Featured A Question

Rhetorical & literary analysis would say that in many places, the text of the NT was highly euphonic or the author quite skilled in the art of rhetoric. If you can find it, read Black's, "Literary Artistry of Hebrews" or some title similar. That is a good example. I have also done a few studies in Ephesians and Hebrews on this issue. Thinking about getting some of them published.

 

Yes, but very little.

Then I've used bad terminology or a bad example. But I was searching for a label for that particular style of English. Would Elizabethan English be more appropriate? Or maybe it should just be called King James English to avoid confusion?

But the point I was trying to make is that the style was probably chosen because Joe Average walking down the streets of London in 1611 did not talk like that and that's one reason the KJV endures.

 

My answers below are a layperson's opinion. I don't have the education to be a textual critic.

I believe either answer is an opinion.

I don't know, but I doubt someone like Isaiah thought much about what languages or style of language his writings would later be translated into while he had a hot coal in his mouth.

Revisers? You mean the KJV translators? Probably so, and I'm thankful they did. It's one reason the KJV endures.

I'm happy to let you know how I feel, but, as pointed out in post #16, we're off topic.

 

Doesn't that point out that even more important then if if it was the CT/MT/Bzt/Tr text, that even more important to the quality of the resulting English version of the Bible would be the philosophy behind just how to translate it into the English?

As I still hold that while one Greek text is to be preferred over another, in my case the CT, one can also use those other greek texts and get a good translation if there is a good way to approaching how to render it into the English language going on!

 

I'd say it's a "link" between Elizabethan & Jacobean English.

While the KJV and earlier English Bibles are translations, requiring certain wordings for accuracy,Shakespeare's worx are fairly original. He often coined words as he went. He had "atist's license" to word his material as he chose.

 

And some of us just don't know much about the WEB so it is ignorance not smoke screening

Perhaps someone could let me know why the WEB is superior to the NKJV?

 

Or the NKJV is a better translation than the WEB and the underlying text is close enough that they don't care. Plus it is more readily available and popular.

And if you want the answer from the man that literally wrote the book then read this (from: http://www.daveblackonline.com/interview_with_maurice_robinson2.htm)

 

Then I don't understand what you are arguing for, I guess.

 

I think Elizabethan English is a better term.

There were several dialects spoken by Joe Average in 1611, and as you say the language of the KJV is not Cockney, for example. However, it is the language of an educated person of the day. I do agree that one reason the KJV endures is the beauty of its language.

 

What you are talking about here then is not a Byzantine Priority position ala Dr. Maurice Robinson, or a Majority position ala Zane Hodges or Wilbur Pickering. You are referring to a TR-only position. It is those folk who stick with the KJV and defend it from the Byz./Majority while rejecting the WEB.

 

Sorry, I mean no disrespect, but you've shown no sign in this thread that you know what you are talking about. Your statements about Byzantine Priority don't fit the position, as the quote from Dr. Maurice Robinson shows.

As for me, I've greatly enjoyed talking with Dr. Robinson for hours about his Byzantine priority position, since my son was his grader for Greek classes while working on his PhD in Greek linguistics, so yes, I think I know what I'm talking about. :type:

 

Says the man who studied The Chun! Srsly, I have been reading the WEB. I like it. Ane I'm a KJVP type. I find it interesting how WEB translates the passage "I baptize you IN water....".

 

Well at least this thread might steer people to the WEB. I downloaded a free Matthew for my Kindle Fire and have read a couple of chapters. So far, it seems a little awkward in places. Haven't gotten to "I baptize you in water" yet, but that's a good rendering.

And JKD wouldn't exist without Wing Chun, so there! :tongue3:

 

I'm going to go back and interact a little more with the OP, and try to clear up some confusion.

1. The people who refuse to accept anything other than a TR based NT such as the KJV (or occasionally NKJV) are TR only, which is often simply another kind of KJV-Only. They sometimes refer to the Byzantine/Majority text-type to bolster their position, but rarely understand textual criticism. So they're not going to accept the WEB because they are usually another brand of KJVO.
2. Byzantine Priority is a method of textual criticism. It is not what TR-Only people refer to. Most of them don't know what the Byz. Priority method of textual critcism is. Byz. Pri. people willingly use the WEB, and are certainly not KJVO. The Greek NT produced by the Byz. Pri. method is usually referred to as the Byzantine Textform NT, ed. by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont.
3. The Majority Text usually refers to the Greek NT edited by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad, though there are other majority texts out there, such as that edited by Wilbur Pickering (not in book form). Their method of textual criticism was quite different than the Byz. Pri. method, but the great unity of the Byz./Maj. text-type means that this NT is quite similar in readings to the Byzantine Textform. People advocating the Hodges/Farstad Greek NT would usually have no trouble using the WEB.

 

Don't KJVO Christians take the textual position that ONLY the TR was to be seen as the true greek text?

And that conservative Christians who do NOT see it in same light would normally be either a MTP, or else a CTP ?