H

Hammond, 1872. C.E. Hammond, Outlines of Textual Criticism Applied to the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1872; 2nd ed. 1876; 3rd ed. 1880; 5th ed. 1890; 6th ed. 1902.

Hansell, 1864. Edward H. Hansell, ed., Novum Testamentum Graece: antiquissimorum codicum textus in ordine parallelo dispositi, accedit collatio codicis sinaitici. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1864. 3 vols.

Hansell presents the full text of the following manuscripts in parallel columns: Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus, Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Claromontanus, Laudianus, and Dublinensis Rescriptus. A collation of Sinaiticus is appended. The Preface states, "it was determined that the text of the Gospels in this present work should be printed in four parallel columns, from the Codex Alexandrinus (A), the Codex Vaticanus 1209 (B), the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C), and Codex Bezae (D). As the Codex Alexandrinus is deficient up to Mt. 25.6. it was determined that the lacuna should be supplied from the Codex Dubliniensis Rescriptus (Z), the remaining portions of this MS. (which is but fragmentary) being arranged in a fifth division running under the other four, where A begins; and that a similar arrangement should be made in the text of the Acts, where besides the texts of A, B, C, D, this edition gives also the text of the Codex Laudianus (E). It was also determined that the text of the Catholic Epistles should be given in three columns from A, B, C ... that the text of the Pauline Epistles should be given in four parallel columns from A, B, C, and the Codex Claromontanus ... that the text of the Apocalypse should be given in three columns from A, C, and the Codex Vaticanus 2066." (vol. 3, p. ii). This edition is designed for students who wish to read and compare the continuous texts of the most important manuscripts, rather than pick their various readings from collations and critical notes. Unlike the actual manuscripts, the text is printed in accented cursive characters, with the words divided. Obvious scribal errors are also corrected, and must be looked for in the annotations. Variations from Estienne 1550 are indicated by means of marks inserted in the texts, similar to those employed in Nestle 1927. Because Hansell's work preceded Tischendorf's edition of Codex Vaticanus (see Tischendorf 1867), his text for this manuscript is derived mainly from the faulty edition of Cardinal Mai (see Mai 1857). Consequently, Hansell's text of Vaticanus should not be relied upon as an accurate source of information. For the other manuscripts he follows the texts of good critical and facsimile editions.

Harwood, 1767. Edward Harwood, An Introduction to the Study and Knowledge of the New Testament. London, 1767-71. 2 vols. 2nd ed. 1773.

Harwood, 1776. Edward Harwood, Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΚΗ. The New Testament, collated with the most approved manuscripts; with select notes in English, critical and explanatory, and references to those authors who have best illustrated the sacred writings. To which are added, a Catalogue of the principal Editions of the Greek Testament; and a List of the most esteemed Commentators and critics. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols.

Edward Harwood (1729-1794) was an English classical scholar and biblical critic. His edition of the text is largely the Greek counterpart of Whiston's English text in The Primitive New Testament (see Whiston 1745): The Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis is the principal authority for the Gospels and Acts, Codex Claromontanus for Paul, and Codex Alexandrinus for the rest. The readings are taken from the apparatus of Wettstein 1751.

In his preface Harwood writes, "the Text of the inspired writers here exhibited will approve itself to every scholar who is a judge of sacred criticism, to be as near to the original autograph of the Evangelists and Apostles as any hitherto published in the world. To accomplish this arduous design, I carefully read through the late Professor Wetstein's Greek Testament, published at Amsterdam in two volumes in folio, scrupulously weighed the merit or demerit of the various lections there exhibited from a great multitude of Manuscripts of different value, and adopted only those which to my judgment appeared to be the best authenticated." Metzger (1964) asserts that "In an analysis of 1,000 passages in the New Testament, Reuss found that Harwood deserted the Textus Receptus more than 70 per cent. of the time, and in 643 passages agrees with the epoch-making critical edition of Lachmann" (p. 117).

Hatch, 1939. William H.P. Hatch, The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939.

Hatch, 1951. William H.P. Hatch, Facsimiles and Descriptions of Minuscule Manuscripts of the New Testament. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1951.

Herbert, 1968. A.S. Herbert, ed., Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible, 1525-1961: Revised and Expanded from the Edition of T.H. Darlow and H.F. Moule, 1903. London: The British and Foreign Bible Society, 1968.

Hodges and Farstad, 1982. Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982; 2nd edition 1985.

In this Greek text Hodges and Farstad present the majority readings of the numerous medieval manuscripts (from data provided in von Soden 1913) in a critical edition, with a sparse apparatus of "Byzantine" and "Alexandrian" variants. The readings of Aland et al. 1979 and of an edition of Mill's text (see Mill 1707) are indicated in the margin. A genealogical method is used for the book of Revelation, and so the readings there are not strictly majority readings, but rather early "Byzantine" readings. The "Alexandrian" readings typical of modern critical texts are set aside as products of a deviant manuscript tradition of Egypt. Hodges and Farstad maintain that the majority readings are most likely to be the original readings because the earliest readings would be the most widely distributed and frequently copied, while later deviations would tend to be localized. They spend little time on such general explanations of theory and method in the Introduction; it is understood that Pickering 1977 gives a full exposition of their views. For a similar text, founded on similar principles, see Pierpont and Robinson 1991. The Hodges and Farstad text is reprinted and provided with an interlinear translation in Farstad 1993.

Horne, 1839. Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. 8th edition, corrected and enlarged. Edinburgh, 1839; 10th edition 1856; 11th edition 1860; 14th edition 1877. 4 vols. 8th edition reprinted in 1970 by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids.

Horne's work features a generously annotated Bibliographical Appendix (originally printed as part II of volume II, and in later editions appended to volume 4) which remains valuable as a source of information on editions of Scripture and other important books published prior to 1840.

Beginning with the 10th edition, volume 4 (Introduction to the Textual Criticism and Study of the New Testament) is by Samuel P. Tregelles, also published separately as An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London, 1856). See Tregelles 1856.

Hort, 1881. F.J.A. Hort, Introduction and Appendix, being volume 2 of Westcott and Hort 1881. 2nd edition (edited by F.C. Burkitt), 1896.

A brief textual commentary on the whole New Testament, written by Dr. Hort, is given in the section called "Notes on Select Readings." It is very useful for understanding the thinking behind the text of Westcott and Hort 1881.

Hoskier, 1890. Herman C. Hoskier, A Full Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelium 604, Together with Ten Appendices Containing &c. London: David Nutt, 1890.

This work is of value chiefly for the information given in Appendix B and Appendix C. Appendix B is titled as follows: "A reprint with corrections of Scrivener's list of differences between the editions of Stephens 1550 and Elzevir 1624, Beza 1565, and the Complutensian, together with fresh evidence gathered from an investigation of the support afforded to the various readings by the five editions of Erasmus, 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535, by the Aldine Bible 1518, by Colinaeus 1534, by the other editions of Stephen of 1546, 1549, 1551, and by the remaining three Bezan editions in folio of 1582, 1588-9, 1598, and the octavo editions of 1565, 1567, 1580, 1590, 1604." This is a collation of Estienne 1550 against Elzevir 1624. The other texts mentioned are cited only in support of one or the other, and are not collated themselves. Appendix C is titled, "A full and exact comparison of the Elzevir editions of 1624 and 1633, doubling the number of the real variants hitherto known, and exhibiting the support given in the one case and in the other by the subsequent editions of 1641, 1656, 1662, 1670, and 1678." This is the only published collation of Elzevir 1633 against Elzevir 1624.

Hoskier, 1914. H.C. Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies: A Study and an Indictment. London: Bernard Quaritch, 1914. 2 vols.

This work is a very painstaking comparison of Codex Vaticanus with Codex Sinaiticus, in which the two are shown to have many significant disagreements. Hoskier attempts to demonstrate that Vaticanus presents a text which has been conformed to the Coptic versions.

Hug, 1808. Johann Leonhard Hug, Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Stuttgart, 1808; 3rd edition 1826; 4th edition 1847. English translations by Wait (London, 1827) and Fosdick (Andover, 1836).

In this Introduction Hug, a Roman Catholic professor at the University of Freiburg in Breisgau, "developed the theory that at about the beginning of the third century the several types of New Testament text degenerated rapidly and produced what is commonly called the Western text, which Hug called the ... common edition. Toward the middle of the third century, according to Hug, this edition was revised in Palestine by Origen, a revision adopted later by Jerome; in Egypt it was revised by Hesychius, and in Syria by Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch, both of which revisions Jerome condemned." (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, page 123). On the basis of this hypothesis, Hug assigns manuscripts to groups descended from the three recensions.

Hug, 1836. Johann Leonhard Hug, Hug's Introduction to the New Testament, translated from the 3rd German edition by David Fosdick, Jr., with notes by M. Stuart. Andover: Gould and Newman, 1836.

Hurst, 1960. A.R. Hurst et al., Old Testament Translation Problems. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960.