Proponents of modern Bibles, and the New King James Version in particular, feel that objections of King James Bible defenders can be small, petty, or even desperate. To exasperate the situation, some King James supporters have made wild and exaggerated charges against the New King James, not founded in the facts. Nevertheless, there are legitimate reasons that some of us do not trust the New King James translation. The NKJV may not be as horrible as the wild-eyed shout. However, I do not trust it, and cannot recommend it. Rather than the “large” errors with which it is sometimes charged, it is often the subtle things that bother me. They make me ask, “Why?” I have previously pointed out that the translators of the NKJV did not prefer the Greek text they were using, that some of them worked simultaneously on the New International Version, and that there are some Critical Text preferences that creep into the readings.
There are very subtle changes that seem to have neither rhyme nor reason in light of their stated goals. These changes reflect that the translators and editors did not carefully follow their own claims in regard to the work. They claimed they wanted to speak “within the format of the original 1611 version—so that a reader of this edition may follow without confusion a reading of the original edition from the pulpit.”[i] Additionally, we are told:
“…the translators and editors of the present work have not pursued a goal of innovation.”
“…special care has also been taken in the present edition to preserve the work of precision which is the legacy of the 1611 translators.”
“A special feature of the New King James Version is its conformity to the thought flow of the 1611 Bible. The reader discovers that the sequence and selection of words, phrases, and clauses of the new edition, while much clearer, are so close to the traditional that there is remarkable ease in listening to the reading of either edition while following with the other.”
“Some variations exist in the spelling of Greek words, in word order, and in similar details. These ordinarily do not show up in translation and do not affect the sense of the text in any way.”[ii]
Notice an example of subtle change, from Mark 9:25. The NKJV translators changed the word order of “dumb and deaf” to “deaf and dumb.”[iii] Obviously, this is the same information. It will be understood in basically the same way by the reader. Then, why change the word order of dumb and deaf?
Mark 9:25
- AKJV: When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.
- NKJV: When Jesus saw that the people came running together, He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, “Deaf and dumb spirit, I command you, come out of him and enter him no more!”
This does not seem to be a change that could be attributed to a different TR (even if so, why make it). The Erasmus 1519, Stephanus 1550, and Beza 1598 Greek texts have το πνευμα το αλαλον και κωφον (the spirit, the dumb and deaf; that is, the dumb and deaf spirit).[iv]
Even the critical texts represented by Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland, UBS, Society of Biblical Literature, and Tyndale House, though slightly different from the TR, have the “dumb and deaf” word order – το αλαλον και κωφον πνευμα (the dumb and deaf spirit). So does the Robinson-Pierpont Majority Text.[v]
NAUBS:
ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ἐπισυντρέχει ὄχλος ἐπετίμησεν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ λέγων αὐτῷ, Τὸ ἄλαλον καὶ κωφὸν πνεῦμα, ἐγὼ ἐπιτάσσω σοι, ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ μηκέτι εἰσέλθῃς εἰς αὐτόν.
RPMT:
Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ἐπισυντρέχει ὄχλος, ἐπετίμησεν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ, λέγων αὐτῷ, Τὸ πνεῦμα το ἄλαλον καὶ κωφὸν, ἐγὼ σοι ἐπιτάσσω, ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ, καὶ μηκέτι εἰσέλθῃς εἰς αὐτόν.
Many modern translations keep the KJV and Greek word order, with dumb and deaf spirit (e.g., ERV, ASV, RSV) or mute and deaf spirit (e.g., CSB, ESV, LEB, LSB, NASB, NET). Of major modern translations, the NKJV agrees with the order of NASB1995 and the NIV, which have “deaf and mute.”[vi] (Remember, the NIV and NKJV have several translators in common.)
The preamble to the NKJV guidelines states, “The purpose of this project is to produce an updated English Version that follows the sentence structure of the 1611 Authorized Version as closely as possible. As much of the original King James Version as possible will be preserved.” The 9th guideline of the NKJV translators says they would “Attempt to keep King James word order. However, when comprehension or readability is affected, transpose or revise sentence structure.” No comprehension or readability issues are in view in Mark 9:25. It was possible and easy to have preserved the Greek and KJV word order in this verse. They did not.
A change such as this is extremely minor. Why make it, especially in light of purported claims of being a “new” King James Bible that substantially reads like the old one? Such a change, though minor, sends up a red flag! The translators did not respect the KJV or the KJV readers as they claimed. This is one of the reasons I have “trust issues” with the NKJV.[vii]
Why, O NKJV, why the change?
[ii] These statements are from the “Preface” of The New King James Version.
[iii] αλαλον (dumb, mute, incapable of speaking) και (and) κωφον (deaf, incapable of hearing)
[iv] And, of course, the F.H.A. Scrivener TR has this word order.
[v] Yes, some of these came after the NKJV translation. I am just making the point of the general consistency of the Greek text word order.
[vi] Bibles with the “deaf and dumb” word order include: Amplified Bible © 2015, Lockman Foundation; Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition; Easy-to-Read Version © 2006, Bible League International; Expanded Bible, © 2011 Thomas Nelson; Good News Translation © 1992 American Bible Society; International Children’s Bible 2015, Thomas Nelson; J. B Phillips’s NT © 1972; New American Standard Bible 1995® © 1995, Lockman Foundation; New Catholic Bible © 2019, Catholic Book Publishing Corp.; New International Version © 2011, Biblica, Inc.; Tree of Life Translation © 2015, The Messianic Jewish Family Bible Society.
[vii] At the least, someone who wants an updated King James Version should find one produced by translators and editors who actually prefer the traditional texts as a basis for translation, and have great respect for the King James Bible.
No comments:
Post a Comment