For years, the NIV has been the most loved, and most hated of the modern Bible versions produced in the 20th Century. Many of us who used to be KJV-only advocates used to reserve our sharpest criticisms for the NIV. Perhaps that background is one of the reasons many of us still are hesitant to use it. We just prefer a more literal approach to Bible translation for various reasons.
With the advent of Today’s New International Version, there was an outcry about gender neutral language run too far. Partly as a result of this controversy, the English Standard Version was produced. The ESV is a conservative remake of the somewhat liberal Revised Standard Version. And the ESV took the Bible market by storm, as many Reformed pastors and teachers have made it their Bible of choice. It is making inroads into non-Reformed segments of Christianity as well.
Along the way, people like Leland Ryken, John Piper and Wayne Grudem have had some not so flattering things to say about the NIV, and especially the TNIV. And many other conservative scholars have concurred. At issue are the many places where the NIV smooths over the text to make nice sounding English, but in the process obscures the presence of important connector words like “for” and other features of the text which influence its interpretation. Many feel the NIV makes too many interpretive choices for its readers. Of course the gender neutrality of the TNIV is not a problem in the NIV, but the direction the TNIV took seems to be far afield of where conservative scholarship thinks we should go with respect to Scriptural integrity.
In light of this reaction, I was initially hopeful that the announcement of a new NIV update might promise a turn toward a better direction for the NIV. After reading the translators’ notes about the new update, I am inclined to think it actually is the positive change I was hoping for. In several cases they move toward a greater transparency to the original text. They restore many of the missing “for”s, and the gender neutral language concerns seem for the most part to be satisfactorily addressed. The tack they take is not much different than the ESV which also uses some gender neutral language in an attempt to employ contemporary English.
In this whole process I was also pleased to learn that the publishing house has little control, if any, over the actual text of the Bible translation. The translation aspects of the NIV are kept separate from the publishing and marketing arm of spreading the finished product abroad.
I encourage you to read the translator’s notes on this important update for yourself. You can also see a video introduction of the text by Douglas Moo, the chair of the translation committee. Furthermore, there are several comparison tools available for comparing the 1984 NIV text, and the TNIV and now the new 2011 NIV Update edition. BibleGateway can do that. And a couple other sites have comparison tools for comparing the various manifestations of the NIV: This site has a drop down menu to pull up the text a chapter at a time. This one offers several different comparison points between the editions.
I think this whole update was handled transparently and honestly. I believe it is a good sign that evangelicalism as a whole has a careful concern for the text of Scripture and aren’t just ready to adopt any translation that can be made. The respect and care with which the translators of the NIV handle their work has been apparent through the whole process. I think the end result will prove to be a blessing to the wider church, even with the presence of other useful, conservatively produced translations. May this lead to a greater unity and a lessening of the “Bible wars” which have been transpiring in the last decade or so. I for one, am eager to get a copy of this new NIV, to see how it compares with my ESV.
One last word: check out Rick Mansfield’s review of the updated NIV. I’m sure more reviews will be forthcoming, in the next few weeks.
King James Only? 
mr.scrivener has added the 60 some homoioteleuton errors that the new NIV 2010 version has insisted on perpetuating here:
NIV 2010 is the last column on right:
http://adultera.awardspace.com/AF/Omissions.html
You can see that they did very little textual criticism, but simply followed the UBS/NA text.
There are one or two improvements, but not on key verses like the denial of Peter in Mark.
peace
Nazaroo
Hi Folks,
Thanks for the excellent homoioteleuton/arcton work, overall the best I have seen.
Two things.
Would the 1 John 5:18 variant be included ? If so, do you think there are many more sleepers like that one (we are discussing on this thread with bibleprotector) ? If not, why not ?
And I hope you noted my post about the heavenly witnesses and homoioteleuton on the textual criticism forum. There is quite an interesting historical debate involved.
And do you prefer homoioteleuton or homoeoteleuton for lunch ?
Shalom,
Steven Avery
I’m certainly not claiming the new NIV is perfect. I think it’s an improvement, all things considered. And I hope to get a copy soon to try it out and see how it is from personal use.
So, you think that the publisher didn’t redact the translation too much? Why do you think this? I have heard indefinite assertions to the contrary, and I am inclined to believe them. For instance, concerning the translation of the wayyiqtol verb in Gen 2:19 as “had formed.” Or Genesis 12:1 doing the same thing so as to harmonize it to Acts 7:2, etc.
I would like to know who was behind those particular choices and others like them.
I’m sure there are plenty of translational changes, but probably very few of those are based on alterations or the adoption of new readings from the Greek.
Most of the changes will just involve issues of translation, not underlying text.
At the same time, while I’m here I have to comment on the removal of many footnotes from the text. This is a mixed blessing:
On the one hand, it is probably good that they have dropped many of the terse and annoying footnotes, since they are rarely accurate or useful, and are often misleading regarding the state of the MSS.
On the other hand, now there are often no indications at all that text has been omitted based on the Alexandrian MSS (no real change of underlying text appears to have been made most of the time), and so the reader has no warning that the text is not the traditional text at all, but the creation of the Aland “sisters”.
peace
Nazaroo
Hi Folks,
“the reader has no warning that the text is not the traditional text at all, but the creation of the Aland“
This was more of a problem with the tricky preface language in various versions some years back. With the internet, any reader can be quickly informed.
“caveat biblio”
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Gary,
See the last full paragraph of pg. 247 and the first part of pg. 248 of this .pdf containing a history of the NIV. Also somewhere I came across a FAQ which highlighted this same fact that the rules which have been in place since the beginning of the NIV have kept the sole editorial control over the translation in the hands of the independent Committee on Bible Translation.
More info on all this is available here.
Naz,
The preface of the NIV makes it clear what the basis is. The online text may not include that, but the printed versions will.
Thanks, Bob. That’s quite helpful. I hope that the source is correct. I suppose it is the confessional basis, then, that led to the harmonization. I like that the ESV, at least, put “formed” as an alternate reading in 2:19 and put the more probable reading as the textual choice in 12:1.
Also: though I never owned a TNIV, the 1984 NIV preface does indeed state that they were working off an eclectic text.
