The Majority Text of the New Testament

The Bible is a collection of books. Some of them date as early as fifteenth century BC. The latest written, very probably the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation, both dating around the end of first century AD. Too far from the invention of print to have taken advantage of it. The first book printed from movable types was a Bible in the middle of the fifteenth century. Along with other old books before that epoch making event, the preservation and diffusion of the Bible was exclusively connected to the hand copying process.

Hand copying, though a very developed art even in old times, was subject to let mistakes enter the text. This applies to all kinds of books and being the Bible also a book, it applies, to a certain extent, to the Bible too.

Textual Criticism is the study of the available, surviving manuscript evidence in order to recover either: 1.the original text of a book or 2.the best retraceable text. A lot easier said than done.

As far as textual criticism of extra biblical books is concerned, critics face two main problems: the late date of manuscripts available and the scarcity of them.

Bruce M. Metzger gives some interesting numbers. Homer’s Iliad survives in less than 600 manuscripts. Euripides works are preserved in less then 400 manuscripts. The complete Annals of Tacitus in one manuscript only dating from the ninth century.

Biblical textual criticism on the contrary, deals with too large an amount of manuscripts the date of some being relatively close to the originals. In this article we will take into closer consideration the New Testament only, taken for granted that the so called Masoretic Text is still the best text available of the Old Testament, very well attested and confirmed by the recent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Just to give an idea, in round numbers, this is the situation of the New Testament surviving manuscripts:

- More than 5000 manuscripts survive, which contain all or part of the Greek New Testament. One need only consider that “The Book of Revelation is the least well-attested part of the New Testament, being preserved in about 300 Greek manuscripts”. Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 1968, Oxford University Press, page 34.

- 8000 mss witness to the Latin Vulgate, the famous translation by Jerome. Also many other mss contain other versions of the Bible.

- More than 2000 lectionaries.

- Bible quotations in early Christian writers - the so called Church Fathers - are also very important. They witness both to readings of the text and the use and existence of New Testament books.

I think what said will suffice to show the incredible amount of evidence surviving of the New Testament. What about the age of such evidence?

P52 - picture here on the right - is a fragment of the gospel of John. It has been dated around 125 BC or even earlier! It is the oldest ms if we do not accept the identification of 7Q5 as a fragment of Mark. One need but quickly consider what an incredible witness this is and realize the priceless source of information such a small document may be. It gives evidence of the existence of John’s Gospel at that early a period, giving a definite confirmation of the traditional dating of this gospel.

7Q5 has been agreed by many scholars to be a fragment of the Gospel of Mark. This manuscript was found at Qumran and since this community disappeared in 70 BC, this ms may be evidence of the gospel of Mark already having been written before that time.

The picture on the left reproduces the papyri P75. It belongs to the Bodmer Papyri collection. It has been dated 175-225 AD. It is very important for the portions of the gospel of John and his evident relation to the Vaticanus codex.

For a readable picture of this papyri check the Google or Yahoo images and search for P75. It is quite an experience – it was for me – to be able to read the beginning of John’s Gospel straight from a 1800 year-old manuscript.

P66 - picture on the right - is another very old papyri ms. It is as old as the second Century It has arrived at us in a very good state. It is part of the Bodmer Papyri collection

More other papyri evidence has recently been collected and, apart from any textual value attached to them, they witness the existence and spread of the gospels as we know them as early as the traditional view has always believed.

B and a (read Aleph) are the two oldest and most complete manuscripts, both containing almost the whole Bible and dating as early as the middle of the forth century. a or codex Sinaiticus, was found on Mt. Sinai by Constantin Von Tischendorf, a nineteen century textual critic. To honor its antiquity and importance it was named after the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet: a, Aleph. It originally contained all the Bible but it has not survived in its integrity though all the New Testament is still intact. B or codex Vaticanus is part of the Vatican library.

The two last mentioned mss generally enjoy the most credit among scholars and are responsible for the editions of the New Testament from 1881 until today.

Another category of mss is the minuscles. MS61 is a minuscle dated fifteenth-sixteenth century. It is at Trinity College at Dublin. It is very famous because it has the Johannine Comma, I John 5:7-8. Erasmus used this ms to motivate the inclusion of the Comma into the TR.

Text types

We said the copying process inevitably let mistakes creep into the text. To see how easy this is, do a very simple experiment: copy a long text. Then copy from the copy. Again produce another copy from the copy. The more copies of copies you produce, the more mistakes you will inevitably collect. Imagine this process delayed in hundreds of years.

Of course Bible manuscripts were cherished as they were God’s Word, the reader would argue. This was the case for Jewish scribes, who were diligent in this task beyond imagination. They burned the manuscripts they were copying from, not to leave a mutilated copy of Scripture. They also reviewed their work and if more than a certain number of mistakes were found, they would destroy the copy produced.

The same care along with a specific skill was developed in the monasteries devoted to the copying of books in the Middle Ages.

But when the Gospel began to be spread among the Gentiles, it had to confront itself with a totally different frame of mind than the Hebrew's. What was most sacred to the Jew, could be subject to investigation by the Greek mind of the Gentile believers. Some variant readings can be retraced down to the self overestimation of some early scribes.

Identifying the peculiarities of ancient manuscripts, their variant readings, three main types of text have been identified. They are: the Western, the Alexandrian (or Egyptian) and the Majority (Syriac, Byzantine, Traditional) text.

Let me dismiss the term Byzantine text. It renders no justice to this type of text and implies a late deliberate production of it. This latter assumption is false, destitute of any historical support if not mere supposition. At the same time, calling it the Traditional text would go to far in the opposite direction. Calling it the Majority text expresses a doubtless fact, i.e. it is the text found in the majority of the manuscripts of the New Testament.

The Western is a "longer" type of text, with many interpolations. The Alexandrian is the "shorter" text. The Majority stands between the two and it is rightly and simply called so because it is found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts.

Since Westcott and Hort, the Alexandrian shorter text has been favoured. The simple assumption of modern critics is that the Western text has been clearly tempered with interpolations and that the Majority text has been produced conflating - we'll see later what is intended by this technical term - the Western and the Alexandrian text.

Some other scholars (a minority, to be honest) believe the Majority to be the closest to the original and the Egyptian to be a shorter version of it and the Western a longer one. I believe this latter case to be true and still to this day the Majority text is, in my opinion, to be preferred to the others. Later in this article I will try to explain why.

History of the editions of the New Testament appeared on the scene since the invention of print, has seen various seasons of fortunes for the Alexandrian and the Majority text. Let us briefly consider the critical editions appeared since the invention of print.

The Textus Receptus

The first phase of the history of the critical editions of the New Testament saw the rise of the so called Received Text, the Textus Receptus. It was the first Greek New Testament published, by Desiderius Erasmus in 1516. Stephanus' forth edition of 1551 was the first to contain our modern verse division.

It was adopted, in its various editions, by the translators of the King James Version of the Bible completed in 1611. It was translated by Diodati in Italian and French, by Luther in German.

The text of the TR is mainly the text of the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, though some readings are peculiar to the few manuscripts used to edit it. Acts 8.37, is an example: it is found in the TR but not in the M text. Another famous reading peculiar to the TR is I John 5:7. It was first introduced in a later edition (Erasmus’ third edition of 1522) and ever since printed with it.

The TR is still supported by some traditional Christian denominations.

The critical value of the Textus Receptus can be judged from various points of view.

The usual objection is that only a few and late manuscripts were used when editing it . This is true. But it would be a false representation of something true if we do not add that, by incident or by the grace of God, the few manuscripts consulted contained the Majority Text.

Personally - if this may be of any interest to the reader - I read and study on the KJV. If I read the Bible in Italian I still consider the Diodati Bible my favourite translation. But, since I know Greek I have not used translations much, as I prefer to read the original. I consider the TR a good text since it includes the Majority text.

We can conclude that the value of the TR, though, beyond any possible doubt, revision of it was necessary to improve its critical value, rests on the importance given to the Majority New Testament text.

The Westcott and Hort critical text

In 1881 Westcott and Hort published their edition of the New Testament, along with their theories in support of it. They claimed to have retraced and presented to the public what they called the Neutral Text, the closest to the original possible.

Their Greek Text is mainly based on the Vatican (B) and Sinaitic (a) manuscripts, which had become available at their time. Bruce M. Metzger quotes them saying: "it is our belief that the readings of a B should be accepted as the true readings until strong internal evidence is found to the contrary", Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, second edition, 1968, Oxford University Press, page 133. The reason for the success of their theory was due to a simple concept, very captivating to the mind of both the average Bible reader and the student: "the oldest, the best." An idea that any sufficiently honest scholar of textual criticism can disprove. But they could take advantage of this to easily win the public's confidence on the reliability of their work. Alexander Souter writes: “A manuscript’s importance does not of course depend solely on its age. An old manuscript is likely to be a more faithful representative of its ultimate original only because in its case there has been less time for corruption to accumulate…But a late manuscript may be the last of a series of faithful copies, and may thus preserve a better tradition than another manuscript actually much earlier in date of it.” – The Text and Canon of the New Testament, page 18.

The Neutral Text that WH thought to have retraced simply never existed. Kurt and Barbara Aland clearly agreed on the fact that there is no Neutral Text. The backbones of their theory were mere suppositions. Their conflation and Byzantine Text official recension theories were not supported by historical evidence.

I must confess that I consider their fame unmerited, since little or nothing remains of the validity of the reasons that led them to support the text they edited. Even their disrespectful attitude toward what they called the Byzantine text must be abandoned and today it is with right called the Majority text in the best editions of the Greek New Testament.

Another peculiarity of their theory were the so called Western Non-Interpolations. W-H collected nine Bible passages that were in all or in part omitted by the Western text representative D, preferring this isolated witness against the rest of the New Testament mss. They are Mt 27.49, Lk 22.19b-20, 24.3, 6, 12, 36, 40, 51 and 52. The discovery of Papyri unknown during the days when they developed their theory, if necessary, proved how unmotivated were such considerations on a part of the New Testament text so well supported by external evidence, and how personal judgement guided their ideas more than evidence. Their absolute preference for shorter readings led them to support a text that contradicted even their favourite manuscripts, B and a, as well as the rest of the available evidence. Bruce Metzger says: "...scholars have been critical of the apparently arbitrary way in which Westcott and Hort isolated nine passages for speciale treatment (enclosing them within double square brackets), whereas they did not give similar treatment to other readings that are also absent from the Western witnesses", A textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, United Bible Societies, p. 165.

We must agree with those who supposed that the only true success of these two scholars was to bring back to life a text that the church had gotten rid of almost two thousand years earlier. This conviction stood at the base of the work of their opponents.

John William Burgon - F. H.A. Scrivener – E. Miller

John W. Burgon raised his voice against the Westcott and Hort theory. I have read his books and found his work most valuable. The sad thing is that it is very hard to recover the public seduced by “the oldest, the best.” He supported the Majority text. He called it the Traditional Text, giving to it the dignity of the text which best represented the originals, being faithfully handed down, copied and spread by the church.

Edward F. Hills (The King James Version Defended, Des Maines, 1956) used Burgon’s work, though he defended the peculiar readings of the TR, even though not supported by the Majority text.

I am a fan of Scrivener’s work and text. This great scholar was, in my opinion, very reliable and moderate, sound in his research principles. His work shows incredible scholarly skills and knowledge. His Greek text was very valuable to me in the first years of my New Testament Greek studies! The facts that he was so moderate a supporter of the Traditional Text and that he served only the cause of a better knowledge of the text of the New Testament, mixed with his unforgivable fault not to have produced any sensational theory like, are the reason why he is unknown to the public. True and honest servants of truth rarely produce sensational theories and their precious work is done in silent and very rarely will bring fame and fortune.

The Nestle-Aland text edited by Barbara and Kurt Aland, Karavidopoulos, Martini and Metzger

The most credited critical text today is beyond question the Nestle-Aland text. I read the 27^th edition of it. It is a very important reference work because of the critical apparatuses which offers a list of the variants of the manuscripts. Though I do not agree with some conclusions, the evidence is listed and this makes it most useful.

The text preferred is still mainly that of Westcott and Hort since most credibility is still given to the Alexandrian text of B and a. The more recent discovery of the papyri has somehow strengthened the witness to the Alexandrian-Egyptian manuscripts.

Kurt and Barbara Aland call with confidence their text the "Standard Text". They are confident that it represents the closest to the original ever presented to the public.

The New Testament according to the Majority text by Hodges and Farstad

To compensate the wide acceptance of the Nestle-Aland, another more recent school advocates the value of the Majority Text. This position stands right between the two extremes of the KJV-TR only supporters and those who totally dismiss the Byzantine/Traditional/Majority text as of little or no critical value.

This school can be retraced in the positions of scholars already mentioned, like Burgon or Scrivener.

Personally I have a very deep respect for this type of text. Most of my Greek New Testament reading is done on an interlinear edition of it. It clearly emendates the TR of its mistakes and restores to its rightful place a very important witness to the Greek New Testament. By far it is my favourite, though the apparatus providing information about variant readings is quite limited compared to the Nestle-Aland, at least in the edition that I own or available so far.

The facts in favour of the Majority Text

The first thing I wish to discuss is a very controversial rule, so famous with modern critics. "... a shorter reading is more likely to be right than a longer.” – Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, page 110.

“As an editor the scribe of P45 wielded a sharp axe. The most striking aspect of this style is conciseness. The dispensable word is dispensed with. He omits adverbs, adjectives, nouns, participles, verbs, personal pronouns - without any compensating habit of addition.”, E. C. Colwell, “Scribal habits in Early Papyri: A study in the corruption of the Text”, p. 383, quoted by Wilbur Norman Pickering and published in “True or False”, edited by David Otis Fuller, p. 250. According to the same authority the omission practice is peculiar of the scribe of P66. One need but compare the Alexandrian witnesses to understand how unsafe such confidence in the short readings can be, especially considering the fact that their omissions are peculiar to some of them and not to all. Their disagreement is often evidence of the liberties taken by the scribes behind this type of text and the tendency is clearly for omissions. Origen was a representavive of the Christian school at Alexandria, in Egypt. Just to give an idea of the critical spirit at work in this branch of the church, I will quote a passage of his commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew: "But you will compare together His saying to Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan", with that said to the devil ( who said to Him, "All these things will I give Thee if Thou wilt fall down and worship me"), "get thee hence", without the addition, "behind Me;" for to be behind Jesus is a good thing", The Ante-Nicene fathers, edited by A. Allan Menzies, fourth edition, Hendrickson Publishers, volume 9, p. 462.

