Very Important Information about Bible Translations

[netchaplain]

What most are unaware of is that Westcott and Hort were first formers of the creation of a critical text of the New Testament Westcott and Hort text. Their work, published in 1881 as The New Testament in the Original Greek, became a highly influential critical edition of the Greek New Testament.

This was the first translation from the three ancient manuscripts recently discovered (19th century: Vaticanus, Sinaticua and Alexzandrinus.) Their translation from these manuscript copies are what all modern translations are derived from.

I wanted you to know that these two scholars were members of a cult group: B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were members of a group known as the “Ghostly Gilled,” formed in 1850. This club, also referred to as the “Bogie Club”, focused on investigating paranormal phenomena, including ghosts and supernatural occurrences, as members were “disposed to believe that such things really exist”. Some sources suggest that a previous club organized by Westcott at Cambridge named “Hermes” may have been a precursor to the Ghostly Guild. The Ghostly Guild later evolved into The Society for Psychical Research, a key player in the 19th-century spiritualism movement.”

The two scholars who used Westcott and Hort’s translation were Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland (whom you’re probably familiar with). Nestle and Aland’s text is where today’s modern translations come from.

 

[YeshuaFan]

What most are unaware of is that Westcott and Hort were first formers of the creation of a critical text of the New Testament Westcott and Hort text. Their work, published in 1881 as The New Testament in the Original Greek, became a highly influential critical edition of the Greek New Testament.

This was the first translation from the three ancient manuscripts recently discovered (19th century: Vaticanus, Sinaticua and Alexzandrinus.) Their translation from these manuscript copies are what all modern translations are derived from.

I wanted you to know that these two scholars were members of a cult group: B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were members of a group known as the “Ghostly Gilled,” formed in 1850. This club, also referred to as the “Bogie Club”, focused on investigating paranormal phenomena, including ghosts and supernatural occurrences, as members were “disposed to believe that such things really exist”. Some sources suggest that a previous club organized by Westcott at Cambridge named “Hermes” may have been a precursor to the Ghostly Guild. The Ghostly Guild later evolved into The Society for Psychical Research, a key player in the 19th-century spiritualism movement.”

The two scholars who used Westcott and Hort’s translation were Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland (whom you’re probably familiar with). Nestle and Aland’s text is where today’s modern translations come from.

Yes, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, while not typically considered occultists, were indeed interested in spiritualism and the occult during their early years, particularly in the 1850s. They founded the Ghostly Guild, a group dedicated to investigating spiritual phenomena, and were also involved in other clubs like the Hermes Club and the Eranus Club. Some sources suggest their interest stemmed from a desire to find evidence of the supernatural to counter rationalist arguments against miracles. However, they also faced criticism for their involvement with these groups, especially in relation to their work on the Westcott and Hort Greek text, which was used in the Revised Version of the Bible according to the King James Bible Research Council.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Ghostly Guild:
  Westcott and Hort co-founded this group, which focused on investigating spiritual phenomena, including purported communication with the dead.
  
  
• Hermes Club and Eranus Club:
  These were other groups they were involved with, suggesting a broader interest in exploring various aspects of the spiritual realm.
  
  
• Investigation vs. Participation:
  While they investigated spiritual phenomena, there's no concrete evidence they actively participated in occult practices like necromancy (communicating with the dead).
  
  
• Context of the Time:
  Their interest in spiritualism occurred during a time when there was a growing fascination with the supernatural and a pushback against rationalism.
  
  
• Criticism:
  Critics have pointed to their involvement in these groups as a potential influence on their textual work, suggesting they may have been biased towards certain manuscripts or interpretations.
  
  
• Counterarguments:
  Some scholars argue that their involvement with these groups was primarily for investigation and that their textual work was based on sound scholarship.
• They seemed to have been more concerned with addressing its errors and point out how it was against Christian, and not active occultists themselves though

 

[Origen]

What most are unaware of is that Westcott and Hort were first formers of the creation of a critical text of the New Testament Westcott and Hort text. Their work, published in 1881 as The New Testament in the Original Greek, became a highly influential critical edition of the Greek New Testament.

Not true. The first critical text was by Karl Lachmann published in 1831. By the way, Erasmus extensively noted and discussed variant readings of the Greek New Testament in his annotations accompanying his Greek and Latin New Testament editions. So no Westcott and Hort were not the first.

