By Reese Currie, Compass Distributors
The subject of Biblical textual criticism can be pretty dry and boring material. I would like to step away from all the technical details, and from a completely non-doctrinal text, show the difference between consensus scholarship and “majority text” scholarship.
Biblical textual criticism is the method used in determining what the original manuscripts of the Bible really said. It is a very interesting science. There are two different ways of making that determination. One is “majority text” (MT) scholarship, and the other is “consensus scholarship.”
MT scholarship is relatively easy to understand; if a reading appears in the vast majority of the Bible manuscripts, it is considered to be correct. In rare cases where the manuscripts are divided, then other criteria are appealed to. In almost all cases, however, there is no need to appeal to such criteria, because most readings have vast support.
The opposing view is “consensus text” (CT) scholarship. Rather than beginning with what the vast majority of manuscripts have to say, it starts with a lot of subjective rules; many more rules than I will mention in this article. I will explain CT rules individually as they come up.
Majority text scholarship is used in the New King James Version, the King James Version, J.P. Green’s Literal Version and the Modern King James Version, the 21st Century King James Version, and others. These versions are based on the Textus Receptus (or, translated, the Received Text). The Received Text does differ slightly from the Majority Text (between 1 and 2% difference), but an excellent Bible version like the NKJV highlights these slight differences in the footnotes and serves the dual purpose of satisfying both Received Text and Majority Text advocates.
Consensus scholarship is used in the New American Standard Bible, the American Standard Version, the Revised Standard/New Revised Standard Versions, and the New International Version. The various “paraphrase” versions universally choose consensus scholarship texts. Modern "CT" Bibles use one of four versions of the consensus text: Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland, United Bible Societies, or an "eclectic" text suitable to the purposes of the translators. Each of these texts disagrees with the other slightly, and all of them disagree significantly with the Majority Text.
I have selected a rather silly text to examine here, but I find that if we use the Bible’s text to discuss this sort of thing, we may offend someone’s preconceived doctrinal notion and lose the thrust of the argument to that person.
So, the text I have selected is from the December 22, 1997 issue of the Canadian newsmagazine MacLean’s, and it speaks about a former pro-wrestling champion, Canadian wrestler Bret Hart. Surely we can’t offend doctrinal sensibilities with something so removed from doctrine.
Now, suppose that MacLean’s was printed the same way the New Testament was, that is, written out by hand by scribes rather than printed with a printing press. And also suppose that it is now 1500 years later, and (for some inconceivable reason) we are trying to piece together the correct text from four manuscripts we have discovered.
The Christian Greek Scriptures were typically done in scripto continua, which means that there is no spacing between the words, and no punctuation. I have inserted the spaces to make this a fairly simple exercise. I have also italicized “variants”. A “variant” is a word or phrase that differs significantly between individual manuscripts in our four manuscript set.
To prepare these "manuscripts", I typed in all-caps, scripto continua, not allowing myself to go back and fix typing mistakes. Then I left the four "manuscripts" and the original article alone for a week. Then, I used the two different scholarship methods to try to come up with the original text.
The first manuscript we found reads as follows: TAKING A BREAK FROM HIS DAILY WORKOUT IN THE GYM AT HIS EIGHT HUNDRED TEN SQUARE METRE FIVE BEDROOM HOME IN NORTHWEST CALGARY BRET HART GINGERLY EXTENDS HIS RIGHT HAND TO GREET A VISITOR IT ISNT MUCH OF A HANDSHAKE THE SIX FOOT TWO HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE POUND HART OFFERS ONLY LIMP FINGERS NAD NO GRIP HARDLY WHAT ONE WOULD EXPECT FROM A FIVE TIME CHAMPION OF THE WORLD WRESTLING FEDERATION BUT HE HAS A GOOD EXCUSE IVE GOT A PROKEN BONE IN MY HAND SO I HAVE TO BE CAREFUL SAYS HART WHOLE SOFT VOICE BEARS NO RESEMBLANCE TO THE INTIMIDATING GROWL OF THE CHARACTER KNOWN WORLDWIDE AS THE HITMAN THE EXPLANATION GETS EVEN MORE INTERESTING WHEN HART ADMITS HE BROKE THE BONE BY LANDING A HAYMAKER PUNCH TO THE UPPER JAW OF VINCE MCMAHON FOUNDER OWNER AND PROMOTER OF THE WWF A COMPANY THAT HAS TAKEN PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING OUT OF SEEDY LOW RENT AREAS AND TURNED IT INTO A MULTIMILLION DOLLAR INTERNATIONAL TV SPECTALCE IVE GOT A SORE HAND BUT I FIGURE HES A LOT SORER SAYS HART WITH A HINT OFF SATISCTION
The second manuscript we found reads as follows: TAKING A BREAK FROM HIS DAILY WORKOUT IN THE GYN AT HIS EIGHT HUNDRED AND TEN SQUARE METER FIVE BEDCOOM HOME IN NORTHWEST CALGARY BRET HARD GINERLY EXTENDS HIS RIGHT HAND TO GREET A VISITOR IT ISNT MUCH OF A HAND SHAKE THE SIX FOT TWO HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE POUND HART OFFERS ONLY LIMP FINGERS AND NO GRIP HARDLY WHAT ONE WOULD EXPECT FROM A A FIVE TIME CHAMPION OF THE WORLD WRESTLING FEDERATION BUT HE HAS A GOOD EXCUSE IVE GOT A BROKEN BONE IN MY HAND SO I HAVE TO BE CAREFUL SAYS HART WHOSE SOFT WOICE BEARS NO RESEMBLANCE TO THE INTIMIDATING GROWL OF THE CHARACTER KNOWN WORLD WIDE AS THE HITMAN THE EXPLANATION GETS EVEN MORE INTERESTING WHEN HART ADMITS THAT HE BROKE THE BONE BY LANDING A HAYMAKER PUNCH TO THE UPPER JAW OF VINCE MCMAHON FOUNDER OWNER AND PROMOTER OF TEH WWF A COMPANY THAT HAS TAKEN PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING OUT OF SEEDY LOW RENT ARENAS AND TURNED IT INTO A MULTIMILLION DOALLR INTERNATIONAL TV SPECTACLE IVE GOT A SORE HAND BUT I FIGURE HES A LOT SORER SAYS HART WITH A HINT OF SATISFACTION
The third manuscript we found reads as follows: TAKE A BREAK FROM HIS DAILY WORKOUT IN THE GYUM AT HIS EITH HUNDRED AND TEN SQUARE METRE FIVE BEDROOM HOME IN NORTHWEST CALGARY BRET HART GINGERLY EXTENDS HIS RIGHT HAND TO GREET A VISITOR IT ISNT MUCH OF A HANDSHAKE THE FIX FOOT TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE POUND HART OFFERS ONLY LIMP FINGERS AND NO GRIP HARTLY WHAT ONE WOULD EXPECT FROM A FIVE TIME CHAMPION OF THE WORLD WRESTLING FEDERATION BUT HE AS A GOOD EXECUSE IVE GOT A PROKEN HAND SO I HAVE TO BE CAREFUL SAYS HART WHOSE SOFT VOICE BEARS NO RESEMBLANCE TO THE INTIMIDATING GROWL OF THE CHARACTER KNOWN WORLD WISE AS TEH HITMAN THE EXPLANTATION GETS EVEN MORE INTERST WHEN HART ADMITS THAT HE BROKE THE BONE BY LANDING A HAYMAKER PUNCH TO THE JAW OF VINCE MCMAHON FOUNDER OWNER AND PROMOTER OF THE WWF A COMPANY THAT HAS TAKEN PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING OUT OF SEEDY LOW RET ARENAS AND TURNED IT INTO A MULTIMILLION DOLLAR SEPTICAL IVE GOT A SORE HAND BUT I FIGURE HES A LOT SORER SAYS HART WITH A HINT OF SATISFACTION
The third manuscript is a shorter manuscript than the first two. This means nothing to majority text scholarship (other than to indicate that there is probably missing text), but in consensus scholarship, it means that weight is added to this manuscript; it is considered potentially more accurate than the longer manuscripts.
The fourth manuscript is the same length as the third manuscript, and reads as follows: TAKING A BREAK FROM HIS DAILY WORKOUT IN THE GYM AT HIS EIGHT HUNDRED AND TEN SQUARE METRE HOME IN NORTHWEST CALGARY BRET HART GINGERLY EXTENDS HIS RIGHT HAND TO GREET A VISITOR IT ISNT MUCH OF A HANDSHAKE THE SIX FOOT TWO HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE POUND HART OFFERS ONLY LIMP FINGERS AND NO GRIP HARDLY WHAT ONE WOULD EXPECT FROM A FIVE TIME CHAMPION OF THE WORLD WRESTLING FEDERATION BUT HE HAS A GOOD EXCUSE IVE GOT A BROKEN BONE IN MY HAND SO I HAVE TO BE CARFULL SAYS HART WHOSE SOFT WOICE BEARS NO RESEMBLANCE TO THE INTIMIDATING GROWL OF THE CHARACTER KNOWN WORLDWIDE AS THE HITMAN THE EXPLANATION GETS EVEN STRANGER WHEN HART ADMITS THAT HE BROKE THE BONE BY LANDING A HAYMAKER PUNCH TO THE UPPER JAW OF VINCE MCMAHON FOUNDER OWND AND PROMOTER OF THE WWF A COMPANY THAT HAS TAKEN PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING OUT OF SEEDY LOW RENT ARENAS AND TURNED IT INTO A MULTIMILLION DOLLAR TV SPECTACLE IVE GOT A SORE HAND BUT I FIGURE HES A LOT SORER SAYS HART WITH A HINT OF SATISFACTION
In reality, there is not much difference in how consensus scholarship and majority text scholarship handle most of the variants found here. Most of them are just misspellings. Some of them are words that would seem to be the wrong word when taken in the context. These are simple scribal mistakes.
There are a few variants that must be handled differently by the two methods, however. Let’s begin with an easy one. Did Vince McMahon receive a haymaker punch to his “upper” jaw, or just to his jaw? The shorter third manuscript does not contain the word “upper”.
In majority text scholarship, the answer is simple: It appears in the vast majority of the manuscripts, so accept it as a legitimate reading; Vince McMahon took a blow to his “upper” jaw.
In consensus scholarship, we must refer to the one of the Metzger Criteria. “In general the shorter reading is to be preferred.” The Canons of Tischendorf include Canon 5, “That reading is to be preferred which could have given occasion to the others, or which appears to comprise the elements of the others.” According to consensus scholarship techniques, the word “upper” was probably not in the original text but was an additional explanatory note added by a scribe.
The next one is slightly more complex. Does Bret Hart live in a “five-bedroom” house or not? The majority of manuscripts state that he does live in a five-bedroom home, so the answer in Majority Text scholarship is simple; it is accepted as the correct reading.
Consensus scholarship would have us consider the influence of the pro-wrestling fan community on the reading; does it add greater glory to Bret Hart that he lives in a five-bedroom home? If so, we can suspect the scribe of purposefully inserting the part about the five-bedrooms, and this spurious addition has propagated itself into the majority of manuscripts. It is more likely that “eight hundred ten square metre home” would have led to “eight hundred ten square metre, five-bedroom home”. Therefore, the words “five-bedroom” would have to be dropped.
Later, we see that the majority of the manuscripts make reference to a broken bone in Hart’s hand, but one simply says the hand is broken. Because the text is missing from a preferred manuscript, it will be removed from the consensus scholarship version of the text as an expanded reading. The scribe probably found it necessary to describe Bret Hart’s condition in more detail than the original document.
The “international” reading at the end is not found in either of the “consensus-method” preferred manuscripts, so the reading would be dropped. To the consensus-scholarship mind, it is obviously an attempt on the part of the scribe to make the professional wrestling industry larger than it really was. In truth, whether or not to include "international" would be a tough call even with the majority text method; it appears in exactly half of the documents which is not enough to make it a majority reading by numbers alone. In cases such as these, other criteria would be appealed to, such as Manuscript Genealogy, Antiquity, Variety, Continuity, Respectability of Witnesses, Context, and Internal Reasonableness. Again, it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss each of these points; suffice it to say that more often than not, these criteria would be able to establish the reading. In the rare cases when they would not, then most likely, the word would be included, but with some kind of notation indicating there is some question as to its authenticity.
The original first paragraph from the MacLean’s article reads as follows: “Taking a break from his daily workout in the gym at his 810-square metre, five-bedroom home in northwest Calgary, Bret Hart gingerly extends his right hand to greet a visitor. It isn’t much of a handshake. The six-foot, 235-pound Hart offers only limp fingers and no grip – hardly what one would expect from a five-time champion of the World Wrestling Federation. But he has a good excuse. ‘I’ve got a broken bone in my hand, so I have to be careful,’ says Hart, whose soft voice bears no resemblance to the intimidating growl of the character known worldwide as The Hitman. The explanation gets even more interesting when Hart admits that he broke the bone by landing a haymaker punch to the upper jaw of Vince McMahon – founder, owner and promoter of the WWF, a company that has taken professional wrestling out of seedy, low-rent arenas and turned it into a multimillion-dollar international TV spectacle. ‘I’ve got a sore hand, but I figure he’s a lot sorer,’ says Hart with a hint of satisfaction.”
What has been demonstrated here is the ineffectiveness of the consensus scholarship method and the high level of accuracy in the majority text method. All I did here was apply the rules of consensus scholarship to the manuscripts, and we see that every single reading weeded out by the consensus scholarship method actually belonged in the text. At the same time, in every case except one, the Majority text method had no problems determining the correct reading. In each of these cases, the disputed word was correctly retained and nothing was added to the text. In the one questionable case, the disputed word would most likely have been retained, but some kind of notation might have been used indicating that the evidence was divided.
But the rarity of such problem passages in the MT method should be noted. In our example there were 181 words in the original. Out of these, the MT method had problems determining the authenticity of only one word. This amounts to about one-half of one percentage of the text. Or, to put it another way, with the MT method, over 99% of the text was easily validated.
On the other hand, the CT method omitted a total of seven words from the original. This amounts to almost four percent of the text that was "lost" with this method.
What does that mean to the Bible reader? Applied to a trivial piece of text, consensus scholarship fails badly. In the case of this article, the rules of modern textual criticism result in four omissions of text that was a valid part of the original. Altogether, this amounted to almost four percent of the text. This percentage is probably similar to what happens when the CT method deals with the Greek manuscripts. Do you want to have accidental omissions in your Bible version?
On the other hand, the MT method only had difficulty with less that one-half of one percent of the text. Again, such a percentage is similar to the percentage of words the MT method has problems with in the Greek manuscripts.
So which method do you want used to construct your Bible version? To me, the answer is obvious. The only thing you can really be guaranteed of if you use a non-majority text Bible version is that at least some portion of the text is going to be missing due to deliberate human tampering, however well intentioned that tampering was.
But with a MT-based version, the vast majority of the text will have been easily determined. Only rarely would there have been a difficulty in determining the correct text. The chance of an original reading "missing" would be far less with a MT-based version than with a CT-based version.
This demonstration alone should at least make you consider looking into the scholarship behind your Bible version to ensure that you are reading the most accurate text possible.
(Special thanks to Gary F. Zeolla, Director of Darkness To Light Ministry, http://www.dtl.org for his assistance in proofing and making suggestions on this article.)
A Simple Argument Against Consensus Scholarship is Copyright © 1998 by Compass
Distributors
Sample text taken from "Real-life wrestling", MacLean's magazine, December 22, 1997, Copyright © 1997 by MacLean Hunter Publishing Limited