Westcott and Hort: Difference between revisions
update material on the authors, Hort and Westcott. |
added wikilink |
||
(39 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Greek-language version of the New Testament}} |
|||
{{Italic title}} |
|||
[[File:The New Testament in the original Greek - 1881.djvu|thumb|page=9]] |
[[File:The New Testament in the original Greek - 1881.djvu|thumb|page=9]] |
||
'''''The New Testament in the Original Greek''''' is a Greek-language version of the [[New Testament]] published in 1881. It is also known as the '''Westcott and Hort''' text, after its editors [[Brooke Foss Westcott]] (1825–1901) and [[Fenton John Anthony Hort]] (1828–1892). |
'''''The New Testament in the Original Greek''''' is a Greek-language version of the [[New Testament]] published in 1881. It is also known as the '''Westcott and Hort''' text, after its editors [[Brooke Foss Westcott]] (1825–1901) and [[Fenton John Anthony Hort]] (1828–1892). Textual scholars use the abbreviations "'''WH'''" {{sfn|Epp|Fee|1993|p=22}} or "'''WHNU'''".<ref>[[BibleGateway.com]], [https://classic.biblegateway.com/versions/1881-Westcott-Hort-Greek-New-Testament-WHNU/ 1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament (WHNU)], accessed 26 June 2021</ref> It is a [[Textual criticism|critical text]], compiled from some of the oldest New Testament fragments and texts that had been discovered at the time. |
||
{{cite book |
|||
| last1 = Epp |
|||
| first1 = Eldon J. |
|||
| last2 = Fee |
|||
| first2 = Gordon D. |
|||
| author-link2 = Gordon D. Fee |
|||
| title = Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism |
|||
| url = https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XCCfBCdQT3wC |
|||
| series = Studies and documents |
|||
| volume = 45 |
|||
| publisher = Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing |
|||
| publication-date = 1993 |
|||
| page = 22 |
|||
| isbn = 9780802827739 |
|||
| accessdate = 2014-07-02 |
|||
⚫ | |||
}} |
|||
</ref>) |
|||
It is a [[Textual criticism|critical text]], compiled from some of the oldest New Testament fragments and texts that had been discovered at the time. Although there is substantial disagreement as to the reliability and particularly the divine inspiration of the Alexandrian texts from which Hort and Westcott rely. This is due in part because of the Gnostic influence believed to have undermined their thinking. Both Hort, nor Westcott had serious questions and criticisms as to the voracity of various Bible doctrines. Because of this the question of inspiration is seriously questioned by many fundamentalist Bible Scholars. |
|||
⚫ | Westcott and Hort state: "[It is] our belief that even among the numerous unquestionably spurious readings of the New Testament there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes."{{sfn|Westcott|Hort|1896|p=282}} They find that without orthographic differences, doubtful textual variants exist only in one sixtieth of the whole New Testament (with most of them being comparatively trivial variations), with the substantial variations forming hardly more than one thousandth of the entire text.{{sfn|Westcott|Hort|1896|p=2}} |
||
Westcott wrote: "I never read an account of a miracle (in Scripture?) but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it." (Life, Vol.I, p.52). |
|||
⚫ | According to Hort, "Knowledge of Documents should precede Final Judgments upon Readings". The two editors favoured two manuscripts: [[Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209|Vaticanus]] and [[Codex Sinaiticus|Sinaiticus]]. They also believed that the combination of [[Codex Bezae]] with the [[Vetus Latina|Old Latin]] and the [[Peshitta|Old Syriac]] represents the original form of the New Testament text, especially when it is shorter than other forms of the text, such as the majority of the [[Byzantine text-type]].{{sfn|Aland|Aland|1995|p=236}} In this they followed one of the primary principles of their fledgling textual criticism, ''[[lectio brevior]]'', sometimes taken to an extreme, as in the theory of [[Western non-interpolations]], which has since been rejected.{{sfn|Aland|Aland|1995|p=33}} |
||
Hort wrote "Further I agree with them [Authors of "Essays and Reviews"] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology ... Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible." [Letter to Rev. Rowland Williams, October 21, 1858] |
|||
