Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
37/2
(June
1994) 185-215
Damel W allace 1s ass1stant professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theologcal Sem
mary,
1
3909
M R Vmcent,
TX 75204
History of the Textual Cnticism of the New Testament (New York Mac
1899) 175
T Robertson, Studies m the Text of the New Testament (London
1926) 53, c1tmg C H Turner, The Study of the New Testament 49
m1llan,
2
B M Metzger, The Text of the New Testament lts Transmisswn, Corruption, and Restora
Burgon
1964) 136
In the same year J H Greenlee could speak of the work of Burgon and M1ller m the last de
cades of the nmeteenth century as "the final defense of the Textus Receptus " He, too, found
H1lls' resurrection of Burgon's v1ews "surpnsmg," callmg the work a "scholarly cunos1ty" (ln
troduction to New Testament Textual Cnticism [Grand Rap1ds Eerdmans,
5
membersh1p of
160
m seventeen countnes (W
1988)
1964] 81-82)
[unpubhshed paper c1rculated from the pres1dent to members of the MaJor1ty Text Soc1ety, Jan
uary
to wh1ch
hst of
121
1989
(and
from elsewhere m Europe (though none m Germany), and ten from th1rd-world countr1es (prm
c1pally Brazil) Membersh1p reqmred the s1gnmg of the followmg credo
"1
approach to the ongnal wordmg of the New Testament is through the MaJor1ty Text, or I wish
to cooperate m testmg that hypothes1s " Consequently not
ali
theory Bes1des the MaJority Text Soc1ety there are two other soc1eties that support the "trad1t10nal text " The Tnmtar1an B1ble Soc1ety (Great Br1tam), m ex1stence smce
1831,
has smce
186
As in the
d1ssertation, Fort
Worth Southwestern Baphst Theological Semmary, 1985] 100-120) The Dean Burgon Society,
founded m Philadelph1a on November 3-4, 1978, by D A Wa1te,
also staunchly defends the TR (see Sh1elds, Recent Attempts 42-66) The name is a cunos1ty
smce Burgon's v1ews would d1squahfy h1m from membersh1p m the soc1ety named after h1m
(see below)
6
In th1s essay "maJonty text" (or MT) refers to the text found m the maJonty of extant Greek
(The Greek New Testament accordmg to the Ma1ority Text [2d ed , Nashv1lle Thomas Nelson,
1985]), textus receptus (TR), a name onginatmg m an advert1smg blurb m the second ed1t1on
(1633) of the Elzev1r brothers' Greek NT, refers to any ed1t10n of the Greek NT that 1s based pr1manly on Erasmus' text, "trad1t10nal text," an mtentionally amb1guous term, refers to that form
of text that 1s found m e1ther the TR or the Ma1ority Text or a prox1m1ty of e1ther of these-m
other words, sorne form of the Byzantme text Advocates of the trad1honal text, then, would m
clude str1ct TR proponents as well as MT proponents
7
Cf E A N1da, "The New Testament Greek Text m the Third World," New Testament Tex
tual Crzticzsm lts Szgnificance for Exegeszs (ed E J Epp and G D Fee, Oxford Clarendon,
1981) 375-380 P1ckermg, the first pres1dent of the MaJonty Text Soc1ety, may be part1ally re
spons1ble m that he 1s a m1ss10nary w1th Wychfl'e Bible Translators to Brazd Cf also J Cal
low, who, as a Wychfl'e translator, asks h1s colleagues to have an open mmd about the MT
("An
B Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (3d, enlarged ed , New York Oxford, 1992)
283-284, 290-293 Unless otherwise stated, all c1tat1ons of Metzger's Text w1ll be of th1s ed1hon Remarkably C -B Amphoux's "thoroughly updated" 1991 rev1s1on of Vaganay's lntroduc
tzon s1mply echoes Vaganay's op1mon that "th1s notonous text is now dead, 1t 1s to be hoped for
ever"
(L Vaganay,
187
The New Testament in the Original Greek and concomitantly the Revised
Verszon of the New Testament (both in 1881). Inter alza, Westcott and Hort
argued cogently for the mferiority and secondary nature of the Synan (Byz
9
antme) text-type. Not surpnsingly, these volumes provided a catalyst for
react10n by many ecclesiastics who favored the traditional text. Chief among
them was John W. Burgon, dean of Chichester. With a vitriolic pen he mar
10
shaled several attacks against the dons of Cambridge.
The attacks con
s1sted pnmanly of three elements: (1) a condemnation of Westcott and
Hort's favonte Mss (M, B and, to a lesser degree, A, C and D), (2) a refutation
of the excis1on/alteration of certam passages found m the KJV/TR (esp.
Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; 1 Tim 3:16), and (3) an articulation of his
own method, wh1ch amounted to (with few exceptions) a defense of the read
11
mgs found in the majonty of Mss.
The bedrock of Burgon's text-cribcal views was a belief in verbal, ple
nary inspiration and the doctrine he mferred from it-providential pres
ervat10n.
"lt
is
chiefly
from
inattention
to
this
circumstance
that
F Westcott and F J A Hort, The New Testament m the Original Greek, [n,] lntroduc
1881) 93-119
Burgon pubhshed three articles m the Quarterly Review that were later mcorporated and
been repnnted m whole or m part severa! times by followers of Burgon He also wrote severa!
other volumes, mcludmg The Last Twelue Verses of the Gospel accordmg to St Mark Vmdicated
agamst Recent Critical Ob1ectors and Established (Oxford James Parker,
umes completed by E M1ller The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vmdicated and Estab
resulta of th1s approach 1s m reahty a support of the MT almost all the time G R Hudson
notes that Burgon's resultant text dtffers httle from the Ma1ority Text ("Changes that Burgon
Made m the TR" [unpubhshed paper circulated to members of the MaJonty Text Soc1ety,
1990]) Burgon was able to apply h1s text-cr1t1cal prmc1ples toward the creation of h1s own NT
text only to Matthew 1-14 But here, of the 52 vanat1ons between the TR and the Ma1ority
Text Burgon s1des w1th the Ma1ority Text 47 times, w1th the TR tw1ce (both where there is a
s1gmficant spht m the maJonty of MSS), and opts for three readmgs not shared by either the TR
or the Ma1ority Text We may note further that P1ckenng tac1tly equates Burgon's seven tests
oftruth w1th maJonty rule In h1s concludmg summary on Burgon's method he states
"1 submit
that due process requires us to receive as or1gmal that form of the text wh1ch is supported by
the maJonty of those w1tnesses" (W N P1ckermg, The ldentity of the New Testament Text [rev
1980) 148)
12 Burgon, Traditional Text 9
188
has generally sanct10ned the one, and generally disallowed the other 1 am ut
terly dismclmed to beheve-so grossly improbable does it seem-that at the
end of 1800 years 995 copies out of every thousand, suppose, will prove untrust
worthy, and that the one, two, three, four or five wh1ch remam, whose contenta
were till yesterday as good as unknown, will be found to have retamed the se
cret of what the Holy Spmt ongmally mspired 1 am utterly unable to beheve,
m short, that God's prom1se has so entirely failed, that at the end of 1800 years
much of the text of the Gospel had m pomt of fact to be p1cked by a German
cntic out of a wastepaper basket
entire text had remamed m neglect dunng fifteen centunes, and had probably
owed their survival to that neglect, whilst hundreds of others had been thumhed
to p1eces, and had hequeathed their witness to copies made from them
13
(1) a theological
such a preserved text has been access1ble to the Church m every age, (2) an
assumption that heretics have on a large scale corrupted the text, (3) an
argument from statistical probab1hty related to the corollary of access1b1l
ity (v1z that the maJority
lS
lS
MSS
Mss
The dean's works have formed the bas1s for v1rtually every MT advocate's
arguments m th1s century,1 4 to the extent that almost nothmg new has come
15
13
14
lb1d 11-12
Popular Defenders of the Textus Receptus," "The Scholarly Defenders of the Textus Receptus,"
and "The Defenders of the MaJonty Text " In each chapter there is a sect10n or two on Burgon
