Majority Rules! Fact or Fiction?

19 thoughts on “Majority Rules! Fact or Fiction?”

1. Interesting post Bob. One thing that cathes my attention is that KJV advocates argue for KJV readings based on the presence of such readings in Old Latin mss, other ancient translations as well as quotes from early church fathers which precede the most favored ancient Greek codexes, namely Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. I often wonder why earlier sources of our N.T. than Aleph and B are not given much weight. Is this largely because they are not Greek? Do you think greater weight should always be given to ancient texts simply because they are written in Greek?

   Here are a couple of examples of the arguments I’m talking about:

   http://www.geocities.com/avdefense1611/wallace.html

   http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/1John5-7.html

   Regards,
   -Steve

2. Steve,

   Great comment. I scanned the articles you linked to, and to be honest, I had not seen some of that info before. I have heard say that Michael Maynard’s work on 1 John 5:7 is not all that accurate.  Check out this review of his work by Doug Kutilek.  I cannot comment too much on these articles, other than to say that other scholars disagree with these conclusions. For instance Tregelles back before the Sinaiticus (Aleph) was even discovered inferred that the debate over 1 John 5:7 was absolutley over. That the text was not genuine, not being in the Greek text at all, except for a few copies extremely late. And also not being in the Oldest forms of the Old Latin or the Vulgate.  Keep in mind when Tregelles spoke of the debate being over, he was referring to the debate even among orthodox people.  Tregelles was a Plymouth Brethren and very conservative.  Many scholars would be prejudiced to accept this text, like Martin Luther–who never included it in his German Bible because he felt it was not original.  That conservative orthodox men by Tregelles time had discounted it as not a genuine reading means they were very convinced by the evidence.  It was not liberals who jumped on the bandwagon to get rid of this Trinitarian verse.  Check out these other brief summations of evidence: here and here.

   The main problem with the evidence is that 99% of it that we have in favor of the reading is from the Latin language. Other early versions of other ancient languages do not contain it. And Greek-speaking writers seem unaware of the passage. Also it is well known that allegorical type interpretations of vs. 8 led to seeing it as referring to the Trinity. Such an explanation accounts for some of the patristic sources referred to in the articles you cite, no doubt.

   You ask should Greek be given greater weight. It is obviosuly closer to the originals than versions, since no translation was required, only copying. The older the Greek is the more removed it is from the originals. Thus, an early version may have more weight than a late Greek manuscript. I think that earlier sources besides Aleph and B are given due weight. We just don’t have very many of them at all. Also there is an issue concerning the texts of church father’s writings. Many of those texts which seem to support the TR when looked at more closely are shown to be otherwise. Wallace I think deals with this issue about the fathers.

   I am not sure if that helps, but for textual criticism it is not just as simple as what Aleph and B says goes. They are two of the most important textual witnesses we have. But they are not alone.

   Thanks for the comments!

3. Bob,

   Good stuff… I wonder what your thoughts are on the idea that “older is better than more” when it comes to copies? Having grown up in Fundamentalism (Indy Baptist) now PCA, I have had numerous discussions in defense of my using a NAS or NIV (don’t tell my extended family;). The argument used against me was that the body of copies that led to the KJV are better due to the sheer number of copies. It always seemed to me however, that the older the copy, the better, not the sheer number. Interesting post…

   Gage
   Experimental Calvinism

4. Gage’s extended family are my former IFB ministerial family–every year, Gage’s cousin, Dr. Bobby Wayne Herrell, puts on a KJV sermon. Go to http://www.cbcwebsite.org and search the audio sermons, I think he just did his latest in the last several weeks. It’s usually pure Ruckmanism, unless he’s “grown” some. But I’m not holding my breath, he’s already told us he knows “all about” the bible version controversy. You believe him, don’t you?

   Gage, I still try not to judge you by your relatives! 🙂

5. In case someone was interested, I just took my own advice and looked at CBC’s website–the sermon was preached Sunday Evening, July 16,2006. And the address is http://www.cbcwebsite.org/meadiasermons.html.

   If anyone listens and attempts to contact him for rational discussion, he doesn’t have time for you.

6. Bob,
   Thanks for the response. The crux of my comment wasn’t intended to focus only on 1 John 5:7, but rather on the general use of sources such as ancient versions and “fathers” quotes in determining the original text. I know it’s not a cut and dried issue, and that Aleph and B are not the only texts considered, but I’m also not convinced that textual critics today have always done justice to other sources that would affect our present critical text (NA27/UBS4).

   It’s a topic that fascinates me, but can also be a distracting one that fixates me on the trees, when I think God would much rather me be looking at the forest on all this. That is actually the very problem I see happening in KJVO circles. They are so preoccupied with defending a 100% pure, inerrant KJB that all other issues of the Christian life seem secondary.

   The shear volume of both their time and energy devoted to this subject alarms me, and I can’t help but wonder how such beliefs become so ingrained in them. They seem hopelessy trapped in the wrong cause, yet they are convinced there could be no greater cause than to defend the KJV. And they are absolutely certain that all the rest of us “Bible doubters” are part of “the great end times apostasy,” unable to obtain nearly as much spiritual benefit from our modern “corrupt” Bibles as they are getting from the KJB. Anyway, my comment has become a ramble. Keep up the good blogging!

   -Steve

7. Steve,

   I think that others like Gordon Fee and even Dan Wallace agree that we need to take into consideration other sources more than we currently do. I see nothing wrong with a truly eclectic method of evaluating each and every reading on a case by case basis. Generally I believe the UBS text is closest to the originals, but there are some readings for sure that need to be reevaluated.

   On the whole, however, this does not mean that the TR or the MT are preferred. Some of their readings perhaps, but not as a whole.

   Thanks for interacting.

8. Gage,

   As for the older is better, it is generally correct. As my post indicates, when the “more” are all from one locale and over 8 centuries removed from the writing of the NT, they are indeed not as valuable as a whole than the independent witness of much older texts. The fact that Aleph and B differ so much with each other, and yet on the whole are very similar in their text points to a shared origin that goes very far back before their A.D. 350 date. See this article on that point.

   Every manuscript does not have equal weight. And age is one very important factor which is downplayed wrongly in KJV only circles.

   Thanks for stopping by!

   Oh, and I won’t get in the way of your family struggles. If Captain Headknowledge wants to interefere, let him have at it.

   God Bless!

9. Bob,

   Speaking of Wallace (or “goofball Wallace,” as some of my KJVO friends refer to him), I just finished reading a recent post of his, which is a 10 page paper on inerrancy. He wrote it in response to some false opinions of his views that were promulgating in comments at another blog. http://teampyro.blogspot.com/

   It was one of the more interesting and thought provoking things I’ve read online in quite some time. Tak a look when you get a chance:
   http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=4200

   Regards,
   -Steve

10. Hey, when I’m between a rock and a hard place, I gotta squeal a little!

    Anyway, having read Hills’ King James Version Defended, I noticed that he points out his credentials as having studied under Machen and Van Til. Then I considered his use of what he calls, “The Logic of Faith,” in which you basically get to accept whatever was handed down by tradition, in this case the Textus Receptus, and claim that the fact that it was handed down by such-and-such sources, at such-and-such time, means that this is the state in which God wills that the Bible should remain. In other words, Hills seems to be applying Van Til’s presuppositional apologetic to gloss over the facts that would otherwise refute his assertions. Facts like the kind you feature in this post.

    As for the Greek speaking church, I’m reminded of a conversation I had by email once with a pastor in Romania which my old IFB Cornerstone Baptist Church supports. Considering their KJV only position, I asked which text his Romanian translation was based on, the Byzantine Text or the modern critical text? Ironically, he told me a story about a Baptist who made a Romanian translation from the critical text, and this is the one they use, and that the Russian Orthodox Church constantly badgers them for not sticking with the Byzantine text. How ironic that my KJV only church supported Romanian Christians being spoken evil of by Byzantine-onlyists in the Russian Orthodox Church! The Independent Baptist Fellowship, of which Cornerstone is a part, goes so far as to write KJV onlyism into their Articles of Faith. At least we can say Cornerstone excercised a measure of grace in fellowshiping with them under such circumstances!

11. Good comments, John. As far as Hills goes, he is the one who gave me the facts that began to push me out of KJV onlyism. He was honest enough to say that the KJV and TR had a few errors. Most KJV/TR onlyists will not ever admit that. And yet they get to claim Hills, Burgon, and anyone else similar to them, even though these men would in no way affirm that the TR is a perfect text.

12. Steve,

    Interesting article you linked to. I thought his emphasis on having a doctrinal taxonomy is important. For a practical example of something like that, you can view my friend Nathan Pitchford’s blog’s statement of faith here. He and my brother who developed the statement prioritize doctrines effectively. I am not sure if they would agree that inerrancy is not a #1 level doctrine according to Wallace’s classifications.

    As for me, I think Wallace makes sense, but I have much to go in studying such issues out for myself.

13. Bob H,

    Are you familiar with the theories of Bart Ehrman? Specifically, I’m thinking of his book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, in which he proposes that the Alexandrian text was corrupt. Bart Ehrman is a flaming liberal, an agnostic actually- not a KJVO. While Ruckman would argue that the Alexandrian text is corrupt because the Alexandrian cults corrupted it, Ehrman argues that the Orthodox corrupted it to strengthen their case against all the cults in the area.

    His works have been criticized; he goes out of his way to make Christianity look false. When I read Orthodox Corruption, I thought that he really reached to make his points but that in at least a couple places he really did make his point.

    In any case, we have a small handful of very early documents. I don’t think we have enough to say with any certainty that they represent the original text. No less a text critic that Kurt Aland admits that the Byzantine form has very early origins. In the lack of conclusive evidence one way or another, I’m inclined to trust the judgment of the scholars and scribes who lived 1500 years closer to time of the writing of the Bible than I am to people who are trying to piece fragments together.

    That’s not to say I’m against text criticms, but it is to say that we should be careful not to go overboard on the basis of a couple texts.

14. Ryan,

    I haven’t read Ehrman. I have read some of Wallace’s critique of his work, though. But all things considered I am no expert on him.

    I want to stress that I do not necessarily stand 100% for the critical text as it now stands. I do believe with Fee that readings should be considered on a case by case basis.

    Even if the Byzantine text type had early origins it is not witnessed to outside of the Greek language. It seems that in most other languages that the text forms which grew to be prominent are much more similar to the Alexandrian form than the Byzantine. We have clear representatives of the Alexandrian text centuries before we do of the Byzantine. In some locales and time periods there is no evidence of a knowledge of the Byzantine form at all. These are major arguments against the Byzantine form.

    The copies wore out from use argument is about the best counter. But that seems of especially small weight.

    Of course, at the end of the day, even if the Majority Text is to be preferred over the critical text. That still does not make one KJV only, as the KJV differs so much from the Majority Text.

    I probably need to read Sturtz or others on the merits of the Majority Text, but there does seem to be much in favor of the critical text. The scholarly world was in favor of the readings of that text even before the discovery of B and the influence of Hort, etc. The multitude of discoveries have only solidified the scholarly consensus on the matter. It is true that the Majority Text position has not gained much scholarly repute. Now, is such a consensus evidence of a mass conspiracy against the truth? Probably not. Many of the scholars involved are totally orthodox and evangelical, even.

    Anyway, thanks for stopping by. And I am open to other arguments for the Majority Text. While I favor the critical text, I am open to being convinced otherwise.

    God Bless,

    Bob Hayton

15. Bob,

    I by no means claim to be the sharrpest knife in the drawer, buut at the same time, I would claim to be a butter-knife either; if you know what I mean.

    I am a simple old-fashioned, Bible believer that just doesnt see the need for all these new Bibles.

    You talk about “textual criticism”.

    Let’s define that:

    “The Bible has always been of central importance to evangelicals. It not only defines what we are to believe; it also tells us how we are to behave. A clear and faithful exposition of the scriptures has, historically, been at the heart of any relevant pastoral ministry. Now in order for a particular passage to be applied legitimately, it must first be understood accurately. Before we ask, “How does this text apply to me?” we must ask “What does this text mean?” And even before we ask “What does this text mean?” we must first ask, “What does this text say?” Determining what a text says is what textual criticism is all about. In other words, textual criticism, as its prime objective, seeks to ascertain the very wording of the original.”
    Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism

    By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D.
    http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1221

    (Back to my comments)

    “Textual criticism” is the procedure used to determine what was “in the originals” that no man alive today has seen.

    There was a simpler day when God- fearing people simply picked up their King James Bible and said, this is the Word of God. They would turn to a passage like Proverbs 30:5 and read, Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. They would then turn to their children and say, Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Then they would say, that is what the Word of God says, and that makes it truth.

    Bob,

    Thanks to men like Johann Semler who Bruce Metzger says, is “often regarded as the father of German rationalism” and at the same time “made noteworthy contributions to the science of textual criticism” (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 115); that is no longer the case.

    Bob who makes up the rules for textual criticism?

    Do we go with Bengal, Griesbach, or do we go with Westcott and Hort?

    You see Bob, it really doesn’t matter.

    Bob, let me ask you an honest question, (that would be implying an honest answer!) Do you (Bob) believe that Jesus Christ is God?

    The reason I asked this question is because Semler, Griesbach, Westcott, and Hort did not. Therefore, they doubted the very authority of the Word of God. They then made it their very life’s work to undermine the Word of God. Did they succeed?

    They have convinced many people to throw away their King James Bibles and turn to “watered-down” Bibles that have no real power.

    Charles Spurgeon said the following:

    If the Book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of popelings fresh from college. Are these correctors of Scriptures infallible? Is it certain that our Bibles are not right, but that the critics must be so? Now, Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you will have tomorrow morning to go down the street to ask the scholarly man at the parsonage whether this portion of the Scripture belongs to the inspired part of the Word or whether it is of dubious authority…We shall gradually be so be-doubted and be-criticized that only a few of the most profound will know what is Bible and what is not, and they will dictate to the rest of us. I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy…and we are fully assured that our old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and goodness. We do not despise learning, but we will never say of culture or criticism, “These be thy gods, O Israel.”

    Bob, I would hardly call Charles Spurgeon unlearned. He like you was a Calvanist. Unlike you however, Spurgeon was not fooled by “modern textual criticism”.

    Spurgeon, Charles Haddon

    1834—92, English Baptist preacher. He joined the Baptist communion in 1850. In 1852, at age 18, he took charge of a small congregation at Waterbeach, Cambridgeshire, and, at 20, went to London as pastor of the New Park St. Chapel. His immediate popularity made necessary larger buildings for his audiences, until the huge Metropolitan Tabernacle, erected for his use, was opened in 1861. Around this developed a pastors’ college, an orphanage, and missions. Spurgeon’s sermons, published weekly from 1854, were collected in 50 volumes. A strict Calvinist, he opposed the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which caused his withdrawal in 1864 from the Evangelical Alliance. He separated (1887) from the Baptist Union because he believed that modern biblical criticism was threatening orthodoxy. Among his numerous publications are John Ploughman’s Talks (1869) and The Treasury of David (7 vol., 1870—85). His autobiography (4 vol., 1897—1900), compiled by his wife from his diary and letters, was edited and condensed (1946) by D. O. Fuller.

    http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/Spurgeon

    Textual Critics have no more authority to determine what the “originals” said than you or I do.

    Here is a summary of what I believe.