Other sources of their doubts as to the infallibility of the Bible may be found in various discussions: https://www.christianforums.com/threads/gnostic-alexandrian-manuscripts-why-westcott-and-hort-picked-it-up.7623389/ |
|||
Hort and Westcott worked together for 28 years. |
|||
Westcott and Hort state: "[It is] our belief that even among the numerous unquestionably spurious readings of the New Testament there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes."<ref>Brooke Foss Westcott, Fenton John Anthony Hort, '[https://books.google.com/books?id=0xtVAAAAMAAJ&pg=ACfU3U33CMW3331Vv20NgGvjyOs52I1mlA&vq=%22will+not+be+out+of+place+to+add+here+a+distinct+expression+of+our+belief+that+even+among+the+numerous%22&source=gbs_quotes_r&cad=2_0#PPA283,M1 'The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction, Appendix''], p. 282.</ref> |
|||
⚫ | |||
<ref>{{cite book|last=Westcott and Hort|title=The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction Appendix|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7ZxUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA2&dq=The+New+Testament+in+the+Original+Greek&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false}}, p.2</ref> |
|||
⚫ | According to Hort, "Knowledge of Documents should precede Final Judgments upon Readings". The two editors favoured two manuscripts: [[Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209|Vaticanus]] and [[Codex Sinaiticus|Sinaiticus]]. They also believed that the combination of [[Codex Bezae]] with the [[Vetus Latina|Old Latin]] and the [[Peshitta|Old Syriac]] represents the original form of the New Testament text, especially when it is shorter than other forms of the text, such as the majority of the [[Byzantine text-type]]. |
||
</ref> In this they followed one of the primary principles of their fledgling textual criticism, ''[[lectio brevior]]'', sometimes taken to an extreme, as in the theory of [[Western non-interpolations]], which has since been rejected.<ref>Aland, Kurt and Barbara. ''The Text of the New Testament'', Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1995, p. 33</ref> |
|||
== WH edition == |
== WH edition == |
||
[[File:Wyh.jpg|thumb|[[Brooke Foss Westcott]] and [[Fenton John Anthony Hort]]]] |
[[File:Wyh.jpg|thumb|[[Brooke Foss Westcott]] and [[Fenton John Anthony Hort]]]] |
||
Westcott and Hort distinguished four text types in their studies. The most recent is the Syrian, or [[Byzantine text-type]] (eastern), of which the newest example is the [[Textus Receptus]] and thus from the critical text view is less likely reliable. The [[Western text-type]] is much older, but tends to paraphrase, so according to the critical text view also lacks dependability. The [[Alexandrian text-type]], exemplified in the [[Codex Ephraemi]], exhibits a polished Greek style. The two scholars identified their favorite text type as "Neutral text", exemplified by two 4th-century manuscripts, the [[Codex Vaticanus]] (known to scholars since the 15th century), and the [[Codex Sinaiticus]] (discovered in 1859), both of which they relied on heavily (albeit not exclusively) for this edition. This text has only a few changes of the original. |
Westcott and Hort distinguished four text types in their studies. The most recent is the Syrian, or [[Byzantine text-type]] (eastern), of which the newest example is the [[Textus Receptus]] and thus from the critical text view is less likely reliable. The [[Western text-type]] is much older, but tends to paraphrase, so according to the critical text view also lacks dependability. The [[Alexandrian text-type]], exemplified in the [[Codex Ephraemi]], exhibits a polished Greek style. The two scholars identified their favorite text type as "Neutral text", exemplified by two 4th-century manuscripts, the [[Codex Vaticanus]] (known to scholars since the 15th century), and the [[Codex Sinaiticus]] (discovered in 1859), both of which they relied on heavily (albeit not exclusively) for this edition. This text has only a few changes of the original.{{sfn|Schumacher|1923|p=53}} This edition is based on the critical works especially of Tischendorf and Tregelles.{{sfn|Schumacher|1923|p=53}} The minuscules play a minimal role in this edition.{{sfn|Holmes|2003|p=128}} |
||
Westcott and Hort worked on their Testament from 1853 until its completion in 1881. |
Westcott and Hort worked on their Testament from 1853 until its completion in 1881.{{sfn|Metzger|Ehrman|2005|p=174}} It was followed by an ''Introduction and Appendix'' by Hort appearing in a second volume in 1882. In 1892, a revised edition was released by [[Francis Crawford Burkitt|F. C. Burkitt]].{{citation needed|date=July 2014}} |
||
== Reception == |
== Reception == |
||
The edition of Westcott and Hort began a new epoch in the history of textual criticism. |
The edition of Westcott and Hort began a new epoch in the history of textual criticism.{{sfn|Schumacher|1923|p=53}} Most critical editions published after Westcott and Hort share their preference of the Alexandrian text-type and therefore are similar to ''The New Testament in the Original Greek''. An exception is the text edited by [[Hermann von Soden]]. Soden's edition stands much closer to the text of [[Constantin von Tischendorf|Tischendorf]] than to the text of Westcott and Hort. All editions of [[Novum Testamentum Graece|Nestle-Aland]] remain close in textual character to the text WH. [[Kurt Aland|Aland]] reports that, while NA25 text shows, for example, 2,047 differences from von Soden, 1,996 from Vogels, 1,268 from Tischendorf, 1,161 from Bover, and 770 from Merk, it contains only 558 differences from WH text.{{sfn|Aland|Aland|1995|pp=26-30}} |
||
According to [[Bruce M. Metzger]], "the general validity of their critical principles and procedures is widely acknowledged by scholars today." |
According to [[Bruce M. Metzger]], "the general validity of their critical principles and procedures is widely acknowledged by scholars today."{{sfn|Metzger|Ehrman|2005|p=136}} |
||
In 1981 Metzger said: |
In 1981 Metzger said: |
||
{{blockquote|The international committee that produced the ''United Bible Societies'' Greek New Testament, not only adopted the Westcott and Hort edition as its basic text, but followed their methodology in giving attention to both external and internal consideration.|source={{harvnb|Brooks|1999|p=264}} }} |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
[[Philip Comfort]] gave this opinion: |
[[Philip Comfort]] gave this opinion: |
||
{{blockquote| |
|||
The text produced by Westcott and Hort is still to this day, even with so many more manuscript discoveries, a very close reproduction of the primitive text of the New Testament. Of course, I think they gave too much weight to Codex Vaticanus alone, and this needs to be tempered. This criticism aside, the Westcott and Hort text is extremely reliable. (...) In many instances where I would disagree with the wording in the Nestle / UBS text in favor of a particular variant reading, I would later check with the Westcott and Hort text and realize that they had often come to the same decision. (...) Of course, the manuscript discoveries of the past one hundred years have changed things, but it is remarkable how often they have affirmed the decisions of Westcott and Hort. |
The text produced by Westcott and Hort is still to this day, even with so many more manuscript discoveries, a very close reproduction of the primitive text of the New Testament. Of course, I think they gave too much weight to Codex Vaticanus alone, and this needs to be tempered. This criticism aside, the Westcott and Hort text is extremely reliable. (...) In many instances where I would disagree with the wording in the Nestle / UBS text in favor of a particular variant reading, I would later check with the Westcott and Hort text and realize that they had often come to the same decision. (...) Of course, the manuscript discoveries of the past one hundred years have changed things, but it is remarkable how often they have affirmed the decisions of Westcott and Hort.|source={{harvnb|Comfort|2005|p=100}} }} |
||
</blockquote> |
|||
Puskas & Robbins (2012) noted that, despite significant advancements since 1881, the text of the NA27 differs much more from the ''Textus Receptus'' than from Westcott and Hort, stating that 'the contribution of these Cambridge scholars appears to be enduring.'<ref name="Puskas">{{Cite book |last1=Puskas |first1=Charles B |last2=Robbins |first2=C Michael |date=2012 |title=An Introduction to the New Testament |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=R-jkDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA70 |location= |publisher=ISD LLC |pages=70–73 |isbn=9780718840877 |access-date=17 September 2021}}</ref> |
|||
==Published editions== |
|||
{{refbegin}} |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
{{refend}} |
|||
== Other editions of Greek New Testament == |
== Other editions of Greek New Testament == |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
== See also == |
== See also == |
||
* ''[[Editio Regia]]'' |
|||
⚫ | |||
* [[ |
