Background --
A summary of the argument that the Byzantine Text is secondary --
A summary of the argument that the Byzantine Text is primary --
An examination of the argument that the Byzantine Text is primary --
Distinctively Byzantine readings are found in early papyri --
Byzantine-Western alignments go back into the second century independently and originate in the East, not in the West --
The silence of the Fathers is explainable and therefore is not a proof of lateness --
The "conflate" or longer readings are not a proof of lateness --
The composite nature of the Byzantine Text attests the early existence of its readings where its strands unite --
Summary of section A --
The evidence of section A --
The significant provenance of the Byzantine text-type --
The Koine style of the Byzantine text-type --
The conservative users --
The silent history --
Summary of section B --
Conclusion --
Appendices : Lists. Papyrus-Byzantine alignments opposed by Westerns, Alexandrians, and Westcott-Hort. Papyrus-Byzantine-Western alignments opposed by Alexandrians and Westcott-Hort --
Papyrus-Byzantine-Alexandrian alignments followed by Westcott-Hort but opposed by Westerns --
Papyrus-Byzantine plus varying support (Western and/or Alexandrian) but opposed by Westcott-Hort --
Papyrus-Byzantine plus varying support (Western and/or Alexandrian) followed hesitantly by Westcott-Hort --
Tables. Papyrus-Byzantine readings compared with Alexandrian --
Papyrus-Byzantine readings compared with Western --
Papyrus-Byzantine readings compared with Alexandrian-Western --
Papyrus-Byzantine-Western readings compared with Alexandrian --
Papyrus-Byzantine-Alexandrian readings compared with Western --
Charts. Number of occurrences and relative percentages of four basic alignments --
Numerical and percentage summary of variants --
Additions --
Omissions --
Changes --
Bibliography.

The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism by Harry A. Sturz For centuries, the Byzantine text of the New Testament-the medieval Greek manuscripts of Byzantine origin-was the only widely used text of the New Testament. But with the advent of the interpretations of Westcott and Hort in the nineteenth century, the Byzantine text was considered by many to be obsolete. Today, it is rarely used, and most New Testament critics repudiate it as inferior to the current and predominant critical text. In The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism, Harry A. Sturz shows why this rejection of the Byzantine text is unjustified. While he does not agree with those scholars who say the Byzantine is the best text because it most closely represents the original text of the New Testament, he does believe it has value in New Testament criticism. Divided into two parts, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism outlines the views of prominent New Testament critics who have opposed and supported the use of the Byzantine text in New Testament criticism. Part I discusses the theory of Westcott and Hort, and cites their reasons for considering the Byzantine text "secondary ," discarding it, and formulating their own interpretation of the most valid text of the New Testament. The Westcott-Hort theory is followed by the rebuttal of JohnBurgon and Edward Hills, two scholars who believed the Byzantine text is the "primary" text, or the text by which all other New Testament texts should be judged. In Part II, Sturz indicates his reasons for believing that the Byzantine text is neither "primary" nor "secondary," but independent, and as such should not be "set aside." As Sturz says in his opening chapter: "The Byzantine text should be recognized as having an important and useful place in textual criticism because it is an independent witness to an early form of the New Testament text."