Five Questions about the Majority Text
By Jeffrey T. Riddle
Posed to its Contemporary Evangelical and Reformed Advocates
Introduction:
Several internet pundits, YouTubers, and critics of the Textus Receptus (including those from evangelical and Reformed backgrounds) have recently suggested in various forums that the proper text of the Greek New Testament may be found in the so-called Majority Text (generally understood to be the text represented by the majority of currently extant Greek manuscripts), sometimes referred to as the Byzantine Text. The Majority Text is even put forward as a sort of via media between traditionalists, on one side, who hold to the Textus Receptus, and progressives, on the other, who hold to the modern critical text.
Such a view is problematic, however, for several significant reasons, especially for those who are confessionally Reformed and affirm that God’s Word has been “kept pure in all ages” (Westminster Confession, 1:8; Second London Baptist Confession, 1:8). Though the Textus Receptus is indeed most often supported by the vast majority of extant Greek and versional witnesses to the New Testament, there are several precious passages in the traditional text that the Lord only preserved in a minority of currently extant witnesses. Our Protestant and Puritan forefathers recognized that such passages should be acknowledged to be part of the preserved Word of God. These include passages like the confession of the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:37) and the “three heavenly witnesses” or Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7b-8a).
Here are at least five questions that might be posed to contemporary evangelical and (especially) Reformed advocates of the Majority Text who promote it rather than the Textus Receptus:
First Question: In Print?
If the Majority Text is the preserved true text of the Greek New Testament, why were there no printed editions of it completed until the late twentieth century (see Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, Second edition, 1985)? How does this fit with the doctrine that God’s Word has been kept pure in all ages?
In contrast to the lack of printed editions of the Majority Text until very recent times, we should note that the first ever printed edition of the Greek New Testament was that done by Erasmus in 1516. It became the basis for the printed editions of the Textus Receptus, carefully edited by Protestant scholars like Stephanus, Beza, the Elzevirs, and Scrivener. It has continuously remained available in print up to the present day.
Second Question: Protestant Standard?
If the Majority Text is the preserved true text of the Greek New Testament, why did God in His providence not allow the Reformers and Protestant orthodox to recognize it as such and make it the standard for their scholarship, preaching, and Bible translations? Relatedly: If the Majority Text is the standard, how was the Protestant Reformation able to succeed and be blessed by God without ever having access to the “true” Bible in the original languages for hundreds of years? Of course, we know that it is the Textus Receptus, and not the so-called Majority Text, which has served as the Protestant standard.
Third Question: Viable Translations?
If the Majority Text is the preserved true text of the Greek New Testament why have no widely used Protestant translations of it ever been made in any language? The first English translation of the New Testament based upon the Majority Text to come into print was apparently Wilbur Pickering’s The Sovereign Creator Has Spoken: Objective Authority for Living in 2013. This work was independently published online and has only been scarcely purchased and used. In just the last few years a couple of other English translations based on the Majority Text have appeared, including the Text-Critical English New Testament: Byzantine Text Version (2021),1 and the Berean Standard Bible, also known as the Majority Standard Bible (2022). So far as I know, however, there are currently no churches anywhere in the world which make exclusive use of a New Testament translated from the Majority Text, either doctrinally in their theology and teaching, liturgically in their worship, or practically in their ministry.
Some proponents of the Majority Texthave responded to this objection, by suggesting that even though there are no viable translations of the Majority Text widely available or practically in use today, they can still have access to it either through translations based on the Textus Receptus (like the King James Version), or ones based on the modern Critical Text (like the English Standard Version). This, however, means that they must approve and commend editions of the Bible to their congregations which do not follow what they claim is the “best text.” This inevitably sets them up for inconsistency. In contrast, since the flowering of the Reformation, vernacular translations of the New Testament from the Textus Receptus have been consistently produced and used in all of the most widely used languages of the world. In English, the first translation of the Greek New Testament was made by Tyndale from the Textus Receptus in 1525. In 1611, the Authorized Version was also translated from the Textus Receptus, and it would become the most influential and widely used English version of the Bible of all time.
Fourth Question: No Majority Text?
If one embraces the Majority Text as the preserved true text of the Greek New Testament, what does he do with places in the New Testament where the Lord has not been pleased to preserve large numbers of extant manuscripts which could be used for confidently affirming a “majority” reading? There are some places in the New Testament where the paucity of extant manuscripts fatally undermines the reliability of any effort to determine a Majority Text. This is especially the case regarding the book of Revelation.