and the impetus he prov1ded for the var1ous groups Today there is even a Dean Burgon Society
wh1ch has virtually canomzed h1s v1ews D O Fuller, J P Green, Sr, D A Wa1te and others
contmue to reprmt h1s works
cntique of the Westcott Hort theory, the seventh chapter, "Determmmg the ldentity of the Text,"
is merely a rehash of Burgon's seven tests of truth) So out of date are P1ckenng's arguments that
G D Fee, m rev1ewmg th1s work, could speak of P1ckermg's "neglect of hterally seores of scholarly
stud1es that contravene h1s asserhons," addmg that "the overlooked b1bhography here is so large
189
Received Text, "1 6 and rare statements disavowing the TR,1 7 there is no dis
cussion of Acts 8:37, the Comma Johanneum, or the last six verses of the
Apocalypse-well-known and theologically significant passages where the
MT parts company with the TR. In spite of Burgon's friends calling his crit
18
the fault lay with him as much
as with them. The far-reaching results of Burgon's failure have been two
19
that it can hardly be g1ven m a footnote For example, 1 know of eleven d1fferent stud1es on On
gen alone that contrad1ct all of P1ckermg's d1scuss10n, and not one of them is even recogmzed to
have ex1sted" ("A Cr1t1que of W N P1ckermg's The ldentzty of the New Testament Text A Re
v1ew Article," WTJ
1
41 [1978-79] 41 5)
5 (so titled m the table of contents, though not m the text
proper)
17
H1s clearest statement to th1s effect is buned m a footnote, although he cites no spec1fic
21 n 2)
"d1d not contend for acceptance of the 'Textus Receptus,' as has so often been
scurnlously stated" CH C Hosk1er, Codex B and lts Allzes A Study and an lndzctment [London
Bernard Quantch,
m
19
1914] 1 415)
5 supra, Burgon's v1ews would d1squahfy h1m from membersh1p
E g , as ment10ned m n
the soc1ety named after h1m smce that society staunchly defends the TR
2
1
2
have s1mply taken Burgon's word on the matter w1thout bothermg to research the d1scuss1on m
the last
100 years
22 Burgon's
attitude can be seen m the Scnpture quotat1on that mtroduces h1s Revzszon Re
vzsed "It is happened unto them accordmg to the true proverb, Kuwv emo"'rpeljfa m i:o ifov
esepaa" (2 Pet 2 22)-a text that Burgon here apphes to Westcott and Hort A perusal of the
work w1ll d1sclose a plethora of examples of mflammatory language aimed at the two Cambridge
scholars F G Kenyon, a contemporary ofBurgon, pomted out that the "unquestionable learmng
of [the art1cles wh1ch became Revzszon Revised]
and mtemperance of their tone" (Our Bzble and the Ancient Manuscnpts [ 4th ed, London Eyre
and Spott1swoode,
1939J 242) Even A L Farstad, the current pres1dent of the Ma1onty Text So
c1ety, concedes that Burgon's style is "caust1c" ("Why 1 Became a MaJonty Text Advocate" [un
pubhshed paper d1stnbuted to members of the Ma1onty Text Society, n d ]
3) Cf also Martm,
69)
who adm1ts that Burgon was "irascible," "smug,'' "dogmatic" and "rash" (Westcott-Hort 52,
23
Letter from Westcott to Hort, October 2 8 , 1881 (Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott
1903] 1 404)
The content of th1s mvect1ve usually mvolves charges of heresy For example, D O Fuller
speaks of "bastard Bibles" (Counterfezt or Genume Mark 16? John 8? [2d ed , Grand Rap1ds
Grand Rap1ds Internat1onal, 1978] 10) He adds further that the devil 1s the mastermmd behmd
190
After Burgon's death in 1888 no scholar took up the cause of the tra
ship. And although it is true that neither Scrivener nor Hoskier embraced
that the Byzantine cursives on which the MT theory rests are without
much value.30 None of this is compatible with Burgon's views.
th1s defection from the KJV and TR "Born-agam Christians m th1s twentieth century are fac
rng the most mahc10us and v1c1ous attack upon God's msp1red Holy Word smce the Garden of
Eden And th1s attack began rn its modern form rn the pubhcat10n ofthe Rev1sed Vers10n of the
Scriptures rn 1881 rn England" (p
generate, unsaved, apostate and heretical (The Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort
[Collmgswood
1979] 39-42)
Burgon's value to NT textual cr1tic1sm, declares that the most anc1ent MSS carne from a "sewer
pipe" (An Evaluatwn of the Contribution of John W1ll1am Burgon to New Testament Textual
Crit1C1sm [Th M
that "Aleph and B have hed," that "Aleph 1s clearly a b1gger bar than B," and that all the an
c1ent MSS on wh1ch modern critlcal texts are based are "conv1cted hars al!" (ldentity1 126, 135)
For mult1phed dlustrat10ns ofth1s krnd offulmmatory language cf D B Wallace, "Inspiration,
Preservat1on, and New Testament Textual Crit1c1sm," Grace Theological Journal 12 (1992) 2326 25 On Scrivener cf Martrn, Westcott Hort 54-57 , R Anderson, "The Bible and Modern Criti
c1sm," Which Bible2 (5th ed , ed D O Fuller, Grand Rap1ds Grand Rap1ds International, 1975)
120, E F H11ls, The Kmg James Version Defended' (4th ed , Des Momes Christian Research,
1984) 192, D A Waite, Defending the King James Bible (Collmgswood Btble for Today, 1992)
45-46, 139, 298, 307, on Hoskier cf P1ckermg, Identity 6 0, 145, A Martm, "Exammation of the
Westcott-Hort Textual Theory," Which Bible2 (ed Fuller) 153, 164, 166
26
Other names are al so sometimes ment10ned on behalf ofthe trad1tional text, though their
impact was m1mmal Abbe P Martm became the defender ofthe TR m France, but he d1d httle
more than echo Burgon's vo1ce, cf
veau Testament (7 vols , Par1s, 1883-86) Cf also B G Wdkmson, whose Our Authorized Bible
Vmdicated (Washmgton n p , 1930) was reprmted m Which Bible2 176-318, A lvanov, whose
Russ1an Orthodox v1ews are quite compatible w1th the trad1t10nal text Ivanov's essays from
the Zhurmal Moskovsko1 Patriarchu (1954-56) are summarized by R P Casey, "A Russian Or
thodox V1ew of New Testament Textual Crit1c1sm," Theology
60
22
times,
the Ma;ority Text readrng 11 In A Plam Introductwn to the Cr1tic1sm of the New Testament
(4th ed , 2 vols , London Bell, 1894) he d1scusses v1rtually the same passages with almost iden
tical conclus1ons (2 321-412)
29
Scrivener, Plam Introduction 2 244-256, cf h1s spec1fic d1scuss1on m Szx Lectures of
1 Cor 15 49 (pp 183-186), Col
30
22
2 18 (pp
2 2)
198-199)
191
Hoskier, too, has been misread. His statement in 1914 that "Burgon's po
31
sition remains absolutely unshaken,"
though a favorite among MT advo
cates,32 has been stripped of its context and caveats.33 In reality he disagreed
with Burgon on several important points. For example, he embraced the in
34
adopted readings found in
35
a small minority of MSS, especially of the Western strain, and explicitly ar
36
gued against the general value of the Byzantine cursives.
All of this is de
cidedly against the MT theory. Yet Hoskier has been hailed as "one of us" by
MT advocates because he not only argued against MB readings-especially
against the backdrop of the TR-but because he also wanted to dump all
37
twentieth-century heresies at Hort's doorstep.
The use of Scrivener and Hoskier by modern-day traditional-text advo
cates reveals a disturbing twofold pattern. On the one hand, their percep
tion of results determmes allegiance. Questions of method rarely surface.
All that matters is that the traditional text is affirmed. On the other hand,
their perceptwn of results is not based on an examination of a given schol
ar's writings. Typically, little more is known about his views than that he
is theologically conservative, makes positive references to the TR, and crit
lClzes Hort's preferred
MSS.
have been repeatedly misled into soliciting unwitting support from the
dead voices of the past. Such is not only intellectually dishonest but also
raises questions as to what drives this need for champions.
Through the first half of the twentieth century, then, the traditional text
was supported unequivocally by only one bona fide scholar, John W. Burgon.
Almost seven decades elapsed before the traditional text found another schol
arly advocate. The first (and to date only) textual critic to defend the textus
receptus per se in this century was Edward F. Hills.38 Hills' credentials were
unimpeachable: a bachelor's degree from Yale (1934) followed by a Th.D.
31 Hosk1er, Codex B
1 415
32 Cf e g Martm, Exammatwn
33 He
153
Hosk1er
amended th1s remark w1th a footnote, argumg that "we must revise h1s pos1t10n" m that Bur
gon mcorrectly used patnstic ev1dence and undervalued D
34 Cf H
Quantch,
1910-11) 1 23-24,
Codex B
1 460, 435
"Th1s does not comm1t me to the 'shorter' text theory m 1ts fullest sense")
35 Cf h1s general statements m Codex B
neous text mfluences, has a large value when used m connection with the Synac documents"),
11 52 (1b1d 421),
435), 17 25 (tb1d), Luke 23 8 (1b1d 456-460,
m 'P 241 s1x lect10nanes and one other Greek
469 More specdically he adopts Western and/or mmonty readmgs for Luke
Acts
2 24
b1d ),
21 14
(1b1d J, Matt
17 20
(1b1d
1 434, 467
1 468-487
38 To be sure, others ha ve defended the TR per se But they are either not acknowledged textual
cntics (as m the case of T P LetisJ or the1r works are not on a scholarly level (e g T H Brown
of the Trm1tanan Bible Soc1ety or D A Wa1te of the Dean Burgon Soc1ety) There have also been
a few who have defended the MT but who agam are not typ1cally acknowledged as textual cntics
(e g Martm, Webtcott Hort J
192
39
How was it
poss1ble for a man w1th such credentials ultimately to embrace the TR? Even
0
1952, H1lls was ready to return full c1rcle to h1s historie Reformed roots and
affirm with the Westmmster Confess1on, the pnority of the Textus Receptus
Only now he would do so from fully w1thm the mner sanctum sanctorum ofthe
text cnbc1sm c1tadel 41
Hills' :first and maJor volume in defense of the TR was The King James
Verswn Defended!, onginally published
1956.4
strongly than did Burgon from providential preservation,43 for in his v1ew the
TR and the not the Byzantme
MSS
from Columbia Theological Seminary m Decatur, GA (1940), and began a doctorate (unsuccess
fully) at the Umvers1ty of Ch1cago before bemg adm1tted to Harvard D1vin1ty School For a de
tailed and unashamedly sympathetic biography of H1lls see T
Contributwn to the Revwal of the Eccles1ast1cal Text (Th
1987)
40 E F H11Is, The Caesarean Family of New Testament Manuscripts (Th D dissertat1on,
Harvard D1vinity School, 19 46) See espec1ally the final chapter m wh1ch Westcott-Hort's v1ew
of the Byzantine text 1s exphc1tly affirmed
42 H1s other well known work m th1s area was the popularly conce1ved Believing Bible Study
Cf Let1s, Hills's Contributwn 198-200, for a nearly complete hst of H1lls' hterary remains
43 Note the following quotation that hnks inspirat1on with preservabon and both to access1-
b1hty "If the doctrine of the Divine insp1rat1on of the Old and New Testament scnptures is a
true doctrine, the doctrme of prov1dential preservation of the scr1ptures must also be a true
doctrme It must be that down through the centunes God has exerc1sed a spec1al proVIdent1al
control over the copying of the scnptures and the preservabon and use of the copies, so that
trustworthy representat1ves of the original text have been available to God's people m every
age" (Kmg James Verswn Defended' 2)
44 Ib1d 199-202 He even argued for the authentic1ty of the Comma Johanneum (Kmg
James Verswn Defended! 209-213)
46 G D Ktlpatnck, "The Greek New Testament Text of Today and the Textus Receptus," The
Barclay,
193
only piece in Fuller's Whzch Bzble? to interact with the data. In fact it
alone made an impression on Gordon D. Fee sufficient for him to pen an
48
article
that sparked a lively debate between Hodges and Fee within the
49
pages of JETS and elsewhere.
Consequently most will regard Hodges,
51
50
rather than Hills,
as the real Burgon redzvzvus.
52
Hodges' article
and subsequent interaction with Fee was accompa
nied by two other significant works:53 a slender volume by Jakob van
54
Bruggen
that was considered "erudite" by one reviewer,55 and Wilbur N.
Pickering's The Identzty of the New Testament Text, a book that gives the
most systematic defense of the MT yet in print (even though it is tar
56
47
Fee, "Modern Textual CntlClsm and the Reviva! of the Textus Receptus," JETS
(1978) 19-33
21
49 Hodges responded to Fee's article w1th "Modern Textual Cnt1c1sm and the MaJonty Text
A Response," JETS
21 (1978) 143-155
21(1978)157-160,
21 (1978) 161-164
Fee and Hodges contmued to mteract w1th each other's views outs1de of JETS as well Most no
"
Greek Textus Receptus A Critical Exammation of the Textual Views of Edward F Hills [Ph D
d1ssertat10n, Greenv11le Bob Jones Umvers1ty,
1973))
51 Indeed, even Let1s conceded Hodges' mfluence to the pomt that he erroneously assumed
Dallas Theological Semmary's confess1onal stance to mclude a behef m the tradlt10nal text
(Hills's Contributwn
167-168)
52 Hodges has wntten other important essays m defense of the MT as well "The Cr1t1cal Text
Text (Dallas Dallas Semmary Book Store, n d ), "The Ecclesiastical Text of Revelation-Does it
Ex1st?", BSac
Cr1t1Clsm," BSac
Text,"
53 We are not here mcludmg as "s1gmficant" the three volumes edited by D O Fuller
[1973],
(Which
(1978])
as
these are, for the most part, e1ther reprmts of older works (such as Burgon's) or they do not
deal w1th the data
54 J van Bruggen,
55 D
1979) 40
A
n
1976)
Carson, Kmg James Verswn Debate A Plea for Realism (Grand Rap1ds
179
Tim
Baker,
3 16,
to do textual cntic1sm, smce Pickermg s1mply ignores ali the data (vers1onal and patristic ev1dence, not to ment1on mternal) that shoot down h1s theory" (Fee, "Critique"
423
43)
194
If the 1970s marked the rebirth of the MT theory, the 1980s were the
decade of its rapid growth. Pickering's book was followed by a second edi
tion in 1980 and the epoch-making Greek New Testament accordmg to the
Ma1ority Text, edited by Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, et al., in
1982.57 Though marred by its entire reliance on printed editions of the
Greek NT (primarily von Soden's) rather than on first-hand collations, this
text was the first Greek NT based on the majority of Greek witnesses. Pre
liminary estimates on the textual differences between the TR and the
Ma1ority Text had been as low as five hundred. 58 The final text, however,
59
ended up with nearly quadruple that amount.
Thus the Ma1ority Text
both revealed concretely that the Byzantine text-type had been poorly rep
60
and, because of this, became a catalyst for debates
resented by the TR
8: 11 and the entire book of Revelation, for in these places there are severa!
minority readings, contrary to the title and wishes
61
of the editors.
Two years later one of the coeditors of the Majority Text, Harry A. Sturz,
62
published a volume
that was signi:ficant for two reasons. (1) It offered evi
dence from the papyri that the Byzantine text was early. 63 (2) Though
Sturz was an editor of the Ma1ority Text (in spite of not embracing the MT
theory), he was quite critica! of both the methods and results of his coedi
tors. In particular he felt that their linking of preservation to inspiration
60 Nevertheless sorne rev1ewers ignored these d1fferences, assummg that the Ma1ority Text
TR's Comma Johanneum (Christian News [September 13, 1982] 14) lf the rev1ewer had both
ered to look at 1 John
5 7-8
seen h1s m1stake Much less excusable are the rather careless statements found m
Aland
and B Aland, The Text of the New Testament An Introductwn to the Critica[ Editwns and to
the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (Grand Rap1ds Eerdmans, 1987, 2d, rev
and enlarged ed , 1989) Even m their second ed1t10n they failed to d1stmgu1sh the TR from the
Ma1ority Text "The t1tle clearly reveals the mtention of the ed1t10n it offers the Textus Recep
tus" (p 223) The Alands apparently d1d not examine the Ma1ority Text even m a cursory man
ner, for their sect10n that purportedly compares the NA26 text w1th the Ma1ority Text (pp 297305) mcludes four passages (Luke 17 36, Acts 8 37, 1 5 34, 24 6b-8a) that are found m the TR
but athetized by both NA26 and the MaJority Text Iromcally, their request that MT advocates
"cons1der the followmg examples wlthout preJud1ce" (p 297) reveals the1r own
61 In 1978
had the pnvilege of takmg the course "New Testament Textual Cntic1sm" from
Hodges at Dallas Semmary In that course he md1cated more than once h1s confident hope that
h1s yet-to-be-completed stemmat1c reconstruct10ns would fully vmd1cate MT readmgs
62 H
A Sturz, The Byzantme Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism (Nashv1lle
Thomas Nelson, 1984), ongmally a doctoral d1ssertation done at Grace Theological Semmary
(Wmona Lake, 1967)
63 150 d1stmct1vely Byzantme readmgs found m the papyn Th1s cla1m (viz that the Byzan
tme text is early because it is found m the papyn), Sturz's central thes1s, has become the bas1s
for hyperbohc cla1ms by MT advocates For a balanced review of Sturz see M W Holmes m
Trinity Journal 6 (1985) 225-228 See also the cnt1que below
195
was wrongheaded64 and that the Byzantine text was primus inter pares
among the three main text-types, not the sole keeper of the autographa.65
Sturz's work set a precedent for a volume edited by Theodore P. Letis in
37 -4
Though Sturz's resultant text looked very much hke the Ma1ority Text, the method that
produced 1t was d1fferent m severa! 1mportant pomts He beheved that all the text-types found
the1r ongms m second-century recens10ns When a ma1or1ty of text-types (not
MSS)
agreed he
adopted the readmg Smce there is greater homogene1ty m the Byzantme text than m e1ther
the Alexandnan or Western, such a block vote often became the dec1dmg factor Cf Sturz, Byz
antme Text Type
53-131,
Wayne,
1987)
1973)
Let1s, Fort
The pubhsher is either the Inst1tute for Bibhcal Textual Stud1es (as ment1oned
on the cover) or the Inst1tute for Reformat1on B1bhcal Stud1es (hand-stamped on the tltle page)
The volume mcludes art1cles by P1ckermg,
hshed elsewhere In addlt10n Letis wrote four chapters and the mtroduct10n (none of wh1ch had
been prev1ously pubhshed)
67
8
6
Metzger, Text
291
The 1mpress10n m fact was so strong m the direct10n of unamm1ty that before the Ma1or
ity Text was pubhshed no less a scholar than G Fee apparently thought Hodges was resurrect
mg the TR m toto (cf Fee, "Modern Textual Cnt1c1sm and the Reviva! of the Textus Receptus"
23)
69
70
1-24
Nor do all members have formal Bibhcal trammg or a knowledge of Greek In a brochure
d1str1buted by the Ma1onty Text Society mtended to sohc1t new members, the queshon 1s
asked "Are all our members scholars?" The answer "No
Gr NT, many can use the or1gmal w1th study helps, others have never stud1ed Gr" The s1ze of
the orgamzat1on, then, 1s not md1cat1ve of the nummal scholarly support behmd 1t
196
developments have occurred via the Majority Text Society: (1) a substantial
is healthy, for at the very time in which traditional-text proponents are dem
onstrating that they are not "in lockstep together and virtual clones of ...
Zane C. Hodges,"72 few on the outside realize this. The dialogue with outsid
ers has been largely cut off7 3 apparently because the theological presupposi
tions of these traditional-text advocates tends toward precluding dialogue.74
While American traditional-text advocates were engaged in debate, a
Dutch scholar quietly produced what is probably the finest volume in de
fense of the MT position to date. Willem Franciscus Wisselink's Th.D. dis
sertation
75
71 As ev1denced by the papers wntten for the Ma1onty Text Soc1ety by its members and d1s
tr1buted penod1cally For example, P1ckermg takes on h1s former mentor, Hodges, m an essay
entitled "The Name of [MT Theory] is Blasphemed among the [Rev1ewers]" (unpubhshed paper
circulated to members of the Ma1onty Text Society, September 1988) It IS to be noted that the
methodological crit1ques are still motivated and d1ctated by results
72 Anon , "Under the 'Btg Top,'" Ma1ority Text News
Hodges as saymg, "Let the reader simply observe that th1s article Illustrates the v1tahty of
the Ma1onty Text movement, wh1ch is a big tent that can accommodate more than one perspec
tive on NT textual cntlcism "
73 But m the Netherlands there is still dialogue between MT proponents and others J
Bruggen and
van
J de Jonge are the maJor adversanes Cf the1r exchange m Met andere Woor
den Kwartaalblad uan het Nederlands Bubelgenootschap 7-8 (1988-89) de Jonge, "De tekst
3 5,
-
mond1ge b11belletekt en de tekst van het N1euwe Testament," Met andere Woorden
7 (1988) 6-
10, de Jonge, "Reactie op het art1kel van prof Van Bruggen," Met andere Woorden 7 (1988) 11,
van Bruggen, "Reactie op het artikel van prof De Jonge," Met andere Woorden 7 (1988) 12, van
Bruggen, "De vertroostmg der Schr1ften," Met andere Woorden 8 (1989) 17-18 These debates
were followed up by T van Lop1k who argued that hturgical mfluences helped to shape the
Byzantme text form ("Tekskritik telt het wegen of weegt het tellen?", NedTTs 45 [1991] 101-
106) I want to thank T1mothy J Ralston of Dallas Semmary for brmging these references to
my attent10n
74 Inerrancy and preservation are mcreasmgly held rn front of the members of the MaJonty
Text Soc1ety as vital to the view Is It mere cornc1dence that, after fightmg several battles m
the arena of ev1dence (cf e g the debates between Hodges and Fee m JETS), MT proponents
have stopped the dialogue and reasserted the1r faith stance? Cf W N P1ckermg, "Mark 16 9-
20 and the Doctrme of Inspirat10n" (unpubhshed paper circulated to members of MaJonty Text
Soc1ety, 1988), where the sole argument is theological, MaJonty Text Soc1ety brochure entitled
"What IS the MaJonty Text Soc1ety" (n d ), m wh1ch the bas1c pitch for potential members is
192 n 3)
75 W
paratwe Study on the Bas1s of Passages from Matthew, Mark and Luke (Kampen J H Kok,
1989)
197
text.78
fide textual critics within the traditional camp. Burgon deserves this acco
3
lade because of his collation efforts. 8 Hodges, Wisselink, and perhaps van
Bruggen also belong here. Hills is the only TR advocate who qualifies as a
76
Though he cornrmts the sarne error as that of other MT advocates of companng md1v1dual
W1ssehnk, Assimilatwn
43-52
that "we can estabhsh that Luc1an added to the New Testament" (Ancient Text
78
W1ssehnk, Assimilatwn,
(Anctent Text
79
3 )
8
-90
87
and pass1m
18
36)
339
cal mvectives The author, who 1s the current pres1dent of the Dean Burgon Soc1ety, argues as
strongly for the
80
KJV
as he does for the TR, makmg h1m even more extreme than was H1lls
P1erpont and M A Robmson, The New Testament zn the Original Greek accordmg
82
Ib1d XIV-XVI
Ib1d
1991)
x1v At the same time the ed1tors exphc1tly d1sagree w1th sorne of Burgon's argu
Hosk1er would belong here 1f it were not for h1s qmrk1sh views
198
II.
(1) Textual criticism must begin with a theological a p rio ri - verbal inspira
tion-with its corollary, providential preservation. (2) Westcott and Hort
have done the Church a great disservice by emphasizing subjective ele
ments in textual criticism (viz. internal criteria) to the neglect of the "objec
tive" data (viz. the Greek MSS) . (3) The true text is to be found in the
majority of Mss/Byzantine text-type.
Where they disagree with one another is in the extent to which the
above points are affirmed. Two broad groups can be distinguished among
traditionalists today: TR advocates and MT advocates. These two groups
divide especially over the first (though rarely on a conscious level) and
third premises. Many MT defenders argue for preservation just as strongly
as do TR advocates without noticing that to grant to preservation the same
doctrinal status as verbal inspiration is to deny their own claims for the
MT and to affirm the TR.
84
Any claim that God preserved the New Testament text rntact, g1vrng His
church actual, not theoretical, possess1on of 1t, must mean one of three
thrngs-e1ther 1) God preserved It m all the extant manuscr1pts so that none
of them contam any textual corrupt10ns, or 2) He preserved it m a group of
manuscripts, none of wh1ch contam any corruptions, or 3) He preserved It m
a sohtary manuscr1pt wh1ch alone contarns no corrupt10ns. 85
TR advocates (Hills, Letis) are the only ones who can claim any kind of
consistency in this regard, for they do, at least, advocate one printed text.
For them textual criticism does not exist. Rather, all of their energy is ex
pended in apologia, not znvestigatw. MT advocates are unwilling to make
quite such a fideistic leap, recognizing (perhaps subconsciously) to one de
gree or another that a wholesale defense of the TR is stripped naked at
the bar of logic and empiricism. What is at stake, too, is results: There are
1838 differences between the TR and the MT . 86 Consequently the MT and
the TR groups differ in the degree to which they affirm the third premise:
MT proponents are much more consistent in assigning value to the major
ity of MSS. 87
The MT group has at present three subgroups. First, Hodges and Far
stad hold to the two-edged method of statistics (probability of majority be
ing right) presumably confirmed, at least in theory, by stemmatics: "(1)
84
Cf J J Ray uThe writmg of the Word of God by mspirat1on is no greater m1racle than
the miracle of its preservation" (God Wrote Only One Bible [Junction C1ty Eye Opener, 1955]
104), R H1lls,
A Defense
Theology, 1985) 88, 89, 114, 124, P1ckermg, uMark 16 9-20" 1-2
85
87
Spec1fically between the Ma;ority Text1 and the 1825 Oxford ed1tion of the TR
For a d1scuss10n of the d1fferences between the TR and MT and the imphcat10ns such has
A New Collatmg
199
plied only in the pericope adulterae and the Apocalypse, and in both places
several minority readings were produced (half of the readings in the peri
which Hodges and Farstad have worked up family trees.94 Both Pickering
88
8
9
on and mampulated the findmgs of H von Soden for the pencope adulterae (Die Schnften des
This theologcal presumpt10n IS far more exphcit m P1ckermg's wntmgs than m Pierpont
and Robmson lndeed the latter admit that "the underlymg theological factors take a secondary
role m the realm oftextual cnticism" and that the Alexandnan and Western MSS are ne1ther he
retical nor useless (Original Greek xln) They qmckly add, however, that an merrant text cannot
be produced on the basis of the Alexandnan and Western witnesses (p xlm) It may be added
here that Robmson-P1erpont also exphc1tly argue agamst a maJonty readmg m the pencope
adulterae "m one and only one mstance (Jn
a patent gloss
from later trad1tion, and histoncally has been reJected by all editors of the
495) One
IS
Pickermg, "Blasphemed"
5 3b - 4, et
92
Ib1d
93
94
Ib1d x1v,
the maJonty (p
200
Third, van Bruggen and Wisselink would hold to MT priority but not
MT exclusivity. Theirs is the most nuanced MT position. Although they do
not explicitly argue against particular majority readings, they allow-at
least in theory-for Byzantine harmonizations and corruptions. This last
group has exhibited more desire to engage in irenic scholarly debate and
has presented more of substance in defense of the MT theory than either
of the first two. In particular Wisselink has produced the only sustained
defense of the Byzantine text on internal grounds.
III.
96
My critique of the MT theory will focus on three general points: (1) the
doctrine of preservation as the theological presupposition behind the the
ory, (2) the value of the numerical superiority of the Byzantine
MSS
over
The Pierpont
Robmson text, produced by an unknown pubhsher (Ongmal Word), mcludes on the Jacket
blurb "Th1s s1gmficant new ed1t10n is the closest approx1mation yet produced to an authentic
Byzantme/MaJonty Text ed1t10n of the New Testament" and "[Th1s text] is a valuable and long
awa1ted contnbution" -comments largely irrelevant to those not already pred1sposed toward
the MT
96 In recent years a rather extens1ve hterature has been produced agamst the MT theory, both
m its general tenets and m many particulars (addressmg e g vanous target passages, patr1stic
and vers1onal usage, md1vidual Mss, rev1ews of MT works) Among the more general treatments
are the followmg Taylor, Modern Debate
(1973),
JETS
tus"
21(1978)169-171,
A ReJomder"
(1978),
Taylor,
41 (1978-79) 397-423,
(1981),
M W Holmes, "The 'MaJonty text debate' new forro of an old issue," Themelws 8 (1983) 13-19,
R L Omanson, "A Perspecbve on the Study ofthe New Testament Text," BT 34(1983) 107-122,
J P Lew1s, "The Text ofthe New Testament," ResQ 27 (1984) 65-74, H P Scanlm, "The MaJor1ty Text Debate Recent Developments," BT 36 (1985) 136-140, Sh1elds, Recent Attempts (1985),
K Aland, "The Text of the Church?", Trmity Journal 8 (1987) 131-144, D B Wallace, "Sorne
Second Thoughts on the Maorzty Text," BSac 146 (1989) 271-290, "The MaJonty Text and the
Or1gmal Text Are They Identical?", BSac 148 (1991) 151-169, T J Ralston, "The 'Maorzty Text'
and Byzantme Ongms," NTS 38 (1992) 122-137, Wallace, "Insp1rat10n, Preservat10n, and New
Testament Textual Cr1t1C1sm," Grace Theological Journal 12 (1992) 21-50 My mtent1on m th1s
enng's The Identity of the New Testament Text A Rev1ew Arbcle," WTJ
Carson, Kmg James Verswn Debate
(1979),
section is to rehearse only the mam critiques Also, there w1ll be almost no treatment of the TR
v1ew smce 1t is, as Greenlee asserted, "a scholarly cur10s1ty" and because there are no textual
cntics ahve today to defend it For detailed mteraction with H1lls' v1ews per se and/or h1s theo
logical presumpt10n cf Taylor, Modern Debate, Fee, "Reviva!"
37-46,
21-24,
201
First, and
years."
rected at ali defenders of that text For there are textual cntics who defend the pnonty of the
Byzantme text-type on the bas1s of textual-critica! arguments The1r arguments must therefore
be tested" (Assimilatwn
17)
1 8, "Rat10nal29-30, P1ckermg, "Burgon" 86-91, "Mark 16 9-20" 1, ldentity 154, van Bruggen, Ancient
Text 40 Bes1des, W1sselmk tac1tly admits that the MT theory is only found among conserva
t1ves (Assimilatzon 15) If so, then there must be more than mere text-cnt1cal arguments that
no theolog1cal agenda, their own wntmgs suggest otherw1se, cf Hodges, Defense
1sm"
have swayed them Why no nonconservat1ves? The theolog1cal a priori, whether stated or not,
1s there
98 Letis,
Contmumg Debate
99 P1ckermg, "Burgon"
lOO
101
Ib1d
192
90
91
200
27-35,
83, 88-89, 113
Cf Hodges, "Rat1onahsm"
77-93,
88,
9-16
R Hills, Defense
"Mark
13, 40,
16 9-20" 1,
van
P1ckermg, ldentity
202
basis is founded on what they think God must have done. Burgon set this
in motion when he stated: "There exists no reason for supposing that the
Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scrip
tures of Truth, straightway abdicated His office; took no further care of
1 3
His work; abandoned those precious writings to their fate." 0 Hills de
104
manded that "God must have done this"
-not because the Bible says so,
but because logic dictates that this must be the case. Such a stance is
urged in the face of empirical and exegetical evidence to the contrary.
(3) This fideistic formula violates all known historical data. Such a dog
matic affirmation results in a procrusteanizing of the data on a massive
scale in the name of orthodoxy. For example, the Byzantine text did not
05
become a majority until the ninth century1 -and even then "majority"
must be qualified: There are almost twice as many Latin
MSS
as there are
119:89; Isa 4 0:8; Matt 5:17-18; John 10:35; 1 Pet 1:23-25.107 The discus
103
104
11
105
See later d1scuss10n for ev1dence that the MT was m a mmor1ty m the first several cen
tunes AD
106
Cf B
Metzger, The Early Verswns of the New Testament Thezr Origm, Transmzsswn
1977) 359,
Latm Mss
107
1970)
175-2 18
(Th
thes1s, Dallas
P1ckermg, ldentzty
6-15)
153
He devotes ten
1sed Bible Preservat10n" m Defendmg the Kmg James Bzble But as much material as Wa1te de
votes to th1s subject, there is no exeges1s, only assumpt10n and homily
109
203
10 35),
or "all of1t 1s true" rather than "we must have every word preserved " "N ot one JOt or t1ttle from
the law w1ll pass away until all 1s fulfilled" (Matt
5 18)
c1ples of the law, or the fulfillment of prophecy, or both E1ther way, the idea of preservabon of
the written text 1s quite fore1gn to the context For a more extens1ve treatment of these pas
sages see Wallace, "Preservat1on"
111
42-43
1 19 89,
Occas1onally Matt
24 35
Isa
40 8,
Matt
5 17-18,
John
10 35,
1Pet1
23-25
is used to support preservation Even though th1s text has the advan
tage ofreferrmg to Jesus' words (as opposed to the OT), the context lS clearly eschatological, and
thus the words of Jesus have certamty offulfillment That the text does not mean that h1s words
w1ll ali be preserved m wr1tten form is obv1ous from two facts
(1)
to the context but also lmphes that the wntten gospels were conceived at th1s stage m Hezlsge
schichte, decades befare a need for them was apparently felt,
(2)
20 30, 21 35)
148, 154, 163, Sturz, Byzantzne Text Type 37-49
113
The Westmmster Confess10n (1646) was the first creedal statement to mclude the doctnne
of preservation, followed shortly by the Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675) Both were mtended
apparently to canomze the TR m the face ofRoman Cathohc host1hty The doctnne was promoted
(Isa
115
Eg
faults of the Masoret1c Text (An Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old Testament [Edm
burgh T and T Clark,
1928]),
Brownlee, Meanzng
231
(on Isa
53 11),
R W
Klem, Textual
1974) 76
14 47), Wurthwem, Text 108 (on Jer 2 21), D M Fouts, "A Suggest10n for Isa1ah
XXVI 16," VT 41 (1991) 472-474, E C Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (M1s
soula Scholars, 1978) 193-221
116
Ulnch, Samuel 2, Cross, Library 189 (on 2 Sam 24 16), Wurthwem, Text 142 (Qn Isa 40 6,
17), Barthelemy, Critique 361-362 (on 49 12, 53 llJ, Brownlee, Meanmg 218-219 (on 11 6,
21 8), 225-226 (on 49 12), 226-233 (on 53 11)
Cnticism of the Old Testament The Septuagznt after Qumran (Ph1ladelphia Fortress,
(on
Sam
204
theory, as its name implies, is the case from numbers. In the words of
Hodges and Farstad: "Any reading overwhelmingly attested by the manu
script tradition is more likely to be original than its rival(s)." 118 In other
words, the reading supported by a majority of MSS is the original.119 Hort is
even brought to the witness stand in support of this contention: "A theo
retical presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is
more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents at each stage of
117
For a more complete analysis of this doctrme as well as of the use MT proponents are
serted that the method was much "more complex than merely countmg noses" (lecture given at
Dallas Semmary, February 21,
cial" when speakmg of maJonty (Pickermg, "More 'Second Thoughts on the MaJonty Text' A Re
view Article" [unpubhshed paper crrculated to members of the MaJonty Text Soc1ety, n d] 3) In
other words, the MT theory does not rest on a mere maJority but on an overwhelmmg maJority
(ibid
(as opposed to theological) bas1s for their view (cf P1ckermg, Identity, "Append1x C" 159-169,
which is essentially a duphcatlon of Hodges, Defense 4-9, van Bruggen, Ancient Text, chap 2
"The Value of the Number of Manuscnpts" [pp
xvu-x1x, Borland, "Re-exammmg" 504, 506) In particular, if this is not Pickenng's basic ap
proach, why does he fault Hodges and Farstad m their stemmatlc reconstructions precisely be
cause the resultant text is not found m the maJority of MSS (Pickenng, "More 'Second Thoughts'"
2, 4, "Blasphemed" 1)? Thus, it seems, Pickenng has confused method with rationale The ratio
nale for the MT may be complex, but the method (for most MT defenders) is quite simple Count
noses (2) To defend the MT theory on the basis of overwhelmmg maJority puts the theory on
even shakier ground, for where there is not an overwhelmmg rnaJonty-as is true hundreds of
times m the NT (cf e g Pickermg, "More 'Second Thoughts'" 2, Aland, "Text of the Church?"
136-137, commentmg on 2 Cor 16-7a notes that the MT sphts 52 times)-MT defenders must
resort to mternal evidence Yet by their own admission mternal evidence is wholly subJective
205
1
transmission than vice versa." 20 This line is a favorite of MT advocates.
121
with the comment that "even this
Hodges, for example, quotes it often,
great opponent of the majority form had to admit" the presumption of the
122
majority being right.
What Hodges fails to mention, however, is that
Hort immediately adds "But the presumption is too minute to weigh
23
and that Burgon
121
1 8 19,
-
122
12
der"
45
146,
Hodges, "SurreJomder"
161
157-158
124
125
"SurreJomder"
161
Quotmg
Hodges, Defense
45
8, cf also 40-41
9, who uses th1s
My pomt lS
that stahshcal probab1hties tend to cancel each other out and are thus hardly an appropr1ate
method of h1stor1cal mveshgat1on
126
One of the assumptions of the stat1shcal model lS that a good readmg lS JUSt as hkely to
5-7)
Hodges m lb1d
7)
a theolog1co-hterary document are fundamentally opposed to the process flowmg m both direc
tions Cf B M Metzger, "Trends m the Textual Cntic1sm of the Ihad and the Mahabharata,"
Chapters m the History of New Testament Textual Cnticism (NTTS 4, Grand Rap1ds Eerd
mans, 1963)
127
142 154
-
selmk, Assimilatwn
35-36
12,
Hodges, Defense
14-15,
206
Distributwn of Greek
Century
MSS
Alexandrian
Byzantine
IX
VIII
VII
VI
V
IV
III
11
of the extant MSS could derive from the autographs and yet leave behind no
tangible evidence among the surviving witnesses of the first four centuries.
But this argument raises severa! questions. If the Byzantine Mss wore out,
what is to explain how they became the majority from the ninth century
on? On MT reckoning, the real majority should never be found as an extant
majority. Further, what is to explain their complete nonexistence before
the late fourth century? Are we to suppose that every single "good" NT
somehow wasted away-that no historical accident could have preserved
even one from the first 350 years? The quaint analogy that a used Bible
gets worn out might work in individual cases. But to argue this on a grand
scale stretches the credibility of the theory far beyond the breaking point.
Further, how is it possible that a worked-over MS with many corrections
such as Sinaiticus substantiates the "vanishing" theory? This was obviously
a used MS, yet Pickering argues that "to demand that a MS survive for 1,500
128
years is in effect to require ... that it have remained unused."
