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.

Christopher Yetzer on Inspiration, Preservation, and Translation

By Christopher Yetzer, Baptist Missionary in Milan, Italy. (Used by permission.)

1. Inspiration

• 1. I affirm that God sovereignly inspired His words exactly as He intended (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). Inspiration rests in God’s act, not in my understanding of the process.

2. Preservation

• 2. I affirm that God has preserved His inspired words, as Scripture promises (Ps. 12:6–7; Isa. 40:8; Matt. 24:35).
• 3. Preservation means that God’s words remain accessible to His people and have not been lost to history.

3. Progressive Access in History

• 4. I recognize that not every believer in every generation possessed the entirety of Scripture (e.g., Old Testament saints did not have the New Testament; early churches did not immediately possess the complete canon).
• 5. Therefore, preservation does not require identical distribution in every era, but faithful transmission within God’s redemptive plan.

4. Recognition, Not Private Revelation

• 6. I believe Christ’s sheep hear His voice (John 10), meaning believers are enabled by the Spirit to recognize and receive God’s Word—not to generate new revelation.
• 7. I believe I possess God’s preserved Word today and can receive it with confidence.

5. The Textual Foundation

• 8. I believe the Old Testament is most faithfully preserved in the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text, and the New Testament in the historic Greek manuscript tradition received by the church.
• 9. Textual questions should be approached from this preservation framework rather than from a skepticism toward the text itself.

6. Translation

• 10. I believe God’s words can be accurately translated into other languages.
• 11. Accuracy does not always require word-for-word literalism but faithful representation of meaning and structure.
• 12. Changes in language over time (e.g., “ass” to “donkey”) do not necessarily constitute doctrinal or textual corruption.

7. Principles for a Translation

• I believe a faithful translation should aim for:
• 13. Accuracy — conveying the meaning of the original text faithfully.
• 14. Authority — broad ecclesiastical acceptance and proven use.
• 15. Beauty and dignity — language fitting for public worship and reverence.
• 16. Comprehensiveness — capable of expressing the full theological depth of the original languages.
• 17. Unity — promoting doctrinal and congregational stability where possible.

8. Application to English

• 18. For English-speaking believers, I believe these principles converge most fully in the King James Version.
• 19. I desire similar faithfulness, clarity, dignity, and unity in translations for other languages.

My confidence in a translation rests not on private spiritual impression alone, but on its historical continuity, textual foundation, doctrinal faithfulness, and long-standing use among believers.

Notes.

---

I think this very well represents the truth, and with which I understand and agree. Generally there is the modern evangelical denial of preservation as a biblical doctrine. More a “oh, what we have is just what happened to survive to the present” kind of preservation.

I believe the best preservation of biblical faith and practice occurred to a large degree underground during the ascendancy of the “hierarchical church” (Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox) from say the 500s to the Reformation. Both the people and the words of the Lord have been preserved. I see the Catholics and Orthodox as being heretical, and the truth generally preserved in persecuted bands of believers. (Not that no truths were preserved among the Catholics and Orthodox, but when they “hereticize” the doctrine of salvation outside of grace through faith, they have lost the plot.)

Money, money, money, mun-ne

Peter Gurry on translations:

On John Piper’s Desiring God site, “The Word Increased and Multiplied: Grasping the Complexities of Bible Translation,” by Peter Gurry, who is an Associate Professor of New Testament at Phoenix Seminary.

Multitude of English language translations.

Gurry notes that “one scholar writing in 1925 catalogued over one hundred English Bible translations in whole or in part” (John V. Madison, “English Versions of the New Testament: A Bibliographical List,” Journal of Biblical Literature, No. 44 (1925): 261–88). He says that there are several reasons for this.

“The English language has the most Bible translations available of any language in history. Such variety is due to a number of factors, including differences in theological convictions and translation philosophy, new manuscript discoveries, a desire to reach broader audiences, and the financial needs of publishers.”

Notice that one factor is the financial needs of publishers.

Money.

Gurry discusses a few things regarding Bible publishing and money. On the one hand, a Bible translation success is potentially a financial boon for a publisher. Of course, a failure is not.

“One final motivation for new translations is financial. Publishing is a fickle business. Major publishers survive the risks in large part thanks to their backlist. These are books that have already come out and that keep selling. They can include everything from coloring books to classic bestsellers like Lord of the Rings. They also include the Bible. In a recent court case, the CEO of HarperCollins, one of the five big US publishing houses, which owns Thomas Nelson and Zondervan, revealed that Bible sales account for $80 million of their business. So there is significant potential to be gained if a publisher owns the rights to a popular Bible translation. But there are also no guarantees, and new translations do flop (as the TNIV did). Like other books, a Bible translation is a gamble — sometimes a very expensive one. By the time the NIV was finally released in the 1970s, its editorial costs were estimated to be around $8 million ($40 million in today’s dollars).”

Another part of this issue is groups trying to save money by publishing their own Bibles. This releases the group from paying substantial fees for the use of another publishers Bible.

“Translations can make money, but they can also save it. Very few of us notice an important page in our Bibles that precedes Genesis 1:1 because it’s tucked away between the title page and the table of contents. It’s the copyright page. The copyright page says who owns the translation, but it also specifies how much of the translation can be quoted before permission must be sought. My NIV puts the number at 500 verses, whereas my ESV puts it at 250. For most of us, these restrictions never apply and do not matter. But for publishers that sell Bible-study curricula, VBS material, commentaries, and the like, these limits matter a lot. Even when permission is granted, it may come with the need to pay royalties, and these cut into a publisher’s bottom line. So, it is often in a publisher’s own interest to have the rights to their own translation, and many do. Crossway owns the ESV, Zondervan owns exclusive rights to publish the NIV, Broadman and Holman owns the CSB, and Tyndale House Publishers owns the NLT. Each of these has their own set of Bible-study resources that use their own translation. It saves money.”

Gurry works to diminish the liability of admitting to publishing Bibles for financial reasons, writing about a publisher’s ongoing expenses and publishers putting some profits into translation into other languages. Nevertheless, “In any case, financial incentives certainly explain the increase in translation options. As long as people buy new translations, publishers will supply them.”

Gurry is a proponent of multiple translations, so his calling out financial issues is soft. We English-speakers – and especially Americans – ought not think of the proliferation of English translation as an embarrassment of riches, but just an embarrassment, period! We are spoiled, impulsive, and wasteful people.

The kings and priests in the Lord’s churches ought to consider the gravity of multiplying hundreds of translations to ourselves while some languages do not even have one. And the pillar and ground of truth ought also consider our neglect. We have farmed out the publishing of God’s word to financial interests.

God was manifest in the flesh

George Sayles Bishop on the Revision Version of 1885.

The Revision weakens and removes the Deity of Christ in many places—I will mention five: 

…

I Tim. 3:1—“Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh.” The Revision leaves out θεὸς God, and renders it “Great is the mystery of godliness, He who was manifest in the flesh,”—i. e., the manifested One was only one phase—the highest—of godliness, the precise rendering for which all the Unitarians have been contending for the last 1,800 years…Dr. Scrivener says his senses report it Theos. “I have examined it twenty times within as many years,” he declares, “and seeing (as every man must do for himself with my own eyes, I have always felt convinced that Codex ‘A’ reads Theos.” That conviction of Dr. Scrivener is my conviction and on the very same grounds—a conviction so deep that I will never yield it, nor admit as a text of my faith a Book pretending to be a Revelation from God which leaves that word out. The Holy Ghost has written it—let no man dare touch it—Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh.

“Oh, but it is only one word!” yes, but one word of Scripture of which it is said “Thou has magnified Thy Word above all Thy Name!” “Only one Word!” But that word “God.” Better the whole living church of God should perish than that that one word should perish. If any take away from the words of the book of this prophecy God shall take away his part.” Let criticism pause. The principle at stake is solemn.

George Sayles Bishop, “The Principles and the Tendency of the Revision Examined,” in The Doctrines of Grace: and Kindred Themes, New York, NY: Gospel Publishing House, 1910, pp. 78-80.

Tyndale “firsts”

William Tyndale (ca. 1492-1536) was a pioneer of English Bible translation. Tyndale’s translation of the Bible into English accomplished several “firsts.” I gleaned the following “firsts” from various sources. I think most are reasonably well-established facts.

• The first English Bible translation directly from Hebrew and Greek texts
• The first English Bible translation printed in large quantities; first printed on the printing press
• The first English Bible translation to use Iehouah (Jehovah)
• The first English Bible translation to use passeouer (Passover)
• The first English Bible translation to use scapegoote (scapegoat)
• The first English “Reformation-era” Bible translation
• The first incomplete English Bible translation completed by Miles Coverdale
• The first English Bible translation translator who was executed by the Roman Catholic Church for heresy (this one might not be a first; hard to tell for certain)

[Note: John Wycliffe, who translated the Latin Bible into English (Middle English), died in 1384. 44 years later, in 1428, the Bishop of Lincoln, England (Wycliffe having been now condemned as an heretic by the Council of Constance in 1414), ordered that his remains be exhumed (or at least they got somebody’s) and burned. The ashes were thrown into the River Swift. The Lord knoweth them that are his (and where to find their remains).]

The criterion of textual criticism versus textual translation

The criterion of textual criticism versus textual translation.

A curious cumbrous thought 
Came to my mind today:
Big Eva speaks one thing
And then shucks it away.
Translators must be Christians true,
For text critics – academic’ll do.

It is my impression that in the broad category of people who consider themselves evangelical, there exists the two contrasting and contradictory views about the places of faith and scholarship regarding text and translation.[i]

1. When it comes to textual criticism, many evangelicals are not concerned about who is doing the work of text criticism. They simply must be academically qualified.

2. When it comes to Bible translation, many evangelicals are concerned about who is doing the work of translation. They feel they should be professed Christians, and that they should hold the doctrines of inspiration & inerrancy.

Steelmanning the issue; not a strawman.

Statements about Textual criticism.[ii]

The quality of the work of textual criticism does not depend on the beliefs of the text critics, but on the credibility of their scholarship. Therefore, it does not matter what they believe, or even if they are Christians at all, as long as they are good well-trained scholars who consistently apply that scholarship.

“I would like to work as a text-critic as if God didn’t exist, so to speak.” Tommy Wasserman, comment on blog post “‘First-Century Mark’ SBL Panel”

“In practice New Testament textual critics today tend to be Christians themselves, but not always. It does not matter, for the quality of their work does not depend on their faith but on their adherence to academic standards.” Jan Krans, “Why the Textus Receptus Cannot Be Accepted”

“My job as a textual critic is not to ensure that readers have an inerrant edition of the Bible in their hands.” P. J. Williams, “Inerrancy and textual criticism”

“If you understand the process of textual criticism today, if you understand how scholars examine manuscripts and examine readings today and there can be unbelievers that do it...” James White, White vs. Levesque Debate (starts at 1:04:20)

These quotes illustrate a common view that the quality of text critical work in establishing the true text of the Bible does not depend on the faith or religion of the textual critics but on their training and adherence to academic standards.

Statements about Bible translation.

I perceive there is among those called evangelicals a discrepancy and/or contradiction in their approach to textual criticism versus their approach to Bible translation. Bible translations by and for evangelicals emphasize the concern that the translators of the text of the Bible need to be orthodox Christians. So, suddenly the evangelicals decide the quality of the work indeed DOES depend on the orthodox beliefs of the translators.

“In faithfulness to God and to our readers, it was deemed appropriate that all participating scholars sign a statement affirming their belief in the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture, and in the inerrancy of the original autographs.” “Preface to the New King James Version,” The Holy Bible: New King James Version, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1982 p. v

“In working toward these goals, the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word in written form.” “A Word About the NIV,” The Holy Bible: New International Version, Colorado Springs, CO: Biblica, p. A14[iii]

“The ESV publishing team has included more than a hundred people…Translation Oversight Committee…Translation Review…the Advisory Council…Crossway Board of Directors. This hundred-plus-member team, shares a common commitment to the truth of God’s Word and to historic Christian orthodoxy and is international in scope, including leaders in many denominations.” “Preface,” ESV Study Bible, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011, p. 22

“The CSB is translated directly from the best available Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic source texts into English by biblical scholars who affirm the authority of Scripture as the inerrant Word of God and seek the highest level of accuracy in their translation.” Christian Standard Bible FAQs

Questioning the discrepancy; looking for answers.

Why does Average Joe Evangelical think that the scholarship of the translators and their adherence to academic standards are not sufficient to do the work of Bible translation? He thinks that way in the case of the scholarship of the text critics and their adherence to academic standards. Why, in their minds, cannot non-Christian scholars sufficiently make the same decisions about translation as orthodox Christian scholars? 

I personally believe that we need the trust of Christians who are skilled, orthodox, and honest, whether textual critics or translators of original language texts.[iv] (And more personally, I believe we already have text and translation we can trust.) However, I am trying to understand why the split thinking many evangelicals make in the two different tasks. Why is distinction of the necessity of orthodoxy made when it comes to translators? Why do they not call out for orthodox Christian text critics as well?

What’s going on?