Whereas there are thousands of manuscripts which contain all or part of the Gospels, there are far fewer extant manuscripts for the book of Revelation, probably due to the fact that it has always been a highly controversial book. In an article on “The Early Text of Revelation,” Toabias Niklaus noted that there are only about three hundred manuscripts which contain some part of Revelation, and only four of them are dated earlier than or close to A.D. 300.10 None of these four early manuscripts have the whole text of Revelation, but only a few words or sentences. He adds that there are only seven papyri of Revelation and “it is only poorly represented in the uncial manuscripts.”11 Niklaus concludes that the paucity of material has “long made research into the textual history of the book of Revelation an extremely complex task.”4
Even those who support the Majority or Byzantine text do not always reach agreement on how a passage should read, given that the witnesses are sometimes evenly divided. One example is found in Revelation 4:8, in which the four beasts declare that the Lord God is “Holy.” In the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Text (2005) the beasts repeat the word “Holy” three times (as in the Textus Receptus), but in the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text (1985), as well as in the Majority Text based on Family 35 and compiled by Wilbur N. Pickering (2015), the beasts declare a nine-fold “Holy” (i.e., the word “Holy” is repeated nine times!).
Beyond the book of Revelation, one sometimes finds readings in the printed editions of the so-called “Majority Text” of the Greek New Testament which do not, in fact, reflect the reading actually supported by the majority of currently extant manuscripts. An example is found in Romans 13:9, where the Textus Receptus includes the Greek words for the phrase, “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” This phrase is omitted in Hodges and Farstad’s The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text and in Robinson and Pierpont’s The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005. Wilbur Pickering, however, notes that according to his calculations the Textus Receptus of Romans 13:9 with its inclusion of “Thou shalt not bear false witness” is found in 67% of extant Greek manuscripts, while extant manuscripts which omit it number only 33%.5 Sometimes the printed editions of the “Majority Text” do not, in fact, represent the actual majority text.
These inconsistencies, especially made plain in the book of Revelation, reveal that it was not the Lord’s plan to preserve His Word merely through the counting of the number of extant manuscripts which might be available in any given era and then reconstructing the text based on the so-called “majority.” Rather, the Lord chose to preserve His Word through the providential circumstances of history. During the pivotal time of the Reformation and post-Reformation eras a clear stamp of approval was placed upon the Textus Receptus and not on any so-called “Majority Text.”
Fifth Question: Perpetual Eclectic Uncertainty?
Related to the previous question, one must also ask whether those who advocate for the Majority Text do not, in the end, promote the same kind of uncertainty as to the standard text of the Bible as those who hold to the “reasoned eclecticism” of modern textual criticism? Both the modern Critical Text and the Majority Text suggest that the Bible has not been preserved but corrupted and must now be reconstructed. We might say that modern textual critics use “reasoned eclecticism” (i.e., choose the text based on supposedly rational analysis of the currently extant evidence), while Majority Text advocates use “majority eclecticism” (i.e., choose the text which has the most currently extant witnesses). The “Achilles’ heel” of both methods is that they never allow for a stable, standard text. It will always be subject to change based on new discoveries.
It may be highly unlikely that a vast number of extant manuscripts are yet to be discovered which would upend current calculations of what constitutes the majority reading, but who knows what one day come might come from a monastery on Mt. Athos or a cave in the Judean desert. At least hypothetically, the Majority Text, like the modern Critical Text, is always open to change based on available extant evidence. In contrast to this, the Textus Receptus will not be perpetually altered and issued in long series of corrected, updated, and new editions. As Malachi Zhou, one of the two lead translators for the Trinitarian Bible Society’s Chinese New Testament (2022), recently asked at a thanksgiving service for that work, “Does God preserve his Word in caves or in the Church?”
Conclusion:
In the end, we can see clearly that the Majority Text is not really a viable option for traditional Protestant Christians who hold to the providential preservation of the Word of God. The only viable option for believers who stand in the Reformation tradition remains the Textus Receptus or Received Text. In the providence of God it was the consensus printed text of the Reformation and post-Reformation eras and the basis for all their vernacular translations of the Bible, and it still widely used by Bible-believing Christians and churches around the world today.
Jeffrey T. Riddle, Pastor, Christ Reformed Baptist Church, Louisa, Virginia
1. This is a niche translation, compiled and translated by a single individual, Robert Adam Boyd. It is only available for purchase online in either a digital or print format.
2. Toabias Niklaus, “The Early Text of Revelation,” in Charles E. Hill & Michael J. Kruger, Eds., The Early Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, 2014): 226.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., 227.
5. Wilbur N. Pickering, The Greek New Testament According to Family 35, Second Edition (Wilbur N. Pickering, 2015): 483.