NKJV & TR

[Logos1560]

I believe the TR is God's preserved Greek Text.

Your choice to believe it does not make it true nor scriptural.

I have seen no positive, clear, consistent, sound, scriptural case for such a belief.

When I wrote my first book on the KJV-only issue, I did so on acceptance of unproven assumptions concerning the Textus Receptus. In studying more about the varying TR editions, I do not find that the TR editors followed or applied any sound textual measures/standards consistently and justly.

There were twenty to thirty varying printed editions of the Textus Receptus, and the KJV was not based on an exclusive following of any one printed edition. Those printed editions have some readings added from the Latin Vulgate, and the Scriptures do not state nor teach that preservation of the actual original-language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles would be through a Latin translation. Those printed editions also had some errors introduced by the printers that were followed in TR-based translations. Those printed, edited editions also introduced some textual conjectures found in no known preserved Greek NT manuscripts.

Following and justly applying the scriptural truths about the use of just measures/standards would provide a sound, scriptural basis for questioning some conjectures and minority readings found in the textually-varying TR editions.

 

[Logos1560]

Here is one example of a conjecture found in some TR editions edited by Theodore Beza

According to KJV defender Edward F. Hills, this KJV rendering “shalt be” at Revelation 16:5 came from a conjectural emendation interjected into the Greek text by Beza (Believing Bible Study, pp. 205-206). Edwards Hills again acknowledged that Theodore Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations in his edition of the Textus Receptus with two of them kept in the KJV, one of them at Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy (KJV Defended, p. 208). Hills identified the KJV reading at Revelation 16:5 as “certainly erroneous” and as a “conjectural emendation by Beza” (Believing Bible Study, p. 83).

James White agreed with Edward Hills that Beza’s reading at Revelation 16:5 was a conjectural emendation, a change “made to the text without any evidence from the manuscripts” (King James Only, first edition, p. 63). James White claimed: “Every Greek text--not just Alexandrian texts, but all Greek texts, Majority Text, the Byzantine text, every manuscript, the entire manuscript tradition--reads ‘O Holy One,‘ containing the Greek phrase ‘ho hosios’” (second edition, p. 237). William W. Combs maintained that “Beza simply speculated (guessed)” in introducing this reading (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall, 1999, p. 156).

The earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision did not have “and shalt be” at this verse. Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Whittingham's New Testament, and the Geneva Bible all have "holy" while the Bishops’ Bible has “holy one.” Bullinger indicated that 1624 edition of the Elzevirs’ Greek text has “the holy one” at this verse (Lexicon, p. 689). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Walter Scott asserted that the KJV’s rendering “shalt be” was an unnecessary interpolation and that the KJV omitted the title “holy One” (p. 326).

How is a conjecture introduced into the TR supposedly to be in line with any consistent view of the preservation of the Scriptures?

D. A. Waite wrote: "How Bible-believing Christians can allow guesswork and conjecture to determine their Bible is beyond me, but they do" (Defending the KJB, p. 30). Waite wrote: “Conjecture or guess is completely out of place in any treating of the New Testament” (Foes, p. 125). Do Waite's own statements apply to this verse? Is Waite in effect defending a conjecture as being “theologically superior?” Does Waite accept the textual conjecture at Revelation 16:5 as found in the KJV as his final authority or does he accept the Greek word or words in the preserved manuscripts as his final authority? David Cloud asserted: “To think that we are left to conjecture the original text of the Scripture is a blatant denial of divine preservation” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 276). John William Burgon as edited by Edward Miller indicated that “the determination of the text of Holy Scripture” should not be “handed over” . . . “to the uncertain sands of conjecture” (Traditional Text, p. 229). Maurice Robinson maintained that “the quantity of preserved evidence for the text of the NT precludes conjectural emendation” (New Testament, p. 554). Emanuel Tov asserted that “whoever suggests an emendation by definition rejects the preserved evidence and, instead, resorts to his imagination” (Textual Criticism, p. 294).

