Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–1892) were two prominent 19th-century Anglican scholars who significantly influenced New Testament textual criticism through their critical Greek text published in 1881. Their work, The New Testament in the Original Greek, laid the groundwork for many modern translations, utilizing a textual theory that favored the Alexandrian manuscript tradition over the Byzantine.

From an evangelical textual perspective—especially one emphasizing the priority of early documentary evidence and fidelity to the original autographs—it is essential to examine who Westcott and Hort were, what they believed, and how their methodology and conclusions impacted the transmission of the New Testament text. This article will explore their lives, theology, textual method, primary works, and legacy within the field of New Testament textual criticism, while offering a careful and objective assessment from a conservative standpoint.

Background of Westcott and Hort

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901)

Westcott was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, and became Regius Professor of Divinity in 1870. He later served as Bishop of Durham. He was known for his scholarship, especially in patristics, biblical theology, and Greek exegesis. Westcott held to a high regard for Scripture, though his theological writings—especially his ecclesiology and views on inspiration—exhibited tendencies that do not align fully with conservative evangelical theology.

Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–1892)

Hort, a fellow at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, was a classical scholar and theologian who collaborated closely with Westcott. He held liberal theological leanings, especially in soteriology and ecclesiology, and expressed skepticism regarding certain traditional doctrines such as substitutionary atonement. His personal letters reveal theological tendencies that veer toward critical Anglican liberalism. Despite these theological concerns, his textual-critical work with Westcott reflected a rigorous attempt to recover the earliest attainable text of the New Testament.

It is critical to distinguish between theological belief and textual methodology. The question is not whether their doctrinal positions were biblically sound—many were not—but whether their textual decisions were based on sound evidence and method.

The Westcott and Hort Text (1881)

The Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament, published in 1881, accompanied the Revised Version (RV) of the English Bible. It was not the official Greek text behind the RV, but it strongly influenced the translation committee. Their Greek New Testament deviated from the Textus Receptus (the Greek text underlying the King James Version), favoring instead earlier Alexandrian manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus (B, 𝔅) and Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ).

They made approximately 5,600 changes to the Textus Receptus, not arbitrarily but based on a coherent and complex set of textual-critical principles. These changes aligned much more closely with early uncial manuscripts from the 4th and 5th centuries and with second- and third-century papyri discovered later, such as P75 and P66. Their critical text thus anticipated many discoveries and readings confirmed by earlier manuscript finds.

Theological Concerns and Evaluations

From an evangelical standpoint, the theological inclinations of Westcott and Hort are not defensible. Hort’s denial of verbal inspiration and his openness to Darwinian evolution and Roman Catholic leanings in ecclesiology are well documented in his letters and private writings.

However, the integrity of the Greek text does not rest on the orthodoxy of its editors but on the quality of the manuscript evidence. As Edward D. Andrews and others have pointed out, textual criticism is fundamentally about documentary evidence—not theological preferences. Westcott and Hort, though theologically compromised, were accurate in identifying the superiority of the Alexandrian tradition over the later Byzantine tradition.

Methodology of Westcott and Hort

Textual Theories and Canons

Westcott and Hort pioneered the genealogical method in textual criticism. Their central theory was that the Byzantine text was a later recension derived from conflations of earlier texts. They classified New Testament manuscripts into four primary families: Syrian (Byzantine), Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral.

They considered the so-called Neutral text (essentially represented by Codex Vaticanus and supported by P75) to be the most reliable witness to the original New Testament. This “Neutral” designation is now generally seen as unnecessary, and modern scholars simply refer to the Alexandrian tradition.

Westcott and Hort also introduced several methodological principles (or “canons”), including:

Preference for the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior)
They believed scribes would tend to simplify texts rather than complicate them.

Preference for the shorter reading (lectio brevior)
This was based on the tendency of scribes to add explanatory glosses or harmonizations.

Genealogical coherence
They attempted to reconstruct a family tree (stemma) of manuscript relationships, giving priority to readings supported by the oldest and most geographically diverse witnesses.

These methods, though nuanced, essentially leaned toward the documentary approach: favoring readings found in the earliest manuscripts unless strong internal evidence overruled them.

Manuscript Evidence and Vindication of Their Work

At the time Westcott and Hort published their text, the primary uncials they relied on were Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Critics of their work claimed that basing a new Greek New Testament on only two manuscripts was reckless. However, discoveries made after 1881 have confirmed the reliability of these early Alexandrian witnesses.

The discovery and publication of papyri such as P66 and P75 in the 20th century confirmed that the text of Codex Vaticanus was not an outlier, but part of a stable and early textual tradition. P75, dated to around 175–225 C.E., agrees with Vaticanus in approximately 83% of places in the Gospels, especially in Luke and John.

This vindicated Westcott and Hort’s theory that the Alexandrian text was closest to the original, and it confirmed that their reliance on B and ℵ was justified. It also showed that the Byzantine text type was a secondary development, not representative of the earliest form of the text.

Rejection of the Byzantine Priority

Westcott and Hort argued compellingly that the Byzantine text was a conflation of earlier texts. They cited examples from Luke where the Byzantine text combined readings from Alexandrian and Western traditions. For example, in Luke 24:53, the Byzantine text reads, “blessing and praising God,” whereas earlier Alexandrian texts have “blessing God,” and Western texts have “praising God.” This is a classic case of a conflated reading, which Westcott and Hort used to demonstrate the secondary nature of the Byzantine text.

Furthermore, no Byzantine readings are attested in early papyri. The first signs of Byzantine influence appear in the 4th century, becoming prominent only in the 9th century onward in the minuscule tradition.

Influence on Modern Critical Texts

The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament are both direct descendants of the Westcott and Hort text. Although today’s critical editions are the product of many more manuscript discoveries and are shaped by an eclectic method, the core text remains strikingly similar to that of Westcott and Hort.

This continuity illustrates that their textual work was ahead of its time. While the field has refined its tools and methods, the overall consensus has remained consistent with the Alexandrian priority.

Evaluating Westcott and Hort from a Conservative Evangelical Perspective

Conservative scholars must approach Westcott and Hort with discernment. Their theological positions should not be emulated or defended. However, their textual methodology—particularly their high regard for the earliest manuscript evidence—is in harmony with a sound, documentary approach to recovering the original New Testament.

Rejecting their text solely on the grounds of their theology would be fallacious. The question is whether their text reflects the autographic text of Scripture. Manuscript evidence supports the conclusion that the text of Codex Vaticanus, confirmed by P75 and P66, accurately preserves that original text.

Westcott and Hort, despite their theological shortcomings, provided a textual foundation that aligns with an evangelical commitment to the authority and accuracy of Scripture. Their rejection of the Byzantine text and defense of the Alexandrian tradition remains supported by the best available evidence.

While we must maintain caution in adopting their theological conclusions or hermeneutical methods, their Greek New Testament represents an important contribution to the history of textual criticism and has played a significant role in recovering the original words of the New Testament, as written under inspiration.

You May Also Enjoy

Tischendorf and the Discovery of Codex Sinaiticus: A Turning Point in New Testament Textual Criticism

See more

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS