The most noteworthy feature of the Byzantine priority position to me is not that it seriously values the Byzantine text (I think that’s generally good); it’s that it always prefers a Byzantine text. It’s that “always” that I’ve never been able to fully stomach. I find it incredible that the text found in any one manuscript or subset of manuscripts is always right.This is for reasons both logical (could one scribe or series of them really get it right every time?) and empirical (I haven’t actually found a manuscript or group that always convinces me it’s right).
In the case of the empirical reasons, I primarily have in mind internal evidence, evidence that I don’t see how a Byzantine prioritist can use consistently. I’ve written about this before and today I want to look at another example of the same problem. Here is the text of 1 John 4.19 in the RP2005 edition of the Byzantine text and in NA28:
- RP2005: Ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν αὐτόν, ὅτι αὐτὸς πρῶτος ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς.
- NA28: ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν, ὅτι αὐτὸς πρῶτος ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς
The problem with this explanation arises when we consider the other readings at this point. Here is the data from the ECM:
- omit 02. 03. 5. 6. 323. 424C. 623. 945. 1241. 1243. 1739. 1852. 1881. 2464. L:V. K:S. G:A1. Sl:E
- αυτον 044. 88. 94. 104. 181. 254. 307. 321. 398. 453. 459. 467. 720. 915. 918. 1523. 1524.1678. 1836. 1838. 1844. 1846. 1875. 2186. 2298. 2492. 2544. 2818. Byz [424*]. G:G-D. Sl:ChMSiS
- τον θεον 01. 048. 33. 61. 81. 206. 218. 326. 378. 429. 436. 442. 522. 614. 621. 630. 642. 808. 876. 1067. 1127. 1292. 1359. 1409. 1448. 1490. 1505. 1563. 1611. 1718. 1735. 1799. 1831. 1832. 1837. 1890. 2138. 2147. 2200. 2243. 2344. 2374. 2412. 2541. 2652. 2805. L:T. K:BVV. S:PH. A. Ä
- τον κυριον 629
- lacunose P9. P74. 04. 025. 0245. 0296. L60. L590. L596. L1126. Pr
Since all three of the longer readings end in ν, how does a Byzanitne prioritist decide which of them is original? He might reason, easily enough, that readings three and four are natural expansions of the simple pronoun αυτον. And so I would agree. The problem, however, is in giving a convincing reason why that same argument doesn’t also apply to reading two. If scribes wanted to make the implicit explicit here as all must agree they did (why else would we have these particular variants here?), then why shouldn’t reading two be rejected for that very reason? I can’t see a way around this except to accept reading one as the best explanation for the origin of the other three readings. (Side note: this is why using a small apparatus can be misleading.)
This, it seems, exposes a flaw in the Byzantine priority scheme. If it cannot use the same internal argument consistently within the same variation, what grounds does it have for claiming that “transmissional considerations coupled with internal principles point to the Byzantine Textform as a leading force in the history of transmission” (RP2005, p. 564)? Here it seems that internal considerations point away from it. It’s true that John’s writings usually have a direct object with ἀγαπάω (though cf. 1 Jn 3.14b; 4.8, 20), but that could also be a further argument for preferring the shorter reading as the harder one.
I confess I would find the Byzantine Priority position more consistent if it said that “transmission considerations” (i.e., external evidence) is decisive and that internal evidence is only needed secondarily for large splits in the Byzantine witnesses. At that point, we would still have to discuss the logical objection I mentioned, but that would be a post for another day. As it is, the internal evidence is a key reason why I find any all-or-nothing approach to the Byzatine text (or any other text) unconvincing. As Tommy et al. have put it: “no single manuscript, manuscript family, or larger group of manuscripts (a text type) can be accepted uncritically as representing the original version of a biblical passage or book...” (Dictionary of the Bible and Ancient Media, p. 414).
Yes, Byzantine manuscripts are very good overall. But that doesn’t mean they’re always right.
This, it seems, exposes a flaw in the Byzantine priority scheme. If it cannot use the same internal argument consistently within the same variation, what grounds does it have for claiming that “transmissional considerations coupled with internal principles point to the Byzantine Textform as a leading force in the history of transmission” (RP2005, p. 564)? Here it seems that internal considerations point away from it. It’s true that John’s writings usually have a direct object with ἀγαπάω (though cf. 1 Jn 3.14b; 4.8, 20), but that could also be a further argument for preferring the shorter reading as the harder one.
I confess I would find the Byzantine Priority position more consistent if it said that “transmission considerations” (i.e., external evidence) is decisive and that internal evidence is only needed secondarily for large splits in the Byzantine witnesses. At that point, we would still have to discuss the logical objection I mentioned, but that would be a post for another day. As it is, the internal evidence is a key reason why I find any all-or-nothing approach to the Byzatine text (or any other text) unconvincing. As Tommy et al. have put it: “no single manuscript, manuscript family, or larger group of manuscripts (a text type) can be accepted uncritically as representing the original version of a biblical passage or book...” (Dictionary of the Bible and Ancient Media, p. 414).
Yes, Byzantine manuscripts are very good overall. But that doesn’t mean they’re always right.