At this Revelation 16:5, do holders of various KJV-only views or TR-only views seem to deny or undermine their own view of preservation as they in effect defend a conjecture? Is there any sound evidence that every generation of believers had access to the reading found in the KJV at Revelation 16:5 or that it was used by all the churches throughout the centuries? Is there a multiplicity of textual witnesses that support the new reading introduced by Beza at Revelation 16:5? Does Beza’s reading faithfully reflect the majority reading of the thousands of Greek New Testament manuscripts?

 

[Logos1560]

When they did a NKJV word for word check against the KJV. The KJV that was used wrongly had "he" for "ye" and the NKJV had the correct "you" was by mistake corrected to "he." This of course was corrected back to "you.". Off the cuff I do not have the stories source.

Likely your example may be referring to Jeremiah 34:16 where the original 1611 KJV edition had "whom ye."

"Whom he" is found in a London KJV edition printed in 1613, and it was adopted or followed in the 1629 and 1638 standard Cambridge editions of the KJV. The 1743, 1762, and 1769 Cambridge and 1769 Oxford editions also had "whom he" at Jeremiah 34:16 as did the majority of both Cambridge and Oxford editions in the 1800's until the 1873 Cambridge edition by Scrivener reintroduced "whom ye." Cambridge KJV editions in the 1900's typically have "whom ye" while the Oxford edition in the 1917 Scofield Reference Bible had "whom he" so some KJV defenders have incorrectly called this rendering in many KJV editions an Oxford error.

 

[rlvaughn]

I know of others who prefer the NKJV over the KJV, and they do so for reasons of desiring God's word in more modern English.

If you want specifics, I could try digging up some, but given my own particular stance, I'm not in favor of using the NKJV...

Thanks, and I understand. If you find anything I would be glad to know. I have assumed that folks who choose to use the NKJV -- at least some of them -- do so because they have a strong preference for the TR. Yet I have been unable to find any writers making this case, so I am beginning to wonder whether this is true for any proponents of the NKJV.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Thanks, and I understand. If you find anything I would be glad to know. I have assumed that folks who choose to use the NKJV -- at least some of them -- do so because they have a strong preference for the TR. Yet I have been unable to find any writers making this case, so I am beginning to wonder whether this is true for any proponents of the NKJV.

I think that most users of the NKJV may be, like myself, not totally sold on the TR, but preferring it to the CT. In the UK at least, I have been unable to find a printed copy of a Majority / Byzantine text Bible. Other reasons for liking the NKJV are that it is Formal equivalence and not Gender Neutral as well as being easy to use when reading the Puritans and other older writers and to use with Young's Analytical Concordance.
I believe that there are places where the NKJV could be improved and am hoping for a revision sometime soon before my Bible falls apart completely. But I fear that Nelson may have lost interest in it.

But here's something I wrote on the subject a few years back.
Critical Text or Traditional Text?

 

[Conan]

Here is a Majority Text New Testament. Extremely literal. Certainly not as good as Tyndale/KJV but useful non the less.
The Analytical-Literal Translation of the Entire Bible

And another.
Majority Text.com

 

[rlvaughn]

I think that most users of the NKJV may be, like myself, not totally sold on the TR, but preferring it to the CT. In the UK at least, I have been unable to find a printed copy of a Majority / Byzantine text Bible. Other reasons for liking the NKJV are that it is Formal equivalence and not Gender Neutral as well as being easy to use when reading the Puritans and other older writers and to use with Young's Analytical Concordance.
I believe that there are places where the NKJV could be improved and am hoping for a revision sometime soon before my Bible falls apart completely. But I fear that Nelson may have lost interest in it.

But here's something I wrote on the subject a few years back.
Critical Text or Traditional Text?

Thanks for the thoughts, and also the link to what you wrote on the CT and TT. Interesting read.

 

[Logos1560]

While some have considered or claimed the Textus Receptus to be the Traditional Text, others including John William Burgon have maintained that there are some actual differences between the two.

In his introduction to Burgon’s book, Edward Miller wrote: “In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St. Matthew‘s Gospel alone“ (Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p. 5). Burgon and Miller advocated “the Traditional Text,“ not the Textus Receptus (p. 5). Burgon as edited by Miller asserted: “I am not defending the ‘Textus Receptus’” (p. 15). Burgon added: “That it is without authority to bind, nay, that it calls for skillful revision in every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text” (Ibid.). Burgon asserted: “Where any part of it conflicts with the fullest evidence attainable, there I believe that it calls for correction” (Ibid.). Edward Miller concluded that the Traditional Text advocated by Dean Burgon would differ “in many passages” from the Textus Receptus (p. 96). In the introduction to another of Burgon’s books, Edward Miller asserted: “The Traditional Text must be found, not in a mere transcript, but in a laborious revision of the Received Text” (Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text, p. 1).

John William Burgon wrote: "Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out that the Textus Receptus needs correction" (p. 21, footnote 3). Burgon maintained that “in not a few particulars, the ‘Textus receptus’ does call for Revision” (p. 107). Burgon wrote: “That some corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware” (p. 224, footnote 1). Burgon himself asked: “who in his senses, --what sane man in Great Britain, --ever dreamed of regarding the ‘Received,‘ --aye, or any other known ‘Text,‘ --as a standard from which there shall be no appeal? Have I ever done so? Have I ever implied as much? If I have, show me where” (p. 385). Burgon himself asserted: “If, on the contrary, I have ever once appealed to the ‘Received Text,‘ and made it my standard, --why do you not prove the truth of your allegation by adducing in evidence that one particular instance?“ instead of bringing against me a charge which is utterly without foundation (p. 388). Burgon asked: “Who, pray, since the invention of printing was ever known to put forward any existing Text as ‘a final standard’?“ (p. 392). Burgon asserted: “So far am I from pinning my faith to it [the Textus Receptus], that I eagerly make my appeal from it to the threefold witness of Copies, Versions, Fathers, whenever I find its testimony challenged” (Ibid.). In 1864, Burgon maintained that “the accumulated evidence of the last two centuries has enabled us to correct it [the Textus Receptus] with confidence in hundreds of places” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 69).

 

[37818]

Likely your example may be referring to Jeremiah 34:16 where the original 1611 KJV edition had "whom ye."

"Whom he" is found in a London KJV edition printed in 1613, and it was adopted or followed in the 1629 and 1638 standard Cambridge editions of the KJV. The 1743, 1762, and 1769 Cambridge and 1769 Oxford editions also had "whom he" at Jeremiah 34:16 as did the majority of both Cambridge and Oxford editions in the 1800's until the 1873 Cambridge edition by Scrivener reintroduced "whom ye." Cambridge KJV editions in the 1900's typically have "whom ye" while the Oxford edition in the 1917 Scofield Reference Bible had "whom he" so some KJV defenders have incorrectly called this rendering in many KJV editions an Oxford error.

Yes, the passage is Jeremiah 34:16. Was ment to be in my post. The NKJV originally had "you." But ended up being published with "he." Because of that edition used for that KJV check. The source of the story as to why that happed, I was not remembering. The current editions of NKJV have "you."

 

[Ziggy]

1 Peter 2:2 , "as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby.*" * footnote, NU-Text adds up to salvation. Notice the NKJV translators make the Greek for "into" read as "up to." And this is one case where the actual majority text has "into salvation."

While Pickering's minority Family 35 group might have εις σωτηρίαν present, the bulk of the Byzantine tradition does not include such, as shown in the RP edition as well as in the NKJV footnote (where "NU-text" stands alone with no mention of the "M-text").

 

[37818]

While Pickering's minority Family 35 group might have εις σωτηρίαν present, the bulk of the Byzantine tradition does not include such, as shown in the RP edition as well as in the NKJV footnote (where "NU-text" stands alone with no mention of the "M-text").

