Brethren,

> And thanks for the survey answers.  Do you know whether or not the NKJV
> is used by a lot of the REC?

At least a few of the REC parishes in the NE use the NKJV.


I don't know if anyone on this list is up to speed (I'm not) on the debate
between the reliability of the Majority/Byzantine Textform (MT) vs. the
Critical Text (Nestle-Aland 27). Most Seminaries these days take for granted
the "superiority" of the NA27, but the Orthodox, of course, adamantly
disagree.

I like both the NKJV and the ESV (ESV slightly preferred over RSV on own
merits, but RSV preferred for availability and retaining "thee/thou" for the
Trinity). Yet I prefer the NKJV over the ESV on the sole issue that the NKJV
is MT-based and the ESV (RSV also) is AL27-based.

What I remember is that the Textus Receptus (KJV) comes out of the MT branch
(although the known Greek Text was incomplete when the KJV was translated),
and that the MT has by far the largest number of extant manuscripts. The
NA27 leans on the oldest extant manuscripts as being the most reliable, and
gives heed to geographic distribution as well. The Orthodox and some staunch
KJV supporters argue that the MT would have had plenty of the very earliest
manuscripts if it had only been as dry in Anatolia/Macedonia as it was in
Egypt--which is "obviously" the case since so many MT manuscripts are
around, compared to so few from any other textform. Further, the NA27 is
held as a novelty and a bowing of the knee to science-as-savior (thus
arguably a logical precursor to the pick-and-choose Jesus Seminar). I find
these points plausible, but don't know the details well enough to be very
sure. The MT may not fit the Vincentian ideal, but the NA27 is even further
away, and for this reason I feel better with the NKJV.

GCM+