Good Friday and 3:00 p.m.

reply to post by CLPrime


All makes sense to me, I appreciate your digging too, well presented. I will use this from now on in my teaching. One thing we can know for fact, is the vision and authorship of The Apocalypse wasn't prior to 70AD. That's a certainty just as a matter of historical record, but I think it's easily shredded by the Biblical text itself. Skeptics don't see that as any type of proof though.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by CLPrime

 

I also want to point out that, at the beginning of Book V, Chapter 30 of Irenaeus' Against Heresies, he writes:

"Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]."

If Irenaeus is writing 75 years after John's exile, then could he honestly call the earliest approved copies of the Revelation "ancient"?

Plus, here Irenaeus is saying that it was John who was seen. That ties in well with what he says just two paragraphs later - namely, that, "it/he was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."

It's my understanding "ancient' is a poor term to use in today's vernacular. "Earlier/previous" would fit better fit the context.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


My initial rough estimate some time ago was a date of AD 78. I knew it was either right before the destruction of Jerusalem (later AD 69 to very early 70) or some time after (mid- to late-70s). Now, in the past couple months, that I've considered the absence of the Olivet Discourse in John's Gospel and the apparent parallel between the missing Olivet Discourse and the Seals of Revelation 6 (and the fact that the Lamb had already been successful to open the Seals, implying they were past by the time John saw the vision), I would place it after the destruction of Jerusalem as well. And, on top of all that, the destruction of Jerusalem doesn't seem like a recent event, plus now given the rebuilding of Laodicea - I would say my initial estimate may have been more right that I thought at first. AD 78 seems quite reasonable.

Question: does your head hurt?


reply to post by NOTurTypical


Irenaeus calls them archaiois, which means ancient/of old. In fact, there are two places where this word occurs in the New Testament:

Matthew 5:21 -- “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’"

Matthew 5:33 -- “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’"

reply to post by CLPrime


Well obviously IMHO Jesus was talking about Moses a thousand years earlier so "ancient" would be the correct term. But I don't think Irenaeus was under the impression Revelation was written THAT long ago so "older" would be a better term to use today.

Question: does your head hurt?

No, I'm a scholar junkie, I love learning. I read about the equivalent of 5 books a week.

Why do you ask friend?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Just wondering. I love doing research like this, as well, but it usually leaves me with a headache. Trying to decipher fact from tradition from rumor from lie is fun but frustrating.

The word's use by Jesus would seem to indicate its definition - essentially, "a long time ago." Not to mention the fact that the word is the origin of the English word "archaic," the definition of which speaks for itself. The context of Irenaeus' statement doesn't suggest any other definition, as long as we don't have any preconceived ideas concerning the date of Revelation. He seems to be referring to the earliest and most approved copies of the Apocalypse as "ancient."
Not that it matters, anyway. It's just an incidental thing, it doesn't have much proving power one way or the other.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Just wondering. I love doing research like this, as well, but it usually leaves me with a headache. Trying to decipher fact from tradition from rumor from lie is fun but frustrating.

The word's use by Jesus would seem to indicate its definition - essentially, "a long time ago." Not to mention the fact that the word is the origin of the English word "archaic," the definition of which speaks for itself. The context of Irenaeus' statement doesn't suggest any other definition, as long as we don't have any preconceived ideas concerning the date of Revelation. He seems to be referring to the earliest and most approved copies of the Apocalypse as "ancient."
Not that it matters, anyway. It's just an incidental thing, it doesn't have much proving power one way or the other.

Yeah, I realize, that's kinda why I think "older/earlier" is a better word in today's tongue. naah man, I have to make myself sleep most of the time. Get about 1 good headache a year. You might need reading glasses, or better lighting in the computer room.

I dunno, I'm not a doctor, I'm a Jesus Freak.

reply to post by CLPrime


Hi CL –

I’m back in town to-day.

