How Dare I Appeal to the Majority of Greek Manuscripts!

In some places where the King James Version follows the wrong Greek text, it is fairly straightforward to demonstrate this from an appeal to the fact that the majority of texts disagree.  When this happens we tend to get the following kind of pushback:

Nick mistakenly assumes that "critical text guys" have such a strong partisanship with the main text reading of the NA28 (or other current critical text of the New Testament) that they will just defend its readings at all cost.  Maybe there are some folks like that, but that's more the mentality of many Textus Receptus advocates: they are examining the evidence to try to defend their initial views, as opposed to examining the evidence to try to form a conclusion from the evidence. 

I would like to believe that some folks hold to the Textus Receptus because they think that the manuscript evidence actually supports the Textus Receptus.  However, that's not the case with folks Drs. Peter van Kleek or Dr. Riddle who have abandoned the Reformation era Protestant understanding of textual criticism in favor of the Reformation era Roman Catholic understanding of textual criticism.  For them, the manuscript evidence may be interesting, but the manuscripts are not to be used to edit the text before us.

Sometimes the same error Nick is illustrating is done the other way: there is an assumption that due to partisanship for the NA28, "critical text guys" just want to attack the readings of the TR, even when such an attack is unwarranted.  From this point, the error seems even more unreasonable.  How does such a person think that the battleground texts are selected? The reason that "critical text guys" have a problem with specific TR readings is because they think that the original text is not what the TR has.

Nick's main argument is an appeal to consistency.  If we think the TR is wrong because of a majority text principle at Revelation 16:5 or Revelation 11:17 or anywhere else, then we must acknowledge on the same majority text principle that the NA28 is wrong at 1 Timothy 3:16.

The problem with Nick's argument is that it is an oversimplification of the process.

According to Bart Ehrman a low estimate for the total number of textual variants in the New Testament is around 200k.  D. A. Waite claims that there are 5,604 differences between the TR and the CT.  Thus, even if the KJV were always following the majority, that would mean the CT would be following the majority text at least 97% of the time.  

This then is an example of the saying, "the exception proves the rule."  In the 2% (or whatever the real number) of cases where TR does not follow the majority of manuscripts, there must be some good reason for doing so. I don't mean just that there must be some good reason, and maybe some day we will find the reason.  I mean instead that the editors of the text have to justify their decision. 

So does Beza.  We don't have to accept Beza's departure from the majority because he's Beza or because he was followed by the KJV translators.    

Thus, we are right to challenge Beza's adoption of a minority reading at Revelation 11:17.  What's the good reason to follow the minority of manuscripts, particularly when the minority reading is later than the majority reading?  The short answer is that there isn't a good reason to do so, which is why we don't follow Beza on this point, even though the KJV translators did.

As for 1 Timothy 3:16, if someone is going to follow the main text reading of the NA28, they should have a good reason for doing so, not simply because the NA28 editors have said so.  This isn't the post to debate that particular point, but simply to acknowledge that the scales do need to be even.  We shouldn't automatically accept the NA28 readings because they are NA28, just as the TR folks shouldn't automatically accept the TR readings because they are TR.

By default, the reading found in the majority of Greek manuscripts is right.  That method works (at least) 97% of the time or so, and is especially the cases when the contrary Greek manuscripts are alone in their reading against all the other Greek manuscripts.  As the size of the minority grows, the need for justification of the reading grows.  As the age of the minority grows (i.e. becomes older), the need for justification of the reading grows.  These are not rigid rules like "the oldest manuscript is always right" or "the reading with the most manuscripts is always right," and I understand how that can make some people feel uncomfortable.  Nevertheless, that is why we do (as our spiritual forefathers have done since at least the 2nd century) collation.