I will have to re-read the commentary and see if I read it the same way, i.e. that it was misleading. But we can't say it was intentionally misleading, although I didn't find anything misleading in it, unless he explicitly says that there is a word "Logos" in Mat 1:25, which he doesn't.
Which version is more reliable? The oldest unical versions of the Bible were uncovered in 1859, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Westcott and Hort uses them as the source (and so does NAB, NIV, etc.). One of the reasons KJV has it because it used Alexandrinus, which is reputed to be unreliable, yet sadly it is used by the EOC. Perhaps the Vaicnaus and Sinaitucs were lost before the 5th cenutry so Alexandrinus was the only one available, who knows.
One thing perplexes me: Wycliffe is the oldest verison in English (I think), ratker "litteral," yet it doesn't have "firstborn" in it. Given that Sinaiticus/Vaticanus were not discovere until past the middle of the 19th cenutry, I wonder which source was used for te Wycliffe version. We must be very careful when we say that "something is in the Bible," precisely because an average church-goer really has no idea how complex and confusing the Christian Canon can be. It's a real miracle we still believe in one and the same thing. :)
Kosta,
If you know anything about the early churches, older does NOT NECESSARILY mean better. I mean, we may find sometime something written by the Nicolaitans of Paul's day. Just because what they wrote was older, does not mean better.
Westcott and Hort should be examined as well. I am not of the camp that says something stupid like everyone who uses anything other than that which was translated from the majority text is a heathen; however, I do think it is fair to examine the translators and any agendas they may have had in translation.
The KJV translators were deadly serious about translating things right and took the word of God seriously. There have been others who have approached translation the same way but didn't use the majority text.
I can have respect for that; even though I believe that some of these texts are inferior - even though they may be somewhat older.
There are a gazillion sources on the internet about Westcott and Hort. The sources range from kooky to scholarly. But if any of these quotes are contextual and true from Westcott and Hort, it does give one pause to wonder why they chose the specific texts that they chose for their Greek NT.
For example, from one website
* "I never read of the account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it." (page 216)
* "Oh the weakness of my faith compared with that of others! So wild, so sceptical am I. I cannot yield." (page 217)
* "O Marie , (his wife's name) as I wrote the last word, I could not help asking what am I? Can I claim to be a believer?" (page 217)
* "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you, even if you were willing to forget your fears about the origin of the Gospels." (page 230)
Likewise, Hort seemed driven in a particular direction:
* "Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you (Westcott) about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book."
* "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument more in detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable."
* "…Anglicanism, though by no means without a sound standing, seems a poor and maimed thing beside great Rome."
Thus, we have Hort in the camp of so many of the 19th centuries liberals who began to not look at God's word as 100% true; but rather, began to say - what in it is true? His admiration for Rome - by the 19th century (in light of the many extra-biblical doctrines which had taken hold by that time)- could put a certain slant on his choices as well, but I will leave that up to the reader.
The Westcott/Hort editions of Scripture did not develop in a sterile environment. A whole lot of things were going on at that particular time, one of which was a lot of clergy were losing their faith because of Darwinism.
I by no means deny that the Sinaiticus or Vaticanas text exist; however, I do question whether they are more reliable than the majority text. And, by the way, KJV didn't use the Alexandrian text. The more modern versions did. The KJV used the Textus Receptus which was the edition of the Greek New Testament that reflects the largest number of the NT Greek manuscripts (Byzantine texts).
His implication was that Logos appears in the Hebrew verse.