If evangelical folks are willing to apply the mantra that the quality of the text critical work depends only on the quality of the training of the scholars, their academic credentials, and their working knowledge of the subject, why do these same evangelicals change horses when they get to the translation stream? Why wouldn’t the quality of the translators’ work also depend on the quality of the training of the scholars, their academic credentials, and their working knowledge of the subject?

I am unsure of this state of affairs. Perhaps one possibility is that most of them cannot read and do not directly use the products produced by the text critics – so that does not impact them directly (at least not in a way obvious to them). On the other hand, these evangelical Christians do read, use, and study the products produced by the translators, and can become quite disturbed when they find something that they believe is unorthodox.[v] 

Another matter involved in this may be how the different products are promoted. Evangelical-oriented Bible translations are deliberately marketed to their consumers framed in guarantees of the translation’s accuracy, reliability, and orthodoxy. Producers of original language texts (especially Greek texts) market their products in a different way, often much of the promotion addressing what great strides the scholars have made in the direction of recovering the “initial” text. A lot of that is probably foreign to the average evangelical Bible reader, even among the very educated.

That is two things that may come into play. What do you think? Why this discrepancy in how evangelicals look at scholarship regarding Bible translations versus original language texts?

---

[i] I understand that all evangelicals do not present a mass single view on the subject, but I perceive that there is a general common feeling and approach on this subject of which write.

[ii] Textual criticism in the biblical context is the branch of textual scholarship that attempts to establish what is the original or best possible reading of the Bible. See also HERE, HERE, and HERE.

[iii] NIV constitution statement: “Only those shall be eligible for membership on the Committee who endorse the purpose for which the Committee exists, and who are willing to subscribe to the following affirmation of faith: ‘The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written, and is therefore inerrant in the autographs’; or to the statements on Scripture in the Westminster Confession, the Belgic Confession, the New Hampshire Confession, or the creedal basis of the National Association of Evangelicals; or to some other comparable statement.”

[iv] Here is what you get when translators are untethered from Christian orthodoxy: “The Scholars Version is free of ecclesiastical and religious control, unlike other major translations into English, including the King James Version and its descendants (Protestant), the Douay-Rheims Version and its progeny (Catholic), and the New International Version (Evangelical). Since SV is not bound by the dictates of church councils, its contents and organization vary from traditional bibles…The Scholars Version is authorized by scholars.” The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New Translation and Commentary by Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, New York, NY: Polebridge Press/Scribner, 1993, p. xviii.

[v] One example of this was the great uproar that was created when the Revised Standard Version changed the word “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 to “young woman.”

Hebrews 10:13, footstool

A recent Facebook inquisitor claimed that the King James Bible does not accurately translate Hebrews 10:13, and that the NASB is to be preferred.[i] 

• AKJV: from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
• NASB: waiting from that time onward until His enemies are made a footstool for His feet.[ii] 

Let us consider the matter.

“Literal” translation.

One obvious difference is “footstool” versus “footstool for his feet.” The argument is that the NASB has an equivalent English word for the Greek words, and that the KJV does not. Let’s look at it in a Greek-English interlinear fashion to demonstrate that. [Note that this is a translational issue; the Critical Text and Textus Receptus are the same in this place.]

Greek-English Interlinear:

When you see it placed like this, we can also see that even the NASB does not “literally” have an equivalent of every word that is in the Greek. Translation just does not consistently work that way! The Greek has 12 words. The KJV translates these 12 with 10 English words. The NASB translates these 12 with 15 English words! It is not a matter of adding to or taking away from the word – it is a matter of translating the sense of one language into the sense of another language. Does the KJV maintain, contain, and retain the meaning of the Greek? Yes, it does! I would say that the NASB does as well, but creates a redundancy in the English language – “a footstool for His feet.”

Footstool definition.

Footstool, noun. 

1. (Literally) A stool to rest the feet upon while sitting; a low stool for supporting the feet; anything serving that same use.

2. (Figuratively) A person or thing that is trodden upon or made subservient., dependent, or tool.

Other translation comparisons.

• AKJV: from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
• YLT: as to the rest, expecting till He may place his enemies [as] his footstool,
• CSB: He is now waiting until his enemies are made his footstool.
• NIV: and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool.
• RSV: then to wait until his enemies should be made a stool for his feet.
• ESV: waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.

Several translations opt for “footstool for his feet,” “stool for his feet,” or something like that. However, even Robert Young in his literal translation of was satisfied with simply “footstool” as a literal rendering of ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ.

