The New King James Version (NKJV) vs. the English Standard Version (ESV)

From what I understand, many Christians who used to utilize the NKJV as their primary Bible translation have transitioned to the ESV.
If you happen to be one of those individuals, what motivated you to make the change?

There was a time when I considered the NKJV to be my primary translation. However, I now find myself reaching for the ESV more frequently, mainly due to its superior manuscript evidence in the main text and its alignment with today’s vernacular.

I prefer the NKJV: partly because it keeps to the KJV with its smoother readings quite a bit, partly because it italicizes words added to the text, which can be helpful in certain places and partly because I have more confidence in the Majority Text than in the Critical Text as I shall try to explain below. I know the NKJV uses the Textus Receptus, but that text is much nearer to the M.T. than to the C.T.

My qualifications for writing on this subject are somewhat tenuous. As an unconverted teenager, I studied Classical languages for my B.A. degree and that included a limited amount of Textual Criticism. My concern is that the same secular methods of textual criticism that I studied as a youngster and applied to ancient secular writers such as Catullus, Euripides and Thucidides are being applied to the holy and inerrant word of God and that the work of liberal theologians and unbelieving textual experts are being accepted by evangelicals in a way that they would never accept a liberal exegetical commentary.

When I studied textual criticism at University, I recall that there were three particular rules which scholars used to try and establish the true text when the surviving manuscripts disagreed. We shall look at these in turn:

1. The oldest manuscript is likely to be the most accurate. It needs to be understood that all ancient writings other than the Bible have a very small number of surviving manuscripts. One of my ‘Set Texts’ at University was the Poems of Catullus. As I recall, there are only three surviving manuscripts of Catullus, all dated 600 years or more after his time. One of these is believed to be older than the others, and so, when they differed, the older one was preferred. This might seem to be reasonable, but there is no assurance in the matter. The older manuscript might well have been copied more times than the more recent ones; or the older one might have been copied badly one or more times while the more recent ones may have been copied faithfully dozens of times. We have no way of knowing.

However, when we come to the New Testament, there are literally thousands of extant manuscripts. So let us consider the last nine verses of Mark 16. The NIV states, “The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” The ESV is a little more circumspect: “Some of the earliest manuscripts so not include 16:9-20.” What are the facts? Well, our old friends Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not contain the verses, although the latter has the space for them left blank, showing that the scribe was at least aware of them. There is also one other Greek manuscript in which the verses are missing. They are contained in more than 600 other Greek manuscripts and in the old Latin and Peshitta Syrian versions as well as being quoted by 2nd Century writers such as Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian who wrote almost 200 years before the estimated dates of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. I ask, is it sensible to prefer two, admittedly older manuscripts over hundreds of others?

2. Where manuscripts differ, the shorter reading is to be preferred over the longer.

The reasoning here is that scribes may have added comments to the text in the margin which later copyists have incorporated into the text. Obviously it is impossible to prove that this is not so, but is it not more likely that an inattentive copyist has accidentally left something out? Frankly, when it comes to the word of God, I expect the fuller, theologically richer reading to be correct. Let us look at two verses:

Luke 11:2b-4, NKJV. ‘Our Father in heaven , hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us day by day our daily bread and forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.’

Luke 11:2b-4, ESV. ‘Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.’

The wretchedly ugly and abbreviated reading of the ESV and most other modern versions is found in no more than five or six Greek manuscripts, whereas the Traditional Text is found in at least 600. The argument put forward by the supporters of the C.T. is that the Traditional reading has been harmonized with the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:9-13, but this is really not very persuasive. There are at least two other differences between the Traditional readings of the Prayer in Matthew and Luke. Surely, if a scribe was going to harmonize Luke with Matthew, he would have done the job properly? It is far more probable that the reading of the C.T. is the result of an inattentive scribe missing out two sections of the prayer.

Here is another example of the same principle.

Romans 3:22, NKJV. ‘….Even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.’

