INTRODUCTION 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. On average,* Here the word average refers to the median rather than the mean. 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,† Except for the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11), in which the Greek manuscripts are fairly evenly divided between three main families. 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. 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. Editions of the Greek New Testament Compared in this Volume The Text-Critical Greek New Testament is an edition of Robinson and Pierpont's 2018 Greek text‡ The following minor modifications have been made to Robinson and Pierpont's text: movable nu and movable sigma have been removed when they occur before a consonant, paragraph breaks have been modified, poetic formatting has been added, certain accent marks around clitics have been modified (without changing the meaning of any words), and the various forms of Θεος, Χριστος, Κυριος, and Πνευμα Αγιον have been capitalized (except when they do not refer to the Godhead). However, apart from these superficial modifications, the actual text and punctuation have not been altered. that documents every difference found in the following editions and manuscript families of the Greek New Testament.§ Differences between movable nu and movable sigma are ignored. In the footnotes movable nu and movable sigma are removed when they occur before a consonant. Differences between meaningless word breaks are also ignored (see Appendix C). When such words are written in the footnotes, the spelling of Robinson and Pierpont is followed. For the purposes of comparison, typographical errors in the compared editions have been corrected. See Appendix B for a list of corrections.
border="1">
ANT Greek New Testament of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, edited by Basileios Antoniades (1904) BYZ Robinson and Pierpont's Alternate Byzantine Readings (2018)* In 2021 and 2022, Robinson revised his electronic text for the alternate Byzantine readings in three verses (Rev. 3:2; 7:5; 9:10). These revised alternate readings are listed below.
3:2 ἔμελλες ἀποβάλλειν ¦ ἤμελλες ἀποβάλλειν ¦ ἔμελλον ἀποθανεῖν
7:5 ἐσφραγισμέναι ¦ ἐσφραγισμένοι
9:10 ἐξουσίαν ἔχουσιν τοῦ ¦ καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν CT Critical Text (This designation is used when NA, SBL, TH, and WH are all in agreement. In Mark, Acts, and the Catholic Epistles, this designation is used when ECM, NA, SBL, TH, and WH are all in agreement) ECM Editio Critica Maior for Mark, Acts, and the Catholic Epistles (1997-2022) ECM† When ECM employs a split guiding line,[~6~] this designation marks the variant that corresponds to NA28. ECM* When ECM employs a split guiding line, this designation marks the variant or variants that do not correspond to NA28. HF Hodges and Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, 2nd edition (1985) NA Nestle-Aland (This designation is used when NA27 and NA28 are in agreement.) NA27 Nestle-Aland, 27th edition (1993) NA28 Nestle-Aland, 28th edition (2012) PCK Wilbur Pickering, The Greek New Testament According to Family 35, 3rd edition (2020) SBL SBL Greek New Testament (2010) SCR Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1894) ST Stephanus' Textus Receptus, 3rd edition (1550) TH The Greek New Testament, Produced at Tyndale House, Cambridge (2017) TR Textus Receptus (This designation is used when SCR and ST are in agreement.) WH Westcott-Hort (1881)
Edition Mean Median RP 64.4% 63.7% PCK 36.8% 38.2% BYZ 36.7% 37.4% HF 35.7% 36.8% ANT 24.5% 25.6% TR 24.1% 22.9% SCR 23.8% 22.9% ST 23.7% 22.9% CT 16.5% 11.3% WH 16.4% 11.3% SBL 16.1% 10.1% TH 15.8% 10.0% NA27 15.6% 9.5%
*^
Here the word average refers to the median rather than the mean.
†^
Except for the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11), in which the Greek manuscripts are fairly evenly divided between three main families.
‡^
The following minor modifications have been made to Robinson and Pierpont's text: movable nu and movable sigma have been removed when they occur before a consonant, paragraph breaks have been modified, poetic formatting has been added, certain accent marks around clitics have been modified (without changing the meaning of any words), and the various forms of Θεος, Χριστος, Κυριος, and Πνευμα Αγιον have been capitalized (except when they do not refer to the Godhead). However, apart from these superficial modifications, the actual text and punctuation have not been altered.
§^
Differences between movable nu and movable sigma are ignored. In the footnotes movable nu and movable sigma are removed when they occur before a consonant. Differences between meaningless word breaks are also ignored (see Appendix C). When such words are written in the footnotes, the spelling of Robinson and Pierpont is followed. For the purposes of comparison, typographical errors in the compared editions have been corrected. See Appendix B for a list of corrections.
*^
In 2021 and 2022, Robinson revised his electronic text for the alternate Byzantine readings in three verses (Rev. 3:2; 7:5; 9:10). These revised alternate readings are listed below.3:2 ἔμελλες ἀποβάλλειν ¦ ἤμελλες ἀποβάλλειν ¦ ἔμελλον ἀποθανεῖν7:5 ἐσφραγισμέναι ¦ ἐσφραγισμένοι9:10 ἐξουσίαν ἔχουσιν τοῦ ¦ καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν
†^
A split guiding line indicates that the ECM editors have left open the decision as to which of the variants they believe might be the initial text. In four verses (Acts 9:43; 13:46; 17:3; 21:13), three variants appear on the split guiding line instead of two.
‡^
For the purposes of this volume, K is considered to have a general consensus when Hodges and Farstad's apparatus shows that a reading is supported by Ma (but not Mapt). Similarly, Αν is considered to have a general consensus when Hodges and Farstad's apparatus shows that a reading is supported by Md and Me (but not Mdpt or Mept). Hodges and Farstad's families Md and Me correspond with Hoskier's Egyptian and Erasmian families, respectively, and together provide a good representation of Αν. In Revelation 7:5–8, however, Hodges and Farstad's apparatus incorrectly indicates that the TR readings are supported by Md and Me. For those notes, Hodges and Farstad's apparatus is not followed. In a few other instances, where Hodges and Farstad are silent, K and Αν have been determined directly from Hoskier.
§^
Family K is also known as Q or 𝔐K.
*^
Family Αν is also known as 𝔐A.
†^
In a few instances, Robinson and Pierpont depart from K due to other transmissional and orthographic considerations.
‡^
In the book of Philemon, variants that are not collated in Text und Textwert have been calculated from Matthew Solomon's collation. In the book of Jude, variants that are not collated in Text und Textwert have been calculated from Joey McCollum's tabulations of Tommy Wasserman's collation. These percentages are placed in brackets to differentiate them from the percentages calculated from Text und Textwert.
§^
The Text und Textwert volumes present a total of 1,043 variant units. However, the collations for five of those units are incorrect. Those five variant units are therefore excluded from the percentage of manuscript calculations. In 166 variant units all the editions compared in this volume agree. (See Appendix A for more information.) Solomon's and Wasserman's collations are not considered in the calculation of these averages.
*^
Text und Textwert does not document any of the HF variants in the Gospels.
3:2 ἔμελλες ἀποβάλλειν ¦ ἤμελλες ἀποβάλλειν ¦ ἔμελλον ἀποθανεῖν
7:5 ἐσφραγισμέναι ¦ ἐσφραγισμένοι
9:10 ἐξουσίαν ἔχουσιν τοῦ ¦ καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν
| Edition | Mean | Median |
| RP | 64.4% | 63.7% |
| PCK | 36.8% | 38.2% |
| BYZ | 36.7% | 37.4% |
| HF | 35.7% | 36.8% |
| ANT | 24.5% | 25.6% |
| TR | 24.1% | 22.9% |
| SCR | 23.8% | 22.9% |
| ST | 23.7% | 22.9% |
| CT | 16.5% | 11.3% |
| WH | 16.4% | 11.3% |
| SBL | 16.1% | 10.1% |
| TH | 15.8% | 10.0% |
| NA27 | 15.6% | 9.5% |
*^ Here the word average refers to the median rather than the mean.
†^ Except for the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11), in which the Greek manuscripts are fairly evenly divided between three main families.
‡^ The following minor modifications have been made to Robinson and Pierpont's text: movable nu and movable sigma have been removed when they occur before a consonant, paragraph breaks have been modified, poetic formatting has been added, certain accent marks around clitics have been modified (without changing the meaning of any words), and the various forms of Θεος, Χριστος, Κυριος, and Πνευμα Αγιον have been capitalized (except when they do not refer to the Godhead). However, apart from these superficial modifications, the actual text and punctuation have not been altered.
§^ Differences between movable nu and movable sigma are ignored. In the footnotes movable nu and movable sigma are removed when they occur before a consonant. Differences between meaningless word breaks are also ignored (see Appendix C). When such words are written in the footnotes, the spelling of Robinson and Pierpont is followed. For the purposes of comparison, typographical errors in the compared editions have been corrected. See Appendix B for a list of corrections.
*^ In 2021 and 2022, Robinson revised his electronic text for the alternate Byzantine readings in three verses (Rev. 3:2; 7:5; 9:10). These revised alternate readings are listed below.3:2 ἔμελλες ἀποβάλλειν ¦ ἤμελλες ἀποβάλλειν ¦ ἔμελλον ἀποθανεῖν7:5 ἐσφραγισμέναι ¦ ἐσφραγισμένοι9:10 ἐξουσίαν ἔχουσιν τοῦ ¦ καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν
†^ A split guiding line indicates that the ECM editors have left open the decision as to which of the variants they believe might be the initial text. In four verses (Acts 9:43; 13:46; 17:3; 21:13), three variants appear on the split guiding line instead of two.
‡^ For the purposes of this volume, K is considered to have a general consensus when Hodges and Farstad's apparatus shows that a reading is supported by Ma (but not Mapt). Similarly, Αν is considered to have a general consensus when Hodges and Farstad's apparatus shows that a reading is supported by Md and Me (but not Mdpt or Mept). Hodges and Farstad's families Md and Me correspond with Hoskier's Egyptian and Erasmian families, respectively, and together provide a good representation of Αν. In Revelation 7:5–8, however, Hodges and Farstad's apparatus incorrectly indicates that the TR readings are supported by Md and Me. For those notes, Hodges and Farstad's apparatus is not followed. In a few other instances, where Hodges and Farstad are silent, K and Αν have been determined directly from Hoskier.
§^ Family K is also known as Q or 𝔐K.
*^ Family Αν is also known as 𝔐A.
†^ In a few instances, Robinson and Pierpont depart from K due to other transmissional and orthographic considerations.
‡^ In the book of Philemon, variants that are not collated in Text und Textwert have been calculated from Matthew Solomon's collation. In the book of Jude, variants that are not collated in Text und Textwert have been calculated from Joey McCollum's tabulations of Tommy Wasserman's collation. These percentages are placed in brackets to differentiate them from the percentages calculated from Text und Textwert.
§^ The Text und Textwert volumes present a total of 1,043 variant units. However, the collations for five of those units are incorrect. Those five variant units are therefore excluded from the percentage of manuscript calculations. In 166 variant units all the editions compared in this volume agree. (See Appendix A for more information.) Solomon's and Wasserman's collations are not considered in the calculation of these averages.
*^ Text und Textwert does not document any of the HF variants in the Gospels.