1The majority of manuscripts (over 5000) are referred to in the literature as the “Majority Text,” or the “Antiochian,” “Syrian,” “Byzantine,” “Traditional,” or “Ecclesiastical” Text. The lectionaries of the church are Byzantine. The KJV, NKJV, MKJV, Young’s Literal translation, the ALT, and all Reformation era Bibles in various languages can generally be said to represent the Majority Greek text.↩

2Some place the figure much higher. In part it depends upon which manuscripts are included as “Egyptian.” Some would place the highly corrupted “Western” and so-called “Caesarean” texts in Egypt. There is considerable debate on that question. Some manuscripts have fewer mistakes than others. Pickering says that the manuscript P⁶⁶ has “roughly two mistakes per verse” (Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977], pp. 122-123). Pickering’s book is an outstanding introduction to the Majority Text debate, and is a must read. This is one of over two dozen books that I have been heavily dependent upon for information.↩

3From time to time, the figure of 184,590 words (and 839,380 letters) is dogmatically stated to be the number of words in the New Testament. However, that is the number that exist in one edition of the eclectic text. The Byzantine manuscripts have many more words.↩

4Textual critics often admit that they are dealing with probabilities and good guesses on most of the differences. Frequently, “intrinsic probability” completely contradicts “transcriptional probability” so that the critics are left with preferences. In Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, one is struck by the degree of doubt that the committee had. They expressed “a considerable degree of doubt” 204 times and 39 times a “very high degree of doubt” on the reading they preferred. On other decisions, the language shows probability: “a majority of the committee” “preferred,” or “thought” or “considered,” or decided that one reading was preferable to another.

Coldwell (a prominent critic) says, “We need to recognize that the editing of an eclectic text rests upon conjectures.” (Colwell, “Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text,” in The Bible in Modern Scholarship, ed. J.P. Hyatt [New York: Abingdon Press, 1965], pp. 372) R.M. Grant said, “it is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered” (Grant, “The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch,” Journal of Biblical Literature, LXVI (1947), p. 173).

Though the textbooks discussing textual criticism sometimes give the illusion that it is a hard science with confident results, the subjectivity of decisions becomes obvious when the reasoning of various experts is recorded. The degree of subjectivity involved in the decisions recorded in Metzger’s A Textual Commentary is very disturbing. No two eclectic scholars can agree on all readings. Even individual scholars routinely change their minds, as evidenced by the fact that each edition of the eclectic UBS Greek New Testament has had hundreds of changes.↩

5

See the discussion of the eleven Biblical presuppositions that should guide textual criticism, below.↩

6Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Society, 1971). ↩

7This was brought to my attention by Floyd Nolen Jones, PhD, Which Version is the Bible (The Woodlands, TX: KingWord Press, 1999).↩

8Floyd Nolen Jones, Which Version is the Bible, (KingsWord Press: The Woodlands, Texas, 1999).↩

9Though not a Majority Text advocate, Harry A. Sturtz has shown that the Byzantine Text is equally as old as any other “text-type.” See his The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984). Many early papyri clearly show distinctive Byzantine readings.↩

10On this last point, Pickering deduces some major implications in the last chapter of this book.↩

11Edward John Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), p. 194.↩

12L. Harold De Wolfe, The Case for Theology in Liberal Perspective (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959), pp. 51-52.↩

13The word is πιπτω, and is defined as to fall, to fall away, to fall down, to experience a loss of status, to be destroyed (see BDAG).↩

14Even of the broader group of manuscripts general called Byzantine, Sturtz concedes that “the Byzantine text… has maintained a high degree of homogeneity” (p. 124-125). Since the church is called by God the “pillar and ground of the truth” (see below), my confidence is in the portion of the Byzantine Majority Text that was used in the church (the ecclesiastical text).↩

15For example, F. G. Kenyon, R. M. Grant, E.C. Colwell, Harry A. Sturtz, Wilbur N. Pickering. Kenyon said, “The absence of evidence points the other way; for it would be very strange, if Lucian had really edited both Testaments, that only his work on the Old Testament should be mentioned in after times. The same argument tells against any theory of a deliberate revision at any definite moment. We know the names of several revisers of the Septuagint and the Vulgate, and it would be strange if historians and Church writers had all omitted to record or mention such an event as the deliberate revision of the New Testament in its original Greek” (Handbook, p. 324-325).↩

16Gordon D. Fee, “A Review Article: A Critique of W. N. Pickering’s the Identity of the New Testament Text,” Westminster Theological Journal 41, no. 2 (1978): 406. See the same statement repeated in Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 195.↩

17For example, in Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) he says, “These expansions quite frequently go beyond the purely stylistic level to add a devotional touch: Ἰησους may first become Ἰησους Χριστους or κῦριος Ἰησους, then κῦριος Ἰησους Χριστους and grow further to become κῦριος ἡμων Ἰησους Χριστους. Such devotional elements are not confined to single words, but may comprise whole phrases, sentences, or even verses. From the very beginning the text had a tendency to expand. This is why the shorter reading is generally the better, the original reading…Not only does the text tend to grow, it also becomes more stylistically polished, conformed to the rules of Greek grammar. In Mark 1:37, for example, there is a typically Marcan construction: και; εὑρον αὐτον και; λεγουσιν. The overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts replace this with the better Greek expression: εὑροντες αὐτον λεγουσιν. Only a few manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus (א), Codex Vaticanus (B), L, and a small number of other manuscripts withstand the temptation and preserve the stylistically embarrassing text.” (pp. 284-285). He is just one of many textual critics who admit that the Byzantine (Majority Text) reading is much better Greek. But he thinks this is a mark against it!↩

18See Bruce Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, pp. 195ff.↩

19Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 21.↩

20As cited by Metzger (The Text of the New Testament, p. 195, footnote 3.)↩

21Cited by Metzger (!) to try to prove the opposite on Ibid., p. 196.↩

22J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), p. 91.↩

23The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 285.↩

24For example, see Lane’s commentary on Romans 11:28. See F.F. Bruce on Acts 16:12.↩

25For a listing, see Metzger, p. 184.↩

26See for example, In the UBS textual notes on Matt 4:23; 5:22 (note the vid, beside p67 & 2174 and the * beside A); 8:18; 12:25; Mark 9:29; etc.↩

27Gordon Clark, Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism, (Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1986), p. 15.↩

28Pickering, The Text of the New Testament, p. 113.↩

29Aland, p. 287.↩

30David Alan Black (ed.), Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: 4 Views (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2008), p. 105.↩

31James Snapp Jr., “Codex Vaticanus and the Ending of Mark,” April 4, 2016, http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2016/04/codex-vaticanus-and-ending-of-mark.html.↩

32For example, the NIV Study Bible says, “Serious doubts exist as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost.” The marginal note in NIV bibles says, “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” The NASB says, “Some of the oldest mss. do not contain vv. 9-20.” The NKJV is much more honest when it says, “vv. 9-20 are bracketed in NU as not original. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss. of Mark contain them.”↩

33Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977), pp. 123.↩

34Actually, A.C. Clarke, professor of Latin at Cambridge, demonstrated that with the Latin classics, scribes were much more prone to accidentally omit something than to add. (See Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977), p. 80.)↩

35I say that it is “almost blindly” followed because, though the evangelicals parrot the same internal and external evidence provided by “the experts,” they are just as quick to accept the new readings given in later editions of either the Nestle’s or UBS Greek New Testament. The constant changes from edition to edition ought to alert the reader to the subjectivity involved.↩

36In Eck’s debate with Luther, he said that “Scripture is not authentic without the Church’s authority.” John Eck, Enchiridion of Commonplaces, “Against Luther and Other Enemies of the Church” (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), p. 13,14,46 as cited by Curtis Crenshaw in an unpublished paper.↩

37Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger and Allen Wikgren are not evangelicals, but liberals. And it is surprising to see the degree of trust that evangelicals have placed in these men. Gordon Clark in Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism has done good work in showing many of their unbelieving presuppositions.↩

38Erasmus had several editions (1516 and following), as did Stephanus (1550 and following), Theodore Beza (1565-1611) and the Elzevir brothers (1624 and following). In addition to these there were the editions of Simon Colinaeus (1534) and the Oxford edition (1873). The third edition of the Stephanus text became the standard in Britain and the Elzevir text became the standard on the Continent.

Though both of these differ from the Erasmus’ text, Scrivener reported that in 119 places, Stephanus followed Erasmus despite the fact that all the Greek manuscripts that Stephanus consulted differed from Erasmus’ version! Erasmus’ first edition was obviously not kept from error as it had thousands of typographical errors. His 1519 edition corrected many, but added more. He also incorporated some readings from 3^eap manuscript. His 1522 edition included a unique reading from the newly written (forged?) manuscript, Codex 61. Later Erasmus editions included readings from a Spanish edition of the NT put together by Cisneros. Various differences between editions range from 100-200 variants (not counting the typographical errors). With this evidence, it is difficult to argue that any of these editors was providentially kept from error. It is infelicitous to argue for a TR reading that cannot be found in any Greek manuscripts (such as some words in the last few verses of Revelation), yet this is precisely what many TR advocates do. Though the TR is much closer to the Byzantine (Majority) Text than the Egyptian texts, it differs from the Majority Text in over 1800 places. Indeed, some distinctively Alexandrian readings can be found in the TR.↩

39Westminster Confession of Faith, I:VII↩

40John H. Leith, ed., Creeds of the Churches (Richmond: John Knox Pres, revised edition, 1973), pp. 309, 310.↩

41Van Til, Defense, pp. 116, 117.↩

42Gordon Clark in Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism has done good work in showing many of their unbelieving presuppositions.↩

43The Defense of the Faith, (1955), p. 258. Cf. also Theory, p. 293.↩

44Also known as the Syrian Text, the Byzantine Text, and The Majority Text.↩

45Reprinted with the written permission of Dr. Wilbur Pickering. For other articles by this author, visit https://prunch.org and https://justashewalked.com.↩