Jude 1:19 in the KJV & NKJV

Jude 1:19 gives another test case on whether the New King James Bible prefers a Critical or Majority Text reading over the Textus Receptus. First, remember their claim:

“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.)

Does the “they” of Jude 1:19 “separate themselves” or “cause divisions”? Compare the difference in the translations of the King James and New King James.

• AKJV: These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
• NKJV: These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.

Now also compare the printed Greek Critical Text, Majority Text, and Textus Receptus. The first two are the same and the Textus Receptus contains a word not found in those two.

• CT: Οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες, ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες.
• MT: Οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες, ψυχικοί, Πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες.
• TR: 19 οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες ἐαυτούς, ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες.

Finally, compare these pictures Greek text of the 1598 Theodore Beza, which the King James translators followed (first picture) and the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad, which the New King James editors inadvertently suggest they followed.

The first picture is from the 1598 Novum Testamentum by Theodore Beza (p. 520).[i] The yellow highlighting shows the Greek word ἐαυτούς, which is not found in the Critical Text or Majority Text.

The second picture is from The NKJV Greek English interlinear New Testament (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994, p. 838), edited by Arthur Farstad and others. The red arrow shows the word ἐαυτούς is missing in this text.

This interlinear uses The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, by Hodges and Farstad (2nd Edition, 1985, Thomas Nelson). This tacitly shows that the translation of the New King James Bible in this place matches the Majority Text (and in effect the Critical Text, which is the same) rather than the Scrivener TR as promised by the editors.[ii] The translation matches more closely modern translations rather than the King James Bible because the translators were influenced by a different underlying Greek text. There is a difference here. It is not just a translation decision.

Jude 1:19 presents another case in which the NKJV editors and translators say one thing and do another. If you wish to use the New King James Version that is your prerogative – but don’t keep telling us that it is a faithful modern update of the King James Bible.

---

[i] Beza adds this note about verse 19:
Qui seipsos segregani, οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες ἐαυτούς. Addidimus ἐαυτούς ex Veteris interpretis & trium vetustorum codidum fide: quanquam etiam possimus non inepte hoc referre ad alios quos isti a verae Ecclesiae coetu abducant. Hi sunt inmirum quos Paulus ἰτεοδιδασχαλυῶ τας & αἰοεποκοις vocat, id est qui peculiarem doctrinam docent, & sectas instituunt. 
Who separate themselves, οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες ἐαυτούς. We have added ἐαυτούς (themselves) from the faith of the Old Interpreter and the three ancient codices: although we can also not inappropriately refer this to others whom these lead away from the assembly of the true Church. These are the ones, no doubt, whom Paul calls ἰτεοδιδασχαλυῶ τας & αἰοεποκοις, that is, those who teach a peculiar doctrine, and establish sects.
It is not clear to me to which old interpreter Beza is referring. In his commentary on this text, John Calvin noted that “Some Greek copies have the participle by itself, other copies add ἑαυτοὺς, ‘themselves’.” His conclusion was that the meaning “is nearly the same,” and that Jude means those that separated from the church. That meaning would be gathered from ἑαυτοὺς.
[ii] In this case, supporters can declare that the NKJV is following a different TR, such as the 1550 Stephanus. However, while this is correct, remember that the editors themselves claimed they were following “the Greek text developed by Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener.” In The NKJV Greek English interlinear New Testament the editors state, “The word-for-word interlinear English is the first translation of the Majority Text.” So clearly they understand that the NKJV translation they have matches the Majority Text over the TR in this place.

The Prayer of Cyrus Brown

Cyrus Brown and his advisers, on the posture of prayer:

THE PRAYER OF CYRUS BROWN

“The proper way for a man to pray,”
  Said Deacon Lemuel Keyes,
  “And the only proper attitude
  Is down upon his knees.”

“Nay, I should say the way to pray,”
  Said Reverend Dr. Wise,
  “Is standing straight with outstretched arms
  And rapt and upturned eyes.”

“Oh, no, no, no,” said Elder Snow;
  “Such posture is too proud.
  A man should pray with eyes fast closed
  And head contritely bowed.”