Origen gives us here an example of what is techinacally called conjectural emendation, which is the most dangerous practice of textual criticism: the critic emendates the text not because of any external evidence but because of personal considerations. Since Origen thought it was impossible that Jesus had actually said to the devil: "get thee behind me, Satan", he supposed that "behind me" was not part of the original. Is it a wonder that the mss coming from the Alexandrian-Egyptian tradition support a shorter text?

This assumption - the short is the best - is false. The shorter reading has no more right to be considered the closest to the original a priori than the longer. Such presumption must be abandoned. Or better, it proves that the preference given to a certain type of text is very probably due to the fact that the scribes that produced that mutilated text and modern critics share a very similar frame of mind.

Westcott and Hort were deeply convinced that the M text was deliberately created in Antioch and that it was imposed on the church. Such recension would be visible in the examples of the so called conflate readings they propose to the reader. This was a backbone of their theory but it has not shaken the securities of the supporters of their text the simple fact that no trace in history remains of such an event. A theory based on assumptions based on silence or considerations on the state of the available text is at least weak and closer to speculation than to facts. The death blow to this Recension theory is that the M text is quoted by church fathers and some traces are found also in newly discovered papyri, taking its existence long before it is supposed to have appeared on the scene. P66 is said to agree in the first eight chapters of John more with the M readings (50.9%) than those of a (43.7%), Studies in the Text and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, by Epp and Fee, pp.228, 233. Bruce M. Metzger writes about Colossians 1:12: "The reading of B is an early conflation of both variants" the Majority and the Western. How can an earlier text be influenced by a later fabricated text?

The Alands are convinced that official recensions occured also in other branches of the Church. They think, anyway, that some old mss preserve a text antedating those recensions. They boldly state that their so called Standard Text brings back to light a text that antedates such recensions. I believe that no historical evidence survives of such recensions and that it is more than doubtful that churches wanted or were able to impose a uniform text of the New Testament. I think I can say that the Standard Text is the best text that can be obtained today if the presumptions of textual critics are considered true. It is slightly different.

Westcott and Hort thought "the oldest was the best" supposing that no deliberate changes were made to the text of the New Testament. So, through what is called a genealogical method, knowing the practice of scribal work and retracing the accidental mistakes it introduces in the text, it is possible to emend those mistakes and restore the original text. Such a presumption is false. We read of how some scribes handed the manuscripts with freedom. It deserves notice that such mss belonged to the Egyptian/Alexandrian tradition! We read of Origen, belonging to this school. It must be added that many heretic views came from this area of Christianity. Even the Christian school there was considered Gnostic Christian.

It is a known fact that heretics of the first centuries adulterated the text of manuscripts creating new copies that would fit to their ideas. The heretic Marcion mutilated his copies of Scripture in order to justify his heretical views. I think some of the omissions found in the mss tradition of Luke can be retraced to this heretic man. The Western Non-Interpolations supported by WH and found in the Uncial ms D may be a trace of such deliberate tempering of the text.

Here is a direct witness to the deliberate adulterations of the New Testament. Caius (180-217 AD) was a Christian who wrote of the heretics: “…they have boldly laid their hands upon the divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them…if any one should choose to collect and compare all their copies together, he would find many discrepancies among them.” – The Ante-Nicene fathers, edited by A. Roberts & J. Donaldson, volume 5, p. 602. To see the extent of how much some wanted credit for their heretic views one must only consider the many apocryphal gospels and other writings circulating in the first centuries of our era. The recent discovery of the gospel of Judah has only added one to the number of them we already know. The historical and religious value of those writings is well known to the informed and the antiquity of such forgeries will impress only the unaware of the moltitude of heretical movements rising in the first century of christianity.

Going back to our subject. W-H presumption of no deliberate changes affecting the transmission of the NT text, was wrong and their method and work were affected by that assumption. If not so, they would have not failed to see how suspicion it is that the witnesses of the Alexandrian text, to which the more recently papyri must be added, contradict one other all the time.

If a complete copy of Marcion mutilated text of the Bible was found today, would it be considered reliable and trustworthy only because of its age?

