This is a continuation from the thread, “Why do KJ Only types believe the Westcott and Hort manuscripts are bad?”, which got rather long, and so we are getting a fresh start.

----------------

Matt G. (in a post below) suggested I introduce by way of a brief synopsis the contents of this thread at the beginning of it, and I think that is a good idea.

1. Initially we look at Wilbur Pickering’s view in his classic Majority Text defense, The Identity of the New Testament Text, at charts he uses to illustrate his points, and his data concerning what is called the Critical Text vis-à-vis the MT.

2. I make it clear that Pickering is not a King James or Textus Receptus (1894 Trinitarian Bible Society edition, which Scrivener constructed from the various Greek MSS to show the Greek text that underlies the KJV) advocate.

3. I quote from Jack Moorman’s, Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents And History of the Bible , to give light on the matter of “family trees” in the textual transmission.

4. I express my displeasure at what I perceive is the desire of some to get me to interact with James White on these issues before I am ready, as I have stated I want to get more of his material so as to study and interact with that first (such as concerning 1 John 5:7, and his book on the KJO Controversy). I then apologize for assuming motives in this, which was wrong of me.

5. I talk of presuppositional views compared with an evidential approach to determining the text, of a theological approach compared with a supposedly “neutral scientific” one.

6. I bring in Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont’s views from their Introduction in THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK?ACCORDING TO THE BYZANTINE / MAJORITY TEXTFORM. I supply links to this and others works where they are available, urging people to download them, as both links and books disappear (as some links have indeed gone since I posted them).

7. I interact with James A. Price’s online article, “The King James Only View of Edward F. Hills”, countering in depth and detail his critique of E.F. Hills’ views.

8. Some thoughts and Scripture are brought to bear on the matter of providential preservation of God’s word, with an in-depth look at the translation of Psalm 12:6, 7, which is poorly handled in many versions.

9. An in-depth look at Erasmus, his character, beliefs, and part in the transmission of the NT text.

10. While continuing with Price, I begin to bring in the work of Dr. Theodore Letis and the book he edited and contributed to, The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate. Especially pertinent is the issue, which both Price and Daniel Wallace (mentioned below) bring up, of presuppositions vs. evidences. We see Letis treat in depth “our intention to raise the old issue of presuppositions and to underscore the fact that this debate is not one between experts with data and non-experts with dogma, but rather one between experts with the same data, but different dogma—the dogma of neutrality versus the dogma of providence…”

11. After being told by my discussion partner in these matters, that text critic Dr. Daniel Wallace refuted one of the essayists I quoted from in Letis’ book, I give a link to Wallace’s essay and critique that.

12. After that I begin to look at Ted Letis’ works in detail and depth, first his aforementioned book, and then his later The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind, discussing various of his essays.

I have just finished this latter work of Letis (Sept. 26, 2006), and have a few remaining comments on it, and then shall refocus on the view of the JKV/TR this thread is primarily about. I have recently received James White’s newer book on the Bible, Scripture Alone: Exploring The Bible’s Accuracy, Authority, And Authenticity, which I shall review, as well as his earlier book, The King James Only Controversy. It will no doubt take me a little time to read these carefully, so the thread may (as far as I know) be inactive a while. After which I hope to sum up what I consider a cogent defense of the KJV/TR, the Lord granting me to live that long and keep my wits about me.


----------------


Chris Mangum had asked, “Can anyone provide a timeline showing when the manuscripts were found/developed? This would help the many who are new to this debate.”

As I have discovered how to insert an image into a post, I will present a sort of “family tree” of Text types, so as to give an idea of how the various MSS lend support to them, as well as their approximate respective dates. I got this from E.F. Hills’, Believing Bible Study, 1977 edition (available at Bible For Today, I believe), and I saw it also in Jack Moorman’s, Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents And History of the Bible (NJ, Dean Burgon Society 1999). This online version is excellent, missing only the illustrations and diagrams. For those interested in an overview of the textual materials, it is worth downloading the entire contents and keeping them in a file!

[for some reason the links for the book just above and the one just below are not showing, but clicking on the titles will take you to the online versions; likewise in the following post for “chap. 5” – this is the case further down also; titles, sections and chapters are often linked, but not visible]

In the following posts, I will excerpt some remarks from Wilbur N. Pickering’s, The Identity of the New Testament Text II (TIOTNTT), and then attach a graph of his, “Stream of transmission”, first from the 1980 revised edition, and in the following post some updated comments and a slightly modified graph from the newest edition, Jan. 1, 2003. They compliment — add to — each other. The first of these graphs vividly portrays the quantitative aspect of the various manuscripts, dramatically illuminating the unseen realities you may be unaware by just looking at the family tree “Text types” diagram attached below. The second of Pickering’s charts adds some nuances missing in the first, with some updated stats in the written comments accompanying it.


[Edited on 10-16-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

Attached Images

Text types 4.jpg (63.7 KB, 19 views)

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

Climaxing a detailed discussion of the history of the text (in the chapter of that name, chap. 5), Pickering says,

Now then, what sort of a picture may we expect to find in the surviving witnesses on the assumption that the history of the transmission of the New Testament Text was normal? We may expect a broad spectrum of copies, showing minor differences due to copying mistakes but all reflecting one common tradition. The simultaneous existence of abnormal transmission in the earliest centuries would result in a sprinkling of copies, helter-skelter, outside of that main stream. The picture would look something like Figure C.

The chart you see attached, "Stream of transmission", is Figure C. Check it out. More in the next post.

Attached Images

Stream of transmission 4.jpg (54.9 KB, 11 views)

Just seeing the above graph Figure C you have gotten an idea of the sheer quantity of the Majority Text manuscripts. In the modified Figure C below, taken from the latest edition of TIOTNTT, he shows not the quantity but the types, and you can see the cut in the "cone" where the ravages of Diocletian's attempt to systematically destroy all copies of the Bible impacted the number of MSS extant then. In the next post I will include his remarks after the diagram as (in this edition) they represent the most recent statistics.

Attached Images

Stream of transmission (R)2.jpg (61.5 KB, 8 views)

Pickering’s remarks (all emphases in his text):

The MSS within the cone represent the "normal" transmission. To the left I have plotted some possible representatives of what we might style the "irresponsible" transmission of the text—the copyists produced poor copies through incompetence or carelessness but did not make deliberate changes. To the right I have plotted some possible representatives of what we might style the "fabricated" transmission of the text—the scribes made deliberate changes in the text (for whatever reasons), producing fabricated copies, not true copies. I am well aware that the MSS plotted on the figure above contain both careless and deliberate errors, in different proportions (7Q5,4,8 and P52 are too fragmentary to permit the classification of their errors as deliberate rather than careless), so that any classification such as I attempt here must be relative and gives a distorted picture. Still, I venture to insist that ignorance, carelessness, officiousness and malice all left their mark upon the transmission of the New Testament text, and we must take account of them in any attempt to reconstruct the history of that transmission.

As the figure suggests, I argue that Diocletian's campaign had a purifying effect upon the stream of transmission. In order to withstand torture rather than give up your MS(S), you would have to be a truly committed believer, the sort of person who would want good copies of the Scriptures. Thus it was probably the more contaminated MSS that were destroyed, in the main, leaving the purer MSS to replenish the earth (please see the section, "Imperial repression of the N.T." in Chapter six).

Another consideration suggests itself—if, as reported, the Diocletian campaign was most fierce and effective in the Byzantine area, the numerical advantage of the "Byzantine" text-type over the "Western" and "Alexandrian" would have been reduced, giving the latter a chance to forge ahead. But it did not happen. The Church, in the main, refused to propagate those forms of the Greek text.

What we find upon consulting the witnesses is just such a picture. We have the Majority Text (Aland), or the Traditional Text (Burgon), dominating the stream of transmission with a few individual witnesses going their idiosyncratic ways. We have already seen that the notion of "text-types" and recensions, as defined and used by Hort and his followers, is gratuitous. Epp's notion of "streams" fares no better. There is just one stream, with a number of small eddies along the edges.[39] When I say the Majority Text dominates the stream, I mean it is represented in about 95% of the MSS.[40]

Actually, such a statement is not altogether satisfactory because it does not allow for the mixture or shifting affinities encountered within individual MSS. A better, though more cumbersome, way to describe the situation would be something like this: 100% of the MSS agree as to, say, 50% of the Text; 99% agree as to another 40%; over 95% agree as to another 4%; over 90% agree as to another 2%; over 80% agree as to another 2%; only for 2% or so of the Text do less than 80% of the MSS agree, and most of those cases occur in Revelation.[41] And the membership of the dissenting group varies from reading to reading. (I will of course be reminded that witnesses are to be weighed, not counted; I will come to that presently, so please bear with me.) Still, with the above reservation, one may reasonably speak of up to 95% of the extant MSS belonging to the Majority text-type.

I see no way of accounting for a 95% (or 90%) domination unless that text goes back to the Autographs. Hort saw the problem and invented a revision. Sturz seems not to have seen the problem. He demonstrates that the "Byzantine text-type" is early and independent of the "Western" and "Alexandrian text-types," and like von Soden, wishes to treat them as three equal witnesses.[42] But if the three "text-types" were equal, how ever could the so-called "Byzantine" gain a 90-95% preponderance?

