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.

Epileptic or Lunatic

Did the NKJV translators believe epilepsy is caused by demon possession?[i] Or do they possibly believe the possession described here is not real, but rather figurative? Or something else?[ii]

• Matthew 17:15 AKJV: Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water.
• Matthew 17:15 NKJV: “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an epileptic and suffers severely; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water.

• Epileptic, noun. A person affected by epilepsy (a disorder of the nervous system, characterized either by mild, episodic loss of attention or sleepiness petit mal or by severe convulsions with loss of consciousness grand mal.)
• Lunatic (lunatick), noun. A person affected with a severely disordered state of mind.

Lunatick or Epileptic? The Greek word is σεληνιάζεται, which means “lunatic” or “moonstruck.”[iii] Epileptic is a modern interpretation or application.

Whether reading in the King James Bible or a modern translation, the context is clear that this is a case of devil- or demon possession. Jesus rebuked the devil, and the devil was cast out of the man’s son. Again, I ask, do the NKJV translators believe epilepsy is caused by demon possession, or do they possibly believe the possession described here is not real? Or something else? Many modernists reject that Jesus was literally casting out devils. They ascribe this to ignorance of medical conditions. For example, William Barclay writes from his high modern horse, “As was inevitable in that age [emphasis mine], the father attributed the boy’s condition to the malign influence of evil spirits.” In other words, such medical problems as epilepsy were merely associated with demon possession because the people were ignorant and did not know any better! Such an accusation, however, means the inspired writers—and the one who inspired them to write—must have also been ignorant of the cause! God forbid! Do the NKJV translators side with the modernists against God?

Notice also that there are parallel accounts of this incident recorded in Mark 9:14-27 and Luke 9:37-42. These accounts also clearly point to an evil spirit that Jesus cast out. Textual scholars can be like politicians. Politicians create political problems so they can remain relevant by solving them. Scholars create Bible text problems to they can remain relevant by solving them. I think the simple solution is to leave “epilepsy” out of the equation. Doing so stops short of seeming to make a modern medical diagnosis. Most folks today think epilepsy is a neurological disorder caused by abnormal electrical activity in the brain, and has nothing to do with demon possession. Whatever the “medical diagnosis” of the boy in Matthew 17, it is clear from the Bible that it was caused by the activity of an evil spirit.[iv] Let God be true, but every man a liar.

---

[i] And other modern translations, including: ASV, AMP, CEB, CEV, CJB, ESVUK, EXB, GNT, ICB, ISV, MEV, NCB, NCV, NRSV, OJB, RSV, WEB. Interestingly, the LSB and NASB do not use epileptic.
[ii] Some commentators try to either explain or compromise the situation by allowing that some but not all cases of epilepsy are caused by evil spirits. It is notable that in the Believers Bible Commentary edited by Art Farstad and based on the NKJV, William MacDonald attributes this to be an epileptic seizure caused by Satan, pp. 1270-1271. Harold Fowler approaches it similarly, stating, “The child is an epileptic, but not just an epileptic, because this physical malady is merely the background upon which his demon possession is superimposed. Rather, the cause of the epilepsy and its accompanying symptoms was a demon…Although the NT does not teach that all, or even most, cases of epilepsy were produced by demonic power, this one was.” (The Gospel of Matthew, Volume Three. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1978, p. 620). The liberal Lutheran Ulrich Luz does not like the demonic explanation of the text and seeks to spiritualize it positively for modern readers: “Illnesses such as epilepsy do not conform to the human image willed by God, and the struggle against it takes place with the will of Christ and by his power” (Matthew 8-20, English translation by James E. Crouch. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001, p. 408).
[iii] The modern NET Bible gives this note on Matthew 17:15: “tn Grk ‘he is moonstruck,’ possibly meaning ‘lunatic’ (so NAB, NASB), although now the term is generally regarded as referring to some sort of seizure disorder such as epilepsy (L&N 23.169; BDAG 919 s.v. σεληνιάζομαι).” From the root σεληνιάζομαι (lunatic), see also Matthew 4:24.
[iv] To be clear, I am not offering any diagnoses of any modern seizures. I am interpreting this case in the Bible in its context. The physical problem was caused by devils.

Does the NKJV follow the Critical Text…

…at Revelation 16:16? Scott Ingram brought this verse up in a recent Facebook post in the Textus Receptus Academy. He was defending the New King James Version translation. However…

Compare Revelation 16:16 in the King James and New King James:

• AKJV: And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
• NKJV: And they gathered them together to the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon.

Brother Ingram implied that there is no underlying Greek word for “he” or “they” in the Greek text. However, he failed to mention or show that the verb συνήγαγεν is 3rd person singular (which is he, not they). Disregarding this, his main point was this translation is a matter of interpretation.

Compare Revelation 16:16 in the Textus Receptus, Majority Text (HF, RP), and Critical Text (NA/UBS). They are the same at this verse/verb (συνήγαγεν, 3rd Person, Aorist, Active, Indicative, Singular).

• καὶ συνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον εβραϊστὶ αρμαγεδών
• Καὶ συνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον Ἑβραϊστὶ Μαγεδών.
• Καὶ συνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον Ἑβραϊστὶ Ἁρμαγεδών.
• καὶ συνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον Ἑβραϊστὶ Ἁρμαγεδών.

The clip below is shows this verse in The NKJV Greek English Interlinear New Testament, edited by Art Farstad (the chief editor of the NKJV) and others.[i]

The Interlinear shows “he.” Yet the NKJV and most modern translations have “they,” with something like “they gathered” or “they assembled.” Why so? Some might argue that the translators are making an interpretation of the singular referring to a group, based on the context (or something like that).[ii] However, there is another possibility for this change – the reading of the Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ). 

The NET Bible note does not specify their reasoning, but implies that the word is “they” in Greek:

tn Grk “they”; the referent (the demonic spirits, v. 14) has been specified in the translation for clarity.[iii]

This is a place where the NKJV is following modern translations over the KJV and TR, which are giving weight to the note with the Nestle-Aland (NA) text. Both the Textus Receptus and Nestle-Aland Greek text is 3rd person singular – literally, “he” rather than “they.” The NA text has the same reading as the TR; both have συνήγαγεν. However, the NA footnote shows that there is a variant – συνήγαγον, which is 3rd person plural. Or possibly they are making some other interpretation that the singular refers to a group or something. Some do argue that a plural neuter noun can be followed by a singular verb, though I’m unaware of any other place in Scripture where that happens.

To me it seems that they took an option that was a possibility (but not a necessity), added weight from the Codex Sinaiticus and modern translations, and, voila, oops, here again they did not do what they claimed they would do. Since Nelson Publishing and the editors of the NKJV claimed this was a “new” King James Bible, in places like this they should have given the weight to the KJV; but they didn’t. Or they should have lessened their claim on the King James name; but they didn’t.

---

[i] It is unfortunate that the interlinear has no comment on the difference in what it shows (he) and the NKJV translation (they).
[ii] For example, Albert Barnes says that “Prof. Stuart renders it ‘they gathered them together,’ … and that this is the construction of the neuter plural with a singular verb.” “The singular συνήγαγεν (synēgagen, he gathered) is probably due to the neuter πνεύματα (pneumata, spirits [of demons] in 16:14 (since neuter plural nouns sometimes take singular verbs) and should be rendered ‘they gathered them together.’” Revelation, Grant R. Osborne, (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Moises Silva, Editor). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002/2012.
[iii] The upshot of this is that the NET translators take the Greek to be “they” (which is what it is in Codex Sinaiticus) and then substitute the interpretation “the spirits” for “they.”

Italics and the NKJV

Information on the New King James Version translation and italic type.

Use of Italics

Most lovers of the King James Bible know that the italicized words denote language that is not in the original Greek or Hebrew, but which is supplied by the translators to complete the sense of the English sentence. These words have always been a problem to editors because it is often hard to determine whether certain words should be considered as part of a word in the original or italicized as a supplied word. Most places, however, are clear.

In 1979, when the New Testament was published in the New King James Version, the editors and publisher agreed to do away with italics for two reasons. First was the problem mentioned above as to exactly which words should be italicized. A second problem is that today italics usually mean emphasis (or a foreign word). Occasionally, even preachers will not know the KJV tradition and emphasize the very words that have no specific words behind them in the original!

