REVIEW ARTICLE
The Greek New Testament According
to the Majority
Text
DANIEL B. WALLACE
The Greek New
Testament According to the Majority Text, edited by Zane
C.
Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad.
+
810. $13.95.
A. T. Robertson, that superb
grammarian of a generation now past,
once wrote that
"The Greek New Testament is still the Torchbearer of Light
and Progress for the world" (The Minister and His Greek New Testament
[
on the text of the Greek NT will
certainly help us to gain light from
it. The
conservative student of
Scripture should be especially eager to get his hands
on anything which helps to recover
the very words of the autographs.
With this perspective in mind, Zane
Hodges, professor of NT
Literature
and Exegesis at Dallas Theological Seminary, and Arthur Farstad,
executive New Testament
editor of the New KJV, have edited a Greek NT
which is based on the
majority of extant MSS. According to the jacket of the
book, "Their
carefully edited text marks the first
time in this century that the
Greek
New Testament has been produced using the vast bulk of extant
manuscripts rather than the
small body of Egyptian manuscripts that form
the basis of the currently popular
3rd edition of the United Bible Societies
text and the 26th
edition of the Nestle-Aland text." Regardless of which text-
critical theory one
holds to, it is difficult not to be impressed by this volume.
If
it is gratuitous to claim that the reading of the autographs will always be
found in the
Byzantine minuscules (a claim which the editors never
explicitly
make), at least, the
printing of the Majority Text will
certainly make dialogue
with the Hodges-Farstad view easier. The most casual reader will be struck
immediately with the fact
that this is not another reprint of the Textus
Receptus (disarming to
some extent those who have charged Hodges with
this view. As
recently as 1978 Hodges' view has been misunderstood by no
less a scholar than
Gordon Fee who asked, "If they [i.e., Hodges et al.] really
mean majority rule,
are they ready to give up the TR at such non-superficial
variants as Acts
supports the TR)?"
("Modern Textual Criticism and the Revival of the
Textus Receptus," JETS
21 [1978] 23). A glance at the Majority Text will
reveal that these TR
readings are indeed rejected because they are not found
in the majority of MSS).
The book has a thirty-eight page
introduction. most of which is con-
sumed with explaining
the apparatus. The text itself has been type-set very
handsomely. The printing
is fairly large (about the same size as found in
UBS3) and easy to read. There are
English subtitles for major paragraphs,
designed to
"trigger the brain to expect the vocabulary one is likely to
encounter in such a
paragraph" (p. xli). Each page of text has at least one
apparatus and normally
two. The apparatus immediately below the text
contrasts the majority of
MSS with the TR (otherwise agreement is assumed).
The
bottom apparatus contrasts the majority of MSS with the principal
Alexandrian witnesses and with UBS3 and
Nestle26.
The text of two editions
(TR
and Nestle26 [UBS3]) and two text-types (Alexandrian, Byzantine
[=
majority text roughly]) are thus effectively presented
for the entire NT.
The
book concludes with a select bibliography on NT textual criticism (pp.
803-10).
This "new" edition of the
Greek NT is commendable for several reasons.
First
and foremost it has ably achieved its primary goal of providing a
critical text of the
majority of extant MSS. The evidence is presented so clearly
that previous
judgments about the alleged character of the Byzantine text-
type can now be
easily tested. A perusal of almost any page of text will reveal
that (a) the
majority of the MSS do not always have a text which is identical to
the TR (thus softening considerably
the guilt-by-association tactics which
have been used
against advocates of this text form), and (b) the alleged
"conflations" of the Byzantine text-type do not always
hold up: quite
frequently these MSS have
a shorter reading than that found in
Second, for the student who believes
that the voice of the Byzantine MSS
should at least be
heard when textual decisions are being made, this edition
of the Greek NT will prove
invaluable. The fact that UBS3 does not list very
many Byzantine
readings should not be surprising: it is primarily a text for
translators, not exegetes
(p. v of UBS3). This is not to say that it is faultless,
however, because there
are hundreds of Byzantine readings not listed in the
UBS apparatus which alter the
translation of the text. The Nestle26 text, by
contrast is designed
primarily for exegetes and has many more times the
textual variants of the
UBS3 text. I was rather surprised therefore to find
several majority text
readings which were not listed in the Nestle apparatus.
