Does anyone comprehend that someone's beliefs will be used in textual criticism and translation? Very few modern scholars either dismiss or will not believe Westcott and Hort's (W&H) beliefs would affect their translation.
Modern textual criticism has one glaring error: it's determination to find errors and correct them, even changing where they have no idea if it is or not. Without one original, there is no guide. It creates more problems than solves.
The deeper you dig, the darker the dispute gets.
Does anyone comprehend that someone's beliefs will be used in textual criticism and translation? Very few modern scholars either dismiss or will not believe Westcott and Hort's (W&H) beliefs would affect their translation.
Modern textual criticism has one glaring error: it's determination to find errors and correct them, even changing where they have no idea if it is or not. Without one original, there is no guide. It creates more problems than solves.
The deeper you dig, the darker the dispute gets.