A note on some of the above. In the event Mr. Kurschner will take me to task for referring to what some will term the outdated methodology of FJA Hort, let me preemptively deal with such a rejoinder.
I have seen it said by Dr. White, and Alan no doubt shares the view, that “While modern Greek texts are not identical to that created by Westcott and Hort, one will still find defenders of the AV drawing in black and white, saying that all modern versions are based upon their work.” (
The King James Only Controversy, by James White [Bethany, 1995], p. 99). Is not this equivalent to saying, “Modern versions are not based upon the W&H Greek text”?
For those interested in looking at this issue, I suggest David Cloud’s book,
Examining “The King James Only Controversy” – the link is to the online version’s part 3 – and enter into your browser’s Find feature
WHITE DENIES A DIRECT CONNECTION to be taken to the section on this. A excerpt from that section:
White and many others attempting to discredit King James Bible defense also claim that Westcott and Hort are not important because (as they say) "the modern versions (NASV and NIV) are not based on the Alexandrian text or on the Westcott and Hort text. They are based on an eclectic text which sometimes favors the TR over Aleph or B."
This is true as far as it goes, but it ignores the heart of the issue. The fact is that the United Bible Societies (UBS) text is almost identical to the W-H text of 1881 in significant departures from the Received Text. For example, both the W-H and the UBS delete or question almost the same number of verses (WH--48, UBS--45). Both delete almost the same number of significant portions of verses (WH--193, UBS 185). Both delete almost the same number of names and titles of the Lord (WH--221, UBS--212). An extensive comparison of the TR against the WH text, the Nestle’s Text, the UBS text, and key English versions was done by the late Everett Fowler and can be seen in his book Evaluating Versions of the New Testament, available from Bible for Today.
The W-H text of 1881 and the latest edition of the United Bible Societies’ text differ only in relatively minor points. Both represent the same TYPE of text with the same TYPE of departures from the Received Text.
The fact is that the Westcott-Hort text represents the first widely-accepted departure from the TR in the post-Reformation era, and the modern English versions descend directly from it. It is a very significant text and its editors are highly significant to the history of textual criticism. Any man who discounts the continuing significance of Westcott-Hort in the field of Bible texts and versions is probably trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide something. (In the book, this section is found on pp. 88-91)
------------
[The following, in the same vein, is from a paper of my own.] The two MSS,
a and B, are the basis of both Westcott and Hort’s Greek Revision supplanting the TR, and subsequently most all modern Bible versions.
This is to show the vital connection between the W&H text and the modern versions, a connection denied by both Alan Kurschner and Dr. White. In 1928 textual critic and scholar, Professor Kirsopp Lake of Harvard, wrote:
…more important than anything else was the publication of the critical text and introduction of Drs. Westcott and Hort…This work is the foundation of nearly all modern criticism, and demands close attention.[1]
In 1964 Greek scholar J. Harold Greenlee was still able to affirm,
The textual theories of W-H underlie virtually all subsequent work in NT criticism.[2]
In 1990 Philip Wesley Comfort, textual critic and scholar, although lauding new manuscript discoveries (from Egypt), still builds upon the Hortian theory, maintains the foundational validity of his and Westcott’s text, and supports his “minority” readings.[3] In
The NIV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament,[4] Alfred Marshall (editor) states (p. xix) that although the Greek text used in the interlinear is Nestle’s
Novum Testamentum Graece (based essentially on W&H’s Greek Revision), the NIV uses “an eclectic” Greek text (i.e., the translators choose from various readings). But in practice the NIV – and modern versions generally – retain the distinctive readings which are found in the W&H text.
This connection between the WH critical text and the modern CT seen in UBS 4th Ed. and the N/A 27th – and the modern versions deriving from them – is a matter we shall return to, if not here, then in another thread (being prepared) on the Lord’s Prayer as found in the AV/TR and the CT/modern versions at Matthew 6:13 and Luke 11:2-4. As some of you may know, the CT omits the ending of the Lord’s Prayer in Matt 6:13, and hopelessly butchers the whole thing in Luke.
1
The Text of the New Testament, by Kirsopp Lake (London: Rivingtons, 1928), page 67.
2
Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, by J.H. Greenlee (MI: Wm. B. Erdmanns Publishers Co., 1964), page 78.
3
Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament, by Philip Wesley Comfort (MI: Baker Books, 1996 ed,), pages 12, 13, and 14.
4 (MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1976).