For
example, on p. 115 of the Majority Text the
text of Mark 3:25-32 is
found. Sixteen
variants are listed in the second apparatus (which contrasts
the majority text with the Egyptian
and critical texts). By comparing this text
with Nestle26.
it is seen that the Nestle apparatus does not cite
four of these
variants. Although it
might be argued that these four variants are not
significant, would it not
be wiser to allow the exegete to make that decision in
each instance? In
Eph 6:17, for example, where Nestle26 has de>casqe, the
Majority Text (as well as Alexandrinus) reads de<casqai--a reading not cited
in the Nestle apparatus. A good
case could be made that the structure and
argument of the
paragraph (vv 10-20, especially vv 14-17) rests on whether
Paul
wrote the imperative or infinitive in this verse. Further, even when the
Nestle
apparatus does cite the reading of the majority text, occasionally this
reading is somewhat
obscured by the brevity of the citation. For example, in
Rev
4:8 the Nestle text reads a!gioj a!gioj
a!gioj. In its apparatus the bulk of
the Byzantine MSS are said to read novies ag. Most students
today would not
realize that novies was Latin
for "nine times." But the Majority
Text makes
this explicit for
non-Latin readers with its nine-fold ascription of holiness to
Almighty
God--a triple trisagion!
(Incidently, the first hand of Sinaiticus
is
cited as having octies ag. [a!gioj; eight times]
in the Nestle apparatus, which
certainly indicates that
its exemplar had a!gioj nine times
rather than three.)
Third, the editors as advocates of the
genealogical method ("this method
remains
the only logical one" [p. xii]) provide a rather provocative family
tree, or stemma, for
John
introduction (pp. xxiii-xli)
is devoted to a discussion of these texts, their
stemmas, and their
apparatuses (which are slightly different than the appa-
ratus for the rest of
the NT). Although it is beyond the scope of this review to
interact with this
evidence, it should be pointed out here that this part of the
introduction and the
apparatuses on these two texts will probably be seen as
the most stimulating and significant
portions of this volume by textual critics.
The
criteria the editors lay down for a valid stemma (p. xxv), if followed for
the NT as a whole (although the
question of feasibility is still present), could
possibly play a major
role in determining the text of the autographs. (One
cannot resist noting
that the editors' employment of stemmatics actually
proves false, in a number of places, the first premise
of their textual theory
["(1)
Any reading overwhelmingly attested by the manuscript
tradition is
more likely to be original than its
rival(s)" (p. xi)]. Cf., e.g., baqe<wj
in John
8:2 which is supported by a minority of MSS within the Byzantine
text!)
Until
such work is done
for the rest of the NT, however, Hodges and Farstad
must
admit, as they do,
that the Majority Text "is both
preliminary and provi-
sional" (p. x).
Finally, several stylistic
considerations enhance the value of this Greek
text (see pp.
xli-xliii). In particular, the use of English subtitles and the
particular subtitles
selected are most helpful. It is rather evident that these
subtitles were not an afterthought: some of them touch
a poetic chord (e.g.,
"Filial
Honor and Fatherly Nurture" for Eph 6:1-4; "The Untamable
Tongue"
for Jas 3:1-12; "The
some give an
excellent synthesis of a chapter which is well adapted to a
homiletical outline (e.g.,
2 Peter 2 has four points: "Destructive Doctrines of
the False Teachers, Doom of the
False Teachers, Depravity of the False
Teachers,
Deceptions of the False Teachers"; cf. also Ephesians 3;
"Magnum Mysterium"
for 1 Tim 3:14-16; cf. also Luke 1, 2). The editors are
to be applauded for departing from
the all-too-frequent anemic subtitles used
in most modern Bibles. The 'zing'
of these titles was a bit surprising since the
editors stated that
their goal here was merely "to make the titles objective and
factual rather than
interpretive" (p. xli). They have not entirely succeeded in
not being interpretive, as we shall
soon see, but they have succeeded in not
being bland!
The Majority
Text is not without its faults, however. Chief among these
is the fact that its text and
apparatus are based entirely on evidence supplied
in other editions of the Greek NT rather than on a first-hand acquaintance
122
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
with the MSS. Von Soden's edition was the primary source of information
employed by the editors.
They quickly add, however, that "this has been
extensively checked with
the Eighth Edition of Constantine Tischendorf, with
the apparatus of S. C. E. Legg for
Matthew and Mark, and with the
apparatuses of UBS3
and Nestle-Aland26. . . ." (p. xv). In
order for the
Majority Text to be considered
completely reliable in its presentation of
evidence, three
assumptions must be made: (1) for those Byzantine readings
not listed in Nestle26,
from Luke to Jude (since Legg supplements von Soden
in Matthew-Mark and Hoskier supplants him in Revelation), the many MSS
discovered and collated since 1913 (the publication date of von Soden's text)
have not altered the
picture of the Byzantine text-type that von Soden
paints
for us and that von Soden was reliable in his collation and presentation of the
Byzantine
text; (2) for those Byzantine readings which are listed in Nestle26
and agree with von Soden, the Nestle editors cited the evidence correctly; and
(3)
the Majority
Text editors made no errors in the process of transmitting
the evidence from other apparatuses
to their own. The first of these assump-
tions seems to be the
most serious. The editors recognize this weakness,
however:
As all who are familiar with von Soden's
materials will know, his presen-
tation of the data
leaves much to be desired. Particularly problematic to the
editors of this edition
was the extent to which his examination of the K
materials appeared to
lack consistency. . . . That such procedures jeopardize the
accuracy of any
independently constructed apparatus is self-evident. But the
generalized data of the
other sources (such as Tischendorf or Legg) were of
little
value in correcting
this deficiency. In the final analysis, if the present edition was
to be produced at
all, the statements of von Soden usually had to be
accepted
(pp.
xxii-xxiii).
Nevertheless,
the sum of all three assumptions does not destroy the credibility
of this text; for the most part, it
points out the need for further work for
advocates of the majority
text, as the editors well know:
What is urgently needed is a new apparatus for the gospels, Acts, and
epistles, covering the
entire manuscript tradition. It should include complete
collations of a very high
percentage of the surviving Majority Text manuscripts.
Such an apparatus could then be used to
determine the actual distribution of
rival variants within
the majority tradition. Beyond this, it could provide the
indispensable base from which
definitive stemmatic work could be done
(p. xxiii).
Second, only four pages of the
introduction are devoted to a defense of
the majority text view. In the space
of six paragraphs the editors dismiss the
Westcott-Hort theory as one which "has failed to advance
convincing objec-
tions to the
authenticity of the Majority Text" (p. xi). In this section they are
clearly giving the
summation of their view rather than the evidence for it.
They
cite no sources here, but speak of the modern trend of scholars and
scholarship as tending to
reject the bases on which the Westcott-Hort theory
was founded. In future editions of
this text one could wish for some
documentation of these
statements, however, especially since (a) the neophyte
in lower criticism is not usually
willing to wade through the whole select
WALLACE: THE MAJORITY TEXT 123
bibliography to determine
the truth of such assertions and (b) although the
editors are certainly
only giving a summation of their view, the jacket of the
book claims that
they have accomplished something far greater: "Zane
Hodges
and Arthur Farstad build a substantial--and
convincing--argument
for the Majority Text in their
Introduction [italics added] . . ." and "They
effectively refute the W-H
argument. . ." It is suggested that these assertions
on the dust cover be deleted from
future editions or, the introduction be
expanded, with
documentation and evidence, to fit this proleptic
statement.
Nevertheless,
since one should not judge a book by its cover, it is presumed
that the somewhat
gratuitous claims on the jacket were not what the editors
themselves believed the
introduction to accomplish.
Third, although the English subtitles
are excellent overall, they do not
always succeed in
being "objective and factual rather than interpretive"
(p. xli). For example, in Eph 4:7-16 the title reads,
"Each Believer Has a
Spiritual Gift." Although this
is certainly true and may be implied in this text
(though only in v 7), the thrust
of the passage does not at all seem to be on
the gifts of all believers, but rather
on the purpose of the functional unity of
the body accomplished first (though
not exclusively) through its gifted
leadership. Thus, the
subtitle here seems too narrow, though it is not entirely
incorrect. In Eph
4:17-24, however, the subtitle has clearly transgressed the
boundaries of objectivity.
It reads, "Put on the New Man," interpreting the
infinitives of vv 22-24 as
going back to imperatives in the direct discourse.
