Fr McComas and Fr Wiebe:

Fr McComas; your remarks about the NJKV being based on the Byzantine
Text, which is used by the Eastern Church and for which there is greater
support than any other text, is an argument that has merit.  And it is
an argument that seems to be making a comeback in academic circles.

Fr Wiebe, however, has put his finger on something that I will address
in the article I plan to write): language -- especially as that language
is read aloud.  One of the things that has been ignored in most modern
translations is the liturgical language of the text and how the words
used strike the ear.

For instance, in the AV, Jesus says, "Verily, I say unto thee" or
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee."  Both the RSV/ESV have "Truly, I say
to you" or "Truly, truly, I say to you."  Not a bad modern equivalent.
It "feels" right and has a familiar sound to it (another problem with
modern translations: the loss of a common -- familiar -- biblical
language).  The NKJV, however, as "Assuredly I say to you" or "Most
assuredly I say to you."  Horrible; that is an offense to the liturgical
ear.  And that is just one example: I can go on and on for both the
NKJV, ESV, etc. (My personal "pet peeve" is "hovering" for "moving" in
Genesis 1:2. Even James Earl Jones can't make "And the Spirit of God was
hovering over the face of the waters" sound good!  "Hovering", while a
decent word, just doesn't "work" linguisticly when it is used in a
liturgical passage.)

The one thing I wish Bible translators would do is consult a liturgist
before tweaking the text.  That would make the aim (dream?) of having
one standard Bible for English speaking people go a long way.

MLW+