NKJV & TR

[rlvaughn]

I have assumed that users of the New King James Version, at least to some degree, use the NKJV because they prefer the Textus Receptus over the Critical Text. Obviously some may have just found it and liked it, with no reference to or even knowledge of the text question. However, it would seem that some who like the TR and also like updated language would choose the NKJV. Nevertheless, I have not found any writing of TR advocates in favor of the NKJV. For example, the Trinitarian Bible Society folks seem to always favor the KJV.

So, do you know of TR folks who have written or talked about why they prefer the NKJV (especially in relation to TR)? I hope we can keep to this topic and not just have the usual version free-for-all.

Thanks.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have assumed that users of the New King James Version, at least to some degree, use the NKJV because they prefer the Textus Receptus over the Critical Text. Obviously some may have just found it and liked it, with no reference to or even knowledge of the text question. However, it would seem that some who like the TR and also like updated language would choose the NKJV. Nevertheless, I have not found any writing of TR advocates in favor of the NKJV. For example, the Trinitarian Bible Society folks seem to always favor the KJV.

So, do you know of TR folks who have written or talked about why they prefer the NKJV (especially in relation to TR)? I hope we can keep to this topic and not just have the usual version free-for-all.

Thanks.

Think almost all KJVO see the Nkjv as being a "fake" Kjv, as they somehow think the translators used CT in addition to TR, but my understanding is that they just give in Margins alternate MT/CT readings!

 

[rlvaughn]

Thanks for the comment, although it doesn't really address my question. I am not talking about KJVO, but people who prefer the NKJV. Are there people who prefer the NKJV because they want a translation of the TR in more modern language? Surely there must be some?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I prefer the NKJV for the very reasons you describe. I am not unacquainted with Shakespearian English, but I prefer to read my Bible in modern English. The Bible was written in what was then modern Hebrew and Greek.
I have in my possession The New King James Version: In the Great Tradition by Dr Arthur L. Farstad with a foreword by R.K. Harrison and published, needless to say, by Nelson. Farstad was executive editor of the NKJV so the book is really just puffage, but it makes some good points.
I would not go to the stake for the TR, but I am confident that the Byzantine Text is more likely to be the original than the Critical.
I think that TR supporters are traditionalists by nature and therefore will tend to go for the KJV. As an itinerant preacher, I am always very happy to preach from it, and I really don't understand why some folks here are constantly trying to beat up on it.

 

[rlvaughn]

Thanks, Martin. Your explanation about the traditionalists among TR supporters probably captures the essence of the issue.

I have in my possession The New King James Version: In the Great Tradition by Dr Arthur L. Farstad with a foreword by R.K. Harrison and published, needless to say, by Nelson.

Does Farstad integrate the need for a new KJV/modern translation with any defense of the TR? I know he was involved with the Majority Text Greek New Testament.

 

[Conan]

Farstad of course believes the Majority Text is more accurate than both the Critical Text and The Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus does not always represent The Byzantine or Majority Text. The TR is a lot closer than the Critical Texts, but not always.

The TR and Majority Text usually agree.
Sometimes the Majority Text and Critical Texts agree against the TR.
Sometimes the TR and Critical Texts agree against the Majority Text.

 

[rlvaughn]

Farstad of course believes the Majority Text is more accurate than both the Critical Text and The Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus does not always represent The Byzantine or Majority Text.

I take that as a "no" if you were specifically addressing my question, which is what I would also expect:

Does Farstad integrate the need for a new KJV/modern translation with any defense of the TR?

Are you aware of any writing(s) in which a defender/supporter of the NKJV take a strong position in favor of the Textus Receptus? Thanks.

 

[Conan]

Are you aware of any writing(s) in which a defender/supporter of the NKJV take a strong position in favor of the Textus Receptus? Thanks.

Although Wilbur Pickering is promoting Family 35 as the original text, I think his writings could be thought of as Family 35, Byzantine text, and Textus Receptus verses Critical Text.

 

[Logos1560]

So, do you know of TR folks who have written or talked about why they prefer the NKJV (especially in relation to TR)?

Charles Surrett may regard himself to be a TR advocate although he is also a KJV defender or mild KJV-only advocate. He does not actually prefer the NKJV over the KJV, but he did a comparison of a couple books in both. Charles Surrett takes a strong stand on the TR.

Charles Surrett, who is biased toward the KJV, still had to admit that at least "72 times" the KJV's underlying Greek New Testament text supported the NKJV's renderings in the book of Romans over the KJV's renderings (Certainty of the Words, p. 123).

 

[Logos1560]

Estus Pirkle wrote: “In my opinion, the New King James Version is the greatest English translation that is available today to English readers. It is based on the same Hebrew and Greek texts (Textus Receptus) used by the 1611 KJV translators” (The 1611 KJB, p. 177).

Wilbur Pickering asserted: “Until such a time as a good translation of the Majority Text becomes available, the best current English version of the NT is the NKJV—an excellent translation of a good Greek text” (Identity of NT Text II, p. 183).

The special committee on Bible Versions for the Baptist Missionary Association Theological Seminary reported that the NKJV “seems to be as faithful to the Hebrew and Greek texts as the earlier versions” (bmats.edu/about-us/bible-versions).

 

[Conan]

Does Farstad integrate the need for a new KJV/modern translation with any defense of the TR? I know he was involved with the Majority Text Greek New Testament.

Perhaps the NKJV preface qualifies?

The King James New Testament was based on the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches, first published in 1516, and later called the Textus Receptus or Received Text. Although based on the relatively few available manuscripts, these were representative of many more which existed at the time but only became known later. In the late nineteenth century, B. Westcott and F. Hort taught that this text had been officially edited by the fourth-century church, but a total lack of historical evidence for this event has forced a revision of the theory. It is now widely held that the Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament.

. The Majority Text is similar to the Textus Receptus, but it corrects those readings which have little or no support in the Greek manuscript tradition

And more under "
The New Testament Text" New King James Version

 

[Logos1560]

. For example, the Trinitarian Bible Society folks seem to always favor the KJV.

Concerning 1 Chronicles 6:28 in the NKJV, Malcolm Watts claimed: “(Vashni), the name of Samuel’s firstborn son, is changed to Joel after the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic. He appears to be called both names (see verse 33 and 1 Samuel 8:2), but there is no textual justification for the other name being included here” (NKJV: A Critique, p. 2). D. A. Waite listed this rendering in the NKJV as a dynamic equivalency and claimed that it came from a non-Masoretic text (NKJV compared to KJV, p. 36).

Concerning this verse, E. W. Bullinger asserted: “Here there is an Ellipsis of the name of the firstborn: while the [Hebrew] word, Vashni, when otherwise pointed means ‘and the second’ so that the verse reads, ‘And the sons of Samuel; the firstborn [Joel] and the second Abiah. This agrees with the Syriac Version’” (Figures of Speech, p. 5). Bullinger added: “’Joel’ is supplied from verse 33 (see also 1 Sam. 8:2, and the note in Ginsburg’s edition of the Hebrew Bible)” (Ibid.). Bullinger maintained that “Vashni is not a proper name, but means ‘the second’” (p. 104 note). The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia also noted: “The explanation of this is that in 1 Chronicles 6:28 the word taken as a proper name is really ‘and second’” (Vol. 5, p. 3046). Is there actually no sound justification to supply words in italics when there is a use of a Hebrew figure of speech such as an Ellipsis that omits a word or words since the KJV translators do the same thing in several other verses?

One example would be at 2 Kings 25:3 where the makers of the KJV added two words in italics to supply words omitted in an Ellipsis [“And on the ninth day of the fourth month”]. Bullinger noted: “The Hebrew reads, ‘and on the ninth month.’ But the Ellipsis is correctly supplied from Jeremiah 52:6” (Figures of Speech, p. 20). Would D. A. Waite consider the places where the KJV supplies words omitted in an Ellipsis dynamic equivalent renderings?

Do KJV defenders also ignore the evidence that there are places where the KJV translators may have amended the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text using other textual sources and readings in other verses in the same manner that they allege concerning the NKJV? At 1 Chronicles 9:41, the KJV translators amended the Masoretic Text by adding "and Ahaz" in italics perhaps because these words are found in the Latin Vulgate, Syriac Version, and 1 Chronicles 8:35. Robert Girdlestone maintained that the A. V. “does not hesitate to use these” [“conjectural emendations based on the analogy of similar cases existing in the ‘repeated passages’”], and he gave as one case when the A. V. “inserts the words ‘and Ahaz’ into the text of 1 Chronicles 9:41 on the strength of chapter 8:35” (Foundation, p. 190). The word “garrisons” in italics at 1 Chronicles 18:6 may be supplied from 2 Samuel 8:6. Again the KJV translators in effect altered the Masoretic Text by adding "the first" in italics at 1 Chronicles 24:23 perhaps influenced by the example of the Latin Vulgate and 1 Chronicles 23:19 when these words were not in the Masoretic text. At 2 Chronicles 35:11 in the KJV, the Masoretic Text reading "sprinkled" is amended to "sprinkled the blood" in agreement with the LXX, Latin Vulgate, and Syriac Versions. The KJV put the Keri marginal reading [“into the middle court”] in the text at 2 Kings 20:4 and put the Masoretic textual reading in its 1611 marginal note: “or, city.“ At 2 Samuel 5:8, the clause “he shall be chief and captain” is added from 1 Chronicles 11:6. The words “his hand” at 2 Samuel 6:6 may be borrowed from 1 Chronicles 13:9. At 2 Samuel 8:3, the KJV "follows the Keri" [the marginal reading] instead of the textual reading of the Masoretic Text by inserting "Euphrates" (Ginsburg, Introduction, p. 310). Ginsburg maintained that the KJV followed the example of the Latin Vulgate by inserting "mine eye" at 1 Samuel 24:10 (p. 291). At 2 Samuel 8:4, the word “chariots” in “a thousand chariots” is likely added from 1 Chronicles 18:4. The added words in italics [“he lift up his spear”] at 2 Samuel 23:8 may come from 1 Chronicles 11:11. At Numbers 20:26, the words in italics [“unto his people”] may be added from Numbers 20:24. “Thorns” in italics at Judges 2:8 may be taken from Joshua 23:13. Does this example of 1 Chronicles 6:28 demonstrate clearly that KJV defenders do not give the same latitude to the NKJV translators that they in effect give to the translators of the Geneva Bible and the KJV?

 

[Van]

Farstad of course believes the Majority Text is more accurate than both the Critical Text and The Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus does not always represent The Byzantine or Majority Text. The TR is a lot closer than the Critical Texts, but not always.

The TR and Majority Text usually agree.
Sometimes the Majority Text and Critical Texts agree against the TR.
Sometimes the TR and Critical Texts agree against the Majority Text.

I was completely unaware of that (the bolded third point). Can you list a verse or two in that category.

I like the NKJV because it is beautifully written, yet almost understandable due to the language updates. However, since the TR contains bogus parts I am forced to compare it to the WEB, so I do not base any understanding on bogus renderings. Another reason I like it, is that it rings true to my core views, formulated in my youth reading the KJV

 

[robycop3]

I have assumed that users of the New King James Version, at least to some degree, use the NKJV because they prefer the Textus Receptus over the Critical Text. Obviously some may have just found it and liked it, with no reference to or even knowledge of the text question. However, it would seem that some who like the TR and also like updated language would choose the NKJV. Nevertheless, I have not found any writing of TR advocates in favor of the NKJV. For example, the Trinitarian Bible Society folks seem to always favor the KJV.

So, do you know of TR folks who have written or talked about why they prefer the NKJV (especially in relation to TR)? I hope we can keep to this topic and not just have the usual version free-for-all.

Thanks.

I've never thought of the TR as a "be-all, end-all" New Testament text, given its over-30 revisions, & I understood the NKJV to be a revision of the KJV, with a few corrections made from a few other texts besides the TR.

