Bible Versions Part 5: Who are Westcott and Hort, and does it really matter?

In this episode Brother Jonathan briefly talks about B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. There is a lot said about these two men, and a lot of quotations are thrown around. The question is, are they really as important as people make them out to be?

_______________________________________________________

Who are Westcott and Hort, and does it really matter?

Episode 15

Remnant Bible Fellowship

 

I.                   Introduction

a.      Some people are really tired of hearing the names of B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. Independent Fundamental Baptists are told that they are pretty much the Devil incarnate in their aims and work. Other denominations, like Southern Baptists, you’re probably used to having to defend against Fundamentalist arguments. Their names get thrown around a lot. I don’t know if most people have ever actually looked into their works or their own personal views.

b.      I actually bought first edition copies of Life and Letters of Fenton J.A. Hort and Brooke Foss Westcott: Bishop of Durham in order to check the quotations that are thrown back and forth. Context is always important when you look up things like this.

c.       But in addition to that, the question really is whether or not they matter as much as people try to say. Have they really impacted things that much?

II.                Who are they?

a.      Fenton John Anthony Hort was born on April 23^rd 1828 in Dublin. He graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge in 1850. He did some stuff for 20 years like getting married, continuing his own studies, writing essays, responding to letters, establishing the Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, etc. Then he was asked to be part of the revision committee of the Authorized Version in 1870. He, along with B.F. Westcott, published their new Greek text at the same time.

b.      Brooke Foss Westcott was born on January 12^th 1825 in Birmingham. He also graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge. He actually graduated with double first-honors. He stayed at Trinity as a fellow and took on pupils. He took the Regius Professorship of Divinity at Cambridge in November 1870. He also joined the revision committee for the revision of the Authorized Version in 1870.

III.             Why do they get brought up in the discussion of Bible Versions?

a.      For their work in Textual Criticism.

                                                              i.      We talked a lot about this in our episode Bible Versions Part 3: Textual Criticism and Manuscript Evidence and also Part 4: Textual Theory.

b.      For their personal theological views.

c.       For their work in editing and translating the Revised Version.

IV.              Do their personal beliefs affect their work?

a.      I was originally going to do like others and go over some direct quotes from Westcott and Hort, but, frankly, I really didn’t feel like going over it for the enth time. Fundamentalists have a million websites up for you to look their quotes up. Other people have spent equally enormous time and effort to defend Westcott and Hort. There are also websites out there to defend the exact same quotes from Westcott and Hort.

b.      It is interesting looking at all the quotes from these guys. It’s even more interesting if you take the time, though it’s pretty boring, to actually read their life and letters and writings. But the fact is, and this can’t be denied, information is greatly misquoted and misrepresented a lot of times by Fundamentalists about Westcott and Hort. I have experience in this because when I was first saved I began in the Independent Fundamental Baptist denomination. In time I began to check into things that I was taught, doctrinally as well as in things like this, and consistently came to a different conclusion. I blindly repeated the things that I was told. Lots of people today, not just Fundamentalists, do this quite routinely.

c.       A point that is brought up quite consistently by those who oppose the views of Fundamentalists regarding Bible Versions is the fact that if you eliminate the work of people that you disagree with theologically then you make the list very short. All Bible versions that are available today, except reprints of things like the Wycliffe Bible or Tyndale Bible, are built upon what happened in manuscript work and textual criticism work done in the 18^th and 19^th century. Westcott and Hort were two of the most notable men of the 19^th century in the field of  criticism.

d.      James White, who himself opposes the Fundamentalist views of the Authorized Version, had this to say about Westcott and Hort:

                                                              i.      “In the sense that Westcott and Hort correctly identified the need to examine the relationships of manuscripts and demonstrated that it is not enough to count manuscripts—that instead we must weigh manuscripts (some being more important than others as witnesses to the original text)—one can say that modern texts are based upon their work. However, modern textual criticism has gone far beyond them and in many instances has corrected imbalances in their own conclusions.” (James White, The King James Only Controversy, p. 139, footnote 16.

e.      White shows his own bias in this quote because it is incorrect to simplify the issue of manuscript evidence to “weight vs. number”. The studies of Scrivener, Burgon, von Soden, Hoskier, and Lake have proved that the great numbers of manuscripts we have that form the majority are not siblings. Evidence and studies from multiple scholars has shown that they come from independent parent manuscripts. So weight then goes to the majority. White states, regardless of his erroneous view, that modern Textual Criticism owes a lot to the foundation laid by Westcott and Hort.

f.        It is their work in Textual Criticism and New Testament translation that has been the main point of contention. Some may argue that their beliefs lead to their work or at the least contributes to it. They have a good point to argue. But the fact remains that if you eliminate people that you don’t agree with theologically then you probably eliminate Erasmus, Tyndale, Wycliffe, John Burgon, all the King James translators: in effect, King James only advocates eliminate pretty much everyone who contributed to the making of the King James version of the Bible. Their opponents, like James White, know this and exploit this fact very well.

V.                 Have they made a lasting effect?

a.      To give you an idea of the real effect that Westcott and Hort had on the realm of Bible Versions, you have to appreciate the event that was the translation of the Revised Version. Regardless of people’s opinion of the Revised Version, it was a very significant event in Bible translation history. Even men such as John Burgon, who wrote the remarkable book The Revision Revised, stated that if the committee of the Revised Version had stayed within the guidelines that were given them then it would’ve been one of the greatest contributions to Biblical Textual work ever.

b.      Even scholars who are not King James Version advocates have openly stated that the Revised Version was a bad work because its workers had a bad hermeneutic. I’m thinking specifically of Dr. Jason Lisle with that point. It’s a fact attested to by people who were contemporaries with the Revised Version’s release that Dr. Hort and Dr. Westcott forced certain points through the committee. Often it was Dr. Hort arguing against Dr. Scrivener and the majority often went with Dr. Hort.

c.       The Revised Version essentially opened the floodgate. That’s not my opinion either. If you check into the number of Bible translations, it was the release of the Revised Version that changed things. Philip Schaff stated that if the Revised Version failed to supplant the supremacy of the Authorized Version it would open a floodgate of Bible versions. Time has proven him to be correct. One could argue that the multitude of Bible versions is a good thing, but I disagree.

d.      Nowadays every single publishing company has a formal-equivalency version, and every one of them have a dynamic-equivalency version; and they all have multitudes in-between. It’s become an industry for making money that has no integrity.

e.      Westcott and Hort helped to further, and cement, the view of Textual Criticism that relies on subjectivity. Even today many people who are involved in translation repeat the same arguments for “internal considerations” and “subjective judgments” that Hort championed—even though they’ve been shown to be unscholarly and foolish for over one-hundred years. If you don’t believe me, read anything by John William Burgon.

f.        If you want some longer talk on Dr. Hort’s Textual Criticism listen to the two episodes where we discuss them at length.

VI.              Conclusion

a.      In my opinion, even though I’m not an Independent Fundamental Baptist, it is impossible to deny that the work of Westcott and Hort is very integral to understanding why things are the way they are in the realm of Bible versions today.

b.      The problem comes when we have people throwing out bad arguments, misrepresenting quotes, and have a lack of humility or integrity that desires truth over bias. That being set aside, people can have all those things and still come to the same conclusion. I’ve seen scholars expose all the false arguments and bad information by Fundamentalists and then sweep under the rug all the things that are legitimate concerns. If you want an example of this read James White.

c.       In my opinion, Westcott and Hort absolutely matter to the discussion of Bible Versions. Just like Griesbach, Tregelles, and Tishcendorf absolutely matter in the discussion.

d.      I encourage you that if you aren’t familiar with Textual Criticism please to our previous episodes in this series on Bible Versions.