Chrysostom (d. 407) supported MT 88.5% (40.5% against Alexandrian); etc. Possibly they are having difficulty in getting free from the presuppositions instilled in them during their student days. In fact none of them had. 26 Sometimes it is alleged that there is no ascension of Christ in the Western texts (e.g., Theo. Thanks to an advertisement by the publishers it was referred to as the Textus Receptus, or the “Received Text.” Metzger points out, for example: “The exact date of the first Latin version of the Bible, or indeed of any part of the Bible, is uncertain. But the Majority Text differs from the modern critical text in only about 6,500 places. supported MT 74% (41% against Alexandrian); Basically, the TR was the state of the Byzantine Majority Text at that time (1500s). It is this: the textual tradition found in Greek manuscripts is for the most part so uniform that to select out of the mass of witnesses almost any manuscript at random is to select a manuscript likely to be very much like most other manuscripts. Internal evidence has to do with determining which variant is original on the basis of known scribal habits and the author’s style. 42 Frederic G. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 2d ed. The oldest New Testament manuscript fragment is P52, which dates to about 125 AD. Third, Pickering argues that “any claim that Aland makes for the Egyptian text, on the basis of these Fathers, is a claim that can be made even more strongly for the Majority text” (p. 3). In a previous article3 the present writer interacted with the majority text theory as it has been displayed concretely in The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text.4 For the most part the interaction was with Zane Hodges’s particular defense of the majority text view. (Compare Asterius, above, with his predecessors.) Well, between, , there are 115 differences in Mt., 82 differences in Mk., 97 differences in Luke, and 114 differences in Jn. After carefully investigating the Gospel quotations of Didymus, a fourth-century Egyptian writer, Ehrman concludes, “These findings indicate that no ‘proto-Byzantine’ text existed in Alexandria in Didymus’ day or, at least if it did, it made no impact on the mainstream of the textual tradition there.”23 Pickering speaks of the early Alexandrian witnesses as “polluted” and as coming from a “sewer pipe.”24 Now if these manuscripts are really that defective, and if this is all Egypt had in the first three or four centuries, then this peculiar doctrine of preservation is in serious jeopardy, for those ancient Egyptian Christians had no access to the pure stream of the majority text. David Hume, in his Essay on Miracles, argued against miracles on the basis of statistical probability. It is well known that Origen used an Alexandrian text. Due to the pressure of his publisher to bring their edition to market before the competing Complutensian Polyglot, Erasmus based his work on around a half-dozen manuscripts, all of which dated from the twelfth century or later; and all but one were of the Byzantine text-type. I see no other alternative—either He didn’t care or He was helpless. The present author writes from the perspective of “reasoned eclecticism,” the text critical theory that stands behind almost all modern versions of the New Testament (the New King James Version excepted). A Lasting Legacy: Choosing A Wife For Isaac (Gen. 24:1-67). 49 Michael W. Holmes, “The ‘Majority Text Debate’: New Form of an Old Issue,” Themelios 8:2 (1983): 17. The rationale may be somewhat complex, but the method is quite simple: count “noses.”. For example if someone were to look at the Win-Loss column for the Los Angeles Lakers and see 38 losses and only 12 wins, he would know that the typesetter switched the numbers. 4. Carson has gone so far as to state that “nothing we believe to be doctrinally true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants.