A Lutheran Rehabilitation of the Byzantine Text, Part II

In the first part of this article, we saw how Lutheran scholasticism affirmed the faithful preservation of Scripture in the apographa and examined the three key arguments raised by Westcott and Hort against the Byzantine Text. Now, in this second part, we will seek to assess the three arguments of Westcott and Hort, and the methodological assumptions underlying modern eclecticism. By refuting these we will further establish why the Byzantine Text deserves a more favorable reception within contemporary textual criticism.

A Defense of the Text

To rehabilitate the Byzantine Text, we must first examine the eclectic method widely used in modern textual criticism. This approach assumes that no single manuscript or text type consistently preserves the original, so the critic must reconstruct it by piecing together fragments from various sources. Because each variant is assessed on its own terms, this method relies heavily on "the wit and skill of the textual critic," resulting in a "consensus text" where the whims of the editorial committee are final.[i] As a result, the committee might, by majority vote, choose one word from Codex A, another from Codex B, and still another from Codex C, creating a composite text from scattered sources. However, a serious issue arises when this reconstructed text is considered not just word-by-word but over the length of entire verses or two-verse sequences. This process produces readings wholly unsupported by any existing manuscript, translation, or Church Father.[ii] Robinson identified over 105 single-verse units and 210 two-verse units in the eclectic text with no tangible manuscript evidence.[iii] Simply put, this method produces verses that have never existed in this form before, that are wholly contrived, and entirely lacking historical attestation. The problem grows ever worse as more verses are considered.[iv] This lack of manuscript support would imply that the original text was shredded, dispersed, and irretrievably lost very early, before much transmission happened. The original text would be so thoroughly lost that entire verses need to be painstakingly reconstructed on a word-by-word basis. This view is fundamentally at odds with the Lutheran scholastic belief that the text of Scripture has been faithfully preserved.[v] This methodological weakness casts doubt on the reliability of eclecticism and undermines its claim to restore the original New Testament writings. Certainly, the majority vote of a modern textual committee alone should not be reason enough to overturn the "majority vote" of the vast majority of New Testament manuscripts!

Westcott and Hort's three arguments against the Byzantine Text hinge on the theory that it results from an authorized ecclesiastical recension. For example, in their second argument, they conclude that the absence of Byzantine readings in older manuscripts means they must be later additions. However, this rests on the assumption that if these readings are missing from older manuscripts and citations, they did not exist and were added later. Nevertheless, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This argument overlooks possible geographic or historical factors that could explain their absence. It further assumes that the older Alexandrian manuscripts are closer to the original simply because they appear in older media. Their third argument follows the same reasoning, as they presume that the Byzantine Text's fuller readings must result from editorial harmonization and conflation. They treat the shorter readings in the Alexandrian manuscripts as the standard for authenticity, overlooking the possibility that these manuscripts could be corrupt or the result of a revision. However, if the Byzantine Text is not a recension but the result of natural transmission, then Westcott and Hort's framework collapses, and the Byzantine Tradition could instead represent the original form of the text at any point.

Notably, the historical evidence—or rather, the glaring lack of it—completely undermines the recension theory. To put it bluntly, "there is not a shred of historical evidence" that supports the notion of an official revision.[vi] If an inferior recension had replaced the original Greek text in the fourth century, we would expect undeniable historical traces of such a significant change. Nevertheless, the complete absence of any substantial historiographical evidence for such a recension exposes a fundamental weakness in Westcott and Hort's theory.[vii] Further research by Von Soden has dismantled the idea of a single-source revision by showing that the Byzantine Text is far from a unified, monolithic tradition. Instead, it reflects "a collection of converging textual traditions" from multiple independent streams.[viii]  The internal diversity and development of Byzantine manuscripts reveals a complex, decentralized transmission process. This textual history directly contradicts the possibility of a singular, orchestrated purposeful revision, and it underscores that the Byzantine tradition's broad uniformity did not come from a single editorial source.[ix]

