In the late 19th century, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort revolutionized New Testament textual criticism with their seminal work, “The New Testament in the Original Greek” (1881). Their approach, characterized by rigorous methodology and a clear set of principles, aimed to reconstruct the most authentic text of the New Testament based on a thorough examination of the available manuscripts. Their work remains influential in contemporary textual criticism.
The Principle of Genealogical Method
Defining the Genealogical Method
Westcott and Hort emphasized the genealogical method as the cornerstone of their approach. This method involves tracing the relationships between different manuscripts to establish a “family tree” or stemma. By identifying the common ancestors of various manuscript groups, they aimed to discern which readings were most likely to be original.
Importance of Manuscript Families
Westcott and Hort identified several key manuscript families, including the Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine text-types. They argued that the Alexandrian text-type, characterized by its concise and accurate readings, was generally the closest to the original text. They viewed the Western text-type as more prone to expansions and harmonizations, while the Byzantine text-type, though widely disseminated, often contained later interpolations and corrections.
Scriptural Support:2 Timothy 2:15 advises, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” This principle underscores the meticulous nature of Westcott and Hort’s genealogical method.
The Concept of Neutral Text
Identification of the Neutral Text
Westcott and Hort introduced the concept of the “Neutral Text,” which they believed represented the most pristine form of the New Testament text. They identified Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (א) as primary representatives of this text-type, arguing that these manuscripts were relatively free from the alterations that characterized other text-types.
The Role of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are two of the oldest and most complete New Testament manuscripts, dating to the 4th century. Westcott and Hort argued that the consistency and quality of these manuscripts provided strong evidence for their reliability and proximity to the original text.
Scriptural Support:Psalm 119:160 states, “The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.” The Neutral Text, as envisioned by Westcott and Hort, aims to preserve this enduring truth.
Internal and Transcriptional Evidence
Intrinsic Probability
Westcott and Hort placed significant emphasis on intrinsic probability, which involves assessing which reading is most likely to be original based on the author’s style, vocabulary, and theological context. This principle helps to identify the reading that the original author most likely wrote.
Example: In John 1:18, the variant “the only begotten God” (μονογενὴς θεός) versus “the only begotten Son” (μονογενὴς υἱός). Westcott and Hort favored “the only begotten God” based on intrinsic probability, arguing that it fits better with John’s theological emphasis on the divinity of Christ.
Transcriptional probability considers the likelihood of a reading arising from scribal errors or intentional changes. Westcott and Hort assessed which reading could most plausibly have given rise to the other variants through common scribal practices such as harmonization, simplification, or doctrinal alterations.
Example: In Mark 1:1, the inclusion or omission of “the Son of God” (υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ). Westcott and Hort argued that scribes were more likely to add this phrase to clarify Jesus’ identity rather than omit it, thus favoring the shorter reading as original.
Westcott and Hort
1 ᾿Αρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, [the Son of God].[a]
[1] The most likely original reading is the shorter reading “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” This is the original reading found in P. Oxy. 5073 [Late 3rd / 4th century] 28* א copsaMS Origen. Later scribes expanded the reading to Jesus Christ, Son of God (2א B D L W it syr cop A B D L W) The external documentary supports the shorter reading, “Jesus Christ.” We find a similar expansion in Mark 8:29, going from (σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός) “You are the Christ” (A B C D Origen) to (συ ει ο χριστος, ο υιος του θεου) “You are the Christ, the Son of God.” (א L) and (συ ει ο χριστος, ο υιος του θεου του ζωντος) “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (W f it syr) Because of the strong witnesses and the fact that “Son of God” is a theme throughout Mark, there is a slight chance it could have been original; thus, it is retained in brackets.
Conflation and the Byzantine Text
Identifying Conflation
Westcott and Hort identified conflation as a key characteristic of the Byzantine text-type. Conflation occurs when scribes combine readings from different sources, resulting in a longer, composite reading. This phenomenon suggested to them that the Byzantine text was secondary and less reliable.
Example: In Luke 24:53, the longer Byzantine reading includes both “praising God” and “blessing God,” whereas the Alexandrian text typically has one or the other. Westcott and Hort viewed this as evidence of conflation in the Byzantine tradition.
The Inferiority of the Byzantine Text
Westcott and Hort argued that the Byzantine text, while numerically dominant, was less valuable for reconstructing the original text due to its later origin and tendency toward conflation and harmonization. They posited that the Alexandrian text-type, with its earlier and more concise readings, was generally superior.
Scriptural Support:Proverbs 30:5-6 states, “Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.” This principle supports the preference for earlier, more authentic readings over later, conflated ones.
The Role of Patristic Citations and Early Versions
Patristic Citations
Westcott and Hort extensively used patristic citations—quotations of the New Testament by early Church Fathers—as a secondary means of validating textual readings. These citations provide valuable insights into the text of the New Testament as it was known and used in the early centuries.
Example: Irenaeus, in his work “Against Heresies,” frequently quotes the New Testament, providing evidence for the text as it existed in the 2nd century. His citations support many readings found in the Alexandrian text-type.
Early Versions
Early translations of the New Testament into Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and other languages also provide important textual witnesses. Westcott and Hort considered these versions, especially when they predated the extant Greek manuscripts, as corroborative evidence for their textual decisions.
Scriptural Support:Romans 15:4 states, “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” The early versions help illuminate the text that was foundational for early Christian instruction.
Examples of Westcott and Hort’s Textual Decisions
John 1:18 – “The Only Begotten God”
Westcott and Hort chose the reading “the only begotten God” (μονογενὴς θεός) over “the only begotten Son” (μονογενὴς υἱός) in John 1:18. They based this decision on the strength of the external evidence (𝔓66, 𝔓75, B) and the intrinsic probability that John would emphasize Jesus’ divinity.
Scriptural Support:John 1:1 and John 1:14 emphasize the divinity and unique sonship of Jesus, aligning with the reading “the only begotten God.”
Romans 8:1 – The Omission of “Who Do Not Walk According to the Flesh”
In Romans 8:1, Westcott and Hort omitted the phrase “who do not walk according to the flesh” (τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν), which is present in the Byzantine text. They argued that this addition was a scribal expansion intended to clarify Paul’s statement, but not part of the original text, supported by the earliest manuscripts (𝔓46, B, א).
Scriptural Support:Romans 8:4 contains a similar phrase, suggesting that the addition in verse 1 was an explanatory note added by scribes rather than part of the original text.
Mark 16:9-20 – The Longer Ending
Westcott and Hort placed the longer ending of Mark (16:9-20) in double brackets, indicating their skepticism about its authenticity. They noted that the earliest and most reliable manuscripts (א, B) end at Mark 16:8, and the longer ending shows signs of later addition.
Scriptural Support: The abrupt ending at Mark 16:8 is unusual but aligns with the possibility of an intentional rhetorical device or the loss of the original ending. The addition of verses 9-20 is seen as an attempt to provide closure, drawing from other Gospel accounts and early Christian tradition.
Evaluating Westcott and Hort’s Legacy
Lasting Influence
Westcott and Hort’s principles and methods have profoundly influenced modern textual criticism. Their emphasis on genealogical relationships, the primacy of the Alexandrian text-type, and the use of internal and transcriptional probabilities remain foundational in contemporary scholarship.
Scriptural Support:1 Thessalonians 5:21 advises, “Test everything; hold fast what is good.” Westcott and Hort’s rigorous testing of textual variants exemplifies this principle.
Criticisms and Revisions
Despite their lasting influence, Westcott and Hort’s work has faced criticism and revision. Some scholars argue that they overly favored the Alexandrian text-type and did not sufficiently consider the Western and Byzantine traditions. Additionally, new manuscript discoveries and advances in textual analysis have led to refinements of their conclusions.
Scriptural Support:Proverbs 4:7 states, “The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom, and whatever you get, get insight.” The ongoing refinement of textual criticism reflects the pursuit of greater wisdom and insight into the New Testament text.
Critical Rules of Westcott & Hort
The following summary of principles is taken from the compilation in Epp and Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (1993, pages 157-8). References in parentheses are to sections of Hort’s Introduction, from which the principles have been extracted.
1. Older readings, manuscripts, or groups are to be preferred. (“The shorter the interval between the time of the autograph and the end of the period of transmission in question, the stronger the presumption that earlier date implies greater purity of text.”) (2.59; cf. 2.5-6, 31)
2. Readings are approved or rejected by reason of the quality, and not the number, of their supporting witnesses. (“No available presumptions whatever as to text can be obtained from number alone, that is, from number not as yet interpreted by descent.”) (2.44)
3. A reading combining two simple, alternative readings is later than the two readings comprising the conflation, and manuscripts rarely or never supporting conflate reading are text antecedent to mixture and are of special value. (2.49-50).
4. The reading is to be preferred that makes the best sense, that is, that best conforms to the grammar and is most congruous with the purport of the rest of the sentence and of the larger context. (2.20)
5. The reading is to be preferred that best conforms to the usual style of the author and to that author’s material in other passages. (2.20)
6. The reading is to be preferred that most fitly explains the existence of the others. (2.22-23)
7. The reading is less likely to be original that combines the appearance of an improvement in the sense with the absence of its reality; the scribal alteration will have an apparent excellence, while the original will have the highest real excellence. (2.27, 29)
8. The reading is less likely to be original that shows a disposition to smooth away difficulties (another way of stating that the harder reading is preferable). (2.28)
9. Readings are to be preferred that are found in a manuscript that habitually contains superior readings as determined by intrinsic and transcriptional probability. Certainty is increased if such a better manuscript is found also to be an older manuscript (2.32-33) and if such a manuscript habitually contains reading that prove themselves antecedent to mixture and independent of external contamination by other, inferior texts (2.150-51). The same principles apply to groups of manuscripts (2.260-61).
EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).
SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW
BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM
BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION
