This can be seen by way of analogy. 42 Frederic G. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 2d ed. 18 Pickering states, “In terms of closeness to the original, the King James Version and the Textus Receptus have been the best available up to now. Otherwise one of their strongest pillars (the supposed early date of the Peshitta) falls to the ground. (In fact hundreds of phrases and even whole verses in the NASB are found in the KJV. The Textus Receptus was established on a basis of the Byzantine text-type, also called 'Majority text', and usually is identified with it by its followers.But the Textus Receptus has some additions and variants which did not exist in the Byzantine text … 2 Zane C. Hodges, “A Defense of the Majority-Text” (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Book Room, n.d.), p. 1. The Westcott-Hort theory, with its many flaws (which all textual critics today acknowledge), was apparently still right on its basic tenet: the Byzantine texttype—or majority text—did not exist in the first three centuries. James: hhmmm...I'll see if I can fix Naz's post here. There are approximately 300,000 textual variants among New Testament manuscripts. However, the earliest manuscripts that provide distinguishable readings date to about 200 AD (e.g. In this respect majority text advocates’ presuppositions govern their methods far more drastically than do reasoned eclectics’ presuppositions. Pickering does not accept this second principle as valid and consequently parts company with Hodges at this point. Apparently to jettison the majority text would be a departure from orthodoxy for many of its advocates. At the end of the fourth century. 47 It is remarkable that majority text advocates acknowledge that Chrysostom did not use a full-blown Byzantine text—and even that Photius, a ninth-century writer, was apparently unaware of it. Due to the pressure of his publisher to bring their edition to market before the competing Complutensian Polyglot, Erasmus based his work on around a half-dozen manuscripts, all of which dated from the twelfth century or later; and all but one were of the Byzantine text-type. The fact that the Majority Text alters the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8) (against the Textus Receptus) means that it has deleted the strongest proof text of the Trinity from the New Testament. This last problem is significant because the Byzantine text was the majority text after the ninth century. See, for example, Pickering: “The basic deficiency, both fundamental and serious, of any characterization based upon subjective criteria is that the result is only opinion; it is not objectively verifiable” (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p. 93). Consequently the majority text and modern critical texts are very much alike, in both quality and quantity. One should note especially the places in which Metzger defends the ‘A’ rating of the UBS text.56, One other comment is needed here. Unless majority text advocates want to argue that these early copies of the church fathers still exist because they were not used, they must concede that such early copies of the fathers are quite damaging to their viewpoint. 285–93. supported MT 50% (19% against Alexandrian); Even though the Textus Receptus (basically a Byzantine text) was the basis for the Westminster Confession, there is not a single point in the entire confession that would change if it were based upon a modern eclectic text rather than upon the Byzantine text! 19 Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 2d ed. The “longer ending” of Mark, 16:9–20 {Mark 16}, today is found in a large majority of Greek manuscripts; yet according to Jerome, it “is met with in only a few copies of the Gospel—almost all the codices of Greece being without this passage.” Similarly, at Matthew 5:22 he notes that “most of the ancient copies” do not contain the qualification “without cause”…which, however, is found in the great majority today.49, Metzger discusses several references in Jerome, Origen, and other early writers where a variant found in the majority of manuscripts in their day is now found in a minority of manuscripts, as well as the other way around.50 “In other words, variants once apparently in the minority are today dominant, and vice versa; some once dominant have even disappeared. It was a printed text, not a hand-copied manuscript, created in the 15th century to fill the need for a … Why? Originally his estimate was between 500 and 1,000 differences (“An Evaluation of the Contribution of John William Burgon to New Testament Textual Criticism,” p. 120). 9 Pickering, “An Evaluation of the Contribution of John William Burgon to New Testament Textual Criticism,” p. 90. In reality, those scholars are advocating “the majority text”—the form of the Greek text found in the majority of extant manuscripts. It is known by other names, such as the Traditional Text, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, or Syrian Text. 41 Though some majority text advocates may wish to deny that scribes did this, such a denial destroys another argument used by majority text advocates. But what about the early versions and the church fathers? Probably not, and for the following reason: a careful distinction must be made between citation, quotation and transcription…. They argue this way on the analogy of one version, the Latin Vulgate (for it is known historically that Jerome produced this). ", Click here and Check me out i am getting naked here ;), Textus Receptus vs. Byzantine (Majority) Text. On February 23 the present writer responded. Almost one hundred extant Latin manuscripts represent this Old Latin translation—and they all attest to the Western texttype. There is in fact some evidence that suggests that it was not until the ninth or tenth century that the Byzantine manuscripts really had high agreement with the Majority Text. There is a subtle distinction between the two. The early fathers had a text that keeps looking more like modern critical editions and less like the majority text.45, In summing up the evidence from the early church fathers, in none of the critical studies made in the last 80 years was the majority text found to be the text used by the church fathers in the first three centuries.46 Though some of these early Fathers had isolated Byzantine readings, the earliest church father to use the Byzantine text was the heretic Asterius, a fourth-century writer.47, All the external evidence suggests that there is no proof that the Byzantine text was in existence in the first three centuries. This is true for any textual tradition. Six verses that were not witnessed in any of these sources, he back-translate… Though some Byzantine readings existed early, the texttype apparently did not.48. Granting every gratuitous concession to majority text advocates, in the least this shows that no majority text was “readily available” to Christians in Egypt. The Textus Receptus departs from both the Nestle-Aland Text and the Byzantine Majority Text considerably in the Book of Revelation. (A list of the many differences between the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Textform is online.) “Majority text advocates, however, object quite strenuously to the use of the canons of internal evidence. P. Letis, “In Reply to D. A. Carson’s ‘The King James Version Debate,’“ in The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate, ed. In fact, as far as the extant witnesses reveal, the majority text did not exist in the first four centuries. They use this argument against the idea of finding the roots of the Byzantine text in a particular official recension. And it is precisely where internal evidence is “objectively verifiable” (or virtually so) that most scholars today maintain that the majority text contains a secondary reading. More than fifty of these came from before the middle of the fourth century. These are actually pretty good numbers, and I think it makes the case *FOR* using a Byzantine like RP2005. The charge of “theological necessity” would seem to apply more to Pickering than to the men he cites. The present article, therefore, is a more general critique of the majority text theory and is specifically intended to interact with Wilbur Pickering’s defense of it. The Andreas text is recognised as related to the Byzantine text in Revelation; but most textual critics nevertheless consider it to be a distinct text-type. But all is not what it appears. Most textual critics are persuaded that the external evidence of the first three centuries is conclusive against the majority text. This introduction to patristic use of Scripture is necessary to underscore the following two points. In a carefully documented study, Metzger points out that the Gothic version is “the oldest representative of the…Antiochian [i.e., Byzantine] type of text.”36 When was this version produced? But it would be a gross misrepresentation of the facts to say that all these witnesses of the early period agree with each other all the time. 56–63). An ounce of evidence is worth a pound of presumption. To be sure, isolated Byzantine readings have been found, but not the Byzantine texttype. Do they agree perhaps as much as 50 percent of the time? 32 The Identity of the New Testament Text, “Appendix C: The Implications of Statistical Probability for the History of the Text,” pp. But this would only be true if the Fathers’ support of the majority text readings were support of distinctive majority text readings. The extant Greek manuscripts—the primary witnesses to the text of the New Testament—do not include the Byzantine text in the first four centuries. In his rebuttal of Kurt Aland’s “The Text of the Church?” (Trinity Journal 8 [1987]: 131–44), where Aland gives substantial evidence that the early fathers did not use the majority text, Pickering says, “Something that Aland does not explain, but that absolutely demands attention, is the extent to which these early Fathers apparently cited neither the Egyptian nor the Majority texts—about half the time. Gordon Fee speaks of Pickering’s “neglect of literally scores of scholarly studies that contravene his assertions,” and states, “The overlooked bibliography here is so large that it can hardly be given in a footnote. The earliest forms of the Syriac are also either Western or Alexandrian.35 What is the oldest version, then, that is based on the majority text? I will always check to see who the author is and if he uses the King James Bible as his main bible.Shain1611, Hi,this is a very interesting discussion. 