The NASB is at least consistent in comparison to other modern translations, translating the verse quoted, Psalm 110:1, also with “a footstool for Your feet.”[iii] Several translations that have the idea of “footstool for feet” in Hebrews 10:23 only has “footstool” in Psalm 110:1 (e.g., ESV, NET, RSV). They are inconsistent with this in other places as well.[iv]

Final thoughts.

“His footstool” means in English means the same thing ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ means in Greek. It is unnecessary to say “of his feet” since that is contained in the very meaning of the English word footstool. The KJV rendering of “footstool” is better than the NASB’s rendering – it is accurate, conveys the meaning into the receptor language, and is not redundant.[v] It better suits the idiomatic or figurative contextual use as well. Anyone who thinks that to be accurate there must always be one word in the receptor language to match every one word in the original language, should never use any translation. 

---

[i] The same is true of Hebrews 1:13. ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν appears there as well. This discussion exposes some of the numbskullery reached when folks are bound and determined to find some fault in the King James translation just to use against King James “Onlyists”. The same argument would need to be made against most English translations. Additionally “footstool for his feet” is the same kind of “wooden literalism” some of the same people often complain of regarding the NASB; at least until they think it helps them argue against the KJV.

[ii] The Small Caps is the NASB style for Old Testament quotations.
[iii] Hebrew הֲדֹם לְרַגְלֶיךָ (hăḏōm reḡel) .
[iv] For example the ESV has “footstool for your feet” in Hebrews 10:13 and 1:13, yet translated as just plain "footstool" in Matthew 5:35 (ὑποπόδιόν ἐστιν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ), Luke 20:43 (ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου), Acts 2:35 (ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου) and Acts 7:49 (ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν μου).
[v] “Footstool for His feet” is not “wrong,” just “unnecessary.”

Investigating John 11:19

In mid-February, I was pointed to the site “Variations Between the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible.” I was particularly interested to see what claims they made concerning the KJV following the Latin Vulgate.

The site includes a table which purports to show a complete list of differences between the text that underlies the King James Version (apparently they mean the 1881 Scrivener text, though that is not stated) and “the texts of Stephanus 1550 and Beza 1598 Textus Receptus.” 

Additionally, if “the reading of the KJV is not supported by both the Stephanus 1550 and the Beza 1598,” a source is proposed in the right column for that KJV reading. The other proposed sources are:

• Complutensian Polyglot 1522
• Clementine Vulgate 1592
• Erasmus New Testament 1516
• Tyndale Bible 1534
• Bishops’ Bible 1568
• Geneva Bible 1560

“Where a question mark appears support for the KJV reading is unknown” to the compiler. Of the sources in the right column, 29 that are credited to the Vulgate (which is noticeably less than 1/2 Scrivener’s figure of 60).[i]

John 11:19 is an intriguing translation to attribute to the Vulgate, when other Reformation-era Bibles follow much the same pattern of translation. In fact, the only translations I have found (at least so far) with “came to (or, joined) those women around Martha and Mary” were two modern ones (NKJV & WEB). Even the supposed to be literal Robert Young translation had, “and many of the Jews had come unto Martha and Mary, that they might comfort them concerning their brother” (no insertion of the word “women”).

The Greek Traditional Text reading:[ii]

• καὶ πολλοι ἐκ τῶν ιουδαίων ἐληλύθεισαν πρὸς τὰς περὶ μάρθαν καὶ μαριὰν ἵνα παραμυθήσωνται αὐτὰς περὶ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐυτῶν

Here is what I found in some of the prominent Reformation-era translations:[iii]

• Tyndale: And many of the iewes cam to Martha and Mary to comforte them over their brother.
• Geneva: And many of the Iewes were come to Martha and Marie to comfort them for their brother.
• Diodati Italian Bible: E molti de Iudei erano venuti a Marta, e Maria per consolarle del lor Fratello (And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary to comfort them concerning their brother.).
• Dutch Statenvertaling: En velen uit de Joden waren gekomen tot Martha en Maria, opdat zij haar vertroosten zouden over haar broeder (And many of the Jews came unto Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother).
• German Luther Bible: und viele Juden waren zu Martha und Maria gekommen, sie zu trösten über ihren Bruder (And many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to comfort them concerning their brother).
• Olivetan French Bible: Et pfusieurs des Juifs estoient venus a Marthe & a Marie, affinqss les consolassent de leur frère (And many Jews came to Martha and Mary, to console them concerning their brother.).
• Spanish Reina Valera: Y muchos de los Judíos habían venido á Marta y á María, á consolarlas de su Hermano (And many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother).

