Majority Rules! — Fact or Fiction? (part 1)
Majority Rules!
The KJV onlyists claim that since the text underlying the KJV is based on the majority of the manuscripts, then the KJV is to be favored. This claim carries a lot of weight in the textual debate. Many an unsuspecting person is absorbed by the KJV only movement upon hearing this “fact”. But let us ask the question: Fact or Fiction? Does majority rule in this case?
When KJV onlyists emphasize the “fact” that the KJV is based on the majority of the manuscripts, they usually ignore three vitally important considerations. We will look at each of these considerations and then find ourselves in a better position to answer our question. Today’s post will focus on the first point.
Majority of Greek texts versus the TR
KJV onlyists assume that the Greek Textus Receptus (TR), which the King James is based on, represents the majority of the Greek Manuscripts. This is not accurate. The TR was actually based on seven Greek manuscripts as well as Erasmus’ copious textual notes on the Greek text [1]. Most KJV onlyists use the “pie-in-the-sky”, wishful thinking view at this point, glibly assuming that the TR in fact really does represent the best of the majority of the manuscripts and that Erasmus’ textual notes and considerable knowledge of the Greek text offsets the use of only seven manuscripts. This hopeful hypothesis is made all the more doubtful by the consideration that Erasmus had not planned on producing his Greek text at the time he did: he was pressured to produce the text in a very short time by his printer. This forced him to use the locally available manuscripts rather than others he may have preferred to use [2]. Incredibly high demand forced subsequent editions to be produced by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzevirs, and others without any wholesale revision of the text. Small revisions and corrections were made here and there, but printers’ errors and other errors introduced in Erasmus’ first Greek text remain in the TR down to this day [3].
Besides the documented history of Erasmus’ production of the TR, another fact flies in the face of the claim that the TR/KJV was based on the majority of the manuscripts. While most KJV onlyists assume that “majority text” is shorthand for the TR, it in fact is not. In 1982 the first edition of the printed Majority Text was published, edited by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad. Other editions have followed as well as a competing Majority Text edited by Pierpont and Robinson (1991). These texts are based on the collation work done so far on the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts. These texts contain over 1,800 differences from the TR [4]. Now it is true this number is less than the estimated 5,600+ differences between the Wescott & Hort 1881 text [5] which is very similar to the critical text editions used today (UBS 4th edition, Nestle-Aland 27th edition). Yet the amount of differences between the TR and the Majority Text reveal that the majority of the Greek manuscripts do not in any sense unequivocally support the TR. In many places they do support the KJV over and against modern versions, but in many other places they do not. In fact, in many of the differences between the TR and the modern critical text, the Majority Text actually supports the critical text and modern versions against the TR.
In passing, I want to just list some important texts contained in the TR which are not contained in the Majority Text. 1 John 5:7, Acts 9:5-6, Acts 8:37, Rev. 22:19 “book of life” are just a few of many instances where the Majority of Greek manuscripts do not support the TR reading.
Continued in part 2.
????????????????
Footnotes
[1] See “Erasmus and the Textus Receptus“, pg. 45ff. by Dr. William Combs (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal: 1 Spring 1996).
[2] Ibid, pg. 41-45.
[3] Ibid, pg. 46-47. See also, “Errors in the King James Version?“, pg. 155-157 by Dr. William Combs (DBSJ 4 Fall 1999).
[4] 1,838 is Dr. Dan Wallace’s actual count of differences, see “Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text“, online article by Dr. Dan Wallace (the sentence in the text just before footnote 27).
[5] 5,604 is Dr. D.A. Waite’s actual count, see Defending the King James Bible, pg. 41 (1999 edition, published by Bible for Today Press: Collingswood, N.J.).
This post originally appeared on the author’s primary blog: Fundamentally Reformed on Aug. 15, 2006.
Tags: answering arguments, Greek, KJV-onlyism, KJVO, majority, Majority Text, Manuscript Evidence, Textual Criticism
Daniel B. Wallace admits that there is always subjectivity. There is always some element of uncertainty. The core issue of the “Majority View” is that even the best decisions concerning what is the “authentic reading” are subject to error. It is a method designed to reduce the likelihood of error by appealing to the best-weighted reading. It assumes that error must exist in textual criticism itself, besides all the variations which appear in extant witnesses. It never actually eliminates error, and is incapable of doing so. Therefore, its conclusions or implications concerning passages such as 1 John 5:7 cannot be taken as correct, for that its own authority suffers a credibility problem.
The King James Bible Only view sees the standard as the Received Scripture itself, and since Scripture itself is an infallible standard, it must have been provided thus by the Providence of God to be the standard which it claims to be.
