My first Greek New Testament was a Westcott and Hort, bought at The Source Bookstore in Davenport, Iowa. Soon after I had a UBS version, which listed variation sources at the bottom of each page. Both were bought around 54 years ago.
Any given GNT - or similar ancient work - is developed from various editions. I began buying books about text criticism at seminary, thanks to a clearance table in Kitchener-Waterloo. There I learned some of the basics and began scratching my head about this "science."
"The shorter version is the better one."
This is completely illogical, but so handy for Wescott and Hort, who were secretly preparing their edition of the GNT while the KJV was being revised. Their favorite sources were Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Aleph and B), both discovered miraculously by Tischendorf.
Aleph and B are the Minority texts, where many divine attributes of Jesus are missing. What do mainline and Church Growth pastors do to make their sermons more universal? They omit words to make the message more appealing to them and to a similarly unbelieving audience.
Theology students do the same. They may say "the resurrection of Christ," but not the "actual physical resurrection of Christ."
They may say "the virgin Mary" but not "the actual, Virgin birth of the Savior."
This is from memory, but I noticed the opening of Mark being "The Gospel of Jesus Christ" but lacking "the Son of God" in the Westcott/Hort. But other editions included "the Son of God." I believe my UBS GNT had notes on which manuscripts included "the Son of God.'
Do you see where I am going? The omission of "the Son of God" from Mark 1:1 is easily overlooked by believers. Multiply by 200 or so omissions in Westcott and Hort.
An English Bible may or may not have the footnote, which is going to be short and unenlightening anyway. "Some witnesses omit the Son of God." A new translation is not only a chance to change the translation itself but also to omit the traditional text, the Majority Text, altogether.
This may help - the German rationalists imagined that the original Gospel of Mark lacked any claims for Jesus' divinity because "Jesus did not consider himself to be the Savior or the Son of God." Now we begin to smell the pot-roast cooking. A scientific text can eliminate those "additions" to the original (but minority) text.
"The more difficult one is the better one."
Now we see the beauty of several text criticism rules, which are self-serving and subjective.
What do we mean by "more difficult"? Answer - the samples which contradict the Christian Faith are better and more reliably original, because they are more difficult for the believer. So, the Mark 1:1 verse omitting "the Son of God" is the historic kernel, the original version of Mark's Gospel. And Mark is the first Gospel written "because it is shorter than Matthew and Luke."
The Gospel of John is set aside by the New Testament critics because of its emphasis on the Trinity and Jesus as the Son of God.
I am trying to explain how the modern Christian publishing business took the most of the business away from the KJV and believing writers, using the rationalism of 19th century Germany. It was not done immediately and in large doses, but slowly, carefully, earnestly, and persistently.
As the education expert told me about WELS - the new seminary graduates mocked the KJV for several years before WELS made the NIV mandatory for all pastors. Those pastors who objected were given the Left Foot of Fellowship.
