# "Do Many Scholars Prefer the Majority Text?"



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 31, 2007)

Before you read this I want to tell you I'm not advocating anti-KJV. I love the KJV. I just wanted to see what you guys thought of this. Here is the whole article if you want to read the entire thing, plus the links. But, here is something I found interesting. I would love to get into a discussion about this.

This is part of an article from Michael Marlowe:


> The idea that the majority of existing Greek manuscripts (i.e. the numerous medieval copies) somehow represent the original text better than any of the oldest manuscripts known to us is an idea that is very hard to defend intellectually. One would suppose, even on common-sense grounds, that a consensus of the earlier copies is likely to be closer to the original text. Against this, it is said that perhaps all of the early manuscripts known to us have derived from a deviant kind of text which gained currency only in the area around Alexandria, where these very old manuscripts were preserved on account of the dry climate. But this hypothesis fails to account for the readings of the ancient versions (e.g. Latin and Syriac) which frequently agree with the older Greek copies against the later ones. We cannot reasonably suppose that the Latin and Syriac versions were based upon manuscripts that were not circulating in Italy and Syria. And then there are the scripture quotations from ecclesiastical writers who lived outside of Egypt, which likewise often support the earlier manuscripts. It is very hard for a Majority Text advocate to overcome this evidence, and certainly it cannot all be brushed aside with an hypothesis about "Alexandrian" deviations. For this reason, very few competent scholars have argued in favor of the Majority Text.
> 
> The most well-known advocate of the Majority text is Wilbur Pickering, who in 1977 published a book on the subject called The Identity of the New Testament Text. 1 This book was brought out by a major publisher (Thomas Nelson), and carried a laudatory Forward by Zane C. Hodges, who is also prominent as a Majority Text advocate. 2 Pickering has a doctorate in Linguistics, but no formal training in textual criticism. Of course it is not absolutely necessary to have formal training in a subject in order to have expertise in it; some men have made themselves experts in textual criticism outside of any formal training (Samuel Tregelles comes to mind). But a lack of academic credentials ought to make us cautious in evaluating their work.
> 
> ...


----------



## MW (Sep 1, 2007)

I continue to be astounded by "the oldest is best" rhetoric, when it is an established fact that all corruptions in the text took place prior to our oldest ms. in possession.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 1, 2007)

Andrew (sorry this is so lengthy), 

In response to your question (I have lifted some excerpts from another post of mine):

I would say the number is growing. Among text critics, there are Burgon, Miller, Hoskier, Scrivener, Pickering, Van Bruggen, Robinson, Hodges, and with reservations, Hills and Letis (who go beyond the MT to hold to the TR 1894 and the AV).

Marlowe’s characterization of the Byz manuscripts as merely “medieval” seems a bit prejudicial. The text-type way antedates the mss, which were likely transferred to minuscule form in the 9th century when uncial writing became outdated.

The work of Pickering, Robinson & Pierpont, Van Bruggen, Hodges & Farstad, et al, provide a profound assault on the CT rationales, both its view of itself, and of the Byzantine text-type. It is such that it has precipitated what has been called the “post-critical” study of the Biblical texts, so dismal has been the failure of textual criticism the past century or two. People are looking for alternatives to a discipline run amok. 

I should at this point say that even the Byz or MT position is wanting, for its advocates differ among themselves, and confess it may be ages before we can be provided with “the Biblical text” – and until that far-off “maybe” we will have to make do with uncertainty. Not that there is, as Robinson says in his Intro, more than a 2% difference between the MT/Byz textforms (the 1894 TR being one of them), but we who support the TR 1894 and the AV are looking at the _minutiae_ of the providential preservation issue, which only the KJV view can; all other views are tentative (provisional) and uncertain – and contrary to God’s promises, as we understand them. [See “MT Note” at end of post]

