Editorial Note: I am leaving this article up, but it should be noted that I no longer hold the position on the text of the New Testament which I held at the time of writing this article. I would say that I now, broadly speaking, embrace the Critical Text and the underlying eclectic methodology.
I have decided to write this article in response to a video posted by Pastor Matthew Everhard on the subject of the majority text. I want to state up front that this is a friendly article intended to stimulate brotherly conversation. Pastor Everhard’s online ministry has greatly influenced me in many ways, and this particular video on the Majority Text has much to commend it. In fact, the straightforward and clear nature of the video is what makes it such a great starting point for further conversation.
I also want to note that as a TR advocate, I feel great affinity for those who hold to the Majority Text. One point of connection between our two camps is the simple reality that the TR and MT are in agreement on the vast majority of readings. We agree, for example, on the traditional ending of Mark, on the story of the woman caught in adultery, and on many other important readings. I can sympathize with why the position is appealing to many, and I was briefly convinced by it myself before coming to a conviction that the TR position is more sound.
In spite of those points of agreement, we do have points of disagreement which are worth discussing. I believe that the TR, and not simply the MT, is the providentially preserved and canonical text of the New Testament. While we share a great deal in common with the MT with regard to readings, we arrive at our positions in significantly different ways. I hope to unpack some of those differences in this article.
In what follows, I do not intend to give a full, point-by-point response to Pastor Everhard’s video. Rather, I aim to respond to a few key points he made which I believe are important for clarifying why, in my opinion, viewing the TR as the providentially preserved and canonical text of the New Testament is preferable to a simple MT view.
Methodological Differences
One key distinction which needs to be stated from the outset is that in spite of our broad agreement on readings, the TR and MT positions are fundamentally different in terms of their approach to the text. Pastor Everhard did not discuss this directly in his video, but it is a background issue which must be addressed.
The MT position is, in essence, a reconstructionist approach because it seeks to construct the best possible text from extant evidence. In other words, the MT position is an actual textual-critical methodology. By contrast, the TR position is not a textual-critical methodology; it does not seek to construct a text based on evidence, rather the TR position receives a text based on beliefs about what God has done in history. This fundamental distinction is important, because often in these discussions TR advocates are criticized for not being able to replicate our text using objective methodologies– but that critique misses the point of the TR position. The MT and TR positions have much in common, but they are distinct approaches to the text, and that fact will dictate most of the other differences between them.
Preservation
One point that is heavily emphasized in Pastor Everhard’s video is that the MT position is the result of a belief in God’s providential preservation of his Word. I praise God for this emphasis in Pastor Everhard’s video and in the thought of many of my MT brothers and sisters. TR advocates too, emphasize heavily the providential preservation of God’s word. Indeed, one of the strongest points of the TR position is the fact that the TR largely consists of majority readings which were demonstrably preserved in the Church.
I do not believe, however, that a belief in providential preservation automatically means an absolute MT position. I want to challenge a couple of assumptions that are made by the MT position on this point.
Assumption #1: Providential preservation stops short of the printing press.
One notable feature of an MT position on preservation is that for MT advocates, evidently providential preservation does not include the creation of printed texts once that option became available in the Reformation era. This seems to me to be a big mistake. If we believe in providential preservation, would it not make far more theological sense to conclude that God continued that work of preservation by guiding the church in the production of a standard text, right at the same time his Spirit was working to bring about a renewed emphasis on the authority and centrality of the Word of God for the Church?
Pastor Everhard notes in his video that through time the Byzantine textform slowly becomes more uniform in many ways, and he attributes this unity to the miraculous preservation of God. I agree wholeheartedly. But if one can make that claim, why not go a step further and acknowledge that the Lord continued this miraculous work of preservation into the Reformation era by guiding his Church as they compiled the manuscripts then in use into a standard printed text? Why would this process of miraculous preservation suddenly stop, or even reverse slightly, at the onset of the Reformation? I appreciate the MT emphasis on preservation, but I believe it stops short of being thoroughgoing and consistent in this area.