This was the first translation from the three ancient manuscripts recently discovered (19th century: Vaticanus, Sinaticua and Alexzandrinus.)

Also not true. Westcott and Hort produce a critical text not a translation. Moreover these were not the only sources they used for their text.

All one has to do is check their Greek text.

The New Testament in the original Greek : Westcott, Brooke Foss, 1825-1901, ed : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

archive.org

Their translation from these manuscript copies are what all modern translations are derived from.

Modern scholars today use an eclectic text. That is a text compiled from multiple sources such as papyri, manuscripts, church fathers, and early translations of the Greek New Testament.

I wanted you to know that these two scholars were members of a cult group: B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were members of a group known as the “Ghostly Gilled,” formed in 1850. This club, also referred to as the “Bogie Club”, focused on investigating paranormal phenomena, including ghosts and supernatural occurrences, as members were “disposed to believe that such things really exist”. Some sources suggest that a previous club organized by Westcott at Cambridge named “Hermes” may have been a precursor to the Ghostly Guild. The Ghostly Guild later evolved into The Society for Psychical Research, a key player in the 19th-century spiritualism movement.”

Westcott's son, Arthur Westcott, addresses this point.

"What happened to this Guild In the end I have not discovered - My father ceased to interest himself in these matters, not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism, but because he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good."
Life and Letters, Vol. 1, p. 119

https://dn790009.ca.archive.org/0/items/brookefosswestco00westuoft/brookefosswestco00westuoft.pdf

The two scholars who used Westcott and Hort’s translation were Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland (whom you’re probably familiar with). Nestle and Aland’s text is where today’s modern translations come from.

It is funny that you think scholarship does not progress.

 

[netchaplain]

Yes, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, while not typically considered occultists, were indeed interested in spiritualism and the occult during their early years, particularly in the 1850s. They founded the Ghostly Guild, a group dedicated to investigating spiritual phenomena, and were also involved in other clubs like the Hermes Club and the Eranus Club.

Some are claiming that the Nestly/Aland text did not use the Wescott/Hort text:

"The early editions of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament were indeed initially based on the text of Westcott and Hort. Specifically, the first two editions of Nestle's text used Westcott and Hort's work, along with Tischendorf's, as a foundation. Later editions incorporated the work of other scholars like Bernhard Weiss. While the Nestle-Aland text has evolved and incorporated new manuscript discoveries over time, the influence of Westcott and Hort remains significant, and many modern translations still rely on the Nestle-Aland/UBS text, which has roots in Westcott and Hort's work." -AI Google

The claim on better manuscripts primarily contain only three manuscripts, as opposed to 5000 manuscripts in the traditional translations. These three are the codex Vaticanus, codex Sinaticus and codex Alexandrinus. They are copies that scribes would not use and were abandoned for 1500 years ago until recently discovered (19th cent.). They didn't ware out from numerous copying, like the acceptable copies did. The scribe would destroy manuscript copies that became illegible to avoid fraudulent manuscripts. They did not parallel the extant of the many acceptable copies.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Not true. The first critical text was by Karl Lachmann published in 1831. By the way, Erasmus extensively noted and discussed variant readings of the Greek New Testament in his annotations accompanying his Greek and Latin New Testament editions. So no Westcott and Hort were not the first.


Also not true. Westcott and Hort produce a critical text not a translation. Moreover these were not the only sources they used for their text.

All one has to do is check their Greek text.

The New Testament in the original Greek : Westcott, Brooke Foss, 1825-1901, ed : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

archive.org

Modern scholars today use an eclectic text. That is a text compiled from multiple sources such as papyri, manuscripts, church fathers, and early translations of the Greek New Testament.


Westcott's son, Arthur Westcott, addresses this point.

"What happened to this Guild In the end I have not discovered - My father ceased to interest himself in these matters, not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism, but because he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good."
Life and Letters, Vol. 1, p. 119

https://dn790009.ca.archive.org/0/items/brookefosswestco00westuoft/brookefosswestco00westuoft.pdf

It is funny that you think scholarship does not progress.

Ironic that many who hold to we should just use the TR and the Kjv only would base that upon Critical text and MV used 'evil Catholic texts, and evil textual criticism" yet even Erasmus Himself used Latin sources, and the 1611 translators also used Vulgate and many times catholic Rheims translation for the renderings

 

[Origen]

Some are claiming that the Nestly/Aland text did not use the Wescott/Hort text:

Who here has done that? No one I know of.