Although
this is certainly a possible
interpretation, an excellent case could be
made that these
infinitives refer back to indicatives in the direct discourse.
The
ambiguous title "Putting on the New Man" would seem to fit their
objectives better.
Admittedly, and to the credit of the editors, this kind of
interpretive title is
extremely rare, causing only a minor annoyance.
Fourth, for future editions it is
suggested that the editors expand on the
textual evidence they
list in the apparatus. Especially the Western witnesses
(D,
G, Itala, et al.)
should be included. For those of us who do not accept
the
Byzantine
text when it stands alone as containing the reading of the original,
but who do not relegate it to a
tertiary, non-voting role among the text-types,
such information
would be most illuminating. If the editors put students of
the NT in the awkward position of
deciding between Byzantine and Alex-
andrian witnesses, as
though no other evidence counted, their text might tend
to be counterproductive for their
theory. There may be some who disagree
with their premises,
but who would agree with the resultant text in many
places if the evidence
which could persuade them were added to the apparatus.
Finally, the Majority Text shares a weakness with the text of UBS3.
neither one marks out
in a special way the allusions to the
OT in the NT.
Nestle26
does this to some degree (though Nestle25 was far more extensive),
but the Majority Text and UBS3 only highlight (by bold type in
UBS3, by
guillemets in the Majority Text) quotations. Although it
is true that there are
many problems in
determining whether a NT author is quoting or alluding to
the OT, this writer would prefer
that all the possible allusions be
specially
marked out so that he
can evaluate the evidence for himself. In order to avoid
the danger of assuming a positive
identification in every instance, is it not
possible for some
edition of the Greek NT to give a rating system as to the
124 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
certainty of the
identification, similar to the textual rating system found in
UBS3?
To sum up both the positive and negative
aspects of the Majority Text,
the positive elements far outweigh
the negative so much that I strongly
recommend the Majority Text for every student of the Greek NT, regardless
of his text-critical views. The
negative elements of the work all seem to be
capable of correction
in subsequent editions. Most of the drawbacks were
acknowledged by the editors
as due to limitations of time and resources.
Overall,
I am sympathetic toward the editors in this regard, for I would much
rather have the Majority Text in its present form than
wait an interminable
number of years before
these bugs get worked out.
Certainly a review of this sort could
end here. But I am unable to resist
pursuing one last item.
The editors of the Majority Text,
although ostensibly
basing their theory on
the priority of external evidence (ultimately, however,
even this textual
theory must pay some attention to matters of internal
criticism, or else stemmatics would be impossible), offer a most intriguing
challenge:
"excellent reasons almost always can be given for the superiority of
the majority readings over their
rivals" (p. xi). Since I cannot attempt
anything like an
exhaustive demonstration/refutation of this statement, a few
suggestive examples will
have to suffice. To an open mind, which has not
already made an a priori rejection of the Byzantine
text, the following four
examples may tend to
illustrate (though hardly prove!) the editors' thesis.
In Eph 5:9 we read o[ ga>r karpo>j tou? fwto<j in Nestle26,
o[ ga>r karpo>j
tou? pneu<matoj in the Majority
Text. Metzger writes, in defense of the UBS3/
Nestle26
reading, "Although it can be argued that fwto<j has come in
from the
influence of the same
word in the preceding line, it is much more likely that
recollection of Paul's
reference in Ga 5.22 to o[ de> karpo>j tou? pneu<matoj has
led to the introduction of the word
here" (Textual Commentary, p.
607). This
view seems to
presuppose that Gal
verse in the first
century as it is today. Further, it is quite possible that fwto<j
happened by dittography
(especially since in both P49 and x the fwto<j
in v 8
is directly above the one in v 9).
The likelihood of this is increased when it is
realized that pneu<matoj was a nomina sacra, abbreviated as PNC
(as in P46),
rendering it more easily
confused with fwto<j.
