Reply part 2
"Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that, Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration." (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212)
Dr. Pickering's opinion is noted, the evidence from Westcott and Hort's writings do not support his contention.
==========================================================================================================================================
The Deity of Christ:
Rather than answer this nonsense, I refer the reader to the following article B.F. Westcott and the Deity of Jesus Christ: A Study in King James Onlyism by James May. A link for which is on my site
Westcott and Hort Resource Centre
===========================================================
Part quote: "(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created." (Hort, Revelation, p.36).
Full quote: False claim #1: "Hort taught that Revelation 3:15 proclaimed Christ was the first thing created, agreeing with the Gnostic teaching that Christ was a begotten god. [F. J. A. Hort, The Apocalypse of St. John 1-3: The Greek Text with Introduction, Commentary, and Additional Notes (1908; reprint, Minneapolis: James and Klock Publishing, 1976), 36.]" (Crowned With Glory, by Dr. Thomas Holland, chapter 2).
This claim by Dr. Holland is a vain and libelous attempt to portray Hort as an Arian. Hort had "deeply-rooted agreement" with official Anglican views, "above all, Creeds" (Life and Letters of Hort, volume 1, p.400). The Creeds which were written to combat heresies such as Arianism (e.g. the Nicene creed says "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father.", the Athanasian creed says "the deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory and coeternal in majesty", "the Son uncreated", "the Son eternal", "The Son is neither made nor created", etc.). It is inconceivable that Hort could believe that Christ was the first thing created, while at the same time believing the three most-accepted Creeds (Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian). But nevertheless, what does Hort actually say on page 36, regarding "the beginning of the creation" (in Rev 3:14-15)? Here it is (bold added):
" n apx. t. ktis. Prov. viii. 22, [(Prov 8:22 in Greek and Heb)] The words do not define the precise sense. On apxn, as a term cf. Col. i. 18, and for the probable idea Col. i. 16. The words might no doubt bear the Arian meaning "the first thing created": but they equally well bear the sense which the other Christological language of the book suggests, the being antecedent to all creation, in whom all creation came and comes to pass. Christ's last testimony and His earliest function seem purposely combined."
Hort did NOT "proclaim Christ was the first thing created", as Holland claimed. He simply recognized that the precise Greek words of this particular verse (n apxh thc kticwec), on their own, from a grammatical perspective could mean "the first thing created" - but they could also just as easily mean the source of creation, which is the meaning we accept because it is the meaning the rest of Revelation and the Bible (such as Col 1:16-18, which Hort mentions) and even the Creeds (with which Hort had "deeply-rooted agreement") compel us to accept.
Unsourced quote: Perhaps this is why their Greek text makes Jesus a created god (John 1:18) and their American translation had a footnote concerning John 9:38, "And he said, Lord I believe and he worshipped him," which said, "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here, or to the Creator" (thus calling Christ a creature).
===========================================================
Salvation:
Part quote: "The thought (of John 10:29) is here traced back to its most absolute form as resting on the essential power of God in His relation of Universal Fatherhood." (Westcott, St. John, p. 159).
Full quote: "and no man... my Father's (the Father's) hand} The thought, which is concrete in v. 28, is here traced back to its most absolute form as resting on the essential power of God in His relation of universal Fatherhood. The variations in expression all point in the same direction. Here it is said simply snatch, and not snatch them; can snatch, and not shall snatch
;the Father, and not my Father."
"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).
I have searched the supposedly quoted article above from beginning to end and can find no sign of it. Perhaps it is wrongly cited?
Perhaps this is why their Greek text adds to salvation in 1st Peter 2:2. And why their English version teaches universal salvation in Titus 2:11, "For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men" (ASV).
God has indeed brought salvation to all folk, "God so loved the WORLD" but it is predicated on belief. W&H are talking of the universal reconciliation which Christ's death won.
===========================================================
Hell:
Partial Quote: "(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits." (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).
Full quote: "In our confession that Christ descended into Hell, rose again, ascended into heaven, sitteth on the right hand of God, we can see perfectness of divine sympathy in every phase of our existence, absolute ennobling for every human power, access to the divine Presence beyond every confinement of sensible existence, assurance of final victory in every conflict with evil. He descended into Hell, that is, into Hades, into the common abode of departed spirits and not into the place of punishment of the guilty."
Westcott is talking of CHRIST descending into Hades, he is not denying the existence of Hell.
===========================================================
Part quote: "We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).
Full quote: "I think Maurice's letter to me sufficiently showed that we have no sure knowledge respecting the duration of future punishment, and that the word ' eternal ' has a far higher meaning than the merely material one of excessively long duration ; extinction always grates against my mind as something impossible. . . ."
Hort was 22 when he wrote these lines. Many a person has said or written something in a journal at a young age with which they disagree later. Are we all then to be judged on such things?
totopic
