Who were Westcott and Hort and what did they have to do with the text of the Bible?

The English Authorised Version (1611) of the New Testament was mainly derived from what was afterwards called the Received Text, based on a recension of the original Greek called "Byzantine" by Griesbach, and contained chiefly in relatively late MSS. (such as LΔ among uncials and cursive 1). The Revised Version (1881) is founded on a more ancient text (ℵABC, etc.) allied to that which the same critic named "Alexandrian," but, as limited by Westcott and Hort, the most influential members of the committee in textual matters, has been called "Neutral." The views of these English scholars rapidly received general support, and the dominance of their system of selection has only within the last few years been shaken by those critics who incline towards greater recognition of a third rescension, known as the "Western" or "Syro-Latin." As Sir R. Anderson has written, the Westcott-Hort "mutilation of the Gospels" by rejection of the indirect evidence afforded by the united voice of versions (such as the Old Syriac and Old Latin) and Fathers in favour of the direct evidence of "certain of the oldest manuscripts," was not likely to commend itself to adepts in the science of evidence. ("Pseudo-Criticism," p. 5.) The, leaders in the reaction are German critics, Blass and Wellhausen in particular. Sanday continues his allegiance to the Cambridge scholars, whilst Weiss adheres to a modified form of the Westcott-Hort criticism, regarding the cursives somewhat more than those English scholars have done, and internal evidence always, but sometimes following B even when Hort has not done so, as in 5:18, whilst Harnack is disposed to apply the drag to the rapidly radical departure from it.

Westcott and Hort, developing predecessors' classification of the Greek copies, arranged the MSS, as follows:-

WORDSWORTH's followed. He is distinguished by his conservatism. He believed that God had overruled the issuing of the commonly received text, and he kept to that except where he believed that the Greek manuscripts and other evidence warranted him in making an alteration.

WESTCOTT AND HORT are the last to be mentioned. Their principle may perhaps be said to be the very reverse of that of Wordsworth, altering the text freely where others have hesitated. It dates A.D. 1881.

The theory of the Cambridge scholars (Hort in particular) was that the text underwent a Syrian revision by editors acting under episcopal supervision, from about the middle of the third to almost the middle of the fourth century. Interpolations (inter alia) were deemed to characterize more or less the two other groups, the first especially, so that note was taken of any Western non-interpolations — i.e., omissions of what is, accordingly, placed by these editors under suspicion. Example: Luke 22:44 f.

1885 207 (The New Testament in the original Greek: the text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott D.D. and Fenton John Anthony Hort D.D. 2 Vols., cr. 8vo., Cambridge and London, Macmillan and Co. 1881.)

Having brought to a close the examination of the Revised Version with the American Suggestions, I may now turn to a review of these volumes on which two very able and learned men have spent the ungrudging labour of some twenty-seven years. Their outward appearance is at once unpretending and elegant; and the Editors have certainly given the most decisive proof that the old interest of our Island in the study of this, the latest nearest and deepest portion of divine revelation, has revived and extended notably. More strictly than the well-known works of Dean Alford and Bp. Wordsworth, is it a critical contribution, which stands rather with the late Dr. Tregelles' book, and challenges comparison, not so much with Lachmann's latest Edition merely, as with Tischendorf's eighth, scarcely yet completed. The difference however is so marked between them, that, while no careful scholar can dispense with the fulness of information furnished only by the great German Editor, it is surely incumbent on him to weigh this W H Testament, not only for its text in Vol. i. framed with scrupulous care on a full consideration of all ancient evidence, but for its distinctive conclusions according to the principles and their application discussed elaborately in Vol. ii. with notes on select readings throughout. Characterised very differently, they are both indispensable to those who would have before them the variants in the MSS. as well as the judgment arrived at by the most recent Editors on the evidence. Perhaps no edition of the Greek New Testament has exhibited greater boldness than the one before us; yet it may relieve some to know that, According to the estimate of our Editors, not more than one eighth of the text affords questions to all the critics; that much the largest part of that eighth consists of most trivial differences; and that, setting aside orthographical discrepancies, one-sixtieth part might cover what is debatable.

He looked at her with a kindly smile, and said, “My dear, do you mean esothen, sozomenos, or sothesomai?” This was all Greek to her. She had in the warmth of her new found joy addressed her question to one of the greatest Greek scholars of his day, Bishop Westcott, a leading member of the revision of the Bible, published in 1881.

The Rt. Rev. C. J. Ellicott, D. D. (Chairman), Gloucester. The Right Rev. George Moberly, D.C.L., Salisbury. The Right Rev. Joseph B. Lightfoot, D.D., Durham. The Very Rev. Edward H. Bickersteth, D.D., Lichfield, The Very Rev. Arthur P. Stanley, D.D., Westminster. The Very Rev. Robert Scott, D.D., Rochester. The Very Rev. Joseph W. Blakesley, B.D., Lincoln. The Most Rev. Richard C. Trench, D.D., Dublin. The Right Rev. C. Wordsworth, D.C.L., St. Andrews. The Rev. Joseph Angus, D.D., London. The Rev. David Brown, D.D., Aberdeen. The Rev. Fenton J. Anthony Hort, P.D., Cambridge. The Rev. William Gibson Humphry, London. The Rev. Benjamin Hall Kennedy, D.D., Cambridge. The Ven. William Lee, D.D., Dublin. The Rev. William Milligan, D.D., Aberdeen. The Rev. William F. Moulton, D.D., Cambridge. The Rev. Samuel Newth, D.D., Hampstead, London. The Ven. Edwin Palmer, D.D., Christ Church, Oxford. The Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., St. Andrews. The Rev. F. Henry Ambrose Scrivener, LL.D., London. The Rev. George Vance Smith, D.D., Carmarthen. The Rev. Charles John Vaughan, D.D., London. The Rev. Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., Cambridge. The Rev. J. Troutbeck (Secretary), Westminster.

15 As to the Syrian text, "which underlies the so-called Textus Receptus, Westcott and Hort, in their "Introduction," § 185, p. 133, admit that it "must be the result of a recension in the proper sense of the word, a work of criticism performed by editors, not merely by scribes."

"The triumph," writes Sir R. Anderson, "of the Westcott-Hort school of textual criticism in the revision of the New Testament was due to either ignorance or neglect of the science of evidence. The mutilation of the Gospels, by making the text agree with certain of the oldest manuscripts, was but an example of the tendency of laymen to disparage indirect evidence when direct evidence is available. No lawyer would accept the authority of those manuscripts against the united voice of the versions and the Fathers" ("Pseudo-Criticism," p. 5). For this, compare Wills on "Circumstantial Evidence," p. 260 (secondary evidence admissible when an original document has been lost), and also the American standard work on "Evidence" of Professor Greenleaf, vol. i., part ii., chapter 4, §§ 84, 509.

In Dr. Scrivener's Cambridge Greek Testament, 1887, all the readings of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers, are given in the notes. The readings of these Editors with those of Alford and Wordsworth are also given in an appendix to the Englishman's Greek Concordance. The readings from Griesbach to Wordsworth are also given in the notes to the Englishman's Greek New Testament. These collations are judged to be all that in an ordinary way is needed by most Christians.

It is deemed needful to add as a caution that Dean Burgon (in "The Revision Revised") brings serious charges against the Revisers of the New Testament in that they deviated from the instructions they received in regard to their translation as well as to the Greek text they adopted, and that they followed too often the venturesome readings of Westcott and Hort; also in throwing needless doubts upon many passages with the words "many ancient authorities, etc." in the margin.

Dr. Hort's views will be found in "Introduction to Greek New Testament," Appendix, pp. 28-51.

As to the editors to be taken we should not advise going further back than Griesbach, and even since his day a great mass of evidence has came to light. Scholz may be omitted, for, as we have seen, he rejected his own plan of action before he died. We should say, take Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Green, and Wordsworth; and Westcott and Hort when published.*