    I believe God preserved the MSS that He wanted used for the Word of God to be translated into English, at the time that He knew was best to do so. The translators had for their use the Complutensian Polyglot (1514), the five editions of Erasmus (1516-1535), the four editions of Robert Stephanus (1546-1551), and the ten editions of Theodore Beza (1560-1598). They also consulted the editions of Aldus (1518), Colinaeus (1534), and Plantin (1572)

    I believe God used men like Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, along with all the scholars that translated the King James.

    Above all things I believe God gave His “wisdom from above” in the transation of every word.

    Allow me to give you an example of Holy Spirit wisdom verses mens rules of translation.

    In Acts 12:4 we have the only use of the name “Easter” in the entire Bible. Many people say this is in error, I disagree. Why?

    Acts 12:1-4

    Acts 12: 1 ¶ Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. 2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. 3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

    In order to understand what is happening here, the following three things must be considered. 1) who are the participants; 2) what are the religious views of each of the participants; and 3) how do each of the participants regard the religious views of the other participants?

    Who are the participants?
    1) Herod and the Romas
    2) James and Peter (Christians)
    3) Jews

    What are their religious beliefs?
    1) Herod was a Pagan
    2) James and Peter (Christians) Risen Saviour (Messiah)
    3) Jews (Judaism) But they rejected Jesus Christ as Messiah.

    How do each of the participants regard the religious views of the other participants?
    1) The Romans believed in religious toleration.
    2) The Christian were out to evangelize the world.
    3) The Jews lived according to the Mosaic Law (Except for following Pagan gods) They HATED Christians.

    The common definition of Easter is the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

    But please consider the following:

    “Eostre (“Easter”) is the name of a putative goddess of the Anglo-Saxons. The Venerable Bede described her worship as something which had already died out by the time he began writing the first significant history of the Anglo-Saxons. In recent years some historians have suggested that Bede may have made her up because there are no known references to her preceding his work. Others point out that Bede is known as “the Father of English history” precisely because he has long been the source for most of what little we know about pre-Christian English history, which, of course, does not make him inerrant.
    The name Eostre also bears some resemblance to the name Ishtar, a Babylonian goddess. Other variants on Ishtar include Astarte and Ashtoreth. This resemblance has resulted in some Neopagans and Christians opposed to Easter believing that Easter is Ishtar’s festival. (Fakelore is often constructed to support such speculative continuities.) There is, however, no evidence that Ishtar was ever worshipped in Europe, nor any strong evidence that the myths of the two goddesses were related.

    “Some of the most determined proponents of an Ishtar/Easter connection are not Neopagans but certain fundamentalist Christians. One very notable former advocate, Ralph Woodrow, whose Babylonian Mystery Religion includes the Easter/Ishtar hypothesis and condemns the celebration’s trappings as unchristian, has reversed his former position and now does not support this pagan connection. However, there are others who still do and provide a curious example of Christians and neopagans alike supporting theories of a continuity of Goddess worship in the absence of any conclusive evidence.

    “Jacob Grimm noted this similarity in names and speculated on a possible connection based on this and some minor similarities in rites attributed to the two goddesses[citation needed]. It is also sometimes suggested that a link between the two goddesses might have been made through Greek Aphrodite / Roman Venus. In support of this theory some cite that Indo-European ‘(a)wes-ter’ and Semitic ‘istrt’, roots to which the two names were closely related, both referred to the planet Venus, which of course was also associated with the Roman goddess of the same name.

    “A distracting apparent early reference to ‘Easter’ in the King James Version of the Bible translation of the New Testament, Acts of the Apostles 12:4, is simply an anachronistic mistranslation of the Greek pascha (“Passover”), in which the committee of James I of England followed such earlier translators as William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale. The Acts passage refers to the seven-day Passover festival (including the Feast of Unleavened Bread); “it is reasonably certain that the New Testament contains no reference to a yearly celebration of the resurrection of Christ.””
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eostre

    (back to my comments)

    I believe in Acts 12 there were three celebrations going on at the same time. Two of these were held in the open and one was done, shall I say more private. The Romans were of course celebrating “Easter” the return of Adonis by Aphrodite (Ashtoreth, or whatever other name fits) for the return of Spring, (a celebration of FERTILITY); the Jews (as stated in verse 3) were celebrating the feast of unleavened bread, otherwise known as the Passover; and finally the Christians were celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ the Saviour of the New Testament.

