Walch, 1757. J.G. Walch, Bibliotheca Theologica Selecta, literariis adnotationibus instructa. Jenæ, 1757, 1758, 1762, 1765. 4 vols.

Walton, 1657. Brian Walton, Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, complectentia Textus Originalis, Hebraicum cum Pentateucho Samaritano, Chaldaicum, Græcum, Versionumque antiquarum Samaritanæ, Græcæ LXXII. Interpretum, Chaldaicæ, Syriacæ, Arabicæ, Æthiopicæ, Vulgatæ Latinæ, quicquid comparari potetat, &c [The Holy Bible in Several Languages, combining the Original Texts, &c]. Edidit Brianus Walton, S.T.D. Londini, imprimebat Thomas Roycroft, 1657. 6 vols., large folio. Reprinted in Graz (Austria) by the Akademische Druck-U Verlagsanstalt in 1963-65.

Walton in this work was mainly interested in making available the Hebrew and Syriac texts of the Old Testament, the study of which had occupied him for some years. He also set forth the results of his own studies in learned Prolegomena. The fifth volume, containing the New Testament, exhibited the text of Estienne 1550 along with several ancient versions (Peshitta, Vulgate, Ethiopic, Arabic, Persic), with the readings of Codex Alexandrinus given underneath the Greek text. In the sixth volume a very large collation of various readings of manuscripts, compiled by Archbishop Ussher, was published. It included readings from the following manuscripts (in the notation of Scrivener and Miller 1894):

Cantabrigiensis (5th century)
Claromontanus (6th century)
Act.33 & Paul.39 (12th cent.)
Act.36 (12th cent.)
Paul.42 (12th cent.)
Evan.47 (15th cent.)
Act.53 & Paul.30 (12th cent.)
Evan.56 (15th cent.)
Evan.57 & Act.85 & Paul.41 (12th cent.)
Evan.58 (15th cent.)
Evan.59 (12th cent.)
Evan.61 & Act.34 & Paul.40 & Apoc.92 (15th cent.)
Evan.62 (dated undetermined)
Evan.64 (12th cent.)
Evan.96 (15th cent.)

In addition, Walton appended the following smaller collections of various readings from earlier printed works:

Annotations of the editors of the Louvrain Vulgate
Annotations of Lucas Brugensis
The Velesian collection of readings
The Wechelian collection

The sheer size of Ussher's collation, which was the first of its kind in print, was impressive enough; and, as John Fell observed, it tended to produce among students, who had not the leisure to examine its various readings in detail, an unduly skeptical attitude toward the text of the New Testament (see Fell 1675).

The notes of the Jesuit scholar Franz Lucas Brugensis on the various readings of the Gospels included extracts from manuscript no. 1209 of the Vatican Library (called Codex Vaticanus), which was later to become very important to scholars. These readings had been collected by Werner of Nimeguen, and earlier published by Franz Lucas in his Notationes in S. Biblia (1580) and in the Notae ad varias lectiones editionis Graecae Evangeliorum to his Lucae Brugensis Commentarius in Quatuor Jesu Christi Evangelia (3 vols. Antwerp, 1606). This meager collection of readings was the only published source of information on the readings of the Vatican manuscript available to scholars until Birch's collation was published in 1788 (see Birch 1788).

The Velesian readings were first printed by the Jesuit scholar De La Cerda in his Adversaria Sacra (Lyons, 1626). They were called Velesian because they were found in the margin of a Greek Testament owned by Don Pedro Faxardo, Marquis of Velez. For many years they were accepted as readings of certain Greek manuscripts which supported the Latin Vulgate (see Clement 1592), but in 1751 Wettstein demonstrated that the readings were in fact translated from Latin sources, and of no critical value.

Walton's lengthy Prolegomena were reprinted by Johann Augustus Dathe, Briani Waltoni in Biblia Polyglotta Prolegomena. Praefatus est J.A. Dathe, Prof. Ling. Heb. Ord. (Leipzig, 1777); and, with substantial additions, by, Franciscus Wrangham, Briani Waltoni, S.T.P. in Biblia Polyglotta Prolegomena Specialia recognovit, Dathianisque et variorum Notis suas immiscuit Franciscus Wrangham, A.M. S.R.S. Clevelandiae Archidiachonus. 2 vols. (Cambridge: Deighton, 1828). Walton's work was criticized by John Owen in Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew text of the Scriptures, with Considerations on the Prolegomena and Appendix to the late "Biblia Polyglotta" (Oxford, 1659), in which he suggested that Walton dishonoured Scripture in his Prolegomena, and that the collations printed in his Appendix would give comfort to skeptics. Walton replied in The Considerator Considered (London, 1659). For an account of Walton's life and a reprint of his reply to Owen, see H.J. Todd, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Brian Walton, together with the Bishop's Vindication of the London Polyglott Bible. (2 vols. London, 1821).

Warfield, 1886. Benjamin B. Warfield, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. London, 1886.

Weigle et al., 1946. Luther Weigle, et al., The New Covenant, Commonly Called the New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Revised Standard Version, Translated from the Greek, Being the Version Set Forth A.D. 1611, Revised A.D. 1881 and A.D. 1901, Compared with the Most Ancient Authorities and Revised A.D. 1946. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1946. Revised 1952, 1959, 1971. Roman Catholic edition, 1965.

The Revised Standard Version of the New Testament.

Weigle, 1962. Luther Weigle, ed., The New Testament Octapla: Eight English Versions of the New Testament in the Tyndale-King James Tradition. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1962.

Full parallel texts of Tyndale 1535, Great Bible 1540, Geneva Bible 1562, Bishop's Bible 1568, Rheims 1582, King James version (represented by Scrivener's edition of 1873), American Standard Version 1901, Revised Standard Version 1960. Original marginal notes are not included, except for those of the KJV, ASV, and RSV which pertain to various readings.

Weiss, 1894. Bernhard Weiss, Das Neue Testament. Textkritische Untersuchungen und Textherstellung von D. Bernhard Weiss. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1894 (Acts, Catholic Epistles, Revelation); 1896 (Pauline Epistles); 1900 (Gospels). 2nd edition 1902, 1902, 1905.

Weiss' edition is of importance as a source of the Nestle text (3rd ed. 1901: see Nestle 1898), where its various readings were indicated in the margin. It stands closer to Westcott & Hort than to Tischendorf. For further information see Caspar Rene Gregory, "Bernhard Weiss and the New Testament" in The American Journal of Theology i (1896), pp. 16-37.

Wells, 1718. Edward Wells, An Help for the more easy and clear understanding of the Holy Scripture, being the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, explained after the following method. 1. The original or Greek text, amended according to the best and most ancient readings. 2. The common English translation rendered more agreeable to the original. 3. A paraphrase, &c. Oxford, 1718. 4 vols.

Wells' text, which first appeared almost unnoticed as a part of his "Helps" in several volumes between 1709 and 1719, departs in 210 places from the text of Elzevir 1624, usually in agreement with later editors. It had little influence, but is worthy of mention as being the first attempt to revise the text on critical principles.

Wesley, 1755. John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament. London: William Boyer, 1755. Reprinted 1757, with further editions in 1760, 1790 (abridged), and 1837. The 1790 reprint was published under the title, The New Testament, with an Analysis of the several Books and Chapters (London: at the New Chapel, 1790). Geddes MacGregor states that a 1755 printing appeared under the title, The New Testament with Notes, for Plain Unlettered Men who know only their Mother Tongue.

Wesley's version is a limited revision of the King James version, done with reference to the Greek text of Bengel 1734, and with selected renderings and annotations drawn from Bengel 1742 and other sources. It was widely used by Methodists, and the notes are still in print (both in abridged and unabridged editions), detached from the translation. For a comparison of Wesley's version with the King James version see George C. Cell, ed., John Wesley's New Testament, compared with the Authorized Version (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Co., 1938).

Westcott, 1870. Brooke Foss Westcott and Ezra Abbot, "New Testament" article in Dr. William Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, comprising its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History, revised and edited by Professor H.B. Hackett, D.D., with the cooperation of Ezra Abbot, LL.D., assistant librarian of Harvard College. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1896. Volume III, pages 2112-2143.

Westcott and Hort, 1881. B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1881.

This very influential work was issued in two editions: the original two-volume edition, with the text itself in the first volume and an Introduction and Appendix of Notes on Select Readings in the second; and the single-volume Student's Edition in which only the text volume of the two-volume edition is reproduced, with a simplified margin.

The Introduction and Appendix of Notes on Select Readings volume of the original edition (currently available in reprint from Hendrickson) was written by Dr. Hort, and in it he sets forth the arguments and general theories upon which the text was reconstructed, and provides explanations for many specific textual decisions.

Westcott and Hort brought the main tendency of nineteenth century textual criticism, the exaltation of the oldest Greek copies, to its culmination. They firmly set aside the Latin witnesses along with the later Greek manuscripts; but the oldest known Greek copies, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, they elevated to a pristine class called "Neutral," and very nearly identified them with the original manuscripts. It cannot be said, however, that Westcott and Hort were simply following a tendency here, for they realized that if such weight were to be given to only two manuscripts, a theory must be offered to explain how the text given in them had so early disappeared from the manuscript tradition. And so Hort offered in the Introduction of their text a theoretical history of the manuscript tradition that met the needs of the case, or at least so it seemed to many scholars.

They theorized that the "Neutral" text was the most primitive type, carefully copied for use in the worship services of the churches. The "Western" text-type arose early on as an uncontrolled popular edition, and persisted mainly in the Latin witnesses after Greek copies were no longer being produced in Italy. The "Byzantine" group, which includes the mass of later copies, began in the fourth century as an official church-sponsored edition of the New Testament, written probably in Antioch, which combined the various readings of the Western and Neutral groups. This edition was so effectively propagated throughout Europe that both the older "Neutral" and "Western" text-types ceased to be copied in the European scriptoriums, and eventually decayed. The Neutral text survived for a while in Egypt, but then suffered corruption and became the "Alexandrian" type. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are relics of the Neutral type. A considerable amount of speculation is involved in this argument, but Westcott & Hort further bolstered their text with detailed arguments from two other directions, presenting "external" arguments (from the oldest manuscripts, as in Lachmann) and "internal" arguments (from the tendencies of scribes, as in the rules of Griesbach 1796). External and internal arguments were also made to support one another by the principle, "Readings are to be preferred that are found in a manuscript that habitually contains superior readings:" superior, that is, as determined by the rules of internal criticism. The text of Westcott & Hort therefore had the appearance of resting firmly upon three-legged arguments, and it was considered by many scholars to be the best possible text.

Whatever may be the merits of Westcott and Hort's theory, the success of their text was largely due to personal influence and advantageous timing; In the 1860's the two most ancient copies, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, were both published for the first time, creating a public sensation. Westcott and Hort began work on their text, and in 1870, the year that the English Revised Version was commissioned by the church authorities in England, they were able to distribute to the members of the revision committee a draft copy of their text; they both served on the revision committee; and they published their text in 1881, the same year that the revision was published. For ten years, then, Westcott and Hort continually advocated their views in favour of the texts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in regular meetings of the most influential scholars of Great Britain and America; and it is hardly surprising that their text should be so well regarded when it appeared. In fact two generations passed before most scholars would recognize that the genealogical theories of Westcott and Hort were without adequate empirical foundation.

The text of Westcott & Hort was most vigorously assailed by John William Burgon, Dean of Chichester (see Burgon 1883, 1896), and more temperately criticized by others (see volume 2, chapter 10 of Scrivener and Miller 1894, Miller 1897, and Hoskier 1914). The common theme of criticism was the lack of historical basis for their hypothesis of an early "Byzantine" recension in Antioch. The text is translated into English in Rotherham 1897. It is collated against Estienne 1550 in Scrivener and Nestle 1906.

For complete biographical information on Westcott see the account edited by his son: Arthur Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott (London: MacMillan, 1903). For Hort see the account edited by his son: Arthur Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort (London: MacMillan, 1896).

Critical Rules of Westcott & Hort

The following summary of principles is taken by permission from the compilation in Epp and Fee 1993, pages 157-8. References in parentheses are to sections of Hort's Introduction, from which the principles have been extracted.

1. Older readings, MSS, or groups are to be preferred. ("The shorter the interval between the time of the autograph and the end of the period of transmission in question, the stronger the presumption that earlier date implies greater purity of text.") (2.59; cf. 2.5-6, 31)
2. Readings are approved or rejected by reason of the quality, and not the number, of their supporting witnesses. ("No available presumptions whatever as to text can be obtained from number alone, that is, from number not as yet interpreted by descent.") (2.44)
3. A reading combining two simple, alternative readings is later than the two readings comprising the conflation, and MSS rarely or never supporting conflate reading are text antecedent to mixture and are of special value. (2.49-50).
4. The reading is to be preferred that makes the best sense, that is, that best conforms to the grammar and is most congruous with the purport of the rest of the sentence and of the larger context. (2.20)
5. The reading is to be preferred that best conforms to the usual style of the author and to that author's material in other passages. (2.20)
6. The reading is to be preferred that most fitly explains the existence of the others. (2.22-23)
7. The reading is less likely to be original that combines the appearance of an improvement in the sense with the absence of its reality; the scribal alteration will have an apparent excellence, while the original will have the highest real excellence. (2.27, 29)
8. The reading is less likely to be original that shows a disposition to smooth away difficulties (another way of stating that the harder reading is preferable). (2.28)
9. Readings are to be preferred that are found in a MS that habitually contains superior readings as determined by intrinsic and transcriptional probability. Certainty is increased if such a better MS is found also to be an older MS (2.32-33) and if such a MS habitually contains reading that prove themselves antecedent to mixture and independent of external contamination by other, inferior texts (2.150-51). The same principles apply to groups of MSS (2.260-61).

