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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

This article needs additional or more specific categories. Please help out by adding categories to it so that it can be listed with similar articles. (December 2023)