You wrote : QUOTE

“It is said that Tertullian, writing just 20 years after Irenaeus, made reference to John's exile being "relegatio," which is a limited exile decreed by a proconsul, not a full exile as ordered by an emperor. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to track down this reference, though several people claim it exists…”

UNQUOTE


I believe the text you are seeking is Tertullian’s An Apology On Behalf of the Christians 12:2ff which is admittedly rather vague in its relation to the relegation of exiles upon islands like Patmos. It is doubtful whether he knew more than we do (writing c. 200 CE) about 'Patmos' and the term PATMOS may be symbolic in Revelation being a gemmatrial inversion of the Hebrew consonants of the word M-SH-P-T = i.e. Mishpat (Heb. ‘Judgment’) which is after all the theme of the whole book –

It might have had a symbolic underpinning for the Author to say he saw visions (or re-interpreted older Apocalyptic texts under the influence of ‘the spirit’) upon PATMOS when any Jew of his day conversant with Hebrew or Aramaic would not be likely to miss the connexion with the common biblical/apocalyptic term MISHPAT.

And if you have little or no Latin to read Tertullian in the original (as some of the others on this threadlet), I will provide you with a modern American English translation which you can go to someone older and help you verify as you tried to do with your Koine – since you still seem a little apprehensive about what I have to say on these threadlets – as if it’s all new information to you !!!!

Tertuillian, Apologeticus pro Christianis (c. 200 CE) see 12:2b ff

XII. …In ipso opere sacrilege, ut revera nobis maxime, qui propter ipsos deos plectimur, solatium poenarum esse possit quod eadem et ipsi patiuntur ut fiant. Crucibus et stipitibus inponitis Christianos. Quod simulacrum non prius argilla deformat cruci et stipiti superstructa ? in patibulo primum corpus dei vestri dedicatur. Ungulis deraditis latera Christianorum.

At in deos vestros per omnia membra validius incumbunt asciae et runcinae et scobinae. Cervices ponimus. Ante plumbum et glutinum et gomphos sine capite sunt dei vestri. Ad bestias impellimur. Certe quas I.ibero et Cybele et Caelesti applicatis. Ignibus urimur. Hoc et illi a prima quidem massa. In metalla damnamur. Inde censentur dei vestri. In insulis relegamur. Solet et in insula aliqui deus vester aut nasci aut mori…."


“Within this work of sacrilege it seems to us to be a great Consolatio in our Sufferings when we are tortured because of the gods, to reflect that they too suffer in the same ways, in order to be born as such - after all, you suspend the Christiani upon Cruces and stakes ; what idol is there but is first moulded in wet-clay, suspended upon a cross by [wooden] supports?

It is on a gibbet that the body of your god [Orpheus or Dionysius or Attis etal.) is first dedicated. With hooks you slice up the bodies of the Christiani ; but upon on your gods, over every one of them in fact,, fall axes and planes and rasps (in their making).

We lay down our necks [i.e. upon the blocks to lose our heads]; before the lead, the glue, the nails, your gods don’t even have their heads put on yet. We are driven to the beasts, — those self-same beasts which you dediccate to Liber, to Ceres, to the Celestial Mother.

We are burnt in the flames ; so are your [molten] gods when they are still in the first state of the ore. We are condemned to the mines ; the self-same place where your own gods are formed out of (i.e. idols).

We are banished to Islands ; often one of your own gods will be born on one, or will die upon an Island too…”

Etc.

There is no specific expressed 'date' for the writing of the book of Revelation as expressed by the author(s) in the text (especially in its mangled Greek form we have to claw through by comparing mangled fragments then trying to put the book together into something comprehensible !) – only hints here and there (NERON QSR = 666 and NERO QSR = 616) or the mentioning of the Court of the Goyim in the 2nd Temple of Herod STILL STANDING and OCCUPIED by gentiles (which would indicate pre 70 CE date) in chapter 11:1-2, the same chapter that gave us the explicit time-framed phrase for a Resurrections:

‘AND AFTER THE PERIOD OF THREE AND ONE HALF DAYS (following Heb. Daniel’s A Time, Two Time and half a Time) the SPIRIT OF LIFE AGAIN ENTERED INTO THEIR CORPSES AND THEY ROSE AND STOOD ON THEIR FEET…” – where ‘on the Third day he was exalted’ takes another twist for early Christians’ understanding of the ‘mystical Resurrection’ of R. Yehoshua on the lips of believers after his martyrdom (or ‘execution for armed Sedition’ – depending upon which side of the religio-political fence you are standing !)

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Hi Not --

You wrote something rather odd : QUOTE

"One thing we can know for fact, is the vision and authorship of The Apocalypse wasn't prior to 70AD. That's a certainty just as a matter of historical record, but I think it's easily shredded by the Biblical text itself. Skeptics don't see that as any type of proof though..."

UNQUOTE

Can you REALLY know that for a fact? Really?

If so you are in the minority (at least as far as serious scholarship is concerned !) especially since all the Apocalyptic War Scroll material found among Caves 1-11 in the Dead Sea Scrolls have since come to light and bear upon both contents and style of Relevlation -

In fact, a date c. 66-80 CE was being posited by scholars studying the mangled text of Revelation even before the year 1900 by a large chunk of scholars poring over the Stinky Greek mess of this (apparently unfinished) Apocalyptic work which bears every trace of being originally an Aramaic or Hebrew (or mixed language work like 'Daniel') Lament Poem in Qinah Metre.

In Chapter 11:1-2 of the Book of Revelation the '2nd Temple' is apparently still standing (it was burned to the ground by the Romans in 70 CE after a long siege) and of course in chapter 13 there seems to be an unmistakable reference to the divine Roman Emperor Nero who was a Mithras Worshipper (with its brand or mark of the beast - i.e. upon the right hand/forehead as a kindd of anti Phylacterie - worn by Orthodox Jews on the LEFT hand !) and who liked to make golden idol-statues of himself (e.g. the Colossus of Nero which gave rise to the name for the 'Coliseum', eventually, tho' after his death !) which 1st century apocalyptic Jews (and Christians in the mid 1st century often were just the same group with a different nickname) would have seen as having prophetic-parallels with the worshipped-Molten Idol of Aramaic Daniel and the Abomination which causes Desolation etc. originally fingering Antiochus IV but reapplied in later years to the Divine Roman Emperors who even had temples with real priests burning real Incense to them after they were voted in by the Senate to be a god after their deaths - and in the case of Nero (or Tiberius and Gaius before him) even while they were still alive.

This pre-occupation with Domitian and his alleged persecution of Jews & Christians in the Empire (for not worshipping him as a god) in terms of the time frame for Revelation among some 'fundamentalist' Christians especially in America (whatever that term actually means, if anything) is curious -

Perhaps there is the need among English speaking modern day Christians (following the uncomforatble discovery of 'embarrasingly comparable' Jewish War Texts found in Caves 1-11 at Qumran near the Dead Sea in 1946 and earlier) a desire to distance themselves from Jewish Zionist Jihadists = and a reluctance to see the Book of Revelation for what it really is - which when all is said and done - is clearly an Apocalyptic zionist Priestly Propaganda (i.e. anti Gentile Jihadist) Holy War End of Days Warrior Messiah Document penned during the lull in the fighting in 69 CE which quotes large portions of the gist material of the War Scroll (1QM - Milkhama) to a greater or lesser degree -

There are many internal pieces of literary evidence within the mangled Greek text of this book which point not to the time of Domitian (although a later generation of Apocalyptically minded Jews & Christians during the reign of Domition were copying out the book and probably adding and subtracting to the text in order to make it 'apply' to their own times) but to the time following the death or 'disappearance' of Nero Caesar in 68/69 CE, the years of the 4 Emperors when those in Judaea who were in open rebellion against Rome 'saw their chance while Rome was tottering' (at least, from their point of view, 4 Emperors in one year does suggest shall we say 'instability' at the top to say the least.

Would you like to argue your point with some hard facts (or even internal evidence from the text itself) rather than trying to mis-quote later Chuch 'fathers', whose words (even if you could read them in their orginal) are so ffar removed from the times are of little historical worth (or at least less than some would posit !) and of course, some of them had their own agenda in trying to link the book with this or that person...

Whereas modern critical studies can look at the mangled mess in Greek and make new discoveries with fresh eyes, as it were.

Originally posted by Sigismundus

I will provide you with a modern American English translation which you can go to someone older and help you verify as you tried to do with your Koine – since you still seem a little apprehensive about what I have to say on these threadlets – as if it’s all new information to you !!!!

I have no one older (or younger, for that matter) who knows Latin. I don't know Latin, and I have no urge to learn Latin. So, in this case, an English translation is appreciated.

I also want to tell you (again) that my going to someone older was not because my Greek is lacking. As I said, his Greek is rusty, and, at this point, my own knowledge is a little better than his. I went to him because he's a very good friend of mine, as well as my mentor and brother in Christ. I wanted his input.

I'm not an blind textual critic. I'm a preacher and a self-researcher. I translate Greek text because I don't trust most modern English translations of Scripture. When I translated Revelation, I most certainly noticed at least some of what you've pointed out. The difference between you and I is that you take these "solecisms" and immediately conclude that the book was written by an idiot, whereas I make very little of them. If anything, I would say they indicate that the apostle John had less-than-perfected his Greek at the time of writing. Combined with the fact that John was writing while the vision was occurring, I can completely understand his "messy" grammar.
I will tell you, though, as I translated Revelation, it was obvious to me that, by the end of the book, John was rushing his writing, using what could almost be called shorthand to abbreviate sentences. Again, I would attribute this to John writing while seeing the vision and being rushed, as well as the fact that this is 22 chapters we're talking about here - that's a lot to write down while experiencing this whole thing.

For me, John's writing is completely understandable.

reply to post by Sigismundus


Since when did majority opinion determine truth?

reply to post by CLPrime


Hi CL

You wrote: QUOTE

"...as I translated Revelation, it was obvious to me that, by the end of the book, John was rushing his writing, using what could almost be called shorthand to abbreviate sentences. Again, I would attribute this to John writing while seeing the vision and being rushed, as well as the fact that this is 22 chapters we're talking about here - that's a lot to write down while experiencing this whole thing. For me, John's writing is completely understandable...."

UNQUOTE

The issue is that the person who worked on the Greek translation from the Heb/Aram. was clearly not up to the job of translating the text in front of him which was clearly a Qinah Lament (in poetic form) document which he may not have understood in many places.

In view of the dozens and dozens of Grammatical Howlers in the text copies, I cannot understand how anyone could possibly EVER claim that John's writing is 'completely understandable' - when it is clear that it is written in a Levitical 2nd Temple kind of Apocalyhptic Code that CAN ONLY begin to make sense in the context of 2nd Century Temple-Zadokite Levetical Sacrificial & Liturgical Hebrew and Aramaic in the context of Roman Occupation & Zionist Mesianic Jihadist Rebellion of 66 CE - 72 CE - the text fragments that have come down to us make little or no sense in the Greek in so many places otherwise...

So although it is a worthwhile exercise to try and 'translate' the Greek mess in front of you into a modern language (good luck !) one must have a working knowledge not only of 1st century Koine Greek, but also of Aramaic and Hebrew (especially of the Dead Sea Scrolls caves 1-11 fragments variety) in order to get at the base Ur-Text (original, or under-text) upon which the Stinky Koine Greek of the mangled text is based.

Unfortunately we do not possess the Aramaic/Hebrew poetic original text (which might not have been completely finished) so scholars have to try and guess their way (intelligent guessing but open for finer points of debate)through to see what lay at the bottom (think of the Leonardo Last Supper, when Barcillon peeled away 11 layers of other people's re-touching since 1510 - including some of Leonardo's own oil paint retouching of the original tempera-glue mix -to get back to the original layers - not always possible - but when it does emerge - POW ! - it's like sheet-lightning - !

