Byzantine Text

To demonstrate clearly that the Byzantine Text (also known as the Majority Text or the Textus Receptus in its later printed form) is a corrupted and expanded form of the New Testament text, we must examine three main lines of concrete evidence:

---

1. Historical and Chronological Evidence

❗ The Byzantine Text Is Late

• The earliest complete and undisputed Byzantine manuscripts date from the 9th century onward (e.g., Codex Alexandrinus is 5th century but only partially Byzantine).

• Earlier manuscripts (2nd–4th centuries) — such as Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (א) — do not support the Byzantine readings. These belong to the Alexandrian text-type.

• No full Byzantine-type manuscript exists from the first 800 years of Christianity.

🕰️ Comparison of Manuscript Dates:

Manuscript	Century	Text-type
Papyrus 66 (P66)	c. 200 AD	Alexandrian
Papyrus 75 (P75)	c. 175–225 AD	Alexandrian
Codex Vaticanus (B)	4th century	Alexandrian
Codex Sinaiticus (א)	4th century	Alexandrian
Majority/Byzantine MSS	9th–15th centuries	Byzantine

✅ Conclusion: The Byzantine text is late, and cannot represent the original autographs better than earlier witnesses.

---

2. Textual Comparison and Additions

📌 Byzantine Text Is Full of Additions

Scholars have documented many verses or phrases found in the Byzantine text but absent from the earliest and best manuscripts.

⚖️ Examples of Additions:

✒️ Matthew 17:21

• Byzantine: “However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.”

• Not found in earliest manuscripts like Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, P66, and P75.

• Likely added due to harmonization with Mark 9:29.

✒️ John 5:4

• Byzantine: “For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool…”

• Absent from early Alexandrian texts (P66, P75, Vaticanus).

• It interrupts the flow of John 5:3–5 and is believed to be a gloss (marginal note) that entered the main text.

✒️ Luke 24:51 (Ascension of Jesus)

• Byzantine: “and was carried up into heaven”

• Earliest manuscripts (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus) omit this phrase.

• Likely added for harmonization with Acts 1:9.

✒️ Doxology in the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:13)

• Byzantine: “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen.”

• Absent in earliest Greek MSS (e.g., Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, P64).

• Known to be a liturgical addition that crept into the text.

✅ Conclusion: The Byzantine text is longer, and these longer readings are not original, but later scribal additions.

---

3. Internal Evidence and Scribal Habits

✒️ Scribes Tend to Add, Not Shorten

• The nature of textual corruption typically follows a pattern:

  • Additions for clarification, harmonization, and piety.

  • Rarely do scribes remove material without reason.

• Byzantine scribes often harmonized Gospel accounts (making them more similar) — a clear indication of expansion.

📚 Scholars Agree:

• Bruce Metzger: “The Byzantine text… incorporates many changes which are characteristic of a later stage of transmission.”

• Kurt and Barbara Aland: “The Byzantine text is a secondary text, composed of readings selected from earlier text-types.”

✅ Conclusion: The internal evidence of scribal habits supports the secondary, expanded nature of the Byzantine text.

---

Summary of the Case Against the Byzantine Text

Line of Evidence	Finding
Historical	Byzantine text is late (9th century), absent in earliest MSS
Textual	Contains many interpolations not found in earliest and best texts
Internal	Reflects scribal expansion, harmonization, and doctrinal smoothing

---

Final Conclusion:

The Byzantine text is not the original form of the New Testament. It is a corrupted, expanded text developed through centuries of copying and editing, particularly in the Byzantine Empire.

The earlier manuscripts (Alexandrian text-type), supported by papyri and early church citations, more faithfully reflect the authentic text of the apostles.