The Majority Text Position

reubdog · Jan 16, 2003

I was wondering in all this KJVO debate (I myself am a recovering KJVO-guy) if any of you would consider yourself a Majority-Text man? Not a TR man. but would prefer the readings of either Farstad & hodges text or the Pierpont and Robinson Majority-textform. Personally, I think P&R hit the nail on the head, unfortunately we may not see an english Bible done from their text.
thanks

Forever settled in heaven · Jan 17, 2003

Originally posted by reubdog:
Personally, I think P&R hit the nail on the head, unfortunately we may not see an english Bible done from their text.
thanks
Click to expand...

how so, wld u like to elaborate on ur verdict?

(i'm neither TR or MT, btw.)

Scott J · Jan 17, 2003

My guess is that the NKJV would be the closest to a MT Bible when you consider the margin notes.

Having read about the methods used by CT editors, it is my personal feeling that maybe the Byzantine texts are not weighed strongly enough. I personally think that MT plus early witnesses should carry the most weight.

Siegfried · Jan 17, 2003

What is the best written defense of the Majority Text position vs. the eclectic approach?

I'm not interested in a bunch of KJVO propaganda, but a reasoned, historical, scientific study of text types that concludes the MT is the strongest text type.

Pastor_Bob · Jan 17, 2003

Although I do not agree with this article in its entirety, it is thought provoking and interesting. It make help you a bit.

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

In 1516 a Roman Catholic scholar and priest, Desiderius Erasmus, published the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. Over the course of his lifetime four more editions would come out, each differing in various ways from the other. It was this Greek text that influenced the life of Martin Luther.10 Indeed, all of the Reformers11 used this text — a point KJV Only advocates often make. We should point out, however, that their choice of the text was not due to anything other than availability. Erasmus’s text was widely published and relatively inexpensive, and hence was easily obtainable. Textual studies had not yet advanced to the point of even being able to identify different kinds of text types in the underlying Greek manuscripts. Therefore, to attempt to enlist the Reformers as advocates of one particular text type over another is to embroil them in a debate that was not theirs.

Robert Estienne, better known by his Latin name, Stephanus, continued Erasmus’s work. Theodore Beza, who succeeded Calvin in Geneva, used Estienne’s work. Beza was particularly interested in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, even collecting a few of the more important manuscripts himself. He produced a number of editions of the Greek New Testament.

All of these editions — the five of Erasmus, Stephanus’s text (primarily his 1550 edition), and Beza’s editions — were available to the King James translators while they labored between 1604 and 1611. Since these editions differed at various points,12 the translators also played the role of textual critics, weighing the various readings and making decisions as it seemed best to them, just as modern editors and translators do. It is important to note that the resultant King James New Testament text did not exist in that exact form prior to 1611. That is, there is no family of manuscripts, or even a single manuscript, that reads exactly as the King James New Testament. The translators used an "eclectic" methodology, recognizing that no single manuscript should be elevated to the status of the "standard," but that each manuscript contained scribal errors of various kinds, and that the true and original text was best sought in the plurality of texts.

A few decades after the publication of the KJV, an advertisement appeared for the printed edition of the Greek New Testament that claimed, as advertisements are prone to do, that it represented the "text received by all." In Latin this phrase boiled down to the textus receptus, and hence an advertising blurb became associated with the Greek texts of the Erasmus–Stephanus– Beza line so that today one will find the phrase used to describe the text from which the KJV was translated.13 It is important to note, however, that the Textus Receptus (TR) normally used by KJV Only advocates did not exist in 1611. That is, the TR used today is normally the one created by Scrivener in 1894, which took as its basis the English translation of the KJV, giving the reader the Greek textual choices made by the KJV translators.

The TR was the "standard" text for more than 200 years in most of Europe. While more manuscripts came to light during this time, it was not until the middle of the nineteenth century that a serious challenge to the preeminence of the TR was mounted through the work of Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. Westcott and Hort recognized the existence of text types or "text families" in the growing number of manuscripts available to scholars, and they asserted that the most common form of the NT text, found predominately in later manuscripts, was the result of an earlier revision. This meant that the TR, in their view, represented a later, secondary form of the text. The earlier, more primitive (and hence more pure) form of the text was to be found in those manuscripts that predated this revision.

The TR text generally represents the Byzantine family of manuscripts. The Byzantine text type is by far the majority text type and is to be found in the vast majority of later NT manuscripts. The other text types include the Western, the Caesarean, and the most important, the Alexandrian. The names indicate that these text types are related to geographical areas, though it should not be assumed that all Alexandrian manuscripts come from Alexandria, nor all Byzantine manuscripts from Byzantium.

Modern Greek texts, such as the Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the United Bible Societies 4th edition, which underlie modern English translations and are used most often in college and seminary-level Greek classes, are based not upon just a few texts, but upon all Greek manuscripts. Unlike the TR, which was derived from only one stream of the large Byzantine family of texts, the modern texts draw from the entire range of Greek texts. The modern Greek texts also provide extensive textual notes indicating what readings are to be found in which manuscripts. This is important for the person who wants to check the choices made by editors and translators, as well as for the person concerned about alleged "secrecy" on the part of modern textual scholars. Modern Greek texts are open in allowing the reader to examine all the relevant manuscript readings, leading to honesty and accountability.
Click to expand...

IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT?
by James R. White

reubdog · Jan 17, 2003

Originally posted by Siegfried:
What is the best written defense of the Majority Text position vs. the eclectic approach?

I'm not interested in a bunch of KJVO propaganda, but a reasoned, historical, scientific study of text types that concludes the MT is the strongest text type.
Click to expand...

Well, you won't hear any KJVO propoganda from me. I've been down that road and am a recovering KJVo'er : ) Erasm. only had between 4-12 (and that's being generous) greek texts. from which he produced his Texts (that's textual critisim, by the way : ) Since his time Huge quantities of manuscripts in the Byz. family have been discovered, and studied. It is on these Byz. texts that the 2 MT texts have come from. There are 2 theories to get the "best" readings 1.) Farstad & hodges - strains method. There are different "strains" of texts within the MT 2.) Pierpont & Robinson's numbers theory, basically the more the better. Now I realize that is grossly over simplified, but I prefer P&R's.

The eclectic approach depends on whether yu mean radical eclectisicm, which says you don't even need textual evidence to go with a particular reading (Bad, and wierd) or the kind where all families (Byz, aleph, B ect...) are examined and, theoretically, viewed on equal footing (NASB would prob. be the closest)
So why the MT position? between the TR and The 2 MT editions there are aprox. 1750 differences ( that's like one a page.) but between aleph and B there are over 3,000 variances in the gospels alone! now i have my UBS text, TR, and MT, and honestly, 95% of the time the diff. are incredibly small. I think this is a testimony to the Power of God.I see that He preserved His word in the bulk of the extant mss. best represented in the byz. family colated in F&H's text and P&R's
thanks,
reub

Siegfried · Jan 17, 2003

Thanks for the quote (and the link in your PM). The article seems to be a solid summary of the text forms and their use in history.

I'm really looking for a book or article that evaluates the consistency of the MT with the originals, beyond just explaining what the MT is. I have heard that some who are knowledgeable of Greek and the manuscripts believe that the MT type is more accurate than the older Alexandrian text type. Although they are in the minority of modern scholars, I would be interested in seeing their argumentation and conclusions, provided they are not KJVO advocates.

reubdog · Jan 17, 2003

Originally posted by Siegfried:
[QB]Thanks for the quote (and the link in your PM).
I'm really looking for a book or article that evaluates the consistency of the MT with the originals, beyond just explaining what the MT is.

The Byzantine Text-type & New Testament textual criticism. by Harry Sturz. He's not a hard liner, but simply and scholarly argues for the legitimacy of the text. The Intro to P&R's text is also excellent and easy to understand. Both may be a little hard to find, but not too bad
thanks reub
Click to expand...

Siegfried · Jan 17, 2003

Thanks, reubdog.

Perhaps I need to clarify what I'm asking for some more.

I am familiar with the differences between the MT and eclectic approaches. I don't consider a TR position to be valid in any way, personally. I can't understand why one would take a microscopic fraction of the Byzantine text form and hold it up as the standard.

I would be curious to see where a knowledgeable individual makes a reasoned case for the superiority of the MT form over the eclectic approach. Establishing preference based on the weight of numbers is irrational to me.

reubdog · Jan 17, 2003

Originally posted by Siegfried:

Establishing preference based on the weight of numbers is irrational to me.
Click to expand...

I respect your opinion. Like i said, i over simplified things with P&R's view
"The first 43 pages of Pierpont & Robinson's 57 page Introduction offers the most compelling modern argument for the Byzantine-priority method that I have yet to see in print. "
that's what a reviewer said about the intro to robinson's text. check it out on amazon. Lord bless
reubdog

reubdog · Jan 17, 2003

P.s. as far as I go i don't accept a lucianic reccension. without that i think that the MT position holds tremendous wieght. Because "the text explained by none others" is usually seen as the best text. I think Origen and his friends may have not had the best results while trying to maintain a pure text because of their disadvantage of not being greek. (this is not at all shouting "alexandrian cult" that's crazy) So i think the churches in asia minor and the greek orthodx churches had an advantage when it came to their work with the texts. with no reccension and if you don't accept the "strains" view then the byz family is just unbelieveably heavy. Not to the total exclusion of aleph and B, but it just makes those texts with their inconsistencies lightweights, in most cases. just my opinion : )
and a few others : )

Siegfried · Jan 17, 2003

I'm not referring to your perspective on P & R's text, but to the common argument for the MT that it is superior because it is the majority.

If it IS the superior text form, it's not because it's the majority, but because it's closest to the originals. The fact that there are a lot of copies doesn't have any bearing on that issue. From what I can tell it seems that you would agree with that point.

reubdog · Jan 17, 2003

guilty, as charged - sorry i didn't get your question right off the bat Ya, i agree with you totally. the numbers help the cause because of the solidarity of them, but that's just iceing on the cake. There's a lot more to Christianity than numbers in more than one area!

The Majority Text Position

reubdog New Member

Forever settled in heaven New Member

Scott J Active Member
Site Supporter

Siegfried Member

Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

reubdog New Member

Siegfried Member

reubdog New Member

Siegfried Member

reubdog New Member

reubdog New Member

Siegfried Member

reubdog New Member

Useful Searches

The Majority Text Position

reubdog New Member

Forever settled in heaven New Member

Scott J Active Member Site Supporter

Siegfried Member

Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

reubdog New Member

Siegfried Member

reubdog New Member

Siegfried Member

reubdog New Member

reubdog New Member

Siegfried Member

reubdog New Member

Scott J Active Member
Site Supporter