Moreover, the widespread dominance of Byzantine manuscripts without any documented support from imperial or ecclesiastical imposition obliterates the idea of it as a later fabrication. The alternate theory, proposed by Metzger and Ehrman, that the text evolved gradually through a slow process of editorial adjustments is equally unconvincing.[x] Pickering notes a significant problem with this view when he states, "an ordinary process of textual transmission results in divergence, not convergence. Uniformity of text is usually greatest near the source and diminishes in transmission."[xi] It is hard to imagine how numerous, isolated copyists—often working in separate monasteries and unaware of each other's work—could produce consistent manuscripts. Achieving such widespread uniformity purely through an unplanned process strains credibility.[xii] Not only were scribes generally careful and reliable in their copying efforts, but what ensured these manuscripts' consistency was the scribe's sense of duty to copy God's Word accurately. The consistency of Byzantine manuscripts across time and geography indicates an accurately transmitted textual tradition, not one cobbled together over centuries of editorial tampering. This consistent, dominant text better aligns with an authentic transmission than any speculative editorial process.[xiii] In short, the total lack of historical evidence for a recension, either as a solitary event or as a long process, combined with the Byzantine textual tradition's multi-layered transmission, points conclusively to this tradition as a genuine witness to the New Testament text rather than a secondary or "corrected" version.

The second argument—that the Byzantine Text must be of later origin because the earliest manuscripts lack Byzantine readings and because ante-Nicene Church Fathers do not quote it—is deeply flawed given the limitations and selective nature of the surviving evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Only a few pre-fourth-century manuscripts exist, and just one (P75) consistently follows a particular text type (in this case, the Alexandrian).[xiv] The 120 or so fragmentary papyri that survive this period do not neatly fall into any particular text type.[xv] These few manuscripts are insufficient to give us a clear picture of the textual traditions of this time. Most of these manuscripts originate in Egypt, one of the only areas with a favorable climate for preserving papyrus. Being in Egypt, they represent a text at use in Egypt but not necessarily in the broader Christian world.[xvi] However, even the early papyrus manuscripts contain many Byzantine readings not found in later codices like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, suggesting that the further back one goes, the more frequent Byzantine readings become.[xvii] Specific readings considered "late" and "Byzantine" during the time of Westcott and Hort have since appeared in second and third-century fragmentary manuscripts. This supports the notion that at least some Byzantine readings reflect an early, authentic tradition rather than later additions.

The history of the transmission of the text also makes this argument implausible. Early manuscripts were routinely destroyed or confiscated during Roman persecutions, and heretical groups introduced alterations that brought further instability to the textual tradition.[xviii] Additionally, two major "copying revolutions"—the shift from papyrus to vellum in the fourth century and from uncial to minuscule script in the ninth—led to the destruction of earlier exemplars once they were copied, resulting in significant loss of earlier manuscripts.[xix] This skews the evidence, and it is simply erroneous to assume that Byzantine readings absent in early fragments must be later additions.

Alexandria was also a noted center of textual criticism for other works of antiquity and noted also for the shorter versions they produced. The Egyptian texts of the New Testament bear some evidence of this kind of work, but how far it could extend is yet unknown. However, it is far more historically plausible that the Alexandrian text is a recension than the Byzantine Text.[xx]

If the Byzantine Text were a later invention, it would be difficult to explain its widespread and accepted use by the fourth century. It was already considered "normal" by this time, not a "new" or revised version.[xxi] Further, the assumption that an early Alexandrian form once dominated only to vanish later in favor of the Byzantine is highly improbable. The Byzantine Tradition's dominance in later centuries is more reasonably explained by its descent from Greek manuscripts that were lost outside Egypt's arid conditions, where papyri survived better.[xxii] Ultimately, the selective preservation of early manuscripts does not establish the Byzantine readings as later developments.

