Wednesday, July 17, 2024

Pure Cambridge and Acts 11:12

The Pure Cambridge Edition is a nice and accurate printing of the King James Bible. This printing of the King James Bible can be found online, for example at Bible Protector PCE,, and Pure Cambridge Edition. However, some supporters set it up as the (one and only) correct printing of the King James Bible, against all others. According to Matthew Verschuur in “How to Know the Pure Cambridge Edition of the Bible,” a Pure Cambridge Edition of the KJV can be identified because it by its conformity to the following test in 12 places.

  • 1. “or Sheba” not “and Sheba” in Joshua 19:2
  • 2. “sin” not “sins” in 2 Chronicles 33:19
  • 3. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Job 33:4
  • 4. “whom ye” not “whom he” in Jeremiah 34:16
  • 5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Ezekiel 11:24
  • 6. “flieth” not “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16
  • 7. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Matthew 4:1
  • 8. “further” not “farther” in Matthew 26:39
  • 9. “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73
  • 10. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Mark 1:12
  • 11. “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28
  • 12. “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1 John 5:8

Verschuur also adds that the Concord Cambridge Edition has departures in the following areas, where the correct PCE text has (among other things) “rasor” instead of “razor” (Numbers 6:5, et al.), “inquire” instead of “enquire” (Genesis 24:57, et al.), “counseller” instead of “counsellor” (2 Samuel 15:12, et al.), “expences” instead of “expenses” (Ezra 6:4,8), “ancle” instead of “ankle” (Ezekiel 47:3; Acts 3:7), “Geba” rather than “Gaba” at Ezra 2:26, and lower case “spirit” at Acts 11:12, 28 and 1 John 5:8.

I have mentioned the test before in passing. Now let us look at it more directly. One of the identifiers of the Pure Cambridge Edition is the lower case “spirit” at Acts 11:12. Using this as a test case shows the arbitrary nature of choosing this printing as “the correct, perfect and final text of the King James Bible.”

  • “And the spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting…” (Acts 11:12)

However, in this same edition the Spirit in Acts 10:19-20 who bids Peter go, doubting nothing, is capitalised “Spirit.”

  • “While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.” (Acts 10:19-20)

The Spirit/spirit in Acts 11:12 is the selfsame Spirit/spirit in Acts 10:19-20. How can it be that it is correct to capitalise the word in Acts 10:19 and not capitalise it in Acts 11:28? If it is not wrong to capitalise “Spirit” in Acts 10:19, it cannot be wrong to capitalise it in Acts 11:12. Defenses of the distinction devolve into disconcerting disputations, of doubtful merit. If one will be led of the Spirit of truth rather than the spirit of defending a particular printing at all costs, this is easy to see.[i]

The problem with “PCE-ism” is not the Pure Cambridge printing itself, but rather the arbitrary induction of only one early inexactly-dated 1900s printing of the King James translation as “the” Bible. This subtly shifts the time-honored, God-given interpretation method of comparing Scripture with Scripture to a new-fangled method of interpretation based on one typography frozen in time.

This Cambridge printing of the King James Bible is clean, nicely done, and highly recommended. However, it is not the one and only final edition to the exclusion of all other King James Bibles. If your Bible has “Spirit” instead of “spirit” in Acts 11:12 (and 11:28) don’t throw it away! Continue to use it, with God’s blessings. It is the Spirit of God speaking in those places.[ii]

[i] This could also cause a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of who the Spirit is in Acts 11:28. However, be aware, it is the responsibility of the Bible reader to interpret based on context rather than English capitalisation, which has not always been (and may not now always be) standardized. For example the 1611 Barker printing has lower-case “s” in Acts 10:19, 11:12, and 11:28, the 1618 Norton & Bill printing has capital “S” in all three places, while the 1631 Barker printing has a lower-case “s” in 10:19 and capitalization in chapter 11. See also endnote 2. Note, however, that trying to find the best printing of the King James Bible is not immaterial. If the Bible is God’s word (it is), then we should want the best printing of it, with the least number of typographical errors, defects (smudges, page bleed-through, etc.), and so on. But we should not let it become a dogma inhering in the defense of the King James Bible.
[ii] It is well to note that the history of this (capital versus lowercase) is entrenched in the history of the English language, which has gone through many uses of and attempts to standardize the capitalization of words. See the 1611-1768 chart for some history of the printing of these verses in the King James Bible.

Spirit and spirit in Acts 10 and 11

The chart below gives some history of the capitalization of Spirit/spirit, 1611-1769, in Acts 10:19, 11:12, and 11:28. It “proves” two things:

  1. There is enough variation for anyone who wants to so, to base some theological or orthographical view on it.
  2. More seriously and more importantly, it illustrates the rules of capitalization in English were not fixed during this period of time.[i]

I hope the chart will be large enough to see; it appears to be kind of small. I think perhaps you can enlarge it on your computer. All of these Bibles are King James Bibles. The chart gives the Bible printing year and by whom it was printed (if known). A URL is provided for anyone who wants to check out the printings. I may have made some mistakes. After looking at one word that long, they can all start to look alike! Additionally, I discovered when I was using the tab in Excel, the program was “correcting” every entry to lower-case spirit. I believe I readjusted all those Excel “corrections.” If any readers find mistakes in the chart, please let me know.

When the entry has two years (e.g., 1640/39), that means the frontispiece of the Bible and the front of the NT had different dates.

[i] And I would add that they probably are still not as fixed as some people assume they are.

Tuesday, July 16, 2024

“Ellipsizing” in a point

Baptists and the American Standard Version of the Bible” by Doug Kutilek was first published in As I See It, Volume 19, No. 3.[i] It has been republished at Sharper Iron, and Kutilek (on 16 Feb 2024) republished it to the Baptist History Preservation group on Facebook. Doug Kutilek is a very active anti-King James Onlyist promoter of modern versions.

This curious excerpt from his post obtained perhaps more notice and discussion than the rest of what he wrote about the ASV.

“In a book written around 1967, Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters, founder of Central Baptist Seminary of Minnesota and Pillsbury Baptist College, and widely recognized during his lifetime as a ‘Fundamentalist’s Fundamentalist,’ wrote:

“Honesty compels us to cite the 1901 American Revised as the best English Version of the original languages which places us in a position 290 years ahead of those who are still weighing the King James of 1611 for demerits.[ii] ... We know of no Fundamentalists ... that claim the King James as the best English translation. Those in the mainstream of Fundamentalism all claim the American Revised of 1901 as the best English translation.”[iii] The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, pp. 192, 199.

The excerpt is curious in what it asserts and what it leaves out. The quote below includes a bit more material from before and after what Kutilek shared, plus a full sentence on page 199 without the ellipsis.

“One mark of scholarship at Central is that the Revised Standard Version of the Bible is never given praise or blame over the ‘straw man’ of the Authorized Version, either orally or in writing as some schools have delighted to do to impress people that they are up-to-date. Honesty compels us to cite the 1901 American Revised as the best English Version of the original languages which places us in a position 290 years ahead of those who are still weighing the King James of 1611 for demerits…We know of no Fundamentalists except the Carnell variety that claim the King James as the best English translation. Those in the mainstream of Fundamentalism all claim the American Revised of 1901 as the best English translation. We know of no competent scholar who would not rate it far above the Revised Standard Version, which Carnell quotes throughout his book.” The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, pp. 192, 199.

By means of ellipsis (... three-dot punctuation to indicate material passed over, omission of words, admitting alteration of a direct quote), Doug Kutilek would have Richard Clearwaters say that no Fundamentalists thought the the KJV was better than the ASV. Additionally, Clearwaters himself creates some “plausible deniability” for his comment by later using the phrase “the mainstream of Fundamentalism,” thereby simply writing out of “the mainstream” those who disagree with him about the ASV!

However, we could take for example Philip Mauro. Mauro was a contributor to the original fundamentalist series The Fundamentals: A Testimony to The Truth. Surely one of that pedigree could not be written out of “the mainstream.” He wrote Which Version in 1924, defending the King James Version over and against the English and American revisions, as superior in underlying text, the quality of translation, as well as in its style and composition.

While Clearwaters touts the ASV as the Bible of “The” Fundamentalists, the editors of The Fundamentals: a Testimony, and particularly the author James M. Gray (then dean of Moody Bible Institute), criticizes the English Revised and ASV translation of 2 Timothy 3:16 – noting the superiority of the King James translation.

“As this verse is given somewhat differently in the Revised Version we dwell upon it a moment longer. It there reads, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable,” and the caviller is disposed to say that therefore some scripture may be inspired and some may not be, and that the profitableness extends only to the former and not the latter.

