SPECIALIZED INTRODUCTION: THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK ACCORDING TO THE BYZANTINE/MAJORITY TEXTFORM The Greek Text Edited by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont Prepared and edited in disk format by Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. (c)1991, The Original Word Publishers, Atlanta All Rights Reserved Released on disk in Online Bible format as FREEWARE by the Editors and Publisher 3 April 1992 INTRODUCTION The entire Byzantine/Majority Textform Greek New Testament as edited by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont is included in this collection. The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform is commercially available in a printed edition from The Original Word Publishers, P. O. Box 799, Roswell, GA 30077. Information regarding printed copies and their cost may be obtained from that address, or from their toll-free number 1-800-235-9673. The current documentation reflects an abridgement of the lengthy 57pp. "Introduction" to the printed edition. THE NATURE OF THE BYZANTINE/MAJORITY TEXTFORM The Byzantine/Majority Textform contained herein was edited and refined by William G. Pierpont and Maurice A. Robinson during the period 1976-1991. The primary textual apparatuses utilized in the preparation of this edition were those of Hermann Freiherr Von Soden, "Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer „ltesten erreichbaren Textgestalt" (G”ttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1911) and Herman C. Hoskier, "Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse" (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929). These same apparatuses were utilized by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad for their edition of "The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text" (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982; 2nd ed., 1985). In most of the New Testament, the Robinson/Pierpont text is identical with that of Hodges and Farstad. However, since the Hodges/Farstad text was constructed on the basis of slightly differing principles, the current text does not always agree with their edition. Textual differences from Hodges/Farstad are due either to their different interpretation of identical data, their use or rejection of additional data, or because some items in the difficult-to-read Von Soden apparatus were neglected or misinterpreted by them. These differences are most noticeable from Matthew through Jude in closely-divided Byzantine readings which appear as "Mpt" in the Hodges/Farstad apparatus. A proportionately greater number of differences appears in John 7:53-8:11 (the "Pericope Adultera"), as well as in the entire book of the Revelation. The differences between the present edition and that of Hodges/Farstad in the Pericope Adultera and the Revelation derive from the use made by Hodges/Farstad of a stemmatic- genealogical approach for reconstructing a basic text in those portions. That approach follows the ideas (but not the conclusions) put forth by Von Soden and Hoskier respectively. The current edition does not apply a stemmatic-genealogical approach anywhere in the New Testament, and naturally differs from the conclusions of Hodges/ Farstad in such areas due to the differing methodologies employed. The present text of the Pericope Adultera reflects a differing interpretation of Von Soden's data (Von Soden there provided only stemmatic rather than his normal K-group data). In editing this passage, the evidence of Von Soden's apparatus and introduction was carefully compared with the apparatuses of other critical Greek texts, including that of the Nestle-Aland 26th edition. The resultant text attempts to recreate a "probable" Byzantine text for the Pericope Adultera from which all the other sub-forms appear to have derived. This was determined by examination of the earliest extant documents possessing this Pericope as well as the later mass of minuscule manuscripts which contain that passage. For the book of the Revelation, the editors have constructed a probable "original Traditional Text" from the full collation data of Hoskier's "Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse." In the Revelation there is no single and united "Byzantine/ Majority" Textform as exists in the rest of the New Testament; rather, two complementary textual traditions exist, each supported by an approximately equal number of MSS. One of these traditions is called the "An" text (named for Andreas, whose commentary accompanies most MSS of this type); the other tradition is called the "Q" text (the remaining mass of MSS). Where the "An" and "Q" texts agree, a true "Byzantine/Majority" consensus text exists. Where they disagree, however, a working text has been reconstructed on the basis of acceptable external and internal standards of New Testament textual criticism, following the basic criteria of John W. Burgon rather than the stemmatic-genealogical approach of Hodges/Farstad. A strictly "majority-consensus" working text of Revelation was originally developed in 1977 for dissertation research purposes by M. A. Robinson. Since that time, it has been revised carefully and extensively in consultation with William G. Pierpont to reflect a more authoritative "traditional consensus" text. The current edition reflects the latest and most complete revision of that text. In the New Testament, the Byzantine/Majority Textform reflects a general agreement with early printed editions which were based upon Byzantine-era manuscripts (even though no single manuscript or printed edition is 100% identical with the Byzantine Textform). Such MSS are commonly termed "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text" documents, based upon the name finally given those early printed Greek editions in 1624. These include the editions of Erasmus 1516, Stephens 1550, Beza 1598, and (the one actually termed "Textus Receptus") Elzevir 1624. George Ricker Berry correctly noted that "in the main they are one and the same; and [any] of them may be referred to as the Textus Receptus" (George Ricker Berry, ed., "The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament" [New York: Hinds & Noble, 1897], p.ii). All these early printed Greek New Testaments closely parallel the text of the English-language Authorized (or King James) Version of 1611. That version was based primarily upon Beza 1598, which differed but little from its Textus Receptus predecessors or from the general aggregate text of the Byzantine manuscripts. This "Byzantine" Textform (otherwise called the "Majority" or "Traditional" Text) predominated throughout the greatest period of manual copying of Greek New Testament manuscripts. Many evangelical Greek scholars have begun to re-evaluate the authenticity-claims of the Byzantine Textform over against the subjectively-based textual preferences of the past century and a half, whether stemming from documentarians such as Lachmann, Tregelles or Westcott and Hort; from modern "reasoned" eclectic theorists such as Metzger, Aland or Fee; or from "rigorous" eclectic theorists such as Kilpatrick or Elliott. One should note that this Byzantine/Majority Textform edition does NOT agree with modern critical editions such as those published by the United Bible Societies or the various Nestle-Aland editions. Those editions follow a predominantly "Alexandrian" Greek text, as opposed to the Byzantine Textform found in the vast majority of manuscripts. Note, however, that manuscript or printed edition 85%+ of the text of ALL Greek New Testament editions IS identical. For more information on technical text-critical matters, consult the bibliographical resources listed below. The significant translatable differences between the modern critical texts, the Authorized Version, and the Byzantine/ Majority Textform are most clearly presented in the NU-text and M-text footnotes appended to editions of the "New King James Version," published by Thomas Nelson Co. The M-notes in that edition, however, reflect the Hodges/Farstad Majority Text and do NOT always coincide with the Byzantine/Majority Textform edition; the respective printed Greek NT editions should be consulted in all cases of variation. One should remember that NO printed Receptus Greek text agrees 100% with the aggregate Byzantine/Majority manuscript tradition or with any English version. However, the printed Receptus texts DO approximate the Byzantine Textform closely enough (around 98% agreement) to claim a near-identity of reading between any Receptus edition and the majority of all manuscripts. For the book of the Revelation, the specific "grammatical" usage of the MSS themselves is followed for orthography rather than Berry. This is because the data for the Revelation were derived from Hoskier's exact and complete collation of those manuscripts. Because of this, the Revelation does not reflect the same stylistic or orthographic conventions found in the remainder of the Byzantine/Majority Greek NT. This judgment derives solely from the collation data, and does not reflect the normal prerogative of the editors. In other matters of orthography, words like "tout estin" are used uniformly throughout where the Stephens 1550 TR sometimes printed "toutestin" but also "tout estin." So too with "dia ti" as well as with "ouketi". Other words which were combined in Stephens 1550 are often separated, or vice versa, in conformity with modern orthographical practice. Also, "dauid" replaces the TR "dabid" from Matthew-Jude, being closer to early uncial orthography as well as to the Hebrew form of "David" than that of the TR (as seen in the Revelation MSS, the majority of MSS generally read the abbreviation "dad", leaving the user to fill in the missing letters. This follows the practice of scribes with the so-called "nomina sacra" abbreviations, such as "ys" [= "yeov"] or "cu" [= "cristou"]). Note that in the Revelation, the abbreviation "dad" remains, since for that book the evidence of the MSS is followed strictly in this regard. Numbers are from time to time represented by Greek letters, though they are generally spelled out in full (e.g., "ib" = "dwdeka"). The current edition follows a majority consensus in this regard throughout the book of the Revelation, as indicated by Hoskier. The reader is expected to recognize alphanumeric forms as such whenever they occur, since otherwise they have no meaning. SPECIALIZED CHAPTER AND VERSE NUMBERING In the Byzantine/Majority format, certain verse numbers appear with no text following. This is because no text appears in such places according to the overwhelming consensus of Greek manuscripts. Lu.17:36, Ac.8:37, 15:34 and 24:7 are therefore indicated by only a verse marker with no text following. In two places, verses which are actually transposed in the Byzantine/Majority Textform remain in their traditional location to permit the use of the advanced features of the Online Bible. Thus, Rom.16:25-27 properly should appear at the end of Rom.14:23, but is retained in that numerical location to facilitate the cross-comparison of the Greek text against other Greek or English versions which do not so relocate the verses. This also allows the cross-reference and note-taking features of the Online Bible to function properly. The proper location of such verses within the Byzantine/Majority tradition is indicated by the correct verse references appearing in brackets following the traditional verse numbering (e.g., 16:25 [14:24]). A similar transpositional change appears at Mt.23:13-14. The Byzantine/Majority Textform reverses the verse contents from that found in the common English text. However, in the Online Bible format these verses are presented in the traditional English order to facilitate text comparison with other Greek or English versions as well as to utilize the cross-reference and note-taking features of the Online Bible. The correct Byzantine/Majority Textform order is similarly indicated by bracketed numbers following the traditional verse numbering, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph (e.g., 23:14 [23:13]). Note that in the printed edition of the Byzantine/Majority Greek text, both these cases show the Greek text in the proper Byzantine/Majority locations. Also note that in many places, portions of a verse found in Textus Receptus editions no longer appear, even though the verse numbering is not affected (e.g., Ac.9:5-6; 1 Jn.5:7). These reflect textual differences between the Receptus types of Greek text and the Byzantine/Majority Textform. Such textual differences reflect no deliberate malice, but simply follow the readings of the Byzantine/Majority manuscript consensus, which in places differs significantly from the common Receptus text. DIVIDED READINGS WITHIN THE BYZANTINE TEXTFORM From time to time certain words will be found enclosed in square brackets [ ]. This indicates that at such a point the manuscripts of the Byzantine/Majority Textform (or, in the Revelation, the manuscripts representing the "An" and "Q" texts) are divided somewhat closely, and it may be questioned whether the words in brackets should or should not be considered part of the autograph text. The words so marked are to be included or omitted by the user as determined in the light of known and valid principles of New Testament textual criticism as applicable to each case. In the text of the Pericope Adultera (John 7:53-8:11) and the book of the Revelation there appear proportionally more bracketed words than anywhere else in the New Testament, due to the unique circumstances of the transmission of those portions of Scripture. The basic Byzantine/ Majority text of that Pericope nevertheless remains well-established wherever no brackets appear. Note that the bracketed passages concerning inclusion or omission are the only indication of divided Byzantine/Majority testimony. Divided Byzantine/Majority readings which concern verbal substitution or rearrangement of word order are NOT identified, as mentioned below. In no place in this Greek New Testament does text unsupported by a majority or a split majority of the Byzantine Textform manuscripts appear. Readings found in other texttypes do not appear unless they agree with the substantial Byzantine/ Majority testimony. There remain a number of places where the Byzantine/Majority manuscripts (or the "An" and "Q" texts in the Revelation) are closely divided but which are not specifically indicated in this edition. Such cases involve the substitution or transposition of words as opposed to their mere omission or inclusion. In these situations, the editors have made what they consider the best possible judgment regarding the original text. A future version will identify such places as containing variant readings within the Byzantine/Majority Textform, and allow them to be displayed by pressing a key. A textual apparatus will also be provided in a future edition. The current edition is concerned only with providing an immediately workable Byzantine/Majority TEXT edition for those who wish to do rapid-search study within this particular Textform, utilizing the finest and best materials available today for that purpose. Differences in reading from the text of Hodges/Farstad or from various Textus Receptus editions are due to the methodology employed in this edition. The data of Von Soden or other critical apparatuses regarding Byzantine Textform readings should first be consulted before suggesting any textual alteration of readings found in the current text to conform with the readings of these other editions. The text found in version 4.0 of the Byzantine/Majority Textform has been revised in some particulars, and thus differs slightly from the text as distributed in earlier versions. The text conforms (with corrections) to that available in printed form from The Original Word Publishers (Atlanta, 1991).