I hesitate to begin posting on the forum commenting on such a potentially contentious topic but "Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread." (Alexander Pope, 1688-1744), so, here goes!
I will consolidate responses to several posters in just one offering.
Two of the best books in print supporting/defending/defining the Critical Text position are
"The Text of the New Testament" by Bruce Metzger and
"The Text of the New Testament" by Kurt and Barbara Aland.
In juxtaposition to the above books would be
"The Identity of the New Testament Text" by Wilbur Pickering which defends the Traditional or Majority Text.
My studies in this field began about 50 years ago when there were few choices in Greek texts. My first Greek text was Stephens' 1550 edition as published by George Ricker Berry in 1897. (No, I am not
that old, it was a reprint!)
However, when in Seminary I was introduced to the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, first edition of 1966. When the second edition came out in 1968 I immediately purchased the new and improved edition. Then in 1975 I purchased the third edition, and in 1993 I purchased the fourth edition.
I have found the UBS textual apparatus to be extremely useful in determining the scope of manuscript evidence supporting the different variants to be found in the Greek manuscripts.
However, after studying the theories of textual criticism and the rules for determining the most probably reading as put forth by Bengel, Griesbach, Lachmann, Westcott and Hort, the Alands, etc., I was not entirely satisfied that their "rules of textual criticism" would lead to the correct reading. So I began to study the writings of Burgeon, Scrivener, Kenyon and others who seemed to take a slightly (or in Burgon's case, extremely) different position on some issues I believed to be important.
I soon came to the personal conclusion that the Byzantine textform was more likely to reflect the original reading than the Alexandrian textform which is largely reflected in the UBS editions of the Critical text.
So, today I champion the Byzantine textform but do not condemn the Alexandrian textform nor the editions of the Critical text emanating from it. (I still use my USB/4 and still find the textual apparatus to be the best presently in print.) However, I do prefer the Byzantine textform and read my Majority Text (both of them, Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont) as well as my "Textus Receptus" (Scrivener's 1894 edition) and consider them to be my base authority when determining the likelihood of a variant reading.
However, in my studies I have found that most of the charges leveled against the "Modern Versions" by those who espouse the "King James Only" movement are simply wrong. The vast majority of all the variants between the two major representatives of the differing textforms are minor and present no problems with any historic doctrine of the Christian faith.
What, in my opinion, must be avoided in this type of discussion is the precipitous insistence that one textform is unquestionably superior to the other. If it was unquestionable there wouldn't be so many questions!
The criteria I use in my study of textual issues would include the following.
1. Number. The majority reading will most likely be the correct reading. Hort even agrees to this, then explains away why he ignored it.
2. Age. The older reading will be closer to the autograph and will most likely preserve the original reading. However, there is much more to judging the age of the reading than simply ascertaining the actual age of the ms. The oldest reading does not necessarily reside in the oldest mss. The most significant variants in the mass of textual sources came into being before 200 AD.
3. Acceptance, or historicity. The churches down through the ages of church history will have most likely used the correct texts.
4. Geography. The Palestinian/Syrian/Asia Minor/Southern European churches were the churches to which the autographs were addressed and those churches were much more likely to have the correct readings as they had, at least for a time, the autographs to compare their copies to.
5. Agreement. A variety of witnesses attest to the same reading, i.e., mss, Patristics, Versions, lectionaries, etc. It is an error to place, for instance, in my opinion, the lettered uncials above all other types of witnesses. We should look at all the variety of witnesses and see which reading is evident in all of the different types of witnesses across the entire spectrum of the evidence.
6. Credibility. Credibility of a witness is of course a relative term. Among the witnesses to a reading, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, the orthodox African writers, and the Waldensian Bibles would stand out as credible to most objective critics. However, virtually unknown cites, dragged from the depths of obscurity would probably not be credible witnesses.
7. Context and other internal considerations. Grammar, syntax, and immediate context are important internal evidences for a reading. This has nothing to do with "transcriptional probability" or "intrinsic probability" as championed by Westcott and Hort. I agree with Bengel on this issue. "No conjecture is ever on any consideration to be listened to. It is safer to bracket any portion of the text, which may haply to appear to labour under inextricable difficulties."
Good discussion. Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinions.
