A Question

[Greektim]

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?

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.

 

[KRJ]

Make no mistake, I love and read the KJV. But have you ever actually read Shakespeare?

Yes, but very little.

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.

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.

 

[KRJ]

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

But should it have been?

I believe either answer is an opinion.

Did the original authors intend it to be such?

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.

Did the KJV revisers take some liberties and make the language more elevated than the originals?

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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!

 

[robycop3]

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.

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.

 

[Van]

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

Some who stick with the KJV and NKJV say it is because the underlying text (Byzantine rather than Alexandrian, or Majority rather than Critical) is superior, i.e. comes closer to the original message.

However, they do not endorse and embrace the WEB which features a translation of the text they claim is superior. Therefore, that claim -underlying text is superior - is a smokescreen and the real reason for sticking with the KJV is provincial.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Some who stick with the KJV and NKJV say it is because the underlying text (Byzantine rather than Alexandrian, or Majority rather than Critical) is superior, i.e. comes closer to the original message.



However, they do not endorse and embrace the WEB which features a translation of the text they claim is superior. Therefore, that claim -underlying text is superior - is a smokescreen and the real reason for sticking with the KJV is provincial.

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?

 

[Greektim]

Some who stick with the KJV and NKJV say it is because the underlying text (Byzantine rather than Alexandrian, or Majority rather than Critical) is superior, i.e. comes closer to the original message.

However, they do not endorse and embrace the WEB which features a translation of the text they claim is superior. Therefore, that claim -underlying text is superior - is a smokescreen and the real reason for sticking with the KJV is provincial.

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)

11. What is your viewpoint on the reliability of the KJV/NKJV versions?

Text-critically, the KJV and NKJV are translated from a text commonly termed TR (Textus Receptus, or Received Text), with a smattering of readings from the Latin Vulgate, various retranslations from Latin sources, or editorial conjectures. All other nt translations tend to reflect a general Alexandrian type of text. In both cases, I have reservations, since neither agrees totally with the Byzantine tradition.

Yet the NKJV includes footnotes regarding significant variant readings, and clearly indicates whether a variant reading is found in the Nestle-ubs predominantly Alexandrian tradition (“NU-text”) or the Byzantine tradition (the “M-text”, being the Hodges-Farstad “majority” text). Footnotes in most English translations lack texttype-specific identification, leaving their readers in the dark regarding the textual nature of any variant. In this sense, there is a real benefit in the NKJV footnotes, unmatched in any other English translation. I would prefer to see a good, formal-equivalence English translation based on the Byzantine Textform, with footnotes indicating translatable variants from the alternative traditions.

Should one inquire about the translational quality of the KJV or NKJV, that is a separate matter. I strongly prefer formal equivalence; the KJV and NKJV qualify in that regard. However, I do not use the KJV for teaching or study purposes due to its archaic language and an inconsistency in rendering Greek words and phrases, particularly in parallel passages. The NKJV is superior in this regard, but remains inconsistent in rendering some words and phrases. Both translations are generally accurate and reliable: they will not mislead a reader in doctrinal matters. Other modern formal equivalence translations (ESV, NASV) are superior in translational quality, and would be strongly recommended had they been based on a Byzantine text or had they identified a sufficient number of Byzantine variants in their footnotes.

 

[Van]

Right, the discussion is about the bogus argument in favor of the KJV/NKJV, that it is based on a superior text type. The WEB is based on that superior (or so they claim) text type yet has not been embraced.

Arguments like translation merits are none germane to the discussion. The TR corruptions are not found in the WEB (take note C4K). Therefore the WEB is the actual superior translation, based on representing the Byzantine/majority text.

But I note with interest, that Dr. Robinson makes the same charge against translations, inconsistency in rendering Greek words and phrases, particularly in parallel passages, that I believe could be easily fixed, if it was an actual goal of the translation team. We do not need 6 to 9 different Greek words all translated in one English word, i.e. sin.
That practice obscures God's inspired word, as do archaic words and figures of speech.

 

[Van]

Just as an example, lets look at John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life." (WEB) Note that the mistranslation begotten is not in the WEB but is in the KJV and NKJV.

At the end of the day, the superiority of the underlying text may be a valid argument for the WEB but not for the KJV or NKJV, because of the corruptions in the TR.

Certainly the Textus Receptus had its problems, not the least of which was its failure to reflect the Byzantine Textform in an accurate manner.

 

[Greektim]

Right, the discussion is about the bogus argument in favor of the KJV/NKJV, that it is based on a superior text type. The WEB is based on that superior (or so they claim) text type yet has not been embraced.

Arguments like translation merits are none germane to the discussion. The TR corruptions are not found in the WEB (take note C4K). Therefore the WEB is the actual superior translation, based on representing the Byzantine/majority text.

But I note with interest, that Dr. Robinson makes the same charge against translations, inconsistency in rendering Greek words and phrases, particularly in parallel passages, that I believe could be easily fixed, if it was an actual goal of the translation team. We do not need 6 to 9 different Greek words all translated in one English word, i.e. sin.
That practice obscures God's inspired word, as do archaic words and figures of speech.

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

 

[Van]

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

At the end of the day, the superiority of the underlying text may be a valid argument for the WEB but not for the KJV or NKJV, because of the corruptions in the TR.

Certainly the Textus Receptus had its problems, not the least of which was its failure to reflect the Byzantine Textform in an accurate manner.

As any objective reader can see, the argument for the KJV/NKJV because the underlying superiority of the text, is a smoke screen. The WEB does a vastly better job of reflecting the Byzantine/Majority text, and does not contain the TR corruptions.

 

[John of Japan]

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?

I think Elizabethan English is a better term.

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.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

Some who stick with the KJV and NKJV say it is because the underlying text (Byzantine rather than Alexandrian, or Majority rather than Critical) is superior, i.e. comes closer to the original message.

However, they do not endorse and embrace the WEB which features a translation of the text they claim is superior. Therefore, that claim -underlying text is superior - is a smokescreen and the real reason for sticking with the KJV is provincial.

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.

 

[Van]

Hi JOJ, yes I know what I am saying, the question is do you? No I am not attacking the Byzantine Priority or Majority position (as the textform that comes closest to the original message) but the claim that those who argue for the KJV/NKJV do so because the underlying text (Byzantine/Majority) is superior. This argument is a smokescreen, because when given a choice (i.e. the WEB) they still stick with the TR and its corruptions.

 

[John of Japan]

Hi JOJ, yes I know what I am saying, the question is do you? No I am not attacking the Byzantine Priority or Majority position (as the textform that comes closest to the original message) but the claim that those who argue for the KJV/NKJV do so because the underlying text (Byzantine/Majority) is superior. This argument is a smokescreen, because when given a choice (i.e. the WEB) they still stick with the TR and its corruptions.

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:

 

[Jkdbuck76]

..... 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....".

 

[John of Japan]

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:

 

[John of Japan]

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

Lots of folks claim they stick with the KJV or the NKJV because they accept the notion of Byzantine Priority, that that text type is closer to the original than the Critical Text.

So, if actually true, why do they stick with the KJV or NKJV, when they could adopt the WEB? What are the reasons for sticking with the TR over and against the text of the WEB?

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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 ?