“I don’t toss around the word lie lightly. But I’ve decided that this repeated failure to mention the important fact of the new King James is based on the TR along with the uncertain sound that King James Onlyists make about its textual basis when they actually do talk about it all of this – taken all together – amounts to an indirect but still definite lie.” (Mark Ward, starting about 33:27 in his talk “Is the NKJV Truly Based on the TR.”)
Who’s lying?
Mark may not toss “lie” about lightly, but he certainly tosses it about, sometimes wrongly.
Mark admitted that there “were places where Kent [Brandenburg] successfully showed that the New King James did not follow the same edition of the TR as the King James.”[i] However, Mark replies that he “was able to show that they did follow other TRs.”
Mark also admitted there were “three passages that Kent found where the new King James appeared to go with the critical text and I could not find a TR edition that had that reading.” He again says, there are “only three places in the New Testament where the new King James could be said fairly to follow critical text readings.” He quickly follows this up with an incorrect assertion: “the New King James translators said they used the traditional text for the New Testament; they didn’t say they used a specific edition of the TR.” Yes, they did say they followed Scrivener (and Bomberg).[ii]
Repurposing Mark Ward’s charge against KJV Defenders over to NKJV Defenders:
“I don’t toss around the word lie lightly. But, this repeated failure to admit the important fact that New King James sometimes departs from the Scrivener TR readings, along with the uncertain sound that New King James Defenders make about these variations when they do talk about it – all of this taken altogether amounts to an indirect but still definite lie.”
Would Mark be willing to repurpose his charge against Tom Brennan and Charles Surrett of indirectly lying to Farstad, Price, Thomas Nelson Publishers, and others? As a group they said they followed the F. H. A. Scrivener text, but they did not always do so. Is Mark willing to point the finger back at himself? He has said the NKJV translators only claimed to use the TR, but they actually claimed more than that.
Five Mark reasons.
In his video “Is the NKJV Truly Based on the TR,” Mark Ward gives five reasons that the New King James translation is “based on” the Textus Receptus (traditional Greek text). I have copied the reasons from the transcript of his video and cleaned them up a bit to make the points easier to read. If he objects to the way they are stated, Mark can let me know.
1. The New King James translators say that their New Testament is based on the Textus Receptus. [rlv: no, they are more specific; in the publisher’s own words, the translators “agreed to follow the Greek text developed by Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener.”]
2. Some King James Defenders acknowledge that the New King James is based on the Textus Receptus. [rlv: such an acknowledgement still allows that they sometimes depart from the source the translation is “based on.”]
3. The big three passages mentioned regularly by all King James Defenders (Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; 1 John 5:7-8) are all present (and without brackets) in the New King James Version. [rlv: so far as I know, no one has ever disputed this point, which simply shows they are following the TR or at least Byzantine text rather than critical text in those places.]
4. A sampling of five significant (Acts 8:37; John 1:18; John 5:4; 1 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 17:21) and ten random variants (Revelation 18:6; Revelation 3:8; Mark 10:2; John 15:26; Luke 21:39; John 16:10; Matthew 27:22; Matthew 25:20; Ephesians 3:14; Matthew 19:3) match the Textus Receptus. Mark says “I could go on and on. I could do more random sampling. I surely could – dozens, hundreds of places. How much do I have to do...” [rlv: However, such “random sampling” only applies to those who refuse to admit the NKJV is “based on” the TR. It really does not touch the argument that there are some places where it is not.]
5. In the very rare cases when King James Onlyists have named specific passages in which the new King James readings are allegedly based on the critical text, they are almost always simply wrong. [rlv: wrong according to Mark.]
“Based on” – in this context means finds a foundation in or basis for; that is, has the TR as its bottom. Based on here allows for the traditional texts to be the basis of the NKJV, while allowing for departures. Mark admits as much at when he says there are places the NKJV follows “other TRs,” and in 3 places seems to follow Critical Text readings.[iii]
“Follows” – in this context means something like – to conform to, comply with; to imitate or copy; use as an exemplar.
My view.
- I believe the New King James translation is generally and mostly based on the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts.
- I believe the New King James translation has some readings that do not follow the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts.
By this, I mean that the NKJV translators used the traditional texts as their textual basis. Additionally, they claim specific texts in the Hebrew and Greek as their textual basis – the 1525 Daniel Bomberg Hebrew text and the 1881/1894 F. H. A. Scrivener Greek text. However, there are times they depart from their basis and follow something else. I have not personally researched the Old Testament, so I will leave this argument to others.[iv] I have personally checked various readings in the Greek New Testament. At times they follow a different TR, and sometime they follow the Critical Text (and sometimes the “different TR” reading may match at CT reading against the Scrivener text).
I do not toss this word around lightly, but I believe Mark is indirectly but definitely lying – by his own construction of what indirectly definitely lying is. What’s good for the goose in good for the gander.
-----
Post script.
1. In his first point in the video, Mark says we are to believe that the New King James is based on Textus Receptus because the NKJV translators say that their New Testament is based on the TR.
2. In his dealing with TR supporters, Mark shows we are not to believe that TR supporters are TR supporters just because they say they are TR supporters.
Notice two opposite and completely different approaches. 1. Believe what they say against any evidence to the contrary. 2. Don’t believe what they say and try to find evidence that is contrary. Why? Probably simply because using the different approaches will agree with his conclusions.[v]
[i] This
discussion goes back to Kent’s list that Mark discussed on his blog back in
August 2019. In the video Mark says there were three passages that Kent found
where the new King James appeared to go with the critical text and he could not
find a TR Edition that had that reading. Of course, even looking for another TR
reading is a tacit admission they did not always use the Scrivener text as they
said. The verses are: Colossians 3:17; Jude v. 3; 2 John v. 7. He goes into the
different possibilities and lands on the third option he gives: “the New King
James translators told the truth and their apparent deviations from the TR are
due to the exigencies of translation style.”
[ii] “Preface,”
p. vi
“For the New King James Version the text used was the
1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica, with frequent
comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25. The Septuagint
(Greek) Version of the Old Testament and the Latin Vulgate were consulted. In
addition to referring to a variety of ancient version of the Hebrew Scriptures,
the New King James Version also draws on the resources of relevant manuscripts
from the Dead Sea Caves. In the few places where the Hebrew is so obscure that
the King James followed one of the versions, but where information is now
available to resolve the problems, the New King James Version follows the
Hebrew text. Significant variations are recorded in the footnotes.”
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 translating the Old Testament, the New King James
Version used the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1976-77 Edition,
edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. As an additional reference they used the
Second Bomberg Edition of the Hebrew Bible.” p. 1234
“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.”
“A New King James Version,” in “The History of the King
James Bible,” Holy Bible, The New King James Version, p. 1234.
Part of the revision process is described this way:
“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).”
“A New King James Version,” in “The History of the King
James Bible,” Holy Bible, The New King James Version, pp. 1235.
[iii] Mark
really gives an uncertain sound here, sometimes seeming to admit a few
departures, but at other times explaining them away.
[iv] I
do not mean I have never looked at it, but that generally I have read what
others wrote about it rather than making detailed investigations myself.
[v] In
the video Mark, on the side of those who claim they accept the “evidence” and
that the other side does not, rejects the evidence and emphasizes we must
believe the NKJV translators told the truth about basing their translation on
the TR. I have no problem with that, as long as it can be admitted that
sometimes they deviated from their basis – which they did! There is evidence
that they did, and the simplest explanation is that they did. I leave the
motives to others to worry about. Sometimes their translation comes out more
closely matching the CT rather than the TR, however you slice it.
Funny though. (Funny strange, not funny ha-ha.) Mark greatly emphasizes believing what the translators said and accepting that as the final word. Yet, he fails to apply this principle when talking about others. Why does he not accept what TR people say as the truth that they are not KJVO? Instead, he looks for evidence that they are not telling the truth. For example, he says the fact that they won’t use the NKJV is evidence they are King James Only rather than TR Defenders. He has made that charge several times against Confessional Bibliologists (Jeff Riddle, for example). Then he complains when people look at evidence concerning the NKJV. Consistency is not a jewel that Mark wears.
No comments:
Post a Comment