The Majority Text vs the Critical text

[ByronArn]

I recently became disillusioned with the critical text (that of Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society's Greek Text) as I was reading through the book of Mark. I was using the New American Standard Bible (An excellent, literal translation of the critical text), and came across Mark 9:23:

And He said to them, “This kind cannot come out by anything but prayer.”

I knew this Bible story well, and I knew what Jesus had said. He said by prayer and fasting, not just prayer. The NASB didn't even have a footnote to say "some ancient manuscript (the vast majority, actually!) add and fasting", like it usually does for manuscript varients. It does include Matthew 17:21, but brackets it out and casts doubt upon it, since it is not in the critical text (but again, it is in the vast majority of manuscripts).

I know people can receive spiritual breakthroughs while fasting. I have seen it happen time and time again, both at my church and in my personal life. But if I were to follow the critical text, which places priority upon less than 5% of manuscripts available because they are older. However, the older a manuscript is, the less reliable it should be, because it indicates it was used less. It only makes sense that the most reliable texts would be used a lot more often, and so wear a lot faster.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a KJV onlyist. I believe God can, and does, use any good Bible (NASB, NIV, NKJV, KJV, etc). I also don't believe the Textus Recepticus is the end-all truth either. I do believe in the principles of textual criticism, but I do not believe the Alexandrian texts should get as much of a priority as they do. Thats why I love the Majority text.

In short, I subscribe to the Byzantine Priority model. I am no textual critic, of course, but I the arguments of Maurice Robinson (who is a textual critic, and who is the foremost supporter of the Byzantine Priority movement) to be very compelling.

Whats your take on the Majority Text vs the Critical Text?

 

[Iosias]

I use the critical text because it is based on sound scholarship

 

[ByronArn]

I use the critical text because it is based on sound scholarship

so does the Majority text of Maurice Robinson They just follow a different set of assumptions than does the critical text. The critical text places undue priority on 5% of manuscripts just because they are older, and ignores the other 95% of Greek texts known.

Read some of the work of Maurice Robinson. Contrary to popular belief, he did not simply follow the readings which had the most number of readings. He has a degree in textual criticism, and uses a method that focuses on transmissional history to determine the readings to include in his text. It is only called the Majority text because it is representative of the Byzantine Text-form, which is also called the majority text form since 95% of manuscripts around today are part of the Byzantine family of texts.

 

[Iosias]

NT textual criticism is not something that really interests me, I am an OT chappie. I found Metzger useful

 

[ByronArn]

NT textual criticism is not something that really interests me, I am an OT chappie. I found Metzger useful

OT chappie? Do you mind if I ask what that is?

 

[ChristianLife08]

I recently became disillusioned with the critical text (that of Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society's Greek Text) as I was reading through the book of Mark. I was using the New American Standard Bible (An excellent, literal translation of the critical text), and came across Mark 9:23:



I knew this Bible story well, and I knew what Jesus had said. He said by prayer and fasting, not just prayer. The NASB didn't even have a footnote to say "some ancient manuscript (the vast majority, actually!) add and fasting", like it usually does for manuscript varients. It does include Matthew 17:21, but brackets it out and casts doubt upon it, since it is not in the critical text (but again, it is in the vast majority of manuscripts).

I know people can receive spiritual breakthroughs while fasting. I have seen it happen time and time again, both at my church and in my personal life. But if I were to follow the critical text, which places priority upon less than 5% of manuscripts available because they are older. However, the older a manuscript is, the less reliable it should be, because it indicates it was used less. It only makes sense that the most reliable texts would be used a lot more often, and so wear a lot faster.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a KJV onlyist. I believe God can, and does, use any good Bible (NASB, NIV, NKJV, KJV, etc). I also don't believe the Textus Recepticus is the end-all truth either. I do believe in the principles of textual criticism, but I do not believe the Alexandrian texts should get as much of a priority as they do. Thats why I love the Majority text.

In short, I subscribe to the Byzantine Priority model. I am no textual critic, of course, but I the arguments of Maurice Robinson (who is a textual critic, and who is the foremost supporter of the Byzantine Priority movement) to be very compelling.

