Introduction
My earliest experience with the New King James Version (that I can remember) was at a Sunday night Bible study – probably in the early 1990s. The teacher read a text from the NKJV. I was reading along in the KJV. I did not write the text down, and have now forgotten where it was. I thought maybe it was in the Gospel of John, but have never found such a text there.
What the teacher read either inserted or removed a negative (like “not”) – making the meaning just the opposite of what I was reading in the KJV. I thought perhaps he misread it, and later asked to look at his Bible. He had read it correctly; the verse in the KJV and NKJV said opposite things. I later considered that perhaps it was a typographical error in his edition of the NKJV. (That does happen.) However, I have since found that Isaiah 9:3 fits just the kind of discrepancy I read and heard that night.[i] I have focused little time on looking up verses in the NKJV that might be critical-text preferred or critical-text influenced. I have little doubt, though, that if a reading different from the King James Bible was preferred in one case that it could have been preferred in others. I believe that will prove to be true.
Question
Are there readings in the New King James Version (NKJV) Bible translation that are based on the Critical Text (NA/UBS Greek text; henceforth “CT” for short) rather than the Textus Receptus (“TR” for short)? Some of the NKJV detractors vociferously say so.[ii] NKJV supporters, as well as CT advocates, usually just as strenuously deny it.
For example, in a 2019 blog post, Mark Ward discussed whether the New King James Version uses Critical Text readings. As the foil, he cited Pastor Matthew Hanke’s claim that “The truth is out of these thousands and thousands of changes, there are thousands of times where the changes that they made actually match the Westcott-Hort/UBS/critical text Bibles.” In contrast, primarily based on the claims lacking evidence, Ward concluded, “The NKJV does not include any critical text readings.”[iii]
In my opinion, both Hanke and Ward are incorrect, in opposite directions.
Why
this question
The reason for and importance of the question is because the New King James Version bills itself as the true modern successor to the “old” King James Version. The publisher and translators make the specific claim that the NKJV use the same Hebrew and Greek texts used by the 1611 King James translators.[iv] A good many Christians purchase and use the New King James Version because they want a Bible in updated modern language that is equivalent to the “old” King James Version. Are they getting what they think they are?[v]
Evidence
From “my side” I heard that the NKJV was “corrupt,” not truly based on the Textus Receptus, at times preferring readings from the Critical Text. From the other side, I heard that this was all a lie made up by overzealous King James-Onlylists. Over a period of several years, I occasionally looked at this issue, sometimes checking a few verses in the NKJV against the KJV, TR, and CT. I have come to my own conclusion. Different translational choices can explain the majority of the differences (though we are compelled to ask “why” they made those particular choices). Nevertheless, we cannot believe that the Critical Text reading does not influence some of the translations. “Translational choice” cannot be the default explanation. Why? Below are three examples.
Jude
1:3 - the common salvation vs. our common salvation
In the AKJV we read: Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
In the NKJV we read: Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
The relevant Greek words are περι της κοινης σωτηριας vs. περι της κοινης ημων σωτηριας. Put in English in the Greek order, these words are “about the common salvation” vs. “about the common of us salvation.” What reason could the NKJV translators give for adding our, since it is not in the TR?[vi] Regardless, it matches the CT better than the TR.
Revelation
6:11 - white robes vs. a white robe
In the AKJV we read: And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.
In the NKJV we read: Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.
The relevant Greek words are στολαι λευκαι (plural in the TR) vs. στολη λευκη (singular in the CT). The difference in meaning seems like six of one and a half dozen of the other. Translation choice and style might be used to explain it. Nevertheless, the number in the NKJV (singular) matches the CT and not the TR. I would not read “robes” plural in the Greek and translate it into English as “robe” singular (but perhaps that is just me). What reason could the NKJV translators give for using the singular, since it is not that way in the TR?[vii] It matches the CT rather than the TR.
2
John 1:7 - entered into vs. gone out into
In the AKJV we read: For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
In the NKJV we read: For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
The relevant Greek words are εισηλθον (in the TR) vs. εξηλθον (in the CT). The difference is “entered into” versus “gone out into.” Entering into and going out into may not have that much difference of meaning in the context, but the NKJV nevertheless follows the reading of the CT rather than the TR. The NKJV translators have “gone out into” the CT to get εξηλθον “entered into” the text rather than εισηλθον!!
