Basically W&H felt that older is better (mss B and Aleph)
shorter is better in that they felt the Byzantine priests/scribes embellished and conflated the "Traditional Text" (as Burgon called it)
to smooth it out.
JB had his own schema of authenticity.The Seven Tests of Truth found in The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels.
W. B. Riley stated in his book "The Menace of Modernism" (New York: Christian Alliance, 1917), the Modernist believes the Bible's "inspiration exists only in its ability to inspire...its interpretation is a matter of mental conscience." Dr. Riley goes on to say there were a group of men whom he describes as the "old conception," who believed the Authorized Version or King James Bible (hereafter AV) was inerrant. He states on page 11, "On this point we are inclined to think that, even unto comparatively recent years, such a theory has been entertained." He then ascribes this belief to ignorance, and says, "I think it would be accepted without fear of successful controversy that such fogies in Biblical knowledge are few, and their funerals are nigh at hand."
Dr. Riley believed there were still a few of the "old conception" men in his day that still believed in an inerrant AV, that they were mostly old men, and were soon to pass away. If these men were old men when Riley wrote his book, they must have dated to at least the latter part of the 19th century. Over one hundred years ago, a group of "old conception" men existed who still believed in the inerrancy of the AV. This appears to indicate the "King James Only" position is not of recent origin.
Thus we can see, in Riley's day, a group of men still existed who believed, "(1) the Bible was finished in heaven and handed down, (2) the King James Version was absolutely inerrant, and (3) its literal acceptance was alone correct." (Page nine of Riley's book as quoted by Dr. George W. Dollar in his book "History of Fundamentalism in America", Page 114) We can easily see that W. B. Riley (1861 - 1947), understood this group of men to believe exactly as the "King James Only" crowd does today, and believed it long before any of the contemporary antagonists were born!
Sort of, but according to his writings (The Traditional Text) The Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza Greek New Testaments were representative of what he called the "Traditional Text". Elzivir came later, Scrivener much later.
KJV yes for the most part and as far as I know (Cambridge, Oxford, Nelson; 1611-1769).
NKJV:
Though KJVO folks even here visiting the BB years ago claimed that the NKJV used Alexandrian readings (CT readings) which was proven false.
What had happened is that the NKJV ENGLISH translation agreed with the ASV or RSV over a disputed choice of a word.
KJV Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
ASV Acts 12:4 And when he had taken him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him; intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people.
NKJV Acts 12:4 So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.