* ''[[Novum Instrumentum omne]]'' |
||
⚫ | |||
* [[Novum Instrumentum omne]] |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
== References == |
== References == |
||
===Citations=== |
|||
{{Reflist}} |
{{Reflist}} |
||
===Sources=== |
|||
⚫ | |||
{{refbegin|30em|indent=yes}} |
|||
*{{Cite book | last1 = Aland | first1 = Kurt | author1-link = Kurt Aland |author2-link=Barbara Aland|first2=Barbara |last2=Aland |translator=Erroll F. Rhodes | title = The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism | publisher = [[William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company|Wm. B. Eerdmans]] | year = 1995 | location = Grand Rapids }} |
|||
*{{cite book|last=Brooks|first=James|editor1-first=Walter A. |editor1-last=Elwell |editor2-first=Jim D. |editor2-last=Weaver|title=Bible Interpreters of the Twentieth Century: A Selection of Evangelical Voices|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bWIQAQAAIAAJ|year=1999|publisher=Baker Books|isbn=978-0-8010-2073-5|chapter=Bruce M. Metzger}} |
|||
*{{cite book|last=Comfort|first=Philip Wesley |authorlink=Philip Wesley Comfort|title=Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=m-q8xpqveREC|year=2005|publisher=B&H |location=Nashville|isbn=978-0-8054-3145-2}} |
|||
*{{cite book| last1 = Epp| first1= Eldon J.|author-link1=Eldon Epp| last2= Fee| first2= Gordon D.| author-link2 = Gordon D. Fee| title = Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=XCCfBCdQT3wC| series= Studies and documents |
|||
⚫ | |||
*{{cite book|last=Holmes|first=Michael W. |editor1-first=Scot |editor1-last=McKendrick |editor2-first=Orlaith |editor2-last=O'Sullivan|title=The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4eQ3SAAACAAJ|year=2003|publisher=British Library|location=London|isbn=978-0-7123-4727-3|chapter=From Nestle to the `Editio Critica Maior}} |
|||
*{{cite book|last1=Metzger|first1=Bruce Manning |authorlink1=Bruce Manning Metzger|last2=Ehrman|first2=Bart D. |authorlink2=Bart D. Ehrman|title=The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UQu3QgAACAAJ|year=2005|publisher=University Press|location=Oxford |isbn=978-0-19-516122-9}} |
|||
*{{cite book|first=Heinrich|last= Schumacher|title= A Handbook of Scripture Study |publisher=B. Herder |location= St. Louis & London |date=1923|url=https://archive.org/details/handbookofscript01schuuoft}} |
|||
*{{cite book|last=Waltz|first=Robert B. |title=The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pefhAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA833|publisher=Robert B. Waltz|id=GGKEY:DK0AG8PKUJQ|date=n.d.}} |
|||
*{{cite book|last1=Westcott|first1=Brooke Foss |authorlink1=Brooke Foss Westcott|last2=Hort|first2=Fenton John Anthony |authorlink2=Fenton John Anthony Hort|title=The New Testament in the original Greek|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Yc9HAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA282|volume=2 Introduction and Appendix|year=1896|publisher=Macmillan|location=London}} |
|||
{{Refend}} |
|||
⚫ | |||
* {{Cite book | author = [[Bruce M. Metzger]]| title = The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration | edition = 3rd |year = 1992 | publisher = Oxford University Press | isbn = 0-19-507297-9 | pages = 129–136}} |
|||
{{refbegin}} |
|||
* Palmer |
* {{cite book|last=Palmer|first= Edwin |title=ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. The Greek Testament with the Readings Adopted by the Revisers of the Authorised Version|location= London|publisher= Simon Wallenberg |date=2007|isbn=978-1-84356-023-4}} |
||
{{refend}} |
|||
== External links == |
== External links == |
||
⚫ | |||
; Editions |
|||
{{Wikisource|en:Index:The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882).pdf|The New Testament in the original Greek – Introduction and Appendix (1882)}} |
|||
⚫ | |||
* [https://books.google.com/books?id=0xtVAAAAMAAJ&dq=The+New+Testament+in+the+original+Greek+By+Brooke+Foss+Westcott,+Fenton+John+Anthony+Hort&lr=&as_brr=1&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0 The New Testament in the original Greek: the text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort], Published by Macmillan, 1907. |
|||
⚫ | |||
; Sortable articles |
|||
* [http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts.html Bible Version Verse Comparison Charts] |
|||
* [http://openscriptures.org/prototypes/manuscript-comparator/ Comparison of the Wescott/Hort text with other manuscript editions] on the Manuscript Comparator |
