Initial Thoughts on the 2026 ‘Jubilee Edition’ of the RP Byzantine Text

According to the preface, the 2026 edition of Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont’s New Testament in the Original Text: Byzantine Textform constitutes the fourth RP edition and marks the 50th anniversary of Robinson’s collaboration with Pierpont—hence the “jubilee” edition. The increased appreciation for the Byz text by reasoned eclectics is described as “a previously unheard level of commendation” and is given as part of the justification for this new edition (v). What follows is a short review, mostly noting what’s new or different.

Comparison of the RP 2005, 2026, and 2018.

Physical aspects

Unlike the 2018 revision, this edition is hardbound but without a dust jacket. The binding is glued rather than sewn. This has been a point of frustration for some early reviewers. Since I don’t expect this to be my main GNT, it doesn’t bother me much. I will say, it does lie flat pretty well. Others will have to see if it holds up over time. 

The typeface is a version of Porson (it looks like GFS Porson with its upright capitals) and it’s quite nice on the eyes. My love for Porson is no secret, so I can only commend the editors for their choice. (I tried, unsuccessfully, to get the Tyndale team to use it for THGNT.)

A sample of the page layout and typesetting

The physical size of the book is a bit too big for my tastes, but if I had my way, all editions would go back to the original size of Nestle’s first edition, which truly deserved to be called a hand edition. A ribbon marker is included, which is a return to the 2005 edition. The cover is now purple, which I assume alludes to the royalty of Jesus.

Formatting and Content

The original preface to the 2005 edition and the appendix defending Byz priority have been replaced with a newly written preface by Maurice Robinson and his former student Abidan Shah. (Shah and his team at Clearview Church are the publishers.) It’s short—about 12 pages and covers the edition’s text and apparatus, orthography, versification, marginal notes, order of books, section headings, and a point of clarification on the relationship of external and internal evidence within Byz priority. 

New Book: Can We Recover the Original Text of the New Testament?

Released last week is a new book edited by Abidan Shah and Dave Black called Can We Recover the Original Text of the New Testament?. It includes all the papers given last year at Abidan’s church conference (more on that here and here). 

Notably, the contributors all answer yes to the book’s title but disagree on how best to identify the original text. In this way, the book serves as a kind of update to Dave Black’s 2002 book Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism, a book I cut my methodological teeth on. A huge thanks to Abidan and Dave for editing this and especially to Abidan and his staff for spearheading the conference.

Here is the publisher’s description:

In recent decades, the traditional definition of the original text of the New Testament (NT) has shifted from seeking one singular text to seeking a number of texts. Instead of one “authorial” text, now it is claimed that it could be one of several different texts based on their locations in the history of transmission: preauthorial, authorial, canonical, and postcanonical. These distinctions were first listed by Eldon Epp in his article “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism” as “predecessor,” “autographic,” “canonical,” and “interpretive” text-forms. It is apparent that with such changing definitions of the original text of the NT, text-critics are ambivalent regarding reaching the traditional goal of NT textual criticism. Instead, attention is now given towards hypothesizing regarding the emergence of the variant readings. Furthermore, any attempt towards utilizing text-critical principles to reach the original text is looked upon as being out of date and pointless. All such shifting definitions of the original text and the ensuing claims have far-reaching consequences for biblical faith and praxis. 

In this work, three different scholars will present their methodologies for retrieving the original text of the NT. No matter how each of the presenters evaluates the text-critical evidence, it is obvious that they all believe in the inerrancy and retrievability of the NT text.

Table of contents:

Final Video: Shah on the Goalpost of New Testament Textual Criticism

The last video from my TC class is now up at YouTube. In it, Dr. Abidan Paul Shah introduces his new book Changing the Goalpost of New Testament Textual Criticism (2020). Despite the trend among some scholars, he argues that we can and should pursue the original text as our goal in textual criticism. Thanks to Abidan for joining us. Again, remember to subscribe for new videos.

Book Notice: Changing the Goalpost of New Testament Textual Criticism

Congratulations to Dr. Abidan Paul Shah who has just published his dissertation written under the direction of Maurice Robinson. I first met Abidan several years ago at ETS and have had the benefit to see him in action as a pastor. I’m looking forward to getting a copy. Here are the details.

Publisher Description

Changing the Goalpost of New Testament Textual Criticism

Before the 1960s, the goal of New Testament Textual Criticism was singular: to retrieve the “original text” of the New Testament. Since then, the goalpost has incrementally shifted away from the “original text” to retrieving “any text” or “many texts” of the NT. Some scholars have even concluded that the “original text” is hopelessly lost and cannot be retrieved with any confidence or accuracy. Other scholars have gone a step further to claim that the idea of an “original text” itself is a misconception that needs to be abandoned. If this new approach in NTTC is correct, then the authority of Scripture is weakened or no longer valid. It will be shown in this book that such is not the case. Furthermore, emphasis will be placed on the need to return to the traditional goalpost of NTTC, i.e., to retrieve the original text. Without a generally definitive text, the door will be left wide open to recreate any desired text of the NT. An unsettled original text will result in an unsettled biblical theology due to a lack of any authoritative and standard text. Consequently, it will lead to an unsettled Christian faith and practice.

Endorsements

“In this much-needed study of New Testament textual criticism, Shah offers far more than careful historical scholarship concerning one of the most vexing questions in this field. While his analysis offers a first-class treatment of the concept of ‘original text,’ he also rediscovers ideas that speak to the current confusion concerning the overriding goal of the discipline of textual criticism. The result of Shah’s work is that rare academic book that is grounded in careful research and yet speaks powerfully to the church today about the proper role and goal of New Testament textual criticism. This is a scintillating book that I believe will prove vital for the church as it seeks to be faithful to its historical documents.”
—David Alan Black, M. O. Owens Jr. Chair of New Testament, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary 

“Shah’s work on this vitally important topic is both thorough and insightful. He is at his best when he is tracing and documenting the major players and ideas in the modern trends of New Testament textual criticism, and even those who might be inclined to disagree with Shah’s conclusions will find much in this work that is of great value to contemporary research in textual criticism.”
—Edward D. Gravely, Professor of Christian Studies, Charleston Southern University 

“The great pioneers of the field of New Testament textual criticism sometimes differed in method but agreed on the goal of the discipline–restoring the original text of the New Testament. Changing the Goalpost shows that some modern textual critics have abandoned this historic quest as unattainable and rightly urges a return to the traditional goal for the sake of both the academy and the church.”
—Charles L. Quarles, Research Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology, Charles Page Chair of Biblical Theology, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary