A Beginner's Case for the Byzantine Text with Maurice Robinson

[Conan]

A Beginner's Case for the Byzantine Text with Maurice Robinson.
In here Dr. Robinson answers question after question about Textual Criticism of the New Testament. A rare delight!

 

[Ascetic X]

The Byzantine Text Bible refers to a Greek New Testament tradition (also known as the Majority or Traditional Text) that represents over 90% of all existing manuscripts, dominant from roughly A.D. 350–1516. It forms the basis of the Textus Receptus used for the King James Version and is characterized by its smooth, liturgical, and complete style. Modern editions, such as Robinson and Pierpont’s, are frequently used to study this tradition.

Key Aspects of the Byzantine Text

• Definition: It is the majority text type, not the oldest, with most manuscripts dating from the 9th century onward.
• Characteristics: Byzantine readings tend to be more polished, well-formed in Greek, and less likely to contain difficult readings or contradictions compared to Alexandrian, or critical, texts.
• Key Editions:
  The most recognized modern critical edition of this text is The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont.
• • Translation Influence: It is the primary source for the King James Version (KJV) and New King James Version (NKJV).
  • Usage: It is the standard, traditional text used in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Thanks to Conan for posting this.
Some years ago I wrote a blog post on this subject: Critical Text or Traditional Text?
It may be of interest to some.

 

[JesusFan]

The Byzantine Text Bible refers to a Greek New Testament tradition (also known as the Majority or Traditional Text) that represents over 90% of all existing manuscripts, dominant from roughly A.D. 350–1516. It forms the basis of the Textus Receptus used for the King James Version and is characterized by its smooth, liturgical, and complete style. Modern editions, such as Robinson and Pierpont’s, are frequently used to study this tradition.

Key Aspects of the Byzantine Text

• Definition: It is the majority text type, not the oldest, with most manuscripts dating from the 9th century onward.
• Characteristics: Byzantine readings tend to be more polished, well-formed in Greek, and less likely to contain difficult readings or contradictions compared to Alexandrian, or critical, texts.
• Key Editions:
  The most recognized modern critical edition of this text is The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont.
• • Translation Influence: It is the primary source for the King James Version (KJV) and New King James Version (NKJV).
  • Usage: It is the standard, traditional text used in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Is it the Majority text?

 

[John of Japan]

Is it the Majority text?

I'm sure Ascetic X will answer for himself, but I couldn't resist.

They are close, but the methodology is quite different. The editors of the Majority text, Hodges and Farstad, edited a text based on majority readings. In other words, they chose readings that represented the most manuscripts. Robinson and Pierpont, on the other hand, based their text on the Byzantine text type. (I know, I'm over simplifying.) Regardless, Dr. Robinson estimates they are 98.5% the same.

 

[John of Japan]

The Byzantine Text Bible refers to a Greek New Testament tradition (also known as the Majority or Traditional Text) that represents over 90% of all existing manuscripts, dominant from roughly A.D. 350–1516. It forms the basis of the Textus Receptus used for the King James Version and is characterized by its smooth, liturgical, and complete style. Modern editions, such as Robinson and Pierpont’s, are frequently used to study this tradition.

The better style is one lesser reason I believe it is closest to the autographs, because it makes more sense for a text that would be verbally inspired.

Key Aspects of the Byzantine Text

• Definition: It is the majority text type, not the oldest, with most manuscripts dating from the 9th century onward.

Whether it is the oldest is debatable from Byzantine textform standards. And there are very early mss with Byzantine readings.

"In addition, something else must be said: to an extent, I deny the premise that there is no evidence of the use of the Byzantine Text before the 300s. Consider for example the text of Matthew used by Clement of Alexandria. In a detailed study published in 2008, Carl Cosaert listed 15 readings in Clement’s text of Matthew that agree with the Textus Receptus and disagree with B – compared with 14 readings in Clement’s text of Matthew that agree with B and disagree with the TR. And if the uncorrected first hand of Sinaiticus, rather than Vaticanus, is made the flagship for the Alexandrian Text, then (if we accept Cosaert’s data) Clement agrees with Sinaiticus while simultaneously disagreeing with TR 15 times, but Clement agrees with the TR while simultaneously disagreeing with Sinaiticus 36 times." (Byzantine Manuscripts: Where Were They Before the 300s?)

• Characteristics: Byzantine readings tend to be more polished, well-formed in Greek, and less likely to contain difficult readings or contradictions compared to Alexandrian, or critical, texts.

It makes sense to me that the inspired text would have good literary quality. When I translate into Japanese, I don't aim for the most colloquial, most literal, or most unusual renderings. I look for the most literary Japanese, the best quality rendering.

• Key Editions:
  The most recognized modern critical edition of this text is The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont.
• • Translation Influence: It is the primary source for the King James Version (KJV) and New King James Version (NKJV).

Actually, the TR, from which the KJV and NKJV were translated, should be considered a subset of the Byzantine/Majority. The TR has many differences from either the Byzantine textform or the Majority Text.

• • Usage: It is the standard, traditional text used in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Actually, the Eastern Orthodox tradition has their own version of the Byzantine/Majority NT, somewhat different.

 

[JesusFan]

The better style is one lesser reason I believe it is closest to the autographs, because it makes more sense for a text that would be verbally inspired.

Whether it is the oldest is debatable from Byzantine textform standards. And there are very early mss with Byzantine readings.

"In addition, something else must be said: to an extent, I deny the premise that there is no evidence of the use of the Byzantine Text before the 300s. Consider for example the text of Matthew used by Clement of Alexandria. In a detailed study published in 2008, Carl Cosaert listed 15 readings in Clement’s text of Matthew that agree with the Textus Receptus and disagree with B – compared with 14 readings in Clement’s text of Matthew that agree with B and disagree with the TR. And if the uncorrected first hand of Sinaiticus, rather than Vaticanus, is made the flagship for the Alexandrian Text, then (if we accept Cosaert’s data) Clement agrees with Sinaiticus while simultaneously disagreeing with TR 15 times, but Clement agrees with the TR while simultaneously disagreeing with Sinaiticus 36 times." (Byzantine Manuscripts: Where Were They Before the 300s?)


It makes sense to me that the inspired text would have good literary quality. When I translate into Japanese, I don't aim for the most colloquial, most literal, or most unusual renderings. I look for the most literary Japanese, the best quality rendering.

Actually, the TR, from which the KJV and NKJV were translated, should be considered a subset of the Byzantine/Majority. The TR has many differences from either the Byzantine textform or the Majority Text.

Actually, the Eastern Orthodox tradition has their own version of the Byzantine/Majority NT, somewhat different.

Didn't Dr price write a large book on the various Greek texts in use today, and did he come to an opinion ?

 

[John of Japan]

Didn't Dr price write a large book on the various Greek texts in use today, and did he come to an opinion ?

He actually wrote a book against the KJVO movement: King James Onlyism: A New Sect, self published in 2006. It's over 600 pages, and has a lot of information about KJV history, English translations, the Greek texts, etc. However, he was well known as a Hebrew scholar, but was not a Greek scholar. I once wrote him about a difficult Greek text I had to translate into Japanese, and he told me he couldn't help me. So for NT textual criticism I go to the Byzantine Textform of 2005, edited by Robinson and Pierpont. It has a good apparatus by Dr. Robinson, and I have found it to be very helpful.

 

[JesusFan]

He actually wrote a book against the KJVO movement: King James Onlyism: A New Sect, self published in 2006. It's over 600 pages, and has a lot of information about KJV history, English translations, the Greek texts, etc. However, he was well known as a Hebrew scholar, but was not a Greek scholar. I once wrote him about a difficult Greek text I had to translate into Japanese, and he told me he couldn't help me. So for NT textual criticism I go to the Byzantine Textform of 2005, edited by Robinson and Pierpont. It has a good apparatus by Dr. Robinson, and I have found it to be very helpful.

That was the book of his had read, and thought that he did do a solid job of showing why the KJVO position is really not very tenable to be held based upon the bible and textual criticism

 

[Conan]

 

[Conan]

Only 1:22 seconds. Short and too the point.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

It is notable, I believe, that around 150 A.D. the first Scripture to be translated from the original Greek language into another language, in this case Syriac, occurred somewhere around 150 A.D. in Antioch. This early Syriac translation eventually produced what we now call the Peshitta, still extant today. The Peshitta represents one of the earliest witnesses to the New Testament text and reflects a stable, unified textual tradition rooted in the churches of Antioch, from the Majority text, not the Minority text produced in Alexandria. As such, it stands as an exemplar of an early, consistent text form distinct from the later Alexandrian manuscripts. It is known that some of the original autographs, or portions, survived into the second century, so it is entirely possible, if not probable, that this Syriac version was translated, at least in part, from some of the original autographs. This would place the early works of the Peshitta as the oldest exemplars extant today.

 

[Logos1560]

The Syriac Peshitta does not agree word-for-word completely with the Greek Textus Receptus or with the Byzantine Greek NT text.

Terry Falla wrote: "Though given in printed editions, these passages [Luke 22:17-18, John 7:53-8:11] are wanting [lacking] in all MSS. of the Peshitta, and so far as now known, were not originally included in that version" (A Key to the Peshitta Gospels, pp. xix-xx). In the second appendix of a reprint of Murdock's translation, Isaac Hall maintained that none of the manuscripts of the Peshitta "contain the story of the adulteress, John 7:53 to 8:11, nor the text of the three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John 5:7, nor Luke 22:17, 18" (p. 495). Scrivener observed that the first printed edition (1555) of the Peshitta by Albert Widmanstadt was "apparently based on manuscript authority alone" and that it did not contain the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, Jude, Revelation, John 7:53-8:11, Luke 22:17-18, and doubtful clauses in Matthew 27:35, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 28:29, and 1 John 5:7-8 (Plain Introduction, II, pp. 8-9). Scrivener again asserted that Acts 15:34 “is wanting [lacking] in the Peshitto (only that Tremellius and Gutbier between them thrust their own version into the text)” (Ibid., p. 373). Some later printed editions of the Peshitta have added or interpolated some of the verses and clauses that are not found in any of the existing manuscripts of the Syriac Peshitta.

Bruce Metzger noted that in an examination of Matthew chapters 1-14, "Gwilliam found that the Peshitta agrees with the Textus Receptus 108 times and with codex Vaticanus (B) sixty-five times, while in 137 instances it differs from both, usually with the support of the Old Syriac and/or the Old Latin, though in thirty-one instances it stands alone" (Early Versions of the N.T., p. 61). Edward Andrews wrote: “The textual character of the Peshitta New Testament frequently aligns with the Alexandrian textual tradition preserved in early Greek witnesses such as P66 (125-150 C. E.) and P75 (175-225 C.E.), and later in Codex Vaticanus (300-330 C.E.)” (Syriac Bible, pp. 12-13). Edward Andrews asserted: “The Peshitta frequently corroborates early documentary readings preserved in Alexandrian witnesses, especially in places where later Byzantine copying expanded the text” (p. 93).

The Peshitta Syriac Bible has the different reading "Titus" at Acts 18:7. Because of a likeness of ending, a line of Greek is said to be omitted from some Greek manuscripts at John 6:11, and this copying error can be found in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Thus, at John 6:11 the Lamsa Bible, Glenn David Bauscher’s translation of the Peshitta, and George Kiraz’s Peshitta English NT have Jesus distributing the bread to the multitude rather than to the disciples who distribute it to the multitude. At Luke 8:12, Murdock’s New Testament, the Lamsa Bible, the Peshitta as translated by Glenn David Bauscher, and George Kiraz’s Peshitta English NT have "the enemy" where the KJV has "the devil." Bob Ross cited John Gill as noting: "The Syriac version here [John 1:18] renders it, 'the only begotten God'" (Trinity and the Eternal Sonship of Christ, p. 257). The Lamsa Bible has "firstborn of God" at John 1:18 while Murdock's translation and Bauscher’s translation of the Syriac have "the only begotten God." Murdock, Lamsa, Bauscher, and Kiraz have "Isaiah the prophet" and J. W. Etheridge has “Eshaia the prophet” at Mark 1:2 instead of “the prophets.” At John 1:28, Murdock, Lamsa, Bauscher, and Kiraz have “Bethany” and Etheridge has “Bethania” instead of “Bethabara.” Murdock and Kiraz have “a certain Jew,” Lamsa has “a Jew,” and Bauscher has “a certain Judean” instead of “the Jews” at John 3:25. Murdock’s has “Joseph of Ramath” at John 19:38 instead of “Joseph of Arimathaea.” At Matthew 11:19, Lamsa and Bauscher have “justified by its works” where the KJV has “justified of her children.” At Luke 7:35, Lamsa and Bauscher have “justified by all its works” where the KJV has “justified by all her children.” Murdock’s, Lamsa, and Kiraz’s have “gospel of God” at Acts 12:24 where the KJV has “word of God.” Murdock’s, Lamsa, and Kiraz’s have “Barnabas” at Acts 13:13 where the KJV has “his company.” Murdock’s, Lamsa’s, and Bauscher’s translations of the Peshitta have “the day of our Lord” instead of “the Lord’s supper” at 1 Corinthians 11:20. Murdock’s has “Cephas” instead of “Peter” at Galatians 1:18. Instead of “bishops” at Philippians 1:1, Murdock, Lamsa, and Bauscher have “elders” and Etheridge has “presbyters” At Revelation 1:8, Murdock, Lamsa, and Kiraz have “the Lord God” where the KJV has “the Lord.” Murdock has “O Lord our God, the Holy,” Lamsa has “O our Holy Lord and God,” and Bauscher has “Our Lord and Our God” at Revelation 4:11 where the KJV has “O Lord.” Etheridge, Murdock, Lamsa, Bauscher, and Kiraz have "eagle" at Revelation 8:13 instead of "angel." At Revelation 14:4, Murdock and Lamsa have “redeemed by Jesus” where the KJV has “redeemed.” These five English translations of the Peshitta Syriac Bible’s NT have “tree of life” instead of “book of life” at Revelation 22:19.

Along with other differences, there are also several other omissions besides the whole verses listed earlier and some additions in the Peshitta when compared to the KJV. At Matthew 27:9, Murdock’s, Lamsa’s, and Bauscher’s translations omit “Jeremy.” As translated into English, the Peshitta does not have "God" at Mark 12:32, and it does not have the last half of Matthew 27:35. Two phrases [“by them of old time”] are omitted at Matthew 5:27. At Matthew 25:13, a clause [“wherein the Son of man cometh”] is omitted. Another clause [“as they went to tell his disciples”] is missing at Matthew 28:9. Several words [“into the fire that never shall be quenched”] are omitted at Mark 9:45. At Mark 11:20, Murdock’s and Lamsa omitted two phrases [“in the name of the Lord“]. The first half of Acts 9:6 is omitted. At Acts 28:16, several words [“delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard”] are omitted. One commandment [“thou shalt not bear false witness”] is omitted at Romans 13:9. At Colossians 1:14, a phrase “through his blood”] is not found. Several words [“I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last”] are missing at Revelation 1:11. The clause “which are in Asia” is also omitted at Revelation 1:11. The phrase “unto me” or “to me” after “saying” at Revelation 1:17 is not found in the Peshitta.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The Syriac Peshitta does not agree word-for-word completely with the Greek Textus Receptus or with the Byzantine Greek NT text.

None of what you posted actually addresses the point I made.

My claim was not that the Peshitta is word‑for‑word identical to the TR or Byzantine text. I never said that. My point was simple:

The Peshitta reflects a Byzantine/Majority, non‑Alexandrian textual tradition.

That is the subject. Your entire reply is a shift away from that subject.

Listing differences between the Peshitta and the KJV, or between various English translations of the Peshitta, does not prove the Peshitta is Alexandrian. It does not prove it was translated from Alexandrian manuscripts. It does not overturn the documented fact that the Peshitta aligns far more often with the Byzantine tradition than with Vaticanus or Sinaiticus.

You have not refuted that. You have not even addressed it.

You have simply changed the subject.

 

[Logos1560]

My claim was not that the Peshitta is word‑for‑word identical to the TR or Byzantine text. I never said that. My point was simple:

The Peshitta reflects a Byzantine/Majority, non‑Alexandrian textual tradition.

You have suggested that God has to preserve His words perfectly and completely.

The verifiable facts concerning the imperfect Syriac Peshitta manuscripts prove that the pure words of God are not preserved perfectly and completely in it. The Peshitta does not support your claims and interpretations concerning preservation.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You have suggested that God has to preserve His words perfectly and completely.

The verifiable facts concerning the imperfect Syriac Peshitta manuscripts prove that the pure words of God are not preserved perfectly and completely in it. The Peshitta does not support your claims and interpretations concerning preservation.

You are replying to a claim I never made.

I did not claim the Peshitta is perfect. I did not claim the Peshitta is the preserved text. I did not claim the Peshitta is identical to the TR.

You are attacking positions I never stated.

My claim was strictly textual:

The Peshitta reflects a non‑Alexandrian, broadly Byzantine textual tradition.

That is a matter of textual character, not perfect preservation. Your comments about “imperfect manuscripts” do not touch the issue.

A manuscript can be imperfect and still be non‑Alexandrian. A manuscript can be imperfect and still align with Byzantine‑type readings. A manuscript can be imperfect and still preserve early, independent readings.

Your reply does not refute the textual profile of the Peshitta. It simply avoids it.

You have shifted categories and argued against a position I never held.

 

[Logos1560]

The Peshitta reflects a non‑Alexandrian, broadly Byzantine textual tradition.

The Peshitta reflects a mixed NT text that is not completely Byzantine. In a number of places, the Peshitta reflects what are considered Alexandrian readings.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The Peshitta reflects a mixed NT text that is not completely Byzantine.

This is exactly what I said.

I never claimed it was completely Byzantine. My statement was:

The Peshitta reflects a non‑Alexandrian, broadly Byzantine textual tradition.

You also wrote:

In a number of places, the Peshitta reflects what are considered Alexandrian

Again, that does not refute my claim. It simply acknowledges what every textual tradition exhibits:

occasional agreements with other families.

I did not say the Peshitta is entirely Byzantine.
I did not say it lacks independent readings.
I did not say it never aligns with Alexandrian witnesses.

My claim was, and remains, about overall textual character, not isolated readings.

The documented profile of the Peshitta shows:

strong alignment with Byzantine‑type readings
early independent Syriac readings
and no evidence that it was translated from Alexandrian manuscripts

Calling it “mixed” does not make it Alexandrian. By that standard, the Byzantine text, the TR, and the Majority text would all be “Alexandrian,” since each contains Alexandrian agreements.

Your reply does not overturn the textual character of the Peshitta. It actually confirms it.

If you want to dispute the textual character itself, address the overall profile, not isolated readings that prove nothing about its base tradition.