The argument from statistical probability enters here with a vengeance. Not only do the extant MSS present us with one text form enjoying a 95% majority, but the remaining 5% do not represent a single competing text form. The minority MSS disagree as much (or more) among themselves as they do with the majority. For any two of them to agree so closely as do P75 and B is an oddity. We are not judging, therefore, between two text forms, one representing 95% of the MSS and the other 5%. Rather, we have to judge between 95% and a fraction of 1% (comparing the Majority Text with the P75,B text form for example). Or to take a specific case, in 1 Tim. 3:16 some 600 Greek MSS (besides the Lectionaries) read "God" while only seven read something else. Of those seven, three have private readings and four agree in reading "who."[43] So we have to judge between 99% and 0.6%, "God" versus "who." It is hard to imagine any possible set of circumstances in the transmissional history sufficient to produce the cataclysmic overthrow in statistical probability required by the claim that "who" is the original reading.

It really does seem that those scholars who reject the Majority Text are faced with a serious problem. How is it to be explained if it does not reflect the Original? Hort's notion of a Lucianic revision has been abandoned by most scholars because of the total lack of historical evidence. The eclecticists are not even trying. The "process" view has not been articulated in sufficient detail to permit refutation, but on the face of it that view is flatly contradicted by the argument from statistical probability.[44] How could any amount of "process" bridge the gap between B or Aleph and the TR?

But there is a more basic problem with the process view. Hort saw clearly, and correctly, that the Majority Text must have a common archetype. Recall that Hort's genealogical method was based on community of error. On the hypothesis that the Majority Text is a late and inferior text form, the large mass of common readings which distinguish it from the so-called "Western" or "Alexandrian text-types" must be errors (which was precisely Hort's contention) and such an agreement in error would have to have a common source. The process view fails completely to account for such an agreement in error (on that hypothesis).

Hort saw the need for a common source and posited a Lucianic revision. Scholars now generally recognize that the "Byzantine text-type" must date back at least into the second century. But what chance would the original "Byzantine" document, the archetype, have of gaining currency when appeal to the Autographs was still possible?

Candidly, there is only one reasonable explanation for the Majority Text that has so far been advanced—it is the result of an essentially normal process of transmission and the common source for its consensus is the Autographs. Down through the centuries of copying, the original text has always been reflected with a high degree of accuracy in the manuscript tradition as a whole. The history of the text presented in this chapter not only accounts nicely for the Majority Text, it also accounts for the inconsistent minority of MSS. They are remnants of the abnormal transmission of the text, reflecting ancient aberrant forms. It is a dependence upon such aberrant forms that distinguishes contemporary critical/eclectic editions of the Greek New Testament, and the modern translations based upon them.

--------


Footnotes:

[39]One might speak of a P45,W eddy or a P75,B eddy, for example.
[40]Although I have used, of necessity, the term "text-type" throughout the book, I view the Majority Text as being much broader. It is a textual tradition which might be said to include a number of related "text-types," such as von Soden's Ka, Ki, and Kl. I wish to emphasize again that it is only agreement in error that determines genealogical relationships. It follows that the concepts of "genealogy" and "text-type" are irrelevant with reference to original readings—they are only useful (when employed properly) for identifying spurious readings. Well, if there is a family that very nearly reflects the original its "profile" or mosaic of readings will distinguish it from other families, but most of those readings will not be errors (the competing variants distinctive of other families will be errors).
[41]I am not prepared to defend the precise figures used, they are guesses, but I believe they represent a reasonable approximation to reality. I heartily agree with Colwell when he insists that we must "rigorously eliminate the singular reading" ("External Evidence," p. 8) on the altogether reasonable assumption (it seems to me) that a solitary witness against the world cannot possibly be right.
[42]Sturz, Op. Cit. A text produced by taking two "text-types" against one would move the UBS text about 80% of the distance toward the Majority text.
[43]The readings, with their supporting MSS, are as follows:
o - D
w - 061
oV QeoV - one cursive (and one Lectionary)
oV - ...,33,442,2127 (three Lectionaries)
QeoV - A,Cvid,F/Gvid,K,L,P,... some 600 cursives (besides Lectionaries) (including four cursives that read o QeoV and one
Lectionary that reads Qeou).
It will be observed that my statement differs from that of the UBS text, for example. I offer the following explanation.
Young, Huish, Pearson, Fell, and Mill in the seventeenth century, Creyk, Bentley, Wotton, Wetstein, Bengel, Berriman, and Woide in the eighteenth, and Scrivener as late as 1881 all affirmed, upon careful inspection, that Codex A reads "God." For a thorough discussion please see Burgon, who says concerning Woide, "The learned and conscientious editor of the Codex declares that so late as 1765 he had seen traces of the Q which twenty years later (viz. in 1785) were visible to him no longer" (The Revision Revised, p. 434. Cf. pp. 431-36). It was only after 1765 that scholars started to question the reading of A (through fading and wear the middle line of the theta is no longer discernible).
Hoskier devotes Appendix J of A Full Account (the appendix being a reprint of part of an article that appeared in the Clergyman's Magazine for February 1887) to a careful discussion of the reading of Codex C. He spent three hours examining the passage in question in this MS (the MS itself) and adduces evidence that shows clearly, I believe, that the original reading of C is "God." He examined the surrounding context and observes, "The contracting-bar has often vanished completely (I believe, from a cursory examination, more often than not), but at other times it is plain and imposed in the same way as at 1 Tim. iii.16" (Appendix J, p. 2). See also Burgon, Ibid., pp. 437-38.
Codices F/G read OC wherein the contracting-bar is a slanting stroke. It has been argued that the stroke represents the aspirate of oV, but Burgon demonstrates that the stroke in question never represents breathing but is invariably the sign of contraction and affirms that "oV is nowhere else written OC in either codex" (Ibid., p. 442. Cf. pp. 438-42). Presumably the cross-line in the common parent had become too faint to see. As for cursive 365, Burgon conducted an exhaustive search for it. He not only failed to find it but could find no evidence that it had ever existed (Ibid., pp. 444-45).
(I took up the case of 1 Tim. 3:16, in the first edition of this book, solely to illustrate the argument from probability, not as an example of "how to do textual criticism" [cf. Fee, "A Critique," p. 423]. Since the question has been raised, I will add a few words on that subject.)
The three significant variants involved are represented in the ancient uncial MSS as follows: O, OC, and QC, meaning "which," "who," and "God" respectively. In writing "God" a scribe's omitting of the two lines (through haste or momentary distraction) would result in "who." Codices A, C, F, and G have numerous instances where either the cross-line or the contracting-bar is no longer discernible (either the original line has faded to the point of being invisible or the scribe may have failed to write it in the first place). For both lines to fade away, as in Codex A here, is presumably an infrequent event. For a scribe to inadvertently omit both lines would presumably also be an infrequent event, but it must have happened at least once, probably early in the second century and in circumstances that produced a wide ranging effect.
The collocation "the mystery . . . who" is even more pathologic in Greek than it is in English. It was thus inevitable, once such a reading came into existence and became known, that remedial action would be attempted. Accordingly, the first reading above, "the mystery . . . which," is generally regarded as an attempt to make the difficult reading intelligible. But it must have been an early development, for it completely dominates the Latin tradition, both version and Fathers, as well as being the probable reading of the Syrp and Coptic versions. It is found in only one Greek MS, Codex D, and in no Greek Father before the fifth century.
Most modern scholars regard "God" as a separate therapeutic response to the difficult reading. Although it dominates the Greek MSS (over 98 percent), it is certainly attested by only two versions, the Georgian and Slavonic (both late). But it also dominates the Greek Fathers. Around A.D. 100 there are possible allusions in Barnabas, "IhsouV . . . o uioV tou Qeou tupw kai en sarki fanerwqeiV" (Cap. xii), and in Ignatius, "Qeou anqrwpinwV faneroumenou" (Ad Ephes. c. 19) and "en sarki genomenoV QeoV" (Ibid., c. 7). In the third century there seem to be clear references in Hippolytus, "QeoV en swmati efanerwqh" (Contra Haeresim Noeti, c. xvii), Dionysius, "Qeoj gar efanerwqh en sarki" (Concilia, i. 853a) and Gregory Thaumaturgus, "kai estin QeoV alhqinoV o asarkoV en sarki fanerwqeiV" (quoted by Photius). In the 4th century there are clear quotes or references in Gregory of Nyssa (22 times), Gregory of Nazianzus, Didymus of Alexandria, Diodorus, the Apostolic Constitutions, and Chrysostom, followed by Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, and Euthalius in the fifth century, and so on (Burgon, Ibid, pp. 456-76, 486-90).
As for the grammatically aberrant reading, "who," aside from the MSS already cited, the earliest version that clearly supports it is the gothic (fourth century). To get a clear Greek Patristic witness to this reading pretty well requires the sequence musthrion oj efanerwqh since after any reference to Christ, Savior, Son of God, etc. in the prior context the use of a relative clause is predictable. Burgon affirmed that he was aware of no such testimony (and his knowledge of the subject has probably never been equaled) (Ibid., p. 483).
It thus appears that the "Western" and "Byzantine" readings have earlier attestation than does the "Alexandrian." Yet if "which" was caused by "who", then the latter must be older. The reading "who" is admittedly the most difficult, so much so that to apply the "harder reading" canon in the face of an easy transcriptional explanation [the accidental omission of the two lines] for the difficult reading seems unreasonable. As Burgon so well put it:

I trust we are at least agreed that the maxim "proclivi lectioni praestat ardua," does not enunciate so foolish a proposition as that in choosing between two or more conflicting readings, we are to prefer that one which has the feeblest external attestation,—provided it be but in itself almost unintelligible? (Ibid., p. 497).

[44]For further discussion see the final pages of Appendix C.

One can check all these things out in the online version of the book, which I gave to link to above.

[Edited on 10-16-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

Just a few comments on the foregoing. It should be clear that the charts and evidences (such as they are) presented above support the Majority Text tradition, and not directly the King James/1894 Textus Receptus. My position is that, to use a figure of sorts, as the revelation of Christ grew organically out of the Old Testament revelation of Moses and the prophets, I conceive of the King James/1894 TR organically arising from the Majority Text view. I well realize there are difficulties in this view which must be overcome. (Please don't anyone think that I claim the same divine unity of OT & NT for the MT/KJV by the use of my figure; I do not. It is but a simile.)

And I realize that I have formidable opponents to my position, including those MT advocates within the scholastic community. I can't say, "I stand on their shoulders," as one might of academic predecessors, as they would deny me. Don't think me silly if I say I will float above their shoulders, for although I will hardly ignore the evidences, I will not be fettered by them.

For example, some years ago a book came out, I think it was called, The Bible Unearthed, with all sorts "proofs" that the stories of the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt, the conquest of Caanan, the Davidic dynasty, etc. were but myths (apologists easily debunked it after a while). It nonetheless shook some people up, but do we live by "evidences" (which come and go, arise and are superceded) or by faith? The same dilemma no doubt hit the Christian community when Darwin's Origin of Species came out. I do not mean to have an "ostrich-head-in-the-sand" attitude, for, as I said, I will interact with evidences, yet faith will always be a component of my views.

This will be the focus of my endeavors henceforth, notwithstanding possible digressions/diversions. It is a notable lack (among others) in my paper, To Break A Sword, that I do not address the MT/TR issues.

Steve

In John Bunyan's classic, Pilgrim's Progress, Mr. Great-heart is questioning newly-met Mr. Valiant-for-truth concerning his adventures, and asks why he did not cry out for help when overwhelmed. Valiant answers, “So I did to my King, who I knew could hear, and afford invisible help, and that was sufficient for me.” Then said Great-heart to Mr. Valiant-for-truth, “Thou hast worthily behaved thyself; let me see thy Sword;” so he shewed it him.

When he had taken it in his hand, and looked thereon a while, he said, “Ha! It is a right Jerusalem blade.” And Valiant, “It is so. Let a man have one of these blades, with a hand to wield it, and skill to use it, and he may venture upon an Angel with it. He need not fear its holding, if he can but tell how to lay on. Its edges will never blunt. It will cut flesh, and bones, and soul, and spirit and all.”

[Edited on 10-16-2006 by Jerusalem Blade]

Thanks Steve for the pics they are quite useful. For clarity I'd like to ask a question.

Why is often said "...the best and most authoratative manuscripts - Sinicatus, Vaticanus, etc..." like we find in the Prefaces of modern versions and in oh so many scholarly books defending them?

Considering they are from such a small body of manuscripts, why are they considered the best and most authoratative?

__________________
Chris Mangum
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte
student, GPTS
.357 Mangum

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. James 1:27

Ya, ditto. There is much to consider here.

[Edited on 8-11-2006 by Tallen]

__________________
Ted Clore
Cascades Fellowship (CRC)
Jackson, MI

Chris and Ted,

I’ll post here something from the Which is the best uncial poll thread to try and clarify this:

-------------

Vaticanus (B) is the codex that was in the Vatican Library since at least the late 1400s; it was unused by Rome at the time as the Latin Vulgate was the “true Bible” as far as their teaching went in those days. Odd that this presently preferred text made its appearance during Rome’s Inquisition, where multitudes of Bible-believing Christians were slaughtered. It is one of the oldest complete Bible MSS; it is written on vellum (expensive animal skin). The 1881 revisors of the Greek text, Westcott and Hort and their committee, preferred this MS over all others, despite (what others have discovered to be) serious flaws in its contents.

Sinaiticus ( a ), also known as Aleph, is the “sister” MS to B, and the 1881 Revision Committee, under Hort’s direction, decided that whenever <font size=2>a</font> agreed with B the two of them would overturn all other MSS, even if it were 2 against 5,000! This is exactly why Mark 16:9-20 is missing or noted to be “spurious” in almost all modern Bible versions based upon the 1881 critical text. Upon internal examination its flaws are far greater than its sister, notwithstanding the two of them are often termed (in Bible margin notes), “the oldest and most reliable manuscripts”. Such disparity of reports demands close scrutiny, as the quality of the Bibles we use is at stake. This MS was found at a Greek Orthodox monastery, St. Catharine’s, on Mt. Sinai. Despite the claim this and B are the best, they disagree between themselves in 3,036 places in the Gospels alone. These two MSS are considered part of the Alexandrian textual tradition, and are considered to have been written in the 4th century.

--------------

These two are what are called “the oldest and most reliable” manuscripts, and they are the main basis, along with a fragment called Papyrus 75, of the Alexandrian Texttype. In the above writings a lot is said about this type, of which they are the primary exemplars.

I excerpt a brief passage from what Pickering said above to illustrate the gross inferiority of these so called “oldest and best”.

