KJV Preferred

Doug Kutilek isn't for Westcott-Hort or Byzantine-priority, but for each and every person deciding for himself whenever a variant arises. The resultant text will inevitably be more scatterbrained than when scholars who have studied the text for years arrive at a text they generally agree on. Doug has some pretty obvious fallacies in the article, one being that the "Majority" text wasn't a majority until the 9th century, a regurgitation of Dan Wallace, and a regurgitation that appears time and again on many anti-KJV websites. He should give credit to Wallace for this fallacy instead of sinking his own boat with this inaccurate statement.

If one nose-counts MSS from the limited and the only area of the world that preserved MSS from before the 3rd century (most of which contain no more than a verse or two), he cannot say anything more than that that particular area of the world had this or that. But the consensus of the earliest Greek MSS from EVERY part of the world is demonstrably Byzantine, even though for many parts of the world the EARLIEST documents are no earlier than the 6th or 7th century. So logically the consensus of earliest documents from every part of the world presents a more accurate picture of the original text than the earliest documents from only one part of the world can, and this accurate picture is demonstrably represented in the Byzantine text.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

One may go through Nestle-Aland's GNT and find all the Byzantine readings in the apparatus by the Gothic 'M' siglum, or one may simply use the Robinson-Pierpont GNT according to the Byzantine Textform, which differs only slightly to the GNT according to the Majority Text by Hodges-Farstad. Either of the latter two will differ, sometimes significantly, from Stephens' TR (i.e., R-P and H-F don't include verses with minimal Greek MS support, such as Lk. 17:36, Ac. 8:37, Ac. 15:34, 1 Jn. 5:7-8), but the majority of the time they are identical.

The advantage of the KJV preferred position over the KJVO position is that the underlying text of the KJV may be defended MOST of the time on solid textual grounds, whereas KJVO demands that the text be defended ALL of the time, even when in places it is obviously defective in comparision to the entire MS tradition. If KJV preferred agrees that in some places his text is indeed defective, he will win with solid textual arguments in all the other cases.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Personally, I find it difficult to accept the two favorites uncials of the admittedly learned and scholarly W&H team as the basis of many of their choices in readings over and against the Majority and/or the Traditional Text simply because of their early dates, calling them the "best" manuscripts.

Aleph and B disagree heavily between themselves. When they agree with each other but disagree with the Byzantine, they blindly follow them (Aleph, B).

The papyrii (particularly p66 which pre-dates the W&H favorites) has both Byzantine and Alexandrian readings. Many modern scholars say that the Byzantine readings in the papryri are not really Byzantine but chance readings. Personally, I don't think so.

We will just have to wait for more papyri to be discovered to build a better base of evidence.

The bottom line is that the W&H theory of Byzantine conflation (textual smoothing) has been weakened or even shown to be wrong with the discovery of so-called "conflated" Byzantine-like readings in the early dated papyri.

My opinion of course.

I have in the past documented these findings but (to my disappointment) the author(s) were immediatly maligned and accused of false and/or faulty scholarship based upon emotion without substantial evidence.

I realize that we all have a passion in this area including myself, but if we don't put aside our emotions we will never get anywhere but only make matters worst with even deeper division and bitterness - The unintended result of innuendo, mockery and insult (although this is the intended result of the evil one IMO and we therefore play right into his hand of hatred).

HankD

 

This is the smoothest disscussion I have seen on this topic here. I hope we keep it up like this. We all have reasons why we prefere one translation over another, but I am glad we are getting to prefered texts now.

 

philip: "And if you consider the most accurate to be the Byzntine; what form would we find that in today in a compiled Greek version? Would the latest TR by Stephens accurately represent the Byzantine text? Or would another, that has not been mentioned?"

This would be a red herring, in that no one who holds to the majority text or Byzantine-priority view of the text would accept the TR to be an accurate reflection of either the Byzantine or majority tradition (TR= Stephens 1550 or any such edition, up to and including Scrivener's 1894 reconstruction of the Greek text supposedly underlying the KJV).

And this for the same reasons Dr Bob has already stated: the TRs are a weak form of the Byzantine tradition, based on a small handful of very late MSS, with a good number of readings that reflect non-Byzantine textual traditions.