“But aside from the fact that Paul would hardly be guilty of such a weak truism as that, it may be stated in reply first, that the King James rendering of the passage is not only the more consistent scripture, but the more consistent Greek. Several of the best Greek scholars of the period affirm this, including some of the revisers themselves who did not vote for the change.” The Fundamentals: a Testimony to the Truth, Volume II, R. A. Torrey, editor. Los Angeles, CA: BIOLA, 1917, pp. 16, 21[iv]

When Richard V. Clearwaters writes “the Carnell variety” of Fundamentalists, he means the type of Fundamentalist mentioned by Edward John Carnell, a Baptist preacher and president of Fuller Seminary, in his book The Case for Orthodox Theology. Clearwaters is not identifying Carnell as a Fundamentalist. Rather, in his book Carnell complained of Fundamentalists clinging to the King James Version, writing:

“The mentality of fundamentalism is dominated by ideological thinking. Ideological thinking is rigid, intolerant, and doctrinaire…The fundamentalists’ crusade against the Revised Standard Version illustrates the point. The fury did not stem from a scholarly conviction that the version offends Hebrew and Greek idioms, for ideological thinking operates on far simpler criteria. First, there were modernists on the translation committee, and modernists corrupt whatever they touch. It does not occur to fundamentalism that translation requires only personal honesty and competent scholarship. Secondly, the Revised Standard Version’s copyright is held by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. If a fundamentalist used the new version, he might give aid and comfort to the National Council; and that, on his principles, would be sin. By the same token, of course, a fundamentalist could not even buy groceries from a modernist. But ideological thinking is never celebrated for its consistency.” The Case for Orthodox Theology (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1959), p. 114

“The intellectual stagnation of fundamentalism can easily be illustrated. Knowing little about the canons of lower criticism, and less about the relation between language and culture, the fundamentalist has no norm by which to classify the relative merits of Biblical translations. As a result, he identifies the Word of God with the seventeenth-century language forms of the King James Version. Since other versions sound unfamiliar to him, he concludes that someone is tampering with the Word of God.” The Case for Orthodox Theology, p. 120

So, Clearwaters is not trying to make an accurate historical statement, but rather a polemical point, to distance himself from the Fundamentalists that Carnell criticized – and in doing so to assert that the “true” Fundamentalists are those who do not hold such a position. Carnell knew better, Clearwaters knew better,[v] and we know better. Kutilek should know better. This claim cannot be considered a completely valid historical statement of the relationship of the Fundamentalists (or Baptists) to the King James Bible.

Ellipses serve a purpose. When we quote authors there is not usually room to reproduce everything they said. Brevity has its place. However, we should not “ellipsize” out the facts in order to make our point – most especially when that point contradicts the original source.[vi] Too many “Bible version arguers” of all stripes do just that. Let us resolve to do better!

[i] Probably published in March 2016, though I have not seen the year clearly given anywhere I have looked. As to Clearwaters’ book, The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, it is hard to date as well. It is a mix of writings from various times. Chapter 12 was written in or after 1965, for at the time Blain Myron Cedarholm had served his 18 years as General Director of the Conservative Baptist Association (1947-1965; p. 180); it also mentions receiving a letter dated November 17, 1967 (Compromise, p. 184). So after 1967.
[ii] 290 is the number of years from the King James Bible of 1611 to the American Standard Version of 1901. This is a confusing comment, since Clearwaters and those in his orbit can only be ahead of others who are “still weighing the King James of 1611 for demerits” by the amount of time they began using the ASV to whenever this “still weighing” is occurring.
[iii] After this sentence Clearwaters writes, “We know of no competent scholar who would not rate it far above the Revised Standard Version, which Carnell quotes throughout his book.”
[iv] This is not to say that Gray consistently preferred the KJV above the ASV, but simply to show he did not think the ASV was always better. Gray acknowledged some Christians “who would be willing to retain the rendering of the Revised Version as being stronger than the King James” by introducing a word to make it say, “Every scripture (because) inspired of God is also profitable” (p. 16). Both J. M. Gray and L. W. Munhall take the position that translations are not inspired (p. 37).
[v] Thomas Cassidy, a former student and friend of Richard Clearwaters, in his praise of him included this telling statement: “Doc Clearwaters was my pastor and mentor while I was a member of Fourth Baptist and a student at Central Seminary. He was a truly great man. A bit flawed where his ego was concerned, but a great man nevertheless.” It is worth noting that Carnell’s position, against which Clearwaters argued, is the position of the modern text critic – that Bible “translation requires only personal honesty and competent scholarship.” The modern fundamentalist followers of Richard Clearwaters are, on this matter, closer in belief to Carnell than to Clearwaters, who held that “‘natural’ men who ‘receive not the things of the Spirit of God’ and hence totally unfit to translate or interpret what God has inspired” (Compromise, p. 199).
[vi] I also use ellipses (plural of ellipsis); most every one who quotes anyone does at some point. I am sad to say many King James Defenders use them ill-advisedly (see Getting It Right, for example). The wide distribution of material (books, tracts, etc.) has made it much easier to check original sources to see what had been left out of quotes. Many times we need to do so. It is worthwhile every time we have the sources to do so.