Of course, if we can reason King James Bible –> based on the TR –> is received –> must be Scritpure itself –> surely infallible then –> providentially provided by God. We can then insert the ESV, NASB or NIV there as well, change TR to CT, and argue back to –> providentially provided by God.
Wallace likewise has a good take on the battle for truth vs. the battle for certainty. Just declaring certainty in some regard doesn’t make it the truth. We have certainty that God has indeed preserved His Word. We may not agree as to how, but we know God will not lead us astray, therefore we are certain that the data will not lead us astray. Never will textual criticism yield a new doctrine. I’m certain of that, even if there are variants here and there I’m uncertain about.
I’m certain God created the world. I’m not quite as certain about all the details given to us by botany, zoology, geology, biology, astronomy, etc. But I continue to read about their findings. Sometimes, even in creationism, the data changes. But the certainty remains: God created the world.
I’ve argued over at my blog that one of the roots of KJVO for a lot of people is an errant evidentialist approach to Christianity, that the whole system stands or falls on biblical inerrancy, and if there is any question about the veracity of the text, the system crumbles. Contrary to that, there’s no emphasis of such teaching in the preaching of the apostles and Jesus in respect to the gospel. Inerrancy is a doctrine for Christians to study after they are saved, not before. The fault of this logic is that it doesn’t even compare to common sense in legal matters and evidence. If 4 witnesses are called to the stand and 3 of them provide irrefutable proof of a crime and the criminal, but the 4th is not quite sure, that doesn’t mean the case is dismissed. When we look at the biblical data and history, we find overwhelming proof of Christianity. The uncertain parts are no cause for alarm, and thankfully, can get more certain over time.
The filling in of the holes is a 2,000 year practice. Taking hold of 17th century translation and declaring it the ONE with certainty doesn’t solve the problem.
Thanks, Damien. Good points. When’s your next post coming?
it’s phil’s turn!
judging by the fact this post was part 1, I suspect you have more, so I have no problem if you continue the series. Otherwise, I can post by Friday.
I’ll email you.
[...] KJVO, majority, Majority Text, Textual Criticism, textual debate fundyreformed 11:03 am In part 1, we began examining the claim that the KJV is supported by the majority of the textual witnesses. [...]
So, is the NKJV produced from the majority text or the same text as Erasmus?
The NKJV was produced from a TR version from the early 1800s. It is not exactly the Scrivener’s TR which tries to follow the KJV textual choices when they side with Stephanus against Beza or vice versa. It is not based on the majority text. I think there is one web-based Bible translation (World, or WEB World English Bible) based on it. There may be some in print. You could do a quick Google search for majority text English Bible or something like that.
Hope that helps. Oh, and the KJV uses virtually the same Hebrew text as the KJV. Even Brandenburg admits that. In a few places it is more faithful to the Hebrew text supporting the KJV than the KJV is.
Sorry, Erasmus had the first 3 editions of what became the TR. Stephanus picked up where Erasmus left off, and only made minor variations. Beza picked up after Stephanus. So it is basically a text in line with Erasmus.
Greetings, and God bless.
Just an FYI, I also have a Majority Text New Testament,called the EMTV (English Majority Text Version). The website is listed above.
Paul
Thanks Paul. I’ll have to add your website to our links here. I thought there was an English translation on the web somewhere. I probably stumbled across your site at one time.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
Greetings. Someone contacted me concerning an interview about my Bible translation (EMTV), and my email was deleted. I would be delighted to do the interview. Lord willing, the proper people will read this post!
Blessings
Pastor Paul Esposito
Got it brother. I’ll be in touch with you shortly. Let me collect questions from my fellow bloggers and we’ll conduct an email interview in the near future!
Thanks!
Bob Hayton
Maybe I need to read this post in its original context. But i am confused. From my limited experience, I have NOT heard that KJV Only proponents arguing for the Majority Text or Majority Reading. They argue for the supremacy of the TR which is shown “perfectly” (mostly) in the KJV.
The Majority Text argument is quite a different thing (and you state that well). I just didn’t know that any KJV Only advocate would use it since most Majority Text proponents use the NKJV.
J,
Many KJV Onlyists argue that one reason the KJV is to be supported against other translations, is that it is based on the majority of the Greek MSS. Several popular KJV Only books, even by those that call themselves TR Onlyists, make the claim that the majority of the manuscripts support the TR. I’m thinking of D.A. Waite and David Cloud here, primarily but others apply too.
I probably should have said “Majority of the Greek MSS versus the TR” rather than “Majority of the Greek texts versus the TR”. Maybe that is what was confusing.
Thanks for the input.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
[...] previously made similar points about the nebulous idea of “majority”. In my Majority Rules: Fact or Fiction? series I delved into this. Also, the Greek support for the TR wasn’t really a majority of [...]