Whats your take on the Majority Text vs the Critical Text?

In short. Both are useful TOGETHER. Neither one ought to trump the other. instead, use both to get a more clear picture of scripture. Kind of like read the gospels. each one has the same tellings of events. while some may include other events that another did not.

Be blessed

 

[ByronArn]

In short. Both are useful TOGETHER. Neither one ought to trump the other. instead, use both to get a more clear picture of scripture. Kind of like read the gospels. each one has the same tellings of events. while some may include other events that another did not.

Be blessed

Obviously, there weren't two original New Testament originals. So which reconstruction, the Majority Text or the critical text, do you think more closely represents the original? Personally, I think its the Majority text for a few different reasons.

 

[Knee V]

I stick to the Majority Text for one main reason: the life of Christ and the Holy Spirit in the Church has led the church in using and preserving the Majority Text. If it seemed good to the Holy Spirit for the Church to use the Critical Text, then those texts would have been what persisted.

 

[Iosias]

OT chappie? Do you mind if I ask what that is?

I am more interested in the Hebrew Bible

 

[Bible Truth 53]

I prefer the Majority Text generally speaking; however, there are cases where the Critical Text appears to preserve a better text--that is, where the Greek contained a Semiticism which was not well understood in later ages, such as Luke's 'peace among men with whom he is pleased'. The Apocalypse for this reason is often better in the Critical Text.

 

[ByronArn]

I am more interested in the Hebrew Bible

When I was a teenager, I was in the Messianic movement. I wrote a version of the Four Spiritual Laws that used the Old Testament references instead of the more typical Romans passages. These days, I prefer the New Testament. I find that focusing too much on the Old Testament leads many- but not all- into a form of legalism where one's salvation depends upon keeping some portion of the Old Testament Law. I am not saying that's you by any means, I just know a lot of people, especially some in the Hebraic roots movement, who have gone that route.

 

[preacherinblack]

can someone explain byzantine priority ?

 

[ananda]

can someone explain byzantine priority ?

It basically means that priority should be given to the NT manuscripts which were found in the area formerly occupied by the Byzantine Empire.

 

[preacherinblack]

It basically means that priority should be given to the NT manuscripts which were found in the area formerly occupied by the Byzantine Empire.

what is the opposite then?

 

[childofdust]

Anyone know if there is a NT translation done by the same people on both that puts the two in parallel?

So, you know, you have a translation of the Majority Text in one column and a translation of the Critical Text in the other?

That would be pretty cool to see

For translators, it shouldn't be a big deal. I'm an "OT chappie," also. I'm doing a translation of the Hebrew Bible from Hebrew-Aramaic into English. I'm mainly working from the Masoretic Text and using other sources (like Dead Sea Scrolls) to help deal with issues. However, if I wanted to, it wouldn't be difficult to create a parallel translation - to, for example, have one translation based on the Masoretic Text itself in one column and another translation based on the Great Isaiah Scroll (for instance) in another column. Or have a translation of MT in one column and a translation of Ben Chayyim (the basis of the KJV OT) in another column.

 

[ViaCrucis]

what is the opposite then?

There wouldn't be an "opposite". There are a few textual "families" (or more properly, text types), the Byzantine being one, it describes manuscripts whose readings are more alike than others; the second largest family of manuscripts are known as the Alexandrian.

Generally speaking the Byzantine manuscripts have been called the Majority Text, while the Alexandrian known as the Minority Text. But it's a lot more nuanced than that.

And there are others, the Western and Caesarean text types represent two other families of manuscripts, both contain readings that are often more rare than either the Byzantine or Alexandrian.

Thus there is no opposite, rather there are variant readings typically grouped in textual families, types of manuscripts. Even within the same text type there are variations in reading.

As a general rule, the Byzantine texts are more common and have later dates; while the Alexandrian texts are fewer, but are older. Some of our oldest manuscripts, and even our oldest biblical codices, are of the Alexandrian type. The others--the Western and Caesarean--offer interesting alternative readings, but these are quite scarce in the manuscript record.