Gary,
I would think it is the confessionalism, yes. Also the ESV has that translation at Gen. 2:19 but includes the “formed” translation in a footnote.
Interesting that you brought that verse up, too. I’ll have to think on it some more.
Bob
Hi Folks,
First, the NIV was my main early Bible when I became a believer in the Lord Jesus, it was at that moment supplanting the NAS. We considered it more evangelical .. as part of a progressive movement of more of God’s truth and revelation (really, and this was from my best friend, even today 🙂 ).
Bob
“Many of us who used to be KJV-only advocates used to reserve our sharpest criticisms for the NIV. ”
Since textual differences are far more significant than translational, I believe that any such emphasis from KJB defenders is misplaced. My general view of absolutely any of the dozens of modern version from the textus corruptus is GIGO. (Metaphorically speaking.)
While the articles that highlight verses are very informative, I think that any KJB defender who puts the emphasis on “the NIV” .. “the NAS” .. “the HCSB” .. the “ESV” .. is doing their readers a disservice by emphasizing the minors .. as if the translational differences in those versions were significant.
Rarely an individual verse may be of note : e.g. the NAS literal only begotten God of John 1:18 .. however for the most part they all represent one text.
Imo, KJB proponents should expend very little energy dissecting and analyzing such texts. More than enough work has been done. Use Brandon Stagg’s magic marker page for a quick overview of a couple of hundred omissions, learn by your own studies, and move on.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Avery:
“Use Brandon Stagg’s magic marker page for a quick overview of a couple of hundred omissions, learn by your own studies, and move on.”
Unfortunately, Stagg’s “magic marker” version isn’t likely to teach a person anything. It’s nothing more than a simplistic attempt to convince the uneducated reader that modern versions are leaving text out of the bible. By using verses from the KJV and strikethru font, Staggs shows how those verses would be changed when translated from the CT. He tries to create the impression that important verses or doctrines are affected by these differences. Except he never takes the obvious next step and demonstrates this. He wants the reader to assume it, so he doesn’t have to do the work.
Like most garden-variety KJVOs, Staggs assumes his own conclusion. Like the KJVO who compares a modern version against the English KJV instead of comparing against the original Greek, Staggs assumes that these extra words in the KJV (or more precisely, the TR Greek) are correct, without ever demonstrating that.
Redgreen5: “Staggs assumes that these extra words in the KJV (or more precisely, the TR Greek) are correct, without ever demonstrating that.”
But others have demonstrated it.
Staggs’ page is quite useful for showing at a glance the many verses and half-verses deleted by Hort on the basis of Aleph/B.
It does not matter whether Hort was right that a common ancestor of these two MSS was the source of the omissions.
The fact is that over 70 of them can be shown to be simple uncorrected errors due to homoioteleuton (skips caused by similar endings of lines). If so, Redgreen5’s point has no significance.
Hort may have correctly reconstructed the lost ancestor of Aleph/B, but copying its plain errors into the Greek text used by Christians for translating Bibles is a methodological error of the stupidest kind.
The correct procedure is this:
(1) The early intermediate text is identified and reconstructed using “Agreement in Error” techniques, which are quite valid in themselves.
(2) Then it is mandatory to remove all the known and previously identified errors in this text, before using it to correct the actual working text.
Only a moron would take a text with known errors and use it raw and uncorrected to “correct” another text.
Textual critics have been making this methodological mistake for nearly 100 years, and the result is not a demonstration of the validity of the critical Greek text, but a demonstration that they are completely clueless.
For a list of the 70 known homoioteleuton errors in the Alexandrian text (Aleph/B) see our masterpage here, which links to demonstrations of each case of accidental omission of the text:
http://adultera.awardspace.com/AF/Omissions.html
peace
Nazaroo
To make this clear, imagine if car mechanics operated the way textual critics do:
MechA: “Lets replace the old motor with the motor from that other old car over there.”
MechB: “But isn’t that as in need of repair as this one? Shouldn’t we at least rebuild it first?”
MechA: “Who cares? The customer can’t complain. Its at least as good as the one we took out.”
————————-
How about Doctors?
DocA: “Lets do the transplant with this kidney: its larger than the other one.”
DocB: “But that kidney is cancerous. The smaller one is at least healthy.”
DocA: “Who cares? The one he has now isn’t working. Bigger is better.”
———————–
What if nuclear physicists had the same laisez faire?
PhysA: “Time to replace the fuel-rods in the reactor.”
PhysB: “We don’t have time to purify more uranium. Lets just use the old rods we took out last year. We’ve got a whole abandoned mine full of them.”
PhysA: “But won’t that make things worse?”
PhysB: “Who cares?”
———————–
How about the chef preparing your meal?
ChefA: “This meat has aged too long. Its turned gray/green, and mould is growing on it.”
ChefB: “We have one simple rule: Older is Better. Don’t try to complicate things.”
———————–
peace
Nazaroo
Hi Folks,
redgreen
“He tries to create the impression that important verses or doctrines are affected by these differences. Except he never takes the obvious next step and demonstrates this. ”
This is silly. Brandon is showing the “facts on the ground”. Clearly when you talk about doctrinal matters, mileage varies, and you can get into diversionary debates right and left. One man’s proof is another’s puzzle is a thirds “I don’t care .. and nothing is proven”.
What the magic marker page shows you are simply the facts .. the TR-KJB includes these sections, verses and phrases, and they are not in the modern versions from the abbreviated alexandrian NA-27 et al.
If you prefer the abbreviated text, if you believe that the word of God was added to in hundreds of places rather than the far simpler dynamic of textual omission, that is your scholastic right .. or wrong.
Would you take a magic marker to your Bible and cross out words from passages?
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html
And historically this is exactly what has occurred. The historical Bible was (snipped) right and left in the 1881 “revision”. Your decision today as choose Bible life or (snip).
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
In this latest edition of the NIV, I see all kinds of changes to their 1984 work.
When I compared 1 John chapter 5 between the KJB, NIV 1984 and the new edition of the NIV, I found this strange verse:
“We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them.” (confero per tunc).
“We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.” (1 John 5:19).
The middle part of the verse in the KJB says, “he that is begotten of God keepeth himself”, a reference to Christians who are begotten of God in the New Birth, and how they are to live.
Whereas, the new edition of the NIV claims, “the One who was born of God keeps them safe”, and by using a capital letter on “One”, we may assume that they mean the person Christ, not the Christian, is involved in the keeping. In other words, is absolves Christians of any responsibility, as though the matter is merely in God’s hand, and nothing to do with us. I object strongly to that doctrine. I think the NIV has changed Scripture to make a false doctrine.
This looks strongly like an ultra-Calvinist gloss.
It would be nice to get some “experts” in Koine Greek to weigh in on this interpretation.
The “begotten” in the original translation consciously points back to John’s Gospel “only begotten Son” (another verse often substituted with an Alexandrian minority reading).
Clearly the NIV-2010 translators have something in mind quite different than the KJV translators did.
peace
Nazaroo
Hi Folks,
Not just ultra-Calvinist, any OSAS person might like the alexandrian reading, although it is exceedingly awkward and ends up translated in conflicting ways.
So I was thinking that it is possible that one reason this verse gets a bit less attention from some KJB brethren is that doctrinally they prefer more OSAS. Or simply, it was missed in the mountain of corruptions (yet it is in one of the most famous chapters in the Bible !). If anybody sees a modern write-up on the textual issue (NETBible has one) especially from KJB defenders, I would like to see what they say. Please share away, I have only found a smidgen, and may check more later. e.g. John Gill would at most barely mention the alternative, simply as a textual aside, since it is Vaticanus and some Latin mss. Moderns, they are wrestling with their textual-translational difficulty.
At any rate, Nazaroo, note that this is a dropped letter in the alexandrian ultra-minority reading, so it looks like it is your type of verse analysis.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
bibleprotector
Whereas, the new edition of the NIV claims, “the One who was born of God keeps them safe”, and by using a capital letter on “One”, we may assume that they mean the person Christ, not the Christian, is involved in the keeping. In other words, is absolves Christians of any responsibility, as though the matter is merely in God’s hand, and nothing to do with us.
It does no such thing. Using your argument, I suppose this passage – also written by John – must “absolve Christians of any responsibility, as though the matter were merely in God’s hand”?
“28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”
The difference here is not caused by any sinister intention on the part of NIV translators to plant a new doctrine in this passage. The difference in wording is caused by a difference in the underlying Greek. Scroll down to verse 18 and notice that the word before the kai is different:
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B62C005.htm
Incidentally, this is the same way that the two chief representatives of the NA27 CT (formal equivalence) school versions translated the verse:
NASB
18(AG)We know that (AH)no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God (AI)keeps him, and (AJ)the evil one does not (AK)touch him.
HCSB
18 We know that everyone who has been born of God does not sin, but the One [e] who is born of God keeps him, (S) [f] [g] and the evil one does not touch him.
Now you may not like the NA27 GNT textual base. But this NIV translation of 1Jn 5:18 appears to be a faithful translation of that Greek, whatever one may think about it.
However, it shouldn’t have been necessary to refer to the Greek. Your argument doesn’t work for a more obvious and fundamental reason. If the NIV translators were trying to absolve Christians of any responsibility in their salvation, then why did the NIV translators retain these verses in the same first epistle of John?
1Jn1
6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all[b] sin.
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.
1Jn 2
3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God[a] is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.
Both passages point out the responsibility of believers. And there are other examples besides these two passages. So either:
(a) the NIV translators were exceedingly incompetent in trying to plant a new, false doctrine with their translation, because they only changed 1 John 5:18 but failed to modify other verses;
OR
(b) the justification for their chosen translation of 1 John 5:18 has nothing whatsoever to do with hidden doctrinal motives
I object strongly to that doctrine. I think the NIV has changed Scripture to make a false doctrine.
You object to a phantom; the NIV2010 does no such thing.
Hi Folks,
bibleprotector, the modern version doctrinal error you are finding in 1 John 5:18 was a Revision corruption, the root source is ** ultra-minority ** textual. Discussed by Dean John Burgon in Revision Revised, you can read about it here:
Revision Revised – Westcott and Hort’s Textual Theory
http://books.google.com/books?id=vVgAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA366
Despite its importance, there are so many such alexandrian textual corruptions that this one has received little note.
The new NIV adds to the problem with the unusual plural “them” and “the One”, a term that sounds like it comes from my new age days and is simply not the Bible term for the Lord Jesus Christ. As I mentioned above, it is barely worthwhile to keep up with textus corruptus editions, apparently the older NIV had “one” and “him” .. the same basic error.
There are other corruption attempts in other versions (once they accept the W-H NA-27 text they go all over the map) such as changing it to “God protects the one”.
However the root problem, as in John 1:18, 1 Timothy 3:16 and verse after verse, is textual .. not translational. The ultra-minority textual corruption does encourage them to flights of translational fancy.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Actually, Philip Comfort lists the uncorrected Codex A and B with the itala as being supports of the NIV reading. He has Aleph listed with the Majority text on that point, and with the corrected A. I wonder if that is a glitch, maybe it should say Aleph not A.
Anyway the NIV 2011 doesn’t differ much from the NIV 1984 on that point, and it is a textual not translational issue.
Hi Folks,
Based on Laparola, Comfort is right, he is talking about a correction to Alexandrinus. Four other uncials all support the TR text and also the great mass of Byzantine manuscripts (Comfort tends to omit uncomfortable information).
A textbook example of why KJB folks should understand the stemmata ideas of Professor Robinson, this 99%-type preponderance on hundreds of cursive manuscripts is really probative to antiquity and far more significant than 2 or 3 individual uncials.
This is an interesting variant, I hope to look up the early church writers and see if the apparatus is accurate. Jerome and two others are listed as supporting the corruption (not surprising for Jerome, since the Latin line is generally without “himself”}. And Origen and Ephraem (the earliest) and two others support the AV-reading, supporting antiquity strongly (antiquity does not necessarily mean original, however the alexandrian Hortian neutral text argument is based on the very false idea that Byzantine readings are not antiquity).
My view is that every early church writer (yes, even Origen, also Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, et al) from the 2nd and 3rd century who weighs in clearly on a verse is far more significant than a localized (and full of scribal corruptions) alexandrian manuscript from the 4th century. In a sensible textual world. If you read Erasmus and the superb Reformation-era textual experts you see a similar perspective. And also Dean John Burgon.
Note for techie experts. Ephraem is interesting, as according to Laparola this is the Peshitta reading as well, the earliest full Syriac line(big debate as to the dating of the Peshitta and whether Ephraem had such a text available).
Shalom,
Steven
No Comfort wasn’t hiding evidence. He did point out the majority had the TR reading. What I was talking about was that Comfort says it is not Aleph and B who alone support the reading of NA27. He says it is A and B with the itala. Aleph supports the TR reading, according to Comfort and Laparola. Here’s the link for searching Laparola’s index: http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php
So actually, Burgon is wrong on this point. And Comfort actually understates the evidence for the NIV reading.
Okay, let me take that back! Burgon says Codex A sometimes conspires exclusively with Codex B. I thought he was saying this was a place where Aleph and B exclusively (as opposed to all other manuscripts) conspired in error. So he did say Codex A. And I misinterpreted his “exclusively” line as I believe he gives other evidence in the footnotes and later on with other manuscripts that support the A/B reading.
Avery:
“This is silly. Brandon is showing the “facts on the ground”. ”
What is silly is his – and your – attempt to recharacterize KJBO material as “facts on the ground”. Granting yourselves credibility by fiat does not work.
“Clearly when you talk about doctrinal matters, mileage varies, and you can get into diversionary debates right and left.”
The point is that when presenting information for consideration, you avoid such blatantly obvious slanted sources and present the most dispassionate material that you can find.
“What the magic marker page shows you are simply the facts…”
Simply not true. If that were all Staggs had done, then I wouldn’t have voiced any objection. Of course, if Staggs had simply presented a dispassionate comparison of TR vs. CT renderings, the you wouldn’t have recommended his magic marker list in the first place.
For example, Michael Marlowe’s excellent website show the same comparison material in an objective, scholarly manner – only with far more detail, and minus the doctrinal baggage: http://www.bible-researcher.com/guide.html
If people really want to learn this material, Marlowe’s collations are far more educational than a KJBO “magic marker” list. Of course, Marlowe’s site also shows variations within the TR tradition, which isn’t exactly something a KJBO wants to call attention to, now is it?
No, what Staggs does is precisely what I said: he tries to create the impression that important verses or doctrines are affected by these differences. But he never gets around to proving that – because he cannot. He hopes that “doctrine by insinuation” will suffice.
“If you prefer the abbreviated text,….”
What I – or you – prefer is irrelevant. You held up Stagg’s list as an educational source, which it fails to be for the reasons stated. If you merely wanted a side-by-side comparison of CT vs. TR renderings, there are plenty of more useful sites out there that present that same info – in better format – and without all the doctrinal baggage and proof-by-innuendo one finds on the av1611.com site.
“Would you take a magic marker to your Bible and cross out words from passages?”
An excellent example of assuming one’s conclusion, as I noted earlier. One could just as easily ask, “Would you accept these *additions* to the bible even though many are late, poorly attested, and deviate even from the TR itself – and thus change God’s word in the process?”
See? I can play that game too.
Hi Folks,
” you wouldn’t have recommended his magic marker list in the first place.
Right .. simply be Brandon gives the more pertinent information to see and understand the actual differences. Brandon Staggs did a superb HTML presentation job on the material where the actual text, often of the full verse, is visible, and that ihat the reader needs most.
Michael Marlowe’s pages, whose material I often use and recommend, does not.
If a person wants to see clearly the actual section or verse, which is really the critical issue, Brandon’s page is far superior. If you are doing a collation for some scholarly this and that, you may prefer Michaels.
Although I used the Brandon material on a study of Peshitta confluence with the TR contra the Alexandrian text which results I gave on the textcrit forum. It was actually excellent for the purpose.
And please stop with the red herring “proving this” stuff. When you whiff that line, you sound just like the skeptics, I discussed this above.
What we prefer, and our convictions, is extremely relevant. I will state clearly, with 100% conviction, that I believe the Reformation Bible is the pure word of God and that W-H is a textus corruptus. We are here as Christians, we share our BELIEFS … and that includes the identity of the pure Bible. There are other forums where beliefs and convictions are essentially out of bounds, you may prefer those for dispassionate scholarly chit-chat.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Nazaroo:
“But others have demonstrated it.”
Apparently not, as the majority of bible scholars and textual critics remain unconvinced of these alleged mistakes. You may agree with these scholars, or you may disagree. But to claim that such-and-such has been proven when the majority – the *overwhelming* majority – disagrees; well, that simply beggars credibility.
“’ ….page is quite useful for showing at a glance the many verses and half-verses deleted by Hort on the basis of Aleph/B.”
Also incorrect, for the reasons I stated to Avery.
“Only a moron would take a text with known errors and use it raw and uncorrected to “correct” another text.”
Moron?
Remind me again of your educational or career accomplishments in this field which would allow you to make such a sweeping statement?
Redgreen: “the majority of bible scholars and textual critics remain unconvinced of these alleged mistakes.”
Please provide a list of actual names, and which of the 70 homoioteleuton errors they believe are a case of mistaken identity as to cause.
We have quoted several scholars, including such amateurs as W. Willker, who have acknowledged in several cases that these are indeed probable homoioteleuton. See our notes.
But right now, I would like to see you produce any list, however incomplete, on any number of the 70 homoioteleuton we have listed.
Keep in mind that starting way back in the 1880s, others had already identified many of these as homoioteleuton. So its not our own personal opinion.
The main point is that these 70 cases exhibit the features of a probable homoioteleuton error. It would most certainly be very unusual if ALL, or even most of them were actually marginal glosses instead.
Do you really think it is credible that:
(a) Most homoioteleuton errors have distinctive features.
(b) Most suspected homoioteleuton errors have already been identified in the literature.
(c) The most common Haplography error is homoioteleuton.
In spite of all this, somehow most of the suspected homoioteleuton errors in the NT (our list of 70), are actually:
(a) cases of deliberate addition or accidental marginal gloss
(b) In spite of being deliberate/accidental glosses, they all coincidentally (or deliberately?) have the features of homoioteleuton errors!
That is, you expect us to believe that scribes not only added 70 half-verses to the NT, but that in each case, they disguised them as homoioteleuton errors?
..yeah…right. Okay.
Are you aware that no textual critic believes that scribes forged errors and even deliberate additions to make them look like alternate lines of transmission were homoioteleuton?
I would like to have a list of just one textual critic that thinks these homoioteleuton were faked.
While we are here, why not also posit a theory that all of Paul’s letters were forgeries, but were deliberately written to look exactly like other inauthentic letters of Paul, including realistic “errors” and inconsistencies so that the forgery would not be suspected.
Your idea seems to be nonsense.
Nazaroo:
“Please provide a list of actual names, and which of the 70 homoioteleuton errors they believe are a case of mistaken identity as to cause.”
You are confused. This is not about whether or not these are homoioteleuton errors. This is about you attempting to claim a point proven and declare victory when the majority of scholars and textcrit specialists don’t share your opinion. If the majority of actual, bonified, accredited experts with both educational and vocational credentials remain unconvinced, then you haven’t “proven” anything. Your claim is quite premature.
“We have quoted several scholars,…..”
Which hardly proves your case – nor does it refute what I said: the majority *disagree* with you. Hence any claim that you have proven your claim is wishful thinking.
Look at it this way: if the majority did not disagree with you, then you wouldn’t be trying to persuade people of your case, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Unless, of course, you believe that your position on the question of homoioteleuton errors is actually the view of a *majority* of scholars?
“Do you really think it is credible that:…..”
What I find not credible is that you have unilaterally declared your case proven, when a majority of *actual* scholars – those with both education and experience – disagree. You may disagree with them, but it is farcical to pretend that they share your view if they obviously do not.
Let’s remember: You’re the one who claimed they were morons. Burden of proof is on you, in spite of the fact that you have yet to explain what educational or vocational qualifications you possess that you believe qualify you to make such a rude statement.
“your idea seems to be nonsense.”
Probably because you didn’t understand my idea. Hopefully now you do.
Thank you for your gracious reply, RedGreen.
Regarding my question,
Naz: “Please provide a list of actual names“…
You responded:
RedGreen:
“the majority *disagree* with you. …”
“if the majority did not disagree with you, then you wouldn’t be trying”…
“a majority of *actual* scholars – those with both education and experience – disagree.” …
“Burden of proof is on you”…
– So your answer is No. You will not or cannot produce any list of actual names.
Basically, this “majority” of (now ‘actual’) “scholars” is going to remain anonymous and uncounted, unless I can get them to commit, and count them myself.
How much of a ‘majority’? 8 out of 10? or perhaps (approx.) 51%? Nobody knows. Why? Nobody has defined the list in the first place.
What was going to be a list of ‘actual’ Textual Critics, has now become only those you recognise as “bonified, accredited experts with both educational and vocational credentials”, thus excluding those not involved in teaching vocations or educational institutions.
At the same time, you have changed the definition from Textual Critics, which would be a very short list of real experts in this area, to the nebulous scholars, including every armchair academic willing to give an opinion in support of his favourite TC, whether or not this ‘expert’ has any real knowledge whatever of textual criticism.
Even with these ridiculous alterations to the list, where is it? It will never be forthcoming, because the “burden of proof” is on me: But mostly because most teachers and commentators are humble enough to defer to experts, and not pretend they are experts themselves. They won’t want to be counted on your list.
But while you are demanding that these ‘experts’ pass your strict standards, I have a few standards of my own I will also impose:
(a) That Every ‘expert’ actually be a textual critic, not a mere NT academic or teacher in some flakey American college.
(b) That every Textual Critic have additional qualifications in advanced mathematics. Because current courses and standards do not even expect these requirements let alone require them, and so being a “Textual Critic” is simply not sufficient to guarantee any of the critical scientific skills actually needed for the job.
Unless the ‘textual critic’ has at least a BSc., with a major in mathematics, especially statistics, and a course in scientific methodology, then frankly, they are inadequately trained for the job of reconstruction, which requires a deep understanding of scientific standards and experimental testing, and a knowledge of rigorous methodology.
Now that we know who will qualify and who won’t, we can begin contacting them and tabulating their votes regarding these 70 potential homoioteleuton
cases.
peace
Nazaroo
Okay, Nazaroo, you need to lay off here. I don’t know which 70 errors you’re talking about. It sounds like they are errors which are accepted by the scholarly majority as being original readings and hence are in the NA27 text. No more “moron” language, and no more demanding everyone give you a list of scholars. This is off topic.
Avery:
“A textbook example of why KJB folks should understand the stemmata ideas of Professor Robinson, this 99%-type preponderance on hundreds of cursive manuscripts is really probative to antiquity and far more significant than 2 or 3 individual uncials.”
Until and unless the KJV / TR follows a minority reading opposed by 99% of mss; for example, in Revelation. At that point, the KJBO proponents are perfectly willing to abandon the “99% probative” line of reasoning and manufacture all kinds of special exceptions to the “99% probative” principle, in an attempt to retain the KJV / TR reading.
(1) Why do “KJBO proponents” have to agree with Maurice Robinson?
It is obvious that Dr. Robinson doesn’t agree with KJBOs. Why should they agree with him on every point?
(2) Why should non-KJVBOs need to agree with either Robinson or KJBOs?
There are plenty of distinguishable nuanced positions that don’t correspond to specific versions of either of these two groups.
For instance, I myself don’t believe specifically in either the nuanced TR position, or the Majority position of Dr. Robinson and others, but I have my own view as follows:
(1) I can observe that the Majority Text is indispensable and mandatory as a working base-text. There is no other way to proceed scientifically, that is efficiently, than to begin with the text of the majority of manuscripts. This is just mathematical fact.
(2) This fact [#1] does not mean that the Majority Text is the original text or that it does not need further improvement. Thats what the rest of the evidence is for. It must be evaluated and explained, and if necessary, the text may need to be further improved, based on historical probabilities of the transcriptional kind.
(3) It is perfectly possible that the original reading has not been preserved by the Majority text. If indeed this has happened occasionally, the text should be adjusted to reflect the original text. That remains the goal of NT textual criticism.
(4) There is very likely a significant difference between the text used by the majority of Christians throughout the ages, and the text found in the majority of MSS. In other words, there are two ‘Majority’ texts at least. Further arguments and facts must help us identify each and choose between them.
(5) All this makes it abundantly clear that it is not inconsistent or hypocritical to abandon the Majority Text when necessary. And this is not a sign of inconsistency or of making convenient ‘special exceptions’ to favour a predetermined outcome, such as the TR. This is part of the normal activity of establishing the original text, which is what TC is all about.
Your fault-finding ‘fishing expedition’ is an illusion.
And those who practice real NT textual criticism are not ‘closet KJVOs’ or anything else. To claim they are, is to engage in conspiracy theories.
peace
Nazaroo
Hi Folks,
Redgreen .. I never wrote anything like “99% probative” .. you should at least read and understand first before you misquote me three times in one post ! That may be a new record !
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Avery:
Redgreen .. I never wrote anything like “99% probative” ..
*sigh*
What you wrote was:
” this 99%-type preponderance on hundreds of cursive manuscripts is really probative to antiquity….”
which I shortened to “99% probative”. Since the principle you elucidated is rather long, I was looking for a shorthand moniker to refer to this principle you introduced here. Since I was typing on an iPhone, the goal was to avoid retyping your sentence over and over. I could have also said “99% preponderance” or “99% stemmatic support”. Whatever.
Now that we’ve dealt with this, your latest diversion, I don’t see where this solves the problem that I identified: to wit, you’re perfectly willing to invoke this principle to support the KJV/TR in those areas where the TR and MT agree. But you abandon it when the principle indicates a different reading is to be preferred; in 1 John and in Revelation.
Do you care to address the actual point of my post? Or will we see another red herring?
you should at least read and understand first before you misquote me three times in one post ! That may be a new record !
I both read and understood you. And far from misquoting you, I was saving myself some thumbstrokes.
Hi Folks,
redgreen .. you really do not understand the differendce between :
”99%-type preponderance on .. manuscripts”
“99% probative”
??? Really ?
Then think of your Westcott-Hort modern version text. It has many verses against the 99% preponderance of manuscripts that it considers as the original text, with some high degree of probative evidence, as long as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus agree on the reading.
Similarly I believe that the heavenly witnesses is 100% pure scripture by probative evidence (e.g. Karl Pieper essentially considers Cyprian with the Latin lines probative) despite the 99% preponderance against the verse in the Greek manuscript line.
Manuscript counts (preponderance) and percent of evidentiary proof (probative) are simply two very different concepts.
If you can not see and accept something so simple, there is no point in continuing.
=========================
Readers, note: My lag time for comments to go through moderation averages some days, so please realize that a delay is generally not mine .. when my post goes through. And at times .. I simply may not bother.
In this case .. a basic linguistic, logical conceptual understanding is in play.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Nazaroo
1) Why do “KJBO proponents” have to agree with Maurice Robinson?
I never said that they did. In fact, if you review my post, I didn’t even mention the esteemed Dr. Robinson. I fear you are a victim of your own misunderstandings again.
It is obvious that Dr. Robinson doesn’t agree with KJBOs. Why should they agree with him on every point?
On every point? Who introduced such a requirement? Certainly not I.
We’re not talking about agreeing with a person; we’re talking about having courage and applying a principle consistently and honestly, even when the outcome cuts against one’s own self interests. This is about KJBO/TRO folks borrowing the rationale of the Majority Text position — as Avery did, above — to bolster their argument for the KJV/TR. And then they abandon it whenever it doesn’t support their bias for the KJV/TR.
The Majority Text differs from the TR significantly in several areas, 1 John 5:7-8, and major parts of the book of Revelation. The reasoning that TR advocates use for the TR – continual use in the Greek churches, abundance of manuscripts, a continually living text, fidelity of transmission, etc. – suddenly get tossed out the window when it comes to 1 John 5:7-8 and the book of Revelation. My experience has been that when they reach that point, KJVO and TRO advocates circle the wagons and start manufacturing all kinds of fascinating explanations for why the Majority Text readings should *now* be ignored in favor of those in the KJV or the TR. Arguments that used to work are tossed out the window. Why? Because accepting them would mean admitting that the TR readings in these areas have very weak mss support compared to the MT.
This is, in fact, one of the most glaring inconsistencies in the KJV/TR position: the willingness to shop around and borrow any rationale available, provided it gives the results they want. The fact that these rationales are mutually conflicting is a reality that rarely troubles their thought.
it is not inconsistent or hypocritical to abandon the Majority Text when necessary.
Once a position is stated, then abandoning that principle is both inconsistent and hypocritical, absent sufficient evidence for the alternative reading. And the fact that KJV/TR advocates always seem to invoke such “sufficient evidence” by:
1. invoking obscure arguments that beggar credibility and rarely gain any traction;
2. using principles that they freely ignore elsewhere; and/or
3. refusing to allow their opponents to use those same principles to argue for a non-TR reading
Well; it’s pretty obvious that this is an exercise that starts with the conclusion (divine inspiration of the KJV), and works backwards to try and reverse-engineer the justification, borrowing and grafting various arguments as they go.
Your fault-finding ‘fishing expedition’ is an illusion.
Not at all.
KJVO writers try to appropriate the more persuasive Majority Text arguments and apply them to the TR, to borrow someone else’s credibility and try and attach it to themselves. This, in spite of the disconnects between the two traditions. So in a sense, the TR tradition is trying to put on the fine silk garments of the Majority Text position, while ignoring the areas where the clothes don’t cover them.
I live in Canada, where people are much smarter.
We have 26,000,000 people here. Over 60% of them are Christians of all denominations.
In over 40 years of being a Christian and discussing the Bible with other Christians, I have never met anyone like you describe. I’m beginning to think you are living a fantasy.
If there really are people like you describe, and others like yourself in Texas, you have my sympathy.
peace
Nazaroo
Naz –
What are you responding to with your comments about the intelligence of Canadians and 60% of Canada being Christian? From statistics I find on the internet, it would seem that 4 to 5 out of 10 Canadians are nominal Roman Catholics. I’m not sure how this bolsters your view?
Hi Folks,
redgreen:
. The reasoning that TR advocates use for the TR – continual use in the Greek churches, abundance of manuscripts, a continually living text, fidelity of transmission, etc. – suddenly get tossed out the window when it comes to 1 John 5:7-8 and the book of Revelation.
The simple reason for using the Reformation Bibles from the TR text is very simple.
The formation of this Bible is the only historic textual analysis that fairly and properly applied all the salient and critical evidences.
1) Greek manuscript lines
2) Latin manuscript lines
3) early church writers
4) internal evidences (grammatical, consistency, etc)
5) Syriac .. versional support
If some KJB defenders do not really understand the dynamic of the Reformation Bible .. then hopefully they are learning as the days go by.
The idea that anything is thrown out the window when you have the full-orbed Reformation Bible (TR) understanding is absurd. You may disagree with their sources, tenets, decisions, and our conclusion, but surely you can learn enough to respect both the process and the text of the Reformation Bible that defeated the Vulgate in the Battle of the Bible.
It would be helpful if posters actually addressed the arguments made on this forum, rather than their mental conceptions of earlier dialog.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Hi Fols,
redgreen
“KJVO writers try to appropriate the more persuasive Majority Text arguments and apply them to the TR, ”
This is silliness. How can a textual theory that essentially ignores incredibly important evidences, at least 3 out of 4, relegating them to at most a tiebreak mode, be “more persuasive” than the superb Reformation Bible analysis described above !
An analysis that utilized all the major elements, Greek manuscript lines, Latin manuscript lines, early church writers, internal evidences, the difference of inclusion/omission verses and versional evidence.
This simply is completely illogical.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Hi Folks,
One other quick point.
Above I went out of my way to make these distinctions clear.
I very clearly said that the 99% preponderance of Greek
Byzantine manuscripts for a verse was probative to ** antiquity **, and specifically indicated that this antiquity is not by itself proof of the original text.
The antiquity is proof of the falsity of the Lucian recension style scaffolding edifice behind the modern version textual delusion of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus über alles. (The early church writers being a complimentary disproof.)
One more time, slowly, reworded.
The 99% preponderance of Greek manuscript evidence for any variant is ** probative to antiquity ** and good, strong evidence of being the original text.
Hopefully that is clear to everyone.
(I would also say that a great Latin dominance, one that includes the Old Latin, is similarly probative to antiquity .. thus even if the two disagree, the preponderance of Greek and Latin, they are both ancient variants.)
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Dear Steven:
We have begun to reconstruct the archetype behind the archetype of Aleph/B, using Agreement in Error techniques. We are following in the path of K. Lake and Sir F. Kenyon, in reconstructing the dimensions and contents of the text behind the ancestor of Aleph/B.
When two manuscripts share common errors, then there has to be at least one scribe between them and the original MS lacking the error(s). That scribe had to have a master-copy before him with features that would have caused the error.
See the new reconstruction of Matthew 13:46-48 over at TC-Alternate-List in the Photo-Album section. There will be more to follow.
You can see at a glance the strength of the evidence of homoioteleuton in this case.
We have used a font and spacing that mimicks closely 3rd century and 4th century practices.
Its important to keep in mind that we are not interested in what perpetuates a variant, but how it originally arose.
I’d love to hear someone explain how the majority of these omissions all have homoioteleuton features, without being homoioteuton errors, especially when this is the most common kind of accidental omission there is.
peace
Nazaroo
Hi Folks,
Nazaroo,
“Its important to keep in mind that we are not interested in what perpetuates a variant, but how it originally arose.”
And I think that this area is one of the great weaknesses of modern critical text theory. They enjoy mental considerations of why a scribe would deliberately do this and that .. even contradictory conflicting theories on the same evidence .. rather than simply letting a scribe be a copyist who occasionally makes mistakes, a far more Ockhamish approach to early textual variants.
What happens originally and what happens later are quite different. Later many scribes will hit the “two variants, I have to choose” scenario .. and then their decisions can easily have issues like doctrinal comfort involved. However they are being faithful to “the text” .. one of their exemplars.
Incidentally, Professor Maurice Robinson does make this point as well .. that there is an over-emphasis on presumed scribal tampering on verses that originally were very likely simply a scribal faux pas (for which a manuscript like Sinaiticus is the exemplar of corruption).
And I think this is almost surely the case on all minor variants .. one that is not minor and is a bit iffy to me, though is John 1:18, that would be the type of variant that I believe Professor Robinson would chalk up to accident *originally* but I would draw the line there and say it may well have been a purposeful corruption.
There are very few sharp discussions of these issues anywhere, Professor Robinson is one of the few who has thought it through, although I do not know if he has specifically written what I share above from conversation.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Avery:
The simple reason for using the Reformation Bibles from the TR text is very simple.
The formation of this Bible is the only historic textual analysis that fairly and properly applied all the salient and critical evidences. [snip list of assumptions]
That is not a reason; that is the conclusion you wish everyone to accept. Assuming your conclusion is a bit of circular reasoning that is not at all convincing.
It would be helpful if posters actually addressed the arguments made on this forum, rather than their mental conceptions of earlier dialog.
The majority of posters here are doing exactly that. Unfortunately, the KJV defenders aren’t very well focused in their responses.
Above I went out of my way to make these distinctions clear.
The distinctions were always clear. But you chose to focus on a perceived failing my shorthand moniker — as if it had any relevance to the major point that I raised.
One more time, slowly, reworded.
Don’t bother. The issue I raised is still waiting for you, when you decide to address it.
Hi Folks,
redgreen
“That is not a reason; that is the conclusion you wish everyone to accept. Assuming your conclusion is a bit of circular reasoning that is not at all convincing.”
Not at all, you are fabricating a circle. I have studied the dynamic of the Reformation-era scholars to a reasonable degree (many of the studies began with the heavenly witnesses, also with specific variants like Acts 8:37 and 1 Timothy 3:16) and have seen that these were the elements involved.
To call that circular is very strange .. you may believe they used other criteria .. simply say so, but please don’t just wing it in an oddball manner, fabricating a circle.
Another tact you can take is to claim my analysis is different than the historic textual emphasis which you understand comes from another KJB defender, be it Gail Riplinger or Kirk DiVietro or John Doe .. and to that I would give a hearty amen.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
It’s not so much circular as convenient, Steve. You can say what ever you want, but how you can defend 1 John 5:7 when Luther who started the whole Reformation Bible thing, didn’t included it in his German translation, is beyond me.
Hi Folks,
redgreen
“The issue I raised is still waiting for you, when you decide to address it.”
Probably Redgreen means the TR verses with minority or minimal Greek manuscript support. Obviously that is amply discussed and expounded upon above. Redgreen tripped himself up on transfering
preponderance to probabitve and then fabricating a circle to try to handwave the dynamic explanation. So he has no idea what were the simple and clear answers.
If others think there was any difficulty, complexity or something unaddressed, simply share away, specifically.
Thanks.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Hi Folks,
Bob Hayton
“convenient .. how you can defend 1 John 5:7 when Luther who started the whole Reformation Bible thing, didn’t included it in his German translation, is beyond me.”
Here are five-plus answers to help you come back from the beyond 🙂 .
Luther is not considered a textual giant, the three principle textual giants behind the TR text which was translated to Reformation Bibles around the world were Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza.
When Luther translated his first German Bible he was using the Erasmus edition without the verse. So original Luther German Bible exclusion is no surprise.
Luther’s pastor-student John Bugenhagen strangely attacked the verse as an “Arian heresy”.
Nonetheless, Luther did write an interesting commentary on the verse, showing that any textual hostility had been tempered to some degree in later years, after the Erasmus editions with the verse were published.
Some of the strongest defenders of the verse have been Lutheran, in the 20th century Franz August Otto Pieper is quite interesting, with an emphasis on the Cyprian citation. (It is unclear whether Luther was aware of that evidence, and afawk other early evidences like the Council of Carthage of 481 were unavailable for his textual consideration.)
Hope that helps.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
It doesn’t help, Steven. I just don’t accept that kind of evidence, it’s not enough. But that is off topic really to this thread.
“Arian blasphemy” is the way the Bugenhagen attack is worded in translation in the Franz Posset paper. And I would say –> “strangely attacked”.
Shalom,
Steven
I’m not particularly interested in all the conversations going on in this thread, but I just wanted to throw in my thoughts about the NIV-2010. Since it is 95% the same as NIV-1984, and I am not the biggest fan of the NIV-1984, I doubt seriously that I would use it.
To me, this is just a routine update to the English text which has been elevated to the level of a “new edition” to drum up sales. That’s just my opinion – but I still say that as ‘standard’ or ‘international’ versions go, the ESV-2007 is still superior to the NIV on multiple levels.
I’m at least happy the TNIV was pulled in favor of this. But I won’t be using the NIV as my primary version either….
Good assessment Eric. It would seem that ESV has taken the wind out of the sails of many modern translation efforts and NIV is a day late.
The main problem I see with the ERV is that it is still based on the same Greek text i.e. NA 27th. It also continues as in the case of the NIV to make misleading statements in the footnotes regarding manuscript evidence as well as leaving out of the base text readings that are superior and considered essentials to many in the Eastern Churches and in the West as well.
In Christ,
Paul Anderson
CSPMT-President
The comment was meant being addressed to the ESV and it also applies to all modern “eclectic” versions based on the W-H, NA/UBS Greek texts including the new NIV.
In Christ,
Paul Anderson
President-CSPMT
With all due respect, I intentionally phrased my statement to deal with the relative comparison of the NIV-2010 and ESV-2007 because of the way the NIV-2010 is being sold.
Textual basis is an entirely different topic, one which I have decided in general not to discuss because of the excessive complementary schismogenesis involved.
Erik,
I understand. However, since the issues regarding variants came up and also since we are taking about the new NIV and then the ESV in comparison I see the discussion as inseperable from the textual basis that they both rest upon.
That will be my last comment regarding this post. Our position has been made clear enough on the eclectic based versions and the Greek text they depend upon.
In Christ,
Paul Anderson
President-CSPMT
I understand. I just wanted to make sure it was clear as to my intentions.
Greetings,
Please allow me to interject on this topic since it seems to have gone circular on both sides of the issue.
When addressing issues such as textual variant differences in Revelation where the TR/KJV differs from the Byzantine manuscript tradition we have to be careful as there are textual groupings and readings supported by some manuscripts of you may be unaware of. On the issue of 1 John 5:7, even if it is a later inserted addition with little manuscript basis it does not dictate aganist the overall issue of the larger agreement of the TR with various Byzantine manuscript groups. Larger more important textual matters are often left not discussed. The simple fact is that the TR and all Byzantine Greek manuscript groups maintain an essential textual unity.
As shown from studies on our website and other collation sources available, the TR (overall) is very close to particular Byzantine groups especially the Kr/f35 grouping long accepted in the East as a liturgical text. The constant emphasis that many “reasoned eclectics” make in argumentation against the overall unity of the TR with the majority of the Byzantine manuscript evidence misses the mark. Yes, there are small differences but are less matters for concern than for instance the larger differences textually between Aleph and Vaticanus or Vaticanus and P75 for example. The new NIV has not changed its essential Greek text basis. It is still the NA 27 which exemplifies the text of Codex Vaticanus more closely than any other manuscript. As Dr. Wilbur Pickering and I often state, Codex Vaticanus(B) though it has many modern versions which for the most part textually follow it, has little manuscript support elsewhere. Even P75 is much farther from it than the TR is to most Byzantine recognized manuscript groups. Codex Vaticanus and Aleph are textually too inferior of Greek manuscript for basing any modern version upon or a Greek text for that matter. This situation must change. For real cooperation with the East and New Testament textual studies to prosper in the West this long over dependence on textually inferior manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Aleph must cease. The days of the blinders of Westcott-Hort as Colwell put it have to come to an end.
In the end, the issue regarding the 1,000 variants (Revelation included) or whether 1 John 5:7 rightly belongs in the TR and KJV is overemphasized when compared to the problems inherent on the other side of the issue. This is why in the Eastern Orthodox or ROCOR Churches you will still only find the KJV version being used even in their translated lectionaries. On their websites, you will only find the KJV and NKJV for Bible study searches. The alternative they know well is simply unacceptable for good reason. We will realize this as well in the West when we are willing to conduct accept the results of careful unbiased collations or when making any future Greek New Testament or English version. I hope this helps some for your further consideration with these issues under discussion.
In Christ,
Paul Anderson
President-CSPMT