A Question

[Van]

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?

 

[Greektim]

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?

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?).

 

[rsr]

The WEB is something of a hybrid; its starting point is the 1901 ASV (the American version of the ERV), but it's updated with the Stuttgart in the OT and a Majority Text (which one, I haven't been able to learn) in the NT.

Thus, it omits (with footnotes) the Comma Johanneum and some other verses found in the King James versions.

And that surely is enough to put it on the list of bad Bibles for many.

You can find printed copies (including from Amazon and christianbooks.com, but only the NT and Psalms, it seems), but it was meant to be a Web-based, free, public-domain version, so there's little incentive to publish paper copies.

 

[Van]

The WEB is the World English Bible and you can google it to find out about it. The argument that it is a "bad" Bible stems from advocating the TR corruptions. Therefore, the Byzantine Text priority argument disappears, so all these arguments in favor of the underlying text are simply a smoke screen.

Link to the WEB:
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/World-English-Bible-WEB/

 

[franklinmonroe]

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. ...

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.

 

[Greektim]

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

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[Van]

If I have two variants of a text, one Alexandrian and one Byzantine, would I not give priority to the Byzantine text. If I had two variants of a text and one was Alexandrian and the other representing the majority of texts, would I not give priority to the majority text. Since the work product of either methodology is very close, then the WEB translation would be as good as the TR, but without the corruptions.

So we come back to the question, why claim you use the KJV or NKJV because the underlying text is superior, yet not use the WEB. This lays bare the provincial nature of the actual reason for sticking with the KJV.

 

[Greektim]

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.

 

[Greektim]

If I have two variants of a text, one Alexandrian and one Byzantine, would I not give priority to the Byzantine text. If I had two variants of a text and one was Alexandrian and the other representing the majority of texts, would I not give priority to the majority text. Since the work product of either methodology is very close, then the WEB translation would be as good as the TR, but without the corruptions.

So we come back to the question, why claim you use the KJV or NKJV because the underlying text is superior, yet not use the WEB. This lays bare the provincial nature of the actual reason for sticking with the KJV.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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

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.

 

[John of Japan]

The WEB is the World English Bible and you can google it to find out about it. The argument that it is a "bad" Bible stems from advocating the TR corruptions. Therefore, the Byzantine Text priority argument disappears, so all these arguments in favor of the underlying text are simply a smoke screen.

Link to the WEB:
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/World-English-Bible-WEB/

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

 

[Greektim]

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.

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.

 

[Rippon]

The WEB is the World English Bible and you can google it to find out about it. The argument that it is a "bad" Bible stems from advocating the TR corruptions.

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.

Therefore, the Byzantine Text priority argument disappears,

Why? You need to speak plainly.

so all these arguments in favor of the underlying text are simply a smoke screen.

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

 

[KRJ]

So, if actually true, why do they stick with the KJV.....

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.

 

[jonathan.borland]

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.

 

[Rippon]

It was always intended to be a poetic and literary form.

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?

 

[Rippon]

"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)

 

[John of Japan]

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.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

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!