Introduction: Understanding the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text

In the realm of New Testament textual criticism, much debate has arisen over the authority, accuracy, and textual base of the Textus Receptus (TR) and the Majority Text. While often equated by lay advocates and certain traditionalist scholars, these two forms of the Greek New Testament—though related—are not identical. The TR, as we have shown in the preceding articles, was a printed edition of the Greek New Testament compiled in the 16th century from a limited selection of late Byzantine manuscripts. The Majority Text, on the other hand, refers to a textual form reconstructed from the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts, most of which reflect the Byzantine text-type.

The relationship between these two textual traditions is nuanced. While the TR generally reflects the Byzantine tradition, it does not do so consistently. The Majority Text represents a theoretical reconstruction of the dominant text-form found in the majority of Greek manuscripts, primarily from the 9th century onward. It is thus broader and more inclusive than the TR, though rooted in the same manuscript tradition.

The Origins and Nature of the Majority Text

The Byzantine text-type is the textual basis for both the TR and the Majority Text. This text-type emerged from a recension traditionally attributed to Lucian of Antioch (d. 312 C.E.), who is believed to have compiled and revised Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, smoothing the text, harmonizing parallel passages, and conflating variant readings. This recension likely took place shortly before the Diocletian persecution and was propagated widely during the Constantinian era.

As Christianity became legalized and institutionalized under Constantine, the demand for uniform and numerous copies of the New Testament increased. The Antiochian (or Syrian) text became the dominant form in the East. From the sixth century onward, the Byzantine text became the standard Greek text in the Orthodox Church. Over the centuries, thousands of manuscripts reflecting this text-type were produced, giving rise to the term “Majority Text.”

The Majority Text, therefore, represents the majority of extant Greek manuscripts, but it is not synonymous with early textual forms. Instead, it is the result of centuries of transmission, revision, and liturgical adaptation. It is this text-type that Erasmus used for the TR, albeit from only a handful of late manuscripts.

The Distinction Between the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text

While the TR and the Majority Text are largely similar in substance, they differ in numerous specific readings. The TR, due to its reliance on only a few late manuscripts and its incorporation of editorial decisions made by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, includes readings not found in the majority of manuscripts.

For example, the TR includes back-translations from the Latin Vulgate (such as Revelation 22:19 and portions of Revelation 22:16–21) because Erasmus lacked Greek manuscripts for these sections. Likewise, certain readings in the TR reflect minority Byzantine readings or even readings found in no extant Greek manuscripts. The Majority Text, especially as compiled by Hodges and Farstad (1982) and Robinson and Pierpont (1991), seeks to reflect the dominant readings in the total corpus of Byzantine manuscripts.

Thus, although both the TR and the Majority Text are rooted in the Byzantine tradition, the TR is a historical printed edition based on a limited and sometimes flawed manuscript base, while the Majority Text is a theoretical reconstruction based on the full breadth of the Byzantine manuscript tradition.

Modern Advocacy for the TR and the Majority Text

In the 20th century, the publication of The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad marked a renewed interest in the Majority Text as a legitimate alternative to the eclectic texts based on the Alexandrian tradition. Hodges and Farstad were joined by other defenders of the TR, such as D. A. Waite and advocates of King James Version-only positions.

The arguments presented by these defenders are often theological rather than textual. They claim that the preservation of the Word of God must be found in the manuscript tradition used by the church for over a millennium. It is argued that God would not have allowed the true text of the New Testament to be hidden in a few ancient manuscripts discovered in Egypt and unused by the church for most of Christian history.

However, this line of reasoning fails to consider the doctrine of providential preservation in light of the discoveries of older manuscripts in the past two centuries. The idea that the providence of God may have included the preservation of the original text through manuscripts hidden for centuries but recovered in modern times aligns more closely with the historical evidence.

Moreover, the notion that widespread ecclesiastical use equates to textual accuracy overlooks the historical processes of liturgical standardization, scribal harmonization, and theological adaptation that affected the Byzantine text. The numerical preponderance of Byzantine manuscripts reflects the copying practices of the Byzantine Church but not necessarily the purity of the original text.

The Evidence of the Early Manuscripts

The primary challenge to the TR and the Majority Text is the weight of early manuscript evidence. Alexandrian manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus (א, ca. 330–360 C.E.) and Codex Vaticanus (B, ca. 325–350 C.E.) represent a textual tradition far earlier than the vast bulk of Byzantine manuscripts, which mostly date from the 9th century and later. Additionally, early papyri such as P^75 (late second century) and P^66 (early third century) align closely with these codices, supporting the textual integrity of the Alexandrian tradition.

These early manuscripts are shorter and often lack passages that are present in the TR and the Majority Text. Defenders of the TR must then assert that these omissions were intentional excisions by scribes—a position that lacks historical credibility. There are no compelling reasons to believe that scribes systematically shortened the text in the early centuries, especially when the trend of scribes over time was to expand and harmonize.

Rather, there are well-established reasons for the inclusion of later additions. These include harmonization between the Gospels (as seen in parallel phrases added to non-parallel passages), insertion of oral tradition, liturgical expansions, and theological clarifications. The longer readings in the Byzantine tradition are better explained as later accretions rather than original compositions.

Examples of such expansions include:

• The doxology in the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:13b)

• The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11)

• The Longer Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20)

• The Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7–8 (the Comma Johanneum)

These readings are absent from the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, and they often appear in the margins or in asterisks in early copies—indicating doubts about their authenticity.

Theological and Textual Implications

Those who cling to the TR or the Majority Text often do so for theological reasons, viewing the Alexandrian text as theologically liberal or corrupted by early heresies. However, such assumptions are not supported by the manuscript evidence. The early Alexandrian manuscripts are textually shorter and more difficult (lectio difficilior), often preserving readings that are more likely to be original according to textual principles and patristic citations.

While the Byzantine text is theologically orthodox and liturgically polished, it reflects centuries of ecclesiastical use rather than pristine textual transmission. Its uniformity is the product of standardization, not originality.

God’s providence in preserving His Word should not be limited to ecclesiastical usage alone. The recovery of early manuscripts from the sands of Egypt, monasteries, and libraries has been a providential blessing, allowing scholars to get closer to the autographic text. The multiplicity of early witnesses, cross-verified through versions and patristic writings, offers a more reliable basis for textual reconstruction than the late and homogenous Byzantine tradition.

Conclusion: Textual Fidelity Over Traditional Loyalty

The TR and the Majority Text represent significant stages in the history of the New Testament’s transmission. However, their usefulness must be evaluated in light of objective manuscript evidence and established principles of textual criticism. While both share the Byzantine base, neither reflects the earliest or most original form of the New Testament text.

Contemporary scholarship, guided by the most ancient manuscripts available and careful evaluation of internal and external evidence, continues to refine our understanding of the Greek New Testament. The goal remains the recovery of the original words of the inspired text—not the perpetuation of ecclesiastical traditions rooted in late manuscript evidence.

You May Also Enjoy

Textus Receptus: The History, Influence, and Limitations of the Received Text of the Greek New Testament

About the Author