IT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD THAT MANY GOOD MEN were either cooked alive or bled in order to get the Greek text known as “Textus Receptus,” or the Received Text; we call it the King James Version in its English equivalent, into our hands today. Only Martin Luther’s German translation, as well as his English counterpart William Tyndale, along with the 54 scholars who produced the King James Bible based on Tyndale’s work, translated their Bibles from the Textus Receptus. Nobody else, of the hundreds of English translations in existence today, have thought to make it worth their while, for you see, the Received Text is not, nor has it ever been, Catholic approved. One might even conclude in light of this that the Great Reformation, culturally speaking, has failed.
The original autographs of the men moved by the Holy Spirit to pen His Word, specifically in the years immediately following Yeshua Hamashiach’s resurrection, are all gone. No one admittedly has a copy in their possession. There are however over 5,300 extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament available. The founding Koine Greek gospels and letters, which the Apostles wrote, were copied and recopied again throughout the surmounting centuries in what is referred to as the Byzantine textual tradition, and vastly distributed throughout the world. Today they are collectively called the “Majority Text,” and from what has been gathered, about 95-97% of them textually agree with one another. Indisputably, the best solitary representation of the Byzantine Majority Text, be it a printed one, comes from the Textus Receptus, which is the rewarding result of various Greek Majority Text revisions by a Dutch priest of the Renaissance, Erasmus.
The two primary manuscripts employed for the New International Version (NIV), which envelops almost half of all Bible sales, and every other English version available is the “Codex Sinaiticus” matched with the “Codex Vaticanus” texts. In 1859, the fourth-century Sinaiticus was allegedly discovered by Constantine Tischendorf (1815-1874) in a waste basket at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Saini. Though a protestant, he clothed himself with close and uncomfortably-fitted ties to the Roman Catholic hierarchy, including a recorded private meeting with the Pope. That was his account of it, at least—the texts discovery—being a heroic rescuer of disposed antiquity. The monks however vehemently denied his wastebasket story.
When the true author of Sinaiticus discovered that his manuscript written at Catherine’s was being promoted as a fourth-century discovery, Constantine Simonides (1820-1867) made this discrepancy known. He even challenged Tischendorf to a duel of sorts, a debate actually, where he would demonstrate for the public eye proof that he had indeed authored it, specifically by identifying markings that only its author would authenticate. Tischendorf initially agreed to an appointment, but never showed. His cowardly retreat into the embrace of academia was never, even to this day, backed with reason.
A Greek Archimandrite named Kallinkos, being a resident of St. Catherine’s, verified that he witnessed firsthand Simonides writing Sinaiticus. He furthermore saw Tischendorf at the Monastery with Simonides’ document, and knew duplicity when he saw it. Kallinkos accused Tischendorf of ill-deception, specifically washing Simonides’ handwritten document with lemon juice and herbs to lighten the text and make it appear as though it were of antiquity. Indeed Sinaiticus was mutilated, both in its codex and destruction of some leaves, likely so as to conceal acrostics that would otherwise identify the author of the codex—hence the fabricated wastebasket story. Alterations disfigure every page, systematically defaced by at least ten separate revisers.
The manuscript Vaticanus fairs no better, worse actually—only because it originated in the Vatican library, hence the name. Its true origins, if there is indeed another, are unknown. It should be of interest among my readers to note that Tischendorf held meetings in Rome with the Vatican Librarian, Cardinal Angelo Mai (1782-1854), who wrote an 1838 edition of the Vaticanus. Collaboration, perhaps even conspiracy, seems likely. In the Vaticanus, Christian doctrines are missing like it’s nobody’s business. Genesis 1:1-46:28 is missing, as is Psalms 106-138, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, the Pauline Epistles, everything in Hebrews beyond 9:14, and no surprise, considering its parentage, the entire book of Revelation.
The cultural Christian will comfort himself knowing academia praises his acceptance of the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. Together they are often referred to by the scholar as the “Critical Text.” This coalition is a scrutinized and wholly-noble attempt, I am told, resulting in the “critical” preservation of the most accurate wording possible, and yet how can this be so? Both documents don’t even come close to comparing with the Textus Receptus. Missing from the Vaticanus is at least 2,877 words, with an additional 536 words added and another 953 substituted. It furthermore modifies 1,132 words and transposes 2,098. Sinaiticus is a far worse agitator, with 9,000 divergences from the Received Text.
Indeed, the Received Text, which is supported by the overwhelming collection that makes up the Byzantine Majority Text, holds hands in agreement. Together, the Written Testimony of God is forever preserved. It is unequivocally strange that the Christian will dismiss any notion of Martin Luther and William Tyndale’s separate German and English translations of Textus Receptus, along with the 54 scholars who produced the KJV, on the basis that it is “cult-like” to declare “King James Only” as one’s slogan when in fact they are, by committing to any other English version in the world, shackling themselves down to the far inferior “Westcott and Hort Alone” principle.
The Westcott-Hort partnership survived 28 years, a result of which established their hotly praised “Critical Text”—replacing the universality of the Byzantine Majority with the locality of an Egyptian wastebasket and the basement of the Vatican—as the standard Greek used for all modern interpretations of the Bible. And yet by their own testimony through a correspondence of letters, which my reader shall be satisfied in knowing can be accessed at least in parts and read-through, the infallibility of Holy Scripture was denied by the both of them. Believing that the ancient philosophers should garnish equal merit with the Prophets and the Apostles, Hort wrote: “For ourselves, we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety and antiquity.” This is an unfortunate truth which agitates our so-called God-fearing modern scholars to no end, who wish to bury any such spiritual criminality between the two, furthermore criticizing anyone who takes issue with their godless indiscretion, but it gets worse.
Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–1892) not only denied infallibility of Holy Writ, thinking Shakespeare and Plato of equal importance, he shunned any notion of Satan, eternal punishment in Hell, and most tragically, Christ’s atonement. By calling the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement “immoral,” Hort sided with the normal doctrine of the High Church Party of the Church of England, which taught salvation by good works, including baptism and church membership.
Hort was a true 19th-century Apostate in that he was a proud first-generation Darwinist. To his longtime friend and correspondence Reverend John Ellerton he confessed Darwin’s Origin of the Species was “the most engaging book” he’d read. “It is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with….” He said, furthermore stating, “….it opens up a new period.”
It should be of no surprise, his love for Darwin, being also a devout Communist. In his letters to Ellerton, he confessed, “I have pretty well made up my mind to devote my three or four years up here to the study of this subject of Communism,” and, “I can only say that it was through the region of pure politics that I myself approach Communism.” As such, his hatred for the United States is legendary, and to such a degree that he hoped for its total destruction during the American Civil War. To Ellerton in 1862, again he wrote: “I care more for England and for Europe than for America, how much more than for all the niggers in the world!”
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) was a political Socialist, and therefore had similar distastes for Scripture. By his own testimony, infallibility was not considered. Genesis and the six-day creation account it totted was merely an allegory. Jesus committed Himself to nothing resembling a miracle. Even Moses and David were literary characters, and not to be taken historically, as one would expect of a character in a Shakespearean play. Heaven itself was not a physical place, only a state of mind. Evangelical Christians were, according to his own correspondence, dangerous, perverted, unsound, and confused. And considering his admiration and devotion for John Newman, who defected from the Church of England for Roman Catholicism, pulling a great many disciples with him, it should not be a surprise that he worshiped Mary and participated in communion with the dead.
Westcott’s own son writes, “The Communion of Saints seems particularly associated with Peterborough. He had an extraordinary power of realizing this Communion. It was his delight to be alone at night in the great Cathedral, for there he could meditate and pray in full sympathy with all that was good and great in the past. . . There he always had abundant company.”
One night, while returning from his customary meditations in the solitary darkness of the chapel at Auckland castle, his daughter asked him, “I expect you do not feel alone?”
“Oh, no,” he said, “It is full.”
Despite these unfortunate blemishes, and that’s putting it kindly, our so-called Godly scholars who adhere to the principle of “Hort and Westcott Alone,” not “Majority or Received Texts Alone,” will aptly argue that both men’s youthful participation as members in “The Ghostly Guild,” which sought to gather information and knowledge for contacting spirits, is of no consequence to their future lives. Westcott was a serial participant in secret societies and occultist clubs well beyond the Ghostly Guild, such as the Eranus Club, which included Arthur Balfour, the future prime minister of England, who was renowned for his séances and practice of spiritualism. Westcott even founded “Hermes.” Luciferian H.P. Blavatsky said of Hermes that he and Satan were the same. What am I missing here? This information is mocked by our most respected scholarly adherents to “Hort and Westcott Alone,” as if their participation with the occult is only a mere burp or speed bump to the spiritual state of their souls, and yet Westcott admittedly and often—throughout the entirety of his life—found solace by filling his emptied church with the dead, so that he alone might commune with them.
Included in the Westcott-Hort “Critical Text” project was Dr. G. Vance, a Unitarian who denied Christ’s deity, Holy Scripture, and the very God-head which the entire Bible is based upon. Even the Jesuits had their part to play in it. Roman Catholic Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini served as their editor, and believed in the enlightened divinity of humanity. These are the men who were entrusted with the Bible, and whom our pastors and church leaders demand that we continue placing our faith in. Together this all-star ensemble interpreted the corrupted Vatican and Egyptian wastebasket texts using a free-form translation method known as “dynamic equivalence.” Consider that the NIV has 64,098 fewer words than the KJV, a natural outflowing considering they each derive from conflicting sources, and then recall how every Word of God is important, not just a selection of them, which the Holy Roman Church might grudgingly agree upon.
“I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise Thy Name for Thy lovingkindness and for Thy truth: for Thou hast magnified Thy Word above all Thy name.” Psalm 138:2
Not only is God’s Word important, according to Psalm 138:2, the truth of His Testimony is even magnified above His Holy Name.
When our Protestant Reformers cried, “Sola Scriptura!” resulting in a bloody body count of martyrdom which will in this life never be fully known, they weren’t giving us the option of corrupted texts, Roman approved. For centuries the King James Bible alone was the Bible of Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, and the Quakers. It was the exclusive Bible of the Puritans and the Baptists. In England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, it was the Bible of the Evangelicals, and across the Ocean, where the Pilgrims fled for the freedom to worship without the persecution of Rome; it was the recognized Bible of the New World. It has produced more fruit and preserved the salvation of more souls than any other translation in the history of the world.
It could be said that for almost three-hundred years, until a “wastebasket discovery” and the ghostly Westcott-Hort partnership, all God-fearing men and women were “King James Only” people. Through them and their efforts alone has the Word of God been preserved, even magnified above His Name. And if these facts were aptly dispensed by our current church leadership to the congregation in which they weekly campaign to shepherd, such identification would undoubtedly ring true by anyone who loves the Lord today.
Maranatha from Nova Scotia!