Byzantine text-type
Whilst varying in around 1,800 places from printed editions,[4] the Byzantine text-type also underlies the Textus Receptus Greek text used for most Reformation-era (Protestant) translations of the New Testament into vernacular languages.
[10] The earliest clear notable patristic witnesses to the Byzantine text come from early eastern church fathers such as Gregory of Nyssa (335 – c. 395), John Chrysostom (347 – 407), Basil the Great (330 – 379) and Cyril of Jerusalem (313 – 386).
[11][12][13]: 130 The fragmentary surviving works of Asterius the Sophist († 341) have also been considered to conform to the Byzantine text.
[12]: 358 Although somewhat closer to the Alexandrian text, the quotations of Clement of Alexandria (150 – 215) sometimes contain readings which agree with the later Byzantine text-type.
[15] The second or third earliest translation to witness to a Greek base conforming generally to the Byzantine text in the Gospels is the Syriac Peshitta (though it has many Alexandrian and Western readings);[2][3] usually dated to the beginning of the 5th century;[13]: 98 although in respect of several much contested readings, such as Mark 1:2 and John 1:18, the Peshitta rather supports the Alexandrian witnesses.
Despite being characterized by mixed readings, significant Byzantine components also exist in the Syro-Palestinian manuscripts, which likely originated from the 5th century.
This text very closely resembles the Byzantine text-type and due to its wide distribution, it is preserved in over 120 manuscripts.
Vogel's analysis of the Vulgate was criticized by both F. C. Burkitt and Lagrange, Burkitt instead argued that Jerome's Vulgate was influenced by multiple Greek manuscripts from different text-types, some of which were similar to Codex Alexandrinus while others similar to Codex Vaticanus.
Some such as Harry Sturz have concluded from this that the Byzantine text-type must have had an early existence, however others have been cautious in making this conclusion.
(N), Sinopensis (O), Guelferbytanus A (P), Guelferbytanus B (Q), Nitriensis (R), Nanianus (U), Monacensis (X), Tischendorfianus IV (Γ), Sangallensis (Δ) (except Mark), Tischendorfianus III (Λ), Petropolitanus (Π), Rossanensis (Σ), Beratinus (Φ), Dionysiou (Ω), Vaticanus 2066 (Uncial 046), Uncial 047, 049, 052, 053, 054, 056, 061, 063, 064, 065, 069 (?
[20] Compared to Alexandrian text-type manuscripts, the distinct Byzantine readings tend to show a greater tendency toward smooth and well-formed Greek, they display fewer instances of textual variation between parallel Synoptic Gospel passages, and they are less likely to present contradictory or "difficult" issues of exegesis.
[21] The first printed edition of the Greek New Testament was completed by Erasmus and published by Johann Froben of Basel on March 1, 1516 (Novum Instrumentum omne).
[13]: 152 The New Testament of the King James Version of the Bible was translated from editions of what was to become the Textus Receptus.
Most of these variants are minor, however the Byzantine text excludes the Comma Johannium and Acts 8:37, which are present in the Textus Receptus.
Additionally, many of the agreements between the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine text are considered very significant, such as the reading "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 and the inclusion of the Story of the Adulteress.
[23][24][13]: 145 Textual critic and biblical scholar Karl Lachmann was the first scholar to produce an edition that broke with the Textus Receptus, ignoring previous printings and basing his text on ancient sources, therefore discounting the mass of late Byzantine manuscripts and the Textus Receptus.
[4]: 303 These readings support the views of scholars such as Harry Sturz (1984) and Maurice Robinson (2005) that the roots of the Byzantine text may go back to a very early date,[30]: 62–65 which some authors have interpreted as a rehabilitation of the Textus Receptus.
[34] However in 1963 Bruce Metzger had argued that early support for Byzantine readings could not be taken to demonstrate that they were in the original text.
Similarly, the New King James version contains the Byzantine majority readings within the footnotes, although it is a translation of the Textus Receptus.