Wettstein, 1730. [Johann Jakob Wettstein], Prolegomena ad Testamenti Graeci editionem accuratissimam, e vetustissimis codicibus denuo procurandam: in quibus agitur de codicibus manuscriptis Novi Testamenti, Scriptoribus qui Novo Testamento usi sunt, versionibus veteribus, editionibus prioribus, et claris interpretibus; et proponuntur animadversiones et cautiones, ad examen variarum lectionum Novi Testamenti. Amsterdam, 1730. 4 vols.

This anonymous treatise by Wettstein reappeared with extensive revisions as the Prolegomena to his Greek Testament (see Wettstein 1751 and Semler 1764). In 1730 Wettstein proposed to reconstruct the text on the basis of the Codex Alexandrinus, along the lines proposed by Bentley and Bengel, but soon afterwards he changed his views (see Wettstein 1751).

The "Animadversiones" of Wettstein

The section of the Prolegomena entitled Animadversiones et cautiones ("observations and precautions") is especially interesting for the history of critical theory. Here Wettstein improves upon von Maestricht's list of "canons" (see von Maestricht 1711) with a list of nineteen rules of criticism, illustrated in detail by examples. Briefly, They are:

1. The New Testament should be edited as thoroughly as possible;
2. All critical aids should be employed to that end;
3. The common text should have no prescriptive authority;
4. Editors must form their own judgment as to spelling, punctuation, and accents;
5. Conjectural emendations are admissible with caution;
6. Any division of readings into groups with more or less weight is invalid [this seems to be directed against Bengel's Prodromus];
7. A Reading which is obscure or in poor Greek is to be preferred;
8. The reading which involves an unusual expression is to be preferred;
9. The shorter reading is to be preferred;
10. A reading which verbally conforms to a parallel passage is suspect;
11. A reading which conforms to the style of the author is to be preferred;
12. The reading which seems most orthodox is suspect;
13. The reading which corresponds to the ancient versions is to be preferred;
14. The reading which corresponds to citations in the Fathers is to be preferred;
15. The reading which is not attested in the Fathers is suspect;
16. Care should be taken to correct the errors of collators and former editors;
17. The oldest reading is to be preferred;
18. All other things being equal, the reading which is found in the majority of manuscripts is to be preferred;
19. A reading may rightly be adopted without certain proof that it is genuine.

The Animadversiones were reprinted in condensed form, minus number 18, as an appendix to the second volume of Wettstein's text in 1752, but in fact they were never applied by Wettstein in his annotations to the text.

Wettstein, 1751. Johann Jakob Wettstein, Novum Testamentum Græcum editionis receptæ, cum Lectionibus Variantibus Codicum MSS., Editionum aliarum, Versionum et Patrum, necnon Commentario pleniore ex Scriptoribus veteribus, Hebræis, Græcis, et Latinis, historiam et vim verborum illustrante. Amstelædami, 1751, 1752. 2 vols. Reprinted in Graz, Austria by the Akademische Druck-u. Verlagsanstalt in 1962.

Wettstein, a combative scholar of Socinian sympathies (see Courcelles 1658), published this edition almost twenty years after the appearance of his Prolegomena (see Wettstein 1730), during which time he had engaged in bitter disputes with the Calvinists who had once been his friends. These quarrels motivated Wettstein to adopt, in perverse opposition to them, untenable views; chiefly the theory that all of the oldest Greek manuscripts reflect a systematic anterior corruption from the early Latin versions. This theory of latinization was espoused in his revised Prolegomena, along with sharp attacks upon Bentley, Bengel, and several of his former friends and patrons in Germany. He dismissed Bengel's critical principles "by plainly asserting that we ought to adopt those [readings] which are supported by the greatest number of manuscripts" (Tregelles 1854, pp. 71-2). But Wettstein's revised Prolegomena also contained much valuable information, surpassing Mill's in every respect.

