# NT Scholars and Critical vs. Majority Text



## elnwood (Nov 1, 2007)

From what I understand, it seems like the universal consensus in NT scholarship of textual criticism is that the critical text is the closest to the autographs.

Does anyone know of any NT scholar (someone with a Ph.D. in NT and/or teaching NT at a recognized or accredited seminary) who supports the Majority Text as the closest to the autographs?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 1, 2007)

Dead and living?


----------



## etexas (Nov 1, 2007)

elnwood said:


> From what I understand, it seems like the universal consensus in NT scholarship of textual criticism is that the critical text is the closest to the autographs.
> 
> Does anyone know of any NT scholar (someone with a Ph.D. in NT and/or teaching NT at a recognized or accredited seminary) who supports the Majority Text as the closest to the autographs?


I am glad you asked this....I lean towards the MT....I have heard that a number of Scholars are "reaxamining" the MT. I am good at what I do.....but I am no Theologian. But thank you for this thread in that is a subject that is interesting!


----------



## Guido's Brother (Nov 1, 2007)

J. VanBruggen, The Ancient Text of the New Testament (Winnipeg: Premier, 1976)

VanBruggen is a retired professor of New Testament at the Theological University of the Reformed Churches in Kampen, the Netherlands. He has written extensively on this subject, but mostly in Dutch.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 1, 2007)

John Wenham's review of Pickering shows that he has changed his mind on the subject towards the majority text ("The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate", edited by Theodore P. Letis, and originally printed in the _Evangelical Quarterly_, Vol. 51, no. 1 (January - March 1979).

Zane Hodges (is he still at DTS?) is a strong supporter.

Robinson's article is an interesting one: Robinson, The case for Byzantine priority.


----------



## etexas (Nov 1, 2007)

DMcFadden said:


> John Wenham's review of Pickering shows that he has changed his mind on the subject towards the majority text ("The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate", edited by Theodore P. Letis, and originally printed in the _Evangelical Quarterly_, Vol. 51, no. 1 (January - March 1979).
> 
> Zane Hodges (is he still at DTS?) was a strong supporter.


Sorry, when you said he changed his mind....did you mean in favor of (the MT)?


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 1, 2007)

Yes, although the article cited is old. I wonder where he was in the years following it.


----------



## KMK (Nov 1, 2007)

elnwood said:


> From what I understand, it seems like the universal consensus in NT scholarship of textual criticism is that the critical text is the closest to the autographs.
> 
> Does anyone know of any NT scholar (someone with a Ph.D. in NT and/or teaching NT at a recognized or accredited seminary) who supports the Majority Text as the closest to the autographs?



Your question implies that one is not a 'scholar' unless they posess a Ph.D. or are teaching at an accredited seminary. I don't know what their degrees are, but there are some men whom I consider to be NT scholars on PB who defend the MT.

My point being that the fact that Ph.Ds 'universally' agree that the CT is closest to the autographs could be used as an indictment on accredited seminaries and not necessarily an indictment on the MT.

But perhaps I am missing the point of your question.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 1, 2007)

KMK said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> > From what I understand, it seems like the universal consensus in NT scholarship of textual criticism is that the critical text is the closest to the autographs.
> ...



You're correct, KMK. I am not intending the question to be condescending, but I am distinctly using the term "scholar" in the limited sense.

In asking the question, I am trying to get a sense of whether NT scholars considers MT a minority but acceptable position, or whether they do not give it any credibility at all. I am also wondering how many out there have studied textual criticism at the doctoral level have determined that MT is the correct position.

A Ph.D. in NT (or at least a Th.M.) is needed to teach NT at an accredited college, university or university. This would indicate, with few exceptions, that every accredited school would teach CT. This would include both Westminsters, RTS, Mid-America Reformed Seminary, Covenant Seminary, SBTS, Masters Seminary, TEDS, etc.

I am simply collecting data. This is tangential to the issue at hand, i.e. it doesn't prove or disprove either position. As you say, people will draw different conclusions from the data, either to defend their CT position from its support in NT scholarship or indicting accredited schools and their NT scholarship.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 1, 2007)

Arthur L. Farstad
1935-1998. American conservative critic and Majority Text advocate. Editor, with Zane C. Hodges, of The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. One-time president of the Majority Text Society. Active in the translation of the New King James Version.

A most interesting article dealing with tht pros and cons can be found at: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/majority-text_holmes.pdf.


----------



## etexas (Nov 1, 2007)

DMcFadden said:


> Arthur L. Farstad
> 1935-1998. American conservative critic and Majority Text advocate. Editor, with Zane C. Hodges, of The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. One-time president of the Majority Text Society. Active in the translation of the New King James Version.
> 
> A most interesting article dealing with tht pros and cons can be found at: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/majority-text_holmes.pdf.


Thanks for that link!


----------



## larryjf (Nov 1, 2007)

DMcFadden said:


> Yes, although the article cited is old. I wonder where he was in the years following it.



You can see Pickering's more recent work and info about his original text theory here...
CARDÁPIO


----------