Most of what I know about the Majority Text I owe to John William Burgon. So I think it is more appropriate to present his more authoritative voice than mine. He called M the Traditional Text. Of its witnesses he writes: “their witness (Alexandrian MSS) does not agree together. The Traditional Text, on the contrary, is unmistakably one.” – The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established by John William Burgon, p. 34.

It is a simple and undeniable truth that witnesses that contradict one another, are not reliable. On the contrary, agreeing witnesses, if no connection or conspiracy can be proved, must be supposed to be reliable and honestly representing the truth.

About M Burgon adds: “Those many MSS were executed demonstrably at different times in different countries”, p.46.

Independent agreeing witnesses are very reliable. These kind of witnesses support the Majority Text.

On the contrary, concerning the Alexandrian text not only we cannot say that its representatives agree with one another, but we can't also call them independent witnesses, since they mostly derive from the same location.

“The consentient testimony of two, four, six, or more witnesses, coming to us from widely sundered regions is weightier by far than the same number of witnesses proceeding from one and the same locality, between whom there probably exists some sort of sympathy, and possibly one degree of collusion”, p. 52.

For example, the witness by the Alexandrian text against John 5:4 as it is found in the M text, is considered final by modern critics. But it should be said of those witnesses against the authenticity of the traditional reading that they “are unable to agree among themselves whether there was a Jerusalem a sheep-pool (a) or ‘a pool at the sheep-gate’: whether it was surnamed (BC), or named (D), or neither (a): - which appellation, out of thirty which have been proposed for this pool, they will adopt, - seeing that C is for ‘Bethesda’; B for ‘Bethsaida’; a for ‘Bethzatha’; D for ‘Belzetha’…in respect of the thirty-two contested words…only three of them omit all the words in question…D retains the first five, and surrenders the last twenty-seven.”, p. 82-83.

Burgon gives even more details about the contradictions of the Alexandrian text witnesses. “The five Old Uncials (a A B C D ) falsify the Lord’s Prayer as given by St. Luke in no less than forty-five words. But so little do they agree among themselves, that they throw themselves into six different combinations in their departures from the Traditional Text; and yet they are never able to agree among themselves as to one single various reading.”, p.84.

The weakness of the M text is the relatively late age of its representatives. Again we say that age alone cannot determine whether a ms is reliable or not. A sixth century ms that is the last in a chain of faithfully copied mss is more reliable than a single ms produced in the second century by a scribe so convinced of his doctrinal positions to change the text of a ms accordingly. We read about church official revisions and the ecclesiastical authority imposing those revisions, the Byzantine, the Alexandrian. But those are simply theories. The habit of some to change the NT text for doctrinal purposes is a documented fact. We quoted Caius and Origen. It will be useful to relate about an instance of this kind found in P66. It stands alone in adding an article before the word "prophet" in John 7:52. The scribe did not hesitate to solve an evident difficulty of the text by changing it as he pleased.

If the mss of the M text are late, it means only that its ancestors have not survived to our days. In my library, the best preserved text is the New World Translation, the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible. I simply do not read it. On the contrary, the books which I most value are those in the worst conditions. Is it not possible that the ancestors of M were in use in the church and are no more in existence because they were torn apart by the use in the church, whose only care was to produce new faithful copies of the original? Codex Sinaitic was literally rescued from fire by Tischendorf. The Vaticanus ms was undisturbed in the Vatican library for centuries. Another reason why we have so many old mss of the Alexandrian-Egyptian tradition is because of the dry and hot climate of those areas.

Number is no more relevant in itself than age. In general, number would be less important than the age. But because of what we noticed, this may not be applicable to the mss of the NT.

Some facts must be taken into consideration along with the age of the Alexandrian witnesses. The value they can boast because of their antiquity is weakened by: 1. The contradictions of his representatives. 2. The fact that these mss come from one specific area and consequently from one textual school and tradition. 3. The area from which they come is where heresies were rampant, so much that it even influenced the orotodox.

Though number in itself would not mean much, the other facts in favour of the reliability of the M text are: - 1. That its representatives mss come from different areas of Christendom, - 2. They all agree in one text, but they show some peculiarities that are evidence of their value as independent witnesses. - 3. This type of text is well supported by the quotations of the fathers of the church, which take its existence back in time, before the supposed recension which was said to have given birth to it.

The truth is that the Recension theory was conceived to give a rational explanation to the existence of the M text which is in itself a quite peculiar phenomena.

But I ask: What would you expect from the faithful copying of the books of the NT, down from the time of the apostles to the age of print, if not a text like the Majority text? Moreover: what would you expect of mss departing from this faithful trasmission of the text, if not a small number of unreliable witnesses, contradicting each other, soon to be doomed to oblivion along with the hands and minds that produced them?

I close this section of my article by reproducing a question posed by Burgon, which resembles mine above. "Does the truth of the Text of Scripture dwell with the vast multitude of copies, uncial and cursive, concerning which nothing is more remarkable than the marvellous agreement which subsists between them? Or is it rather to be supposed that the truth abides exclusively with a very handful of manuscripts, which at once differ from the great bulk of the witnesses, and - strange to say - also amongst themselves?", The Traditional Text, p. 16-17.

Examples of Variant Readings

I think the time has come to discus some of the most famous variant readings detectable in Bible translations, leaving the theoretical speculations for the most important consideration of the practical implications.

I will compare the King James Version as a representative of the TR and still the most popular Majority Text translation available, to the Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament, eighth edition, 1994 and its companion textual commentary by Bruce M. Metzger. I will shortly consider some controversial Bible passages.

Matthew 1.25

KJV: “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”

The NA text omits the word “her firstborn”. The Majority text retains it and so does the Textus Receptus.

Mark 1.1

KJV: “The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”

The words “Son of God” are enclosed in brackets. I like the way Metzger justifies this decision, I like the way he explains it in a moderate and scientific way. But external evidence in support of the long reading is overwhelming. The short reading is only supported by suppositions and a few manuscripts, belonging to the Alexandrian text. My opinion is that this is one of the many instances that shows the attitude of some scribes to shorten the text, like we see it in the mss so much valued by some critics.

Mark 16.9-20

The so called “long ending”, the traditional ending of the gospel of Mark, with which most are familiar, is supported by the Majority text. Its omission is based both on the external support of the Alexandrian witnesses and on internal considerations concerning the text: most scholars agree about the fact that the author of this ending of the gospel was not the author of the rest of Mark.

John W. Burgon wrote a book on this subject.

I ask myself a simple question: Why is it that the long ending is still retained in the Bibles which translate the modern text? Why don't they simply end the gospel at v.8?

If critics, and the mss supporting the omission of this portion of Scripture, are right: 1. Are we to believe that Mark ended is gospel at v.8, quoting: "And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulcher; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid." 2. Or, even worse, are we to believe that the original ending of this gospel is lost?

Besides the overwhelming support of mss to this passage, it was quoted by old Christians like Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Diatessaron of Tatian, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Epiphanus, taking the existence of the M text back to the first steps of Christianity.

Concerning the testimony in favour of the omission, there are some facts which must be taken into very serious consideration concerning B and a.

Codex Vaticanus B, in the place of these verses has a "blank space, amply sufficient to contain the verses, the column in question being the only vacant one in the whole manuscript.", Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 298. It is clearly seen in the picture below of this portion of the codex.

To be added to this strange case, is the fact that the very same scribe who is author of B "appears to have cancelled the sheet originally written by the scribe of a, and to have substituted for it the sheet as we now have it, written by himself... Thus we are led not only to infer that the testimony of a is here not independent of that of B, but to suspect that this sheet may have been thus cancelled and rewritten in order to conform its contents to those of the corresponding part of B." The Traditional Text, p. 299.

The blank space in B is due to the fact that the ending we know was found in the manuscript it was copied from? What other explenation can there be?

At the same time, if the scribe of B had to fix the testimony of a in order to agree with his omission, are we not entitled to understand that the ending of the gospel as we know it was known to him and that he, willingly, for some reasons, though found in the copies he had before him, decided to omit this portion of Scripture. Is this evidence against the traditional ending of Mark's gospel, or rather against the reliability and even honesty of the work of the scribe behind a and B?

Bruce Metzger writes: "the longer ending, though current in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary." A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p.104.

On the ground of the same considerations - so called: internal evidence! - the authenticity of John 21, of some epistles of Paul, of II Peter, is questioned. Is it safe to rely on the personal judgment of critics?

Resting on external evidence alone, as it is safe to do, there is no reason for the omission of this portion of Scripture.

Luke 22:43-44

KJV: "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground"

One can just wonder how can the witness for the omission of this passage mean anything when it represents the voice of the champions of deliberate omissions: P75, a, B, Marcion, Origen. With some other (confused) exceptions, the rest of the New Testament mss support its authenticity along with quotations from the writings of early Christian writers like Justin, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Eusebius.

Luke 23:34

KJV: "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."

This portion of Scripture is omitted by P75, B, D and some few more mss. P75 and B are so close to each other that they could be with right considered just like witness. D, besides the famous Western Non-Interpolations, omits other passages considered unanimousely original, Mt. 9.34, Mk 2.22, 10.2, 14.39, Lk 5.39, 10:41-42, 12.21, 22.62, 24.9, Jn 4.9. What is the weight of the testimony of such an unreliable witness, which shows a text that has been so clearly willingly mutilated.

External evidence cannot motivate the denial of the authenticity of the words of Jesus. Metzger motivates the doubts cast on this passage by the fact that no reason could explain its deliberate omission. But I would rather say that we know of! How incredible were the suppositions of Origen to lead him to dismiss the word "behind me" as spurious. The fact is that we do not know why some might have removed this portion of Scripture from their copies, and since such scarse evidence is in favour of the omission and the rest for its presence, if we want to abide in the realm of objective evidence and not speculations, we must admit there are no true or sufficient reasons to cast any doubt on the authenticity of this passage.

John 1.18

KJV: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

I have discussed of this passage in my Italian book on the Trinity. The Alexandrian text reads “God” instead of “Son”. The change is very simple in the original Greek: it takes a single consonant change, since Son was abbreviated YS (υς) and ThS (θς). It is only another corruption of the Alexandrian tradition and maybe evidence of Gnostic infiltration in the text of this gospel. Some modern translators understand the total absence of meaning of the expression “the only begotten God” and retain the Majority text.

Also in this case, the witnesses against the Majority text are not in agreement with each other.

- 1. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς – “the only begotten Son” - is the Majority - TR reading

- 2. ὁ μονογενὴς θεὸς – “the only begotten God” - is supported by P75, 33 and a corrector of a.

- 3. μονογενὴς θεὸς – “only begotten God” - is supported by P66, a, B, C, L.

The latter reading enjoys the consent of modern critics. But the contradiction in which the supporters of the reading “Only Begotten God” fall, invalidates the value of their witness. The article could only have been dropped, and dropped intentionally. Omission is a characteristic of the Alexandrian text scribes. The freedom with which the text was handed let the change to God enter the text. There imprint of Gnostic influence is clearly seen in the Alexandrian reading: "the only begotten God" simply means nothing.

John 3:13

καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν	No one has ascended to heaven
εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς,	but He who came down from heaven,
ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.	that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

The representatives of the Alexandrian text omit: “who is in heaven”.

Honestly it is a lot more explainable the omission of this gloss than the insertion of it. If we consider also that the longer reading is attested by manuscripts of different traditions against the Egyptian tradition only, it remains little or no room for doubt that the longer reading is the original. The reasons for its omission are explained by Bruce M. Metzger: “the quality of the external attestation supporting the shorter reading, regarded the words ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ (who is in Heaven) as an interpretative gloss, reflecting later Christological development”. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, second edition, page 175

I am a fan of Bruce Metzger’s work. I have gained so much information from his work that I feel very embarrassed to say that his statement strikes the final blow to the shorter reading. The quality of a text limited to use in a single region is obviously poor. The “Christological development” explanation is even a weaker point, since this reading clearly creates a difficulty even to it. Such difficulty was the reason for its omission. It is both clear and simple. It is also evident a loss in the rhythm of the wording.

John 6.69

KJV: “And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Instead of “the son on the living God”, the modern text has “the Holy One of God”. I do not see the need to discuss the importance of choosing one text instead of another. One may not fail to see how unimportant such a slight change in a 2000 years old text is. I urge the reader to keep this in mind, since it will consider it when I will draw my conclusions.

John 7:53-8:11

This portion of Scripture, the so called Pericope of the Adulteress is one of the most famous portions of the Bible. It is supported by the Majority text. The case against its authenticity is strong as far as many other witnesses to the text are concerned.

But, like in the case of Mark 16.9-20, why is it retained in the text of most Bibles? If thought not to be part of the original gospel of John, why is it not completely deletd and what critics are sure is the original text restored?

Most Bible readers don’t know that John 21 is also thought not to have belonged to the original gospel. This is usually supposed because of internal considerations on the text. But not one ms supports its omission and so no textual critic can successfully cast any doubt hoping his opinion to be substantiated by any external evidence at all.

I personally advocate the inclusion of the Pericope right where it is. It is supported by the Majority text and few other passages of Scripture have enjoyed so much sanction from the body of Christ.

Acts 8.37

KJV: “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

I include this instance where the TR reproduces a reading against the Majority text. The case is against its authenticity and in favour of looking at it as a later insertion.

Ephesians 1.1

KJV: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus.”

The words “at Ephesus” are omitted by some witnesses. The evidence for its presence in the text are too strong to give any credit to a few witnesses who have fallen victim of scribes seduced by the speculations of some early heretics and Christian commentators on the real addressee of this epistle.

I Timothy 3.16

KJV: “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

The reading “God was manifest” is the Majority text reading. The modern text has “He was manifested in the flesh”. See RSV. The change again, just like John 1:18, was possible by changing one single consonant.

Since I prefer the Majority text I am in favour of the reading “God”. But, at the same time, I cannot help but notice that in either of the two readings the truth stated is the same!

