We need to be clear about something. When we say that the Traditional Texts represent the majority of existing manuscripts, that does not automatically mean that an actual MAJORITY TEXT has already been created. "Byzantine Text" and "Received Text" can be used interchangeably, but the so-called Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad is NOT a true Majority Text, since neither they (nor anyone else) has actually collated all of the existing manuscripts as yet. That was already sabotaged by the Westcott-Hort theory in that they claimed that they had the "purest" Greek text in their hands. Which is totally false.
Although such men as Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford had done much to undermine the position of the TR (Textus Receptus), Westcott and Hort are generally credited with having furnished the deathblow, beginning a new era. Many scholars have written to this effect, but Colwell expresses it as well as anyone.
"The dead hand of Fenton John Anthony Hort lies heavy upon us. In the early years of this century Kirsopp Lake described Hort's work as a failure, though a glorious one. But Hort did not fail to reach his major goal. He dethroned the Textus Receptus. After Hort, the late medieval Greek Vulgate was not used by serious students, and the text supported by earlier witnesses became the standard text. This was a sensational achievement, an impressive success. Hort's success in this task and the cogency of his tightly reasoned theory shaped—and still shapes—the thinking of those who approach the textual criticism of the NT through the English language."
And that explains the nature and extent of the common divergence of the modern versions from the AV (King James Version)—they are all based essentially on the W-H theory and text whereas the AV is essentially based on the Textus Receptus.
Chapter 3
However, for all practical purposes the Masoretic Hebrew and the Received Greek texts are representative of the texts of the Bible. And those texts are to be found in the Reformation Bibles (including the KJB).