Westcott and Hort's third argument that the Byzantine Text is secondary because it is characterized by harmonization, conflation, expansion, and completeness—fails on several grounds. First, the accusation that the Byzantine tradition uniquely shows these traits is unsubstantiated. Harmonizations, conflations, and minor adjustments appear across all text types, not just the Byzantine. Conflation is not distinctively "Byzantine" either; it also appears in manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus, which belongs to the Alexandrian tradition.[xxiii] This overlap raises an essential question: if such tendencies are shared across different text traditions, what truly distinguishes the Byzantine tradition as uniquely "conflated" or harmonized?[xxiv] Van Bruggen notes, "it is methodically difficult to speak of harmonizing and assimilating deviations in a text, when the original is not known."[xxv]  Many of the so-called "conflations" in the Byzantine Text could represent the original, fuller readings from which shorter forms later emerged. These reductions could result from copyist errors, such as homoioteleuton (where lines or phrases are accidentally skipped due to similar endings), deliberate stylistic and theological choices, or even sheer carelessness by scribes.[xxvi] Moreover, the limited number of examples of this practice is too few to support a broad generalization.[xxvii] 

Additionally, the notion that Byzantine scribes engaged in systematic expansions, especially for pious reasons, lacks evidence. If this were a genuine tendency, the text would show a clear pattern of expanding divine titles and other elements over time. Nevertheless, the Byzantine Text maintains a balanced form, avoiding the shortest and longest readings. A clear example of this restraint is in 1 Corinthians 5:5, where the Byzantine Text reads "the day of the Lord Jesus"—a middle ground between shorter and longer variants found in other traditions.[xxviii] Byzantine scribes, generally careful and conservative in their copying, preserved their exemplars faithfully. Instances of harmonization are relatively rare in Byzantine manuscripts, but they occur sporadically across all text types, with a more pronounced tendency found in specific Western texts like Codex Bezae.[xxix] If harmonization were a typical scribal habit, it would be seen in all manuscript traditions, and in fact it appears sporadically across all text types. It thus makes sense to regard harmonization as an incidental scribal behavior rather than a defining editorial practice of any particular tradition, including the Byzantine.[xxx] Omission was more common among scribes than expansion, often due to unintentional errors or simple carelessness.[xxxi] This trend challenges the claim that Byzantine scribes had a systematic tendency toward pious expansion, instead suggesting a conservatism that aligns more closely with preserving the original text. Even in instances of agreement across Gospel passages, scribes generally aimed to preserve the integrity of their sources rather than impose harmonized readings.[xxxii] In fact, "if editors of the Byzantine text would have been out to harmonize the text and to fit parallel passages of the Gospels into each other, then we must observe that they let nearly all their opportunities go by."[xxxiii] The claim that the Byzantine Text is defined by harmonization, conflation, and expansion is unconvincing. All text types show some harmonization and Byzantine scribes largely preserved their exemplars without extensive editing. The fuller readings of the Byzantine Text are better explained as reflecting the careful preservation of early tradition rather than deliberate expansion.

A Faithfully Transmitted Text

The rehabilitation of the Byzantine Text centers on the principle of normal transmission. Early Christians, revering these texts as Scripture, approached their preservation carefully, ensuring a consistent transmission process through multiple generations. As churches and monasteries made and disseminated copies, these copies remained close to their geographical and linguistic origins. That increases the likelihood of accurate transmission. This theory positions the Byzantine Text as a well-preserved and authentic witness to the New Testament.[xxxiv]

Normal transmission also suggests that, as copies of a text multiply, the majority reading will likely represent the original text more reliably than isolated or minority readings.[xxxv] Even though Westcott and Hort favored the Alexandrian text, they acknowledged that "a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents at each stage of transmission."[xxxvi] The most copied text is generally the most authentic. Robinson emphasizes that this is not simply about counting up manuscripts.[xxxvii]  He argues that we do not need to depend solely on the high number of later Byzantine manuscripts to establish the Byzantine Text. A consensus text based solely on the earlier Byzantine manuscript tradition itself sufficiently establishes the text's reliability. This challenges the assumption that the Byzantine Text is the consensus of later mass-produced copies. Instead, it indicates a well-rooted and historically preserved textual line.

Moreover, when extensive passages and sequences of verses within the New Testament manuscript tradition are examined, a broad textual consistency emerges. This consistent text, regardless of manuscript traditions, generally aligns with the Byzantine Text. This transmissional consistency strongly supports the Byzantine Text as a unified and reliable representation of the New Testament.[xxxviii]

Given the totality of this evidence, Sturz helpfully concludes that the evidence shows that Byzantine readings are early, and that the Byzantine text is not an edited text.[xxxix] What does this mean? Sturz helpfully points out that it proves that that Byzantine text is an independent textual witness to the New Testament. It is not made from the other text types but is genealogically unrelated to them.[xl] It is not the only witness going back to the second century, and this means it would be a mistake to advocate for any sort of “Byzantine-onlyism.” However, the evidence strongly suggests that it must be given equal weight with the Alexandrian manuscripts when doing textual criticism. And Sturz is not the only one claiming that, given the evidence, the Byzantine Text deserves a seat at the table again.  As Lanier concludes, “if nothing else, scholars on all sides should admit that “rejection en bloc of the ‘Byzantine text’ … tends to rob us of a most helpful instrument” and that its uncritical replacement with a new textus receptus based on an earlier-is-better-and-later-is-worse “dating myth” needs to be reexamined.”[xli]

A Secure Foundation for Faith and Practice

Suppose the theories of Westcott and Hort or modern eclecticism are correct. In that case, the original New Testament texts were effectively lost soon after they were written, requiring word-by-word reconstruction. For Christians who hold the Scriptures as divinely inspired, this scenario is deeply troubling, as it undermines our confidence in God's Word. If they are correct, how does one know that the text we have is original? At any point, their perspective raises doubts concerning the text. The Lutheran scholastic position, in contrast, claims that God has preserved His Word. God has continued to safeguard the integrity of Holy Scripture and did not allow His Word to be scattered or lost to history but ensured its faithful preservation.

It should be particularly significant for confessional Lutherans that theologians during the age of Lutheran scholasticism confessed that God preserved Inspired Scripture in the apographa—the existing copies used in the churches. If we honor our Lutheran heritage, we will take this position seriously. Additionally, when confessional Lutherans claim to have a quia subscription to the Book of Concord, they should not have to be uncomfortable about the validity of passages like Mark's longer ending. The confessions state that the longer ending of Mark is the very words of Jesus. The position of the Lutheran church would give more weight to the witness of passages like the longer ending of Mark. The theological conviction here is that God has not only given His Word but has preserved it for the church's teaching, comfort, and doctrinal foundation.

By rehabilitating the Byzantine Text, the church can strengthen believers' confidence in Scripture. The majority of the New Testament—approximately 94%—is stable across all manuscript traditions, meaning that the differences, while theologically important, are limited in scope. If the Byzantine Text represents a reliable, preserved witness to the New Testament, then laity can feel confident that the Scriptures they read accurately reflect God’s inspired Word.

These two articles have presented a brief case for the rehabilitation of the Byzantine Text as an authentic and reliable witness to the New Testament. The first section defended the concept of divine preservation within Lutheran orthodoxy, arguing that Inspired Scripture has been faithfully and reliably preserved in the apographa—existing manuscript copies. Next, it addressed Westcott and Hort's three principal arguments against the Byzantine Text: its alleged origins as a recension, the absence of its readings in earlier manuscripts, and its supposed harmonizations and expansions. These claims were countered by demonstrating that no substantial historical evidence supports the recension theory, that the scarcity of early evidence does not conclusively indicate late development, and that the Byzantine Text shows restraint in its transmission, suggesting a conservative, rather than expansionist, approach. The article further applied the principle of normal transmission, arguing that the Byzantine Text had a history of normal transmission due to its early and continuous use in Greek-speaking regions. The Byzantine Text maintains a consistent tradition without solely relying on manuscript quantity. Taken together, these points underscore the Byzantine Text's genealogical independence and reliability as a witness to the New Testament.

[i] Van Bruggen, The Ancient Text, 2-4. Timothy Friberg, "A Modest Explanation for the Layman of Ideas Related to Determining the Text of the Greek New Testament," in Digging for the Truth: Collected Essays Regarding the Byzantine Text of the Greek New Testament - A Festschrift in Honor of Maurice A. Robinson, ed. Mark Billington and Peter Streitenberger (Norden, Germany: Focus Your Mission KG, 2014) 13.

[ii] Maurice Robinson, “The Case for Byzantine Priority,” in The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, ed. Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont (Southborough, MA: Hilton, 2005) 535.

[iii] Maurice Robinson, “ETC Interview with Maurice Robinson,” Evangelical Textual Criticism (blog), August 2015, http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2015/08/etc-interview-with-maurice-robinson.html.

[iv] Robinson, The Case for Byzantine Priority, 537; Friburg, A Modest Explanation, 14.

[v] Robinson, The Case for Byzantine Priority, 536.

[vi] Friburg, A Modest Explanation, 12.

[vii] Van Bruggen, The Ancient Text, 10.

[viii] Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism, 90-91. Friburg, A Modest Explanation, 23. Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry. Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2019) 114.

[ix] Friburg, A Modest Explanation, 23.

[x] Metzger Ehrman, Text of the New Testament, 279.

[xi] Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, 53.

[xii] Friburg, A Modest Explanation, 24.

[xiii] Robinson, The Case for Byzantine Priority, 534, 579. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism, 126.

[xiv] Friburg, A Modest Explanation, 12, 22.

[xv] David T. Andersen, “Arguments for and Against the Byzantine and Alexandrian Text Types,” in Digging for the Truth: Collected Essays Regarding the Byzantine Text of the Greek New Testament - A Festschrift in Honor of Maurice A. Robinson, ed. Mark Billington and Peter Streitenberger (Norden, Germany: Focus Your Mission KG, 2014) 163.

[xvi] Van Bruggen, The Ancient Text, 15.

[xvii] Van Bruggen, The Ancient Text, 17, Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism, 55-69, Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, 41, Hixson and Gurry, Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, 116–17.

[xviii] Van Bruggen, The Ancient Text, 18.

[xix] Friburg, A Modest Explanation, 22; Van Bruggen, The Ancient Text, 16.

[xx] Metzger and Ehrman, Text of the New Testament, 198. Robinson, The Case for Byzantine Priority, 542-543. Maurice Robinson, “The Recensional Nature of the Alexandrian Text-Type: A Response to Selected Criticisms of the Byzantine-Priority Theory,” Faith and Mission 11 (1993): 46–74.

[xxi] Van Bruggen, The Ancient Text, 14.

[xxii] Friburg, A Modest Explanation, 22.

[xxiii] Van Bruggen, The Ancient Text, 21.

[xxiv] Van Bruggen, The Ancient Text, 19-20.

[xxv] Van Bruggen, The Ancient Text, 20.

[xxvi] Zane Clark Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and William C. Dunkin, The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text, 2nd ed. (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1985) vi.

[xxvii] Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism, 83.

[xxviii] Friburg, A Modest Explanation,  18.

[xxix] Robinson, The Case for Byzantine Priority, 550.

[xxx] Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, 51.

[xxxi] Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, 45.

[xxxii] Friburg, A Modest Explanation, 18.

[xxxiii] Van Bruggen, The Ancient Text, 21.

[xxxiv] Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, 66-67.

[xxxv] Maurice Robinson, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, ed. Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont (Southborough, MA: Hilton, 2005) xiv.

[xxxvi] Westcott and Hort, New Testament, 45.

[xxxvii] Robinson, The Case for Byzantine Priority, 544.

[xxxviii] Maurice Robinson, "The Case for Byzantine Priority," In Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism, edited by David Allan Black, Chapter 4. Kindle Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002) locations 1719, 1735–1740.

[xxxix] Struz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism, 130.

[xl] Struz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism, 130.

[xli] Hixson and Gurry, Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, 118.

Rev. Matthew Fenn is associate pastor at Ascension Lutheran Church in Waterloo, Iowa, and provost at American Lutheran Theological Seminary. He and his wife Laurin have five children.