Featured Textual Criticism of Matthew--Byz. & TR

Arguments often used for the TR over the Byzantine/Majority text are:
1. The Byz. leaves out stuff.
2. The TR is better doctrinally.

In translating the TR into Japanese (the first ever such translation into modern Japanese), I compared the Robinson/Pierpont Byz. Textform 1st ed. with the TR, often referencing both the Stephanus & Scrivener TR. On this thread I will share the notes on Matthew I made about 15 years ago.

At that time I just had digital copies of the 1st ed. of the Byz., so there may be places where these notes are not up to date. Take them for what they are worth. I'll try to post notes from about five chapters at a time, and add a few thoughts. (Note also that back then I did not have a good Greek font, so I used the old "Symbol" font. I have replaced that with a font that will show up here--don't lose sleep over the fact that I did not add breathing marks and accent marks.

Let's do it!

 

Matt. Ch. 1
Byzantine only differs in the spelling of David in vv. 1, 6, 17 & 20. So, 4 differences in the two texts, but no difference whatsoever in translation.

Matt. Ch. 2
Byzantine differs from Stephanus and agrees w/Scrivener in vv. 11 ("saw" ειδον instead of "found" ευρον) and 23 (spelling of Nazareth). So, is there a difference here? Not really. And it's really significant to me that the two TR's differ. If the TR is perfect, which one??

Matt. 3
Byzantine only differs in v. 8 (singular καρπον, "fruit" instead of "fruits") and in v. 11 (leaves out "and fire" και πυρι). So, no doctrinal difference, although there are a couple of small differences in translation into English. However, Japanese has no difference in singular and plural for "fruit" (same with Chinese, I believe, and many other languages), so that is inconsequential in translation.

Matt. 4
Byzantine: adds οπιςω μου ("behind me") in v. 10 (also in 2nd ed.); agrees with Scrivener on spelling of Nazareth in v. 13; omits ο Ιησους in v. 18. There is significance in the "behind me" phrase, in that Jesus used it to Peter in Matt. 16:2. So, in the Byz. there is added impact in the phrase to Peter. In translation, the spelling of Nazareth does not matter. The omission of the article and "Jesus" in v. 19 (we do not put an article before names in English) is not significant, since the word "he" is there, meaning Jesus.

So, did the TR leave out Scripture??? Hmm?

Matt. 5
Byzantine: omits τοις αρχαιροις ("of old") in v. 27; has σου ("of you") in brackets in v. 39; has τοις (dativre) instead of τους (accusative) in v. 44; has an article before "heaven" in v. 45; has φιλους ("friends") instead of αδελφοις ("brothers") in v. 47. So, differences in translation?

1. "Of old." Not significant, though a slight difference in translation. Jesus is quoting from the OT and the hearers knew it.
2. "Of you"--Not significant. It is clear whose cheek is meant.
3. Ηas τοις μισουσιν (dative) instead of τους μισουντους (accusative) in v. 44--No difference in meaning.
4. The Byz. again has a word the TR does not, the article before "heaven" in v. 45. There is a theological point here, in that the article indicates that there is only one Heaven.
5. Has φιλους ("friends") instead of αδελφοις ("brothers") in v. 47. A definite difference in translation. However, I see little difference in meaning.

 

There's no way for me to present all of the differences here on the BB. I am only dealing with the differences in Matthew.

 

Not without reviewing the work I did 15-20 years ago, and I don't have time for that right now. Sorry.

 

In Matthew 6, the TR and Byz. are identical.

Matt. 7
TR and Byzantine differ in v. 2, where Byz has μετρηθησεται instead of αντιμετρηθησεται. These are synonyms, so there is no difference in translation.

In v. 14, the TR starts with οτι and other texts begin with τι. There is a slight difference in meaning here, with οτι meaning "that" or "because," and τι, which should be translated "How..., so "How narrow is the gate...." Not much change.

Matt. 8
Byzantine: has αυτω instead of τω Ιησου in v. 5. This does not change the meaning, since the verse already has the name "Jesus," so it is quite clear who is meant by "to Him."

Has αυτω instead of αυτοις in v. 15. This is a singular (Byz.) instead of a plural (TR). The difference in meaning is that she ministered to Jesus rather than "them." That actually makes more sense to me.

Omits αυτου in v. 25. The difference is "His disciples" (TR) instead of simply "the disciples." No difference in meaning, since no one else had disciples in the whole NT!

Matt. 9
Byz. has αλλα instead of αλλ’ in v. 13. The TR simply has a contraction, so no change in wording.

Byz. agrees with Scrivener in v. 18 and v. 33. Again, if the TR is perfect, which TR?

Spells "David" differently in v. 27. No difference in meaning or translation.

Has εσκυλμενοι instead of εκλελυμενοι in v. 36. They are both perfect passive participles. There is no difference in translation; the word in the Byz. means "be wearied" in the passive, and the word in the TR means the same.

Matt. 10
Byzantine: omits νεκρους εγειρετε in v. 8. This means "raised the dead," so there is a significant difference here.

Agrees with Scrivener in v. 10; agrees with Stephanus in v. 25. Well, now that's interesting. Which TR is the perfect text?

Adds two definite articles in parentheses in v. 28. The significance of the parentheses is that the reading is not certain. So essentially, the Byz. agrees with the TR here. There is no difference in meaning, since the Greek used the article differently from English.

Has οικειακοι instead of οικιακοι in v. 36. This is simply a difference in spelling, possibly a regional difference, so there is no difference in meaning. Both mean "member of a household."

 

Matt. 11
Byzantine: has παιδιοις instead of παιδαριοις in v. 16--synonyms, so no difference in translation.

Αgrees with Stephanus on the spelling of Bethsaida in v. 21.

Matt. 12
Byzantine: spells "David" differently in vv. 3 and 23--no difference in translation.

Omits και in v. 8--a little bit of difference in translation: "Lord of the Sabbath" as compared to "Lord even of the Sabbath" (TR).

Omits εν in v. 21--no difference in meaning.

In v. 28, has εγω in a different position--no difference in translation.

In v. 32, has εαν instead of αν--no difference in meaning.

In v. 32, has τω ("the") instead of τουτω, and adds νυν, ("now)--So it is "this age" as compared to "the current age." No difference in translation.

In v. 35, omits της καρδιας ("the heart")--a small difference in translation.

In v. 35, omits the definite article before "good things." No change in meaning.

Matt. 13
Byzantine: omits επ in v. 14--no difference in meaning.

Agrees with Stephanus in v. 24

Has εκρυψεν instead of ενεκρυψεν in v. 33--synonyms. The Byz. 2nd edition changes this back to the same reading as the TR.

Has καιεται instead of κατακαιεται in v. 40--synonyms. The 2nd edition changes this back to the same reading as the TR.

Matt. 14
Omits αυτου in v. 22--So, "His disciples" versus "the disciples." No difference in meaning, since no one else's disciples are in view.

Matt. 15
Omits σου ("your") in v. 4--Since "father" and "mother" both have the article, there is no loss in meaning.

Has the first half of v. 6 in v. 5--Irrelevant to meaning.

Has προσεκυνησεν instead of προσεκθνει in v. 25. This is the aorist versus the imperfect. In this case there is no difference in translation.

 

Matt. 16
Byzantine:
Has ωδε εστωτες instead of των ωδε εστηκοτων in v. 28. This is a perfect active masculine participle of ἱστημι in both, so no change in meaning (spelling difference).

Matt. 17
Byzantine:
Has εγενοντο (aor. plural) instead of εγενετο (aor. sing.) in v. 2--"garment" vs. "garments." Very little difference in meaning, especially since many languages do not differentiate the number here.

Has εκ instead of απο in v. 9--synonyms, so no difference in meaning

Has αυτον instead of αυτω in v. 14--accusative vs. dative, no difference in meaning.

Agrees with the verse divisions of Stephanus in vv. 14-15--no difference in meaning.

Has αναβαινοντα instead of αναβαντα in v. 27--present participle vs. aorist participle; no change in meaning in this case.

Matt. 18
Byzantine:
Divides εννενηκονταεννεα into εννενηκοντα εννεα in v. 13--This is simply dividing "Ninety-nine" into two words, so no difference at all in meaning.

Adds αμην in v. 19--small difference in meaning.

Omits παντα in v. 29; agrees with Stephanus in v. 30.

Matt. 19
Byzantine:
Αdds αυτου ("his") in brackets in v. 5 (2nd ed. takes it out of brackets)--very little change in meaning, since "father" has the article before it.

Οmits ει ("if") in v. 9--no change in translation.

Οmits σου (your) in v. 19--very little change in meaning, since "father" has the article before it.

Ηas εστιν in parenthesis in v. 26--No change in meaning, since Greek often leaves out the copula, but it is still understood.

Matt. 20
Byzantine: has και instead of δε in v. 2--synonyms.

Omits την in front of "third" in v. 3--no difference in translation.

Agrees with Stephanus verse division in vv. 4-5--no difference in meaning.

Adds σου (your) in v. 21--no change in translation, since there was previously a σου in the context.

Spells David differently in v. 31--no difference in meaning.

 

Matt. 21
Byzantine:

Spells βηθφαγη differently in v. 1—no difference in meaning.

Agrees with Stephanus in v. 7—3rd person singular (He put...) vs. TR's 3rd person plural (They put...)

Spells David differently in v. 9—no difference in meaning.

Switches the position of two words in v. 14—no difference in meaning.

Spells "David" differently in v. 15—no difference in meaning.

Has εαν instead of αν in v. 22—Synonyms, so no difference in meaning.

Agrees with Stephanus in v. 33--Has τις (certain) in brackets.

 

Matt. 22
Byzantine:

Has και instead of δε in v. 7—Synonyms.

Adds εκεινος in v. 7--no difference in meaning.

Has οι in brackets in v. 23--This is a plural article; no difference in meaning.

Has εφη instead of ειπεν in v. 37--Synonyms. However, there is a slight difference in meaning, with the Byz. having an imperfect and the TR an aorist.

Spells David differently in v. 42-43, 45—no difference in meaning.

 

Matt. 23

Byzantine:
Agrees with Scrivener in vv. 13-14.

Has κατοικησαντι instead of κατοικουντι in v. 21--No difference in meaning.

Has αδικιας instead of ακρασιας in v. 25--"wrong-doing" vs. "self indulgence." Here is an interesting difference in meaning. I think the contest shows that the Byz. reading is probably right, just going by semantics (not that strong an argument in this case, I admit).

Adds οτι ("because") in v. 36--So, a place where the Byz. has a word the TR does not have! However, in this case there is no difference in meaning, since the οτι simply signals the quote here.

 

Matt. 24

Byzantine:
Omits μη in v. 2--This is the second negative of a Greek double negative ("not, not..."), which strengthens the statement. So all we have here is a slightly less strong statement, a nuance if you will.

Agrees with Stephanus in vv. 15 and 27--slight difference in nuance.

Omits εν in v. 20--No difference in meaning, since it is a dative of means (instrumental) in both cases. (I was once rebuked by a seminary prof in a course I was taking when I said that εν can signal a dative of means, since it is followed by a dative obj. of the prep. However, I have several grammars that agree with me.)

Omits της in v. 36--This is just an article, with no difference in meaning here.

 

Matt. 25

Byzantine:
Has αυτων instead of εαυτων in v. 3--no difference in meaning.

Omits αυτω in v. 44--"answered" instead of "answered him." There is no loss of meaning, since it is clear who is being addressed.

 

Ch. 26 is a long one, so there are quite a few minor differences in wording, but almost no differences in meaning.

Matt. 26
Byzantine:

Switches the order of two words in v. 4—no difference in meaning.

Adds τοις in brackets in v. 9—no difference in meaning. The Byz. 2nd ed. omits this.

Has ευχαριστησας (“give thanks”) instead of ευλογησας (“bless”) in v. 26—some difference in meaning.

Omits και from Scrivener and then adds [δε] in brackets in v. 33—very little change in either meaning.

Adds δε (“and” in this case) in v. 35—very little change in meaning.

Adds ο ιησους in v. 38—No change in translation, since in the context it is clear who is speaking: “He…” versus “Jesus.”

Has αποθανουνται instead of απολουνται in v. 52—synonyms, so, no difference in meaning.

Changes the word order at the end of v. 59—no difference in meaning.

Takes υστερον δε προσελυοντες δυο ψευδομαρτυρες from v. 60 and adds to v. 61—no difference in meaning.

Adds αυτων in v. 70—“them all” instead of “all.” This is another place where the Byz. adds a word not found in the TR, but there is no difference in meaning.

Has αυτοις instead of τοις in v. 71—“the ones” instead of “them.” No difference in meaning.

Has καταθεματιζειν instead of καταναθεματιζειν in v. 74—This is only a difference in spelling, so no change in meaning.

 

Matt. 27

Byzantine:
Omits the second half of v. 35—This is the most significant variation in Matthew between the two texts. However, notice: (1) The clause is not lost whatever text you use, occurring in John 19:24. (2) It is a quote from the LXX. (3) No doctrines are lost. (4) No names of any of the trinity are lost. So these four points are a great example of how God preserves His Word providentially. Here’s the clause:
ἱνα πληρωθῃ το ῥηθεν ὑπο του προφητου, Διεμερισαντο τα ἱματια ἑαυτοις, και ἐπι τον ἱματισμον μου ἐβαλον κληρον.

Adds και φαρισαιων (“and Pharisees”) in v. 41—This adds some meaning to the verse, but not significantly. Note that once again, the Byz. has more words than the TR!

Has επ αυτον instead of αυτω in v. 42—no difference in meaning.

Ηas αυτον instead of αυτω in v. 44—no difference in meaning.

Ηas ενατην instead of εννατην in v. 46—no difference in meaning, just a spelling difference.

Ηas λιμα instead of λαμα in v. 46—This is simply a slightly different transliteration of the Aramaic original of Christ on the cross, so no difference in meaning.

 

Matt. 28
Byzantine:
Omits the article before ιησους in v. 9—no change in meaning, since in English we don’t put a definite article in front of a name.

Ηas και εκει instead of κακει in v. 10—the second is a contraction of the first, so no difference in meaning.

Omits ουν (“therefore”) in v. 19—slight difference in meaning.

 

It's a little bit of a disappointment that SavedByGrace thought not to participate in this thread. It would have been a good opportunity for him to showcase his idiosyncratic method of textual criticism, which appears to be centered on doctrine. (I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong.) But then in Post #130 of his thread on Byzantine Priority he seems to say that emotion is his method of textual criticism: "I also know, in my heart, that anything outside of these two is not to be trusted, and to me, it doesn't "feel right", spiritually speaking." So I guess I don't really get it.... In the same post he said that he doesn't do textual criticism. Confusing to say the least.

He does praise Burgon in one place (I forget where), but then in answer to Yeshua1 in #128 he wrote, "I have not read all that he has written, so can't say for sure." (He never answered me when I informed him that Dr. Robinson is indebted to Burgon.)

He also asked me in Post #136 if I had Kenyon's "little gem" (245 pp.), and I do. But it's pretty old (1895).

Now, concerning Matt. 27:35, dealt with in this thread, Burgon agrees with the Byz. that the 2nd half is an addition (The Causes of Corruption of the NT Text, p. 78 in Jay Green's reprint of the book--alas that's all I have of that book, not the original edition). So SBG being TR-Only, apparently, he needs to re-read Burgon, because the good Dean was not TR-Only.

 

Thanks, I have that one. Need to reread it, I'm sure.

I do like Burgon's The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. He makes a great case for the longer ending.

The one I quoted above from is contained in An Introduction to Textual Criticism, ed. by Jay Green. This volume purports to reprint all of Burgon's works on textual criticism. (He also wrote on other things, such as inspiration.) However, Dr. Robinson told me that Green chopped up some places, so the book is not a reliable guide to Burgon. The Dean Burgon Society reprints of Burgon are true reprints from the original--something good from the DBS.