It seems passing strange to say this is based on the Vulgate when so many other translators seemed to think the Greek of the TR could be translated with the same meaning as the KJV translators thought.[iv] Additionally, this verse is not included in the 60 places that Scrivener thought were based on the Vulgate.

---

[i] I am uncertain of the provenance of this material, other than to know the site is owned and managed by MasonSoft Technology Ltd, a Christian Internet Publishing and Service company in the United Kingdom, Keith Mason, Managing Editor.
[ii] There is a slight difference in the Critical Text versus the Traditional Text, but it not something that affects the translation. CT:  πολλοὶ δὲ ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐληλύθεισαν πρὸς τὴν Μάρθαν καὶ Μαριὰμ ἵνα παραμυθήσωνται αὐτὰς περὶ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ is usually translated almost the same “[And] many Jews had come to Martha and Mary to comfort them concerning their brother.”
[iii] English translations were made with the help of Google Translate. I do not know all these different languages.
[iv] Multi autem ex Judaeis venerant ad Martham et Mariam, ut consolarentur eas de fratre suo. (Biblia Sacra Vulgata)

This clip from the NKJV Interlinear (p. 376) demonstrates their thinking (and that women is assumed).

New King James and Hebrews 3:16

In a footnote in The New King James Version: In the Great Tradition (chapter 10, no. 9), Arthur Farstad, the general editor of the New King James translation, stated:

“Earlier, it was planned to use the majority text as the translation base for the NKJV New Testament. But deeper reflection led us to adhere to the traditional King James text and to reflect the majority text (M) in the notes along with the critical text (NU).”

However, Hebrews 3:16 appears to be a place where the New King James translation followed the majority text rather than the traditional King James text. In that place, the NKJV translation meaning follows the majority text placement of an accent mark and changes a statement to a question. Notice Hebrews 3:16 in these two translations.

• AKJV: For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
• NKJV: For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?

Notice the Greek text in the Textus Receptus tradition. The accent mark is over the epsilon in the last half of the word τινες (some).

• 1519: τινὲς γὰρ ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν, ἀλλ’ οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ μωσεως
• 1550: τινὲς γὰρ ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν, ἀλλ’ οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωσέως.
• 1894: τινὲς γὰρ ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν, ἀλλ’ οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ μωσεως

Now notice the Greek text in the majority and critical texts. The accent mark is over the iota in the first half of the word τινες (who).

• NUBS: τίνες γὰρ ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν; ἀλλ' οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωϋσέως;
• SBLG: τίνες γὰρ ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν; ἀλλ’ οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωϋσέως;
• HFMT: Τίνες γὰρ ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν? ’Αλλ’ οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωϋσέως?

Notice the Hodges-Farstad Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text has the accent that matches the way the NKJV is translated. The TR editions do not.

Hodges-Farstad, Second Edition

Sample TR Editions

1519 Erasmus

1520 Complutensian Polyglot

1550 Stephanus

Scrivener (1877) 1550 Stephanus

[Notice Scrivener changed the accent from what originally appeared in the 1550 Stephanus]

1598 Beza

1633 Elzivir

1707 John Mill

1881/1894 Scrivener

τίνες = who

τινὲς = some

James D. Price, a member of the New King James translation group, explains it this way, admitting that the NKJV does not here follow the Textus Receptus.

“With the accent on the first syllable, the word is the interrogative pronoun ‘who?’ as in the NKJV; with it on the last syllable, the word is the indefinite pronoun ‘some’ as in the KJV. Madden knows that the accent marks were not part of the autographic text nor of the earlier copies of the Greek Bible, including the early copies of the Bibles in the Byzantine tradition. Thus the accent mark on this word is an interpretive addition to the text that is not part of the original. Madden should also know that most of the Bibles in the Byzantine tradition have the accent on the first syllable, not the last. That is the case in the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text, and also in the Robinson-Pierpont text. This is also true in F. H. A. Scrivener’s edition of Stephen’s 1550 text. This means that the majority of Greek speaking churches understood the text the way the NKJV translated it.” James D. Price’s undated “Book Review” of Remarks on the New King James Version by D. K. Madden (Tasmania: D. K. Madden, 1989), p. 6

“However, this seems to be a rare exception, perhaps the only place, where the NKJV translators chose not to follow the minority reading of the Textus Receptus (TR). To the best of my knowledge, in all the other places the NKJV translators followed the TR, even when the TR reading was not supported by the majority of copies, sometimes by a very small number, or by no Greek authority at all. I can’t give the reason for this exception, unless they understood the KJV rendering to be inconsistent with the author’s line of reasoning.” James D. Price’s undated “Book Review” of Remarks on the New King James Version by D. K. Madden (Tasmania: D. K. Madden, 1989), p. 7