I John 5.7-8

KJV “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

The words in red are not in all the Greek mss. They were included in the TR by Erasmus because he found them in the controversial ms 61. The long reading is not the original one, this is beyond question.

Conclusion

The time has come to conclude our discussion and explain the peculiarities of New Testament Greek Textual Criticism and its impact on the Bible reader.

When I consider the various texts available today, I marvel at the great work of God, how he preserved his Word in such a miraculous way. My first Bible was a TR Italian translation, the Diodati. Then I started using the Riveduta Luzzi Bible, which is sort of an Italian Revised Version. Right now I read the New Testament in Greek - praise be to God for that, it's not my merit but His grace. I learned Greek on the TR. Later, when I was able to get one, I started using the Majority text, in an interlinear Greek-English edition. I recently got a Nestle-Aland text which I consider very important for study purposes. The percentage of differences from different editions is so small and the quality of those changes affect so little the meaning of the sentences and passages and even less the doctrine and teaching of the church that I can boldly say that the preservation of the New Testament is a fact. No other book can boast such a wonderful reliable text after a 2000 years journey!

I believe in the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Bible. I am convinced that God inspired the very words of Scripture. This is the divine aspect of the Bible, its supernatural quality.

Jesus was God made man. He was God but was also a man. A special man but human in the full sense of the term. No more God than man and vice versa. He could walk, eat, speak. He had to walk from one place to another, though he was God and as such, time and space had no power over him.

The Bible is God’s Word. But it is also a book. As a book it was subject to all the quality and limitations of a book. Today the Bible is being translated in many languages and published almost everywhere in the world. It is also available on audio and video. It is available on the internet. As a book it is enjoying all the potentials offered by the technology of our time. Every one has a Bible in their home. I have dozens, both printed and electronic editions. Why do we accept all the privileges down from the time of the invention of print to today, but neglect to considered the limitations that were common to all the books before the invention of print?

Why do we want to judge with our experience facts we cannot correctly interpret from that perspective? What was given to other generations has not been given to ours. And, at the same time, what has been given to our generation has not been given to other past generations. We need to live our time. We must not judge the past from our perspective, but trust God's mighty work.

Why do some want a uniform text of the Bible, a printed perfect edition of the Scripture to satisfy their need for certainties? It is the same frustrating search for doctrinal perfection in different denominations, when it is quite evident that no church is perfect on earth.

If we do simply look at the facts and consider them for what they are, we can but marvel at the greatness of God’s perfect plan to save man. How God created the ground for the birth of Jesus, so perfectly prophezied of in the Old Testament. How God arranged the times and the conditions so that the Gospel might easily be preached to all the nations, when the Roman Empire virtually united politically all the known world and the Greek culture and language was familiar to people everywhere, like English is today.

Like there are some areas of Christianity and churches which go astray and far from the truth, so far as that their faithfulness to the Gospel may be easily questioned - Jehovah's witnesses, Latter Day Saints or some liberal Protestant churches - at the same time, there are some Bible texts who can be considered inferior to others.

Critics today definitely prefer the Alexandrian, shorter, text. The rest follows as a consequence. It was the same text that circulated in an area where thinkers like Origen and Gnostics pollulated. This means one thing: the frame of mind of critics of today is simply more fitting to the frame of mind of those who lived in that environment and created the text they prefer. The same applies to Christianity today. Today’s moderate, compromising, educated but not convinced Christianity, animated more by ecumenical desires than by the will to spread the Truth of the Gospel, finds itself at ease with this type of text, produced by likeminded people.

The modern text has not improved the TR text, the Majority text in use in the church, it has simply revived a text that the church had long since gotten rid of, the Alexandrian text. The Holy Spirit did not let some portions of Scripture to be taken away. I can't find any other reason why some portions of Scripture have been openly considered spurious by eminent critics but they are still there available to the Bible reader. Most of the omissions considered to restore the original text are not entirely followed and the text is still there: enclosed in double square brackets, included in the text with a note casting doubt on its authenticity, some omissions followed some not... If the critics are sure of these omissions and their text, why don't they just edit a text, their text, getting rid of the supposed spurious additions? Is it because the body of Christ won't accept such a text? Is it because the Spirit of God has very often already sanctioned some of the omissions of the modern text into the hearts of believers?

For the reasons that I have given so far, there is no reason to think that critics from Westcott and Hort till today have improved the text of the Textus Receptus. The modern text is fluctuating, changing according to the personal judgement of editors and their choises among the contradicting evidence of mss departing from the Majority text. Westcott and Hort's Neutral Text proved to be a fable. The same will happen to the Standard Text of today in time.

My suggestion is that we follow the path of the early church and confine again to oblivion the Alexandrian text and the confused isolated witnesses departing from the Traditional-Majority text of the New Testament.