In I Thess
"from
the wrath" which is coming (e]k th?j o]rgh?j in Nestle26,
a]po> th?j
o]rgh?j
in the Majority Text). Metzger makes no comment on the variant because it
is not found in the UBS3
apparatus. On a transcriptional level it is quite easy
to
see why a scribe would alter a]po< to e]k: this verse
speaks of our Lord as
coming from heaven (e]k tw?n ou]ranw?n), as being raised from the dead (e]k tw?n
nekrw?n), and as
delivering us from the wrath (e]k/a]po> th?j
o]rgh?j). Either
stylistic considerations
or unintentional dittography could explain why a
scribe
would change a]po<
to e]k,
though there are few, if any, transcriptional
reasons for the
reverse. If one wants to argue intrinsically, claiming that Paul
could have intended a
literary effect by a thrice-mentioned e]k, why did the
apostle not avail
himself of such an opportunity for style elsewhere in this
epistle (note in
particular 2:6 where both e]k and a]po< are again
used)?
In John
WALLACE: THE
MAJORITY TEXT 125
a]nqrw<pou, making
explicit the omnipresence of the Second Person of the
Trinity
while he appeared on the earth. Metzger writes,
On the one hand, a minority of the Committee preferred the reading
a]nqrw<pou o[ w}n e]n t&? ou]ran&?, arguing that (1)
if the short reading, supported
almost exclusively by
Egyptian witnesses, were original, there is no discernible
motive which would
have prompted copyists to add the words o[ w}n
e]n t&?
ou]ran&?, resulting in a
most difficult saying (the statement in 1.18, not being
parallel, would scarcely
have prompted the addition); and (2) the diversity of
readings implies that
the expression o[ ui[o>j tou? a]nqrw<pou o[ w}n e]n t&? ou]ran&? having been found
objectionable or superfluous in the context, was modified
either by omitting the
participial clause, or by altering it so as to avoid
suggesting that the Son of
man was at that moment in heaven.
On the other hand, the majority of the Committee, impressed by the
quality
of the external
attestation supporting the shorter reading, regarded the words
o[ w}n e]n t&? ou]ran&? as an interpretive gloss, reflecting later Christological
development (pp. 203-4).
It
is significant that the majority of the Committee based their rejection of
this longer reading
primarily on the external evidence
and secondarily on the
assumption that the
reading reflects a higher Christology than is elsewhere
detected in John.
Certainly there is no case here internally, for we are not in a
position to tell John
how well developed his Christology could be! The
Byzantine
reading stands vindicated.
Finally, in Matt 24:36 the Majority Text does not make explicit the fact
that the Son of Man,
at the time of this utterance, did not know the day or
hour of the Second
Advent. Now it is clear that our Lord did declare his own
ignorance on this
occasion (cf. Mark
omission of the words
because of the doctrinal difficulty they present is more
probable than their
addition by assimilation to Mk 13.32" (p. 62). The
problem with this view
is that the scribes would be expected to strike ou]de> o[
ui[o<j from Mark
phrase--regardless of
which Gospel it appeared in. It is entirely possible,
however, that
theological reasons did cause the omission--but on the part of
the author, not on the part of later
scribes. Although this possibility cannot
be fully developed here, it is
significant that (1) Matthew certainly could not
be charged with perverting or
misrepresenting the words of Christ, for he
makes implicit our
Lord's ignorance by making explicit the Father's exclusive
knowledge (ei] mh> o[ path>r [mou] mo<noj; Mark leaves
out mo<noj); and (2)
Matthew's
portrayal of Jesus as Messiah (who will
establish his kingdom on
earth, in spite of
the fact that he did not do so in his first coming) dictates to
a large degree his selectivity of material (cf., e.g.,
Matthew's use of Isa 42:1-4
in
no internal reasons for rejecting the shorter reading.
Examples such as these have convinced me
that at least sometimes,
if not usually, the Byzantine MSS
bear a reading which can certainly be
defended on internal
grounds, thus vindicating to some extent the Majority
Text editors'
assertion.
In conclusion, I would like to extend my
deep appreciation to Hodges
and Farstad
for producing a volume which is borne out of the noblest of all
126
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
human motives. And
although I do not agree with the theory which lies
behind this text, I am
aware of the interlude between two great acts (as Eldon
J.
Epp put it) that the science of NT textual criticism
finds itself in today. If
we are to move on to the next act,
we must take inventory of our presup-
positions and of all the
evidence. And the Majority Text both
challenges our
presuppositions and provides
clear and substantial evidence with which every
serious student of the
Greek NT must wrestle in his search for the ipsissima
verba of Holy Writ.
:
Grace Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || Devotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||
|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium