WESTCOTT HORT EARLY REJECTIONS
Dean Burgon tore this to shreds, (quotes in linked posts) since he examined the GNT of Westcott-Hort and saw their attempt to peddle the corruption, and knew that the blot made the revision margin.
This verse example is a borderline case where the question arises as to whether the Vaticanus-Hortian blunder is so absurd that it is rejected despite meeting all other Hortian Fog qualifications. Generally the rule is that most everything in Vaticanus (or Sinaiticus in certain cases, like Vaticanus omission) is accepted, unless the text is so absurd that it just makes the GNT editor look dumb. Nonetheless, Westcott and Hort wanted the "his daughter" corruption. The Revision, Schurer, Vincent and others rejected WH, although the Revision left the 'foul blot' (Burgon) in the margin.
Ironically, maybe for our humor, Marvin Richardson Vincent gave the reason for rejecting Hort as "intrinsic probability" against "strong manuscript evidence". 
http://books.google.com/books?id=UVEaAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA79
Incidentally, Richard Lovett (1851-1904) gives this as one of the variants that are fully Hortian, ie. they do not appear in the earlier writers. His list may be good fodder for finding some of the very worst Hortian blunders.
http://books.google.com/books?id=N3pHAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA125
Frederick William Danker's (1920-Feb 2, 2012) rejection, citing Scrivener, is insightful:
Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker (2004)
Lexical Evolution and Linguistic Hazard
Frederick W. Danker
http://books.google.com/books?id=xi0_3tIIKZcC&pg=PA13
...The only reasonable rendering of the Greek text in Mark 6:22 (N27), without indulgence in translation calisthenics, is:
"When his (Herod's) daughter, Herodias, came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests."
But this sets history on its head, without apology to Mark, who is now alleged to make Herod the father of the dancer and ascribe to her the name of her mother.43 A lexicon should not be the administrator of discredited textual theory, including that of the alleged superiority of the Westcott-Hort approach with its benign confidence in the marriage of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. whose impress is left on the Nestle tradition of Mark 6:22.44
43. See Frederick H. A. Scrivener. Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. 4th ed. by E. Miller. 2 vols. (London: Bell. 1894). 2:303; for genealogical data. see Justin Martyr, cited in Aland. Synopsis, no. 144. lines 48-52. where Salome is called Herod's "niece."
44. Borger. "Nestle Textkritik." 25-27.
Apparently Danker was, at least here, willing to speak up about Westcott Hort nonsense.
A plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament (1883)
Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener
http://books.google.com/books?id=hZQHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA544
.. admitted into the text by Westcott and Hort .. certainly false
Scrivener gives a good overview, including the pure text pronoun issue .. "auths strongly expresses the writer's feeling that even Herodias could stoop so low, and being used emphatically has so much offended a few that they omit it altogether..."
=================================================
METZGER LEADS ONGOING CHARGE TO ERROR
Some followed Hort - "determined and imaginative apologists" (but why convolute apologetics simply to support an ultra-minority corruption ?)
John the Loyal: Studies in the Ministry of the Baptist (1911)
Archibald Thomas Robertson (1863-1934)
http://books.google.com/books?id=d4c9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA257
A. T. Robertson tries to excuse the Hortian blunder by convoluted corrupt text apologetics, by making Herodias his (step)daughter, with both names, Herodias and Salome. Better to simply take the historic Bible reading and reject the textus corruptus.
Next we get to the main textual "authority", anything written by Bruce Metzger:
James Snapp
Metzger, well aware of the problem that seems to be posed by the reading in B and Aleph, stated that a majority of the compilers of the UBS text "decided, somewhat reluctantly, that the reading with AUTOU, despite the historical and contextual difficulties, must be adopted on the strength of its external attestation." (Notice how the external evidence has been "weighed" -- the combination of Aleph, B, L, Delta, 565, D and "(arm)" is assigned greater weight than everything else. Is this equitable? Or is this kind of "weighing" really a kind of handicapping that guarantees which horse wins the race?) A footnote in the NET practically echoes Metzger, stating that the reading in Aleph and B, "despite its historical difficulties, is most likely original due to external attestation and the fact that it most likely gave rise to the other readings as scribes sought to correct it."
