Byzantine-Priority Revisited

Boreal

Boreal

Puritan Board Freshman
Could you gentlemen explain to me how Maurice Robinson’s Byzantine-Priority position is at odds with the contemporary Textual Absolutism / “Confessional” Bibliology movement?

I’ve just begun digging in to Robinson, and I want to make some clear distinctions from the outset.
 
I'm being slightly over-dramatic. Textual criticism threads on here can get spicy, but I really enjoy them and learn a lot from them!
 
The textual absolutism position essentially holds that the text is settled, providentially, and what came out of the Reformation (which is well-represented in Scrivener's 1894 TR derived from the KJV) is the standard the church has used for several centuries and should continue to use today.

The Byzantine-priority position maintains that there is still room for textual criticism and that while what came out of the Reformation is certainly excellent and usable, there are areas where it is not well-supported by the larger body of textual evidence available and thus should be open to (cautious) re-evaluation and incorporation from the larger body of evidence; all the while recognizing that older is not always better and what was in use by the Greek-speaking church for centuries (the Byzantine text form) should be given more weight than a handful of older codices (although those are not entirely discounted). It sees God's providence working through the Greek text in all ages, including today.

And there are a myriad of caveats regarding both those paragraphs!
 
Logan said:
The textual absolutism position essentially holds that the text is settled, providentially, and what came out of the Reformation (which is well-represented in Scrivener's 1894 TR derived from the KJV) is the standard the church has used for several centuries and should continue to use today.

The Byzantine-priority position maintains that there is still room for textual criticism and that while what came out of the Reformation is certainly excellent and usable, there are areas where it is not well-supported by the larger body of textual evidence available and thus should be open to (cautious) re-evaluation and incorporation from the larger body of evidence; all the while recognizing that older is not always better and what was in use by the Greek-speaking church for centuries (the Byzantine text form) should be given more weight than a handful of older codices (although those are not entirely discounted). It sees God's providence working through the Greek text in all ages, including today.

And there are a myriad of caveats regarding both those paragraphs!
Click to expand...
Thank you.

So Robinson essentially rejects both absolutism and modern CT methodology?

Could you say thought that he shares more of a “textual confidence” position with CT proponents, in that he

1) doesn’t see textual criticism (in principle) as a problem like the absolutists do, and

2) believes that textual criticism does not necessarily erode confidence in the text?

(Granted absolutists don’t have a problem with textual criticism depending who did it, and during which centuries—but that’s not our focus here).
 
Boreal said:
Thank you.

If I could ask you in particular, what do you like about Robinson’s method more than the mainstream eclectic method?
Click to expand...

I think Robinson rightly highlights a few shortcomings of the CT methodology. Shortcomings which many of the TR advocates also point out. He is much like Scrivener in that he believes that the manuscript evidence should be evaluated and closely studied in order to present an accurate representation of the evidence.

The CT methodology does tend to assume that older means closer to the source and therefore more accurate. But Robinson points out that much of the text that was in use by the church was compared and corrected and used, so while old manuscripts many not exist due to different climate and usage, it can represent a more accurate text.

It's a difference in where weight is placed and how it is received. Robinson stresses continuity and usage while CT stresses age (not always, but read his essay to see some striking examples).
 
Logan said:
I think Robinson rightly highlights a few shortcomings of the CT methodology. Shortcomings which many of the TR advocates also point out. He is much like Scrivener in that he believes that the manuscript evidence should be evaluated and closely studied in order to present an accurate representation of the evidence.

The CT methodology does tend to assume that older means closer to the source and therefore more accurate. But Robinson points out that much of the text that was in use by the church was compared and corrected and used, so while old manuscripts many not exist due to different climate and usage, it can represent a more accurate text.

It's a difference in where weight is placed and how it is received. Robinson stresses continuity and usage while CT stresses age (not always, but read his essay to see some striking examples).
Click to expand...
Yes, I’ll have to read the essay.

I’m actually quite intrigued to see what he believes, since I’ve not only heard of his disagreements with the CT, but I have seen him distance himself from the absolutist position as well—and with stronger language than against the former.

Logan, in practice, does this have you give credence to bracketed portions of text in your modern translation of choice? Or have you switched to the translation based on Robinson’s text?

I’m assuming you like the Byzantine text.
 
I'm a fan of the BP methodology. I think it makes a lot of sense and incorporates historical reality. In my "perfect world" it would be more widely looked into and built upon.

In practice I'm happy with any good CT or TR translation (our church uses NKJV, my wife really enjoys the ESV), although I have been really appreciating the "Majority Standard Bible", even though ironically I haven't gotten to the NT in it yet!
 
This interview with Maurice Robinson is helpful and addresses the question you asked head on.

 
I think Logan's statements are gracious and balanced, even though I am of the preserved in the minutiae school (see here: Textual Posts). Over against the CT view, W.N. Pickering's work is of great value (as is Prof Robinson's).

Notwithstanding this value of the Byz, in my holding to – and promoting – the TR view (and its faithful translations), I will not be subject to “the tyranny of experts” (to use Machen’s memorable phrase) if I do not concur entirely with the methods they use; I may use their work as I see fit, but am not bound by it. The Majority & Byzantine Text labors are immense and of precious value; we stand on their shoulders – or to perfect the metaphor, we leap from their shoulders to a high rock, upon which we take our stand.

A very strong case can be made for the TR. As for the phrase "absolutist", I'm not comfortable with that. While the preserved TR is indeed the standard, I have found that the language of most translations of it is too difficult for the people in my small missional church (Africans and Iranians) and so I freely use CT versions to endeavor to help them understand the text, while instructing them as to the importance of knowing the readings of the gold standard.

Another recent work of great value:

Van Kleecks.JPG
 
Last edited:
It is sad. If I may say this from a KJV preferred wanting to believe the confessional bibliography theory side, you have what is an extreme position staked out that wouldn't or at least didn't deal with significant counter arguments offered here, and some doubling down on and dismissing as pearl clutching objection to the extreme language (everything else is Satan's Bible), and from the other side an extreme way of arguing because of that statement (being over the top absurd toward the seeming absurd) that didn't come off well and simply mired things the more. We're not going to repeat that, so everyone who wants to discuss this again, review the rules of behavior, argue arguments and don't make it personal, and remember the raison d'etre as it were, in all things seek to edify.
MarrowMan said:
Seriously? That’s sad.
Click to expand...

Solparvus said:
I've seen so much disheartening contention the last few years. Really, since COVID. This is why Paul warns concerning disputations. There is a cost to intramural debates if not done rightly.
Click to expand...
 
Boreal said:
Could you gentlemen explain to me how Maurice Robinson’s Byzantine-Priority position is at odds with the contemporary Textual Absolutism / “Confessional” Bibliology movement?
Click to expand...

As far as I can see it is apples and oranges. Byzantine priority is a text-critical method. Confessional bibliology is a doctrinal presupposition concerning the preservation of the text. Byzantine priority would have some kind of presupposition concerning preservation; and to some extent a confessional position on preservation would have to give priority to so-called Byzantine readings.

Concerning the moniker "textual absolutism," is it pejorative? I've seen it used by unsympathetic opponents. From a confessional point of view the only "absolute" is in the Word that is preserved to us. There is no mention of mss. in the Confession.
 
Hello E.R.,

Apples or oranges? That doesn't make sense to me. "Absolutist" connotes rigidity, which is a negative.

Incidentally, I consider Prof Robinson a brilliant textual scholar, who has done immense good to the believing study of the NT Greek text, its transmission, and defense. Although I consider him a friend, I know he would disown and distance himself from my view of the TR / KJV translation – but he is gracious, and not unnecessarily combative.

I simply have a different view of textual matters. It is very important in these – and all – things, to be godly and gracious with our brethren.
 
Jerusalem Blade said:
Hello E.R.,

Apples or oranges? That doesn't make sense to me. "Absolutist" connotes rigidity, which is a negative.

Incidentally, I consider Prof Robinson a brilliant textual scholar, who has done immense good to the believing study of the NT Greek text, its transmission, and defense. Although I consider him a friend, I know he would disown and distance himself from my view of the TR / KJV translation – but he is gracious, and not unnecessarily combative.

I simply have a different view of textual matters. It is very important in these – and all – things, to be godly and gracious with our brethren.
Click to expand...
The fruit was alluding to Rev. Winzer’s comment above. Meaning, the connotations of “absolutist” depend on who is using it.

Those unsympathetic to the position look at it as looking for absolute textual certainty at the expense of truth; those in favour see it as absolute certainty is the truth.

And I agree fully—gracious discussions must be the rule.
 
E.R., in case you haven't yet read it, I would suggest going to the online Introduction to his Byzantine Text book.

Then go to the end of it, to the section, "The Presumed 'Hidden Agenda' " tells of his view of the TR.

I will listen to the above (post 17) Youtube video and perhaps comment on that – as you said you wanted to hear both sides – but I haven't done so yet.
 
E.R., I do have to concede that your "apple and oranges" pertaining to the use of "absolutist" is right; its depends on who uses it and how that word is used.

I just watched the discussion on the Byz vs. the TR / KJV translation on the Youtube piece linked to above. I think Prof Robinson is wise and gracious, and distinguishes well between his and the TR view.

I'll restate something I've said here on PB before:

The matter of discerning the true word of God has always been in the realm of faith, not science or evidence (though evidences we have aplenty, to confirm our faith). There are a few readings that are not attested in the Byz, which, as noted, did not altogether escape the ravages of the doctrinal wars of the early centuries, that were preserved in other mss, some in the Old Latin. The Lord saw to it not a word of His would be diminished from His book, even as He commanded His prophets of old to conduct themselves (Deut 4:2KJV; Jer 26:1KJV; Jer 26:2KJV).

Thus the pure READINGS of the Greek autographs kept in various mss – mostly the Traditional (Byzantine) Greek, but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks upon and mutilations on the Greek – were put into print in the Greek Textus Receptus editions (known to and used by the Westminster divines), having also been put into the English, Dutch, and other translations.

We are grateful to Drs. Robinson, and Pickering, and Bruggen, and the others who have gone before us, but we believe God who promised we would have His word intact – in the minutiae – when we needed it. And that need is now, at the end of the age.

The Byzantine was the "ecclesiastical text" in the Greek church for over a millennia. This Byzantine then became the foundation of the "ecclesiastical text" (primary church text, if you will) of the Reformation – with some very few readings that were lost in the doctrinal wars of the early centuries, but were preserved in other mss, some in the Old Latin, and thus kept in that preserved text.

It is true that this TR and its translations into English are no longer "the primary church text", at least in the eyes of many. In these days of the deterioration of the visible church, and of sound doctrine, and of no confidence in a providentially preserved text in the minutiae, many folks see the older standard – the traditional – TR that to be retained.

When Isaiah 59:19KJV says, "When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him", some of us say yes, we have that standard, even though it is not as easy reading (I greatly appreciate the slightly flawed modern versions' help in this). Isaiah 59:21KJV also speaks of that standard's longevity.

True, the truth I speak of is so diminished in the eyes of some that one could say this is a subjective matter, and not empirical. That's the bone of contention. Like an old bulldog, I won't give up that bone.

As it was mentioned in the Youtube clip, a brief word on Erasmus' choice of the MSS of the Andreas family in Revelation:

Noted textual scholar H.C. Hoskier’s basic conclusion toward the 200 plus MSS he collated for Revelation was:

I may state that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest number of existing MSS in the world of one type, he could not have succeeded better, since his [Andreas] family-MSS occupy the front rank in point of actual numbers, the family numbering over 20 MSS besides its allies. (The John Rylands Bulletin 19-1922/23, p 118.)​

It should be noted again that this exemplary MSS used by Erasmus in Revelation was of the Andreas group, the readings of which we find in the TR and AV. Perhaps needless to say, I do not think it coincidence this primary manuscript fell into the hands of Erasmus. For I believe that the Lord providentially preserved His word, and the only place it makes sense to have been preserved in was the Greek Textus Receptus as discerned by Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, and the AV translators, and given to us in the AV.

We have, in the TR, the best MSS containing the readings the LORD wanted us to have for His Bible printed in the time of the Reformation.

I see it often disparaged that we rely on Scriptural and theological-based presuppositions furor defense of our view. But we are a people of faith, not – primarily – evidences, as evidences are often proved faulty, as in the case of science, its evidences, and evolutionary theory.

I have not answered many of the issues raised in the Youtube clip, but have in previous writings here on PB (Textual Posts).
 
Last edited:
Jerusalem Blade said:
E.R., I do have to concede that your "apple and oranges" pertaining to the use of "absolutist" is right; its depends on who uses it and how that word is used.

I just watched the discussion on the Byz vs. the TR / KJV translation on the Youtube piece linked to above. I think Prof Robinson is wise and gracious, and distinguishes well between his and the TR view.

I'll restate something I've said here on PB before:

The matter of discerning the true word of God has always been in the realm of faith, not science or evidence (though evidences we have aplenty, to confirm our faith). There are a few readings that are not attested in the Byz, which, as noted, did not altogether escape the ravages of the doctrinal wars of the early centuries, that were preserved in other mss, some in the Old Latin. The Lord saw to it not a word of His would be diminished from His book, even as He commanded His prophets of old to conduct themselves (Deut 4:2KJV; Jer 26:1KJV; Jer 26:2KJV).

Thus the pure READINGS of the Greek autographs kept in various mss – mostly the Traditional (Byzantine) Greek, but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks upon and mutilations on the Greek – were put into print in the Greek Textus Receptus editions (known to and used by the Westminster divines), having also been put into the English, Dutch, and other translations.

We are grateful to Drs. Robinson, and Pickering, and Bruggen, and the others who have gone before us, but we believe God who promised we would have His word intact – in the minutiae – when we needed it. And that need is now, at the end of the age.

The Byzantine was the "ecclesiastical text" in the Greek church for over a millennia. This Byzantine then became the foundation of the "ecclesiastical text" (primary church text, if you will) of the Reformation – with some very few readings that were lost in the doctrinal wars of the early centuries, but were preserved in other mss, some in the Old Latin, and thus kept in that preserved text.

It is true that this TR and its translations into English are no longer "the primary church text", at least in the eyes of many. In these days of the deterioration of the visible church, and of sound doctrine, and of no confidence in a providentially preserved text in the minutiae, many folks see the older standard – the traditional – TR that to be retained.

When Isaiah 59:19KJV says, "When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him", some of us say yes, we have that standard, even though it is not as easy reading (I greatly appreciate the slightly flawed modern versions' help in this). Isaiah 59:21KJV also speaks of that standard's longevity.

True, the truth I speak of is so diminished in the eyes of some that one could say this is a subjective matter, and not empirical. That's the bone of contention. Like an old bulldog, I won't give up that bone.

As it was mentioned in the Youtube clip, a brief word on Erasmus' choice of the MSS of the Andreas family in Revelation:

Noted textual scholar H.C. Hoskier’s basic conclusion toward the 200 plus MSS he collated for Revelation was:

I may state that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest number of existing MSS in the world of one type, he could not have succeeded better, since his [Andreas] family-MSS occupy the front rank in point of actual numbers, the family numbering over 20 MSS besides its allies. (The John Rylands Bulletin 19-1922/23, p 118.)​

It should be noted again that this exemplary MS used by Erasmus was of the Andreas group, the readings of which we find in the TR and AV. Perhaps needless to say, I do not think it coincidence this primary manuscript fell into the hands of Erasmus. For I believe that the Lord providentially preserved His word, and the only place it makes sense to have been preserved in was the Greek Textus Receptus as discerned by Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, and the AV translators, and given to us in the AV.

We have, in the TR, the best MSS containing the readings the LORD wanted us to have for His Bible printed in the time of the Reformation.

I see it often disparaged that we rely on Scriptural and theological-based presuppositions furor defense of our view. But we are a people of faith, not – primarily – evidences, as evidences are often proved faulty, as in the case of science, its evidences, and evolutionary theory.

I have not answered many of the issues raised in the Youtube clip, but have in previous writings here on PB (Textual Posts).
Click to expand...
We will have to agree to disagree, brother.
 
For those of you who agree with Robinson’s Byzantine-Priority position, which translation do you use?

The nearest option seems to be the NKJV, and it’s MT readings in the margins—even though that’s not exactly BP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Maurice Robinson and the Byzantine Priority Theory
Replies
6
Views
6K
Pergamum
P
larryjf
  • Locked
Byzantine readings of Paul
Replies
9
Views
4K
Jerusalem Blade
Jerusalem Blade
PointyHaired Calvinist
  • Locked
Question for Byzantine Text Users
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
MW
M
R
  • Locked
KJV-Only Versus Byzantine Superiority
3 4 5
Replies
122
Views
31K
staythecourse
staythecourse
C
  • Locked
Greek or Hebrew Priority in OT Translation
Replies
2
Views
2K
Hebrew Student
Hebrew Student
Back
Top