Monday, July 15, 2024

Simply preach the word

“We are commissioned to ‘preach the word,’ whether men ‘hear’ it or ‘whether they will forebear’; whether they will ‘endure’ it or whether they will not (Ezk. ii. 5, 7. 2 Tim. iv. 3.). 

“If men will not ‘endure’ or ‘hear,’ we are not to seek for something else which they will endure, but simply to ‘preach the word.’”

“People, to-day, look for ‘results,’ and unless we are able to show some, or to make up some ‘report,’ our work is considered on all hands as a failure. But we have nothing whatever to do with results. What we have to do with in our faithfulness.”  

E. W. Bullinger (1837-1913), Great Cloud of Witnesses: A Series of Papers on Hebrews XI (originally published in 1911), p. 124

Sunday, July 14, 2024

Glorious Is Thy Name

And blessed be his glorious name for ever: and let the whole earth be filled with his glory; Amen, and Amen. (Psalm 72:19)

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:9-11).

Baylus Benjamin “B.B.” McKinney wrote the words and music to Glorious Is Thy Name. The hymn is 8s.7s. meter with an irregular refrain. It is a paean of praise to the glorious name of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. This represents one of the two genres in which McKinney usually wrote – prayer and praise.

In his younger days, McKinney led music in revivals with well-known Southern Baptist evangelist A. P. “Pink” Durham. Durham persuaded McKinney to attend Southwestern Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. His secular, musical, and religious education included: Mount Lebanon Academy at Mount Lebanon, Bienville Parish, Louisiana; Louisiana College in Pineville, Louisiana; Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas; the Siegel-Myers Correspondence School of Music, Chicago, Illinois; and the Bush Conservatory of Music in Chicago, Illinois.

B. B. McKinney was known and is remembered for his songwriting, music evangelism, and editorial work. He served as music editor for the Baptist Sunday School Board and edited The Broadman Hymnal, which first appeared in 1940. The Broadman Hymnal was extremely popular in Southern Baptist churches, and even used by other Baptist churches in the South. Its availability in shape notes helped its reception in many places. Though the SBC replaced it with The Baptist Hymnal in 1956, it is still used in a few churches.

B. B. McKinney wrote the words and music for about 180 songs, as well as writing music for other songs. Some were written under pseudonyms, including (and possibly only) Martha Annis, Otto Nellen, and Gene Routh.

The song can be found as No. 57 in Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs, Shape Note Edition, No. 211 (Knoxville, TN: Melody Publications, 2020).

1. Blessed Saviour, we adore thee,
We thy love and grace proclaim;
Thou art mighty, thou art holy,
Glorious is thy matchless name!
Glorious (Glorious is thy name, O Lord), 
Glorious (Glorious is thy name, O Lord),
Glorious is thy name, O Lord! (X 2)

2. Great Redeemer, Lord and Master,
Light of all eternal days;
Let the saints of ev’ry nation
Sing thy just and endless praise!
3. From the throne of heaven’s glory
To the cross of sin and shame,
Thou didst come to die a ransom,
Guilty sinners to reclaim!
4. Come, O come, immortal Saviour,
Come and take thy royal throne;
Come, and reign, and reign forever,
Be the kingdom all thine own!

B. B. McKinney was born July 22, 1886 in Webster Parish, Louisiana, the son of James Calvin McKinney and Martha Annis Heflin. He married Leila Irene Routh in 1918, and they had two sons, Baylus Benjamin McKinney, Jr. and Eugene Calvin McKinney. Leila was a sister of the Baptist preacher E. C. Routh.

McKinney was music editor at the Robert H. Coleman Company, 1918-1935. He taught at Southwestern Seminary in Fort Worth, 1919-1932. In 1935, he became music editor for the Baptist Sunday School Board in Nashville, Tennessee. He was the founding director (1941-1952) of the Church Music Department of the Baptist Sunday School Board. The Handbook to The Baptist Hymnal (p. 406) called him “the archetypal ‘Mr. Southern Baptist Church Music.’”