Steven
Yes, due to the Matthew text, basically Metzger and the parrot NETBible-Wallace basically say that they take the ultra-minority Alexandrian reading -- which has the additional corroborative support of being a de facto factual error. This is lectio difficilior turned extra raw and ugly, a tool to fabricate errors and blunders in the Bible text. However, this only taking modern theories to their logical Bible conclusion and confusion.
In fact, it is unclear to what extent lectio difficilior is actually believed, since any true textual science is very cautious in application of such a principle (same with lectio brevior, as discussed here recently). What we may have is simply that lectio difficilior is a handy tool, or excuse, to support the ultra-minority Alexandrian variants, including blunders, by those in the Hortian Fog.
In modern times, the main Metzger parrot (his borrowed word usage pointed out by James) appears to be Daniel Wallace. (Does the NETBible make it clear to its readers that these learned notes are often simply warmed-over Metzger ? If not, what is the word that applies ?)
Yet this blunder is too much even for most committed Metzgerites and Hortians.
If you find others, even Ehrman types, who supports the errant text as original, feel free to share away.
Wieland Willker (p. 229-230) leaves it as a difficult variant and "indecisive".
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark.pdf
J. Harold Greenlee is said to support the corruption in this review by J. K. Elliot:
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/6605_7157.pdf
=================================================
ethereal inerrancy - no verse is sure - Matthew 27:9 - Jeremy
Mark 6:22 - should modern version cornfuseniks defend the 'his daughter' blunderama ?
(no longer up)
The overall modernist double-mindedness about this blunder is fascinating to behold, any real Hortian will hardly ever abandon Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
This was pointed out here by Walter L. Porter, succinctly, and I have filled in some Metzger text
Preserving the Word of God
Walter L. Porter
http://www.stillvoices.org/Essays/Search4Word.asp
Another example of their preference for the old remnant manuscripts even if it results in a Biblical contradiction concerns the story of the girl who danced before Herod. In both Matthew and Mark, the traditional Textus Receptus calls her Herodias's daughter. Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus plus a few others call her Herodiass daughter in Matthew, but Herods daughter in Mark*a clear contradiction between the two Gospels. Yet rather than doubt their favorite manuscripts, these modern critics accept the reading in Mark that contradicts the one in Matthew, saying (Metzger 1994 pg 77), "A majority of the Committee [of the UBS/NA text] decided somewhat reluctantly, that the reading with autou, despite the historical and contextual difficulties, must be adopted on the strength of its external attestation, despite the historical and contextual difficulties, "; meaning, because Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus plus a few others have it that way..
=================================================
A review of how they tie themselves up in knots, referencing J. K. Elliott (partial in the page) to try to undo the damage.
You can compare the Elliot and Burgon (Causes of the Corruption) analysis of how the corruption arose.
"But it is Not So Among You": Echoes of Power in Mark 10.32-45 (2003)
Alberto De Mingo Kaminouchi
http://books.google.com/books?id=2ty_Z7IdaHMC&pg=PA169
"serious historical difficulties" ... lectio difficilior potior .. argument in favor"
Next, Randolph O. Yeager defends the blunder with the concept "no major themes are changed" :
The Renaissance New Testament
Randolph O. Yeager
http://books.google.com/books?id=oo24vTc2uYoC&pg=PA383
As is always the case when there is doubt about the precise reading of the text the main thrust of the story is not threatened regardless of which reading we take.
And here is a Metzger pic (sometimes they do not come through when I place more than one in post).
Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament - Metzger, Bruce - UBS
Tom Hennell in a Wikipedia comment:
"the (step)daughter of him by Herodias" as Hort proposed; .... Hort, as he held that the agreement of Aleph and B (unless clearly a miscopying) must be a "Neutral" text, and hence could not be allowed to incorporate a redactional conjecture (especially one that created a clear error of historical fact).