I see no way of accounting for a 95% (or 90%) domination unless that text [the Byzantine or Majority –SMR] goes back to the Autographs. Hort saw the problem and invented a revision. Sturz seems not to have seen the problem. He demonstrates that the "Byzantine text-type" is early and independent of the "Western" and "Alexandrian text-types," [these latter being Vaticanus & Sinaiticus –SMR] and like von Soden, wishes to treat them as three equal witnesses.[42] But if the three "text-types" were equal, how ever could the so-called "Byzantine" gain a 90-95% preponderance?

The argument from statistical probability enters here with a vengeance. Not only do the extant MSS present us with one text form enjoying a 95% majority, but the remaining 5% do not represent a single competing text form. The minority MSS disagree as much (or more) among themselves as they do with the majority. For any two of them to agree so closely as do P75 and B is an oddity. We are not judging, therefore, between two text forms, one representing 95% of the MSS and the other 5%. Rather, we have to judge between 95% and a fraction of 1% (comparing the Majority Text with the P75,B text form for example). Or to take a specific case, in 1 Tim. 3:16 some 600 Greek MSS (besides the Lectionaries) read "God" while only seven read something else. Of those seven, three have private readings and four agree in reading "who."[43] So we have to judge between 99% and 0.6%, "God" versus "who." It is hard to imagine any possible set of circumstances in the transmissional history sufficient to produce the cataclysmic overthrow in statistical probability required by the claim that "who" is the original reading. [bold emphasis mine –SMR]

In brief, there was an effort by unbelieving textual critics to overthrow the dominance of the Traditional Text, both in the Greek and the English versions, and supplant them with the results of a secular methodology. This was not all that benign an activity, but there it is. That the Evangelical community bought into it — the “superiority of these ‘oldest and best manuscripts’” — is a study in itself. The Majority Text advocates I have been lauding in this thread have mounted a very strong and cogent objection to the alleged “Alexandrian” superiority, and have shown — as an increasing number of Evangelical scholars are now realizing — that the Majority Texttype is far closer to the original autographs (the apostles’ actual manuscripts).

In sum, it is being increasingly shown that Vaticanus & Sinaiticus, contrary to the “marginal blurbs” vaunting their value, are indeed poor specimens of the true NT text.

Steve

A qualification as to my use of the term, “family trees”, as regards text types. I use it very loosely, and not according the technical sense which indicates genealogical descent. This is a very important point, for the concept of Textual Genealogy played a very large part in Hort’s theory.

In Maurice Robinson’s Introduction to his and Wm. Pierpont’s, The New Testament In The Original Greek According To The Byzantine / Majority Textform, he states (regarding the first of five “pillars” of Hort’s theory),

The argument from genealogy. This hypothesis claims that all manuscripts of a texttype — no matter how numerous — have descended from a single archetype (parental anscestor) of that texttype. One therefore need only consider the archetype form, which becomes but a single witness in competition with the remaining archetypal “single-witnesses” of other texttypes. This argument — established from a hypothetical stemmatic diagram — effectively eliminated, in Hort’s view, the “problem” of the Byzantine Textform’s overwhelming numerical superiority…[p. xxi]

The genealogical argument was never actually applied to the New Testament text by Hort, and in fact has never been so applied by anyone. As Colwell noted, Hort utilized this principle solely to “depose the Textus Receptus,” and not to establish a line of descent. His “stemmatic diagram” was itself a pure fabrication. [p. xxiii]

In other words, a strict line of descent of texts, traceable to specific ancestors, is not acknowledged as a reality by text critics.

In Pickering’s, The Identity of the New Testament Text, chapter 4, “An Evaluation of the W-H Theory”, he thoroughly examines the issue of genealogy and the texts. As stated above, this is a crucial matter, for it is the foundation of modern text criticism’s attempt to overthrow the Byzantine Texttype.

In Jack Moorman’s, Forever Settled (link to entire book given above), in Part Two, “The Issues We Face Regarding The New Testament Text,” Section XVI, ARE THERE REALLY THREE (OR MORE) FAMILIES OF MANUSCRIPTS?, he writes,

Though there is truth in the above commonly presented position and we have quoted Dr. Hills at length, yet the basic idea of textual types or families has its source in the naturalistic viewpoint and we do not believe that it represents the facts concerning the distribution of MSS in the early centuries. With some 85% or more of the 5000 extant MSS falling into the category of the Received Text, there is in fact only one textual family the Received. All that remains is so contradictory, so confused, so mixed, that not by the furthest stretch of imagination can they be considered several families of MSS.

Rather than face squarely this preponderance of support for the TR, naturalistic scholars with their ingrained bias against that text have found it convenient to talk of three or four families, as if all were basically equals. This was one of the main pillars in the Westcott and Hort theory which enabled them to Construct a new Greek Testament on the fewest possible MSS.

Yet as the following quotations from "The Identity of the New Testament Text" by Wilbur Pickering show, most present day textual scholars (mainly naturalistic) are prepared to abandon the entire idea.