Why is
nothing mentioned about the myriad of Byzantine Mss that, although they
have obviously deviated from their archetype, go uncorrected? Many such
12
medieval Byzantine MSS were evidently not used. 9 And would we not ex
pect to see at least sorne early papyri (let alone a majority of them) with a
3
distinctively Byzantine text form? 1
It will not do to say that all the early
128
129
P1ckenng, ldentzty
129
Th1s is ev1dent to anyone who has exammed these MSS firsthand or v1a facs1mile, for not
only are non-Byzantme readmgs frequently found m them but also numerous and substantial
nonsense readmgs are left mtact The force of my argument is mult1faceted On the one hand,
it makes P1ckermg's imphc1t connect1on between an unused MS and a corrupt MS backfire On
the other hand, if numerous Byzantme MSS were unused m later centunes then the1r nonex1st
ence m the early centunes is all the more called mto question In hght of th1s, one wonders how
many of the Byzantme MSS the MT advocates have really exammed
1
30
found m the papyn, basmg such statements on Sturz's work (cf Hodges, Defense
14, P1ckermg,
207
papyn represent the local text of Egypt, because every text-type 1s appar
ently found in the papyri-except the Byzantine.131 This "vanishing" hy
pothesis is clearly a case of petitw principii and as such unmasks the fact
13
that the MT theory is at bottom theologically mobvated. 2
The entire argument from statistical probability not only fa1ls m the
early centur1es. When the actual Byzantme Mss are examined-not just
counted-some disturbmg facts surface. In
antine MSS
Hodges' statistical model which hes at the heart of the MaJority Text theory
demands that a texttype becomes less homogeneous over time as the cumula
tive effect of scnbal errors and emendations are transm1tted m subsequent
generations of manuscnpts
This effect
IS
IS
manuscripts, wh1ch grow more homogeneous over time, denymg Hodges' sta
tistical presupposition
IS
damaged by this confirmat10n of Fee's long-held hypothes1s that the later Byz
antme w1tnesses bear a closer resemblance to each other than to the or1gmal
Byzantme archetype 133
ldentzty 76-77, W1sselmk, Assimilation 32-34, P1erpont and Robmson, Original Greek xx1v
xxv11) Hodges argues, for example, that "1f the present rate of d1scovery contmues, we may rea
ably antic1pate the eventual attestat10n of nearly every MaJonty readmg m manuscnpts wnt
ten long before Aleph and B were even cop1ed" (Defense
14)
would take almost three m1llenma-assummg that all Byzantme readmgs could be found m the
papyn Furthermore the ev1dence that Sturz presents is subJect to three cnt1c1sms
(1)
Many of
h1s readmgs have substantial support from other text-types and are thus not d1stmctively Byz
antme, (2) the ex1stence of a Byzantme readmg m early papyri does not prove the ex1stence of
the Byzantme text-type m early papyn,
(3)
or accidental is overlooked (even W1sselmk adm1ts that a number of them are merely accidental
[Asszmzlation
33))
ahgnments that seemed to be genetically s1gmficant Of these, s1x were not d1stmct1vely Byzan
tme (Luke
10 21, 14 3, 34, 15
21, John
10
38,
1 9 11)
om1ss10n of tou theou)-a readmg adopted m NA26!UBSGNT3 4 When these factors are taken
mto account, the papyrus-Byzantme agreements become an msufficient base for the conclus10ns
that either Sturz or the MT advocates bmld from It
131 MT advocates repeatedly confuse geography w1th textual affimties, assummg that a MS
found m Egypt must be Alexandnan m character (cf Hodges and Farstad, Ma1onty Text 1x-x)
Th1s ba1t-and-sw1tch maneuver conceals the palpable weakness m the argument The argument
suffers at other levels too (1) If the early papyn represent one text-type, then why do they lack
homogene1ty (a pomt that MT proponents camp on)? One cannot have 1t both ways The1r lack
of homogeneity 1mphes that they are prerecens10nal On the MT theory, a prerecens10nal papy
rus could not be consc10usly anti-Byzantme Why then does the Byzantme text-type not show
up m them? (2) If the Byzantme text 1s lackmg representation m the Egyptian w1tnesses, how
can MT champ1ons argue that "God has preserved the text of the New Testament m a very pure
form and 1t has been read1ly available to H1s followers m every age" and at the same time cla1m
that the Egyptian w1tnesses were borne m a "sewer pipe" (P1ckermg, Burgon 90 , 93)?
Ph D d1ssertation (prov1s1onally w1th the same title as the article and to be completed e 1994
at Dallas Semmary), cod1ces 2322 (12th century) and 83 (llth century) are the earhest MSS m
Luke to have a h1gh agreement (98%) w1th the two prmted ed1t10ns of the MT S1gmficantly both
are
Kr
MSS wh1ch, among other thrngs, 1s a h1ghly ed1ted group and "clearly produced for a
Soden's
K'
208
Ralston's and other studies strongly suggest that the Hodges-Farstad and
Pierpont-Robinson texts not only do not represent the original but do not
even represent the Byzantine text of the first millennium. Indeed there is
evidence that the specific text form found in these printed editions was not
134
Mss until the fifteenth century.
in a majority of Greek
MSS
sions? The evidence amassed to date is that there are no versions of the
13
Byzantine text-type until the Gothic at the end of the fourth century. 5
This needs to be balanced by the fact that the Coptic, Ethiopic, Latn and
Syriac versions all antedate the fourth century and come from various re
gions around the Mediterranean. Neither their texts nor their locales are
strictly Egyptian. And even if one of these early versions had been based
on the Byzantine text, this would only prove that this text existed before
the fourth century. lt is quite another thing to assume that it was in the
majority before the fourth century.
Third, the evidence is similar in the Church fathers. 1
36 Three brief
away from
the TR and
closer to
(2) Though sorne of the fathers from the first three centuries had isolated
Byzantine readings the earliest Church father to use the Byzantine text
was the heretic Asterius, a fourth-century writer138 from Antioch and one
Yet the statistical argument of the MT theory as sumes mcreased randomness, not mcreased
umformity In Ralston's study, no distmcbve readmgs are found m this group It assimilates
other readmgs, apparently through a consc10us editonal and hturgical process
Further, von
Soden notes that the Kr group, which was a mmonty among the Byzantme MSS m the twelfth
126
1/2 der
1, 2 763)
bemahe
(Schriften
1/10,
Gesamtprodukt10n
m s XIV mlt
In s
XII smd
pomtmg me to von Soden's comment as well as makmg the connect10n between the Kr group
and the Ma1ority Text
135 For a d1scuss10n of the versional evidence see Wallace, "MaJonty Text and Ongmal Text"
160-162
13
26
162-166
peatmg the statement m the revlSlon of this arbcle (G D Fee, "The MaJonty Text and the
Origmal Text of the New Testament," Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Tex
tual Criticism [ed E
209
39 Although MT advocates doubt that the orthodox Chrysostom would have used the text of
95-96),
17
"Exphc1t Ref
erences m the Works of Origen to Vanant Readmgs m the New Testament Manuscr1pts,"
Historical and Literary Studies, Pagan, Jewish, and Christian (Leiden Bnll,
1968) 88-103,
"St Jerome's Exphcit References to Vanant Readmgs m Manuscr1pts of the New Testament,"
New Testament Studies Philological, Verswnal, and Patristic (Leiden Brill, 1980) 199-210
141
The d1fference between a readmg and a text-type is the d1fference between a particular
vanant and a pattern of vanation For example, although both the NIV and KJV have ident1cal
wordmg m John 11, the pattern of variat10n of the NIV found over a whole paragraph w1ll
d1ffer from the KJV No one would argue that a handwr1tten copy of John 11 from e AD 17
75
was taken from the NIV-even though its wordmg would be ident1cal with the wordmg of the
NIV for that verse
Yet
th1s is the same kmd of argument that MT defenders use for the pnm-
1t1veness of the Byzantme text Simply because isolated Byzantme readmgs are found before
the fourth century is no argument that the Byzantme text ex1sted before the fourth century
They have confused readmg with text
142
The compellmg nature of th1s ev1dence has caused sorne MT advocates to recogmze that
the Byzantme text-type was produced m a corner As Holmes pomts out, "wh1le it is true that
about
90%
90%
of extant [Greek] manuscnpts are of Byzantme character, 1t is also true that about
