This is an interesting version of the history of the New King James Version by Edwin Blum, the man who took over the Holman Christian Standard Bible project upon the death of Arthur Farstad, who was originally in charge of it. In an interview with Will Lee (December 19, 2007), Blum stated:
“[Arthur Farstad] and Zane Hodges published their own critical text. But they made a distinction between the Textus Receptus (TR) and the MT. So they published this critical text with Thomas Nelson and there were two editions done of it, so he was interested in the MT tradition, not necessarily the TR which was the translation that the KJV was based on. So when he was working on the NKJV, he wanted to change the text in about 260 places that he felt the KJV text did not represent the MT. In other words, he made a distinction between TR, the Byzantine tradition and the critical text. And they did publish an interlinear, and each time there’s a variant reading, down at the bottom it will say, ‘Critical Text,’ ‘TR,’ or ‘MT,’ so you’ll be able to tell which is which. But the people who were backing the NKJV did not want to do any textual critical changes. So he was not too happy with that.”
Blum’s comments make it sound like they got further into the translation process (than I had thought) before Farstad’s “Majority Text” aspirations for the NKJV were shut down. This seems a bit different than the general face painted on this picture. There is a comment by Farstad about this in an unpublished paper, which seems to accurately intersect with the statement by Blum.
“Originally it was planned to use the Majority Text for the NKJV, not the TR used in the KJV. This was changed near the end of the project. Strangely enough, the one who talked Thomas Nelson into not using the Majority Text was Zane Hodges himself. (He was not, however, on the translation team.) Zane argued that a version should not be based on a Greek text that had not been on the market for a few years to allow time for scholarly appraisal. Also, many felt that this updating of the classic KJV should not introduce another Greek text, like the English Revised had done in 1881 before the Westcott-Hort text (also 1881) had a chance to be evaluated.”
Arthur Farstad wrote the above statement in “Why I Became a Majority Text Advocate,” which is an “Unpublished paper by Arthur L. Farstad when he was at Dallas Seminary.” It is posted on the Dean Bible Ministries website of Robert L. Dean, Jr.
2 comments:
Thank you for continuing to look into this. I'm seeing more and more pastors turning to the NKJV because they've been told that it's simply an updated TR translation that is stable and not getting updated, but it's being more and more apparent that this was not honestly marketed, either then or now, and it makes me wonder how many people at Thomas Nelson even KNOW about the behind-the-scenes events in the making of the NKJV. I suspect we'll see more churches and pastors move to the KJV over the next few years as it becomes more obvious that the NKJV translators simply don't appear to have honestly represented the TR.
Adam, thanks for your thoughts. I agree. Whether or not one believes in updating the KJV, the simple fact is that the NKJV is not an update by translators and editors who had good faith and trust in the Textus Receptus. If someone is looking for that, they need to look elsewhere.
Post a Comment