These three examples are incontrovertible. I could give several more (check out Luke 1:35; Colossians 3:17; 2 Corinthians 3:14; and 2 Corinthians 4:14). Yes, NKJV defenders can explain some of the differences between the NKJV and KJV as translational rather than textual. Here’s the thing. Once we see that there are places where the NKJV translators chose (for whatever reason) the CT reading over the TR reading, then the motive or reason for explaining away other places is removed. Then admit that the translators sometimes did this. Stop straining to settle every difference as translational. Move on.[viii]
Acts
3:26 - Son vs. Servant
In the AKJV we read: Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
In the NKJV we read: To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.”
Acts 3:26 presents a case where the Greek word in the TR and CT is the same. Yet the NKJV translation is different from the KJV, matching instead modern translations such as the CSB, ESV, LEB, NASB, NET, NIV, and RSV. The relevant Greek word in both the TR and the CT is παιδα, which can mean child, servant, attendant, etc. We readily acknowledge this is a translational choice rather than a textual difference. But, why make this choice? The stated purpose of the NKJV includes “that a reader of this edition may follow without confusion a reading of the original edition from the pulpit.”[ix] Why, then, would the translators choose to go with “Servant” (which matches most modern translations) rather than “Son” (which matches the KJV)? It causes confusion to the readers of the two. The context does not require the translation “Servant.”
This example is different from the first three examples. It is about translation. However, once we know that the CT influenced the translators, it should become easier to admit that it did influence them in their translation work, even in places where no textual difference existed from the TR to the CT.[x]
1
John 3:16 - of God vs. ______ | the vs. ___
In the AKJV we read: Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. (“of God” should not be italicized; see my Exceptions to the rule.)
In the NKJV we read: By this we know __ love __, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
The relevant Greek words are του θεου and την, in the TR and KJV but absent in the NKJV. Του θεου is the Greek for “of God,” which is not in the CT or the NKJV. Την is the Greek word for “the,” which is in both the TR and CT – translated in the KJV, but not the NKJV. (I expect the absence of την/the is a translation choice, based on not having “of God” in the sentence.) The absence of the words “of God” present a different case – a case in which the translators can say they were relying on a different Textus Receptus. For example, the 1550 Stephanus TR does not have του θεου, while the 1598 Beza TR does have it. Again, however, the stated purpose of the NKJV includes “that a reader of this edition may follow without confusion a reading of the original edition from the pulpit.”[ix] Why choose a TR reading that does not match the one chosen by the KJV if you want to avoid confusion?
εν τουτω εγνωκαμεν την αγαπην του θεου, οτι εκεινος υπερ ημων την ψυχην αυτου εθηκεν και ημεις οφειλομεν υπερ των αδελφων τας ψυχας τιθεναι
The Complutensian Polyglot also has the του θεου reading.
Greek Complutensian Polyglot on left | Latin Vulgate on right
I have tried to be fair. I give examples
that show choices may be translational or based on a different text in the TR
tradition. However, other examples do not lend themselves to either of those
explanations.
The NKJV translators made some choices that deviate from the underlying text of the KJV. Translation choices rather than textual differences rightfully explain some of the deviations (without having to use tortuous reasoning). Simply put, these translators were not TR men. In places, their translation reflects their beliefs and inclinations toward the CT. They did not think the TR is the best text, neither that the KJV is the best translation. This moved them toward translation choices that coincide better with the CT reading. In other places, though, they made choices that cannot be explained (without using contorted reasoning) as merely a difference in how they decided to translate. They defaulted to the CT reading as better than the TR.
Lists
I had some difficulty locating lists of possible Critical Text readings in the New King James Version. Here are four (I thought there would be more). They do not propose to indicate all possible divergent readings.
In The New King James Version: A Critique, Malcolm Watts lists seven examples: John 10:6; Acts 15:23, 19:39, 27:14; 2 Corinthians 4:14; 2 John v. 7; and Revelation 6:11.[xi]
The Textus Receptus.com article on the “New King James Version” lists nine “Departures from the Textus Receptus”: Matthew 5:37, 22:10, 24:13; Luke 1:35; John 10:6; Galatians 2:20; Titus 2:4; 1 John 3:16; Jude v. 3. However, this list acknowledges Titus 2:4 as a translational difference, “The difference is not a difference in the underlying texts.”
Kent Brandenburg provides a list of 15 deviations: Matthew 22:10; Luke 1:35, 5:7, 6:9; John 10:12, 19:10; Acts 15:23, 17:14, 19:9, 19:39; Romans 14:9; Colossians 3:17; Jude v. 3, v. 19; and Isaiah 9:3.
Will Kinney wrote a lengthy article on The NKJV doesn’t always follow the same Greek texts of the KJB. It lists many verses that can be checked against the NKJV, KJV, CT, and TR, for any of you who are inclined to do so.
