationalists in their approach to the textual problem in the New Testament and
employed techniques within which rationalism and every other kind of bias are free to operate.”
Alfred Martin, former Vice-President at Moody Bible Institute, wrote in
1951, “The present generation of Bible students having been
reared on Westcott and Hort have for the most part accepted this theory
without independent or critical examination. ...if believing Bible students had
the evidence of both sides put before them instead of one side only, there
would not be so much blind following of Westcott and Hort.”The two
most popular Greek manuscripts today, Nestles-Aland and UBS (United Bible
Society), differ very little from the Westcott and Hort text.
V. WHAT YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TO
ACCEPT THE WESTCOTT AND HORT THEORY.
·
You
have to believe that people who believed in the Deity of Christ often corrupt
Bible manuscripts.
·
You
have to believe that people who deny the Deity of Christ never corrupt Bible
manuscripts.
·
You
have to believe that people who died to get the gospel to the world couldn’t be
trusted with the Bible.
·
You
have to believe that their killers could be trusted.
You have to believe that the Celtic Christians, Waldenses,
Albigenses, Henricians, Petrobrussians, Paulicians, the
Greek Orthodox Church, the Protestant churches, the Anabaptists and the
Baptists all did not have the pure word of God.
You have to believe that the Roman Catholics and the
nineteenth century rationalists did have the pure word of God.
VI. ARE WESTCOTT AND HORT
INFALLIBLE?
Even though many evangelicals treat the Westcott
and Hort Theory as proven fact, there have always been serious textual
scholars that challenged it.
The brilliant textual scholar, Dean John Burgon,
referred to Westcott and Hort’s “violent recoil from
the Traditional Text” and “their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text”.
He refers to their theory as “superstitious veneration for a few ancient
documents.”
Another famed textual scholar and contemporary of Westcott and Hort,
F.H.P. Scrivener wrote, “Dr. Hort’s
system therefore is entirely destitute of historical foundation. He does
not so much as make a show of pretending to it; but then he would persuade us,
as he persuaded himself...”
It is a phony claim to scholarship to simply parrot the ideas of Westcott
and Hort and pretend that you are superior to those who don’t accept their
ideas. Those who wish to change the King James Bible, so long greatly used of
God and cherished by the English speaking people, need to give clear reasons
why!
How do you know that the “older” Vaticanus and Sinaticus manuscripts aren’t corrupt manuscripts?
How do you know that the Lucian Recension ever took
place? Why do you believe that the evangelicals throughout the centuries were
using a corrupt text? Why would you trust Westcott and Hort only?
VII. WHO WERE WESTCOTT AND HORT?
B.F. Westcott
was born in 1825. F.J.A. Hort was born in 1828.
They were members of the
Westcott went on to
become the Bishop of Durham (
Both men wrote several books. They are best remembered for their edition
of the Greek New Testament entitled, “The New Testament in the Original Greek”.
They are also remembered for being the two most influential members of the
English Revised Version committee which produced a new English translation.
Scrivener thought that they exercised too much influence on this committee.
Westcott died in 1901. Hort passed away in 1892. Both men had sons who
collected their personal correspondence and who wrote biographies about them.
VIII. THE DOCTRINE OF WESTCOTT AND
HORT.
The Scripture
It is clear that neither Westcott nor Hort held anything even faintly
resembling a conservative view of Scripture. According to Hort’s
son, Dr. Hort’s own
mother (a devout Bible believer) could not be sympathetic to his views about
the Bible. Westcott wrote to Hort that he
overwhelmingly rejected the “idea of the infallibility of the Bible”. Hort says the same thing, the same week, in a letter to
Bishop Lightfoot.
When Westcott became the Bishop of Durham, the
Durham University Journal welcomed him with the praise that he was “free from
all verbal or mechanical ideas of inspiration”.
Salvation
Hort called the doctrine of the substitutionary
atonement “immoral”.
In doing so he sided with the normal doctrine of the High Church Party of the
Church of England. The Low Church Party was generally evangelical, teaching
salvation through personal faith in Jesus Christ. The High Church Party taught
salvation by good works, including baptism and church membership.
Westcott and Hort wrote many commentaries that include references to
classic passages about salvation. Repeatedly their commentary is vague and unclear.and unclear. Westcott taught that the idea of “propitiating
God” was “foreign to the..New Testament”. He taught that salvation came from changing the
character of the one who offended God. This is consistent with his statement
that, “A Christian never is but is always becoming a Christian.”
