Grace Theological
Journal 4.1 (1983) 119-126.
[Copyright © 1983 Grace Theological
Seminary; cited with permission;
digitally prepared for use at
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
120
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
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
WALLACE: THE MAJORITY
TEXT 121
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.
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
Grace Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: thildebrandt@gordon.edu