Romans 3:22, ESV. ‘…..The righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, for all who believe.’

The C.T. version, exemplified by the ESV, is a tortology. It is through faith for all who believe. Well, who else would it be for if it’s through faith? The Traditional reading of the NKJV is much more profound. The righteousness of God by faith comes ‘to all’ as it is preached, but it is ‘upon all’ who receive it. The C.T. reading is found in about 20 manuscripts, the Traditional reading in several hundred. There is no reason why a scribe would have inserted extra words. Without doubt the shorter reading is the result of words being missed out.

[continued]

3. The most unusual or ridiculous reading- the one that makes least sense- is most likely to be the original.

This is the theory that I find most offensive of all. The idea is that a reading that appears to make no sense, or contains a factual error, is likely to have been ‘corrected’ by a scribe at some stage. Even in secular writings, I wonder how helpful this rule is. If an ancient writer was accustomed to write nonsense, why ever is anyone studying him? But when we come to the word of God, surely no believer could possibly support such an idea. Either the Bible is the word of God or it isn’t! If it is, then God did not inspire the Apostles and evangelists to write stuff that is wrong or which makes no sense. Let’s see how this works out is practice.

Eph. 3:14-15, NKJV. ‘For this reason I bow my knees before the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family (or ‘people’ or ‘nation’) in heaven and earth is named.’

Eph. 3:14-15, NIV. ‘For this reason I kneel before the Father from whom the whole family in heaven and earth derives its name.’

The C.T. reading is supported by 19 Greek manuscripts; the Traditional reading is found is over 500, as well as the majority of the ancient writers who cite the verses.

By what name is the family of God known? Why, as Christians of course. We are not ‘Fatherians’ or ‘Godians.’ The NIV reading makes no real sense. Unfortunately this may be the very reason why many textual critics prefer it. The ESV tries to make some sense of its reading in a footnote where it suggests that the Greek word Patria might actually mean ‘fatherhood’ rather than ‘family.’ But this is not the word’s primary meaning as a glance at a Greek dictionary will confirm. As indicated above, patria means ‘family,’ ‘people’ or ‘nation.’ The English words ‘Patriarch,’ meaning head of the family, and ‘Patriotic’ come from it.

Luke 4:44- 5:1, NKJV. ‘And He was preaching in the synagogues of Galilee. So it was, as the multitudes pressed about Him to hear the word of God, that He stood by the Lake of Gennesaret.’

Luke 4:44- 5:1, ESV. ‘And he was preaching in the synagogues of Judea. On one occasion, while the crowd was pressing in on him to hear the word of God, he was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret.’

Once again, the vast majority of ancient manuscripts, along with the Church Fathers, support the Traditional Text. The point here is that the Lake of Gennesaret is in Galilee, not Judea, but for that very reason, the majority of textual critics uphold the Critical Text and make Luke into a geographical nincompoop.

John 7:8-10, NKJV. ‘” You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come.” When He had said these things to them, He remained in Galilee. But when His brothers had gone up, He also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.’

John 7:8-10, ESV. ‘”You go up to the feast. I am not going to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.” After saying this, he remained in Galilee. But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly, but in private.’

The question is over the little word ‘yet’ in verse 8. Its omission makes out the Lord Jesus to be either indecisive or a liar. The word is missing in only a tiny number of the hundreds of extant ancient manuscripts; even Codex Vaticanus contains it. Yet the ESV and also, to its shame, the NASB, omit the word, though the NIV (1984 edition) includes it. The ESV writes in its margin, ‘Some manuscripts add yet.’ Some manuscripts? Would it not be more honest to say, ‘98% of the manuscripts add yet’? The only possible reason to omit the word is that just because the C.T. reading is so ridiculous and objectionable, a scribe might possibly have added it. Such an explanation might be acceptable to a Richard Dawkins or a Bart Erhmann, but it surely cannot be acceptable to anyone who believes that the Bible is the true and complete word of God. The word from heaven declared, “This is My beloved Son; hear Him!” (Mark 9:7). Why would we listen to someone who was either a liar or couldn’t make up his mind? No, no! We should accept the witness of the vast majority of the ancient witnesses, dismiss the omission as the error of an inattentive copyist, and honour Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Finally, let me that I do not regard this controversy as being a matter of absolutely crucial importance. Indeed, my own church uses the NIV (1984 version), and I believe that it is more important for me to support the preaching of the Gospel and to maintain unity than to insist upon my view on Bible Versions. Moreover, we now have so many ancient manuscripts available to us and they all share so much in common despite their differences that we can say that none of them challenges in any way the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. However, evangelicals believe that the original writings were inerrant and it must therefore be important to us to get as near as possible to those divinely-inspired sources. Also, since commentators who support the C.T. do not hesitate to speak of the ‘most reliable manuscripts’ whilst ignoring 95% of the extant sources, I feel it is legitimate for me to take up the cudgels on behalf of the Traditional Text. When I am preaching from the NIV, on those rare occasions when I feel that the difference in texts is important (e.g. 1 Tim. 3:16), I do not hesitate to make known my preference for the Majority Text.

[N.B. Some of this post has been lifted from my blog post Critical Text or Traditional Text? ]

Martin Marprelate: You listed italics first among the qualities you like in the NKJV.
I’ve not used the NKJV but my opinion of the KJV’s use of italics is that it is used quite inconsistently and is often untrustworthy.
Is the NKJV’s use of italics more consistent?

Rob

Deacon said:

I’ve not used the NKJV but my opinion of the KJV’s use of italics is that it is used quite inconsistently and is often untrustworthy.
Is the NKJV’s use of italics more consistent?

Rob

Click to expand...

There is a great deal of variations in the use of italics in the many varying editions of the KJV. The original 1611 edition did not actually use italics, but it indicated added words by use of a different type and those added words were then indicated by italics in post-1611 KJV editions. The number of words in italics was increased in the revised standard 1629 Cambridge KJV edition, in the revised standard 1638 Cambridge KJV edition, and in the revised standard 1769 Oxford KJV edition.

The KJV edition that attempted to use italics consistently was Scrivener's 1873 edition that was reprinted several years after the year 2000 by Zondervan and later by Hendrickson. According to The Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, the 1873 Cambridge KJV edition has 34,712 words that are in italics (p. x), and that may be twice as many as in any other typical post-1900 KJV edition.

A few publishers have printed some editions of the KJV with no italics. The 1897 KJV edited by J. W. Mackail did not put added words in italics. The 2005 and 2011 New Cambridge Paragraph Bible by David Norton and the 2006 Penguin Classics Edition do not use italics for added words. The 2012 Norton Critical Edition of the KJV edited by Herbert Marks does not use italics. Laurence Vance also noted that the Cambridge Pitt Brevier edition “does not use italics” (Text of the KJB, p. 229). At least two or three other present KJV editions do not have italics to indicate added words.

In my opinion, the NKJV would definitely be more consistent in its use of italics than the 1611 KJV edition was and likely than a typical post-1900 KJV edition. I am not sure if the NKJV would be more consistent in its use of italics than the 1873 Cambridge KJV edition by Scrivener.

Deacon said:

Martin Marprelate: You listed italics first among the qualities you like in the NKJV.
I’ve not used the NKJV but my opinion of the KJV’s use of italics is that it is used quite inconsistently and is often untrustworthy.
Is the NKJV’s use of italics more consistent?

Rob

Click to expand...

I have never made a comparison between the use of italics in the KJV and NKJV, but I do know that there are differences. For example:
1 John 2:2, KJV. 'And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.'
1 John 2:2, NKJV. 'And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the whole world.'
The words, 'the sins of' are not in any Greek manuscript, but the KJV includes them in italics whereas the NKJV doesn't. Whether that's right or wrong is another question, but I think it shows that the NKJV translators did not follow the KJV slavishly. I also think that the reader is entitled to know that the words are not in the original Greek.

Here are some examples of the inconsistencies in the italics in KJV editions.

Deuteronomy 21:3 [italics] [same as Deut. 21:6 where man is in italics]

the slain man [1873 Cambridge] (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)

the slain man (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]




1 Chronicles 18:16 [italics] [was added same as were before the priests] [This “was” not added in 1560 Geneva] [see 2 Sam. 8:17--was the scribe] [was the scribe--NKJV]

was scribe (1675, 1681, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1722, 1728, 1737, 1743, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1760, 1762, 1765, 1768, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1783, 1788, 1804 Oxford) [1629, 1635, 1637, 1638, 1648, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1812, 1816, 1817, 1873 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1616, 1617, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1648, 1650, 1652, 1655, 1657, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1703, 1706, 1711, 1712, 1728, 1730, 1735, 1741, 1743, 1747, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1764, 1767, 1768, 1772, 1853, 1879 London} (1755 Oxon) (1637, 1638, 1715, 1722, 1751, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769, 1787, 1791, 1793, 1802, 1806, 1820, 1827, 1842, 1843, 1858 Edinburgh) (1860, 1866 Glasgow) (1722, 1743, 1801 Dublin) (1645 Dutch) (1696, 1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1774, 1777 Fortescu) (1776 Birmingham) (1776 Pasham) (1777 Wood) (1782 Aitken) (1785 Wilson) (1790 Bolton) (1792, 1821, 1831 Brown) (1802, 1815 Carey) (1803 Etheridge) (1816 Albany) (1816 Collins) (1816, 1848 Hartford) (1818 Holbrook) (1818, 1819, 1827, 1829, 1843, 1851 ABS) (1826 Boston) (1823, 1827 Smith) (1828 MH) (1832 PSE) (1832 Scott) (1832 Wilbur) (1835 Towar) (1836 Stebbing) (1841 Thomas) (1843 AFBS) (1845, 1854, 1876 Harding) (1846 Benson) (1846 Portland) (1848 IFB) (1910 Collins) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB) (2024 FGWB) (1842 Bernard)

was scribe (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB] (1762 Dublin)



Psalm 75:5 [italics] [speak not with--1602 Bishops]

speak not with (1928, 1968 Oxford) [2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1640, 1644, 1650, 1652, 1655, 1660, 1795 London} (1637 Edinburgh) (1696, 1700 MP) (1799 Helston) (1843 AFBS) (1897 Mackail) (2003 EB) (2003 IGC) (2006 PENG) (2011 AMP) (2011 PJB) (NCE) (2013 CC) (2015 KAPPA)

speak not with (1675, 1679, 1681, 1709, 1713, 1715, 1720, 1722, 1728, 1737, 1746, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1765, 1768, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1783, 1799 Oxford) [1629, 1635, 1637, 1638, 1648, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1873 Cambridge] {1634, 1648, 1657, 1672, 1674, 1684, 1703, 1706, 1711, 1712, 1728, 1730, 1735, 1741, 1743, 1747, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1761, 1764, 1767, 1768, 1772, 1853, 1879 London} (1755 Oxon) (1712, 1715, 1722, 1735, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769, 1787, 1810, 1820, 1827, 1834, 1842, 1843, 1858 Edinburgh) (1866 Glasgow) (1762 Dublin) (1645 Dutch) (1746 Leipzig) (1774 Bristol) (1774, 1777 Fortescu) (1776 Birmingham) (1776 Pasham) (1777 Wood) (1782 Aitken) (1784 Piguenit) (1792, 1831 Brown) (1814, 1832, 1835 Scott) (1814 Woodward) (1818, 1819, 1827, 1830, 1831, 1843, 1850, 1851, 1853, 1855, 1858, 1868, 1888, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1984, 1988, 2004, 2008 ABS) (1826 Boston) (1832 PSE) (1835 Towar) (1836 Stebbing) (1846 Portland) (1839, 1845, 1857, 1876 Harding) (1848 Hartford) (1848 IFB) (1876 Porter) (1910 Collins) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1948 WSE) (1970 TN) (WMCRB) (1984 AMG) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB) (2024 FGWB) (1842 Bernard)

speak not with (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]



Proverbs 9:8 [italics] [see also wise man at Prov. 9:9, Prov. 1:5]

wise man (1679, 1681, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1747, 1749, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1765, 1768, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1783 Oxford) [1638, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1873 Cambridge] {1684, 1689, 1703, 1706, 1712, 1730, 1735, 1741, 1743, 1747, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1768, 1772 London} (1755 Oxon) (1715, 1722, 1735, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1762, 1801 Dublin) (1746 Leipzig) (1774, 1777 Fortescu) (1776 Birmingham) (1776 Pasham) (1777 Wood) (1782 Aitken) (1784 Piguenit) (1792 Brown) (1804 MH) (1839 Harding) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB) (2024 FGWB) [NKJV]

wise man (1737, 1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]


Isaiah 29:8 [italics] [compare hungry man in this same verse]

thirsty man (1679, 1681, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1737, 1743, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1764, 1765, 1768, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1783, 1804 Oxford) [1638, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1812, 1816, 1817, 1873 Cambridge] {1660, 1689, 1703, 1706, 1711, 1712, 1717, 1730, 1735, 1741, 1743, 1747, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1768, 1772, 1811, 1853, 1879 London} (1755 Oxon) (1715, 1722, 1735, 1751, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1806, 1810, 1820, 1827, 1834, 1842, 1843, 1858 Edinburgh) (1860, 1866 Glasgow) (1722, 1743, 1762, 1801 Dublin) (1696, 1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1774 Bristol) (1774 Fortescu) (1776 Birmingham) (1776 Pasham) (1777 Wood) (1782 Aitken) (1790 Bolton) (1790, 1804, 1828 MH) (1792, 1821, 1831 Brown) (1802, 1813 Carey) (1803 Etheridge) (1804 Blomfield) (1814, 1832, 1835, 1851, 1858 Scott) (1814 Woodward) (1816 Albany) (1816 Collins) (1818 Holbrook) (1818, 1819, 1827, 1829, 1830, 1843, 1851, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1858 ABS) (1826, 1828 Boston) (1827 Smith) (1832 PSE) (1835 Towar) (1836 Stebbing) (1839, 1845, 1854, 1857, 1876 Harding) (1841 Thomas) (1844, 1848 Hartford) (1846 Benson) (1846 Portland) (1910 Collins) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB) (2024 FGWB) (1842 Bernard)

thirsty man (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]


Luke 10:30 [see Luke 14:2, Luke 14:16, Acts 3:2] [Greek word for man--anthropos in TR text]

A certain man (1675, 1681, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1728, 1729, 1747, 1749, 1753, 1754, 1755, 1758, 1762, 1764, 1765, 1928 Oxford) [1629, 1635, 1637, 1638, 1648, 1683, 1873, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1616, 1617, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1634, 1640, 1648, 1650, 1655, 1657, 1672, 1684, 1689, 1706, 1711, 1723, 1730, 1735, 1743, 1795 London} (1755 Oxon) (1637, 1638, 1714, 1715, 1722, 1751, 1756, 1764, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1722, 1743, 1762, 1801 Dublin) (1645 Dutch) (1695, 1798 Baxter) (1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1776 Pasham) (1782 Aitken) (1790 MH) (1792, 1821 Brown) (1832, 1835 Scott) (1843 AFBS) (1897 Mackail) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (2003, 2011, 2012 Barbour) (2003 IGC) (2003 EB) (KJVJB) (TPB) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB) (2011 AMP) (2011 PJB) (NCE) (2013 CC) (2015 KAPPA) (2024 FGWB)

A certain man (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]