Beware of the “Majority Text” which corrupts the NT over 1,000 times!

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,778
113
#1
According to Michael D. Marlowe is his article “What about the Majority Text?” found on https://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html “The "Majority Text" is a statistical construct that does not correspond exactly to any known manuscript. It is arrived at by comparing all known manuscripts with one another and deriving from them the readings that are more numerous than any others [and this is patently false]. There are two published Greek texts which purport to represent the Majority readings -- Hodges & Farstad 1982 and Pierpont & Robinson 1991...”

When we read about the Majority Text we get the impression that it is practically identical to the Received Text (or Textus Receptus or TR). But the truth of the matter is that there are 1,005 differences which actually reflect the Critical Text (CT). And that is very significant, particularly since many of the changes affect Bible doctrine. These differences are listed in another article found on the same website titled “The Majority Text Compared to the Received Text”.

Below are only fifteen examples (and only from the Gospel of Matthew) of textual corruption, to show how the meaning is changed. It would be a huge project to discuss how 1,005 changes affect the meaning and/or doctrine of the New Testament:

Matthew 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits [changed to fruit] meet for repentance:

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, [and with fire omitted].

Matthew 4:18 And [Jesus changed to “he”], walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.

Matthew 8:15 And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered [unto them changed to “unto him”].

Matthew 9:4 And Jesus [knowing changed to “seeing”] their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

Matthew 9:36 But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because [they fainted changed to “they were harassed”], and [were scattered abroad changed to “helpless”], as sheep having no shepherd.

Matthew 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, [raise the dead omitted], cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

Matthew 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure [of the heart omitted] bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

Matthew 19:19 Honour [thy omitted] father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [Note: to confirm that this omission is a corruption see Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16; Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10; 10:19; Lk 18:20; Eph 6:2]

Matthew 21:1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to [Bethphage changed to “Bethsphage”], unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples [Note: even spelling errors have been inserted into the text]

Matthew 26:39 And [he went a little further changed to “he went towards them a little], and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Matthew 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: [that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots] totally omitted. [Note: this is an example of egregious corruption]

Matthew 27:41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders [“and Pharisees” added], said, [Note: adding to Scripture is forbidden]

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, [lama misspelled as “lima”] sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Matthew 28:19 Go ye [therefore omitted], and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

All these changes are significant but it will take spiritual discernment to understand how and why.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,440
3,687
113
#2
I don't have time to give this a full treatment right now, but I'll just say that a lot of these changes are based on the fact that we now have many more Byzantine manuscripts than Erasmus ever dreamed of. If Erasmus were alive today I'm quite sure his Greek text would look very different; that is, if his approach was honest and scholarly. The majority text is different than Erasmus' textus receptus; I never said otherwise. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, unless you're a KJV onlyist. Many of the changes I noticed in this list are trivial and not even worth commenting on.

As I posted in another thread, the NKJV isn't based on the majority text but only includes its reading in the notes. The NKJV is based on the textus receptus. I'm still waiting for scriptures from the NKJV (not the majority text) that are significantly different than the KJV.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,623
13,866
113
#3
The presence of differences does not logically lead to the conclusion that the majority text is corrupted.

On the basis of mere differences, it is equally valid to claim that the so-called "received text" is the corrupt one.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,440
3,687
113
#4
Nehemiah6, let me ask you a serious question. You seem to think the Byzantine manuscripts Erasmus used are good, but all the ones that have been discovered since then are evil. Do you have any other reason to think that than it was divine providence?
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,388
5,729
113
#5
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, [and with fire omitted].
How embarrassing for you. :LOL:
These nitpickity details don't effect English bible translations as much as you like to declare.
Fire not omitted.


KJV
Math 3:11
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

NIV
Math 3:11
‘I baptise you with[b] water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptise you with[c] the Holy Spirit and fire.

[b] or in
[c] or in
 

Pilgrimshope

Well-known member
Sep 2, 2020
14,670
5,913
113
#6
How embarrassing for you. :LOL:
These nitpickity details don't effect English bible translations as much as you like to declare.
Fire not omitted.


KJV
Math 3:11
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

NIV
Math 3:11
‘I baptise you with[b] water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptise you with[c] the Holy Spirit and fire.

[b] or in
[c] or in
hi , hello , greetings , salutations , howdie , hey there , (eye contact and head nod )

my silly point is you can convey the same message in different words and I’m glad because we don’t all speak the same way and understand the same terms but we can hear the same message
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,778
113
#7
These nitpickity details don't effect English bible translations as much as you like to declare.
You should know that even a change from singular to plural is significant in Scripture. So please note: Now to Abraham and his seed [SINGULAR] were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds [PLURAL], as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Gal 3:16). So nitpicking should also be your preferred mode of looking at Scripture.
Fire not omitted.
I was not referring to the NIV but to the Majority Text (which does not necessarily correspond to the Critical Text underlying the NIV). So let's get back to the Majority Text and see the omission:

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
ἐγὼ μὲν βαπτίζω ὑμᾶς ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν ὁ δὲ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἰσχυρότερός μου ἐστίν, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι· αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί·

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005 (Robinson-Pierpont)
Ἐγὼ μὲν βαπτίζω ὑμᾶς ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν· ὁ δὲ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἰσχυρότερός μου ἐστίν, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι· αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. [καὶ πυρί omitted]

When you look at Matthew 3:12 (the next verse) it become clear that that omission was a corruption: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Now the question is this: Is 'with fire' doctrinally and theologically significant since Christ spoke of men being "salted" with fire (Mk 9:49)?
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,778
113
#8
Nehemiah6, let me ask you a serious question. You seem to think the Byzantine manuscripts Erasmus used are good, but all the ones that have been discovered since then are evil. Do you have any other reason to think that than it was divine providence?
1. Erasmus used a few manuscripts but it is clear that they represented the bulk of Greek manuscripts. Erasmus also had an opportunity to access Codex Vaticanus, but he rejected its readings.

2. The majority of manuscripts are represented by the "Byzantine" text-type (9th to 16th century) whereas a small minority of manuscripts (Aleph, A, B, C, D and some other uncials and papyri) are represented by the "Alexandrian" text type (4th and 5th centuries). Conservative textual scholars have shown these to be corrupted by Gnostics. So you could call them "evil" if you wish.

3. Following Erasmus there were others including Beza, Stephanus, and the Elzevir brothers who added more but similar manuscripts and found that they all were in general agreement. Thus this became the "Received Text".

4. All textual scholars (on both sides) agreed that the Received Text was the traditional text, and represented the majority of manuscripts. However Westcott and Hort tried to twist this fact by claiming that the Received Text had been "edited" and "corrupted" but that was a baseless claim. Almost all modern textual scholars continue to promote this fallacy since they wish to present the Critical Text as the "best" (when it is in fact the worst).

5. Therefore the deviations found in the "Majority Text" of Hodges and Farstad or Robinson and Pierpont cannot possibly represent the true text, since they deviate from the Received Text by 1,005 translatable differences, and many have doctrinal significance. These deviations are also generally supported by the Critical Text (Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland. etc).
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,623
13,866
113
#9
When you look at Matthew 3:12 (the next verse) it become clear that that omission was a corruption: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Your argument doesn't hold water.

There are two possibilities which, in the absence of other significant evidence, must be treated as equally likely:

- that "and with fire" was added; or,
- that "and with fire" was omitted.

Without other significant evidence (theological importance wouldn't help in this case), all you have is the fire of speculation. Asserting corruption in the second case without KNOWING which error was made is just spouting wind.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,623
13,866
113
#10
Following Erasmus there were others including Beza, Stephanus, and the Elzevir brothers who added more but similar manuscripts and found that they all were in general agreement. Thus this became the "Received Text".
It is my understanding that the term, "Received Text" was the 17th-century equivalent of an advertising slogan used by the Elzevir brothers to promote their newly-printed text. As for them and the others adding manuscripts, please provide your source.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
61,191
30,325
113
#11
hi , hello , greetings , salutations , howdie , hey there , (eye contact and head nod )

my silly point is you can convey the same message in different words and I’m glad because we don’t all speak the same way and understand the same terms but we can hear the same message
Yo! :giggle:
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,440
3,687
113
#12
1. Erasmus used a few manuscripts but it is clear that they represented the bulk of Greek manuscripts. Erasmus also had an opportunity to access Codex Vaticanus, but he rejected its readings.

2. The majority of manuscripts are represented by the "Byzantine" text-type (9th to 16th century) whereas a small minority of manuscripts (Aleph, A, B, C, D and some other uncials and papyri) are represented by the "Alexandrian" text type (4th and 5th centuries). Conservative textual scholars have shown these to be corrupted by Gnostics. So you could call them "evil" if you wish.

3. Following Erasmus there were others including Beza, Stephanus, and the Elzevir brothers who added more but similar manuscripts and found that they all were in general agreement. Thus this became the "Received Text".

4. All textual scholars (on both sides) agreed that the Received Text was the traditional text, and represented the majority of manuscripts. However Westcott and Hort tried to twist this fact by claiming that the Received Text had been "edited" and "corrupted" but that was a baseless claim. Almost all modern textual scholars continue to promote this fallacy since they wish to present the Critical Text as the "best" (when it is in fact the worst).

5. Therefore the deviations found in the "Majority Text" of Hodges and Farstad or Robinson and Pierpont cannot possibly represent the true text, since they deviate from the Received Text by 1,005 translatable differences, and many have doctrinal significance. These deviations are also generally supported by the Critical Text (Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland. etc).
A lot of words which you probably cut and pasted. I should've known better than to think I could get a straight answer from you.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,440
3,687
113
#13
If Providence guided Erasmus—and I believe He did—why should we think He can't guide others today? If we say He can't guide anyone else, we're limiting Him and telling Him what He can and can't do.

The KJV was a great Bible in its day; it served a purpose and still serves a purpose in the lives of many. But there's no reason to think God is limited to just the KJV. The majority text is in the same family of manuscripts Erasmus used, only now we have many more to inspect: at least 5,000 and 24,000 fragments.

If we revert to superstition—and that's what KJV onlyism is—we don't strengthen the Kingdom but weaken it.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,440
3,687
113
#14
With the exception of Matthew 9:36, 19:19 and 28:19 the NKJV wording is exactly as the KJV.

Matthew 9:36—KJV says "because they fainted." NKJV says "because they were weary." Yes, watch out for bad, bad NKJV corruptions.

Matthew 19:19—KJV says "honour thy father and thy mother." NKJV says "honor your father and your mother." Watch out.

Matthew 28:19—KJV says "Go ye therefore." NKJV says "Go therefore." You've been warned.

As for Matthew 27:46, "lama" is Hebrew; "lima" or "lema" is Aramaic.

A final note, just so it's perfectly clear, these are differences between the KJV and the NKJV, not the majority text (except for Matthew 27:46). I know this thread is about the majority text but I felt it necessary to address the NKJV questions as no one has been willing to address them at this point.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
61,191
30,325
113
#20
I am deigning a new panel and then going to my daughter's place for the afternoon and dinner.
I will be bringing my little cat home after her month away following my last surgery :D


How is your day going?