were wntten after the restnct10n of Greek to bas1cally the confines of Byzantmm" ("The
17 ,
see pp
16-17
that brought about the MT) Pierpont and Robmson, Original Greek xxx-xxx1, agree w1th th1s
assessment, as does W1sselmk, Assimilatwn 22
85- 86
deny normal transm1ss1on as well as access1b1hty-two p1llars of the MT theory Th1s recent
concess1on also betrays an affimty these MT champ10ns have w1th the TR v1ew But mstead of
Erasmus as the restorer of the or1gmal text they have Constantme
210
143
m
Methodology
1 44
enough pre-fourth-century
145
Cf G
MSS
1969) 63-83
This also could not be demonstrated today for the simple reason that there are not
Cf J
15 (1968-69) 23-44
1 14
from a
"D"
to a "B" m UBSGNT4
3. Interna[ evidence.147
211
wholesale subjectivity of internal evidence. They argue that "all such gen
1 8
eralizations [of scribal habits] tend to cancel each other out. " 4 To say that
internal criteria are subjective has a flip side: External evidence is allegedly
objective. But in reality all MSS are corrupt-although they are not equally
so. And that interna! evidence can be subjective <loes not mean that it is all
the NT were revered as Scripture as soon as they were penned and, hence,
147 For a more extended d1scuss1on see Wallace, "Ma1or1ty Text and Ongmal Text"
16
166-169
ous, of any charactenzat10n based upon subJect1ve cnter1a lS that the result is only opm10n, it
is not ob1ect1vely venfiable" (ldentity
93)
17
15 W1sselmk set out to prove that the Byzantme text-type had Just as good credentials as
87)
P 5
4
is stnk
89 n 2)
And
although W1ssehnk adm1ts the frequent harmomzat10ns m the Byzantme text, he sbll ms1sts
that "the phenomenon of ass1milat10n cannot be used to d1sm1ss the Byzantme manuscr1pts as
secondary" (p
91)
dnan MSS w1th the Byzantme text (as d1splayed m the Hodges-Farstad text) All textual cribes
would adm1t that ass1m1lat1on occurs across the board, but it occurs m the Byzantme MSS as a
whole far more frequently than it does m the Alexandr1an MSS as a whole Further, it occurs m
md1v1dual Byzantme MSS far more frequently than m md1v1dual Alexandnan MSS
151 To be applauded are two recent works m wh1ch mternal cnter1a are employed on behalf
of the MT text W1sselmk, Assimilation (see our critique m the prev1ous note and pass1m), and
J P
(1991) 182-191
7,53-8,11)
Recons1dered," Bib
72
Recons1dered,'" NTS
39 [1993] 290-296)
113,
cf also
83, 125
191)
stance that he embraces the MT theory even though th1s view "1mposes 1mposs1ble strams on
our 1magmat10n" (Defense
153
89)
Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles A Disquisition upon the Corpus Pauhnum (London
Oxford Umvers1ty,
1953) 12
212
(3) that, in order for statistical probabilities to work (and in order for in
terna! evidence to be worthless), a good reading is just as likely to come
from a bad reading as vice versa. 156 Ali such assumptions are demonstra
157
bly untrue,
making internal evidence a necessary part of responsible
textual criticism.
Ironically, although MT theorists want objectivity and certainty, even
they cannot avoid making decisions on internal grounds, for there are
hundreds of splits in the Byzantine text where no clear majority emerges.
Aland found 52 variants within the MT in the space of two verses.158 In
such cases how are MT advocates to decide what is original? lt will not do
to say that these splits are not exegetically signi:ficant. The Byzantine
fracture over echomenlechomen in Rom 5:1 is a case in point. If the canons
15
of internal evidence are "demonstrably fallacious," 9 then in several hun
dred places-many of them signi:ficant-this theory is without a solution
and without certainty.
How do MT defenders proceed in such a case? "Where a majority read
ing does not exist we are obliged to use a minority reading, and defend our
160
choice as best we may."
But without any kind of guidelines the effort be
161
comes "wearisome and frustrating."
MT proponents' frustration in such
cases is especially compounded both because they have rejected the stan
dard canons of interna! criticism and because whatever canons they use
are, by their own admission, wholly subjective. That they have not devel
oped anything that resembles internal canons is a tacit admission that
they have not contemplated their own views beyond the horizon of a :fide
1
54 Pickenng, ldentity 99-110
1
55 Th1s is urged m sp1te of the ev1dence that hturg1cal and other mfluences were at work
1 6
5 Hodges, Defense 6
ldentity 137
P1ckermg, "Blasphemed"
lb1d
6-7a
2, ldentity 150)
213
In sum, the MT theory's tenet that internal criteria are wholly subjective
not only makes unwarranted assumptions about the objectivity ofexternal
evidence but also backfires in those places where there is no majority text.
That there is little written from MT quarters on textual problems involving
a split in the Byzantine text unmasks the fundamentally dogmatic nature
of their theory, for they have not grappled with the issues where doctrine
is silent.
IV. CONCLUSION
(for it does not work for the OT) and without a decent exegetical basis.
Stripped of this fideistic stance, the traditional-text theory is just barely
within the realm of historical possibility.
V. EPILOGUE
priori assumption.
ifyou claim that the theory can stand without adherence to one, then why
are all MT defenders conservative? Further, why do you constantly solicit
163
support among conservatives by the use of theological "scare tactics"?
163
Inerrancy and preservation are mcreasmgly held m front of the members of the MaJonty
16 9-20" (where
logicaD, MaJonty Text Soc1ety brochure entitled "What 1s the MaJonty Text Soc1ety" (n d ), m
wh1ch the bas1c p1tch for potential member8 15 theological, Borland, who e88entially argue8 that
the text-cntical theory that be8t affirm8 an merrant text 18 the one to follow ("Re-exammmg")
Far8tad recently took the doctrm al appeal to a large lay aud1ence, argumg that mo8t modern
tran8lat10ns are theolog1cally corrupt, even to the pomt of om 1ttmg the re8urrect10n m Mark
16
214
can you rid yourselves of seeing the Byzantine text in a glowingly com
might gain a hearing for your views. Only then should you promote your
views in the standard academic forums.
166
(a claim that does not, stnctly speakmg, square with the facts of the passage, there
urrect10n appearance to the disciples 1f Mark's gospel ends at
there)
164
IS
no res
16 8,
1976
IS
still
Text (Ancient Text 39), but to my knowledge none Is, almost twenty years later, forthcommg
Hodges went so far as to claim that "there IS no MaJonty readmg (mcludmg so-called conflate
onesl) which cannot be strongly defended on mternal or transcnpt10nal grounds or both" (De
1 6)
159-160)
fense
But when Fee challenged him to do this very thmg, there was silence ("ReJomder"
Prolegomena Institute of
215
view Arbcle" pass1m Note also Pierpont and Robmson's confus1on m their attempt to use quan
t1tative analys1s (Original Greek xv-xv1,
495)
MSS),
MSS
MSS
that agree on a given variant (thus only a handful ofvar1ants are m view, coupled w1th a great
number ofMSS) Quantitative analys1s, leg1t1mately apphed, can help to indicate wh1ch
MSS
stand
m close textual prox1m1ty to one another via the1r shared pattern of readings But it cannot be
used to deny fam1ly groupings on the bas1s of one variant (contra P1erpont-Robinson, Original
Greek
495)
(70%
or
MSS
MSS
MSS
56 62 , only
70% of all
-
constitute over
Obv10usly 1f Colwell had meant th1s he could not have cons1dered the Alexan
MSS
would be regarded as belonging to the same text-type The1r exphc1tly heavy dependence on Col
well m the1r reconstruction of the text of the Apocalypse calls into quest10n the1r whole en
deavor (Original Greek xv-xv1)
leve] 1s surely to be found m R H1lls, Defense Although th1s tome earned the author a doctor of
ph1losophy degree 1t 1s filled w1th every imaginable error
primary (or even secondary) data, acontextual quotabons, m1sapphed methods, 1llogic, gram
mabcal solec1sms, and typograph1cal errors, 1f tabulated, would number over one thousand
Such a cavaher athtude toward the top1c is attr1butable to the author's overbearing fide1sm No
better 1s G A Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions (Munroe Falls A
V, 1993)
wntten from a scholarly perspechve, but 1t would be no exaggerahon to say that there are thou
sands ofm1stakes m It
168
Th1s art!cle 1s a longer vers10n of an essay that originally appeared in The Text of the New
1994)
46, ed
B D Ehrman