Again and again, Westcott’s vague comments about salvation are easy to
interpret as teaching universal salvation.
The Doctrine of Christ
It was common in the days of Westcott and Hort for those in the Church of
England who denied the Deity of Christ to speak in vague terms! To clearly deny
the Deity of Christ was to jeopardize your position in the Church of England. Many
Many statements by both Westcott and Hort
fall into that category of “fuzzy” doctrinal statements about Christ. Westcott
and Hort were brilliant scholars. Surely they were capable of expressing
themselves clearly on the doctrine of Christ if they wanted to. At best they
are unclear; at worst, they were modernists
hiding behind the fundamental doctrinal statement of the Church of England.
Other Teachings of Westcott and Hort
There are many other areas that cause fundamental Bible believers to have
serious questions about Westcott and Hort. Westcott
denied that Genesis 1 through 3 were
historically true. Hort praised
Both Westcott and Hort showed sympathy for the movement to return the
Church of England to
There is much about the teaching of Westcott and
Hort to deeply trouble any objective Bible believer.
IX. WERE WESTCOTT AND HORT SAVED
MEN?
The evangelical defenders of Westcott and Hort are quick to assert that
they were saved men even if some of their ideas seem a little strange in our
day. They remind people that both were ordained preachers in the evangelical
Church of England.
However, there is no doubt that there were many
Church of England preachers that were not true evangelicals. The
While Westcott and Hort praised evolutionists, socialists, and
modernists, they were bitterly critical of evangelical soulwinners.
Westcott criticized the work of
William Booth and the Salvation Army. Hort criticized the crusades of D.L.
Moody. Hort criticized the soulwinning Methodists.
Both criticized evangelicals. Neither gave
anyone any reason to believe that he had ever trusted Christ as his personal Saviour.
X. THE WORK OF THE ENGLISH REVISION
COMMITTEE
In 1870, the English Parliament authorized a revision of the King James
Bible. Two teams of translators were hired. Most translators were from the
Church of England but there were also seven Presbyterians, four
Congregationalists, two Baptists, two Methodists and one Unitarian. The translators were instructed to make as
few alterations to the King James Bible as possible.
A similar committee was developed in the
Both Westcott and Hort defended Smith and lobbied for his presence on the
committee. Westcott threatened to quit if Smith was not included. Westcott and
Hort supplied everyone working on the committee with a private copy of their new Greek text. Hort lobbied (some would say intimidated)
committee members to follow the Westcott and Hort text. Westcott, Hort, and
Bishop Lightfoot pressured the committee to go beyond their mandate for doing a
revision of the King James Bible. Dr. Frederick Scrivener opposed many of the
changes to be made on the basis of the new Westcott and Hort Greek Text.
Committee meetings were referred to as “... a kind of critical duel between Dr.
Hort and Dr. Scrivener”.
Arthur Hort described his father’s method for describing the right
reading of the text as “to settle the question by the light of his own inner
consciousness”. Dean Burgon spoke of Hort’s method as deciding by “the ring of genuiness”. Hort was far more concerned about his feelings
than he was about the textual debate over any passage. Westcott referred to the
debate over textual readings as “hard fighting” and “a battle royal”.
The original chairman, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, resigned after
referring to the project as “this most miserable business”.
Westcott and Hort eventually won most of the debates. After the new
English Revision was published, both Scrivener and Burgon
published lengthy refutations of the Revision. Burgon
attacked the Revision strongly, calling it “excursions into cloud land” and “blowing
smoke”. The people of
Neither the English nor the American Revision sold very well. They were
both soon replaced by other versions. However, the multitude
of new English versions were all based upon the same Westcott and Hort
Greek text and upon the theories of Westcott and Hort. Their
English translation failed but their principles won the day. Even though
vangelicals rejected the English Revision and the
Westcott and Hort text, it did find supporters. Modernists and rationalists,
both within and without the Church of England, praised their work. Theosophy
founder, Helen Blavatsky, wrote at great length in praise of the new Greek text.
The defenders of Westcott and Hort claimed that the evangelicals were too
simple-minded and unlearned to understand the work of Westcott and Hort and
other English “scholars”. Evangelicalism was presented as unscholarly. After a
generation, many evangelicals began to feel uncomfortable at always being
labeled as unscholarly and uneducated. Some evangelical leaders began to look
for ways to reconcile the historic Christian faith with the theories of
Westcott and Hort.
These theories and the Greek text of Westcott and
Hort began to find their way into evangelical seminaries and Bible colleges on
both sides of the
Two generations after the failure of the English Revision, the theories
of Westcott and Hort had become majority opinion in evangelical Bible colleges
and seminaries in both the
Compromising evangelicals were suddenly proud of having “scholarship”
accepted by the world. They used the same Greek text as the Roman Catholic
Church, the modernists and the cults.
A relative handful of Bible believers refused to accept the Greek text
and theory of Westcott and Hort. Such holdouts became an irritation to the “scholarly”
evangelicals. As study of the issue increased, opposition to the Westcott and
Hort theory grew. “Westcott and Hort only” no longer seemed an adequate reason
for abandoning the King James Bible. The “scholarly evangelicals” began to
react harshly to their “King James only” critics.
XI. WERE WESTCOTT AND HORT SECRET
PRACTITIONERS OF THE OCCULT?
In 1993, Gail Riplinger published New Age Bible
Versions. In this book, she alleges that Westcott and Hort were practitioners
of the occult. It is indicated that they provide a bridge between apostate
Christianity and the occult and the New Age Movement.
This charge created a sensation and generated a tremendous amount of
criticism for Mrs. Riplinger. It is, of course, a
very important charge. An objective look at the evidence for such a charge is
important.
Along with Bishop Edward White Benson, Westcott and Hort founded the Ghostly Guild. This club was designed to investigate
ghosts and supernatural appearances. The club was based upon the idea that such
spirits actually exist and appear to men. According to The Encyclopedia of
Occultism and Parapsychology, the members of the Ghostly Club would “relate
personal experiences concerned with ghosts.
This club would eventually become the Society for Psychical Research.
According to James Webb in The Occult Underground and W.H. Solter,
The S.P.R. - An Outline of It’s History, this club became a major factor in the
rise of spiritualism among the elite of English society in the late 1800’s.
Many leading occult figures belonged to the Society.
Along the way, Westcott and Hort dropped out of the Ghostly Guild. However,
they had plenty of opportunity to be exposed to the occult and demonism before
they withdrew.
Westcott’s son refers to his father’s life long faith in spiritualism
(Archbishop Benson’s son referred to Benson in the same way). Communion with
spirits became quite fashionable in the late 1800’s in British society. Even
Queen Victoria, who normally led a responsible Christian life, dabbled in
spiritualism. However, it was considered unseemly for Church of England
clergymen, and Westcott had to keep his ideas quiet. According to Westcott’s
son, Arthur, Dr. Westcott practiced the Communion of the Saints. This was a
belief that you can fellowship with the spirits of those who died recently.
Bible translator J. B. Phillips also
believed in the Communion of Saints. He believed that the spirit of C.S. Lewis
visited him after his death. According to Arthur Westcott, Bishop Westcott also
had such experiences with spirits. His son writes, “The Communion of Saints
seems particularly associated with
Either Dr. Westcott’s children lied about him or Dr. Westcott was used to
meeting with spirits. Bible believers recognize these spirits as demons. Westcott
and Hort both joined a secret society called, The Apostles. It was limited to
12 members. One of the other members Henry Sidgwick. He was also stated to have led several
professors at
In 1872 Westcott formed a secret society, the Eranus Club. Members included Hort, Sidgwick, Arthur Balfour (future prime minister of
Westcott’s defenders point out that Westcott also eventually dropped out
of Eranus. Still he was certainly allied with practioners of the occult in a secret society for a period
of time.
Balfour and Sedgwick were involved in several occult organizations,
socialism and Theosophy. How many Christians have so many friends prominent in
the practice of the occult?
Balfour would also be involved in the founding of the
The evidence for Mrs. Riplinger’s assertions is
strong. Would Westcott and Hort’s defenders accept
anyone today who had such connections? They were clearly in contact with people
who were “familiar” with spirits. There is every reason to suspect that they
might also have been in contact with spirits. Based upon their associations,
there is no clear reason to reject the suggestion that they were involved in
the occult. The balance of evidence creates, at the very least, a strong
suspicion of occult influence on both Westcott and Hort (especially Dr. Westcott).
XII. THE FUNDAMENTALIST DEFENDERS
OF WESTCOTT AND HORT
There are fundamentalists who refuse to accept the characterization of
Westcott and Hort as liberals (much less occultists)! J. B Williams writes, “I
have three of Westcott’s commentaries in my library, and I challenge anyone to
find one sentence that would be a departure from Fundamentalist doctrine.”
Keith Gephart writes, “In reality, Westcott had
made clear statements affirming orthodox doctrines such as the deity of Christ,
in no way was he guilty of heresy and apostasy.” In responding to a critic of Westcott
and Hort, Gephart wrote this, “I cannot help but
suspect that . . . some blinding presupposition . . .drives
you to prove him a heretic at any cost.”
Dr. Stewart Custer writes, “Especially when these men have written in
their mature years book after book defending the
conservative interpretation of scripture, it is unjust to characterize their
whole ministries by a few misinterpretations that they may have been guilty of.”
Evangelist Robert Sumner admits that Westcott and Hort were liberal in
theology but he still believes that they were trustworthy to “restore the
original text.”
It would be easy to ask at this point if everyone is reading from the
same books. How can there be such a difference of opinion about what these men
believed and wrote?
It is true that these men (especially Westcott) wrote commentaries in
which they used the great doctrinal terms of the Christian faith in a positive
way. They used terms that were part of the official doctrinal position of the
Church of England (in which they both held prominent positions).
Almost all denominational liberals use the terms expected
of them. This is important in maintaining their income, position and
influence. The important thing is how they explain those doctrinal terms (or
fail to explain them).
Unless you are determined not to see it, it is clear from their
commentaries that they put a liberal interpretation on many Christian
doctrines. Both of their sons admit that they were accused of heresy because of
their books. This understanding of these statements in their
commentaries are supported by several external facts.
Westcott and Hort identified with the High Church Party (Broad Party)
within the Church of England. In contrast with the more evangelical and
conservative Low Church, modernism found it’s home in the High Church Party.
Westcott and Hort constantly praised theological
liberals, socialists and other radicals like Coleridge and Darwin.
No similar praise is found for evangelicals or fundamentalists, either in
or out of the Church of England. They are normally ignored! When they are
mentioned at all, like D. L. Moody, it is with disdain!
Their private correspondence reveals their liberal drift much more
clearly then their commentaries. Of course, it was safer for them to admit what
they really believed in this forum. Their correspondence also shows that they
had concerns that they could not afford to have all
of their beliefs known by the general public.
The biographies of Westcott and Hort written by their sons clearly reveal
that they were not in harmony with the official positions of the Church of
England. Their sons had no reason to lie about them. Certainly their sons had
no King James only bias.
It is interesting that some men can’t face the real record about Westcott
and Hort. In fact, some who are quick to attack even minor differences with
living preachers, take a blind eye to Westcott and
Hort.
However, this is easy to understand. Their campaign to replace the King
James Bible has been based upon the work of Westcott and Hort only. To admit
these men were not trustworthy would be to admit that they have been wrong in a
major premise of their entire ministry.
Perhaps we must be forced to suspect that some blinding
presupposition drives them to prove that Westcott and Hort were not
heretics at any cost. It appears that “scholarship” requires only a shallow
reading of Westcott and Hort and ignorance of their personal letters and
correspondence. Their defenders do not
spend anytime quoting their personal correspondence or the biographies written
by their sons.
Their defenders never recount the
testimonies of their conversion because no such testimonies exist.
XIII. IN CONCLUSION.
Dean John Burgon was a contemporary and
acquaintance of both Westcott and Hort. He was a firm opponent of the Westcott
and Hort theory, their new Greek text and the revision
of the English Bible that they so heavily influenced. In an article entitled “The
Secret Spanking of Westcott and Hort” Burgon wrote: “the
text of Drs. Westcott and Hort is either the very best which has ever appeared
or else it is the very worst; the nearest to the sacred autographs or the
furthest from them. There is no room for both opinions, and there cannot exist any middle view.” In other words things that are
different are not the same.
Millions of professing evangelicals have never heard of Westcott and
Hort. None the less, their approach to the Scripture is based upon the theory
of Westcott and Hort — Westcott and Hort only. No matter how many books,
professors, colleges and denominational leaders these theories are filtered
through, they are still the work of Westcott and Hort only.
Those who challenge the primacy
of the King James Bible in the English speaking world depend on the work of
Westcott and Hort.
Westcott and Hort are not a sufficient basis to reject the Textus
Receptus or the King James Bible. Their objectivity, scholarship and doctrine are all
at best “suspect.” There is no reason to believe that they were saved men.
There is more reason to believe that they were influenced by the occult than
there is to believe that they were influenced by the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps the “King James Only Controversy” is misnamed. It is really a “Westcott
and Hort Only” controversy.
Are you willing to abandon the historic contributions of the Textus
Receptus and the King James Bible for Westcott and Hort, Westcott and Hort Only.