> Paul, if you could pass on to your friend my apologies. I am not
> best group moderator you'll ever come across. Sometimes I act
> shouldn't, and don't act when I should. In this case, I do not
> very much about the topic at hand or of the persons being quoted,
> so I was allowing the conversation to continue between more
> knowledgable folks, none of which have asked that the discussion be
> quelled, in fact, the most recent post in the thread included "I
> to thank you for your posts."
> Is your friend a member here, or have you been forwarding the
I think there has been nothing going on so far that would have
warranted a moderator's intervention.
Of the principal names we have been discussing so far, Dr. F.J.A.
Hort was a famous Cambridge scholar in the second half of the 19th
century, and he (with Dr Westcott) constructed a well-edited text of
the Greek New Testament that set a new standard in precision and
exactitude according to the principles of textual criticism that had
been developing in the preceding 150 years. He wrote a companion
volume to his GNT, explaining the principles he used and justifying
why he did not make much use of the Majority Text, which he regarded
as late (the patristic argument), secondary (the conflation
argument), and inferior (the internal evidence argument).
This book is back in print:
Drs. Westcott and Hort were members of the Revision committee that
edited a new Greek New Testament and revised the translation of the
1769 edition of KJV into a new edition that was published in its
entirety in 1885 and was republished in the USA with minor revisions
as the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901.
The RV is in print in an interlinear format with the KJV:
Dean John Burgon was a contemporary of Hort and an Oxford scholar
who utterly rejected what textual critics had been doing for 200
years prior to him and culminated in the Westcott-Hort text of 1881
in the scholarly rejection of the medieval majority text as the most
sound witness to the New Testament autographica. He is the locus
classicus for all modern dissent from textual criticism, although in
general he is much better than his latter day epigones in offering a
serious scholarly re-think of the tenor and direction that textual
criticism has taken in the last 300 years.
Dean Burgon wrote a famous critique of Westcott and Hort's textual
theory, and the Revised King James Bible they helped to edit, and is
available special order:
Whether Hort or Burgon embraced tractarianism seems clearly to be
false, and in any event irrelevant to the textual criticism
controversy between them, but since Keith (a Burgon champion) was
charging that Hort was a Newman-clone without Newman's courage and
that the eclectic text (called also the critical text, because it is
edited according to the principles of textual criticism) was a tool
of Romanism to destroy Protestantism, Paul, Keith and myself have
been discussing of late just how Anglican Dr Hort on the one hand
and Dean Burgon on the other really were.