Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and Sattler STARTED the Reformation... did they END it?

I understand that one major contributing factor driving Martin Luther's break with Rome in 1517 was the publication the previous year (1516) of Erasmus' GREEK Bible. Quite bluntly, there are crucial differences between the Latin Vulgate and the Eastern Orthodox Majority Text (and the related Textus Receptus used by Erasmus), and the early Reformers were very dubious of "Babylon's" authorized texts. For example, Zurich under Zwingli allowed preachers to preach only the "PURE Holy Gospels", clearly implying they thought Rome's texts were IMPURE.

It was for this reason that Luther and crew BYPASSED the Latin Vulgate in its entirety, diving back to the Orthodox texts for the New Testament and continuing past them to the Hebrew for the Old Testament.

My question is this:
----------------

The early Reformers BEGAN a process of trying to delve back through the layers of history to unearth the pure, uncorrupted, unmodified original Holy Writings of the Apostles. This is clearly commendable -- and who could rightly complain?

But since their day -- 500 years ago, no less! -- new texts, like the actual Majority Text and the Syriac Peshitta, as well as the Khabouris Manuscript, and others, have become available.

So, why not continue in the footsteps of Luther and the others?

Why not proudly pick up the torch they have handed us?

Why not charge further forward from the Beachhead they established, and adopt the Majority Text or Peshitta?


Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad published a Greek-English Interlinear New Testament from the Majority Text. See George Ricker Berry and Jay P. Green for Textus Receptus versions.

Murdoch (1905) published an English translation of the Syriac Peshitta. Also see Burkitt and Cureton.

Why stop?