Subject: Relevance or Westcott and Hort

From: "Mark Arvid Johnson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 22:51:57 -0500

Do the works and theories of Westcott and Hort still matter, or are the
only of historical value for textual criticism today? Of what importance
are they today?

Mark Arvid Johnson

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 08:24:12 -0500 (CDT)

>only of historical value for textual criticism today? Of what importance

Depends on what you mean by "importance." Obviously new discoveries
have changed the picture somewhat. In fact, I would argue that they
have changed the picture completely.

On the other hand:

1. Hort was a very sensitive critic, and his approach to problems
   can still be helpful today.
2. Hort's analysis of the Byzantine text, which made it late and
   inferior, is still regarded by most scholars as fairly conclusive.
   This doesn't mean it is entirely accurate -- it is not. But the
   broad outlines of his argument are still relevant.
3. If you examine the matter, the most widespread text of today (the
   UBS4 text) is largely identical with the Westcott-Hort text. One
   may think this unfortunate (I certainly do!), but Hort's volume
   is actually the best introduction to UBS4 -- better than the
   UBS commentary, which only covers individual readings, not the
   theory of the text.

So Hort is a historical monument, but it is still important to
read, since its influence is still so widely felt.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)