The Scrivener Text claim and the NKJV

After meetings held in Chicago, Illinois and Nashville, Tennessee in 1975, and London, England in 1976, it was found that “there was a strong sentiment that the King James Bible should once more be sensitively revised in a way that would retain everything that could be retained of the text and language of that historic translation.” From “A New King James Version,” in “The History of the King James Bible,” Holy Bible, The New King James Version, pp. 1233-35.

In the section “The Translators’ Resources” the following is stated concerning the New Testament:

“While the New Testament scholars were free to consult any available Greek text, and they did so, each agreed to follow the Greek text developed by Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener. This text, originally published by Cambridge University Press, reconstructed as closely as possible the Greek text underlying the King James Version.

“The reasons for the selection of this text were fourfold:

1. “To have followed a text other than this would have been to produce something other than a King James Bible.
2. “There is a growing number of scholars who now recognize that the Byzantine-type text of the Textus Receptus is older than the age of the earliest extant Byzantine manuscripts. New Testament readings once thought to be uniquely Byzantine have been found in the papyri—the oldest extant manuscripts or fragments. Many scholars have come to believe that the Greek text which is the consensus of the majority of manuscripts is more representative of the original autographs of the New Testament. 
3. “While Erasmus, from whose Greek test the Textus Receptus is largely derived, used only a few late manuscripts in the preparation of his work, they were representative of all the Byzantine manuscripts.
4. “The tendency of recent revisers has been to remove words and phrases from the text of Scripture, based on critical studies of the most recently discovered extant manuscripts. In using the Greek text underlying the King James Bible, these words and phrases were retained. And, in those few places where the majority of manuscripts did not support a word or phrase, that fact could best be indicated in a footnote. (The New Testament of the New King James Version shows in its footnotes those places where the major textual traditions differ from the language of the King James Bible.)” “The History of the King James Bible,” pp 1234-1235

“Each scholar worked privately, and recommended changes in the King James text. In his work he used the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (for the Old Testament) or the Scrivener Greek Text (for the New Testament) and a copy of the 1611 King James Version as revised in 1769 (the edition in general use today).” “The Process of Revision,” in “The History of the King James Bible,” p. 1235

“The New King James Version was prepared with the most profound reverence for the Word of God and with deep appreciation of the wise traditions established by the translators of 1611. It was the prayer of the current revisers that the work in which they labored might indeed be, as Dr. Scrivener has said years before, a ‘reverential and well considered revision . . .  retaining the characteristic excellencies’ of the King James Bible.” “The Process of Revision,” in “The History of the King James Bible,” p. 1236

Source: “The History of the King James Bible,” Holy Bible, The New King James Version, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982, pp. 1220-1236.

I thought I had in the past read a claim for the NKJV translators using the Scrivener text. This reference is not of some “KJVO” trying to score points, misrepresent the NKJV, or win a debate. This is not only a “non-KJVO” source making the claim – it is printed under the covers in some editions of the New King James Bible by Thomas Nelson Publishers!

In discussions about certain renderings in the New King James translation, some of its defenders (and reporters) have resorted to admitting that in some places that the NKJV translators did not follow the Scrivener text, but were following another text in the Textus Receptus family. (They are forced by the NKJV itself to admit this.)

For example, the “Bible Researcher” site of Michael D. Marlowe states, “In the New Testament, this means that the Greek text followed is the Textus Receptus of the early printed editions of the sixteenth century.” This allows for the NKJV translators translating in any given place from a different text than that used by the King James translators. While this statement conforms to the results of the end product, that was not the original claim of the NKJV editors and publishers.

According to the statements in “The History of the King James Bible,” the translators were not supposed to do this, because “To have followed a text other than this would have been to produce something other than a King James Bible.” This coincides with what I have thought about both the initial claim and end results of the NKJV.

Another source supporting this conclusion is James D. Price, Chairman of the New King James Old Testament translation committee.

“The truth is that the NKJV translators followed exactly the same traditional Greek text that was used by the KJV translators…the exact Greek words followed by the KJV translators did not exist in a single printed edition until the middle of the 19th century when it was published by Oxford Press. Scrivener republished this text in 1894 and again in 1902. His text is currently published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, and this is the text upon which the NKJV was based. The Publisher’s forward to the NKJV states: ‘the Scrivener Greek Text was the basis of the New Testament.’” James D. Price in “The False Witness of G. A. Riplinger’s Death Certificate for the New King James Version” (Price, 10/6/97), p. 16

“The Greek text of the New Testament was the 1894/1902 Textus Receptus edited by F. H. A. Scrivener, and recently reprinted by the Trinitarian Bible Society. The NKJV consistently followed that text, but constant reference also was made to other printed editions of the Greek New Testament and to other authorities; significant textual variants were listed in the footnotes.” James D. Price in King James Onlyism: A New Sect, Singapore: Saik Wah Press, 2006, p. 307

Price indicates that any variants from the Scrivener Greek text should be listed in the footnotes – not found in the text itself. Any “significant changes” were supposed to be translational (Price, p. 308) based on the “optimal equivalence” theory of translation. However, a comparison of Luke 1:35 in both the King James and New King James translations debunks that theory.

Note also that Price makes a similar claim concerning the Old Testament:

“For the New King James Version (NKJV), the Hebrew text of the Old Testament was the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica. Constant reference was made to the printed edition of the Hebrew Bible used by the translators of 1611, the second Bomberg edition edited by Jacob ben Chayyim. In those few places where the Bomberg text differed from the Stuttgart edition, the Bomberg edition was followed.” James D. Price in King James Onlyism: A New Sect, p. 307

It is a fair conclusion that both the publishers and editors of the New King James Bible have made certain claims about its textual base that are not consistently or strictly true. Perhaps that was an initial sincere goal that could not be controlled with the large group of 139 “scholars, pastors, and laymen” (52 of them translators) plus “7 consultants, 66 reviewers, 5 editors, and 12 executive reviewers” (Price, p. 308). Perhaps it was more an advertising ploy than an exactly-intended achievable objective. I do not know. However, I can inspect the results.

For an investigation of a specific verse of Scripture, see tomorrow’s The base text of the NKJV New Testament.