"The early editions of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament were indeed initially based on the text of Westcott and Hort.

Note the words "initially based." That means in the beginning. It is no longer the case, and has not been true for years.

The claim on better manuscripts primarily contain only three manuscripts, as opposed to 5000 manuscripts in the traditional translations.

I know of no modern scholars who makes that claim. Name the scholars and provide the citation information.

They are copies that scribes would not use and were abandoned for 1500 years ago until recently discovered (19th cent.).

Untrue.

Vaticanus was re-inked which is generally thought to have occurred around the 10th or 11th century. No one re-inks a codex which is not being used. That makes no sense.

There is scribal evidence of work being done in both the 6th and 9th centuries on Sinaticus.

There is scribal evidence of corrections were made to Alexandrinus as late as the 12th century.

Your information is wrong.

They didn't ware out from numerous copying, like the acceptable copies did.

That's not an argument but empty conjecture with zero evidence.

The scribe would destroy manuscript copies that became illegible to avoid fraudulent manuscripts. They did not parallel the extant of the many acceptable copies.

That is also not true. New Testament manuscripts were not intentionally destroyed by scribes. They were placed in specialized locations like genizahs. This is a tradition going back to Jewish scribes. Stop reading false information and out of date scholarship.

 

[netchaplain]

Not true. The first critical text was by Karl Lachmann published in 1831. By the way, Erasmus extensively noted and discussed variant readings of the Greek New Testament in his annotations accompanying his Greek and Latin New Testament editions. So no Westcott and Hort were not the first.

Erasmus completed his most significant publications around the early 16th century. -AI Google.

Modern scholars today use an eclectic text.

"The eclectic text is not the same as the Alexandrian text, though they are closely related." -AI Google. The Eclectic, Minority, Critical and Alexandrian manuscripts are all Alexandrian text types, which are corrupt and which is why they are extant. They were rejected for coping use and didn't ware out like acceptable manuscripts copies. When an acceptable manuscript copy (MC) became illegible, the scribe would destroy the exemplar to avoid fraudulent forgeries. The Vaticanus, Sinaticus and Alexandrinus were abandoned 1500 years ago and are recently discovered manuscript copies that were never used, until the production of modern translations. The Codex Vaticanus was not "found" in the sense of being discovered, but rather it has been housed in the Vatican Library since before 1475, i.e. abandoned on a shelf.

"The Sinaiticus was created in the mid-4th century CE. The first potentially identifiable record of its existence is in 1761 (abandoned for almost 1500 years), when an Italian naturalist reported seeing a Bible matching its description at the Monastery of Saint Catherine. It was rediscovered in 1844 by Constantine Tischendorf, a German biblical scholar, at Saint Catherine's Monastery, where some accounts claim the monks were barely aware of its significance or value. There is a well-known story, though disputed by some, that Tischendorf found 129 leaves of the Codex (Sinaiticus) in a basket destined for burning as kindling.

It is funny that you think scholarship does not progress.

How can misjudging obviously corrupted manuscripts be progress (I know we have different understandings on this issue - lol). It might be considered progress if the Alexandrian text-based manuscripts were never found. The modern translations have made it much more difficult to choose a good translation that contains the entirety of the Word (Mat 4:4), with correct readings. Myself, I have no doubt that this is a continued attack on God's Word. Why would Satan cease from this attack, seeing he has many reading corrupted texts that can't be memorized.

Also not true. Westcott and Hort produce a critical text not a translation. Moreover these were not the only sources they used for their text.

All who use these ancient codices are going to loose out on spiritual growth!

Modern scholars today use an eclectic text. That is a text compiled from multiple sources such as papyri, manuscripts, church fathers, and early translations of the Greek New Testament.

"Eclecticism and the Alexandrian Text: While not solely reliant on it, modern Eclectic texts, especially those employing a "reasoned eclectic" approach, do consider the Alexandrian text type to be a significant and generally reliable witness to the New Testament's text, according to Christianity Stack Exchange (nearly all critical sources consider the. The Alexandrian text type is associated with manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, considered important early witnesses." AI Google

Ignorance (not suspecting any individual of this) will be no excuse when we are rewarded with varying authoritative abilities!



"The Ghostly Guild " group eventually evolved into the Society for Psychical Research." -AI Google.

 

[Origen]

Erasmus completed his most significant publications around the early 16th century. -AI Google.

That does not contradict anything I said. You said that "Westcott and Hort were first formers of the creation of a critical text of the New Testament." That is wrong. They were not the first.

"The eclectic text is not the same as the Alexandrian text, though they are closely related." -AI Google.

I did not claim otherwise so your point is moot.

The Eclectic, Minority, Critical and Alexandrian manuscripts are all Alexandrian text types, which are corrupt and which is why they are extant.

Your opinion and not the view of scholars. The majority of manuscripts have corrections and errors of some kind. Scribes make mistakes. This is not news.

They were rejected for coping use and didn't ware out like acceptable manuscripts copies.

Name an ancient source which makes that claim.

When an acceptable manuscript copy (MC) became illegible, the scribe would destroy the exemplar to avoid fraudulent forgeries.

Name an ancient source which makes that claim.

The Vaticanus, Sinaticus and Alexandrinus were abandoned 1500 years ago and are recently discovered manuscript copies that were never used, until the production of modern translations.

Again untrue because the evidence I provided proves otherwise.

Vaticanus was re-inked which is generally thought to have occurred around the 10th or 11th century. No one re-inks a codex which is not being used. That makes no sense.

There is scribal evidence of work being done in both the 6th and 9th centuries on Sinaticus.

There is scribal evidence of corrections were made to Alexandrinus as late as the 12th century.

The Codex Vaticanus was not "found" in the sense of being discovered, but rather it has been housed in the Vatican Library since before 1475, i.e. abandoned on a shelf.

I never said it was so your point is moot. Provide the records from the Vatican proving it was "abandoned on a shelf."

"The Sinaiticus was created in the mid-4th century CE. The first potentially identifiable record of its existence is in 1761 (abandoned for almost 1500 years), when an Italian naturalist reported seeing a Bible matching its description at the Monastery of Saint Catherine. It was rediscovered in 1844 by Constantine Tischendorf, a German biblical scholar, at Saint Catherine's Monastery, where some accounts claim the monks were barely aware of its significance or value. There is a well-known story, though disputed by some, that Tischendorf found 129 leaves of the Codex (Sinaiticus) in a basket destined for burning as kindling.

There is no evidence it was abandoned. In fact the monks want Sinaiticus back and have since it was first taken. They clearly know better on this matter.

That is a myth and I address that here:

Post in thread 'Any here aware of KJVO views?'

Jun 19, 2025

I respectfully have to disagree with you BibleLover.

The Sinaiticus text was discovered in a scriptorium garbage can.

Many of not most scholars consider that a myth.

First, Constantin Tischendorf never said he found the text in a garbage can. He stated he saw “a large and wide basket full of old parchments.”

Second, Tischendorf wanted the codex and wanted to make himself look like the savior of the manuscript. The fact is he took it (some would say stole it) with the promise he would return it back to Saint Catherine’s monastery.

Third, biblical scholar and curator of...

• Origen

• 

How can misjudging obviously corrupted manuscripts be progress (I know we have different understandings on this issue - lol).

You provide no evidence for your claim.

It might be considered progress if the Alexandrian text-based manuscripts were never found. The modern translations have made it much more difficult to choose a good translation that contains the entirety of the Word (Mat 4:4), with correct readings. Myself, I have no doubt that this is a continued attack on God's Word. Why would Satan cease from this attack, seeing he has many reading corrupted texts that can't be memorized.

Again lots of claims and no evidence.

All who use these ancient codices are going to loose out on spiritual growth!

Your opinion and nothing more. Still no evidence.

"Eclecticism and the Alexandrian Text: While not solely reliant on it, modern Eclectic texts, especially those employing a "reasoned eclectic" approach, do consider the Alexandrian text type to be a significant and generally reliable witness to the New Testament's text, according to Christianity Stack Exchange (nearly all critical sources consider the. The Alexandrian text type is associated with manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, considered important early witnesses." AI Google

Even your source agrees with me. The modern critical text is "not solely reliant on it." That is just what I said.

Ignorance (not suspecting any individual of this) will be no excuse when we are rewarded with varying authoritative abilities!

Then why bring it up? Methinks thou doest protest too much.

"The Ghostly Guild " group eventually evolved into the Society for Psychical Research." -AI Google.

Don't care.

And again Westcott's son, Arthur Westcott, addresses this point.

"What happened to this Guild In the end I have not discovered - My father ceased to interest himself in these matters, not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism, but because he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good."