Price’s statement is that the NKJV translators usually followed the TR even in cases where the TR reading was the minority reading. (That seems a bit like a “duh” statement – since that’s what they claimed they were going to do.) Nevertheless this is an important admission – even though Price says it might be the only place where they didn’t follow the TR. When some of us KJV defenders make a similar claim, we get pushback like we are quacks and quirks. However, at least on this “rare exception,” James Price, a non-KJVO who worked on the NKJV project (albeit on the OT) agrees with us.

The NKJV Greek-English Interlinear with the Majority Greek text (Edited by Farstad and others, and published by Thomas Nelson, the publisher of the NKJV) shows the NKJV translation matching the Majority Text.

NKJV Greek-English Interlinear New Testament

“The enemies of the NKJV have repeated this false charge seemingly without end, but they have failed to produce any legitimate examples of where the NKJV did not accurately follow the reading of the Textus Receptus. If such discrepancies are found, the NKJV would be corrected in the very next edition.” (The False Witness of G. A. Riplinger’s Death Certificate for the New King James Version, p. 18) 

Yet in James D. Price’s undated “Book Review” of Remarks on the New King James Version by D. K. Madden he admits to a place where there is a discrepancy (and it have never been corrected).

Arthur Farstad and the NKJV

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.

Oops, the NKJV

... did it again. For a Bible that highlights “King James Version” in its own name, it does an inordinate amount of conforming to other versions instead of the King James Version. Notice Isaiah 18:2.

• AKJV: that sendeth ambassadors by the sea, even in vessels of bulrushes upon the waters, saying, Go, ye swift messengers, to a nation scattered and peeled, to a people terrible from their beginning hitherto; a nation meted out and trodden down, whose land the rivers have spoiled!
• NKJV: Which sends ambassadors by sea, Even in vessels of reed on the waters, saying, “Go, swift messengers, to a nation tall and smooth of skin, To a people terrible from their beginning onward, A nation powerful and treading down, Whose land the rivers divide.”
• NASB: Which sends messengers by the sea, Even in papyrus vessels on the surface of the waters. Go, swift messengers, to a nation tall and smooth, To a people feared far and wide, A powerful and oppressive nation Whose land the rivers divide.

The NET Bible note says: 

Isaiah 18:2 tn The precise meaning of the qualifying terms is uncertain. מְמֻשָּׁךְ (m^emushakh) appears to be a Pual participle from the verb מָשַׁךְ (mashakh, “to draw, extend”). Lexicographers theorize that it here refers to people who “stretch out,” as it were, or are tall. See BDB 604 s.v. מָשַׁךְ, and HALOT 645-46 s.v. משׁךְ. מוֹרָט (morat) is taken as a Pual participle from מָרַט (marat), which can mean “to pull out [hair],” in the Qal, “become bald” in the Niphal, and “be wiped clean” in the Pual. Lexicographers theorize that the word here refers to people with bare, or smooth, skin. See BDB 598-99 s.v. מָרַט, and HALOT 634-35 s.v. מרט. These proposed meanings, which are based on etymological speculation, must be regarded as tentative.

In contrast to the modern fad of meaning, notice for example, that Hebraist John Gill takes the idea of “scattered” or “drawn out” meaning as “spread over a large tract of ground, as Ethiopia was.” The 1611 King James margin has: “|| Or, outspread and polished”.

Notice in its explanation and defense of its translation “of tall, smooth-skinned people,” the NET Bible uses the words “uncertain,” “appears to be,” “theorize,” “proposed,” “speculation,” and “tentative.”

NKJV edition claims:

“…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…”

My point here is that, once again, the NKJV is not what it claims to be, and did not do what it claims to do. If they were dealing with a speculative, theoretical, tentative issue, they could have opted to stick with the King James tradition. They did not.

Thuesen on Mauro, Wilkinson, Fuller

Peter Johannes Thuesen, an historian of the United States and of American religion, and a Professor at Indiana University Indianapolis, offers his perspective on the battle for the English Bible, in his book In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles over Translating the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), Here are a few excerpts.

On page 61, Thuesen relates that Philip Mauro in the 1920s “resurrected the late Dean Burgon’s arguments for an American audience. Hidebound conservatives were against not only higher criticism but also lower criticism and, in some cases, any revision of the Authorized Version. Mauro feared that modern textual critics and translators had imbibed too much German higher-critical ideology, thereby rendering even well-intended Bible revision subversive of Christian truth.”