εις σωτηρίαν is in 65% of the 1 Peter 2:2 manuscripts. Only 35% omit the reading. My Nestle (not Aland) Greek New Testament that I bought in 1968 showed the reading as majorty text. The point of my argument is not all that is identified in the NKJV as Majority text is correct.

 

[Van]

Answering the bolded and underlined, " Does it matter much in the great scheme of things? No.":
I suppose that depends on perspective, Steve.

For example, here is the passage you quoted in Galatians, which I have looked at and found to be in Ephesians:

" [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 one God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.
7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ." ( Ephesians 4:1-7, AV ).

Here in the "KJV", I see this in verse 6:

By using the words, "...in you all", God the Father is declared to be in every believer, because of who the letter is addressed to ( Ephesians 1:1 ).
This agrees with several other passages that state that Christ is in us ( Colossians 1:27, Romans 8:10 ), and that the Holy Spirit is in us ( 1 Corinthians 2:12, Romans 8:9 ).
Being "3-in-1" ( 1 John 5:7 ), that means the presence of the Godhead is in each and every believer and leaves no room for guessing, like "in all" does.

In the NKJV, the passage is worded like this:

" [There is] one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all." ( Ephesians 4:4-6, NKJV ).

This is why, as I have stated in other threads, I would use the NKJV if the KJV were not available.


However, this is why I will not use anything CT-based:

" [There is] one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all." ( Ephesians 4:4-6, NASB ).

To me, by using the words, "in all", it takes away a critical word..."you", and makes the reader ( at least to me ) misunderstand what "in all" really means.
In other words, it takes away the clarification of God the Father being in each believer ( "in you all" ), and seems to give the impression that He is in all things...plants, animals, unbelievers, etc.

So, where there is clarification in the TR-based translations and a "dovetailing" with other Scriptures that confirm certain things, I see an ambiguity in the CT-based translations that creates more questions than are answered.

To me, the text then becomes less-informative, instead of being more-informative and able to rely upon the rule that Scripture "interprets and defines Scripture".

May He bless you richly with His gifts.

Here is a snippet from a commentary : in you all — The oldest manuscripts omit “you.” Many of the oldest versions and Fathers and old manuscripts read, “in us all.” Whether the pronoun be read or not, it must be understood (either from the “ye,” Ephesians 4:4, or from the “us,” Ephesians 4:7); for other parts of Scripture prove that the Spirit is not “in all” men, but only in believers (Romans 8:9, Romans 8:14). God is “Father” both by generation (as Creator) and regeneration (Ephesians 2:10; James 1:17, James 1:18; 1 John 5:1).

So while many scholars think the "you" or "us" was added for clarification, many do not think "you" or "us" is in the original inspired text. Thus the best rendering would be "in all believers" with "believers" in italics to show as an addition for clarification.

 

[37818]

Here is a snippet from a commentary : in you all — The oldest manuscripts omit “you.” Many of the oldest versions and Fathers and old manuscripts read, “in us all.” Whether the pronoun be read or not, it must be understood (either from the “ye,” Ephesians 4:4, or from the “us,” Ephesians 4:7); for other parts of Scripture prove that the Spirit is not “in all” men, but only in believers (Romans 8:9, Romans 8:14). God is “Father” both by generation (as Creator) and regeneration (Ephesians 2:10; James 1:17, James 1:18; 1 John 5:1).

So while many scholars think the "you" or "us" was added for clarification, many do not think "you" or "us" is in the original inspired text. Thus the best rendering would be "in all believers" with "believers" in italics to show as an addition for clarification.

90% of the manuscripts having Ephesians 4:6 read "us." Only 5% omit "us" or "you."

 

[Conan]

εις σωτηρίαν is in 65% of the 1 Peter 2:2 manuscripts. Only 35% omit the reading. My Nestle (not Aland) Greek New Testament that I bought in 1968 showed the reading as majorty text. The point of my argument is not all that is identified in the NKJV as Majority text is correct.