Look at the now-emergent Da Vinci like faces and widely spaced hands of 'Yakkov bar Zavdai' (=James the Greater) one of the sons of Thunder, and the face/hands of the gesturing ho-Phillipos - then take a look at Yakkov's originally brilliant green tunic - 94% of which is now gone forever - but we have good copies (e.g. the Tongerlo) which shows how wonderful this tunic once looked ! )

It's the same with this book - you have to have the right linguistic tools at your disposal to wrap your arms around what is trying to be said here - I would suggest you get a Translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls with a focus on 1QM (The War Scroll) then a copy of the Targums of the LITERARY source material used in the book (it is clearly a literary composition in midrashic expansion form, not a 'real time' rushing Vision that had to be written down in the heat of the moment as you claim -

The borrowed-stolen-adapted Literary Source Material is staggering in terms of its overt plagiarism & shows that this is a LITERARY REVELATION not a real vision i.e. stolen e.g. from 1 Henoch, The Testaments of the 12, Jubilees (aka the Test. Moses), the Plagues in Exodus 7-10, images from the 7 Tamid (= Morning - Evening Sacrificial) Psalms of the 2nd Temple = Sunday Ps 24, Monday Ps 48, Tue Ps 82, Wed Ps 94, Thurs Ps 81, Fri Ps 93, Shabbat 92 - to which was added the Song of Moses) - with images that are LITURGICALLY BASED in the context of a HOLY WAR agains the Goyim (gentiles) alla the targum of Isaiah 30:32 - which explains all the Holy War-Hymns

Every stroke YHWH lays on them with his punishing club
will be set to the music of timbrels & harps,
as he fights them in battle with the blows of his Right Arm.
Topheth is prepared for King Messiah.
Its fire Pit is deep & wide, with an abundance of fire & wood;
For the breath of YHWH like a stream of burning sulfur sets it ablaze.

Also see the Aramaic Targum of proto Isaiah (e.g. 1:1-28, 2:10-20, 4:2-4, 6:1-9, 8:7-9, 11:1-20, 8:22-25, 13:21-25, 14:12-14, 19:4-18, 24:8-23, 25:8-10 . 26:14-19. 30:33-35, 33:1-4, 34:4-15 etc.)

Also excerpts from Daniel & Jeremiah & Zechariah (using the same source as Theodotion's translation not the LXX !), Psalms of Solomon, The Assumption of Moses, snippets from Proverbs & the Dead Sea Scrolls....

The other issue is 'what exact Koine Greek text version' did you use to translate? That is a very important point, since it affects what comes out in modern American English at the other end !!

Originally posted by Sigismundus

The other issue is 'what exact Koine Greek text version' did you use to translate? That is a very important point, since it affects what comes out in modern American English at the other end !!

I used the text of Westcott and Hort. I've also made use of the images and transcripts they did of the Codex Sinaiticus (though, of course, I don't have them in the sense that it's some great feat to get a hold of them - they are, after all, freely available to anyone who wants to Google them).

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by Sigismundus

The other issue is 'what exact Koine Greek text version' did you use to translate? That is a very important point, since it affects what comes out in modern American English at the other end !!

I used the text of Westcott and Hort. I've also made use of the images and transcripts they did of the Codex Sinaiticus (though, of course, I don't have them in the sense that it's some great feat to get a hold of them - they are, after all, freely available to anyone who wants to Google them).

Do you realize they were demon worshipers? And had contempt for the TR?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


That's funny, considering how freely Dr. Westcott proclaimed the deity of Christ in his writings. Not to menton the fact that key "evidence" supporting Westcott's occultism comes from a confusion of B.F. Westcott with W.W. Westcott, who was, indeed, into the occult but had no association with Westcott and Hort.

Westcott was a member of the Ghostly Guild, a group investigating supernatural occurrences, but he later wrote, concerning this group, "Many years ago I had occasion to investigate spiritualistic phenomena with some care, and I came to a clear conclusion, which I feel bound to express in answer to your circular. It appears to me that in this, as in all spiritual questions, Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them."

