In the past I have referenced a comment made by Daniel Wallace on the New King James Version (NKJV), which shows those who worked on that edition were not committed to the Textus Receptus Greek text.
“I worked on the NKJV as a proofreader (working directly for Art Farstad). The Greek text is the same as for the KJV, which is hardly a recommendation for it! None of the translators, as far as I know, thought that the Textus Receptus was the closest text to the original.”[i]
In his research on the NKJV, Christopher Yetzer found the following video. In it, Wallace talks in a little more detail about the production of the NKJV in a presentation he gave the Believers Chapel in Dallas, Texas on September 14, 2016. Not only does he mention the translators did not accept the TR as original, he even mentions a translator of the book of James was working on the basis of the Critical Text rather than the Textus Receptus. In context, Wallace was talking about what he called a Latin interpolation in Acts chapter 9.
“Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’ And he said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ Then the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ So he, trembling and astonished, said, ‘Lord, what do You want me to do?’ Then the Lord said to him, ‘Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.’ This is the New King James Version. Now I was Art Farstad’s assistant. He was the one who was the editor of the New King James Bible – not the King James, I’m not quite that old, but the New King James – and I would go to his house back in the 1970s while I was a master’s student at Dallas Seminary and work on a lot of proofreading for him. I made hundreds of suggestions on how they should translate better; I think none of which were accepted. But you know a young student who doesn’t know anything makes those kinds of foolish statements. But one thing that was accepted was – they said their objective was to translate Erasmus’s Greek New Testament (they did not want to translate what’s called the Majority Text, which is what Art Farstad and Zane Hodges, another professor at Dallas Seminary at the time, had published based on the majority of Greek manuscripts, almost all of these are later manuscripts like what Erasmus used) but this was Erasmus’ text that they wanted to publish and one of the translators who translated James was publishing it on a critically reconstructed text based on older manuscripts and so I at least was able to catch that. But even though none of the translators, none of the scholars who worked on the New King James Bible, believed that in these instances they were translating what was the original Scriptures they still wanted to honor the King James tradition and I felt I didn’t agree with that.” Dr. Dan Wallace Part I: “Erasmus’ Greek New Testament” (starts about 30:35) at Believer’s Chapel, Dallas, Texas on September 14, 2016.[ii]
This clip speaks to what I have called “trust issues” concerning the New King James Version. It was produced by people who did not believe in the Textus Receptus – and at least in one case a translator who tried to get by using the Critical Text instead of the Textus Receptus. I do not want to use anything but the King James Bible. I do not recommend anything else. However, if I were a person sincerely intent on using a King James Bible updated and with modernized wording, I would not use the NKJV. The producers did not even believe in their product!
[i] This
quote comes from a CredoHouse blog post “What Bible Should I Own,” 2010-09-06.
Dan Wallace was answering a question from Delwyn X. Campbell. Oddly, when I
check today (4 Jan 2024) I could not find Campbell’s comment and Wallace’s
reply. Perhaps it has been removed, or dropped out due to the number of
comments?
[ii] This talk by Wallace can also be found in audio on the Believers Chapel web site.
[ii] This talk by Wallace can also be found in audio on the Believers Chapel web site.
No comments:
Post a Comment