The text was according to Elzevir 1624, from which he dissents in the margin less than 500 times (most often in Revelation), in consequence of his low opinion of the older manuscripts. The critical apparatus of various readings in the lower margin easily surpassed Mill's, because it included all of the readings recorded in Küster's edition of Mill (see Mill 1707), and in Bengel 1734, plus those of forty manuscripts collated by himself. The apparatus also featured Wettstein's improved system of notation, in which Greek uncials (i.e. manuscripts written in capital letters) were designated by single capital letters, and cursives by numbers; a method universally adopted and elaborated by scholars after Wettstein. Beneath the various readings he added almost as many philological notes, illustrating the usage of the Greek words in classical literature, and noticing Hebrew parallels in rabbinic literature. As the collector and organizer of these raw materials of criticism Wettstein contributed greatly to subsequent research.

As a critic he had no lasting influence, although his recommended readings were adopted in the text of the English printer William Bowyer (Novum Testamentum Graecum ad fidem Graecorum solum MSS. nunc primum expressum ad stipulante Jo. Jac. Wetstenio, &c.. London: Bowyer, 1763). His theory of pandemic latinization, which dominated his whole approach to the manuscript evidence, was soon debunked by competent scholars, and has not been heard since. The "majority text" position of recent American authors (see Hodges and Farstad 1982) is indeed anticipated in Wettstein's writings; but the American school seems to have developed this method independently.

For a biography of Wettstein see C.L. Hulbert-Powell, John James Wettstein (1693-1754): An Account of his Life, Work, and some of his Contemporaries (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1938).

Weymouth, 1892. Richard F. Weymouth, The Resultant Greek Testament: Exhibiting the text in which the majority of modern editors are agreed, and containing the readings of Stephens (1550), Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Lightfoot, Ellicott, Alford, Weiss, The Bale Edition (1880), Westcott and Hort, and the revision committee. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1892.

Weymouth's apparatus of various readings is the most accurate and complete collation available for the above named editors. The text is translated in Weymouth's The New Testament in Modern Speech (Boston: Pilgrim Press, 1903; Revised 1924).

Whiston, 1745. William Whiston, The Primitive New Testament. Stamford, 1745.

Remarkable as a very early translation of two of the oldest manuscripts, and part of third. The Gospels and Acts are translated from the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, the Pauline epistles from Codex Claromontanus, and the remainder from Codex Alexandrinus, "according to the collations in Dr. Mills, corrected."

Whitney, 1892. S.W. Whitney, The Revisers' Greek Text: A Critical Examination of Certain Readings, Textual and Marginal, in the Original Greek of the New Testament Adopted by the Late Anglo-American Revisers. Boston: Silver, Burdett & Company, 1892.

This two-volume work is a very careful and thorough discussion of many readings adopted by the committee of the English Revised Version of 1881 which diverge from the traditional Received Text. The author (an American Baptist) usually argues against the new readings and for the Received Text's reading, but unlike many who have undertaken to defend the Received Text, he presents cool-headed arguments. The work contains much information in English on various readings of the manuscripts, and discusses the thinking of textual critics. The first volume has a concise introduction to textual criticism.

Whittingham et al., 1557. William Whittingham, et. al. The Newe Testament of our Lord Iesus Christ, conferred diligently with the Greke and best approued translations. With the arguments as wel before the chapters, as for euery Boke and Epistle, also diuersities of readings, and most proffitable annotations of all harde places: whereunto is added a copious Table. Geneva: Conrad Badius, 1557.

Whittingham's New Testament, the precursor to the Geneva Bible.

Whittingham et al., 1560. William Whittingham, et al., The Bible and Holy Scriptures Conteyned in the Olde and Newe Testament, translated according to the Ebrue and Greke, and conferred with the best translations in divers languages, with moste profitable annotations upon all the hard places, and other things of great importance as may appear in the epistle to the reader. Geneva: Rovland Hall, 1560.

The Geneva Bible.

Wigram, 1883. George V. Wigram, A Concordance of Various Readings occurring in the Greek New Testament, as adopted by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth, Westcott and Hort, and "The Revisers," Compared with the text of Stephens 1550 and the Authorized version of 1611. London, Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1883.

This Greek and English concordance of various readings is highly accurate, but does contain some errors. On page 2, column 3, under Aminadab, it should read "Admin WH" instead of "omit of Aminadab WH." Page 8, column 1, under Aram, it should add "WH" before "R." Page 14, column 2, under Gergesenos, "Mat 5:1" should be "Mark 5:1." Page 35, column 1, under Jesous, Mat 13:51 is written "Mat 31:51" by mistake. Page 47, column 3, under mou, in the two entries for John 10:29 the words "the Father" and "the Father's" should be transposed. Page 58, column 1, Rev 21:15 should be 22:15. Page 62, column 3, under stadios, "Mar. 14:24" should be "Mat 14:24." Marginal readings of Westcott & Hort are not included. This concordance was reprinted as an appendix to the eighth edition of The Englishman's Greek Concordance (see Wigram 1885).

Wigram, 1885. George V. Wigram, The Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1840. 3rd ed. 1860; 8th ed. 1885; 9th ed. 1903.

Currently available in reprint in two editions. The eighth British edition (1885), reprinted by Baker and by Tyndale, contains the valuable Concordance of Various Readings mentioned above (1883). An earlier edition which does not include the Concordance of Various Readings is offered by Hendrickson Publishers. This earlier edition also contains errors in the body of the main Concordance which were corrected in later editions.

In connection with this work the following extracts from Frederick Roy Coad's A History of the Brethren Movement (London: Paternoster Press, 1968) are of interest: "George Vicesimus Wigram was a close friend of B.W. Newton at Oxford. He was born in 1805, the twentieth child (hence his curious second name), of Sir Robert Wigram, a wealthy London Irish merchant, another of whose sons was to become Bishop of Rochester. George Wigram had served in the Guards. Experiencing conversion, he had resigned his commission, and entered Queen's College with the purpose of taking orders. At this time Wigram was an eccentric character, prodigal with his wealth in some respects, yet affecting a slovenliness in dress as a means (Newton alleged) of self-mortification ... Wigram was said by Newton to have had a wide selection of friends ... they were all sunk in the loyalty he now gave to the new friend and leader he found in [John Nelson] Darby ... The fourth notable acquisition came in early 1835, when Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, a member of a Quaker family, joined the congregation [of the Plymouth Brethren]. He had been converted through his contacts with Newton, his cousin by marriage. Ostracized by his family as a result, he lived for a few months with Newton and his wife, until arrangements were made for his employment by Wigram on the early stages of the latter's Englishman's Greek and Hebrew Concordances - a work which launched Tregelles on the career which later placed him in the forefront of Biblical textual critics." (pages 60, 65).

Wiley, 1870. Textual Corrections of the Common English Version in the New Testament (Covenant), according to the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS., with the other Ancient Manuscripts &c. New York: J. Wiley, 1870.

Wilson, 1882. Benjamin Wilson, The Emphatic Diaglott: containing the original Greek Text of what is commonly styled the New Testament, according to the Recension of Dr. J.J. Griesbach, with an interlineary word for word English Translation; a new Emphatic Version, based on the interlineary Translation, on the Renderings of eminent Critics, and on the various Readings of the Vatican Manuscript, No. 1209 in the Vatican Library, together with illustrative and explanatory Footnotes, and a copious Selection of References, to the whole of which is added a valuable alphabetical Appendix. New York: Fowler & Wells, 1882.

Text of Griesbach 1805, with a very peculiar translation.

Woide, 1786. Charles G. Woide, Novum Testamentum Graecum e codice ms. alexandrino. London, 1786.

The first printed edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, in typographical facsimile.

Wordsworth, 1856. Christopher Wordsworth, The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in the Original Greek: with Introductions and Notes. London: Rivingtons, 1856-60. This work was first published in four volumes: Part 1, Four Gospels, 1856; Part 2, Acts of the Apostles, 1857; Part 3, St. Paul's Epistles, 1859; Part 4, General Epistles and Book of Revelation, 1860. An Index volume to Parts 1-4, by the Rev. J. Twycrose, appeared in 1861. After the completion of the four parts, a two-volume edition of the whole was issued in 1860. Several two-volume editions followed, between 1862 and 1870.

It was not Wordsworth's main purpose to present a new Greek text in these volumes. His main object was to publish the introductions and exegetical notes, which amount to a complete commentary on the New Testament. The Greek text is a modest revision of the Received Text. The final edition of Wordsworth's text (1870) is collated against Estienne 1550 in Newberry 1877.

Wurthwein, 1979. Ernst Wurthwein, Der Text des Alten Testaments. 4th ed. Stuttgart: Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1973. English translation: The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica by Ernst Wurthwein, translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.