Interesting. Could the 65% be family 35 only? I am merely guessing. Strange that both Robinson/Pierpont & Hodges/Farstad have a minority reading. The Alexandrian text, Family 35, and the Majority text agree against the Byzantine/Majority text and Textus Receptus? No doubt there is an error in some apparatuses somewhere. I partially think it could be Pickering's?

 

[Conan]

εις σωτηρίαν is in 65% of the 1 Peter 2:2 manuscripts. Only 35% omit the reading. My Nestle (not Aland) Greek New Testament that I bought in 1968 showed the reading as majorty text. The point of my argument is not all that is identified in the NKJV as Majority text is correct.

I did find why this might be.
Bibliography of Textual Criticism "P"
This text, like the text of Hodges and Farstad 1982, is derived from the Byzantine manuscript data of von Soden 1913. It is similar to the Hodges & Farstad text, but differs slightly because of two differences in the method: (1) Pierpont and Robinson adopted only the readings that von Soden had classified as Byzantine "K-text," whereas Hodges and Farstad sometimes adopted readings from his "I-text." (2) In cases where the majority reading within the "K-text" represented less than 70% of that group, Pierpont and Robinson
sometimes adopted another reading from the group on the basis of internal principles relating to transmissional probabilities, transcriptional probabilities, and style and syntax considerations, etc., rather than simply adopt the majority reading. The Introduction states that in this they "have followed the critical canons of John W. Burgon throughout the entire Greek New Testament," and for a discussion of these canons it refers the reader to pages 40-67 of Burgon's The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established (see Burgon 1896. But unlike Burgon, Pierpont and Robinson leave out of consideration the evidence of the ancient versions and patristic quotations, and deal exclusively with evidence from the Greek copies). The edition thus aims to represent not merely the majority of all manuscripts, but the earliest form of the "Byzantine" text. Hodges and Farstad attempted to do this only in the book of Revelation and in the Story of the Adulteress in the eighth chapter of John.

Bibliography of Textual Criticism "P"

 

[37818]

Could the 65% be family 35 only?

I do not think so. The Greek text that I bought as a TR in the early 1970's which has 1 John 5:7 in it, it has "εις σωτηρίαν." And again, my Nestle (not Aland) Greek text I bought in 1968 showed εις σωτηρίαν as majority text. It is my understanding Dr. Pickering begrudgingly acknowledged that reading as part of f35.

 

[Conan]

I do not think so.

No doubt you are correct.

The Greek text that I bought as a TR in the early 1970's which has 1 John 5:7 in it, it has "εις σωτηρίαν." And again, my Nestle (not Aland) Greek text I bought in 1968 showed εις σωτηρίαν as majority text. It is my understanding Dr. Pickering begrudgingly acknowledged that reading as part of f35.

Pickering's apparatus has The TR as not having εις σωτηρίαν. Differences between TR editions? The old Nestle edition is correct on the Majority reading but Hodges/Farstad & Pierpont/Robinson incorrect on the Majority reading?
Thank you for mentioning this!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

While some have considered or claimed the Textus Receptus to be the Traditional Text, others including John William Burgon have maintained that there are some actual differences between the two

Yes, I have read more than one place where Burgon states that. It would be my view also, but IMHO the TR is certainly closer to the original than the CT.

 

[Logos1560]

Yes, I have read more than one place where Burgon states that. It would be my view also, but IMHO the TR is certainly closer to the original than the CT.

The claim that the textually-varying Textus Receptus editions are closer to the original than the CT does not provide a sound, scriptural basis for a modern KJV-only theory. The assertion that the varying TR editions may be better overall does not mean that every one of the readings in them including some conjectures is correct or is based on a just application of sound textual measures.

By the way, I have nowhere advocated or recommended the Critical Text, and the Critical Text has nothing to do with my sound, scripturally-based rejection of human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

 

[Van]

90% of the manuscripts having Ephesians 4:6 read "us." Only 5% omit "us" or "you."

I know that, and you know huge numbers of copies of corrupted text mean nothing.