The purpose of a theory is in part to explain the evidence at hand. While theories will often attempt to explain those questions left unanswered by the evidence, in the final analysis the validity of a theory will rise or fall on whether or not it can give a plausible interpretation for the available evidence. While there have been a number of textual theories employed by textual scholars, they tend to fall within the provenance of two general theories: the Byzantine/Majority and an Eclectic/Alexandrian.
Byzantine/Majority
The underlying assumption of the Byzantine/Majority textual theory is that the original reading of the New Testament is preserved in the majority of the extant manuscripts.3 By Divine providence there has been preserved a staggering number of manuscripts, totaling over 5,000 in Greek alone. The majority of these manuscripts are of the Byzantine texttype. The conclusion that is drawn from this fact is that the Byzantine text is the closest to the autographs. Those who take this approach are not interested in directly reproducing the oldest text, but rather, the best possible Byzantine text.4 It is theorized that while the Byzantine manuscripts are of late date the exemplars from which they were made were quite ancient but are now lost. The suggestion is made that the loss of these ancient exemplars was due to their destruction by scribes when the newer copies were made or they simply wore out from use.5 Thus, a true Byzantine text is likely to be the nearer the original than the text from other texttypes.
A weakness of this theory is that it relies on evidence that does not exist. We don’t have afore mentioned exemplars and have no way of knowing if in fact there were as ancient as claimed and have no means of directly evaluating their worth. Their age, character and quality are little more than assumptions. In addition, we do not know that they were either destroyed when the newer copies were made or if they wore out from use. These are assumptions offered to explain the void in evidence. Even if these assumptions are correct that does not preclude the introduction of copying errors. In fact, we know such errors were introduced into the Byzantine manuscripts because no two are alike.
Eclectic/Alexandrian
One of the primary operating assumption of the Eclectic/Alexandrian textual theory is that the original reading of the New Testament is more likely to be preserved in the oldest manuscripts. As manuscripts were copied by hand errors as well as editorial changes were introduced into the manuscripts. The closer in time a manuscript is to the autographs the fewer errors it is likely contain. With each generation of copies new errors are introduced and old ones are perpetuated.6 For this reason the Alexandrian manuscripts, codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus being the chief representatives of this texttype, are more likely to be closer to the original text than the much later Byzantine manuscripts.
Such an approach does not automatically exclude the possibility of other texttypes being more accurate than the Alexandrian at some points. A particular error may be introduced into one texttype but may never be introduced into a another. Thus, a second important principle in this approach is the evaluation of all lines of evidence, hence, an eclectic text. Each texttype, the early versions and quotes by the church fathers are regarded as single lines of evidence.7 Thus, a reading not found in the Alexandrian text is adopted if the support from these other lines of evidence out weighs the older texttype. While the theory seeks to include all the available evidence, in actual practice it tends to favor the Alexandrian text.
The Common Text
The underlying assumption for the Common Text is that the original reading of the New Testament is likely to be found somewhere within the extant manuscripts. The goal textual criticism is to restore the text to the highest degree possible from the extant manuscripts.8 But as expected, different theories have produced different results. While there is a great deal of agreement among the various critical texts available textual differences remain. The goal of the Common Text is to produce a text that will allow the reader to compare and evaluate these textual differences based in part on the scholarship and theories that have produced them. To this end the apparatus is designed to be both easy to ready and functional. In an effort to be concise some editions of the Greek New Testament have an apparatus that can be difficult to read. In contrast, the reader will find the present apparatus quit simple and will be explained in considerable detail later. The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies has an apparatus that categories variants according to a letter rating system. The disadvantage of this approach is that the main text and the variants are all evaluated by the same editors using the same theoretical approach. In contrast, the variants in the apparatus of the Common text are evaluated by different scholars utilizing different approaches to the text.
____________________
3 Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985), p. xi.
4 Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont, The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform (Atlanta, GA: The Original Word Publishers, 1991), p. xli.
5 Ibid., p. xl.
6 Westcott & Hort, Ibid, p. 5.
7 Ibid., p. 74
8 Ibid., p. 1