Featured A Question

Do you know many local Xian bookstores where you can get a WEB? Does anyone really know about the WEB? I don't even know what it is (Weymouth?).

 

Remember, the Byzantine Priority (aka the Greek Majority Text) only has bearing upon the New Testament. KJV/NKJV preference is generally a duel-Testament issue. Although, the differences among Hebrew critical texts seem to be far fewer and less intense (or less well understood) than those between NT Greeks.

 

Remember, the Byzantine Priority is not the same as the "Greek Majority Text". Completely different methodologies.

You have Robinson & Pierpont's text: http://www.amazon.com/dp/3941750240/?tag=baptis04-20

vs.

Hodges & Farstad's Majority text: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0840749635/?tag=baptis04-20

 

In spite of the different methodologies, it's interesting how close the two texts are. That's a sign of the unified nature of the Byz. text-type, IMO.

 

It is not so surprising to me only b/ there are so many Byz mss.

 

That is not how the Byz priority people came to ascertain their view of a textform. And what do you (or they) do when the Byz is dividied? This is when the majority text may go w/ an Alexadrian reading over a Byz reading.

And personally, since the translation of the NKJV is superior to most other translations, period, then the similar text of the TR and the Byz is good enough reason for people to just use the NKJV.

 

I'm not sure what your point is. The fact that there are so many Byz. mss. should ensure a greater number of variants than the Alexandrian, but the opposite is true.

 

Please elaborate on how the Byz. Priority argument (whatever you think that is) disappears. Your statement is not clicking with me here.

 

It's not surprising that the Maj. text and the Byz text are often identical. They mostly only differ when the Byz mss are divided (i.e. much of Rev.) and the Alexandrian mss side with one view (thus the Maj. text) that the Byz Priority rejects.

 

You mean that some people argue that the WEB is a poor translation is because it supports TR corruptions?

I cannot make heads or tails of your last sentence.

Why? You need to speak plainly.

The underlying text of what --the WEB Bible or what?? You write in a confused manner.

 

The beauty and preciseness of Shakespearean English, especially the singular and plural forms of you:

"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."

Paraphrased: "I'm telling you (thee) Nicodemus, everybody (ye) must be born again."

English isn't known as a precise language compared to Latin or Greek. But Shakespearean English is about as good as it gets. It was not London street English even in it's day. It was always intended to be a poetic and literary form.

 

I don't think the OP was arguing that the KJV was not beautiful English. The main point is that one is inconsistent to claim that the Byz mss are good when they agree with the KJV but bad when they don't. All this really means is that the KJV is good when it agrees with whatever reading underlies the KJV, which is just another way of saying that the KJV is good when it agrees with itself.

 

But should it have been? Did the original authors intend it to be such? Did the KJV revisers take some liberties and make the language more elevated than the originals?

 

"The koine Greek of the New Testament is the "everyday" Greek language of working people rather than of self-conscious literary scholars and poets. The King James translators were not aware of this fact. Their location in history denied them access to this knowledge. The result has important implications for the tone and style of those passages in the King James Bible that translate this form of Greek. The language of the workplace and the market is thus subtly changed into the high cadences of the palaces of Westminster and the high tables of Oxford and Cambridge. Many readers of the King James Bible often comment on its elegance and excellent style --yet the considerations we have just set out mean that, on occasion, the style and elegance will be those of the translators, rather than those of the passages they translated."

Alister McGrath :In the Beginning. (pages 238,239)

 

Make no mistake, I love and read the KJV. But have you ever actually read Shakespeare? The KJV uses much simpler language than Shakespeare, especially comparing the vocabulary used in the two. So I don't think that it's valid to compare the two favorably to Shakespeare.

Furthermore, Shakespeare was often quite vulgar in ways that few understand nowadays--you have to actually know what Shakespeare meant. When I was in college they put on a Shakespearean play, with the college pres. playing the lead role. I heard him using 17th century swear words without knowing it! (I had studied Shakespeare some in high school.) Fortunately they got that figured out before they put the play on. :tonofbricks:

P. S. Welcome to the BB.

 

The fact that there is such agreement in the Byz./Maj. mss. is an argument in favor of Byz. priority, IMO. The fact that the Alex. tradition is in much greater disagreement within itself points to the idea that the scribes in that tradition were much more careless--either amateurs who didn't care about the text, or pros just hired for the job who didn't care that much about the text, just their pay.

And then there's the book of Revelation, as you say.... Whew!