If one were consistent in such reasoning, one should also reject the Masoretic text of the Old Testament, since it was created by Jews who did not believe in Jesus. The King James Version as well as many other translations are based on the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament. Yet this text was prepared by the Masoretes, who were Jewish. Jesus spoke of the Jews (represented by Jerusalem): Luke 13:35 - Behold, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of Jehovah!'" (Luke 13:35) Should not one, if consistent, also reject the Masoretic text as being a Jewish text?
Many of those who reject the Westcott & Hort text claim the Textus Receptus, or at least the King James Version translation of the Textus Receptus, is without error, etc. Of course, the King James Version New Testament is almost entirely based on the Textus Receptus.
The Textus Receptus is the later designation of the work of Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus himself was a member of the Cahtolic Church. For an example of how the Catholic Church influenced Erasmus' text, we find that Erasumus -- due to the pressure from the Catholic Church -- included in 1 John 5:7 what many refer to as the "Comma Johanneum," a phrase thought to be describing the "trinity".
The Textus Receptus is the later designation of the work of Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus himself was a member of the Cahtolic Church. For an example of how the Catholic Church influenced Erasmus' text, we find that Erasumus -- due to the pressure from the Catholic Church -- included in 1 John 5:7 what many refer to as the "Comma Johanneum," a phrase thought to be describing the "trinity".
Links to Studies Related to 1 John 5:7
Nevertheless, we would probably not have any Greek text at all if the Catholic Church scribes had not produced and preserved copies of the text. God, of course, can make use of anyone whom he wishes in order to preserve the Bible. We have no found a listing of how many of more than 5,000 Greek fragments and manuscripts were copied by Catholic scribes, but it appears that most of them were copied by Catholics. Some have claimed that among these manuscripts, there are no two that are completely alike, meaning that some kind of error may be in all of them. Nevertheless, if God made use of the Jewish Scribes in preserving the Old Testament, even though they were not faithful, surely he could also make use of Catholic scribes in the preservation of the New Testament, even though errors may have crept into both the Old Testament as well as the New Testament texts, irrespective as to who were the copyists.
Consequently, if one wishes to reject the Westcott & Hort text because Westcott & Hort were of Catholic background, the same argument could be presented related the Textus Receptus, and probably even more so.
Regardless, we believe that God's Divine Plan of the Ages can be seen to be harmonious regardless as to which text one may use; this extends to the King James Version itself also, as far as the major scriptures that would affect the true Gospel are concerned.
For more study pertaining to this, see the following:
Westcott & Hort - Were They Spiritualists?
(We do not necessarily agree with all conclusions presented by these authors):
Westcott & Hort - Were They Spiritualists?
(We do not necessarily agree with all conclusions presented by these authors):
No comments:
Post a Comment