"We have reconstructed text types and families and subfamilies and in so doing have created things that never before existed on earth or in heaven." (Parvis).

"The major mistake is made in thinking of the old text-types as frozen blocks." (Colwell).

"It is still customary to divide MSS into four well-known families ...this classical division can no longer be maintained." (Klijn).

"Was there a fundamental flaw in the previous investigation which tolerated so erroneous a grouping ... Those few men who have done extensive collating of MSS, or paid attention to those done by others, as a rule have not accepted such erroneous groupings." (Metzger).

"I defy anyone, after having carefully perused the foregoing lists ... to go back to the teaching of Dr. Hort (regarding text-types) with any degree of confidence." (Hoskier).

1. IS THERE A UNIFIED WESTERN TEXT?

Codex "D" Bezae is claimed to be the primary representative of this textual family, but - "What we have called the D-text type, indeed, is not so much a text as a congeries of various readings, not descending from any one archetype ... No one MS can be taken as even approximately representing the D-text." (Kenyon) .

Colwell observes that the Nestle text (25th edition) denies the existence of the Western text as an identifiable group, saying it is "a denial with which I agree." Speaking of von Soden's classification of the Western text, Metzger says, "so diverse are the textual phenomena that von Soden was compelled to posit seventeen subgroups." And Klijn, speaking of a pure or original western text affirms that "such a text did not exist."

2. IS THERE A UNIFIED ALEXANDRIAN TEXT?

Codex "B" Vaticanus and Codex "Aleph" Sinaiticus are the two famous representatives of the Alexandrian "family" of manuscripts. But the evidence shows that those family members don’t get along very well.

Colwell offers the result of an interesting experiment.

After a careful study of all alleged B text-type witnesses in the first chapter of Mark, six Greek MSS emerged as primary witnesses - Aleph, B, L, 33, 892 and 2427. Therefore the weaker B type MSS C, Sangallenses, 157, 517, 579, 1241 and 1342 were set aside. Then on the basis of the six primary witnesses (Note how few, why not more?), an average or mean text was reconstructed including all the readings supported by the majority of the primary witnesses. Even on this restricted basis the amount of variation was dismaying. In this first chapter of Mark, each of the six witnesses differed from the average B text as follows:

L..........19 times,
Aleph....26 times,
2427....32 times,
33........33 times,
B..........39 times,
892......41 times.

These results show convincingly that any attempt to reconstruct the text on the basis of B-type MSS is doomed to failure. The text ... is an artificial entity that never existed.

Hoskier, after filling 450 pages with a detailed and careful discussion of the errors in Codex B and another 400 on the idiosyncrasies of Codex Aleph, affirms that in the Gospels along these two MSS differ well over 3,000 times, which number does not include minor errors such as spelling, nor variants between certain synonyms which might be due to "provincial exchange."

In Hills' chart showing the family tree of manuscripts, Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 are listed with the other Alexandrian MSS.

Quoting again from "The Identity of the New Testament Text"

Both P66 and P75 have been generally affirmed to belong to the "Alexandrian text-type." Klijn offers the results of a comparison of Aleph, B, P45, 1166 and P75 in the passages where they are all extant (John 10:7-25, 10:32 - 11:10, 11:19 - 33 and 11:43-56). He considered only those places where Aleph and B disagree and where at least one of the papyri joins either Aleph or B. He found eight such places plus 43 where all three of the papyri line up with Aleph or B. He stated the result for the 43 places as follows (to which I have added figures for the Textus Receptus, British and Foreign Bible Society 1946):

P45 agrees with Aleph 19 times, with B 24 times, with TR 32 times.
P66 agrees with Aleph 14 times, with B 29 times, with TR 33 times.
P75 agrees with Aleph 9 times, with B 33 times, with TR 29 times.
P45, 66, 75 agree with Aleph 4 times, with B 18 times, with TR 20 times.
P45, 66 agree with Aleph 7 times, with B 3 times, with TR 8 times.
P45, 75 agree with Aleph I time, with B 2 times, with TR 2 times.
P66, 75 agree with Aleph 0 times, with 11 8 times, with TR 5 times.

As for the eight other places,

P45 agrees with Aleph 2 times, with B 1 time, with TR I time.
P66 agrees with Aleph 2 times, with B 3 times, with TR 5 times.
P75 agrees with Aleph 2 times, with B 3 times, with TR 4 times.
60 (Each of the three papyri his other readings as well.)

Is the summary assignment of P66 and P75 to the "Alexandrian text-type" altogether reasonable?

If the above confuses you a little, you may be excused. But it demonstrates the knot that naturalistic critics have tied themselves into when refusing to face the fact of the Received Text. Several other examples of the futility of trying to group MSS into families (particularly the Alexandrian) are given on pages 48 - 58 of "The Identity of the New Testament Text" (Hereafter abbreviated "INTT").

