KJV vs NKJV

[Van]

There are three primary versions of the Greek text for the New Testament. The one I think is the best most accurate version is called Critical Text, and is favored by most modern scholars. Many of the modern translations are based on it, including the NASB, the NIV, the NET, and the LEB. Next we have the Majority Text, or Byzantine Text and the WEB is based on it. Finally we have the TR and the KJV and NKJV are based on it. Advocates for all three claim theirs is the best and the others are just awful corruptions of God's word. The true is all three serve God's purpose, and they teach the same gospel.

Your best bet is to adopt the NKJV, but when studying a passage, compare with the WEB and NASB versions.

 

[TCassidy]

There are three primary versions of the Greek text for the New Testament.

Actually, no. There are two primary textforms: The Byzantine textform and the Alexandrian textform.

The Byantine textform includes, as subtextforms:

The Majority text.
The Textus Receptus. (Roughly 35 different examples from Cardinal Cisneros to Scrivener)
The Traditional Text
The Ecclesiastical Text
The Constantinopolitan Text
The Antiocheian Text
The Syrian Text

The Alexandrian Textform includes, as subtextforms:

The "Neutral" Text
The Egyptian Text
Nestle-Aland Text (27 different variants)
United Bible Societies Text (5 different variants)

There were, at one time, 4 different text types (it was supposed) but upon further examination it was postulated that the Caesarean text-type was a partially corrected Byzantine text, and the Western text-type was a partially corrected Alexandrian text.

 

[Yeshua1]

KJV-onlyism is somewhat different in the UK, but the Trinitarian Bible Society, which is the main source of KJVO over here, is largely Reformed. It's chairman, Malcolm Watts is as Reformed as they come. It hasn't always been the case with the TBS, but it is now.

many within the reformed tradition seem to have real troubles with the Greek Critical text, and modern versions based upon it!

I would say that it is fine to feel that the majority. Bzt text reflects the best the original texts, and so tend to use those version that use them as their textual basis, but never found KJVO to be a legit way to view this!

 

[HankD]

I came out of the KJVO movement from a loud, aggressive, independent, fundamental baptist church.
Not so much by choice but by a slow (fifty plus years) gravitation to those baptist churches of a tamer quality.

HankD

 

[robycop3]

Yes, the KJVO myth is entirely man-made, with the origins of the current myth having been posted many times. As one who rejects all man-made doctrines of worship, I rejected KJVO many years ago.

I was exposed to the KJVO myth early in my Christian lile, and I began studying to see if it was true or not, and soon found, besides its man-made origins, that is basically incorrect, and its advocates have been led down a bunny trail by authors who sought to make a buck, truth be dipped.

Given its cultic, dishonest origins, I KNOW-not GUESS-it CANNOT be from GOD.

 

[HankD]

Actually, no. There are two primary textforms: The Byzantine textform and the Alexandrian textform.

The Byantine textform includes, as subtextforms:

The Majority text.
The Textus Receptus. (Roughly 35 different examples from Cardinal Cisneros to Scrivener)
The Traditional Text
The Ecclesiastical Text
The Constantinopolitan Text
The Antiocheian Text
The Syrian Text
snip

I choose Scrivener's 1894-95 Greek Text as the latest and greatest TR.

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

I choose Scrivener's 1894-95 Greek Text as the latest and greatest TR.

It is what is presently published as "The TR" by the Trinitarian Bible Society. The problem is that it never existed until sometime around 1894. It is an eclectic text edited from the other 30+ "TRs" that have been published since Erasmus/Jiménez.

If you prefer the TR it is probably as good as any, but was edited to indicate the source manuscripts for the word choices in the KJV rather than the other way around.

Personally I prefer the Byzantine Textform published by Dr. Maurice Robinson, Senior Professor of New Testament Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. (In the interest of full disclosure I may be a bit biased. I had the opportunity some years ago to sit down with Dr. Robinson for several hours at a San Diego Denny's and discuss textual criticism and the monumental work he and William Pierpont accomplished in producing and publishing "The New Testament According to the Byzantine Textform." The copy of that work which he gave me is at my right hand even as I type this.)

 

[HankD]

It is what is presently published as "The TR" by the Trinitarian Bible Society. The problem is that it never existed until sometime around 1894. It is an eclectic text edited from the other 30+ "TRs" that have been published since Erasmus/Jiménez.

Yes and this is exactly what I like about it.

If you prefer the TR it is probably as good as any, but was edited to indicate the source manuscripts for the word choices in the KJV rather than the other way around.

ibid above.

Personally I prefer the Byzantine Textform published by Dr. Maurice Robinson, Senior Professor of New Testament Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. (In the interest of full disclosure I may be a bit biased. I had the opportunity some years ago to sit down with Dr. Robinson for several hours at a San Diego Denny's and discuss textual criticism and the monumental work he and William Pierpont accomplished in producing and publishing "The New Testament According to the Byzantine Textform." The copy of that work which he gave me is at my right hand even as I type this.)

um, well, I have an affinity for the Johannine Comma which is omitted from the Robinson Text (Don't know about the Denny's version ).

Another reason why I like the Latinized Scrivener TR (includes 1 john 5:7).

Also there is no complicated apparatus to decrypt

And No, I am not KJVO anymore.

HankD

 

[Van]

The last time I ate at Denny's, it was a truck stop off I-10 in Phoenix and the food and service did not meet expectations.

As I said, there are three basic underlying texts, the CT on which the NASB, NIV, LEB and ESV are based. The Byz text, on which the WEB is based, and the TR on which the KJV and NKJV are based. No need to argue about how many classifications can dance on the head of a pin.

If you are going to stick with the TR, then the NKJV is more accurate than the KJV. But the WEB or LEB or NASB are more accurate than any TR based translation.

 

[HankD]

The last time I ate at Denny's, it was a truck stop off I-10 in Phoenix and the food and service did not meet expectations.

As I said, there are three basic underlying texts, the CT on which the NASB, NIV, LEB and ESV are based. The Byz text, on which the WEB is based, and the TR on which the KJV and NKJV are based. No need to argue about how many classifications can dance on the head of a pin.

If you are going to stick with the TR, then the NKJV is more accurate than the KJV. But the WEB or LEB or NASB are more accurate than any TR based translation.

 

[rsr]

As I said, there are three basic underlying texts, the CT on which the NASB, NIV, LEB and ESV are based. The Byz text, on which the WEB is based, and the TR on which the KJV and NKJV are based. No need to argue about how many classifications can dance on the head of a pin.

They why do you insist on doing so? Doc is correct: There are two primary text forms, Alexandrian and Byzantine. The TR (whichever flavor you pick) is a subset of the Byzantine text and the underlying text of the KJV is a related form of the Byzantine text with its own peculiarities. (The Scrivener text shows this to be the case; he labored mightily to reconcile all the renderings and chase them down, but even he was not able to find all the sources.)

 

[Van]

Hi Rsr, my post made my position crystal clear. You are making classifications without merit. To claim the TR is not different from the Byzantine, is to claim the WEB is not different from the NKJV. The whole effort was simply to find fault. The underlying text classification refers to what text was used for an available English translation. This should be obvious.

Birdlover99, if you want to stick with the TR, go with the NKJV. But you would be better served to go with the NASB95, the LEB, or the WEB.

 

[Van]

Hi HankD, I expect you intended to say something in post #30, but all I see is my quote.

 

[TCassidy]

To claim the TR is not different from the Byzantine,

Nobody has made such a claim. No more than you have claimed the two primary source manuscripts for the Critical Text, Aleph and B, are different textforms because they differ between themselves over 3000 times in the Gospels alone.

The whole effort was simply to find fault.

No, it was to correct your error of understanding that the TR is not a representative text type of the Byzantine textform. It is. And anybody with even a basic understanding of textual criticism knows that.

 

[rsr]

Hi Rsr, my post made my position crystal clear. You are making classifications without merit. To claim the TR is not different from the Byzantine, is to claim the WEB is not different from the NKJV. The whole effort was simply to find fault. The underlying text classification refers to what text was used for an available English translation. This should be obvious.

Yes, it was crystal clear. And wrong. Yes, the TR (and the reconstructed KJV text by Scrivener) are different from the Majority text. Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus and Vaticanus all differ, but they are in substantial agreement compared to the various flavors of the Byzantine. I am making classifications with merit; you, as usual, stubbornly cling to your own system for who knows what reason. Probably just so you can contend you are right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[Van]

LOL folks, neither even addresses how they missed "underlying text." The KJV and NKJV are translated from the TR, the WEB translation is based on the Byzantine, and the NASB, LEB, ESV, and NIV are based on the CT. This should be obvious.

Birdlover99 deserves better than obfuscation.

 

[Smyth]

There are three primary versions of the Greek text for the New Testament. The one I think is the best most accurate version is called Critical Text, and is favored by most modern scholars.

I agree, there are three main text types. The Critical Text is a modern text, created by academicians who pick and choose words from any ancient Greek text. As such, it suffers from modern liberal biases and errors from speculation.

Consider, Colossians 4:15 mentions a man named Nymphos. Neither the Received Text nor the Majority text refer to him as a her, but the Critical Text calls him a her. The compilers of the CT would defend their decision by assuming the ancient texts were changed by sexist men. (There is one ancient Greek text, out of thousands, that calls him a her, the Vatican codex, which gives the CT compilers their foot in the door.)

And, so, the modern translations that use the CT calls Nymphos a her.

 

[Van]

Without addressing your particular example, I am sure the CT contains errors. The issue is which (CT or Byz) contains the fewest errors. I think it is the CT.

Here is the NET footnote:

33tc If the name Nympha is accented with a circumflex on the ultima (Νυμφᾶν, Numfan), then it refers to a man; if it receives an acute accent on the penult (Νύμφαν), the reference is to a woman. Scribes that considered Nympha to be a man’s name had the corresponding masculine pronoun αὐτοῦ here (autou, “his”; so D [F G] Ψ Ï), while those who saw Nympha as a woman read the feminine αὐτῆς here (auth", “her”; B 0278 6 1739[*] 1881 sa). Several mss (א A C P 075 33 81 104 326 1175 2464bo) have αὐτῶν (autwn, “their”), perhaps because of indecisiveness on the gender of Nympha, perhaps because they included ἀδελφούς (adelfou", here translated “brothers and sisters”) as part of the referent. (Perhaps because accents were not part of the original text, scribes were particularly confused here.) The harder reading is certainly αὐτῆς, and thus Nympha should be considered a woman.

 

[Smyth]

Without addressing your particular example, I am sure the CT contains errors. The issue is which (CT or Byz) contains the fewest errors. I think it is the CT.

Here is the NET footnote:

33tc If the name Nympha is accented with a circumflex on the ultima (Νυμφᾶν, Numfan), then it refers to a man; if it receives an acute accent on the penult (Νύμφαν), the reference is to a woman. Scribes that considered Nympha to be a man’s name had the corresponding masculine pronoun αὐτοῦ here (autou, “his”; so D [F G] Ψ Ï), while those who saw Nympha as a woman read the feminine αὐτῆς here (auth", “her”; B 0278 6 1739[*] 1881 sa). Several mss (א A C P 075 33 81 104 326 1175 2464bo) have αὐτῶν (autwn, “their”), perhaps because of indecisiveness on the gender of Nympha, perhaps because they included ἀδελφούς (adelfou", here translated “brothers and sisters”) as part of the referent. (Perhaps because accents were not part of the original text, scribes were particularly confused here.) The harder reading is certainly αὐτῆς, and thus Nympha should be considered a woman.

Scribes considered Nymphos to be man? The presumption should be that they considered him to be a man because the sources they used referred to him as him.

A few manuscripts use "they", plural (don't confuse their plural with our modern misuse of plurals for a singular of unknown gender). A scribe could have tried to make the pronoun match the plural "brothers" used earlier in the verse. In any case, these manuscript also don't refer to Nymphos as her.

The CT goes with "her" with the reasoning that this is the "harder reading"? Van, what makes it the harder reading (other than Liberal bias)? And, how much weight should be put on a "harder reading" (letting one manuscript trump a thousand)?

 

[Van]

Not sure what your point is, Smyth. The Byz goes with him, the CT goes with her. I did not see a compelling argument for either, The gender is uncertain.