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.