His views on the Bible should be obvious.

The only serious criticism against Westcott and Hort that we find comes from fellow experts who disagreed with their use of the Alexandrian manuscripts over the Byzantine text used as the basis of the KJV. And this is the only legitimate contention that exists today.

Personally, I don't prefer the Alexandrian text over the Byzantine text. I just used the Alexandrian text because I had it.

reply to post by CLPrime

Hi again, CL Prime –

You wrote QUOTE

“I used the text of Westcott and Hort. I've also made use of the images and transcripts they did of the Codex Sinaiticus…”

UNQUOTE

Basing a translation on one textual reconstruction from the 19th century (W&H) to translate out of is (obviously!) a highly-questionable procedure - especially when dealing with such a complex grammatico-textual Mess as we have with the so-called 'Book of Revelation' where no two copies within the Greek MSS families are alike.

As you should have noticed, Codex Sinaiticus makes a number of deliberate textual changes to the Greek of the book in order to improve the Syntax (plus it retains several rare readings) which are often different from the deliberate textual changes (and other rare readings) made by Codex Alexandrinus (A) and Ephraemi Palimpsest (C) - the old Sinaiticus v. A and C War of the Bad Greek texts.

One of the major issues with the Koine Greek NT edition of Westcott & Hort and their sometimes fanciful Greek ‘reconstructions’ of many parts of the Apocalypse (first pub. 1882) is that so many new Koine MSS have come to light since their time (now more than 130 years ago !) – which would have affected their own Greek textual reconstructions (which deliberately adjust the stinky-Greek of the writer of the Apocalypse into something that is almost legible or passible Greek (one of the reasons why you did not see many ‘grammatical howlers’ no doubt – but they also take great liberties with the UrText at times and do not tend to quote the ‘church fathers’ variant versions of the text of the book (e.g. the Greek quotes of Origen, Hippolytus of Rome, Methodius or even Eusebius (when quoting/paraphrasing Dionysius of Alexandria) – which differ at times with Sinaticus or with A and C or the Papyri – often given brand new ‘readings’ altogether.

Contemporary with W&H would be the studies of Wilhelm Bousset (1865-1923) and Schmid etal. The issue is which MSS family does one favour, the Codex Alexandrinus and Ephraemi readings or the Codex Sinaiticus and certain older Papyri? If one over the other, why exactly? Since the author’s bad Greek syntax is NOT uniform (despite the attempts of some in recent years to state categorically that the bad Greek is ‘consistently bad Greek on purpose, in the form of a social protest ’, sort of like Allen Ginsber’s ‘Howl’ deliberately tries to shock his audience by using bad American-English grammatical forms ‘on purpose’ etc.

Some of the earlier Papyri (e.g. p115) tend to ‘agree’ (often but not always !) with the majority readings found in Codex Alexandrinus (A) and Codex Ephraemi (C) but often DO NOT agree with the strong but alternative readings found e.g. p47 and Sinaiticus – so there is a great deal of arbitrariness about the whole thing. The book could have been published/released in at least two different literary forms (like the 2nd canonical Greek gospel might have done), who’s to say?

Nestle and Aland are now in their 26th printing ‘edition’ of the Greek NT and still counting. That means the first 25 editions they produced were (obviously) defective in some ways – which is not at all surprising in view of all the new MSS discoveries over the past 25 years, especially with the advent of the world wide Web and all the online sharing of rare MSS copies worldwide which has thrown a BIG monkey wrench in to older Apocalypse textual studies which had to make use of far fewer MSS fragments than what we have at our fingertips today. But even Nestle-Aland do not cite lacunae (major gaps) and do not cite eastern textual ‘church father’ variants like the ones that echo Codex Ephraemi very often, which is strange to say the least.

