I’m working on my translation of the Epistle of James. I remind us all how we have constantly heard from Majority Text / Byzantine text enthusiasts about the Royse study on scribal habits, how scribes were more likely to drop a word than add a word. Okay, then, I expect the Majority Text / Byzantine text editors to add at least one or some of the following words back to their texts that are found in the NA28 text but not in theirs.

1:19 ESTW DE, MT has only ESTW
1:27 PARA TWI QEWI, MT has only PARA QEWI
4:1 KAI POQEN MACHAI, MT has only KAI MACHAI
5:10 EN TWI, MT has only EN
5:11 ESTIN hO KURIOS, MT has only ESTIN
5:16 EXOMOLOGEISQE OUN, MT has only EXOMOLOGEISQE
5:19 ADELFOI MOU, MT has only ADELFOI
5:20 PSUCHJN AUTOU, MT has only PSUCHJN

The NA28 has in fact moved a little toward the MT in this regard. For example, in James 2:14, older editions said only TI OFELOS, but now have agreed in the 28th edition with the MT as TI TO OFELOS. And in 2:15, older editions said only LEIPOMENOI, but the NA28 now says LEIPOMENOI WSIN like the MT. And in 4:10 added TOU. Three instances in James where the Nestle-Aland text moved closer to the Majority Text. But will the Majority Text / Byzantine Text-type enthusiasts ever budge? I’m not holding my breath. If it’s not in their favorite family of manuscripts, no amount of reason to the contrary ever suffices.