According to William J. Reynolds, McKinney died September 7, 1952 in a car wreck at Bryson City, North Carolina. He was returning to Nashville from a church music conference in Ridgecrest, North Carolina. McKinney and his wife are buried at the Woodlawn Memorial Park and Mausoleum in Nashville (Davidson County), Tennessee.

Some sources for McKinney include:

  • Handbook to The Baptist Hymnal, Jere V. Adams
  • Hymns of Our Faith, William J. Reynolds
  • I Will Sing the Wondrous Story, David W. Music and Paul A. Richardson

Saturday, July 13, 2024

Thee, you, the resurrection, his resurrection

Acts 26:7b-8 ...For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?

This is one of those verses “you” might miss in a modern translation. Paul begins by addressing Agrippa directly (“thee,” singular, vs. 2-3), but expands to the entire audience (“you,” plural, v. 8; cf. 25:23-27) when he brings up belief in the resurrection of the dead.

“The word ‘you’ is here plural, signifying that Paul here changes from addressing Agrippa only, and here includes all the Jews present, including those Sadducees who denied the doctrine of the future general resurrection of the dead. Paul is leading up to the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus (v. 23).” Stephen Mills Reynolds, The Purified New Testament, p. 311

Stephen Mills Reynolds was an ordained Presbyterian minister who served on the New International Version Committee on Bible Translation. He also created his own New Testament, which might be considered sort of a “niche” Bible. It takes and promotes the position on the translation of “oinos” in the as grape juice. Reynolds was observant and noted the change in the number of the pronoun in this text. However, he also “ad-libbed” an interpretation, adding the Sadducees to the group gathered to hear Paul. The text only identifies Roman officials.

Acts 25:23 And on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and was entered into the place of hearing, with the chief captains, and principal men of the city ... 26:30 And when he had thus spoken, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them...

Friday, July 12, 2024

Bible related books and sites available online

Some books and sites related to the Bible and early Christian writings (the providing of links is for research purposes not necessarily a recommendation of all the sites linked).

Thursday, July 11, 2024

Acts, some Ephesians and “re”baptism

Acts 19:1-7 Paul finds disciples in Ephesus

Verse 1a: When Apollos had traveled to Corinth, Paul returned to Ephesus (cf. 18:19). 

Verses 1b-2: Paul encounters “certain disciples.” “Acts 19 records the single instance where a group of believers emerged in isolation from authorized churches. In that single case, all of those believers were baptized again.”[i]


Doubtless through interaction with these disciples, Paul sees something amiss and asks them a direct question, “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?” His perception is correct, for the answer shows the understanding of these disciples is defective regarding the Holy Ghost. They had not been instructed; they had “not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.” “since ye believed” suggests Paul regards them as true believers, and at the least that they professed to be believers.


Verse 3: Paul follows with a second question, “Unto what then were ye baptized?” “Unto John’s baptism” most likely means that they were baptized “in reference to” John’s baptism rather than that they were baptized by John the Baptist. John himself had taught concerning the Holy Ghost (cf. Matthew 3:11, 16-17; Mark 1:8-11; Luke 3:16, 22). Some have suggested that it was Apollos who baptized these “unto John’s baptism.”[ii] However, when Apollos came to Ephesus, he was already instructed in the way of God “more perfectly” by Aquila and Priscilla.


Verses 4-5: When he hears their response, Paul presents the true facts concerning John and his baptism. Paul explains to these Ephesian disciples what John did (baptized unto repentance) and what John preached (Christ Jesus). Some read verse 5 as continuing the statement about John the Baptist, that is, when the people heard John’s preaching, they believed on the one who was to come and were baptized in his name. More likely in context, “they” refers to the Ephesians rather than John’s hearers. If so, then their understanding was that their baptism was null and their reaction was to be baptized.

[i] Principles of Practice In the New Testament Church, David Pyles, 2015, p. 94. Accessed October 22, 2020 2:15 pm.
[ii] For example: “The disciples whom St Paul found in Ephesus on his return (Acts xix 1 ff) are probably hearers of Apollos who had been attracted by his speaking and teaching in the streets of Ephesus or elsewhere. Baptism, as practised by John Baptist, would be the natural sequel of professed repentance.” “Apollos,” J. H. A. Hart, Journal of Theological Studies, Volume VII, No. 25, October, 1905, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1906, p. 22.

Wednesday, July 10, 2024

The base text of the NKJV New Testament

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 End of Luke 1:35 in the Greek text of Beza

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).