The Byzantine Text

The Byzantine text is the historically dominant form of the Greek New Testament. As a result, it was the Textus Receptus, a close relative of the Byzantine text compiled from a small number of manuscripts, that was the dominant form of the printed Greek New Testament from the early sixteenth century to the late nineteenth century. In 1881, however, the Textus Receptus was effectively supplanted by Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament, particularly in academic circles. Westcott and Hort prepared their Greek text on the assumption that there was a recension of the Byzantine text in the fourth century that became the basis for all subsequent Byzantine manuscripts. Based on this assumption, Westcott and Hort counted (or discounted) the overwhelming majority of Byzantine manuscripts as originating from a single formal recension source, removing them from the equation, so that they could give preference to a small handful of manuscripts, particularly Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ). Although the assumption of a fourth century recension has now largely been discredited due to a complete lack of evidence, Westcott and Hort's preference for a small handful of manuscripts has endured, and the modern critical editions of Nestle-Aland and UBS have become the standard Greek text accepted in academic circles today.

Yet there are critical flaws in the underlying methodology of the reasoned eclecticism that is practiced in the editions of Nestle-Aland and UBS. In his essay “The Case for Byzantine Priority,” Dr. Maurice Robinson makes the following observation:

Modern eclecticism creates a text which, within repeated short sequences, rapidly degenerates into one possessing no support among manuscript, versional, or patristic witnesses. The problem deteriorates further as the scope of sequential variation increases.

In other words, when the text-critical decisions of the editors of Nestle-Aland and UBS are considered over the course of a few verses (and sometimes over the course of only one verse), it is often the case that the resulting text as a whole has no support in any Greek manuscript, ancient translation, or quotation from the church fathers; rather, it is a conjectural text. This critical flaw of the modern eclectic approach has never been adequately addressed by its proponents. For this reason and others, some prefer the Byzantine text, which is based on the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts.

The Byzantine text is not quite the same as the Textus Receptus, which is the textual basis of the New Testament in the King James Version and the New King James Version. While the Textus Receptus is within the Byzantine family of texts, the first edition of Erasmus' Greek New Testament was produced from only seven manuscripts. Although those manuscripts were from the Byzantine family, they contained some readings that have very little support among Greek manuscripts.

Due to the shortcomings of modern critical texts as well as the Textus Receptus, the Byzantine Text Version has been translated from The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2018 by Robinson and Pierpont. On average,[fn] when there are variants among Greek manuscripts, the readings adopted by Robinson and Pierpont are supported by 96% of the Greek manuscripts in the Gospels,[fn] 90% of the Greek manuscripts in Acts and the Epistles, and 64% of the Greek manuscripts in Revelation. These Byzantine manuscripts, which number in the low thousands, represent many individual streams of transmission. And while they are generally later in date, they were all copied from earlier manuscripts of the same text type. Even Westcott and Hort acknowledge that the Byzantine text dates at least as far back as the fourth century, which is contemporaneous with Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ). Thus the Byzantine textform is ancient, highly uniform, and well attested by a variety of independent streams of transmission. Therefore it has a strong claim toward being the original text of the New Testament. Those seeking further information are encouraged to read Robinson's essay in full.

Translation Philosophy

The Byzantine Text Version follows an “optimal equivalence” philosophy of translation, employing a literary style that is reminiscent of the Tyndale-King James legacy while flowing smoothly and naturally in modern English. Within the framework of an “optimal equivalence” philosophy, it is often possible to achieve a clear and natural translation while following an “essentially literal” or “word-for-word” approach. There are occasions, however, when a “word-for-word” approach would result in renderings that are unclear, unnatural, confusing, and/or misleading. In such instances the Byzantine Text Version employs a more dynamic approach. Usually this requires only minor adjustments to make the translation conform to natural English usage and style. At times, however, a “thought-for-thought” translation is required to avoid confusing or misleading the reader. For example, an “essentially literal” rendering of Romans 14:22 would read, “Do yoʋ[fn] have faith? Have it privately before God.” Although this translation would be clear and natural English, it could potentially mislead the reader into thinking that a person should not share his or her faith with others. As a result, Romans 14:22 has been rendered, “Do yoʋ have a firm belief about these things? Have it privately before God.” Another example is 1 Timothy 4:13, in which Paul literally tells Timothy to “give attention to reading.” A literal translation makes it sound like Paul is advising Timothy to read more books, but in reality he is advising him not to neglect the public reading of Scripture. As a result, the Greek has been rendered, “give attention to the public reading of Scripture.”

Matters of Orthography

The translation of 1 Timothy 4:13 serves as a good example that it is sometimes necessary to add words in English that are not present in the Greek. In adding such words in the Byzantine Text Version, every effort has been made to avoid introducing a high degree of interpretation into the text, focusing instead on smoothing out the English and avoiding renderings that would confuse or mislead the reader. The practice of italicizing words that are added in English to give clarity to the Greek has not been employed in this translation. While there are some advantages to italicizing (or otherwise marking) words that have been added in English, there are some disadvantages as well. First, no English translation carries out this practice thoroughly and consistently; in particular, many articles are not italicized when they are added in English translation. Furthermore, if this practice were to be carried out thoroughly and consistently, the resultant text would be littered with italicized words, creating a visual distraction. Second, there is no practical way of indicating which Greek words have been left untranslated, leaving the impression that, although some words have been added in English, no words have been left untranslated, which is not the case for any English translation. Third, in modern English the use of italics implies emphasis, and it is awkward when relatively minor words seem to be emphasized. It would make more sense to put such words in brackets, but that would be quite distracting visually. Consequently, words that have been added in English are not marked in the Byzantine Text Version.

Although words that have been added in English are not marked, the difference between second person singular and second person plural is marked. One of the greatest advantages of archaic translations like the King James Version is the ability to differentiate between second person singular and second person plural by the use of archaic pronouns such as thou and ye. In order to maintain these distinctions, the Byzantine Text Version differentiates between second person singular and second person plural by using an alternate letter (ʋ) in second person singular pronouns. Consequently, the words yoʋ, yoʋr, and yoʋrs indicate second person singular, while the words you, your, and yours indicate second person plural. The casual reader will barely notice the difference, while the careful reader will be able to discern whether the pronoun is singular or plural.

Gender Language

The problem of gender in language is primarily a linguistic one. Both Greek and English lack a third person singular pronoun that is neutral with reference to the gender of a person. The closest that English has is the word they, but this term is generally awkward as a third person singular pronoun, often implying plurality. When a third person singular pronoun refers to a specific individual, it can often be translated in a more specific way, such as the man, the woman, the child, or the one. However, such renderings become more difficult when referring to any person in general. Traditionally, both Greek and English have used the third person singular masculine pronoun to refer to a person in general (whether male or female). This traditional practice is maintained in the Byzantine Text Version when it is not feasible or natural to use a more specific rendering.

The Greek word anthropos often refers to a human being or person or humanity in general, rather than to a male person. Consequently, when referring to an individual or individuals the word anthropos is generally translated as person, people, or others unless it clearly refers to a male or males, in which case it is translated as man or men. However, when referring to humanity as a whole or human beings in contrast to God, the word anthropos is generally translated as man, men, or mankind. This is due to stylistic purposes as alternate renderings such as person, people, human, human being, humanity, and humankind can be awkward in these contexts.[fn] Modern English dictionaries list human being as one of the definitions of man, and that is often the sense in which it is used in this translation. While the word man is often used to translate anthropos, masculine adjectives that refer to a type of person in general are usually translated with person rather than man, for example, a righteous person rather than a righteous man. But if the adjective is clearly describing a male, the word man is used instead of person.

The Greek term adelphoi presents another challenge in English translation as it can refer either specifically to brothers or more generally to brothers and sisters. Here the book of Acts is a helpful guide as the term andres adelphoi is used thirteen times. This term literally means men brothers, and it seems to favor interpreting adelphoi as referring primarily to brothers rather than to brothers and sisters. While modern English-speaking cultures may frown upon the exclusion of women in the terms of address used by the apostles, the task of translation should not superimpose modern cultural norms on ancient texts. Thus the Byzantine Text Version translates adelphoi as brothers. Nevertheless, the reader should keep in mind that, from a purely grammatical perspective, brothers can also be translated as brothers and sisters (except for the thirteen times andres adelphoi is used in Acts).

The translation of the word uioi as sons, even when it refers to a group of men and women, also requires some explanation. In biblical cultures, it was primarily the sons who had the rights of inheritance. Thus when the New Testament refers to Christian believers as sons, it carries the connotation that they are heirs who will receive an inheritance (see Galatians 4:7). So when females are referred to as sons, they are designated as fellow recipients of the inheritance. Thus it is actually a progressive notion, which elevates the status of women as heirs of the promises of God. To translate the Greek as children instead of sons would detract from that point. Consequently, the Byzantine Text Version usually translates the Greek word uioi as sons. One notable exception is Luke 20:34, where it would be awkward to translate uioi as sons because sons are not “given in marriage.” Consequently, the word uioi is translated as people in Luke 20:34.

Colophons

Many Greek manuscripts include interesting scribal notes in the colophons of the Gospels and Pauline epistles. In the Gospels these notes give the date of publication. In the Pauline epistles they give details about the place of authorship, who delivered the epistle, and, in the pastoral epistles, details about the recipient. Because these are scribal notes and not the sacred text itself, they should not be considered infallible. However, most readers do not even realize that these notes exist, especially in the Gospels. Consequently, the colophons are included as footnotes in this edition to allow readers to easily access and evaluate them.

The Text-Critical English New Testament

The Text-Critical English New Testament is an edition of the Byzantine Text Version that documents translatable differences[fn] found in the editions of the Greek New Testament listed below. The editions are listed in the footnotes only when they differ in English translation from Robinson and Pierpont's 2018 Greek text.[fn] If a particular edition is not listed in a footnote, it means that it agrees with the English translation of Robinson and Pierpont's text.

\fp Philem. 1:1 χριστου ιησου ¦ ιησου χριστου \fp Rev. 3:2 ἔμελλες ἀποβάλλειν ¦ ἤμελλες ἀποβάλλειν ¦ ἔμελλον ἀποθανεῖν \fp Rev. 5:3 ουτε … ουτε … ουτε ¦ ουδε … ουδε … ουδε \fp Rev. 7:5 ἐσφραγισμέναι ¦ ἐσφραγισμένοι \fp Rev. 9:10 ἐξουσίαν ἔχουσιν τοῦ ¦ καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν\f*

In addition to the editions listed above, the following manuscript families are documented for the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11).[fn]

The following manuscript families are documented for the book of Revelation.[fn] These families are documented only when there is a general consensus[fn] for the family and the family differs from the Robinson and Pierpont text.

The Textus Receptus

While it is common to refer to the Textus Receptus as a single entity, in reality there are various editions of the Textus Receptus, which all differ from one another. Although Erasmus was the first to publish what became known as the Textus Receptus, it was Robert Estienne (Stephanus) who came to shape the text as we know it today. Stephanus' third edition (published in 1550 and known as Editio Regia or the “Royal Edition”) is a splendid masterpiece of typographical skill. It was also the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament to include text-critical notes in the margins. Modifying Stephanus' text, Theodore Beza published five editions of the Textus Receptus. His fifth edition (published in 1598) was one of the primary source texts of the Greek New Testament used by the translators of the King James Version. At times, however, the King James Version deviates from Beza's fifth edition. Seeking to recreate the Greek text underlying the New Testament translation of the King James Version, Scrivener modified Beza's fifth edition with readings from various editions of the Textus Receptus that the King James translators would have had at their disposal. Scrivener published his modification of Beza's fifth edition in 1881. When people think about the Textus Receptus today, they think primarily of Stephanus' 1550 edition and Scrivener's 1881 edition.

Editions of the Critical Text

Westcott and Hort published their Greek New Testament in 1881, basing their text-critical decisions on the possibility that a majority of manuscripts could descend from a single formal recension source and thus should not necessarily be preferred as correct. Although they never proved this possibility from the actual manuscript evidence, their theory paved the way for future editions of the critical text. Following in the footsteps of Westcott and Hort, the Nestle-Aland editions have become the standard Greek text in most academic circles today. Closely aligned with the Nestle-Aland editions is the Editio Critica Maior, which thus far has only published Mark, Acts, and the Catholic Epistles. The Editio Critica Maior is unique in the sense that it uses a split guiding line for hundreds of readings. This means that, in many instances, there is no single base text. When compared to the twenty-seventh edition of Nestle-Aland, the changes introduced in the Editio Critica Maior at times move in the direction of the Byzantine Text. Another modern critical text that presents slightly different readings is the SBL Greek New Testament, edited by Michael Holmes. Following the same general methodology as the editors of Nestle-Aland, Holmes differs from Nestle-Aland in over six hundred places, providing an alternate perspective within the eclectic tradition. A fourth critical text that presents slightly different readings is The Greek New Testament, Produced at Tyndale House, Cambridge, which its editors say is rooted in the earliest manuscripts and relies upon the study of scribal habits to inform text-critical decisions.

Modern Editions of the Byzantine Text

Although the Byzantine text is quite stable for the vast majority of the New Testament, in the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) and the book of Revelation the degree of variation among Byzantine manuscripts increases significantly. Partly in response to this high degree of variation in the Pericope Adulterae and the book of Revelation, Wilbur Pickering published The Greek New Testament according to Family 35. Family 35 (also known as K^r) is a large family of highly uniform manuscripts within the Byzantine text tradition. It is the only family of manuscripts that has a demonstrable archetype for every book of the New Testament. This means that even in the Pericope Adulterae and the book of Revelation, there is little question as to the reading of Family 35. Many, however, argue that the high level of uniformity among manuscripts in Family 35 is the result of a systematic recension. Whatever the case may be, the readings of Family 35 at times represent fewer than 20% of extant Greek manuscripts, and there are no extant manuscripts for this family prior to the eleventh century. Nevertheless, Pickering's edition provides important documentation of a large but late family within the Byzantine text tradition.

In addition to the Textus Receptus and Family 35, the present volume also documents translatable differences found in The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, edited by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad. The edition of Hodges and Farstad differs very little from that of Robinson and Pierpont with the exception of the Pericope Adulterae and the book of Revelation, where it follows a stemmatic approach for determining the original Greek text. Using this stemmatic approach, Hodges and Farstad hypothesize family trees to show the relationships of various manuscript families. They then make text-critical decisions based on those hypothetical family trees. This approach provides an alternate perspective to the main Byzantine textform.

The Greek New Testament of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, edited by Basileios Antoniades, provides one further witness to the Byzantine text family. This edition relies more heavily on readings found in Greek lectionaries than any other edition of the Greek New Testament. At times it includes readings with very little support among Greek manuscripts. Many of these readings are printed in small type in the 1904 and 1912 editions to indicate doubt on the part of the editor as to their originality. This text, also known as the Patriarchal Text, is used in the Greek-speaking Orthodox Churches.

Robinson and Pierpont's Alternate Byzantine Readings

In addition to documenting translatable differences found in the editions described above, The Text-Critical English New Testament also documents translatable differences found in Robinson and Pierpont's alternate Byzantine readings. For the bulk of the New Testament, Robinson and Pierpont follow Von Soden's family K^x. When K^x is nearly evenly divided, Robinson and Pierpont generally follow the portion of K^x that is also supported by K^r, while listing the alternate Byzantine reading in the margin.

In the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11), the Byzantine manuscript tradition is nearly evenly divided between three main families known as μ⁵, μ⁶, and μ⁷ (which is closely linked to K^r). Robinson and Pierpont follow μ⁵, Hodges and Farstad follow μ⁶, and Pickering follows μ⁷. When μ⁵ is nearly evenly divided, Robinson and Pierpont list the alternate μ⁵ readings in the margin. They also list in the margin the primary readings of μ⁶ as well as the alternate readings of μ⁶ when that family is nearly evenly divided.

In Revelation, there are three large families of manuscripts. K represents the main Koine tradition in Revelation and is comprised of approximately seventy-eight disparate manuscripts that represent many copying eras and locations.[fn] Αν is comprised of approximately fifty-eight manuscripts that contain or derive from the fourth-century commentary of Andreas of Caesarea.[fn] This family is much less cohesive than K, frequently being divided in support of two or more readings. The third family is the Complutensian group. It is comprised of approximately thirty-two manuscripts that are highly uniform and tend to align with the readings of the Complutensian Polyglot. This family is closely linked to K^r and generally agrees with either K or Αν. These three families account for nearly 60% of the manuscripts of Revelation.

As is the case with the Pericope Adulterae, editors of the Byzantine text take different approaches to the three main manuscript families in Revelation. The Textus Receptus often follows Αν, but this is due more to an accident of history than to any intentional decision on the part of the various editors. Pickering follows the Complutensian family exactly. Hodges and Farstad follow K very closely, departing from it only on rare occasions. Robinson and Pierpont also generally prefer the readings of K. At times, however, they follow Αν, particularly when a significant number of K manuscripts abandon their group consensus and align with the Αν reading.[fn] Whenever a variant unit is nearly evenly divided among two or more readings, Robinson and Pierpont list the alternate reading(s) in the margin.

Manuscript Percentages

For sets of variants that have been fully collated in the Text und Textwert volumes, the manuscript percentages supporting each variant are listed.[fn] These percentages are based upon the underlying Greek text and not the English translation (which can often be paired with more than one Greek variant). Percentages that appear in curly brackets indicate that a different Greek text underlies the same English translation. For example, the footnote in Hebrews 7:14 reads as follows:

priesthood 63.4% {TR 20.2%} ¦ priests CT 1.5%

In this case, there are three variants in the Greek text. The main text is found in 63.4% of manuscripts and is translated as priesthood. The TR text is found in 20.2% of manuscripts and is also translated as priesthood. The CT text is found in 1.5% of manuscripts and is translated as priests. So although the main Greek text and the Greek text of TR are different, they are both translated the same way in English.

Curly brackets are also used when one or more variants are translated in the same way but differ from the translation of the main text. For example, the first footnote in Revelation 4:3 reads as follows:

It 79.2% ¦ He who was sitting on it CT {15.1%} TR {2.7%}

In this case, the Greek texts of CT and TR are not the same. Nevertheless, they are both translated as “He who was sitting on it,” which differs from the translation of the main Greek text. So {15.1%} indicates the percentage of manuscripts that support the Greek text of CT, while {2.7%} indicates the percentage of manuscripts that support the Greek text of TR.

It should be noted that, while manuscript percentages are not the sole factor to be considered in the task of textual criticism, they should not be ignored either, particularly when they demonstrate the dominance of a particular text type. (See Appendix A for details about the calculation of manuscript percentages.)

An analysis of the Text und Textwert data yields the manuscript percentage averages listed in the tables below. The RP percentages are based on every variant unit presented in Text und Textwert.[fn] The percentages for all the other editions apply only when the editions differ from the RP text. Due to the presence of outliers in the data, the median is presented along with the mean, as the median may very well provide a truer picture of the “average” manuscript percentages. Using the tables below, the reader can make a general estimate of the percentage of manuscripts supporting any given reading that is not documented in Text und Textwert. However, the reader should be aware that any given variant may deviate greatly from the averages presented below.

Gospels

Acts & Epistles

Revelation

For the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11), manuscript percentages have been calculated from Robinson's collation.[fn]

Pericope Adulterae

---