Conclusion
I expect that if we checked the thousands of cases where the NKJV supposedly uses the Critical Text, we will find most of them are different translational choices rather than underlying textual differences (or at least lend themselves to a translational explanation). On the other hand, I also expect that translators leaning toward the Critical Text would at times easily and even subconsciously prefer the wording in or closer to a modern translation to something closer to the KJV translation. It would not even necessarily have to be deliberate. I believe this is a simple and gracious explanation of the situation. It did not have to be a conspiracy. However, that really does not matter. The “why” does not change the “what.”
There are CT backgrounds in the choices made by NKJV translators. Some possible explanations of why this happened, where it is not merely a translational difference, include:
- The NKJV translators chose a reading in a different TR (e.g. Erasmus vs. Stephanus vs. Beza) and translated from that reading. This chosen TR matched or was closer to the CT reading than the one used by the KJV translators.[xii]
- A modern translation (or translations) with which the translators were familiar influenced them subconsciously toward the CT reading.
- [The translators preferred the Majority Text reading to the Textus Receptus reading and followed it. This chosen MT reading was closer to the CT reading to the TR.(So far as I know, no one has previously suggested or investigated this.)]
- The translators preferred the Critical Text reading to the Textus Receptus reading and followed it.
There are not thousands of times that the NKJV prefers the Critical Text readings to the Received Text (TR). There are times that the NKJV prefers the Critical Text readings to the Received Text (TR).
[ii] Some of the loudest objections come from the extreme KJV-Onlyists. However, objectors that are more moderate have come to the same conclusion. For example, Malcolm Watts of London’s Metropolitan Tabernacle writes, “Even more serious is the fact that in the actual text of the NKJV New Testament there are a great many departures from the Received Text, where Critical Text readings have apparently been preferred and followed or other unwarranted changes have been made.” The New King James Version: A Critique, Malcolm H. Watts, London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 2008. p. 8.
[iii] I use this statement by Mark Ward because it is simple, clear, and I have it at hand (therefore no need look for another). However, he moved off this position after finding some verses he could not explain well as translational differences – and he put in a lot of effort towards those explanations. “There are six places in the NT…in which I cannot square the rendering in front of me with the generally literal approach of the NKJV translators and with Scrivener’s text at the same time.”
[iv] For example, in the “Preface”: “because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament…” In his book about the NKJV, Arthur Farstad explains, “the NKJV is an update of an historic version translated from a specific type of text. We felt it was unwise to change the base from which it was made.” The New King James Version: In the Great Tradition, p. 110.
[v] I am sure there are those who care and those who do not. This essay is for those who care.
[vi] For example, I checked Stephanus 1550 and Beza 1598. Neither have the “our” word ημων.
[vii] A friend who likes the NKJV and defended this reading (as not from the CT) said that he thought that the different translation was not the adherence to any underlying text, but rather a simple grammatical construction choice – that is, that the translators thought that this means each saint was given one robe. That said, the fact remains that the NKJV better matches the CT than the TR.
[viii] I do agree many of the differences that folks point out between the KJV and NKJV are translational differences.
[ix] “This edition shall not corrupt nor diminish the original translation, but shall endeavor to speak in the late twentieth century as simply, clearly, and effectively as possible—all within the format of the original 1611 version—so that a reader of this edition may follow without confusion a reading of the original edition from the pulpit.” The New King James Version: In the Great Tradition, p. 33.See also Guidelines of the NKJV Translators.
[x] There is some textual difference in Acts 3:26, just not in the word παιδα. 1894 TR reads: υμιν πρωτον ο θεος αναστησας τον παιδα αυτου ιησουν απεστειλεν αυτον ευλογουντα υμας εν τω αποστρεφειν εκαστον απο των πονηριων υμων | UBS4 reads: ὑμῖν πρῶτον ἀναστήσας ὁ θεὸς τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν εὐλογοῦντα ὑμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἀποστρέφειν ἕκαστον ἀπὸ τῶν πονηριῶν ὑμῶν. The word “Jesus” is not in the CT, but the NKJV sticks with it.
[xi] The New King James Version: A Critique, Malcolm H. Watts, London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 2008. pp. 8-9.
[xii] Since there are differences within the TR and Masoretic traditions, it is possible to follow some TR or Masoretic text and yet not make the same textual critical selections as the KJV translators. However, James D. Price, head editor of the NKJV Old Testament, said that in the places in the Old Testament in which the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) fails to match the Daniel Bomberg Hebrew text used by the KJV translators, he ensured that the NKJV went with the Bomberg reading and not with the BHS. That statement seems to remove the “different text within the tradition” explanation for the OT differences.
No comments:
Post a Comment