Greek texts, wise and otherwise

“Traditional Text Positions Explained,” a post by Robert Truelove at Text and Canon (on Facebook) identifies five of what he calls “Traditional Text Positions.” Though some are new in some ways, I believe he considers them all “traditional” in the sense that they are Byzantine text positions. Here are the five:

1. “Majority Text.” This is a position based on the readings of the majority of texts, which he identified with Farstad and Hodges.

2. “Byzantine Priority.” This he distinguished because the readings that cannot be decided by the majority are still decided within the Byzantine family (whereas position 1 above does not always do so). He identifies this position with Maurice Robinson.

3. “F35.” All the correct readings of the inspired text come from within Family 35. This is the position of Wilbur Pickering. It also seems this position is founded on providential preservation, whereas the first two emphasize evidence and reason rather than preservation.

4. “Textus Receptus Priority.” This position accepts the Textus Receptus as the text we should use, the one that should be the standard, while recognizing there might be some problems and errors (but that they should be dealt with in teaching, rather than an ever-changing text). Truelove said this was his position.

5. “Textus Receptus Only.” This position accepts that the Greek text is providentially preserved in the Textus Receptus.

[Note: these are my attempts to remember and fairly represent what he said.]

On the Critical Text side, Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California identifies on their web site three different Critical Text positions.

1. “Thorough-going eclectic.” These folks reject any consideration of external evidence such as manuscript families, date of manuscript and so on. They concentrate all of their energies on internal consideration for a literary analysis of the text.

2. “Westcott-Hort.” Westcott and Hort suggested that the Alexandrian family of manuscripts are the oldest and thus preferred. They also concluded that external evidence, that is, manuscript families, outweighs internal evidence and that the Alexandrian variant, all other factors being equal, is the one preferred.

3. “Balanced eclectic.” This “balanced” position holds that each text type is to be evaluated independently without premeditated bias. It also posits that internal and external evidences are to be considered equally. It basically suggests that each textual variant is to be investigated thoroughly and considered on its own merits.

[Note: All the above about critical texts is a quote from the Grace website. I believe the terminology “reasoned eclectic” is relatively the same position as their “balanced eclectic.” 

There is another position (not listed above) that James E. Snapp Jr describes as “equitable eclecticism.”

Are the positions as stated above valid? Helpful? Confusing? Complete or incomplete?