I do not mean to denigrate the faith of those who hold to CT Bibles, and it pains me to seek to undermine so important a belief my brothers and sisters may hold, but this is a sorting out of truth-claims among friends, to the end of supporting a minority view which – so I aver – rightly defends a most precious possession: the authentic Biblical text, despite a terrific onslaught against it. I write not only for today but for posterity. I write also to demonstrate that one not need be learned in Hebrew and Greek (though those are wonderful and valuable skills), nor an erudite text-critic, to be able to understand the issues involved in the defense of the Bible. What makes it somewhat difficult is that the knowledge of these things are to a great extent extra-Biblical, being matters of the _history_ of the Scripture and its transmission and not the Scripture itself. Of course, the _bases_ of our presuppositions are the Scripture, and on them we both stand and see.

This following is from David Cloud’s site, an excerpt from an article by Jeffrey A. Young, Ph.D, touching on the Byzantine (AKA “Traditional”) text:

-----------


http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/examinationof.htm

*Recent Papyri Finds Prove the Major Premise False*

When Westcott and Hort published their Greek Text in 1881, all but one of the more than 200 early Egyptian Papyri were yet to be discovered. According to their view, none of these Papyri (dated between 100 and 300 A.D.) should support the readings that are included in the traditional [*i.e., Byzantine*] text but not in ALEPH, B, or D. They believe their major premise (that the traditional text was fabricated in the fourth century).

Sturz [14] has collected lists of readings found in Papyri dated between 100 and 300 A.D. that contradict the major premise of Westcott and Hort. His first list gives 150 different readings of the traditional text, that Westcott and Hort rejected because they were found in neither ALEPH, nor B, nor D. This evidence is extremely damning to the major premise because it is 50 times longer than the list Westcott and Hort offer for proof of conflation. A second list of Sturz contains 170 readings found in the traditional text that were confirmed by early Papyri, but were rejected by Westcott and Hort because they were not found in ALEPH or B but were found in D. A third list contains 80 readings found in the traditional text that were confirmed by early Papyri, but were rejected by Westcott and Hort because either ALEPH, or B, or D did not contain the reading. 

[14]. _The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism_, H. A. Sturz, H. A. Thomas Nelson, NY 1984.

--------

For those who are interested in evidences which support the presuppositions I have been both operating from and talking about, I give a link here to Robinson & Pierpont’s _The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform_, © 1991, Original Word Publishers, Inc., Atlanta, GA, Introduction: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/RobPier.html

This Introduction is a valuable treatise. Needless to say, for those who have been following my arguments, Robinson and Pierpont do not support the King James view I espouse (they state so in this intro), yet I find their work most valuable in a) critiquing the CT theories, and b) defending the “Byzantine priority” which is an important component of my view. I list here the contents of their Intro so you may get an idea of what is in it. I then post an excerpt from the Intro having to do with the Byzantine text and its antiquity.

Contents

Introduction
The Approximation of the Byzantine/Majority Textform
A Case for Byzantine Priority
Hort's Basic Contentions
A Rebuttal of Hortian Logic
Addressing Current Objections to Byzantine Priority
Fallacies of Some Claimants of the "Majority Text" Position
Footnotes”

From the section,

*A Case for Byzantine Priority*

The "Byzantine" Textform (otherwise called the "Majority" or "Traditional Text") predominated throughout the greatest period of manual copying of Greek New Testament manuscripts -- a span of over 1000 years (ca. AD 350 to AD 1516). It was without question the dominant text used both liturgically and popularly by the Greek-speaking Christian community. Most Greek manuscripts in existence today reflect this Byzantine Textform, whether appearing in normal continuous-text style[9] or specially arranged in lectionary format for liturgical use. Of over 5000 total continuous-text and lectionary manuscripts, 90% or more contain a basically Byzantine Textform.[10]

This statistical fact has led some simply to refer to this Textform as the "Majority Text." This misnomer, however, gives a false impression regarding the amount of agreement to be found among Byzantine manuscripts where places of variation occur. No two Byzantine-era manuscripts are exactly alike, and there are a good number of places where the testimony of the Byzantine-era manuscripts is substantially divided. In such places, the archetypical "Byzantine Textform" must be established from principles other than that of "number" alone.