Dean John Burgon said the TR could stand another thorough revision, and, far as I know, no one has yet done it. But all in all, I still believe the TR is a good compilationof several Scriptural mss. However, I'm not about to dismiss any of the other ancient Scriptural mss. as I believe GOD caused them to be preserved for us.

 

[Conan]

I was completely unaware of that (the bolded third point). Can you list a verse or two in that category.

I like the NKJV because it is beautifully written, yet almost understandable due to the language updates. However, since the TR contains bogus parts I am forced to compare it to the WEB, so I do not base any understanding on bogus renderings. Another reason I like it, is that it rings true to my core views, formulated in my youth reading the KJV

Certainly. The Majority Text Compared to the Received Text

Matthew 3:11 World English Bible (WEB)
11 “I indeed baptize you in water for repentance, but he who comes after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit.

Footnotes:

1. 3:11 TR and NU add “and with fire"

Matthew 4:10 World English Bible (WEB)
10 Then Jesus said to him, “Get behind me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and you shall serve him only.’”Deuteronomy 6:13

Footnotes:

1. 4:10 TR and NU read “Go away” instead of “Get behind me"

Mat 5:47. Read "friends" instead of "brethren". HF (Hodges & Farstad)

Mat 10:8. Omit "raise the dead" after "cleanse the lepers". HF (Hodges & Farstad)

Mat 12:32. Read "in the present world" instead of "in this world". HF.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I was completely unaware of that (the bolded third point). Can you list a verse or two in that category.

If you browse through the NKJV you will find a few of these. I will keep an eye out for them in my daily readings.
I did come across Galatians 4:6 though:
T.R. 'One God and Father of all, who is above all, through all and in you all.'
C.T. '.......in all.'
Maj. '........in us all.'
Does it matter much in the great scheme of things? No.

And I just found this in Matthew 5:47.
T.R. & C.T. 'And if you greet your brethren only, what do you more than others?'
Maj. 'And if you greet your friends only.........?'

 

[Conan]

, & I understood the NKJV to be a revision of the KJV, with a few corrections made from a few other texts besides the TR.

The NKJV always uses the TR and never uses "other texts". That saying originally came from onlyist sources.

Dean John Burgon said the TR could stand another thorough revision, and, far as I know, no one has yet done it. But all in all, I still believe the TR is a good compilationof several Scriptural mss. However, I'm not about to dismiss any of the other ancient Scriptural mss. as I believe GOD caused them to be preserved for us.

I would consider the Majority Text as the successors envisioned by Burgon.
The Majority Text Compared to the Received Text

 

[Logos1560]

Could these be considered examples of how KJV defenders will not apply the same exact measures/standards to the translation decisions in the KJV as they inconsistently and thus unjustly apply to those in the NKJV? Would any KJV-only advocates actually say that the NKJV is more faithful to the Greek in these examples?

2 Corinthians 12:15

will be bestowed for your souls [1560 Geneva Bible]

will be spent for your souls [1602 Bishops’ Bible]

be spent for you [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Gr. your souls”]

be entirely spent for your souls [Young's Literal Translation]

be spent for your souls [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible] [NKJV]


Hebrews 4:2

the word that they heard [1560 Geneva Bible]

the word preached [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Gr. the word of hearing”]

the word heard [YLT]

the word which they heard [NKJV]


James 2:17

in itself [1560 Geneva Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible]

being alone [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Gr. by it self”]

by itself [YLT] [NKJV] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

 

[37818]

There are variants with the TR. Even what is identified as Majority text is not always majority text!

Bible.ca (CoC) gives an overview regarding the manuscript evidence: Editions of the Greek New Testament

 

[rlvaughn]

Charles Surrett may regard himself to be a TR advocate although he is also a KJV defender or mild KJV-only advocate. He does not actually prefer the NKJV over the KJV, but he did a comparison of a couple books in both.

Yes, thanks. Surrett is a defender of the TR, but since he does not favor the NKJV, I did not consider him as the type of spokesman I am looking for re the TR and NKJV.