Perhaps one of the more interesting cases is the Codex Washingtonius, which shares readings with several text types; but is most noteworthy for containing what is termed the Freer Logion, located in what would be the 16th chapter of Mark (a section that is close to the Caesarean text type) which adds this, not found in other extent manuscripts:

"And they excused themselves, saying, "This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or: does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now" - thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, "The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more in order to inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Washingtonianus#cite_note-22"

-CryptoLutheran

 

[childofdust]

the older a manuscript is, the less reliable it should be, because it indicates it was used less.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Age has no correlation whatsoever to either usage or reliability. Any text, whether new or old, can be used a lot or a little. Any text, whether new or old, can be more or less reliable. Your statement is logically fallacious.

It only makes sense that the most reliable texts would be used a lot more often, and so wear a lot faster.”

Maybe, but that has nothing to do with age. “Age” refers not to usage but to historical distance from the originals. The “older” the text is, the closer in time it is to the originals. A REALLY old text might be something that Paul could have put in the hands of Timothy. But, again, age has no correlation whatsoever to either usage or reliability.

I am no textual critic, of course,

Obviously. Nothing in your post shows that you have any conception about the fact that when one is dealing with something like Mark 9:29, it is not a matter of prioritizing one block of manuscripts over another block of manuscripts, but rather, it is a matter of looking at all the evidence and trying to come up with the best reason, in each and every case, for how all the variants might have come about. The best logical answer that makes sense of all the variants wins. That's textual criticism. Thus, you could have one verse follow the Byzantine text and another verse follow an Alexandrian text and another one follow something else.

I recently became disillusioned with the critical text <snip> as I was reading through the book of Mark <snip> and came across Mark 9:23 [sic]

You may have a problem with the reasons that the textual critics have for presenting ***Mark 9:29*** the way they do in the Critical Text, but that means nothing in terms of whether you have a problem with the Critical Text itself or not. The Critical Text is nothing more than a compilation of thousands of arguments about what specific pieces of the text are probably more or less original. Even if you disagreed with the Critical Text once, that's a drop of water in an ocean. It's like not liking food at a restaurant because the sign is crooked. Just because the restaurant didn't get on thing right doesn't mean it didn't get everything else right.

So what is your problem with choice of the textual critics? So far, all you've given is the statement “people can receive spiritual breakthroughs while fasting.” Well, they can also receive them while sky-diving. So what? That doesn't mean the original text said “through prayer and sky-diving.”

From what you've stated in the OP, you don't seem to have a clue why the compilers of the Critical Text chose to represent Mark 9:29 the way they did. That means that you are disillusioned over something about which you are entirely ignorant. Instead of looking for a problem with Critical Text, you should be looking for a problem in the mirror.

Here is what the NETBible had to say about Mark 9:29 and why it represented it the way it did:

Most witnesses, even early and excellent ones (Ì45vid &#1488;2 A C D L W &#920; &#936; Ë1,13 33 Ï lat co), have “and fasting” (&#954;&#945;&#8054; &#957;&#951;&#963;&#964;&#949;&#943;&#8115;, kai nhsteia) after “prayer” here. But this seems to be a motivated reading, due to the early church’s emphasis on fasting (TCGNT 85; cf., e.g., 2 Clem. 16:4; Pol. Phil 7:2; Did. 1:3; 7:4). That the most important witnesses (&#1488;* B), as well as a few others (0274 2427 k), lack &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#957;&#951;&#963;&#964;&#949;&#943;&#8115;, when a good reason for the omission is difficult to find, argues strongly for the shorter reading.

Here, the reason for choosing “only by prayer” is laid out plainly: 1. it would make more sense for a fast-loving church to purposely add “fasting” to a text than to purposely omit it. Do you agree or disagree? 2. there is no good reason why “and fasting” would have fallen out accidentally. Do you agree or disagree? 3. because both Sinaiticus and Vatincanus do not have them, and they are some of the most trustworthy documents we have, they must not be original. Do you agree or disagree?

Please note: these are the NETBible's reasons for rejecting “and fasting” - they are not the Critical Text's reasons. And just like the Critical Text, even if you disagreed completely with the arguments in this one verse, it means nothing whatsoever in terms of whether you disagree with the NETBible as a whole.

 

[pshun2404]

About 90% of the NT scriptural citations found in the early church fathers agree with the MT which is not surprising since most of them originated in the east where the autographs were entrusted (none were entrusted to the west)...of the CT (only 5% of our textual samples) they vehemently disagree with one another...therefore Neste's as well as Westcott/Hort's are eclectic hodge podges. When the MT was accepted it was because all the Church scholars and leaders over the first 400 years agreed these were the most common and best renderings closest to those documents provided by the Apostles to their first leaders...we have zero, zilch, nada, reason to impeach such a witness.

Now if we look at these two discarded heavily edited examples we find that there are over 3,000 textual variations just between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the text of the Gospels alone.

656 in Matthew
567 in Mark
791 in Luke
1022 in John

And in most all these cases both are in total disagreement with the quotations from earlier Texts quoted by those who received the originals from the Apostles and their immediate disciples…(which in most cases agree with the MT though 100s of years before either)...

One who calls themselves a Christian Seeker says they rely on these questionable disagreeing texts but they actually don't they rely on one or another of the eclectic hodge podges (which even in these new versions disagree with each other)....no wonder the Moslems claim the Bible has been changed...it has...

Paul

 

[FerventDisciple]

There is no one who uses the Majority Text because as of right now there is no major translation based on it. The translations we have that are closest to it are the KJV and NKJV which are based on the Textus Receptus. While the TR and MT are very similar they still differ in many places, over 1000 in fact. Acts 8:37 for example is in the TR but not the MT.

I think too much can be made of the MT/TR/CT issue, they are 98% the same and the differences don't result in any doctrine being lost. The best way is to use translations from both traditions. I personally use the NKJV as my main translation due to it's excellent textual footnotes and because of the similarity to the KJV which I got saved reading. But I also reference CT translations in my study such as the NASB and NIV.

 

[ByronArn]

About 90% of the NT scriptural citations found in the early church fathers agree with the MT which is not surprising since most of them originated in the east where the autographs were entrusted (none were entrusted to the west)...of the CT (only 5% of our textual samples) they vehemently disagree with one another...therefore Neste's as well as Westcott/Hort's are eclectic hodge podges. When the MT was accepted it was because all the Church scholars and leaders over the first 400 years agreed these were the most common and best renderings closest to those documents provided by the Apostles to their first leaders...we have zero, zilch, nada, reason to impeach such a witness.

Now if we look at these two discarded heavily edited examples we find that there are over 3,000 textual variations just between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the text of the Gospels alone.

656 in Matthew
567 in Mark
791 in Luke
1022 in John

And in most all these cases both are in total disagreement with the quotations from earlier Texts quoted by those who received the originals from the Apostles and their immediate disciples…(which in most cases agree with the MT though 100s of years before either)...

As an Anglican, I place some weight upon the authority of the church fathers. I think this is a good argument in favor of the Byzantine/Majority Text

I think too much can be made of the MT/TR/CT issue, they are 98% the same and the differences don't result in any doctrine being lost. The best way is to use translations from both traditions. I personally use the NKJV as my main translation due to it's excellent textual footnotes and because of the similarity to the KJV which I got saved reading. But I also reference CT translations in my study such as the NASB and NIV.

This is a good point to keep in mind. No major doctrine of Christianity is put at risk due to these variances (in spite of what King James Version Only advocates claim about the deity of Christ). Every major doctrine of of the Church can be proved using a translation based upon the TR (KJV, NKJV), the CT (NIV, NASB, etc.), or the MT (WEB).

I also agree about the NKJV's excellent textual footnotes. It is my favorite mainstream translation. My favorite translation of all, however, is the World English Bible, which is based upon the Majority Text.