# The Majority Text



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 23, 2015)

Friends,


Which Greek New Testament texts that we have today are the most faithful to the original autographs? There are two main answers to that question: (1) the handful of critical texts found in Egypt in the mid-1800's, originally by liberals, or (2) the majority of texts (5,000+) from a large geographical base kept by the Church through history.

Here are some resources on the Majority Text position. For the best positive case for this position, read the scholarly, though readable, essay by Dr. Maurice Robinson.


The Majority Text - ReformedBooksOnline​


----------



## Edward (Dec 23, 2015)

Travis Fentiman said:


> originally by liberals



Ad hominem through which you significantly undermine your position. 

If you can't defend your position on the facts, you ought to defer to others to make the defense. There are many folks here capable of doing so.


----------



## rickclayfan (Dec 23, 2015)

Edward said:


> Ad hominem



You've misapplied the fallacy. He does not attack, nor give the least suggestion that he is doing so, liberals. He merely gives a naked statement. Please defer from fussing over points of less emphasis without regarding that which is primarily said, for the sake of brotherly love.

Travis is doing an excellent job with the site.


----------



## Justified (Dec 23, 2015)

rickclayfan said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > Ad hominem
> ...


Disclaimer: I'm not arguing for the merits of either position. 

Genetic fallacy would be more appropriate than ad hominem.


----------



## Edward (Dec 23, 2015)

rickclayfan said:


> He does not attack, nor give the least suggestion that he is doing so, liberals. He merely gives a naked statement.



He is attacking a set of manuscripts. And not doing so on the merits and lack thereof of those documents.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 24, 2015)

Friends,


If it is of interest, I updated the page with the 1904 Greek Orthodox Greek New Testament (which comes from the line of the Byzantine, or Majority Text) as well as another English translation of the Majority Text that I found. I also added several articles and books as well. If any others have any suggestions for resources to add, feel free to link them.

With regards to the critical texts being found by liberals, it was not an argument at all, but as has been mentioned above, simply a bare fact (and a fact to be well aware of).

Blessings.


----------



## mossy (Dec 24, 2015)

U


Travis Fentiman said:


> Friends,
> 
> 
> Which Greek New Testament texts that we have today are the most faithful to the original autographs? There are two main answers to that question: (1) the handful of critical texts found in Egypt in the mid-1800's, originally by liberals, or (2) the majority of texts (5,000+) from a large geographical base kept by the Church through history.
> ...


Travis
As much as I appreciate all the content, your site is unreadable to me due to the black background. 
Terry


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 24, 2015)

Travis Fentiman said:


> Which Greek New Testament texts that we have today are the most faithful to the original autographs? There are two main answers to that question: (1) the handful of critical texts found in Egypt in the mid-1800's, originally by liberals, or (2) the majority of texts (5,000+) from a large geographical base kept by the Church through history.



I don't think that anyone engaged in textual criticism would actually recognize this as an accurate way of summarizing the CT view (apparently number 1).

The CT position does not exclude the Majority Text. It's better to say that 1) includes both the Majority text manuscripts as well as manuscripts found "...by liberals..." that are older than the manuscripts we have that represent the family of manuscripts represented by the Majority Text.

I think a more valid criticism of the CT position is that it is so Eclectic. It seems scientific where certain weightings are given to certain readings but the resultant "re-constructed" text is sort of a "franken-text".

I think Dr. Robinson does make a solid point that there is something to the Church's continued use of texts. It's similar to the case against the Apocrypha as canonical because all of the early NT "books" that were widely use contain our typical NT book. The Christian Church was using books centuries before it was cool. In contrast, when they are found manuscripts with the Apocrypha are found in scrolls.

The regular and early use of our NT books is a great defense against people who listen to the likes of Bart Ehrman and the totally unsubstantiated thesis that there were a lot of christianities and the orthodox corrupted the Scriptures to gain ascendancy.

In any event, I think that a similar point is made by Robinson that it's one thing to find a manuscript buried somewhere but it's quite another to see a text family in widespread use.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 24, 2015)

mossy said:


> Travis
> As much as I appreciate all the content, your site is unreadable to me due to the black background.
> Terry



Indeed.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 25, 2015)

This published just today by Dr. Maurice Robinson:

105 Verses in the Critical Greek Text of the New
Testament Without Any Manuscript Support 37 pages​

What happens when (some) textual critics cut and manipulate the Greek New Testament according to their every whim? 105 of the verses in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament are shown not to exist in any actual manuscript of the Greek N.T. that we have.

If you need a permanent link for this article, I have linked it on ReformedBooksOnline's webpage on the Majority Text.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 25, 2015)

Travis Fentiman said:


> This published just today by Dr. Maurice Robinson:
> 
> 105 Verses in the Critical Greek Text of the New
> Testament Without Any Manuscript Support 37 pages​
> What happens when (some) textual critics *cut and manipulate the Greek New Testament according to their every whim?* 105 of the verses in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament are shown not to exist in any actual manuscript of the Greek N.T. that we have



Travis,

Whether one agrees with the methodology, it doesn't serve truth to articulate the process that textual critics use to establish a text as "cutting and manipulating...according to their every whim". 

I described the problem above as the "franken-text" problem where several criteria are being used in critical textual studies. What Dr. Robinson is noting is that these verses are combining readings from multiple manuscripts to create a combined reading for a verse that does not exist in any manuscript. While I agree it is problematic it is not because they are "cutting and manipulating according to their whim" but they are establishing criteria on the selection of readings that needs to be challenged.

It should be noted that, at the macro level, no Scripture translation is based on an established Greek platform that matches, in total, any Greek manuscript in our possession. There is always some textual critical work that needs to be accomplished to take the manuscript collection that one uses and determine what the actual original Greek reading was. 

I think Dr. Robinson is correct in challenging the idea that if the textual critical approach leads to sentences that can be found in no Greek Manuscript then the textual critical method needs to be challenged. Even if one rejects Divine authorship, a scholar ought to take into consideration the Church's use of a text and ask himself/herself if it makes sense that the Church would become familiar with hearing the text and detect when a mistake was made in the transcription. These texts were in wide use and not simply sitting on some scholar's shelf.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 26, 2015)

Rich,

I appreciate your even-handed response, and I am sure it is helpful to persons who are not as familiar with the field. I normally do try to stay away from rhetoric, however, I believe my rhetoric at this point is actually of some help as it actually is truthfully descriptive of *some* textual critics. Have you seen Gordon Clark's sampling overview of Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary?

Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism​

Clark puts a (very fair) spotlight on the subjective, unfounded guessing that Bruce Metzger does. While this is only one liberal textual critic, he also happens to be an authority in the field and on the board that did the UBS 4th edition text, which so much of the evangelical world gulps down hook, line and sinker. He doesn't mind making up readings that don't exist because he is a liberal and is very comfortable with, what he considers to be the best manuscripts we have, being so full of mistakes that the original text has been lost. While some Evangelicals may be able to add faith to his presuppositions and methodology, it is quite shaky ground, to say the least (as you have noted, that their canons of criticism need to be challenged). 

While your statement is technically correct: 'at the macro level, no Scripture translation is based on an established Greek platform that matches, in total, any Greek manuscript in our possession,' there is still a large difference. In the Majority Text philosophy, while the total final Majority Text that a textual critic comes up with may not match exactly any one manuscript, all of the readings are found in actual manuscripts of the Majority Text family. That is, the autographical reading, we believe has been transmitted to us somewhere, whereas in the critical text influenced school, God has not preserved his original words 'in all ages' (WCF 1.8), as 105 verses of them (or about 3 medium sized chapters of the N.T.) have been lost.

Again, I am glad for your careful clarification in these things and am thankful for your (time and) ability to teach others.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Dec 27, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Travis Fentiman said:
> 
> 
> > This published just today by Dr. Maurice Robinson:
> ...



Amen.

Here is an interesting tidbit...I was having lunch with Dr. Robinson a few weeks back and he mentioned the Textus Receptus would have been better had Erasmus picked virtually ANY 12th through 14th century manuscript(s) and simply published the text as he found it. It was the textual criticism of Erasmus that was the primary source of the problems in his edition (though not nearly as serious as his critics make out).

Now of course Dr. Robinson is not saying that's what we should do today, but I found that comment fascinating. It does however demonstrate the astonishing level of purity he sees in the Byzantine witnesses.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 27, 2015)

Travis Fentiman said:


> Clark puts a (very fair) spotlight on the subjective, unfounded guessing that Bruce Metzger does. While this is only one liberal textual critic, he also happens to be an authority in the field and on the board that did the UBS 4th edition text, which so much of the evangelical world gulps down hook, line and sinker. He doesn't mind making up readings that don't exist because he is a liberal and is very comfortable with, what he considers to be the best manuscripts we have, being so full of mistakes that the original text has been lost. While some Evangelicals may be able to add faith to his presuppositions and methodology, it is quite shaky ground, to say the least (as you have noted, that their canons of criticism need to be challenged).


Travis,

I don't see where Clark puts a "spotlight" on the "subjective, unfounded guessing that Bruce Metzger does...."

Clark highlights the methodology that Textual Critics employ. They employ several criteria to establish a text. One can argue (as Clark and others have) that their weighting methodology is faulty in light of the Christian Church's use of a text but the methodology is actually useful in other textual critical places. There are scribal mistakes that have occurred in the transmission of the text and some of the methodologies are useful if employed with discernment. A scribe might be writing a portion of Matthew and accidentally write the Markan reading because he's familiar with it. A lot of the textual critical methods first emerged when scholars were trying to detect forgeries in the early Church. I think the problem with applying them as an unbeliever to Scripture or in trying to assume that the text is not well used is that I believe the widespread use of the Biblical text makes it less likely that such mistakes will go undetected and for a modern scholar to try to re-construct the text as if the text is some sort of scholarly work that is not consulted regularly is flawed from the beginning. That said, it is still not accurate to assume that it is all based on "subjective unfounded guessing". They provide notes as to what they did and why they did it and anyone trained in how to use an apparatus needs to be aware of the methodology because it's pretty consistent.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Dec 27, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Travis Fentiman said:
> 
> 
> > Clark puts a (very fair) spotlight on the subjective, unfounded guessing that Bruce Metzger does. While this is only one liberal textual critic, he also happens to be an authority in the field and on the board that did the UBS 4th edition text, which so much of the evangelical world gulps down hook, line and sinker. He doesn't mind making up readings that don't exist because he is a liberal and is very comfortable with, what he considers to be the best manuscripts we have, being so full of mistakes that the original text has been lost. While some Evangelicals may be able to add faith to his presuppositions and methodology, it is quite shaky ground, to say the least (as you have noted, that their canons of criticism need to be challenged).
> ...



Rich,

A good example of what you are saying is found in Maurice Robinson's work where he affirms Hort's approach to textual criticism within the Byzantine witnesses where there is not a clear majority.

Still over all, it is a different cup of tea than we find employed by reasoned eclecticism.


----------