Thuesen on page 62 notes Benjamin Wilkinson following the work of Mauro. “Wilkinson echoed Mauro when he complained that the Revised Version had been ‘built almost entirely on the Vatican Manuscript, kept in the Pope’s library, and upon the Sinaiticus, found in a Catholic monastery.’ Yet he carried the argument a step further, pointing out a number of passages where the Revised Version rendering read like the ‘Jesuit Bible,’ that is, the Rheims New Testament of 1582.” 

One page 118 Thuesen connects David Otis Fuller to the “McIntire faction” mentioning his speech at Carl McIntire’s American Council of Christian Churches in 1956, saying “‘Without a moment’s hesitation I can say that this ‘Revised Standard Version of the Gospel Perverts’ is the vilest, boldest, most deliberately devilish attack upon the holy Word of God and the holy Son of God in the past two thousand years.’ Fuller surveyed the destruction wreaked upon the Bible by modern textual criticism and thanked Carl McIntire for defending Holy Writ from its modernist assailants.”

Page 65 provides something of a summary of the conservative support for the King James Bible. “Wilkinson’s indictment of the Revised Version, published nearly a half-century after the translation itself, appeared to beat a dead horse, yet in succeeding decades new Bible battles would lend his work perennial relevance. Indeed, treatises by the Revised Version’s most colorful opponents—Burgon, Mauro, and Wilkinson—would enjoy a remarkable shelf-life as late twentieth-century Protestant conservatives reprinted them as virtual classics. Equally notable was the ecumenical character of opposition to Bible revision. Wilkinson made no reference to his Seventh-day Adventist affiliation in Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, concentrating instead on issues of broad evangelical appeal. Mauro, who rejected the Episcopal Church in favor of A. B. Simpson’s Christian and Missionary Alliance, cited the Anglican Dean Burgon without compunction, as did Wilkinson. Similarly, David Otis Fuller, a minister in the General Association of Regular Baptists, during the 1970s edited reprints of works by Burgon, Mauro, Wilkinson, and others—all without apparent regard for denominational loyalties. ¶ Such pragmatic alliances among like-minded Protestants would take on additional significance in future Bible battles, for although modern critical consciousness drove conservatives and liberals apart, it also fostered intraconservative and intraliberal cooperation. The legacy of ‘King Truth’ was therefore ambiguous—as relentlessly paradoxical as the legacy of sixteenth century Protestant-Catholic disputation. The old Reformation debates over authority and interpretation would help set the terms of twentieth-century translation controversies, generating in the process rich rhetorical and ecumenical ironies.”

What? NKJV notes and the Critical Text.

When folks say that there exist some critical text readings in the New King James translation, the claim is often dismissed as the rabid ravings of kooky KJV-“Onlyists”. But wait? What if a work published by the publisher of the NKJV (Thomas Nelson) and under the hand of the executive editor of the NKJV (Arthur Farstad) agrees? Are they unhinged as well?

Here are three verses (below), investigated in The NKJV Greek-English Interlinear New Testament (Arthur L. Farstad, Zane C. Hodges, Michael Moss, Robert Picirilli, Wilbur Pickering. Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1994). I discussed two of the same in “Are there Critical Text preferences in the NKJV?” (which see). I believe someone with the time to do the research will turn up more of the same kind of things. If you do not have the NKJV Interlinear, you can borrow it HERE.

2 Corinthians 4:14. KJV “by” versus NKJV “with”. On page 634 it says “with” is the NU reading (NU= Nestle-Aland, United Bible Society). NKJV follows the NU reading.

Jude 1:3. KJV “the” versus NKJV “our”. On page 835 it says “our” is the NU reading. NKJV follows the NU reading.

Revelation 6:11. KJV “robes” versus NKJV “robe”. On page 854 it says the plural is the TR reading. NKJV follows the singular of the NU rather than the plural of the TR.

---

Note: The main reason for this post is to demonstrate that even friends and promoters of the New King James translation are able to acknowledge some influence arising from the Critical Text.

Even Mark Ward has admitted, “There are six places in the NT—Luke 1:35; Col 3:17; Jude 3; and now 2 Cor 13:14; 4:14; 2 John 1:7—that Kent [Brandenburg] has brought to my attention, places in which I cannot square the rendering in front of me with the generally literal approach of the NKJV translators and with Scrivener’s text at the same time.”