The Case for the Byzantine Priority

by Maurice A. Robinson

The theory about the Byzantine priority discussed by the authors of a magnificent edition of the Majority Text of the Greek New Testament.

83 pages, Kindle Edition

Published December 17, 2019

Reviews

[Einar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very well written book.

I must say that I'm still not convinced. The book claims that the 40+ manuscripts that we have from the 2nd and 3rd centuries are too few to make a determination of the Byzantine text-type's existence/prevalence at that time, but since they support no uniquely Byzantine readings, I think I'll give more weight to א and B.

I don't think I quite understand what is included in the transmissional considerations that were so heavily emphasized in the book. I'll have to read into that a bit more.

I also don't quite grasp what the exact problem with eclecticism is according to them. What does it matter that there's no single manuscript that supports longer stretches of text? Given that our extant manuscripts have hundreds of thousands of variants, that is what I would assume. You have to look at each variant by itself since all manuscripts have errors.

I do agree with the authors that it's a reasonable goal to try to understand scribal habits (both general and individual) to use in textual criticism, but that's a view shared by many (most??) proponents of eclecticism as well (e.g. Dirk Jongkind of the Tyndale House GNT). Funnily enough I'd say that individual scribal habits are way more important the older texts you look at (since there's probably been less generations of copies between the manuscript and the autograph).

I would've liked to hear a lot more on expansion of piety (or a lack thereof) since, to me, it seems way more intuitive that "he" is changed to "Jesus" for liturgical and other reasons than it is to understand why a scribe would've changed "Jesus" to "he". The book only asserted that the Alexandrian text was created when Western additions were overcorrected.

I hope my ramblings were at least somewhat comprehensible.

[Ben Franks · Rating 5 out of 5]

This little book is basically the preface and appendix to the Robinson & Pierpont edition of the Greek New Testament (which can be found publicly available online). This material explains their approach to textual criticism and makes a case for (as the title of the book says) the Byzantine Priority. I'm giving this high marks because I believe it's the best scholarly case that can be made for the priority of the Byzantine text. Robinson is meticulous in his scholarship, rigorous in his reasoning, and even-handed in his conclusions. While I remain unconvinced of certain aspects of his program (primarily his insistence that transmission be the determining factor prior to taking into view other external and internal concerns) it is impossible to deny his claim that Byzantine Priority should be recognized and received as an acceptable scholarly school of thought in the field of New Testament Textual Criticism.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is at least a helpful primer for me to be introduced to an alternate against the prevailing school of textual criticism. I'm still not convinced of Byzantine priority, but I am at least more so that it is not simply dismissed as a late recension.

I find his basic argument that our earliest textual evidence is regional to be a reasonable assertion. Still not convinced that we can extrapolate all the way back for Byzantine. Though, as I understand it, the supposed text types are more closely related than was previously acknowledged.

I would need more argumentation of specific passages to fully be able to evaluate the methodology here and see how persuasive it is.

[Melissa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Robinson has a persuasive explanation for why the "oldest" biblical manuscripts are not necessarily the best. It's a thoughtful discussion on textual criticism and the most rational way to do it. This is such important information, especially now with the wave of textual criticism that's misleading evangelical churches today and raising doubts about significant portions of Scripture. Unfortunately, this book itself is very academic and not well-suited for a general audience. We really need something like this translated into common language.