* [http://openscriptures.org/prototypes/manuscript-comparator/ Comparison of the Wescott/Hort text with other manuscript editions] on the Manuscript Comparator |
||
{{DEFAULTSORT:New Testament in the Original Greek}} |
{{DEFAULTSORT:New Testament in the Original Greek}} |
||
⚫ | |||
[[Category:Greek New Testament]] |
[[Category:Greek New Testament]] |
||
[[Category: |
[[Category:New Testament editions]] |
||
[[Category:Textual criticism]] |
|||
[[Category:Textual scholarship]] |
[[Category:Textual scholarship]] |
||
⚫ |
Latest revision as of 19:07, 18 November 2024
The New Testament in the Original Greek is a Greek-language version of the New Testament published in 1881. It is also known as the Westcott and Hort text, after its editors Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–1892). Textual scholars use the abbreviations "WH" [1] or "WHNU".[2] It is a critical text, compiled from some of the oldest New Testament fragments and texts that had been discovered at the time.
Westcott and Hort state: "[It is] our belief that even among the numerous unquestionably spurious readings of the New Testament there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes."[3] They find that without orthographic differences, doubtful textual variants exist only in one sixtieth of the whole New Testament (with most of them being comparatively trivial variations), with the substantial variations forming hardly more than one thousandth of the entire text.[4]
According to Hort, "Knowledge of Documents should precede Final Judgments upon Readings". The two editors favoured two manuscripts: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They also believed that the combination of Codex Bezae with the Old Latin and the Old Syriac represents the original form of the New Testament text, especially when it is shorter than other forms of the text, such as the majority of the Byzantine text-type.[5] In this they followed one of the primary principles of their fledgling textual criticism, lectio brevior, sometimes taken to an extreme, as in the theory of Western non-interpolations, which has since been rejected.[6]
WH edition
[edit]Westcott and Hort distinguished four text types in their studies. The most recent is the Syrian, or Byzantine text-type (eastern), of which the newest example is the Textus Receptus and thus from the critical text view is less likely reliable. The Western text-type is much older, but tends to paraphrase, so according to the critical text view also lacks dependability. The Alexandrian text-type, exemplified in the Codex Ephraemi, exhibits a polished Greek style. The two scholars identified their favorite text type as "Neutral text", exemplified by two 4th-century manuscripts, the Codex Vaticanus (known to scholars since the 15th century), and the Codex Sinaiticus (discovered in 1859), both of which they relied on heavily (albeit not exclusively) for this edition. This text has only a few changes of the original.[7] This edition is based on the critical works especially of Tischendorf and Tregelles.[7] The minuscules play a minimal role in this edition.[8]
Westcott and Hort worked on their Testament from 1853 until its completion in 1881.[9] It was followed by an Introduction and Appendix by Hort appearing in a second volume in 1882. In 1892, a revised edition was released by F. C. Burkitt.[citation needed]
Reception
[edit]The edition of Westcott and Hort began a new epoch in the history of textual criticism.[7] Most critical editions published after Westcott and Hort share their preference of the Alexandrian text-type and therefore are similar to The New Testament in the Original Greek. An exception is the text edited by Hermann von Soden. Soden's edition stands much closer to the text of Tischendorf than to the text of Westcott and Hort. All editions of Nestle-Aland remain close in textual character to the text WH. Aland reports that, while NA25 text shows, for example, 2,047 differences from von Soden, 1,996 from Vogels, 1,268 from Tischendorf, 1,161 from Bover, and 770 from Merk, it contains only 558 differences from WH text.[10]
According to Bruce M. Metzger, "the general validity of their critical principles and procedures is widely acknowledged by scholars today."[11] In 1981 Metzger said:
The international committee that produced the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, not only adopted the Westcott and Hort edition as its basic text, but followed their methodology in giving attention to both external and internal consideration.
— Brooks 1999, p. 264
Philip Comfort gave this opinion:
The text produced by Westcott and Hort is still to this day, even with so many more manuscript discoveries, a very close reproduction of the primitive text of the New Testament. Of course, I think they gave too much weight to Codex Vaticanus alone, and this needs to be tempered. This criticism aside, the Westcott and Hort text is extremely reliable. (...) In many instances where I would disagree with the wording in the Nestle / UBS text in favor of a particular variant reading, I would later check with the Westcott and Hort text and realize that they had often come to the same decision. (...) Of course, the manuscript discoveries of the past one hundred years have changed things, but it is remarkable how often they have affirmed the decisions of Westcott and Hort.
— Comfort 2005, p. 100
Puskas & Robbins (2012) noted that, despite significant advancements since 1881, the text of the NA27 differs much more from the Textus Receptus than from Westcott and Hort, stating that 'the contribution of these Cambridge scholars appears to be enduring.'[12]
Published editions
[edit]- The New Testament In The Original Greek. New York: Harper and Brothers. 1882.
- The New Testament In The Original Greek. New York: MacMillan. 1925.
Other editions of Greek New Testament
[edit]The texts of Nestle-Aland, and of Bover and Merk, differ very little from the text of the Westcott-Hort.[13]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]Citations
[edit]- ^ Epp & Fee 1993, p. 22.
- ^ BibleGateway.com, 1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament (WHNU), accessed 26 June 2021
- ^ Westcott & Hort 1896, p. 282.
- ^ Westcott & Hort 1896, p. 2.
- ^ Aland & Aland 1995, p. 236.
- ^ Aland & Aland 1995, p. 33.
- ^ a b c Schumacher 1923, p. 53.
- ^ Holmes 2003, p. 128.
- ^ Metzger & Ehrman 2005, p. 174.
- ^ Aland & Aland 1995, pp. 26–30.
- ^ Metzger & Ehrman 2005, p. 136.
- ^ Puskas, Charles B; Robbins, C Michael (2012). An Introduction to the New Testament. ISD LLC. pp. 70–73. ISBN 9780718840877. Retrieved 17 September 2021.
- ^ Waltz n.d., p. 833.
Sources
[edit]- Aland, Kurt; Aland, Barbara (1995). The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans.
- Brooks, James (1999). "Bruce M. Metzger". In Elwell, Walter A.; Weaver, Jim D. (eds.). Bible Interpreters of the Twentieth Century: A Selection of Evangelical Voices. Baker Books. ISBN 978-0-8010-2073-5.
- Comfort, Philip Wesley (2005). Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism. Nashville: B&H. ISBN 978-0-8054-3145-2.
- Epp, Eldon J.; Fee, Gordon D. (1993). Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Studies and documents. Vol. 45. Wm. B. Eerdmans. ISBN 9780802827739.
The Westcott-Hort text (WH) of 1881 [...] resulted from a skilful plan of attack and a sophisticated strategy for undermining the validitity of the TR [textus receptus].
- Holmes, Michael W. (2003). "From Nestle to the `Editio Critica Maior". In McKendrick, Scot; O'Sullivan, Orlaith (eds.). The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text. London: British Library. ISBN 978-0-7123-4727-3.
- Metzger, Bruce Manning; Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Oxford: University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-516122-9.
- Schumacher, Heinrich (1923). A Handbook of Scripture Study. St. Louis & London: B. Herder.
- Waltz, Robert B. (n.d.). The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism. Robert B. Waltz. GGKEY:DK0AG8PKUJQ.
- Westcott, Brooke Foss; Hort, Fenton John Anthony (1896). The New Testament in the original Greek. Vol. 2 Introduction and Appendix. London: Macmillan.
Further reading
[edit]- Palmer, Edwin (2007). ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. The Greek Testament with the Readings Adopted by the Revisers of the Authorised Version. London: Simon Wallenberg. ISBN 978-1-84356-023-4.
External links
[edit]- Comparison of the Wescott/Hort text with other manuscript editions on the Manuscript Comparator