3. IS THERE A UNIFIED RECEIVED TEXT

If the 15% minority of extant MSS is hopeless confusion what about the 85% majority? What about the text referred to as Majority, Traditional, Byzantine, Syrian, Antiochan or Received?

In sharp contrast to the above two textual "families", the MSS which fall under the category of "Received", though differing in minor details, show a very definite unity. They are family members that get along quite well.

The textual critics have attempted to offset this fact through two arguments (1) genealogy and close copying (2) conflation and standardization.

(1) THE RECEIVED TEXT UNITY IS NOT THE RESULT CLOSE COPYING

The textual critic has sought to show that the large number of TR MSS are merely copies one of the other. This brings us to another basic "pillar" in the Westcott and Hort theory known as "Genealogy".
Colwell says of Hort's use of this method:

As the justification of their rejection of the majority, Westcott and Hort found the possibilities of genealogical method invaluable. Suppose that there are only ten copies of a document and that nine are all copies from one: then the majority can be safely rejected. Or suppose that the nine are copied from a lost manuscript and this lost manuscript and the other one were both copied from the original then the vote of the majority would not outweigh that of the minority. These are the arguments with which W. and H. opened their discussion of genealogical method ... They show clearly that a minority of manuscripts is not necessarily to be preferred correct. It is this prior possibility which Westcott and Hort used to demolish the argument based on the numerical superiority of the adherents of the Textus Receptus.

It is clear that the notion of genealogy is crucial to Hort's theory and purpose. He felt that the genealogical method enabled him to reduce the mass of manuscript testimony to four voice - "Neutral", "Alexandrian", "Western", and "Syrian". (INTT)

Textual research, however, has shown that the great mass of TR MSS are not merely copies one of another, but most are independent offspring of different lines of transmission which go deeply into the past.

I hope I have not worn some of you out by bringing all these details to light. We do not have to be experts in the Greek language and the MSS to understand the principles involved, and the history of the manuscripts and their transmission. In other words, one does not have to be a mechanic to thoroughly comprehend the production history and end quality of a Mercedes Benz. Or, on the other hand, of a car made poorly and not reliable.

If one wants to have a grasp of the issues, they are within reach of non-experts in Greek language and text criticism.

It will be easily seen that I have been promoting the Byzantine or Majority Texttype, and not the King James and its 1894 Greek Textus Receptus. That is because this is the foundation. The KJV/TR is one form of the Byz/MT texttype, and I believe the purest.

What I will hear is that I go against the Burgonian critical methodology (which informs all of Maurice Robinson’s judgment and work) by admitting readings apart from the Majority MSS, minority readings.

Shortly I will post Robinson and Pierpont’s disclaimer regarding those who use the Byz/MT to support the KJV/TR position (as I do), in the interest of full disclosure. What I do, I do in the face of my opponents.

Beautiful. Thank you, brother. You are a God-send.

BTW, we really need to get Dr.Oakley (James White) in here to engage your (and others) material. I'm sure Dr. White is familiar with these arguments. His participation, like yours, in this thread would be a treasure.

I agree.

BTW, is it possible to down load this entire thread in one fell swoop?

Well, Chris,

I don't think James White would have an argument with the MT position I have been taking, in the endeavor to cast light on the Critical Text (CT), and its English-language children. Where he would strongly object, I gather, is to a KJO/TR position. It is this that I haven't elucidated yet in its final form, as I want to do so in light of an objection Bill has made me aware of, that being the essay, "The King James Only View of Edward F. Hills", By James A. Price; another objection is a remark by Robinson,

[i]n many instances Burgon is now known to have been wrong due to subsequent discoveries. Example: Burgon thought Origen responsible for creating the Alexandrian text; P75 alone squashes that nonsense. But the KJV-Only crowd (especially Ruckman, Riplinger, and Waite) continues to quote Burgon on that point as if he has "never been answered"). Rubbish. Burgon is not infallible, and never was.

I want to look at an article by text critic Gordon Fee on Papyrus 75 and Origen to get further information on this matter, which article will be gotten to me shortly. And yet a third objection is something from White's book on the KJO Controversy pertaining to remarks he made re 1 John 5:7, which info should come in the same package as the Fee article (thanks to Bill's generosity in supplying me with this [for me] hard to get material). I want to see exactly what White said (he had referred to it in a post here, or his words were posted here), and research and ponder the matter.

So before you try to get me into a debate with the man, please let me do my homework, and also let me first deal with my indigeneous discussion partner, Maestroh Bill.

And Chris, it wouldn't hurt to study the matter further on your own. Ample material is available online (links posted in this thread, and also the recent one you started), or books referred to here. And it shouldn't depend on what White or I might say, but how you understand the Scripture and whose teaching is in line with that. You probably already know what Dr. White would say, perhaps from his published book (which is quite different from my view); what is your assessment of our differing positions?

While I should be ready to stand up to anybody (when my view is fully developed), I would not like to put on a show.

Steve