An important consideration is that, except for a few small "family" relationships which have been established, the bulk of the Byzantine-era documents are not closely-related in any genealogical sense.[11] A presumption, therefore, is toward their relative independence from each other rather than their dependence upon one another. This makes the Byzantine majority of manuscripts highly individualistic witnesses which cannot be summarily lumped together as one "mere" texttype, to be played off against other competing texttypes. This relative autonomy has great significance, as will be explained.

The Byzantine/Majority Textform is not the text found in most modern critical editions, such as those published by the United Bible Societies or the various Nestle editions.[12] Byzantine readings, however, are often cited in the apparatus notes to those editions. The critical Greek editions favor a predominantly "Alexandrian" text, deriving primarily from early vellum and papyrus documents having an Egyptian origin -- a clear minority of manuscripts in any case. It should be remembered that most of the variant readings pertaining to one or another texttype are trivial or non-translatable, and are not readily apparent in English translation (significant translatable differences are discussed above).

Not all early manuscripts, however, favor the Alexandrian text, and few are purely Alexandrian in character. Many early papyri reflect mixture with a more "Western" type of text; but few (if any) scholars today favor the "Western" readings found in such manuscripts. Such rejection, although well-founded, is basically subjective. On a similar basis, the early date and certain "preferred" readings currently cause the minority Alexandrian manuscripts to be favored by critics over against those comprising the Byzantine/Majority Textform.

Many scholars, particularly those from within the "Evangelical" camp, have begun to re-evaluate and give credence to the authenticity-claims for the Byzantine Textform, as opposed to the textual preferences of the past century and a half. The Alexandrian-based critical texts reflect the diverse textual theories held by various critics: a preference for early witnesses (as espoused by Lachmann, Tregelles or Aland); a partiality for a favorite document (as demonstrated by Tischendorf or Westcott and Hort); a "reasoned" eclectic approach (as advocated by Metzger and Fee); and a "rigorous" eclectic approach (as argued for by Kilpatrick and Elliott). The weakness of each of these positions is the subjective preference for either a specific manuscript and its textual allies, for a small group of early manuscripts, and/or for certain types of "internal evidence" regarding a reading's length, difficulty, style, or contextual considerations.”

Footnotes

9 "Continuous-text" manuscripts are those which present the full text of a New Testament book or books in consecutive order, as in our English Bibles. Certain manuscripts designed for liturgical use (lectionaries) present the biblical text arranged in the order in which portions are read in the liturgical service week by week or even day by day.

10 For the Gospels about 2000 continuous-text and 2000 lectionary manuscripts exist today; this number lessens considerably for the other books of the New Testament, with only about one-third of this total being present for the Acts, Pauline and General Epistles, and less than 300 manuscripts (and no lectionaries) existing for the text of the Revelation. All Byzantine-era manuscripts can be subdivided into smaller, loosely-connected subgroups which possess minor differences, one from another.

11 This was the conclusion of Lake, Blake, and New after examining the manuscripts in monasteries at Mt. Sinai, Patmos, and Jerusalem. (Kirsopp Lake, R. P. Blake, and Silva New, "The Caesarean Text of the Gospel of Mark," _Harvard Theological Review_ 21 [1928] 349). 

12 Aland, Kurt, et al., eds., The Greek New Testament, 3rd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975); idem, _Novum Testamentum Graece,_ 26th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1979).

-------------

MT Note: A note about the “Majority Text” from the Rev 5:9-10… thread http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=22409

How strange it is hearing about the “_minority_ of manuscripts” when the reigning establishment in manuscript classification _suppresses_ the testimony of thousands of mss. categorized as “majority” from the preconception they are of little worth! A few words on this follows. (I take this liberty to edify onlookers as that is why I am responding to Alan Kurschner’s views – I consider his opposition as presenting a “teaching moment”!) The following is from Kevin James’, _The Corruption of the Word: The Failure of Modern New Testament Scholarship_ (distributed by Micro-Load Press, 1990, ISBN: 0962442003):

*Providential Preservation*

Because New Testament manuscripts present many wording differences, there are several theories that attempt to account for these differences. The New Testament scholarship behind modern versions says the most accurate wording is found in a small group of old (A.D. 200 to fourth century) manuscripts strongly associated with the scholarship of Egypt.

Another theory is that the true wording of God is found when a majority of existing manuscripts agree. That is, if scholars compare 1,000 copies of the New Testament at a verse and 900 agree against 100, the 900 correctly represent the original.

The theory that God guided the scholars responsible for the text underlying the King James to the right wording of the originals is the third theory. It pays little attention to the testimony of the oldest copies or the majority of manuscripts.

The idea that God watched over the transmission of His word through the ages to ensure the purity of His revelation is called _providential preservation_. Providential preservation says that, although one copy will differ slightly from another, the differences are so minor that there will be no hindrance to the correct understanding of the text. The true text has always been available by the providence of God.

Modern scholarship denies any role for providential preservation in determining the correct text to follow. The church lost the true text sometime around A.D. 300 (Aland, Kurt and Barbara, _The Text of the New Testament_, Erdmans, 1987, p. 65). However, in a small area of Egypt the original wording was preserved.

This true text was recovered around A.D. 1881 and is found in modern versions. It opposes the agreement between the majority of existing copies and the King James in thousands of places.

The second theory, called the _Majority Text_ theory, states that, although the King James agrees with the wording of a majority of manuscripts most of the time, it does not always represent the true text. It would do so if revised to be in agreement with the wording of the majority of existing manuscripts for each verse. For this theory, providential preservation means that God preserved his true word in the majority wording of the manuscripts.

The third theory uses providential preservation to support the King James when it does not follow the majority text. Regardless of the witness of the majority of manuscripts or of the modern versions, the King James preserves the true text. In other words, God guided sixteenth century scholars to the true text and it has been preserved in the King James version.

This writer believes, based on the information complied for this book, that there is much evidence supporting providential preservation, as defined in the third theory. Therefore, the Greek text underlying the King James should be accepted as accurate until overwhelming opposing evidence appears to indicate otherwise.

Some examples of places where a King James wording seemingly has little support are given in the following chapters. Seemingly, because, *while most existing New Testament copies have been roughly categorized into “majority” or “non-majority” groupings, the exact text of thousands of existing manuscripts is unknown except in a handful of places.* [Emphasis mine –SMR] 

It should be understood that it is impossible to *prove* which of two or more competing wording variations is the original since the originals have long since disappeared. But it is the height of folly to throw the settled received text of three and one-half centuries into the dustbin to make a revision *when the exact contents of thousands of existing copies of mainstream tradition manuscripts is unknown* [this last emphasis mine –SMR]. A clear picture of New Testament manuscript transmission history is also lacking. Finally, unless the vigilance of a living God is recognized, attempts at revision of the King James can easily stray from a stated target of supplying God’s people with a “better” New Testament.

Paul said: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21.) This should be the guiding principle for the Christian church when dealing with the intricacies of the wording of the original text. (pp. viii, ix)​
For those interested in reading this now out-of-print work, he collates and studies a number of Greek manuscripts in the following chapters.

To continue examining this phenomenon of _thousands_ of majority text manuscripts deliberately unexamined and their testimony thus consigned to silence by the prejudice of the establishment CT critics, we turn to Frederik Wisse, in his, _The Profile Method for the Classification and Evaluation of Manuscript Evidence_ (Eerdmans, 1982).

