On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:24:17 -0500, " Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

Yes, but the NKJV does include in its footnotes the differences
between the KJV Majority Texts and present day Majority Texts.

The what? You are generalizing.

Sure. That's what the majority texts are! A generalization.
Maybe our problem is a matter of capitalization. Suppose I refer to
the Textus Receptus, the Byzantine text as the Majority Text, with
caps, and the collected modern summation of ancient sources as the
majority text, without caps. Would that help?

No. There is no such creature as a "Byzantine text."

I'm sure you must be aware of that name used in reference to those
texts that had been preserved in Byzantium --Erasmus' sources-- and
that those texts, with his additions, became the Textus Receptus.
If the term gives you heartburn that's not my problem.

There is no such creature as a "Majority text." There is no such
creature as one Textus Receptus.

Of course there isn't! The very name Majority Text implies a concesus,
a summation. "That which we find in most of our available copies"

Of course you can't. For the reason that each of those words, when
modifying "text" in reference to the history of the New Testament,
represents multiple manuscripts and texts all of which differ slightly

each other.

Which is what I've been saying all along! What's your problem?

I believe that what you mean to assert is that the various families of

Testament readings exist and each contains specific Greek wording that

not appear in the other families of readings. Generally, there are four
families of Greek New Testament families of readings, Alexandrian,
Caesarean, Western, and Byzantine. There are also readings referred to

some writers as "wild" meaning that certain specific phrases therein are
unique to that particular manuscript. Of these families of readings, the
Byzantine family of manuscripts contains the majority of the Greek
manuscripts of the New Testament known to be extant. None of the
manuscripts included in the Byzantine family of readings is earlier than

late fourth century. Well over half were written after the tenth

Some were written as late as the 16th century.

Sure. So what are you getting so hysterical about?

What specific Majority texts do you refer to?

There's no such thing as a specific majority text. The majority text
is a concept not a specific text. If for a given passage 19 out of 32
texts say A while the rest say B and C, then the majority reading is
A. If for another passage 12 out of 17 texts say something then that's
what's used. Notice the different number of textual sources there?
That's because we have 32 instances of some passages and only 17 of
another.

I know that. That is why I asked , "What specific Majority texts do you
refer to?" in the hope you would identify the specific manuscripts or
imprints you refer to.

Wasn't it obvious that I wasn't referring to ANY specific manuscript?

My question still stands unanswered.

And will remain forever so since I never intended to refer to any one
manuscript.

And what in the world do you mean by "present day Majority Texts"?

The consensus of hundreds of textual bits and pieces and thousands of
manuscripts found in the centuries since the KJV was translated.

I just made a quick count of the finds during the 20th century, and find
that over half of the newly found manuscripts re indeed not of the
Byzantine/Majority family of readings. Most are Alexandarian, Western,
Caearean, or "wild."

Which is why, as I stated, the KJV differs from the majority of
readings in the manuscripts available to translators today.

Obviously (or at least it should be) one must compare the
texts from which these two translations were made.

That's what those footnotes do.

They do, huh?

Are the footnotes in Greek? Do they faithfully reproduce the Greek

the texts and manuscripts?

You're all hung up on the quality of translation. That's not the
problem! The problem is the AUTHENTICITY OF THE SOURCES

No, I really am not concerned at all by the quality of translation.

Then why were you concerned that they faithfully reproduce the Greek
from the texts and manuscripts?

I read
the Greek manuscripts, and some in Latin. What precisely do you mean by
"the AUTHENTICITY OF THE SOURCES" [sic]?

Surely you must be aware that our revered Erasmus had a habit of
filling in missing passages with translations from the Latin versions
of the NT, and by his own admission his Novum Instrumentum Omne
was "praecipitatum verius qua meditum"

By the way, you neglected to
reply to the question as asked. Kindly do so.

No the footnotes are not in Greek! Sheeesh!

How precisely do these footnotes compare texts and manuscripts that

been identified? Or do the notes in your NKJV identify which texts

manuscripts were used by the translators of the KJV of 1611? If so,

are they? Can you kindly post a list? Or at least provide a complete
bibliographic citation for the specific NKJV you refer to? Thanks.

That's irrelevant to the issue.

No, those questions are exactly on point and most relevant. The

are simple. Why can't you answer them?

Because no specific manuscript is meant when one refers to a consensus
of the readings of thousands of manuscripts under the term "majority
texts".

And the KJV translators had neither the time nor the
resources to compare every passage to see if it was in fact the
commonest Greek text. They assumed that since most of it was, all of
it was.

You're all wound up to jump on some
KJV translator or some NKJV translator for an error in translation.
But such quibbles have no point if the source bears no resemblance to
the original. Who cares if he got the translation right if his source
is bogus?

Precisely what "original" do you refer to?

The Holy Grail of all translators... the long lost, never to be found,
and quite possibly mythic "original autograph".

Kindly identify the exact
manuscript[s] you refer to, can you?

Well you see there were these guys who wrote on a parchment, or maybe
vellum, or possibly papyrus, in the first century, or maybe it was
early in the second. We don't know their names, or where they wrote,
but it was Gospels they scribbled... and those were the originals.

Now we almost certainly will never find those originals, they were
burned or crumbled to dust long ago, and all we have are copies of
copies of copies, and we're not sure that some of the copies haven't
been embroidered, or redacted, or fiddled with.

But the idea is to get
as far back down that chain as we possibly can.

OK?

Where did you get the idea that the "Majority Texts" are a data

term was being bandied about long before computers were applied to New
Testament problems. To the contrary, the Majority texts are a group

Greek manuscripts and early printed Greek texts that are a sub group

the Byzantine family of readings.

That's what they were in the 17th century! But I hope if I choose my
capitalization carefully henceforth I can clarify matters.

No, that is still what the Majority texts are. What specific data base

you refer to? Where may I examine it?

Why would you want to?

As we have agreed, the whole idea of the
majority reading being the best reading is stupid!
I don't suppose the
really heavy-duty scholars would give you a peek in their personal
compilations.

However, there are databases around that the public can
access. For instance Michael Jones at the University of Cambridge
maintains a database that allows you to find all papyrus and uncial
manuscripts that contain a particular verse. The data was provided by
Vincent Broman. http://www.stoa.org/bible/bible.pl

You see, both sides must know precisely which manuscript or reading is

debated. One cannot debate generalizations such as "Majority texts"

both sides must know precisely which word is being examined.

If you insist on comparing manuscripts you're never going to get
anywhere.

That's as futile as compiling majority readings.

What needs to be done is statistical analysis.

Tracing variances back
through time in an effort to discover where they originated. Analysing
writing styles, word usage, spelling variations and suchlike to ferret
out the history of these writings.

Now the start of this brouhaha was my question below:
Then why doesn't the KJV follow the majority texts? The KJV differs
from the majority texts in more than 300 places.

For instance Acts
9:5-6, Luke 17:36 , Acts 8:37 and Acts 15:34 would not appear if the
KJV agreed with the majority. Nor would a good part of your John 5:7-8

When I wrote "majority texts" I meant the 5000 Greek manuscripts
presently available, not the product of Erasmus' favorite printer!

## FANATIC: A man who won't change his mind,
## and won't change the subject
Winston Churchill