Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Salty, Apr 26, 2016.
Came across this KJO Wiki article
Do you think it gives a balanced view?
It's not too bad, but it gives rebuttals of KJVO short shrift. It suffers, like almost all arguments against the Alexandrian texts, by calling them "corrupt" and then offering no reasoning behind the claim, except that these manuscripts were from Egypt. Again and again the Alexandrian texts are called "unreliable" or "corrupt" and no good examples of why they are corrupt are given.
Like most wikipedia articles it is all over the place. Many of the characteristics cited as being KJVO are not, but rather are scholarly opinions regarding the relative merits of the Byzantine and Alexandrian textforms and the representatives of the Byzantine textform, the Majority text, the Received text, The Robinson/Pierpont text, etc.