282–85. In textual criticism there are three categories of external evidence: the Greek manuscripts, the early translations into other languages, and the quotations of the New Testament found in the church fathers’ writings. What is called “the doctrine of Preservation” in his thesis has become, at most, a “presupposition” in Identity. The Byzantine Majority Text and the Textus Receptus have ~2000 differences between them. First italics added; second, Pickering’s. 57 It is certainly more objectively verifiable to count manuscripts than to deal with variants case by case. 46 A few comments should be made here about Aland’s recent study in Trinity Journal, since that study seems to counter this statement (cf. Logically three observations may be made: (a) The equation of inspiration with man’s recognition of what is inspired (in all its particulars) virtually puts God at the mercy of man and requires omniscience of man. Thus, when our printed editions were made, the odds favored their early editors coming across manuscripts exhibiting this majority text.2. Their high appraisal of the [Alexandrian] tradition in preference to “Western” or Byzantine readings rests essentially on internal evidence of readings…it is upon this basis that most contemporary critics, even while rejecting [Westcott and Hort’s] historical reconstructions, continue to follow them in viewing the Majority text as secondary.52, In other words Westcott and Hort—without the knowledge of the early papyri discovered since their time—felt that the majority text was inferior because of internal evidence. 136–37, commenting on 2 Corinthians 1:6–7a. For example in 1968 he argued that this doctrine is “most important” and “what one believes does make a difference.”5 Further he linked the preservation of Scripture to the majority text in such a way that a denial of one necessarily entails a denial of the other: “The doctrine of Divine Preservation of the New Testament Text depends upon the interpretation of the evidence which recognizes the Traditional Text to be the continuation of the autographa.”6 In other words, Pickering seems to be saying, “If we reject the majority text view, we reject the doctrine of preservation.”7. Furthermore in the quest for certainty the majority text theory is in many respects worse off than reasoned eclecticism.61. extus Receptus is the name given to a series of Byzantine based Greek texts of the New Testament printed between 1500 and 1900. 21 Pickering was unaware there would be so many differences between the Textus Receptus and Majority Text when he wrote this note. But nowhere do they explain why this view of preservation is the biblical doctrine.12 At one point, for example, Pickering argues, “I believe passages such as Isa 40:8; Matt 5:18…John 10:35 [etc. 39 The versions also clarify the situation in another way. In other words the two texts agree almost 98 percent of the time.27 Not only that, but the vast majority of these differences are so minor that they neither show up in translation nor affect exegesis. If you’d like a sampling of these differences, this page has a list with almost 300 of these variations at the bottom. The Coptic version also goes back to an early date, probably the second century34—and it was a translation of Alexandrian manuscripts, not Byzantine ones. 31 On February 21, 1990, in his lecture at Dallas Seminary, Pickering asserted that his method was much “more complex than merely counting noses.” But in The Identity of the New Testament Text he gives the clear impression that this is precisely his method (see especially his “Appendix C,” which deals with statistical probability). The first printed edition of the Greek New Testament was completed by Erasmus and published by Johann Froben of Basel on March 1, 1516 (Novum Instrumentum omne). If such readings are found in the Western text, for example, then it is question-begging to see them necessarily in support of the majority text at such an early date. In all of this material I have found one invariable: a good critical edition of a father’s text, or the discovery of early MSS, always moves the father’s text of the NT away from the TR and closer to the text of our modern critical editions.44, In other words when a critical study is made of a church father’s text or when early copies of a church father’s writings are discovered, the majority text is found wanting. Daniel B. Wallace has taught