Probably the reason why so many of these older Greek reconstructive scholars came a cropper is that their choices in ‘readings’ (when one reading is preferred over another) are often guided (unconsciously?) by their own 'fundamentalist Christian' dogmatic mind set rather than a more scientifically ‘neutral’ approach to the messy manuscript conundrum as a pure science…which hopefully will begin to change if people would only look at the MSS evidence for what it is...warts ande all - without any faith-based dogmatic pre-conceptions which are forever making the messy Greek texts say what THEY want them to say !

Fat chance !!

reply to post by CLPrime

Personally, I don't prefer the Alexandrian text over the Byzantine text. I just used the Alexandrian text because I had it.

Amen. And they founded the Hermes Club, which you mentioned. That's necromancy, it was a capital offense in the OT. "Ghost chasers". (demons) They were also members of Madame Blavatsky's Theosophy Society, and if you know anything about Luciferians that should make you shudder.

He certainly didn't proclaim the deity of Christ, nor the blood atonement, said he felt the Romish view of Christianity was more true than the Evangelical (works salvation + Jesus as a condiment), Felt Maryolotry was just as important as Christ worship, and I could go on.

One quote from him I agree with:

"Most assuredly I should have been called a heretic."

Yes you should have, yes indeed.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

And they founded the Hermes Club, which you mentioned. That's necromancy, it was a capital offense in the OT. "Ghost chasers". (demons)

The Hermes Club was originally called the Philological Society. Westcott's son, Arthur, wrote that the club was founded as an essay-reading group, and it continued to be so until its disbanding in 1848. The minutes of their meetings relate that the essays Westcott read were as follows: The Lydian Origin of the Etruscans, The Nominative Absolute, The Roman Games of Ball, The so-called Aoristic Use of the Perfect in Latin, The Funeral Ceremonies of the Romans, The Eleatic School of Philosophy, The Mythology of the Homeric Poems, The Theology of Aristotle, and Theramenes.
Hardly necromantic.
The club was apparently renamed "Hermes" because he was the Greek messenger of the gods - the one who spoke. It also was for this reason that the people of Lystra began calling Paul "Hermes" when he and Barnabas came to them (Acts 14:12).
Again, hardly necromantic or demonic in any way. Merely historical. They read historical essays. That's all. In fact, that's what we should expect from a man who went on to compile historical manuscripts.

They were also members of Madame Blavatsky's Theosophy Society, and if you know anything about Luciferians that should make you shudder.

There is absolutely no evidence that Hort ever had anything to do with Blavatsky or her Theosophy Society. And Brooke Foss Westcott was certainly not a member of the Society - however, William Wynn Westcott was. The "evidence" that B.F. Westcott was a member of the society is a confusion of these two very different men.

He certainly didn't proclaim the deity of Christ, nor the blood atonement, said he felt the Romish view of Christianity was more true than the Evangelical (works salvation + Jesus as a condiment), Felt Maryolotry was just as important as Christ worship, and I could go on.

Westcott would disagree.
He wrote the following:

"It is of interest to notice that ‘love’ is connected by St Paul with each Person of the Holy Trinity,” (Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, p. 133)

"The mode in which ‘Jesus’ — still truly man — was made known to him [St Paul] carried with it the conviction, complete at once, that He was also in nature truly Divine," (Westcott, The Revelation of the Risen Lord, p. 195)

"As Christians we believe in God: we believe also in Jesus Christ. It is, let us boldly avow it, an amazing faith. We cast the burden of our lives upon Him Who, very man, had borne it upon earth, upon Him Who has fulfilled by living, dying, rising again, every promise to Jew or Greek through which the Father encouraged the world to look for redemption and consummation: upon Him Whom we confess in the fullness of His Deity as the only Son of God, and in the absoluteness of His sovereignty as our Lord," (Westcott, The Historic Faith, p. 54).

"Let us cling to our faith in Him, Whom we openly confess, as truly human, truly divine," (Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 106).

One quote from him I agree with:

"Most assuredly I should have been called a heretic."

Yes you should have, yes indeed.

Do you have a source for that quote? Assuming you have it handy...I don't want to send you off on another hunt.