    Bob, every where but once (in Acts 12:4) God had the transators translate “pascha” to “passover”, but not this time, you see Bob, God was there in Acts 12:4, and the Holy Spirit spoke to these men, telling them to translate the word “pascha” to “Easter” because Herod wasn’t waiting for the end of the Jewish, or Christian celebrations, he was waiting for his own holiday celebration “Easter” to end.

    Bob I am fully aware of the fact that this portion of your ‘blog’ is to be dedicated to the “KJV ONLY” issue, but please humor me.

    I am an independent fundamental Baptist. Do I believe in separation standards? Yes I do. Are they required to go to Heaven? No they are not. Separation standards are a matter of the heart, are you willing to separate yourself from the world in all or part of what you do? What you do is a matter of the heart, nothing more, nothing less.

    If you are interested in honest, no name calling conversation on the Baptist issue, or on the KJV issue, I would be happy to give you some of my time.

    Jack Koons

16. Jack,

    Thank you for interacting, I appreciate your “honest, no name calling conversation” on the KJV issue. I welcome the interaction. It may take me a day or so to respond, as I just found your comment today. Sorry it took so long to make it through moderation, I was away from my blog for a while.

    Anyway, know I am not ignoring your comment or suppressing information. Just give me a bit to respond.

    Thanks,

    Bob Hayton

17. Bob,

    I look at it like this: There are a million ways to say the same thing. God only said it once–one way, not a million. There are ONLY two things to believe here, sorry, your choices boil down to 2: 1) The original Words of God are lost forever and you can only best guess what he said and what he meant or 2) there is an exact replica of what he said somewhere, or at least a God inspired “exact translation” (God translated it through men, then it is exact) that is correct for each speaking nation that has a Bible in it. I believe the KJV is the exact Word of God. If its not, then I believe that there is no Bible anywhere that is accurate enough to be anything but a fairy tale. That is actually accurate as well. Either one translation in the English is correct, or none are–its impossible for them all to be correct, expecially when there are embedded lies in the rest of the translations (ie God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes on him might live forever–whoa, that means no one is a Son of God but Jesus? What happened to the word, “begotten”–which can take us into the blood of Christ and its importance, but yet leave us room to become sons by adoption as the Scripture depicts? Oh yeah–not important enough to put into our liberal versions. Might offend someone with the truth!)
    rick

18. Richard,

    I see what you’re saying but you’re being inconsistent. Which KJV edition are we talking about. Some say “he” and some say “she” in Ruth 3:15. Some KJV editions have “throughly” in 2 Tim. 3:17 others have “thoroughly”.

    More than that, if God’s Word is 100% represented in the KJV how can it be 100% there in any other language edition as they all have quite considerable differences? The demand for an exact replica of what God said or an inspired “exact translation” is not found in Scripture. What did God’s people do before 1611? Was what they had insufficient? If not, then we should be able to admit that what we have, although not a perfect replica is still sufficient for all we need for faith and living a life of Godliness.

    If you study how the Scripture quotes itself in both the old and new Testaments, you will see that exact word-for-word / letter-for-letter quotations are the exception not the rule. And yet the Scripture still declares that the resulting similar yet not perfectly exact phrase is still what God said back in the earlier passage, it is still good enough to be authoritative and valid. We can’t demand more perfection than Scripture demands, and we should get our thinking from It.

    Blessings in Christ,

    Bob Hayton

19. Pingback: Majority Rules! — Fact or Fiction? (part 1) « King James Only?

Comments are closed.