Dan Wallace has calculated around 1838 differences between any TR edition and the Byzantine or majority text. These differences are clearly seen in the various editions of the majority text (Hodges-Farstad) and Byzantine text (Robinson-Pierpont) when such texts are compared with the various TR editions (BF has already mentioned several whole verses which are *not* present in the Byzantine or majority tradition, but which nevertheless appear in the various TR editions).

So, to answer your question, neither Stephens 1550, 1551, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1624, 1633, or Scrivener 1894 would "accurately represent the Byzantine text". That would require one or the other editions that specifically claim to present such in their main text.

 

BF: "One may go through Nestle-Aland's GNT and find all the Byzantine readings in the apparatus by the Gothic 'M' siglum"

I would offer a caution in this regard: the NA27th edition may display some 10,000 variant readings, and a Byzantine or Majority text *of sorts* may be reconstructed by following their Gothic "M" readings -- **however**, not all Byzantine or majority readings are displayed in the NA27 apparatus, and many such readings are passed by in silence by the NA27 editors, without even a footnote to show that the Byzantine or majority text differs from their preferred text.

Example: I compared Lk 4 in the Byzantine edition (R-P) with NA27's apparatus, and found 13 variant readings between these texts which are *not* footnoted at all in the NA27 apparatus. Some of these are significant for translation or exegesis (e.g. 4:2 NA27 lacks Byz ""afterwards"; 4:34, NA27 lacks Byz "saying"), while others are mere spelling differences or transposition of words.

So the bottom line is that one *cannot* reconstruct the Byzantine or majority text from the NA27 apparatus -- one *has* to turn to either the H-F or R-P editions for that solution.

 

That is truly the most ludicrous thing I've heard you say, Askjo, and I've heard some really really bad ones.

You have either (1) misspoken (2) parroted another looney-tune or (3) slandered a brother. My thought is 3 because I've witnessed you funciton before. </font>[/QUOTE]Click here: Does Doug deny Psalm 12:6-7 reflecting to the preservation of God's Words?

I did not misspeak.

I am not a slander.

I did not parrot.

The reason for 3 things that I deny is because I read Doug' articles in his website before. I disagree with him. I would mark his comments and refute them.

 

Askjo, the AV 1611 ITSELF denies Ps. 12:7 is about God's words. Their marginal note is available for all to see. Although an occasional commentator said such before the current KJVO myth was invented, it is now part and parcel of that myth. Again, this is in direct opposition to what the AV translators themselves wrote. Do the KJVOs think so highly of their myth that it takes precedence over the makers of the version their myth is all about? Kinda like the Mormons who believe the KJV "as far as it's accurately translated", many a KJVO believes its translators "only as far as they agree with our KJVO doctrine".

 

The marginal note is not in the Word of God. The marginal note is from variant readings. These variant readings are not always correct.

 

Askjo: "The marginal note is not in the Word of God. The marginal note is from variant readings. These variant readings are not always correct. "

You know the King James Translaters in 1611
picked and chose from the variants they had,
sometimes picking one, sometimes picking
the other. Did the King James Translators
have more of a right to pick an choose from
among their variant readings than say
the NIV translators in 1975?
There is no such thing as the standard
and the variant, only different variants.

Please aslo note the diffrent kinds of
marginal notes:

1. the translator note: shows the
different ways of translating the same
term OR source variations

2. Opinion notes: the author's understanding
of what the scriputre means -- i.e. commentary

I belive the translator notes to magnify
the word of God -- they are always good.
The opinion notes are
either good or bad, depending upon the
author.

 

The marginal note is not in the Word of God. The marginal note is from variant readings. These variant readings are not always correct. </font>[/QUOTE]How disingenuous! Are you questioning the wisdom of the KJV translators in placing the marginal note in this passage? I thought that the KJV translators were in effect being supernaturally or providentially 'protected/preserved' (or, something like that) . The marginal notes in the KJV being 'not always correct' belies the inferiority of your argument. The KJV translators were making a note about the literal reading from the Hebrew, identifying that the pronoun 'them' is referring to verse 5 ('him'), the poor and needy man. So much for KJVonly 'scholarship'.......

 

Better yet just read Psalm 12 in context!

How hard is that?

 

If Psalm 12:7 is about the KJV, then Psalm 12 was a lie in 1610 and prior.