On this issue the public spoke out in no uncertain terms: “Restore the italics!” Many people feel safer with a translation if they are able to tell where the words have been added.

Two other small items of accuracy regarding italics: First, italics have been used more consistently in the New King James Version to reflect the structure and meaning of the original text. Also, some italicized words that were formerly in the King James Bible are omitted in the New King James because they are no longer needed to complete the English sense.

The New King James Version: In the Great Tradition, Arthur L. Farstad, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989, p. 53

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).

Lewis Foster on NKJV

Some interesting comments by Lewis Alvin Foster, who was a translator on both the NIV and NKJV. He wrote a book titled Selecting a Translation of the Bible. The bulk of the book consists of his going through nine English translations, giving some history, pro & cons, and recommendations. Concerning the “Weaknesses” of the New King James Version, he writes:

“The choice to follow the Greek text of the King James Version (1611) gives unwarranted precedence to the Textus Receptus (see above). Although much careful work has gone into the publishing of the Majority Text, the real use of this study has been thwarted by following whatever the King James reads whether supported by the Majority Text or not (for example, over 15 instances in the Gospel of Luke). Whether one agrees with advocates of the Majority Text in their consistent preference for its readings, one must recognize the healthy corrective that has been imposed on the Westcott-Hort tradition and long accepted assumptions in this area of textual criticism.” (Lewis A. Foster, Selecting a Translation of the Bible, Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 1983, pp. 123-124)

Foster makes an intriguing charge of dispensational bias in the translation of Matthew 24:33, in changing changing “it” to “He”. 

“Some changes that do appear in the NKJV cannot be explained by a difference in the Greek text, or by what was in the 1611 version, or by the demands of contemporary usage. Only the favoring of a particular interpretation has been served. Giving but one example, a passage reflects the dispensational view—when ‘it is near’ is changed in the NKJV to ‘He is near’ (Matthew 24:33).” (p. 125)

I wish he had given more examples of his belief that they followed doctrinal bias. This example is outdated. It was initially translated and published as “He”. “He” as in the 1979 NKJV NT was at some point changed back to “it”. Maybe someone noticed their bias was showing! The 1982 print edition of the whole Bible NKJV that I own has “it” but with a footnote that says “Or, He.”

The Cincinnati Enquirer, Sunday, March 28, 2004, p. B7

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.

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.”

NKJV moves in the right direction

Credit where credit is due.

I have a number of times cited the New King James Version for being less than it claims to be – when it prefers to follow the bandwagon of modern versions rather than be a “new” King James Version. On Philippians 2:6 I must give them credit for revising a modern reading which matched modern versions back to a reading that more closely matches the King James Version.

In Philippians 2:6, the Authorized (King James) Version states:

• who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

When the New King James New Testament came out in 1979, this verse read:

• who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.

Unsurprisingly, this more closely matched translations like the RV, ASV, RSV, and NASB. Apparently in 1982 when the whole Bible translation was released (at least I have found it in NKJVs that are dated 1982) the verse was corrected to read:

• who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

Two Johns and others have considered readings and interpretations such as not grasping at equality with God an innovation of Arianism and/or Greek philosophy:

“No, say they, but he means that being a little God, he seized not upon being equal to the great God, who was greater than he. Is there a great and a little God? And do ye bring in the doctrines of the Greeks upon those of the Church? With them there is a great and a little God. If it be so with you, I know not. For you will find it nowhere in the Scriptures: there you will find a great God throughout, a little one nowhere.” John Chrysostom, Homily 6, Philippians 2:5-8

“...as for the sense which some put upon the words, that he did not ‘affect’, or ‘greedily catch’ at deity; as the phrase will not admit of it, so it is not true in fact; he did affect deity, and asserted it strongly, and took every proper opportunity of declaring it, and in express terms affirmed he was the Son of God; and in terms easy to be understood declared his proper deity, and his unity and equality with the Father; required the same faith in himself as in the Father, and signified that he that saw the one, saw the other...” John Gill, Exposition of the Whole Bible

Note: 1. This was a translation matter and not a difference in underlying text. 2. Though I commend the NKJV for this change, I do not recommend the NKJV.

Keveh and Linen Yarn

Notes or comments in commentaries and study Bibles can be really bad. Readers think they are being given competent instruction, but you just never know! Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t. At times commentators apparently just write whatever is on their minds without doing the necessary research. Here is an example from the Believer’s Bible Commentary by William MacDonald (Arthur L. Farstad, editor, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1995, p. 387), regarding the translation of 1 Kings 10:28.

“⁸ (10:26-29) Keveh (also transliterated Kue) was translated ‘linen yarn’ in KJV because they did not know in the seventeenth century that is was a place name.”

The barest of research would have refuted this statement. The King James translators were well aware that this had been considered the name of a place. They just did not agree that it was. Notice, for example, how verse 28 had been translated in the 1537 Matthew Bible:

And Salomons horses came out of Egipte from Keva: The marchauntes fett them from Keva at a pryce.

The 14th rule given to the translators even said they should check these prior Bibles. “These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishop’s Bible: Tindoll’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva.” Keva is found in the Coverdale, Matthew, and Taverner Bibles. The LXX gives it as a place name (Θεκουέ), as does the Vulgate (Coa). The translators were aware of these resources; the fact was not something “they did not know.”

No, the King James translators were not unaware of translating מִקְוֵה (miqvê) as a place. They did not agree that in this verse it was a place. They translated it accordingly. If you don’t agree with the King James translators in 1 Kings 10:28, just say so. Don’t act like they were ignorant.

---

Notes:

The translational issue is the same in 2 Chronicles 1:16.

I acknowledge that research in old Bible editions is easier in 2025 than it was in 1995. However, if we do not know what we are talking about, we should not talk; if we do not know what we are writing, we should not write.

“Fett” in the Matthew Bible appears to be or mean the same as “fetched,” which is what is in the Coverdale Bible before it. The word is a bit hard to make out in the copy I looked at.

1 Kings 10:28.

• AKJV: And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and linen yarn: the king’s merchants received the linen yarn at a price.
• NKJV: Also Solomon had horses imported from Egypt and Keveh; the king’s merchants bought them in Keveh at the current price.

Isaiah 9:3 and the KJV

Isaiah 9:3 in the Authorized or King James Version: 

Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.

In the New King James Version:

You have multiplied the nation 
And increased its joy;[i]
They rejoice before You 
According to the joy of harvest, 
As men rejoice when they divide the spoil.

[For further comparison, the RV and ASV]:

Thou hast multiplied the nation, thou hast increased their joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.

Notice the differences in these translations. The Masoretic consonantal text (Ketiv) has the particle לֹא (loʾ, “not”); the margin (Kere) of it has לוֹ (lo, “him” “it”). The NKJV translators and/or editors chose to put the marginal reading in the text, the opposite choice of that made by the King James translators.

This is one of the cases where the NKJV editors violated their stated goal of producing a new King James that might be easily read or listened to while following with the King James (or vice versa). “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.” (From the “Preface” of The New King James Version.) It is jarring rather than easy to be reading one translation here while listening to the other being read. I found it so the first time I heard it read, creating a meaning in the NKJV opposite to what I saw in my KJV.

The NKJV, like the KJV, could have also kept the other reading (“to him”) in the footnote or margin – but it did not, choosing to match most modern translations rather than matching the KJV. This created a reading that is just opposite the KJV. Of modern Bibles, I found it interesting that the Lexham English Bible follows the KJV here, against almost every other modern English translation I know of, including the NKJV.

You have made the nation numerous; you have not made the joy great.[ii] They rejoice in your presence as with joy at the harvest, as they rejoice when they divide plunder.

A “new” King James should have also followed that option to live up to what it claims to be. Some have ameliorated the NKJV translators by arguing that this is a difficult decision. The default position of a “new” King James Bible that could be read alongside the King James Bible should have been to simply follow the KJV in “difficult” places. Or, put another way, a goal of creating a new King James Bible to which a King James user could easily transition should have been to only update language but otherwise ratify the choice of the King James translators in difficult places – rather than change the very meaning of the King James translation.[iii]  That’s another translation, not a “new” King James Bible.

Here again, the NKJV does not live up to what it claims to be.

---

[i] The NKJV footnote reads: Isaiah 9:3 So with Qr., Tg.; Kt., Vg. not increased joy; LXX Most of the people You brought down in Your joy
[ii] The LEB footnote reads: Isaiah 9:3 The written text (Kethib) is “not,” but the reading tradition (Qere) is “for it”
[iii] If in the strength and trust of their own learning these translators could not do so, they should have bowed out of the project.

“Who” is Antichrist?

Q. The New King James Version Bible (NKJV) capitalizes personal pronouns that refer to God. The NKJV capitalizes the pronoun “Who” in Zechariah 11:17. This does not refer to God, and some even interpret it to mean the Antichrist. Why is “Who” capitalized here? 

A. Yes, the New King James Bible capitalizes personal pronouns that refer to God (e.g. “How long, O Lord? Will You forget me forever?” Psalm 13:1; “for He dried up her expectation” Zechariah 9:5). This problem in Zechariah 11:17 is an unfortunate unintended consequence of the intersection of two NKJV editorial choices – the choice to capitalize pronouns that refer to deity, and the choice to format some verses as poetry so that each “line/verse” begins with a capital letter. 

The capitalization of pronouns in the NKJV (and some other translations) is an editorial or publishing choice. It is not matter of matching capitalization in inspired originals, but is rather a matter of interpretation and insertion made by the translators. The Hebrew and Greek do not distinguish such, so the translators have to make an educated guess. They probably get it right most of the time. However, rather than mostly getting it right, they could leave it alone in order for the readers under the leadership of the Holy Spirit to interpret whether or not it is a reference to God. The NKJV Preface describes their relevant (to this question) formatting in this way.

“...reverence for God in the present work is preserved by capitalizing pronouns including You, Your, and Yours, which refer to Him. Additionally, capitalization of these pronouns benefits the reader by clearly distinguishing divine and human persons referred to in a passage. Without such capitalization the distinction is often obscure, because the antecedent of a pronoun is not always clear in the English translation.” (“Preface,” Holy Bible, The New King James Version, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982, p. iv)

“Poetry is structured as contemporary verse to reflect the poetic form and beauty of the passage in the original language.” (“Preface,” Holy Bible, The New King James Version, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982, p. iv)

These two rules combine to confuse the reader in Zechariah 11:17. “Who” is significantly capitalized here in the NKJV Zechariah 11:17 simply because it is a word that begins the line of poetry. Its capitalization has nothing to do with the rule regarding capitalization of pronouns that refer to God. Nevertheless, it is ripe for confusion. A reader thinking of capitalized divine pronouns and recognizing “Who” as a pronoun may miss and misunderstand the reason for the capitalization of “Who” in this verse in the NKJV. (This style is also found in translations such as the LSB and NASB.)

Another thing that can exacerbate the problem is that some online sources do not keep the formatting found in the print edition of the NKJV.

If I copy the NKJV Zechariah 11:17 from the “NKJV only view” in Bible Gateway, it looks like this.

“Woe to the worthless shepherd,
Who leaves the flock!
A sword shall be against his arm
And against his right eye;
His arm shall completely wither,
And his right eye shall be totally blinded.”

However, if I copy the NKJV Zechariah 11:17 from the “all English translations view” in Bible Gateway, it looks like this:

“Woe to the worthless shepherd, Who leaves the flock! A sword shall be against his arm And against his right eye; His arm shall completely wither, And his right eye shall be totally blinded.”

Some people make statements like this: “The capitalizing of pronouns that refer to God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a way of honoring God and showing esteem.” With this rule, translators and writers become stricter than God himself, who did not inspire distinguished capitalized pronouns. God chose to inspire his words originally in Hebrew and Greek. Hebrew has no such thing as upper-case and lower-case letters. The Greek manuscripts have either all uncial/majuscule (upper-case) or all minuscule (lower-case) letters. God did not inspire his penmen to give any special attention to pronouns that refer to him. We would do well to follow God’s example rather than preferring our own traditions. Uzzah may have meant well when he reached to steady the ark, but how much better to obey rather than just mean well.

---

Note: I am not extremely familiar with the NKJV. I do not use it for reading and study. However, a random search did not reveal to me any instances when the “Who” and “Whose” pronouns referencing deity were ever capitalized, as it with “You” and “Yours,” “He” and “His,” etc.

Are you indirectly but definitely lying, Mark?

“I don’t toss around the word lie lightly. But I’ve decided that this repeated failure to mention the important fact of the new King James is based on the TR along with the uncertain sound that King James Onlyists make about its textual basis when they actually do talk about it all of this – taken all together – amounts to an indirect but still definite lie.” (Mark Ward, starting about 33:27 in his talk “Is the NKJV Truly Based on the TR.”)

Who’s lying?

Mark may not toss “lie” about lightly, but he certainly tosses it about, sometimes wrongly.

Mark admitted that there “were places where Kent [Brandenburg] successfully showed that the New King James did not follow the same edition of the TR as the King James.”[i] However, Mark replies that he “was able to show that they did follow other TRs.”

Mark also admitted there were “three passages that Kent found where the new King James appeared to go with the critical text and I could not find a TR edition that had that reading.” He again says, there are “only three places in the New Testament where the new King James could be said fairly to follow critical text readings.” He quickly follows this up with an incorrect assertion: “the New King James translators said they used the traditional text for the New Testament; they didn’t say they used a specific edition of the TR.” Yes, they did say they followed Scrivener (and Bomberg).[ii]

Repurposing Mark Ward’s charge against KJV Defenders over to NKJV Defenders:

“I don’t toss around the word lie lightly. But, this repeated failure to admit the important fact that New King James sometimes departs from the Scrivener TR readings, along with the uncertain sound that New King James Defenders make about these variations when they do talk about it – all of this taken altogether amounts to an indirect but still definite lie.”

Would Mark be willing to repurpose his charge against Tom Brennan and Charles Surrett of indirectly lying to Farstad, Price, Thomas Nelson Publishers, and others? As a group they said they followed the F. H. A. Scrivener text, but they did not always do so. Is Mark willing to point the finger back at himself? He has said the NKJV translators only claimed to use the TR, but they actually claimed more than that.

Five Mark reasons.

In his video “Is the NKJV Truly Based on the TR,” Mark Ward gives five reasons that the New King James translation is “based on” the Textus Receptus (traditional Greek text). I have copied the reasons from the transcript of his video and cleaned them up a bit to make the points easier to read. If he objects to the way they are stated, Mark can let me know.

1. The New King James translators say that their New Testament is based on the Textus Receptus. [rlv: no, they are more specific; in the publisher’s own words, the translators “agreed to follow the Greek text developed by Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener.”]

2. Some King James Defenders acknowledge that the New King James is based on the Textus Receptus. [rlv: such an acknowledgement still allows that they sometimes depart from the source the translation is “based on.”]

3. The big three passages mentioned regularly by all King James Defenders (Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; 1 John 5:7-8) are all present (and without brackets) in the New King James Version. [rlv: so far as I know, no one has ever disputed this point, which simply shows they are following the TR or at least Byzantine text rather than critical text in those places.]

4. A sampling of five significant (Acts 8:37; John 1:18; John 5:4; 1 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 17:21) and ten random variants (Revelation 18:6; Revelation 3:8; Mark 10:2; John 15:26; Luke 21:39; John 16:10; Matthew 27:22; Matthew 25:20; Ephesians 3:14; Matthew 19:3) match the Textus Receptus. Mark says “I could go on and on. I could do more random sampling. I surely could – dozens, hundreds of places. How much do I have to do...” [rlv: However, such “random sampling” only applies to those who refuse to admit the NKJV is “based on” the TR. It really does not touch the argument that there are some places where it is not.]

5. In the very rare cases when King James Onlyists have named specific passages in which the new King James readings are allegedly based on the critical text, they are almost always simply wrong. [rlv: wrong according to Mark.]

“Based on” – in this context means finds a foundation in or basis for; that is, has the TR as its bottom. Based on here allows for the traditional texts to be the basis of the NKJV, while allowing for departures. Mark admits as much at when he says there are places the NKJV follows “other TRs,” and in 3 places seems to follow Critical Text readings.[iii]

“Follows” – in this context means something like – to conform to, comply with; to imitate or copy; use as an exemplar.

My view.

• I believe the New King James translation is generally and mostly based on the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts.
• I believe the New King James translation has some readings that do not follow the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts.

By this, I mean that the NKJV translators used the traditional texts as their textual basis. Additionally, they claim specific texts in the Hebrew and Greek as their textual basis – the 1525 Daniel Bomberg Hebrew text and the 1881/1894 F. H. A. Scrivener Greek text. However, there are times they depart from their basis and follow something else. I have not personally researched the Old Testament, so I will leave this argument to others.[iv] I have personally checked various readings in the Greek New Testament. At times they follow a different TR, and sometime they follow the Critical Text (and sometimes the “different TR” reading may match at CT reading against the Scrivener text).

I do not toss this word around lightly, but I believe Mark is indirectly but definitely lying – by his own construction of what indirectly definitely lying is. What’s good for the goose in good for the gander.

-----

Post script.

1. In his first point in the video, Mark says we are to believe that the New King James is based on Textus Receptus because the NKJV translators say that their New Testament is based on the TR.

2. In his dealing with TR supporters, Mark shows we are not to believe that TR supporters are TR supporters just because they say they are TR supporters.

Notice two opposite and completely different approaches. 1. Believe what they say against any evidence to the contrary. 2. Don’t believe what they say and try to find evidence that is contrary. Why? Probably simply because using the different approaches will agree with his conclusions.[v]

---

[i] This discussion goes back to Kent’s list that Mark discussed on his blog back in August 2019. In the video Mark says there were three passages that Kent found where the new King James appeared to go with the critical text and he could not find a TR Edition that had that reading. Of course, even looking for another TR reading is a tacit admission they did not always use the Scrivener text as they said. The verses are: Colossians 3:17; Jude v. 3; 2 John v. 7. He goes into the different possibilities and lands on the third option he gives: “the New King James translators told the truth and their apparent deviations from the TR are due to the exigencies of translation style.”

[ii] “Preface,” p. vi

“For the New King James Version the text used was the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica, with frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25. The Septuagint (Greek) Version of the Old Testament and the Latin Vulgate were consulted. In addition to referring to a variety of ancient version of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New King James Version also draws on the resources of relevant manuscripts from the Dead Sea Caves. In the few places where the Hebrew is so obscure that the King James followed one of the versions, but where information is now available to resolve the problems, the New King James Version follows the Hebrew text. Significant variations are recorded in the footnotes.”

From “A New King James Version,” in “The History of the King James Bible,” Holy Bible, The New King James Version, pp. 1233-35.

“In translating the Old Testament, the New King James Version used the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1976-77 Edition, edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. As an additional reference they used the Second Bomberg Edition of the Hebrew Bible.” p. 1234

“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.

Part of the revision process is described this way:

“Each scholar worked privately, and recommended changes in the King James text. In his work he used the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (for the Old Testament) or the Scrivener Greek Text (for the New Testament) and a copy of the 1611 King James Version as revised in 1769 (the edition in general use today).”

“A New King James Version,” in “The History of the King James Bible,” Holy Bible, The New King James Version, pp. 1235.

[iii] Mark really gives an uncertain sound here, sometimes seeming to admit a few departures, but at other times explaining them away.

[iv] I do not mean I have never looked at it, but that generally I have read what others wrote about it rather than making detailed investigations myself.

[v] In the video Mark, on the side of those who claim they accept the “evidence” and that the other side does not, rejects the evidence and emphasizes we must believe the NKJV translators told the truth about basing their translation on the TR. I have no problem with that, as long as it can be admitted that sometimes they deviated from their basis – which they did! There is evidence that they did, and the simplest explanation is that they did. I leave the motives to others to worry about. Sometimes their translation comes out more closely matching the CT rather than the TR, however you slice it.

Funny though. (Funny strange, not funny ha-ha.) Mark greatly emphasizes believing what the translators said and accepting that as the final word. Yet, he fails to apply this principle when talking about others. Why does he not accept what TR people say as the truth that they are not KJVO? Instead, he looks for evidence that they are not telling the truth. For example, he says the fact that they won’t use the NKJV is evidence they are King James Only rather than TR Defenders. He has made that charge several times against Confessional Bibliologists (Jeff Riddle, for example). Then he complains when people look at evidence concerning the NKJV. Consistency is not a jewel that Mark wears.