What was the base text of the New King James translation New Testament? A commonly given but ambiguous answer is that they used the text used by the King James translators. Is there a very clear and direct statement about what text or texts the NKJV translators used? The following statement was included in the “Preface” to the 1979 NKJV New Testament (p. v.). (See also.)
“Of greater importance than the beauty of language in the King James Version is the textual base from which that work was translated. The New Testament of the New King James Bible is a useful and accurate revision, based on the traditional Greek text underlying the 1611 edition of the English Bible.”
This statement does not appear in the “Preface” (pp. iii-iv) of the 1982 NKJV Holy Bible (OT & NT) print edition that I own. The statement uses the definite article “the” and singular word “text.” However, that has become open for interpretation in recent defenses of the NKJV. The idea is that the “Preface” intended “the text” as a collective noun standing for all the texts available to the King James translators in 1604-1611.
Question: Did the NKJV editors and translators use the Greek text used by the King James translators, or did they use Greek texts to which the King James translators had access?
It may not be readily apparent what I mean. There is a difference. For what the NKJV is purported to be, it might be expected that in any given place, the NKJV translators would try to use the KJV source for that place. However, many contemporary NKJV supporters vociferously reject such a standard. They must to maintain that the NKJV is a TR-based translation. They argue that the translators should, could, and did use any “Textus Receptus” (traditional) Greek text available to them. (And the same people would generally apply the same idea to the Hebrew Old Testament.) [For more on this, see yesterday’s post, “The Scrivener Text claim and the NKJV.”]
An example from Luke 1:35. If the NKJV translators were merely claiming to draw from any of the texts to which the King James translators had access, then they might say there were using Erasmus or Stephanus to get to their translation without “of thee.” However, if they were claiming to use the text that the King James translators used, then at this point they would have used a text that had the words “εκ σου” (e.g., Beza). Obviously, the King James translators did not here follow a text without “εκ σου” but used one containing those words.
AKJV: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
NKJV: And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born ___ will be called the Son of God.
1894 Scrivener: και αποκριθεις ο αγγελος ειπεν αυτη πνευμα αγιον επελευσεται επι σε και δυναμις υψιστου επισκιασει σοι διο και το γεννωμενον εκ σου αγιον κληθησεται υιος θεου
Beza 1598: καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἄγγελος εἶπεν αὐτῇ, Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ, καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ σοῦ ἅγιον κληθήσεται, υἱὸς θεοῦ.
Steph 1550: και αποκριθεις ο αγγελος ειπεν αυτη πνευμα αγιον επελευσεται επι σε και δυναμις υψιστου επισκιασει σοι διο και το γεννωμενον ___ αγιον κληθησεται υιος θεου
NAUBS: καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἄγγελος εἶπεν αὐτῇ, Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ, καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι· διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ___ ἅγιον κληθήσεται, υἱὸς θεοῦ.
RPMT: καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἄγγελος εἶπεν αὐτῇ, Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ, καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι· διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ___ ἅγιον κληθήσεται, υἱὸς θεοῦ.
The NET Bible has this comment:
Luke 1:35 tc A few mss (C* Θ ƒ1 33 pc) add “by you” here. This looks like a scribal addition to bring symmetry to the first three clauses of the angel’s message (note the second person pronoun in the previous two clauses), and is too poorly supported to be seriously considered as authentic.
The New King James translators agree with the NET translators against the King James translators.
This explanation – the NKJV translators using any Greek TR to which the King James translators might have had access – has become widely popular as a polemic against accusations that the NKJV translators used the Critical Text. However, in the initial wake of the publication of the NKJV, the average reader in the early 1980s was led to believe or at the least assumed that the NKJV was translated at any given point from the same text chosen by the KJV translators in that place. That assumption has had to be nuanced in modern times because the initial claim is in fact not true. It cannot be defended that the New King James translators only used the text used by the King James translators (neither that they never ever used the Critical Text).
This blog has been a blessing to me in many ways, particularly in these areas of Bible translation. I also find the scattered hymns you post to be edifying.
ReplyDeleteHere is where I’ve struggled a bit: I don’t trust the companies behind the modern translations. I have more trust in the translators of the KJV and I mainly read works from that day so I’m not baffled by the language. The reason, however, for using the NKJV is because there is something edifying to my soul when I hear Gods Word in my English. I am aware of the issues you point out and I wonder if others have this same struggle where they trust the KJV above all but also desire to hear it their English. This is probably the only reason why I can look past trust issues. I hope that makes sense. I’m not aware of any alternative besides the NKJV for at least keeping mostly in step with the KJV.
Hi, Anonymous. Thanks for reading. I am thankful that you have found some blessing while reading here. I am aware of a few Bible that are supposed to updates to the King James Bible, modernizing what was considered archaic language. These are supposed to be done by proponents of the King James Bible and supporters of the traditional texts. The ones I am aware of are the Simplified King James Version and the Modern King James Version. I am not all that familiar with them, since I do not use them and have not researched them. Regardless, if the translators are true proponents of the KJV and the traditional texts, that would remove the issue of lack of trust as with the NKJV translators. Here are sites where you might be able to check on them. I know Brother Christopher Yetzer has looked at a few places of revision where he believed the SKJV did a poor job, but I don't think he raised any trust issues, as far as I remember. It is possible that either of these might be improvements over the NKJV. I would think so (certainly in regard to the trust issue).
ReplyDeletehttps://thewordnotes.com/mkjv/mkjv.htm
https://www.simplifiedkjv.com/
Very much less "updated" is the 21st Century King James Bible (for example, it keeps the thees, thous, etc.).
Hope this helps.