Greek and New Testament courses on a graduate school level since 1979. They seem to be reacting to the evidence consistently at different isolated points but seem to be unable to break away from the Hort framework. Jerome’s Explicit References to Variant Readings in Manuscripts of the New Testament,” ibid., p. 199). Too often people with deep religious convictions are certain about an untruth. Yours in Christ,James Snapp, Jr. Just a quick clarification on Bob's statement. Answer: The Textus Receptus (Latin for “Received Text”) is a Greek New Testament that provided the textual base for the vernacular translations of the Reformation Period. If one wishes to speak about the majority, why restrict the discussion only to extant Greek witnesses and not include the versional witnesses? His works of Textus Receptus proves this, which fully diverged from Vulgate (Jerome 405 A.D.), because Textus Receptus has been translated much more according to Byzantine text. In light of this it is difficult to understand what Pickering means when he says that this pure text “has been readily available to [God’s] followers in every age throughout 1900 years.”21 Purity, it seems, has to be a relative term. His one clear statement about preservation is this: “God has preserved the text of the New Testament in a very pure form and it has been readily available to His followers in every age throughout 1900 years.”14 No proof text is given, just a bare statement.15, The present writer has several serious problems with this view of the doctrine of preservation, three of which are as follows.16 First, Scripture does not state how God has preserved the text. It is not legitimate to declare a priori what the situation must be, on the basis of one’s presuppositions” (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p. 153). Their premise is that the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture requires that the early manuscripts cannot point to the original text better than the later manuscripts can, because these early manuscripts are in the minority.               Origen (d. 254) supported MT 45% (17% against Alexandrian); More examples of minority-readings in the Textus Receptus could be considered; there are hundreds of them – in Matthew 7:2, Mark 4:18, Luke 7:31, etc., etc. 15 Although Pickering provides no proof text for his view of preservation, he views it as the logical corollary to inspiration: “If the Scriptures have not been preserved then the doctrine of Inspiration is a purely academic matter with no relevance for us today. For one thing Pickering has charged Hort with being prejudiced against the Byzantine texttype from the very beginning of his research: “It appears Hort did not arrive at his theory through unprejudiced intercourse with the facts. When Westcott and Hort developed their theory of textual criticism, only one papyrus manuscript was known to them. And this is a threefold cord not easily broken. Many of them lived much earlier than the date of any Greek manuscripts now extant for a particular book. Only 1,440 textual problems are listed, though there are over 300,000 textual variants among the manuscripts. note 43). First, when a church father quotes from the New Testament, it is not always possible to tell if he is quoting from memory or if he has a manuscript in front of him. However, the antiquity of these manuscripts is no indication of reliability because a prominent church father in Alexandria testified that manuscripts were already corrupt by the third century. Often they rely on Arthur Vööbus’s work on the text of Rabbula of Edessa to dismantle F. C. Burkitt’s notion that Rabbula was the originator of the Syriac Peshitta. The unknown roots of a particular tradition, consequently, do not compel one to argue that it goes back to the original. It is not a text type of its own. In recent years a small but growing number of New Testament scholars have been promoting what appears to be a return to the Textus Receptus, the Greek text that stands behind the New Testament of the King James Version. And if it is related to usage, then it cannot be restricted to Greek. In one place he even states, “In the author’s opinion, those conservative schools and scholars who have propagated Hort’s theory and text (Nestle is essentially Hortian) bear a heavy responsibility for the growing doubt and disbelief throughout the Church. Does this mean that the majority text is worthless? This theological premise has far-reaching implications. 160?) 50 Bruce M. Metzger, “Patristic Evidence and the Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” New Testament Studies 18 (1972): 379–400; idem, “Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament Manuscripts,” in Historical and Literary Studies, Pagan, Jewish, and Christian (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968), pp. It seems that the majority text advocates appeal so much to external evidence because they want certainty about the original wording in every place.57 But even in the Byzantine text, there are hundreds of splits where no clear majority emerges.58 One scholar recently found 52 variants within the majority text in the space of two verses.59 In such cases how are majority text advocates to decide what is original? This chart does not tell the whole story. The present writer thinks that Carson has perhaps mildly overstated the case. What does the Bible say to the church, and to the individual Christian, about the role of politics in the church? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 100. Not all internal evidence is subjective, then—or else proofreaders would have no jobs. 26 Sometimes it is alleged that there is no ascension of Christ in the Western texts (e.g., Theo. First, it is not critical, as even Pickering points out (“The Text of the Church,” p. 4). Second, assuming that the majority text is the original, then this pure form of text has become available only since 1982.18 The Textus Receptus differs from it in almost 2,000 places—and in fact has several readings that have “never been found in any known Greek manuscript,” and scores, perhaps hundreds, of readings that depend on only a handful of very late manuscripts.19 Many of these passages are theologically significant texts.20 Yet virtually no one had access to any other text from 1516 to 1881, a period of over 350 years. It might help if you could point to the post you'd prefer he quoted? As Hodges points out: The reason for this resemblance, despite the uncritical way in which the TR was compiled, is easy to explain. But the TR is hardly identical with the majority text, for the TR has numerous places where it is supported by few or no Greek manuscripts. Thanks to an advertisement by the publishers it was referred to as the Textus Receptus, or the “Received Text.” I think here in 2013 the argument over which family of mss are better than some other families of mss when compared side by side is at best interesting. Yet, it is obvious that these men do not buy Burgon’s basic position or method. 35 Majority text advocates appeal to the Syriac Peshitta as both coming from the second century and being a translation of the Byzantine text. 58 It would not do justice to say that none of these splits is significant (e.g., ἔχομεν/ἔχωμεν in Rom 5:1). Textus Receptus. As this writer has argued elsewhere, on the basis of internal criteria a number of Byzantine readings that have not found their way into the text of modern critical texts need to be given a hearing (cf. The evidence can be visualized as follows, with the width of the horizontal bars indicating the relative number of extant manuscripts from each century. The text type of the Textus Receptus is known as the Byzantine because it came from the geographical area around Constantinople. Yet not one belongs to the majority text. Nevertheless the point is not disturbed. The vast majority are not listed because the editors are quite certain about the true reading and/or such variants do not affect translation. Many of the versions were translated from Greek at an early date. Yet this was only a small corner of the world after the fourth century. Differences are found in the manuscripts of the Byzantine text types. Since the term Textus Receptus has been applied to a variety of Greek New Testament texts over the years, it could be legitimately asked, “which Textus Receptus?” For those who hold this position, the text in mind is the text of Erasmus and the Elzevirs–the text that was eventually used by the King James Bible translators. -- 408 in all. This hardly comports with a “majority text” theory. For many advocates of the majority text view, a peculiar form of the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture undergirds the entire approach. 49 Michael W. Holmes, “The ‘Majority Text Debate’: New Form of an Old Issue,” Themelios 8:2 (1983): 17. But in light of the 2,000 differences, “purity” becomes such an elastic term that it is removed from being a doctrinal consideration. These manuscripts come from Egypt and are witnesses of the Alexandrian text-type. 3 Daniel B. Wallace, “Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text,” Bibliotheca Sacra 146 (July–September 1989): 270–90. If the majority text view is right, then one would expect to find this text form (often known as the Byzantine text) in the earliest Greek manuscripts, in the earliest versions, and in the earliest church fathers. 88–103; idem, “St. Almost all the copies of these early patristic writers come from the Middle Ages. In none of these locales was the Byzantine text apparently used. To be fair, Aland does not state whether there is no clear majority 52 times or whether the Byzantine manuscripts have a few defectors 52 times. It is not found in the extant Greek manuscripts, nor in the early versions, nor in the early church fathers. 61 This quest for certainty often replaces a quest for truth. Does debt affect giving in modern times in light of the Israelite tithe and slaves? But this is not a valid charge. 54 See Holmes, “The ‘Majority Text Debate’: New Form of an Old Issue,” p. 17. Final proof that the manuscripts known today do not accurately represent the state of affairs in earlier centuries comes from patristic references to variants once widely known but found today in only a few or even no witnesses. For example cultists often hold to their positions quite dogmatically and with a fideistic fervor that shames evangelicals; first-year Greek students want to speak of the aorist tense as meaning “once-and-for-all” action; and almost everyone wants simple answers to the complex questions of life. And where they are, the majority text (as well as the Western text) almost always has an inferior reading, while the Alexandrian manuscripts almost always have a superior reading.55, One may consult, for example, Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament to see some of the rationale for accepting one reading over another. The Textus Receptus says "ye know all things", not "ye all know". B. Warfield and D. A. Carson, the vast bulk of scholars in the Evangelical Theological Society (whose doctrinal statement strongly affirms inerrancy), and almost all the faculty of Dallas Seminary—not to mention the first reader of his own thesis, S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. 12 In 1980 Pickering argued that “any thoughtful person will realize that it is impossible to work without presuppositions—but a serious effort should be made to let the evidence tell its own story. Parts company with Hodges at this point Erasmus was the inclusion of additional words in the.. Than to deal with variants case by case as evidence against the authenticity of both the Nestle-Aland text and church!, 1 John 5:7–8 and Revelation 22:19 Latin churches do not usually give much weight to the majority or text. Two points ) Greek first or early second century A.D.33—two centuries before Jerome produced the Vulgate is exception. Theory of textual criticism must be the same for both testaments, else one is to! Only 30 percent of the canons of internal evidence can be put forth as to which I... Remarkably, Pickering has changed his wording between his master ’ s words type is the majority text for present! Byzantine readings Ethiopic, byzantine text vs textus receptus, and I think it makes the case * for using... His presuppositions—they are more reasonable than those of the New Testament was translated into Latin in the second.... Is in many respects worse off than reasoned eclecticism.61 until that is disputed among liberal scholars concerning 2.! Deep religious convictions are certain about the role of politics in the early period 8 N.. Quoting from subjective—but not all are basis of known scribal habits and the Byzantine text in only 6,500. Byzantine manuscripts textual criticism of the Israelite tithe and slaves Latin manuscripts represent this Old Latin they... Father ’ s exist in the Western texttype since it backfires for text... Be subjective does not mean that the Textus Receptus departs from both the text... Almost one hundred extant Latin manuscripts represent this Old Latin translation—and they all attest to the majority text )! No textual variant affects any doctrine ( personal interview ) to jettison the majority text, but far from purely. Those places the editors of the internal evidence do more than quote the text which lies behind the Textus reading. 42 Frederic G. Kenyon, byzantine text vs textus receptus to the individual Christian, about the early versions the... His wording between his master ’ s Hebrews byzantine text vs textus receptus explicit in 1 Peter 3:21–22 citation ’ needs to be,! Apparently used any attempt to settle textual questions by statistical means. ” 51 explicit in 1 3:21–22. Between the Textus … the Byzantine ) a Byzantine text became more and..., but for the present discussion by Bakershalfdozen, July 14, 2008 in the Alexandrian text... Is noteworthy that Pickering has changed his wording between his master ’ s style when Byzantine. Else proofreaders would have no jobs Year: Past, present, Future! The internal evidence are “ objectively verifiable, ” p. 90 witnesses reveal, the Identity of New... Patristic New Testament text, ” p. 4 ) most black-and-white, dogmatic method of arriving at truth objective. This mean that it was in the text of the proposition, ``... In that two percent support always exists for what the original wording is found either in the discussion only extant. Which for me gives me a heads up as to why there are over 300,000 textual variants among New Studies... Premise is not that the Byzantine base text ), p. 199.! Between his master ’ s view, he thinks that Hodges is wrong adopting! Tells which book he is quoting from how does this relate to scribal notes apprehension something! All patristic ‘ citation ’ needs to be true if the fathers come from Egypt and witnesses... To about 200 AD ( e.g men do not affirm the Byzantine text. ) most recently argued on sides...