“It seems to me his hands should be
  Austerely clasped in front.
  With both thumbs pointing toward the ground,”
  Said Reverend Dr. Hunt.

“Las’ year I fell in Hodgkin’s well
  Head first,” said Cyrus Brown,
  “With both my heels a-stickin’ up,
  My head a-p’inting down;

“An’ I made a prayer right then an’ there;
  Best prayer I ever said;
  The prayingest prayer I ever prayed;
  A-standin’ on my head.”

– By Samuel Walter Foss (1858-1911)

The castle of the human heart

“The heart taken” is Hymn 101, Book One in Olney Hymns – on the text [Luke] “Chap. xi. 21, 22.”[i]

When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.

The hymn emphasizes the depravity of man, with native sin and Satan set up in the human heart. However, praise God, the strong man Satan is routed by the stronger man Jesus Christ, who rescues from sin and darkness, translating the delivered into his kingdom! The hymn ends with the rebel soul now subdued and rejoicing to be all in for Christ.

1. The castle of the human heart
Strong in its native sin,
Is guarded well, in ev’ry part,
By him who dwells within.

2. For Satan there, in arms, resides,
And calls the place his own;
With care against assaults provides,
And rules, as on a throne.

3. Each traitor thought on him, as chief,
In blind obedience waits;
And pride, self-will, and unbelief,
Are posted at the gates.

4. Thus Satan for a season reigns,
And keeps his goods in peace;
The soul is pleas’d to wear his chains,
Nor wishes a release.

5. But Jesus, stronger far than he,
In his appointed hour
Appears, to set his people free
From the usurper’s pow’r.

6. “This heart I bought with blood” he says,
“And now it shall be mine.”
His voice the strong one arm’d dismays,
He knows he must resign.

7. In spite of unbelief and pride,
And self, and Satan’s art;
The gates of brass fly open wide,
And Jesus wins the heart.

8. The rebel soul that once withstood
The Saviour’s kindest call;
Rejoices now, by grace subdued,
To serve Him with her all.

I have not found this particular hymn used with any tune, though it likely has been. Written in Common Meter, it offers many tune prospects. I suggest the wonderful old hymn tune Mear. One might also consider New Britain, commonly used with Newton’s “Amazing Grace,” or the tune Avon by Hugh Wilson. Hymnary.org suggests the tune Wrexford by A. H. Mann (but I did not notice an example of the two paired together).

The life of John Newton is perhaps one of the best-known and widely circulated of English hymn writers – due to his dramatic deliverance from slaver to abolitionist, from reprobate to rector (minister). “Hymn of the Day” writes that John Newton’s “theological insights and pastoral care through his words are a dagger to my heart, a balm to my soul, and an encouragement in my race to press onto Christlikeness.” “Amazing Grace,” according to biographer Jonathan Aitken, is “the most sung, most recorded and most loved hymn in the world.” That hymn, titled “Faith’s Review and Expectation,” was prepared by John Newton for a New Year’s sermon on January 1, 1773. Newton was a prolific writer with amazing output –not only many hymns, but also for journals, theology, letters. and sermons.

John Newton was born in London August 4, 1725, the son of shipmaster John Newton. He married Mary Catlett in 1750. Mary died in 1790, and John died 21 December 21, 1807. They were originally buried in the vault beneath the St. Mary Woolnoth Church, where he had served as rector for 28 years. London’s progress could wait for no man, not even the author of the “Christian National Anthem.” Before they built a railway station beneath the church, the remains of John Newton and his wife Mary were removed in January of 1893 to the churchyard of St. Peter and Paul in Olney, where Newton had lived when he published Olney Hymns.

The Southern Echo, Monday, January 16, 1893, p. 4

---

[i] The “Book One” section of Olney Hymns contains hymn “On Select Texts of Scripture.”

All in me

“I have read the Bible and found many errors, all of which were in me.” Greg Mathis

I don’t know Greg Mathis. 

I began to read this – “the Bible…found many errors” – and I was shocked by the audacity! 

Then I read the punch line – “all of which were in me” – and I was shamed by the accuracy!

Baptists afraid of water?

A Little Humor in Baptist History: 

...Elder Hastings...had just returned from the ordination of Mr. Whelpley, a baptist minister, in Sandersfield, Mass. This young man was educated at Providence college, as I heard; studied divinity with Dr. Stillman, of Boston, and was quite in clerical fashion. As he had a college education, and was something like the clergy in Connecticut, several of the presbyterian clergy attended. Elder Hastings stated to us that Elder John Leland was appointed to preach the ordination sermon. He said that when the people came together, the meeting-house would not hold them. The people then went to a grove, near the house; erected a stage that the people might hear. Mr. Leland had not spoken long, before it began to rain a little, so that several people went to the meeting-house for a shelter. As they were going, Elder Leland said to old Elder Thomas Morse, “What shall I do, father Morse?” He replied, “Wait a little while; the rain will soon be over, and the people will return.” He sat a while; the cloud passed over, and the people returned. After they were all seated, ready to hear, Mr. Leland rose up, and after looking around, as though surprised, and wishing also to sting the clergy severely on account of their infant sprinkling, he said, “My friends, I am astonished to see baptists afraid of water! But when I come to think, it is sprinkling; and I do not wonder that you flee from it.” This was a severe stroke upon the Connecticut clergy, and very mortifying to Mr. Whelpley. Mr. Leland having said this, proceeded in his sermon as he had proposed before the shower.

From The Life, Conversion, Preaching, Travels, and Sufferings of Elias Smith, pp. 224-225

To day, in paradise

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Some theologians, feeling the weight of the statement of Jesus to the thief,[i] reorganize the wording as “Verily I say unto thee to day, Thou thou be with me in paradise” (that is, moving the comma after “to day” so to change today to referring to when Jesus made the statement, rather than when the thief would be in paradise). The purpose is to diffuse the strength of Jesus taking the thief with him to paradise on the very day he made the statement. They want to deflect to the idea that Jesus is just saying it today, not that the thief will be in paradise today.

To put the comma after “To day” would be an odd way to speak. When I am telling you something today, I do not have to tell you that I am telling you today. What other day would you be saying it? Translators consistently put the comma before “To day.” Every Bible translation at Bible Gateway that I looked at (even some other than English) has the verse translated in such a way to mean that “to day” refers to when the thief would be in paradise. In some translations, the comma does not come into play due to how the sentences are written. Further, the usage of semeron (σήμερον, today) in Luke demonstrates the same. When there is a quote, semeron (today) goes with the verb in the quote – not with the verb “said” before the quote (in other words, referencing the day on which something significant is happening). See Luke 5:26, 19:5, 19:9 for other examples in Luke. Compare also Mark 14:30, Hebrews 3:7, 3:15, and James 4:13 for other New Testament uses. The word “today” is an adverb that goes with the quote to tell when concerning the statement in the quote. It does not go with “I say” as if telling when “I say” it. The use of “Today I say,....” is not found in the New Testament.

---

[i] Most often, the objectors are those who do not believe in the immortality of the soul and/or the immediacy of paradise. For example, the Jehovah’s Witness New World Translation changes the verse to fit their theology: ‘And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise.’” Notice, for example, how the incident of the death Stephen fits the theology of Luke 23, with the believer being received by Christ upon death (Acts 7:55-60). Others seem to fear a supposed contradiction between Luke 23:43 and John 20:17, and run from it in this manner (i.e., changing the comma in Luke 23:43).

Reverse engineering a Greek text

• reverse engineer. To examine or analyze in detail to discover the concepts involved in creating something, usually in order to produce something similar.
• back translate. To translate a previously translated document or text back to its source language.

These two terms above are often used to describe a misconception some people have concerning the creation of The New Testament in the Original Greek compiled by F. H. A. Scrivener in 1881.

Reverse engineered is preferable to back translated for this description. The term “reverse engineered” means or can mean something different than “back translated” – and perhaps is understood differently by some people discussing the subject. However, the average person talking about the King James Bible means basically the same thing when using these terms. People have a misconception of the relationship of the Scrivener TR and the KJV. For that reason, the use of “reverse engineered” is still likely to be misunderstood and confusing. It is somewhat problematic to try to come up with a simple terminology that would acceptably and accurately represent the relationship of the Scrivener Greek New Testament and the King James English translation, since the idea has been corrupted in the minds of many people (sometimes deliberately so, and add to that the acrimony often fueled by such discussions). The title given by Scrivener and/or Cambridge is: “The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorised Version…”

Reverse engineered may in fact be apt and accurate if what the person means by it is apt and accurate. Nevertheless, the number of people who regularly and consistently use “back translated” and “reverse engineered” to mean the same thing makes it problematic. Ultimately, people will often spend more time explaining what they mean by the term than they will spend if they start out with “the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version” and then describe and explain what F. H. A. Scrivener did. (Not that we can solve everyone’s inability or refusal to understand.)

Even someone so reasonable as Dwayne Green puts “back translated” and “reverse engineered” in “almost” the same category in his video “Why Scrivener Reverse Engineered the Textus Receptus.” “So the 1881 text of the Textus Receptus has actually been sort of – I don’t want to say back translated but you could almost say back translated from the King James Version.” (At about 25 seconds into the video). Interestingly, according to the transcript (if accurate) Dwayne actually used “reverse engineered” only once in his lesson, and used “back translated” three times. Back translated is used both in the introduction and the conclusion. (I am not saying that Dwayne did not explain it properly in the video, but am using the video as an example of why I even avoid “reverse engineered.” Even in the end of it he says, “I’d always wondered about what he was doing when he back translated the King James Version into the Textus Receptus…” I would wonder, if he had it to do over again, if Dwayne might approach that differently. The fact that Dwayne made another video clarifying his position strengthens the point I am trying to make.)

To conclude – the popular idea is that F. H. A. Scrivener took the Authorised King James Bible translation in English and translated those words back into Greek. That is a misrepresentation, whether in ignorance or deliberate.

In his “Preface,” F. H. A. Scrivener wrote:

“One of the Rules laid down for the guidance of the Revisers by a Committee appointed by the Convocation of Canterbury was to the effect ‘that, when the Text adopted differs from that from which the Authorised Version was made, the alteration be indicated in the margin.’ As it was found that a literal observance of this direction would often crowd and obscure the margin of the Revised Version, the Revisers judged that its purpose might be better carried out in another manner.” (Part of this “another manner,” was to compile and print “the text followed in the Authorized Version.”)

Here are the facts. The translators commissioned by King James created an English translation. They did not create a Greek translation to match their English translation. F. H. A. Scrivener was given the task of compiling a Greek text that would contain the Greek Textus Receptus readings used by the translators. The translators did not use one single Greek edition, but primarily used the 1598 Theodore Beza Greek New Testament. Therefore, Scrivener started with Beza’s 1598 Greek edition as a base text, then carefully identified places where the KJV translators used readings different from Beza’s edition. He searched texts and found these different readings in other editions of Greek New Testaments. In this task, F. H. A. Scrivener did not translate anything. We can say he “reverse engineered,” in that he began with the King James translation and worked backward. Nevertheless, I recommend even avoiding the terminology “reverse engineered” – because many people who hear it hear “back translated” (and their idea is that Scrivener took the KJV and translated the English words into Greek.) Just start with the hard work of explaining what you mean, which will probably be easier and more successful in the long run.

If ye love me, keep my commandments

David M. Ramsey recalled the following words, as spoken by the Baptist preacher E. R. Carswell, before baptizing several candidates in the Rocky River, Anderson County, South Carolina.

“And then, closing the book, the preacher said something like this: ‘Our Lord must have walked some forty miles across the desert country to come down to the Jordan to be baptized by John in the river. Jesus, calm and silent and unrecognized, had been working in the carpenter’s shop in Nazareth, but now he leaves these duties to enter upon his vast labors as the World’s Redeemer. First he must be baptized in the Jordan. Here stands his baptism on the threshold of his life-work. It was a solemn hour and tender experience, for Jesus Himself said it was necessary for him to be baptized to fulfill all righteousness. I know not all the deep meaning of that utterance. By example and precept he has taught us that it is our duty to be baptized, and I think if we love him it should be pleasant to keep his commandments.”

Excerpted from Baptist Why and Why Not, pp. 399-400.