Majority Text Society

Many Majority Text (MT) advocates and those who want to give the MT a stronger voice in determining the text of the New Testament (NT) are concerned when textual decisions are made in the Critical Text (CT) that have a slim number of manuscripts (mss.) for external support. One is sometimes left scratching his head wondering whether the internal evidence is really strong enough to accept a reading with only a handful of manuscripts as its basis. A selected reading with only three, two or even one manuscript for support increases one's skepticism significantly. But what about a case where a reading is selected with no Greek mss. for support? In textual critical circles this kind of proposal is called a conjecture. With so much Greek evidence available for the NT (over 5,500 Gk. mss.) such a conjectural approach anywhere in the NT is highly questionable.

So it is both disappointing and disturbing that in Acts 16:12 the CT opts for a reading that doesn't have even one Greek manuscript to support it. As far as I know this is the only place in the NT where such a conjectural emendation is adopted by the CT. In this writer's view, the CT's conjecture in Acts 16:12 is both unnecessary and unwise.

So it is both disappointing and disturbing that in Acts 16:12 the CT opts for a reading that doesn't have even one Greek manuscript to support it

To make matters worse, Louw and Nida, a standard Greek lexicon used by Bible translators, seems to accept the CT and the argument for it. They write, "In Acts 16:12 . . . . the Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies has adopted a conjectural emendation, since the more traditional text prwth ths meridos, literally 'first of the district', is not only misleading in meaning but does not reflect the historical fact that Philippi was a city in one of the four districts of Macedonia but was not a capital city." (Louw and Nida, Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, 16).

This passage is found as part of the itinerary of Paul's second missionary journey and expansion of the church into Europe. After sailing from Troas the missionary team comes to Neopolis and from there enters the Roman colony of Philippi. The description of Philippi is said to be "the foremost city of that part of Macedonia, a colony (NKJV)." The Majority Text reads eis filippous, htis esti prwth ths meridos ths makedonias polis, kolwnia. The CT reads eis filippous, htis estin prwth[s] meridos ths makedonias polis, kolwnia. Today's English Version (TEV) adopts the CT and translates the phrase as "Philippi, a city of the first district of Macedonia." (Note: in my limited survey of English Bible translations the TEV was the only one following the CT here.)

The controversy involves the text and meaning of prwth (MT) and prwth[s] (CT) the addition of one letter. The addition of the Greek sigma ( s) makes the noun a genitive case with the resultant meaning, according to the UBS Textual commentary, "a city of the first district of Macedonia." The external evidence for the Majority Text reading of prwth could hardly be stronger and more geographically widespread. It includes Papyri 74, Aleph, B, A, C, etc. In fact, every Greek witness except one has prwth except D which reads kefalh (lit. head) also in the nominative case. Kurt and Barbara Aland have determined that there are over 600 complete Greek mss. of the book of Acts, so there isn't a lack of Greek evidence for this passage (Aland, Text of the New Testament, 83). The critical text is based on conjecture and three late Vulgate mss. (UBS, Textual Commentary, 446).

As Louw and Nida explain, the basic reason this is even an issue is the historical factor that Thessalonica was the capital of Macedonia and not Philippi. However, it is well known, based on a statement by Livy, that the Roman province of Macedonia was divided into four districts. Also, most commentators and translations recognize that the Greek does not require a meaning of "capital city" but lexically and naturally allows for a meaning of "leading" or "prominent city." But according to the textual commentary, some would further argue that Amphipolis was more prominent than Philippi even in its district.

Dating at least as far back as W. M. Ramsay (Saint Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen) commentators have made a good historical case that Philippi was a leading city of its district if not the leading city. The city was named after the father of Alexander the Great (Philip II of Macedonia), but really gained significant and unusual importance in the Roman Empire, when Caesar Augustus (also known as Octavian) granted it special status and privileges. In the first century B.C. his forces won major battles at Philippi and the city was made a Roman colony in honor of the victory and eventually renamed Colonia Augusta Iulia Philippensium. The city was entitled to self government, the same rights/privileges as the populations of the cities of Italy, and immunity from taxation (see Fitzmeyer, Acts, Anchor Bible Commentary, 584). At that time these were no small matters and thus one can make the case that at the time of Paul's journey, Philippi was established as not only a prominent city of its district but likely considered especially privileged in all of Macedonia.

To be fair, one has to note that the United Bible Society's Textual Commentary on the NT records a dissenting opinion by Kurt Aland and Bruce Metzger of the CT decision. In fact they state their objection well by writing in part "it appears ill-advised to abandon the testimony of P74, Aleph, A, C, 81 al, especially since the phrase can be taken to mean merely that Philippi was 'a leading city of the district of Macedonia'" (Textual Commentary, 446).

The MT view is sometimes ridiculed as a position that merely wants to count manuscripts for textual decisions, and if that is all that the MT position was, I would not want to support it either. But really, the question is: should the number of mss. be any factor at all (and if so , how much) when weighing the textual evidence? When some textual critics answer this question in the negative by their practice, it fuels the concern that considerable amounts of valuable external evidence are being disregarded. Don t we have the right and obligation to say something? .

Note to MTS readership: Let's get Zane's presidency of MTS off to a good financial start by sending in our annual dues and if possible an additional gift. Also, remember to notify MTS when you have a change of address so that we can keep up with you!

JFD