THE HERESIES OF WESTCOTT AND HORT

by Richard P. Myers For 270 years, the 1611 A.V. reigned supreme in the English-speaking world. Then, in 1881, that supremacy was challenged by the publication of the English Revised Version (ERV). The leading lights for this new version of the Bible were two Church of England clergymen named Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892). They were both Greek teachers at Cambridge University, theological liberals and operated on the exact opposite principles as the King James Bible translators. Their bible was different than the 1611 A.V. in literally thousands of places. So, who were these two men? To answer this question, we will look at their beliefs. Hatred of The Textus Receptus Hort (1851) age 23, said, 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 Receptusthink of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS (manuscripts); it is a blessing there are such early ones. Westcott age 29, said: I feel most keenly the disgrace of circulating what I feel to be falsified copies of Holy Scripture. (Authors Note (A.N.): The Textus Receptus is the basis upon which our 1611 A.V. is based. It was used exclusively by the King James translators. At a very young age, both Westcott and Hort set out to overthrow the textual foundation of our Bible. One can almost hear them say: The Vaticanus have I loved, the Textus Receptus have I hated.)

About the Bible Westcott I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scripture overwhelmingly. Hort Evangelicals (fundamentalists of our day) seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible. (A.N. In other words, they denied the inspiration of the Scriptures.)

About Baptism Hort We maintain Baptismal Regeneration as the most important of doctrinesThe pure Romish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical. Baptism assures us that we are children of God (A.N. They believed that baptism saved a person. Along this same line is a quote by Dr. Billy Graham in Time Magazine for October 27, 1961. It read, I still have some personal problems in the matter of infant baptism, but all of my children with the exception of the youngest were baptized as infants. I do believe that something
1

happens at the baptism of an infant, particularly if the parents are ChristiansI believe that a miracle can happen in these children so that they are regenerated, that is, made Christian through infant baptism. If you want to call that baptismal regeneration, thats all right with me. It may be no coincidence that Dr. Graham promotes the new socalled Bibles.)

About Roman Catholicism Wescott I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness. Hort I am very far from pretending to understand completely the renewed vitality of mariolatry. (A.N. The present pope of Rome has dedicated himself to the Virgin Mary. This is the same Roman Catholic Church that martyred millions of our Baptist forbears.) About Evolution Westcott No one now, I suppose, holds that the first 3 chapters of Genesis, for example, gives a literal history.I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did. Hort 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 (of evolution) is unanswerable. (A.N. These quotes speak for themselves. The two men were evolutionists.) About People And Places And Miracles Westcott David is not a chronological but a spiritual person. Westcott Heaven is a state and not a place. Hort I am inclined to think that no such state as Eden ever existed. Westcott I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it. (A.N. They did not believe that David was a real person, that Heaven and Eden are, and were, real places, and that miracles were real happenings. In this writers considered opinion, it is highly unlikely that God would use men of these beliefs to preserve for us His perfect, inerrant, infallible Word.) The above quotes can be found in the book Which Bible, p. 277-282, edited by David Otis Fuller. The quotes originated in the biographies of both men written by their sons, both named Arthur. There are many more quotes that are very revealing about these men, but lack of space does not permit them. Enough has been given, however, for the reader to see what they believed.
2

The two men produced what is called the Westcott and Hort Critical Text. It is termed critical because it radically criticized and changed the Textus Receptus. The actual Westcott and Hort Critical Text is no longer being published, but it has been perpetuated today in the Nestle-Aland (both of these men were German rationalists) Greek Text and the American Bible Societys Greek Text, both of which are twin brothers to the Westcott and Hort Text. No modern day translating committee uses the Textus Receptus they all use these new critical texts. That is the reason the modernday so-called Bibles are different from our beloved 1611 A.V. It may be that not all present-day Bible translators are as modernistic and radical as Westcott and Hort, although many are, maybe even the majority of them; but they all use the radical texts. Therefore, they cannot be trusted. From all the above, one can see that the modern versions are founded upon apostasy and theological liberalism. Consequently, they need to be rejected by Gods Bible believing people (touch not the unclean thing 2 Cor. 6:17). Beware of false prophetsa good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit (Matt. 7:15-20).