The late Kurt Aland, director of the manuscript centre at Muster Germany – where about 80% of all Greek manuscripts are available on microfilm – admitted,

…the main problem in N.T. textual criticism lies in the fact that little more than their actual existence is known of most of the manuscripts…(_The Significance of the Papyrii_ pp. 330,1, quoted in Pickering’s _The Identity of the New Testament Text_)​
Jack Moorman points out (quoting from his book referred to in post #5), “However, Aland’s interest in the vast repository of MS evidence which he oversees is not what we would expect…Wisse explains:”

Yet Aland’s interest in the miniscules is not for their own sake. He is no longer satisfied with Hort’s judgment that the discovery of important cursives is most improbable. He wants to find the few hypothetical nuggets which Hort did not think were worth the effort. Aland wants to be able to say that he has searched the miniscules exhaustively for anything of value. This search of course, presupposed that the miniscules as such are of little value…Miniscules have to pass a test before they are worthy of inclusion in a textual apparatus. All MSS which are generally Byzantine will fail (_Profile Method_, p. 4)​
Moorman continues, “Therefore, when we read about many more cursives being cited in the latest Nestle-Aland Greek NT; we are not to believe that a significant shift away from the Alexandrian text has taken place…Wisse singles out the central reason why textual criticism cannot afford to pass over the great mass of manuscripts:”

In a situation where MS evidence runs into more than 5000 separate items and a time span of more than fourteen centuries, it should be questioned whether all this evidence is relevant for the establishment of the original text. It may well be that the oldest copies in existence are adequate representatives of the MS tradition so that the rest can be ignored. After all, why start more than thirteen centuries after the autographs were written and wade back through literally thousands of MSS in an immensely complicated process…To find the foundation of a building one does not first climb the roof; one starts somewhere below the ground floor.

This argument…forms the background for all those who consider it justified to ignore all, or almost all, miniscules…

There is basically only one argument which can circumvent the task of studying all the late miniscules…This argument is that among the early uncials there are the MSS which stand in a relatively uncorrupted tradition, and which show all other text-types of the period to be secondary and corrupted. Only if this argument can be proved, and if it is clear from some sampling that late miniscules fall predominantly in the tradition of one of the corrupted texts, can we safely omit a full study of these MSS (_Profile Method_, pp. 1, 2)​
Moorman continues, “When Aleph and B, the two main pillars of the critical text, display 3,000 clear differences in the Gospels (they must be weary of hearing this!); then what candidate do they propose for ‘relatively uncorrupted tradition.’?

“They have none! Yet they continue to work at the miserable business of keeping the TR-KJV out of public sight, without giving all the witnesses a chance to speak. Hodges and Farstad reacted against this and turned to the work of Hermann von Soden for help.

“Wisse sums it up:”

Except in von Soden’s inaccurate and unused pages, the miniscules have never been allowed to speak (_Profile Method_, p. 5).​
Interesting information, no? (The above quotes from Jack Moorman's, _Hodges/Farstad 'Majority' Text Refuted By Evidence_, pp. 4-7.)


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Sep 1, 2007)

This is very interesting. 

One thing that I'm not sure about is "providential preservation". Haven't these texts been in the church for longer then the reformation? The reason I ask is because of these statement:


> The third theory uses providential preservation *to support the King James when it does not follow the majority text*.





> ...*Regardless* of the witness of the majority of manuscripts or of the modern versions





> ... *the King James preserves the true text*. *In other words, God guided sixteenth century scholars to the true text and it has been preserved in the King James version.*


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 1, 2007)

Andrew,

I’m sorry if I have caused some confusion due to the disorganization of all that info in my post! 

The texts “providentially preserved” have indeed been in the church for longer than the Reformation! They were in the church from the beginning, being the apostles’ (and those whose writings they approved – Mark’s and Luke’s) original writings. We have the text – but not the original mss – these centuries later. We base our view on the promises of the Lord that He would preserve His word, even though heaven and earth should pass away. Telling us that man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, it follows that He would guard and keep for us that by which we must live!

The reconstruction of the path by which the true NT text (the OT has a different history) existed up through the ages, and how God brought even those few readings which had dropped from the Scriptures of the Greek Church _back_ into the text at the time of the Reformation, comprises the labors for which Dr. Edward Hills devoted his life. This can be seen in his book, _The King James Version Defended_, http://www.Jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefen.htm, a quote from which follows:

Thus as a result of this special providential guidance the True Text won out in the end, and today we may be sure that the text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts is a trustworthy reproduction of the divinely inspired Original Text. This is the text which was preserved by the God-guided usage of the Greek Church. Critics have called it the Byzantine text, thereby acknowledging that it was the text in use in the Greek Church during the greater part of the Byzantine period (452-1453). It is much better, however, to call this text the Traditional Text. When we call the text found in the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts the Traditional Text, we signify that this is the text which has been handed down by the God-guided tradition of the Church from the time of the Apostles unto the present day.

A further step in the providential preservation of the New Testament was the printing of it in 1516 and the dissemination of it through the whole of Western Europe during the Protestant Reformation. In the first printing of the Greek New Testament we see God's preserving providence working hiddenly and, to the outward eye, accidentally. The editor, Erasmus, performed his task in great haste in order to meet the deadline set by the printer, Froben of Basle. Hence this first edition contained a number of errors of a minor sort, some of which persisted in later editions. But in all essentials the New Testament text first printed by Erasmus and later by Stephanus (1550) and Elzevir (1633) is in full agreement with the Traditional Text providentially preserved in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. This printed text is commonly called the Textus Receptus (Received Text). It is the text which was used by the Protestant Reformers during the Reformation and by all Protestants everywhere for three hundred years thereafter. Hence the printing of it was, after all, no accident but the work of God's special providence.

The special providence of God is particularly evident in the fact that the text of the Greek New Testament was first printed and published not in the East but in Western Europe where the influence of the Latin usage and of the Latin Vulgate was very strong. Through the influence of the Latin-speaking Church Erasmus and his successors were providentially guided to follow the Latin Vulgate here and there in those few places in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had preserved the genuine reading. Hence the Textus Receptus was a further step in the providential preservation of the New Testament. In it the few errors of any consequence occurring in the Traditional Greek Text were corrected by the providence of God operating through the usage of the Latin speaking Church of Western Europe.

Thus God by His special providence has preserved the New Testament text in a three-fold way through the universal priesthood of believers. In the _first_ place, during the fourteen centuries in which the New Testament circulated in manuscript form God worked providentially through the usage of the Greek-speaking Church to preserve the New Testament text in the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. In this way the True New Testament Text became the prevailing Traditional Text. In the _second_ place, during the 16th century when the New Testament text was being printed for the first time, God worked providentially through the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to influence Erasmus and the other editors and printers of that period to follow the Latin Vulgate in those few places in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had preserved the genuine reading. Then in the _third_ place, during the 450 years which have elapsed since the first printing of the New Testament, God has been working providentially through the usage of Bible-believing Protestants to place and keep the stamp of His approval upon this God-guided printed text. It is upon this Textus Receptus that the King James Version and the other classic Protestant translations are based. (_The King James Version Defended_, 1984, pp. 106, 107)​
There was an extended discussion of this – under fire! – in the thread, “What is the authentic New Testament text?” [http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=15134], and this same quote of Hills’ is to be found in post 21 there, although throughout the thread these issues are dealt with.

I hope I haven’t added to the confusion, but clarified things instead! Please let me know if I haven't.

Steve


----------



## JM (Sep 1, 2007)

I fail to understand the argument made by modern scholars on this issue.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Sep 1, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Andrew,
> 
> I’m sorry if I have caused some confusion due to the disorganization of all that info in my post!
> 
> ...




No, actually this is very good. It's clearing up some issues. I should have been more specific on what I mean though. He states this:


> it was the text in use in the Greek Church during the greater part of the Byzantine period (452-1453).



Is there anything within documents that would show the history of these texts in use? Usually all I hear from this time period is about the Old Latin Vulgate and it's progressive add ons throughout the "roman" church.


----------