Assumption #2: The extant majority is always a reliable guide
Another assumption of a pure majority text position is that the currently extant manuscripts are an entirely reliable guide to the history of the manuscripts. That is to say, whatever is the majority now has always been the majority. This assumption seems unfounded, as critical text advocates have pointed out as well. I do agree that the majority is generally a reliable guide, as of course the TR is very close to the majority text– but to claim that the extant evidence tells the whole story in 100% of cases seems to me a debatable proposition at best. Texts like 1 John 5:7-8 come to mind in particular. The TR reading here is often eviscerated for a lack of early support, but the amount of extant evidence, and particularly of early evidence, for this passage is shockingly small. The reality is that many manuscripts have been lost to the ravages of time, and so while our extant evidence does provide reassurance about the general stability of the text, it is far from proven that extant evidence can be relied upon to give us all of the information all of the time. To claim that the majority of extant evidence must always be the true reading is something which must be proven before it can be assumed, and it is a point that many leading textual scholars disagree with anyway.
Ecclesiastical Use
Here I simply want to note one point that Pastor Everhard made in passing with regards to the history of the various texts. One point he states in favor of the Majority Text is that it has been used by the large majority of the Church throughout history. This, he claims, is in contrast to the TR which did not exist until 1516.
I want to push back slightly on his statement here, however. The TR is of course, a printed text, and so it is true that the printed editions of the TR were not used by the Church before 1516– but no modern printed edition of the Majority Text existed until even more recently, in the 20th century! So if we are going by printed texts, the TR has a much longer and broader history of Church use. Of course Pastor Everhard is comparing the Majority Text as “layers” of text that exist in the manuscripts over against the TR, but that is comparing apples to oranges. The real issue, of course, is the readings. It is true, by their very nature, we can assume most majority text readings were broadly used for much of church history. But by that same logic, most of the readings of the TR were also used by the majority of the Church for most of church history, because the TR largely lines up with the Majority Text.
Thus the TR has nearly as much history of ecclesiastical use behind it, with the added fact that when the time came for the church to standardize the text in printed editions, it broadly received and accepted the TR readings (including the minority readings) rather than a pure Majority Text. This conscious reception on the part of the church is noteworthy. Because of this, it seems to me that the ecclesiastical use argument is even stronger in favor of the TR than it is for the MT, as it includes both general use and conscious choices.
Objectivity
One final point I want to respond to is Pastor Everhard’s point about the objectivity of the Majority Text position. He makes the argument that the MT position is the most objective position, because it relies on straightforward criteria. In general I agree with him, and I think his point is well taken as commending the MT over the typical eclectic methodology of many modern textual critics.
On the other hand I would simply like to point out that the MT, as most MT advocates admit, cannot be an entirely objective methodology, because there are places where the count of manuscripts is not so clear cut. It is true that for most readings the majority can be found, but the counting of manuscripts is fuzzy business and at times it can be a close-run or unclear thing. Though digital technology has greatly enhanced modern access to the extant evidence, the counting and cataloging of manuscripts is far from complete and at times can get muddled. In these difficult instances, other text-critical canons must be employed which are far less objective than a simple count.
In contrast, I’d like to suggest that the TR position is the most objective of all, because it receives the text which is the result of God’s providential work in history. We do not need to apply subjective canons of text-criticism, because on our position we do not need to do text criticism (for the purpose of constructing a text that is– the historical value of studying manuscripts is another thing entirely). We are receiving a settled text which objectively has been brought to the fore by God’s providence in the history of the Church.
Conclusion
This short article is far from a complete response to points brought up by Pastor Everhard in his video, but I hope that it will serve to point out areas where further profitable discussion may be had. I am convinced that the TR is the GNT which most closely conforms to the autographs of the New Testament, and I am thankful for the ability we have as Christians in our age to discuss these issues. I pray we will do so with charity and clarity, for the edification of God’s people.
You can find Pastor Everhard's video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8bbzHADJm0
Comments
Post a Comment