dost

Hi.

Byzantine text type is the least reliable and is used to the minimum by textual critics when it comes to reconstructing the text of the NT. I read that this text type is characterized by smoothing and conflation etc.

I want to know if say we reconstruct the New Testament based only on the Byzantine text type, will it differ considerable from the present reconstructed NT text? Some Christians I have had a conversation with usually offer the "so what" type of reply. I.e, they say it wouldn't make much of a difference if we rely upon the Byzantine text type since the differences are just grammatical, spelling differences and the type of differences which do not effect the meaning of the text and have of course no effect upon any theological beliefs and doctrines.

Is this true? Can you point to any online sites which lists any significant differences and offers examples?

Haran

I'm going to be dinged for giving such a simplistic response (meaning a much more detailed and precise answer could be given), but if you compare the King James Version (which is a form of the Byzantine textual tradition) with a translation such as the NRSV, NASB, or NIV, then you can note most of the differences for yourself...

Haran

If you're interested in textual variants, you might try the Student's Guide to New Testament Textual Variants.

Before "using" this information, I suggest learning as much as possible about textual criticism. There are resources listed in the Reading and Resources thread at the top of this forum.

dost

Thanks Hiran.

Although the versions are available online, I should get a hard copy of the NIV soon. But are there any sites which list some differences? While surfing online, I came across an article by J P Holding, who responding to some Muslim apologists, writes:

"Not that the authors establish or offer any quantitative estimate of how much of a problem any of this "smoothing," etc. is; much less do they offer any examples of readings which allegedly ought to send Christians scurrying for their holes. "
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html

Which seems to suggest that the differences are not that great afterall - there are differences but not the type that cause serious problems?

S.C.Carlson

The best on-line website for the intelligent layman concerning New Testament textual criticism is Robert Waltz's "A Site Inspired By The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism" at http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/
It has a lot of material and gets a lot more into the Byzantine text issue than the typical textbook introductions to NT textual criticism (e.g. Metzger or Aland).

There are a couple of substantive differences between the Byzantine text and the current critical text used by scholas. The largest differences include the Long Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) and the Pericope of the Adulteress (John 7:53-8:11), both contained within the Byzantine text but not the critical text. (Please note that the infamous Johannine Comma at 1 John 5:7 is not a part of the Byzantine text.) The Byzantine text also includes a number of single verses that the critical text does not (e.g. Jesus's sweating blood in Luke).

By and large, however, the bulk of the differences between the Byzantine text constitute a smoothing of perceived problems in the text. Most of these perceived problem relate to the grammar and style of the non-literary original Greek. However, to a certain extent, there was a also tendency to harmonize related passages that diverge from each other.

For example, the Lord's Prayer (LP) in the critical text is different in Matthew and Luke, but the Byzantine text's version of the LP in Luke has been "corrected" to be the same as the LP in Matthew. As a trivial technical matter, this correction does not "affect" "doctrine," because the Byzantine version of the Lukan LP does not include anything that wasn't already somewhere else in the NT (i.e. Matthew). However, from a historical-critical perspective, the differences between Matthew and Luke are important for understanding the diversity of early Christianity, but the homogenized nature of the Byzantine text prevents one from seeing that diversity.

In short, whether the differences between the Byzantine and critical text are important depends on one's purpose. If one's goal is systematic theology, then I would understand the "so what" kind of reply. If one's goal is the history of early Christianity, on the other hand, then the differences are more important.

Stephen

dost

Thank you Haran for the interesting link and Carlson for another useful link and presentation of some examples. Finally I have acquired a hard copy of the NIV and will do some comparisions!

Peter Kirby

Note that when comparing English translations, a large number of the differences will be due to translator decisions.

Comparing NA27 to Maurice Robinson's Greek NT would bring out more definite differences, for those with some knowledge of Greek. These texts are online.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

dost

Hello Peter.

Thank you for making that very important. It didn't occur to me before.

A major weakness of mine is lack of knowledge of Greek. I had a look at a few online free Greek lesson courses, but they are beyond my head for now I will, however, make more serious attempts in time to come at least to become familiar with some of the basics, which I suppose still wouldn't be enough...lets see...

S.C.Carlson

It is not on-line as far as I am aware, but Hodges and Farstad's edition of the "Majority Text" footnotes every difference between their Byzantine text and the critical text.

Stephen

Haran

Maurice Robinson's Website - (at least I think it's his website) I believe this contains his Byzantine text as well as some others (in Greek, of course).