Byzantine priority theory

Last updated
John William Burgon was a famous advocate of the Byzantine priority theory. John William Burgon 001.jpg
John William Burgon was a famous advocate of the Byzantine priority theory.

The Byzantine priority theory, also called the Majority Text theory, is a theory within Christian textual criticism held by a minority of textual critics. This view sees the Byzantine text-type as the New Testament's most accurate textual tradition, instead of the Alexandrian text-type or the Western text-type. [1] [2] [3] Known advocates of this view include Maurice Robinson, Zane Hodges and John Burgon. [4] [5] The Majority Text theory is distinguished from the view of those who advocate the Textus Receptus, as although the Byzantine text is very similar to the Textus Receptus as the Textus Receptus mostly relies upon Byzantine manuscripts, it contains a few minority readings which Byzantine priorists reject. [6]

Contents

Byzantine priority is most commonly taught among conservative Evangelical and Eastern Orthodox circles. [7]

History

Zane Hodges ZaneHodges.JPG
Zane Hodges

The Majority Text movement began very soon after B. F. Wescott's and F. J. A Hort's The New Testament in the Original Greek was published, starting as a response to the views of Wescott and Hort. The chief of the early advocates of this view was John Burgon. [8] The Byzantine priority theory has been advocated more recently by modern textual critics such as Zane Hodges, William G. Pierpont, Arthur Farstad, Harry A. Sturz, Wilbur Pickering and Maurice Robinson, however it remains a minority position among textual critics. [4] [9] [1] [10]

In the modern day, multiple editions of the Greek Majority text have been created, such as the editions of Maurice A. Robinson & William G. Pierpont, [11] Byzantine Majority Text (Family 35) by Wilbur Pickering, [12] The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text (Hodges-Farstad) [13] and the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchal text. [14] [15]

Theory

Codex Alexandrinus (400ad), the oldest Greek witness of the Byzantine text in the Gospels. Codex alexandrinus.jpg
Codex Alexandrinus (400ad), the oldest Greek witness of the Byzantine text in the Gospels.

Methods

Advocates of the Byzantine priority theory often give more weight to the number of manuscripts than the advocates of the Critical Text; [1] however, number is not seen as either the main or the sole criteria for determining readings. [16] According to Maurice Robinson, the Byzantine priority theory is primarily a transmissionally-based theory, and internal evidences are only to be applied after an evaluation of the external data has been made. Although Byzantine priorists place more weight on the most common readings found, its advocates do not entirely focus on the raw number of manuscripts: instead, the value of manuscripts is still valued by factors such as the age of the manuscript and the particular scribal habits of the copyists. [17]

As regards to internal evidence, Byzantine priorists do not reject the usage of internal evidence. However, it is to be viewed alongside transmissional probabilities, and final judgements on readings require the application of internal evidence after the evaluation of external data. [17]

Early Usage of the Byzantine text

Critics of the Byzantine priority theory have generally argued that earlier, and thus "better", Alexandrian readings are to be preferred, arguing that the Byzantine text-type is a much later text, since the earliest Greek manuscript of the Byzantine text dates to the very early 5th century. Byzantine priorists, on the other hand, have attempted to establish the originality of the Byzantine text-type. [16]

According to the theory of Robinson, during the early Christian period, some regions saw the rise of uncontrolled and popular manuscript copies, complicated by attempts to correct them by scribes and persecution against Christianity, which cut off some correcting factors. This led to the emergence of multiple local texts, influenced by copying processes and environmental factors. However, with the sanctioning of churches under Constantine, wider communication made cross-correction easier and caused the eventual emergence of a universally-shared text. This text, resembling the original autograph form, gradually became the dominant New Testament text, explaining the prevalence of the Byzantine Text-type. According to Robinson, scribal "creativity" did not form any part in this "autograph restoration", but instead readings made by individual scribes would be weeded out by the next copying generation by cross-correction, causing an improved and preserved text found in an increasing number of manuscripts, overcoming the influence of the multiple local texts created by an uncontrollable process. [16] He also argues that the mere age of a manuscript should not be the determining factor of importance, arguing that many early manuscripts we have today were influenced by the uncontrolled textual transmission in their local regions. Secondly, Robinson states that even a later manuscript may have been copied from a very early manuscript. [16]

Additionally, there have been many attempts to demonstrate from historical data the early existence of distinct Byzantine variants. One of these attempts was made by John Burgon, who tried to demonstrate that the Byzantine text is the most ancient form of the New Testament text by placing emphasis on patristic quotations of the New Testament, which he claimed to agree generally with the Byzantine text. However his conclusions and assumptions are highly controversial among scholars and have been subject to criticism. [5] Individual readings in agreement with the later Byzantine text have also been found in the very early papyri, such as 𝔓46 and 𝔓45. Byzantine priorists such as Harry Sturz have concluded from this that the Byzantine text-type must have had an early existence. Although critics such as Zuntz have argued that despite some Byzantine readings possibly being ancient, the Byzantine tradition as a whole originates from a later period. [18]

Theological arguments

Byzantine priorists often do allow for the usage of theological arguments; however, they are viewed as secondary to textual evidence. This is in contrast to those who advocate the King James Only or the Textus Receptus Only theories, whose argumentative basis is primarily theological. [16]

Pericope Adulterae

The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) is a major variant defended as authentic by those who affirm the Byzantine priority theory. [19] They suggest there are points of similarity between the pericope's style and the style of the rest of the gospel and claim that the details of the encounter fit very well into the context of the surrounding verses. According to Zane Hodges, the pericope's appearance in the majority of manuscripts, if not in the oldest ones, is evidence of its authenticity. [20] Maurice Robinson argues that the anomalies in the transmission and usage of the Pericope Adulterae may be explained by the Lectionary system, where, due to the skipping of Pericope Adulterae during the Pentecost lesson, some scribes would relocate the story so as not to intervene with the flow of the Pentecost lesson; he also states that the same reason may have caused some Church Fathers such as John Chrysostom to leave it without mention in their writings. He argues that mistakes arising from the Lectionary system are also able to explain the omission of the story in some manuscripts. [21]

Criticism

The Majority Text theory has been criticized by major textual critics such as Bart D. Ehrman and Daniel B. Wallace. [8] According to Ehrman, its advocates often have theological presuppositions which lead them to argue for a specific preserved text-type and the Byzantine text did not become the majority of the manuscripts until the 9th century. [22]

The Byzantine priority theory has been also critiqued by advocates of the primacy of the Textus Receptus. Such critiques generally focus on the rejection of the strong doctrine of the providential preservation of the scripture by Byzantine priorists, who instead follow a textual-critical method. [23]

Influence

Some translations have been created based on the editions of the Byzantine text, including the World English Bible based on the text of Robinson & William G. Pierpont [24] and the Sovereign Creator Has Spoken version based on Wilbur Pickering's edition of family 35. [25] Additionally, an interlinear translation of the Hodges-Farstad text has been made by Thomas Nelson. [26]

The Holman Christian Standard Bible was initially planned to become an English translation of the Byzantine majority text, although because Arthur Farstad died just few months into the project, it shifted to the Critical Text. However, the HCSB bible was still made to contain the Byzantine majority readings within its footnotes. Similarly, the New King James version contains the Byzantine majority readings within the footnotes, although it is a translation of the Textus Receptus. [27]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Byzantine text-type</span> New Testament text type

In the textual criticism of the New Testament, the Byzantine text-type is one of the main text types. It is the form found in the largest number of surviving manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. The New Testament text of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Patriarchal Text, as well as those utilized in the lectionaries, are based on this text-type. Similarly, the Aramaic Peshitta which often conforms to the Byzantine text is used as the standard version in the Syriac tradition, including the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Chaldean church. Whilst varying in around 1,800 places from printed editions of the Byzantine text-type, it also underlies the Textus Receptus Greek text used for most Reformation-era (Protestant) translations of the New Testament into vernacular languages. Modern translations mainly use eclectic editions that conform more often to the Alexandrian text-type, which is viewed as the most accurate text-type by most scholars, although some modern translations that use the Byzantine text-type have been created.

<i>Textus Receptus</i> Greek critical text of the New Testament

Textus Receptus refers to the succession of printed editions of the Greek New Testament, starting with Erasmus' Novum Instrumentum omne (1516) and including the editions of Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir, Colinaeus and Scrivener. Additionally, although not being derived from the work of Erasmus, some such as the Trinitarian Bible Society also associate the Complutensian Polyglot with the Textus Receptus tradition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jesus and the woman taken in adultery</span> Passage from the Gospel of John

Jesus and the woman taken in adultery is a most likely pseudepigraphical passage (pericope) found in John 7:53–8:11 of the New Testament.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New King James Version</span> English translation of the Bible

The New King James Version (NKJV) is a translation of the Bible in contemporary English. Published by Thomas Nelson, the complete NKJV was released in 1982. With regard to its textual basis, the NKJV relies on a modern critical edition for the Old Testament, while opting to use the Textus Receptus for the New Testament.

<i>Novum Testamentum Graece</i> Critical edition of the Greek New Testament

Novum Testamentum Graece is a critical edition of the New Testament in its original Koine Greek, forming the basis of most modern Bible translations and biblical criticism. It is also known as the Nestle–Aland edition after its most influential editors, Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland. The text, edited by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, is currently in its 28th edition, abbreviated NA28.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener</span> British theologian

Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener was a New Testament textual critic and a member of the English New Testament Revision Committee which produced the Revised Version of the Bible. He was prebendary of Exeter, and vicar of Hendon.

There have been various debates concerning the proper family of biblical manuscripts and translation techniques that should be used to translate the Bible into other languages. Biblical translation has been employed since the first translations were made from the Hebrew Bible into Greek and Aramaic. Until the Late Middle Ages, the Western Church used the Latin Vulgate almost entirely while the Eastern Church, centered in Constantinople, mostly used the Greek Byzantine text. Beginning in the 14th century, there have been increasing numbers of vernacular translations into various languages. With the development of modern printing techniques, these increased enormously.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Westcott and Hort</span> Greek-language version of the New Testament

The New Testament in the Original Greek is a Greek-language version of the New Testament published in 1881. It is also known as the Westcott and Hort text, after its editors Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–1892). Textual scholars use the abbreviations "WH" or "WHNU". It is a critical text, compiled from some of the oldest New Testament fragments and texts that had been discovered at the time.

Our Authorized Bible Vindicated is a book written by Seventh-day Adventist scholar Benjamin G. Wilkinson advocating the King James Only (KJO) position, published in 1930. It asserted that some of the new versions of the Bible coming out, came from manuscripts with corruptions introduced into the Septuagint with additional texts, which came to be called "Apocrypha", and manuscripts with deletions and changes from corrupted Alexandrian text brought in by manuscript readings in the Greek New Testament adopted by Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. While King-James-Only advocacy existed prior to the writing of this book, many of the arguments in the book have since become set talking-points of many who support the belief, thanks in large part to Baptist Fundamentalist preacher David Otis Fuller, who adopted them into much of his own material, such as the book, Which Bible?.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Family 1</span> Collection of related medieval Biblical Manuscripts regarded as a Family

Family 1 is the name given to a group of Greek New Testament minuscule manuscripts of the Gospels, identified by biblical scholar Kirsopp Lake. These manuscripts vary in date from the 12th to the 15th century. The group takes its name from minuscule codex 1, now in the Basel University Library, Switzerland. "Family 1" is also symbolized as ƒ1 in critical editions of the Greek New Testament. Textual-critic Hermann von Soden refers to the group as Iη. Initially named after minuscule 1, later studies have demonstrated that another minuscule, minuscule 1582, is likely a better candidate as a representation of the archetype from which the Family 1 manuscripts are descended.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Codex Basilensis A. N. IV. 2</span> Greek minuscule manuscript of the New Testament

Codex Basilensis A. N. IV. 2, known as Minuscule 1, δ 254, and formerly designated by 1eap to distinguish it from minuscule 1rK is a Greek minuscule manuscript of the entire New Testament, apart from the Book of Revelation. Using the study of comparative writings styles (palaeography), it is usually dated to the 12th century CE.

Minuscule 8, ε 164, is a Greek minuscule manuscript of the New Testament on parchment. It is dated palaeographically to the 11th century. The manuscript has complex contents. It has complex contents and full marginalia.

Minuscule 225, ε 1210, is a Greek minuscule manuscript of the New Testament, written on parchment. A colophon dates it to the year 1192. It was adapted for liturgical use.

Edward Freer Hills (1912–1981) was an American Presbyterian scholar, perhaps the most prominent 20th-century advocate of the Byzantine text-type and Textus Receptus.

Codex Basiliensis A. N. III, 15, also known as Minuscule 817, Θε52, is a Greek minuscule manuscript of the New Testament written on paper, with a commentary. It was used by Erasmus. Palaeographically it has been assigned to the 15th century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Textual criticism of the New Testament</span> Analysis of the manuscripts of the New Testament

Textual criticism of the New Testament is the identification of textual variants, or different versions of the New Testament, whose goals include identification of transcription errors, analysis of versions, and attempts to reconstruct the original text. Its main focus is studying the textual variants in the New Testament.

Maurice Arthur Robinson is an American professor of New Testament and Greek (retired) and a proponent of the Byzantine-priority method of New Testament textual criticism.

Textual variants in the Epistle to Philemon are the subject of the study called textual criticism of the New Testament. Textual variants in manuscripts arise when a copyist makes deliberate or inadvertent alterations to a text that is being reproduced. An abbreviated list of textual variants in this particular book is given in this article below.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Confession of the Ethiopian Eunuch</span>

The confession of the Ethiopian eunuch is a variant reading in Acts 8:37, widely seen by Textual Critics to be a later interpolation into the text. It is found in the King James Version due to its existence within the Textus Receptus.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Quarles, Charles L.; Kellum, L. Scott (2023-06-20). 40 Questions About the Text and Canon of the New Testament. Kregel Publications. ISBN   978-0-8254-7590-0.
  2. ↑ Pierpont, William G.; Robinson, Maurice A. (2019-12-17). The Case for the Byzantine Priority. Amazon Digital Services LLC - KDP Print US. ISBN   978-1-6764-0916-8.
  3. ↑ White, James R. (June 2009). The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?. Baker Books. ISBN   978-0-7642-0605-4.
  4. 1 2 Hodges, Zane (1961). "The ecclesiastical text of Revelation: does it exist?". Bibliotheca Sacra.
  5. 1 2 Heuer, Mark (1995). "An Evaluation of John W. Burgon's Use of Patristic Evidence" (PDF). The Evangelical Theological Society.
  6. ↑ "The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org". bible.org. Retrieved 2023-12-24.
  7. ↑ Ehrman, Bart D.; Holmes, Michael W. (2012-11-09). The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Second Edition. BRILL. ISBN   978-90-04-23655-4.
  8. 1 2 Wallace, Daniel (1994). "The Majority! Text Theory: History, Methods and Critique" (PDF). JETS.
  9. ↑ Knust, Jennifer; Wasserman, Tommy (2020-01-14). To Cast the First Stone: The Transmission of a Gospel Story. Princeton University Press. ISBN   978-0-691-20312-6.
  10. ↑ "A Review of the Christian Standard Bible". The Gospel Coalition. Retrieved 2023-12-24.
  11. ↑ Maurice A. Robinson & William G. Pierpont. The New Testament In The Original Greek Byzantine Textform [By, Maurice A. Robinson & William G. Pierpont][© 2005].
  12. ↑ Center for the Study and Preservation of the Majority Text (2014). Byzantine Greek New Testament: Kr/Family 35 Textform.
  13. ↑ Zane C. Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad (1984). The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text (Hodges-Farstad GNT).
  14. ↑ Karavidopoulos, Ioannes D. (2012). "The Ecumenical Patriarchate's 1904 New Testament Edition and Future Perspectives" (PDF). Sacra Scripta. X.
  15. ↑ "The Patriarchal Greek New Testament". logos.com. Retrieved 2021-07-22.
  16. 1 2 3 4 5 "Introduction to Robinson & Pierpont". www.skypoint.com. Retrieved 2024-05-11.
  17. 1 2 Robinson, Maurice. "New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority". TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism.
  18. ↑ Fee, Gordon D. (1993). "The Use of Greek Patristic Citations in New Testament Textual Criticism: The State of the Question". In Epp, Eldon J.; Fee, Gordon D. (eds.). Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. pp. 344–359. ISBN   9780802827739.
  19. ↑ The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text with Apparatus: Second Edition, by Zane C. Hodges (Editor), Arthur L. Farstad (Editor) Publisher: Thomas Nelson; ISBN   0-8407-4963-5
  20. ↑ The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text with Apparatus: Second Edition, by Zane C. Hodges (Editor), Arthur L. Farstad (Editor) Publisher: Thomas Nelson; ISBN   0-8407-4963-5
  21. ↑ Robinson, Maurice (1998-01-01). "Preliminary observations regarding the pericope adulterae based upon fresh collations of nearly all continuous-text manuscripts and over one hundred lectionaries". Conference Papers.
  22. ↑ Ehrman, Bart D.; Holmes, Michael W. (2012-11-09). The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Second Edition. BRILL. ISBN   978-90-04-23604-2.
  23. ↑ Moorman, J. A. (October 2010). When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text. Old Paths Publications, Incorporated. ISBN   978-1-56848-098-5.
  24. ↑ "World English Bible (WEB) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com". www.biblegateway.com. Retrieved 2023-12-24.
  25. ↑ "Translations". ByzantineText.com. Retrieved 2024-01-07.
  26. ↑ Nelson, Thomas (1994). The Majority Text Greek New Testament Interlinear.
  27. ↑ "A Review of the Christian Standard Bible". The Gospel Coalition. Retrieved 2023-12-24.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.