Featured An Examination & Critique of The NEW KING JAMES VERSION.

It is to be remembered, that the original KJV had the exact same kind of textual footnotes in the 1611 KJV.

The NKJV faithfully continues the KJV into more Modern English. Perhaps that is what kjvonlyism is really upset about.

 

In 1869 over 100 years before the printing of the NKJV, an edition of the KJV’s N. T. that had hundreds of textual marginal notes from Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus was published.

 

The 1611 edition of the KJV had some textual marginal notes that referred to readings found in the corrupt Latin Vulgate of Jerome or the corrupt Greek Septuagint.

At Hebrews 6:1, Backus maintained that the 1611 KJV has in the margin "a literal translation of the Vulgate 'the word of the beginning of Christ'" (Reformed Roots, p. 147). At Matthew 4:12, Backus asserted that the 1611 KJV put “the Vulgate reading ‘delivered up’ in the margin” (p. 48). Scrivener suggested that the 1611 marginal note at 2 John 8 came from the Vulgate (Authorized Edition, p. 59). In its marginal note at Mark 7:3, the 1611 KJV has an alternative translation, the literal meaning of the Greek, and the translation of a church father: "Or, diligently, in the Original, with the fist; Theophilact, up to the elbow." The KJV translators put the following marginal note in the 1611 for “mercies” at Acts 13:34: “Greek, [hosios] holy, or just things; which word in the Septuagint, both in the place of Isaiah 55:3, and in many others, use for that which is in the Hebrew mercies.“ At Acts 13:18, the 1611 KJV has another marginal note that refers to the Septuagint and that refers to a church father--Chrysostom.

At Luke 10:22, the textual marginal note in the 1611 stated: "Many ancient copies add these words, 'And turning to his disciples, he said.'" The 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible has in its text at the beginning of Luke 10:22 the following: “Then he turned to his disciples.“ Scrivener suggested that the words in the 1611 margin at Luke 10:22 “are from the Complutensian edition and Stephen’s of 1550” (Authorized Edition, p. 58). At Luke 17:36, the textual marginal note in the 1611 stated: "This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." At 2 Peter 2:2, the textual marginal note in the 1611 noted: "Or, lascivious wages, as some copies read." At Acts 25:6, the textual marginal note in the 1611 was the following: "as some copies read, no more then eight or ten days."

Other marginal notes that gave variant readings in the 1611 KJV can be found at Judges 19:2, Ezra 10:40, Psalm 102:3, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 26:26, Acts 13:18, 1 Corinthians 15:31, Ephesians 6:9, James 2:18, 1 Peter 2:21, 2 Peter 2:11, and 18. The 1611 marginal note beginning with “or” at Hebrews 5:2 could be properly considered a textual note since it basically agrees with Beza and the Geneva translation [“which is able sufficiently to have compassion”] while the makers of the KJV may follow the Latin Vulgate reading “who can have compassion” in their text. At Hebrews 5:7, the 1611 marginal note beginning with “or” could be considered a textual note since it indicates the reading of Erasmus [“pro sus reverential”] as followed by Tyndale’s and the Great Bible. In addition, the 1611 marginal note beginning with “or” at Romans 8:11 [“because of his spirit] could also be considered a textual note since Edward F. Hills presented this as a textual difference or variation in editions of the Textus Receptus with Beza having “by his Spirit” and Erasmus and Stephanus having “because of his Spirit” (KJV Defended, p. 222). Scrivener listed Romans 8:11 as one of thirty-seven NT textual marginal notes in the 1611 (Authorized Edition, p. 58). Scrivener indicated that the 1611 marginal note beginning with “or” at Revelation 6:8 “to him” is with “Complutensian, Vulgate, [and] Bishops’ Bible” (p. 59). Backus noted that “at Matthew 7:14 the ‘how’ reading occurs in AV margin (after the Vulgate)” (Reformed Roots, p. 70), and Scrivener listed it as a textual note (Authorized Edition, p. 58). At Mark 1:34, Backus indicated that the KJV followed the Bishops’/Tyndale/Vulgate reading “because they knew him” while “keeping the Beza/Geneva reading [“to say that they knew him”] as marginal alternative” (Reformed Roots, p. 66). In the 1611 at Mark 14:72, Backus asserted that “the Vulgate reading ‘he began to weep’ is suggested as a marginal alternative along with ‘he wept abundantly’ after Erasmus” (p. 75). At Galatians 4:15, Backus maintained that the KJV “adopts the Vulgate text more explicitly than Bois, reading ‘Where is then,’ but inserting the TR reading in the margin” (pp. 135-136). In its marginal note at Luke 8:18, the 1611 KJV evidently has the Latin Vulgate reading “thinking that he hath” (p. 84). At Luke 7:30, the 1611 KJV is said to put the Latin Vulgate reading “frustrated” in its marginal note (p. 83). Concerning Luke 8:18, Backus suggested that “the Vulgate reading ‘thinking that he hath’” is “retained in the margin” (p. 84). At Luke 17:20, Backus indicated that Whittingham, Geneva, Bishops, and KJV all read “with observation” in the text after the Vulgate while the 1611 marginal note “with outward show” is after Beza (p. 87). Backus asserted that the KJV follows the Latin Vulgate and reads “within you” at Luke 17:21 and “inserts the Bezan reading ‘among you’ as marginal alternative” (p. 87). At Romans 1:28 in the 1611 edition, Backus maintained that the “Revisers suggest the Bois/Beza reading as a marginal alternative” (p. 114). Backus asserted that at Romans 5:12 the KJV “inserts the Bezan reading ‘in whom’ in the margin” (p. 159). At Romans 8:22, Backus maintained that the KJV “adopts the Bezan reading in the text and the Vulgate/Erasmus reading in the margin” (p. 118). Concerning 1 Corinthians 10:30, Backus observed: “The Vulgate/Erasmus alternative ‘or by thanksgiving’ as suggested by [KJV translator Andrew] Downes is inserted in the AV margin” (p. 131). As seen in some of the above examples (Matt. 4:12, Mark 1:34, Mark 14:72, Luke 7:30, Luke 8:18, Luke 17:20, Luke 17:21, Rom. 1:28, Rom. 5:12, Rom. 8:22, 1 Cor. 10:30, Heb. 5:2, Heb. 5:7, Heb. 6:1), Backus identified another ten or more 1611 NT marginal notes as being textual that Scrivener may not have noticed as being such and that he did not include in his count or list of thirty-seven. Thus, Scrivener’s count of textual notes in the 1611 is evidently incomplete and is not inflated.

John R. Kohlenberger III pointed out a textual variant in the marginal note in the 1611 edition at Deuteronomy 28:22. John Kohlenberger asserted: “This variant is caused by the change of a single vowel point in Hebrew (horch versus the Masoretic herch) and likely reflects the Vulgate et aestu” (Burke, Translation, p. 50). Kohlenberger noted: “An example of an alternative reading that is not clearly stated is found at Luke 2:38: ‘that looked for redemption in Hierusalem’; note: ‘Or, Israel.’

 

Bad link.

 

The Byzantine texts based on an imperfect, incomplete collation of over 400 Greek NT manuscripts are not fatally flawed if the twenty or more varying Textus Receptus editions based on an imperfect, incomplete collation of less than 100 Greek manuscripts are not also fatally flawed. Is it likewise being suggested that the TR's underlying incomplete, imperfect collation with its imperfect apparatus is useless for a reconstruction of the Greek NT text?

Samuel Tregelles wrote: "Robert Stephens, ten years before, in editing the Latin Vulgate, had made pretty extensive use of MSS.; and in giving the work of Greek collation into the hands of his son Henry, then aged only eighteen, he might have had some thoughts of similarly applying criticism to the Greek text" (Account, p. 31). Scrivener asserted that “Robert Stephen professed to have collated the whole sixteen for his two previous editions,” but that “this part of his work is now known to be due to his son Henry [1528-1598], who in 1546 was only eighteen years old” (Introduction, II, p. 190). Edward Miller affirmed: “Robert Stephen did not collate his authorities himself, but employed the services of his son Henry” (Guide to the Textual Criticism, p. 10). J. Scott Porter also maintained that “the MSS. were collated, and their readings noted, by Henry Stephens, son of Robert, then a youth of eighteen” (Principles, p. 250). Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible contended that “the collations were made by his son Henry Stephens” (III, p. 2131). Irena Backus asserted that Robert Stephanus “used Henri’s collations as the sole source of Greek variants for his 1550 edition of the New Testament” (Reformed Roots, p. 3). Henry Baird quoted

Theodore Beza as writing in a preface to his NT about a copy of “our Stephens which had been most carefully collated by his son, Henry Stephens” (Theodore Beza, p. 236). KJV-only author Laurence Vance acknowledged that the text of Stephanus included the “collations of his son Henry” (Brief History, p. 13). Jan Krans pointed out that “in a 1565 addition to the preface, Beza informs us that the collations were actually Henri Stephanus’, who was probably asked to do them by his father” (Beyond What is Written, p. 212). Krans also referred to another source revealing that the collations were done by the son of Robert Stephanus, which is “Henri Stephanus’ own words in the preface to his 1587 New Testament” (p. 212, footnote 6).

Has anyone ever checked and confirmed the accuracy of these manuscript collations that underlie varying Textus Receptus editions? Scrivener suggested that “the degree of accuracy attained in this collation may be estimated from the single instance of the Complutensian, a book printed in very clear type” (Plain Introduction, II, p. 190). Scrivener then indicated that “forty-eight, or one in twelve [of Stephen’s citations of the Complutensian] are false” (p. 190, footnote 1). Samuel Tregelles maintained that “it may be said, that as the Complutensian text is often incorrectly cited in Stephen’s margin, we may conclude that the same thing is true of the MSS which were collated; for it would be remarkable if manuscripts were examined with greater accuracy than a printed book” (Account, p. 31). Smith’s Dictionary maintained that “while only 598 variants of the Complutensian are given, Mill calculates that 700 are omitted” (III, p. 2131). Marvin Vincent asserted: “Of the Complutensian readings many more were omitted than inserted, and the Complutensian text is often cited incorrectly” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 57). In a note, John Eadie commented: “The margin of the New Testament of Robert Stephens, 1550, is not of great value. He did not print all the various readings which his son Henry had gathered, nor did he fully collate all the sixteen MSS” (English Bible, II, p. 214).

Samuel Newth maintained that the manuscripts used by Stephanus were “imperfectly collated” (Lectures, p. 86). Frederic Gardiner claimed that the collation in this edition “is neither complete nor accurate” (Principles, p. 5). Marvin Vincent suggested that “the collation, both of the Complutensian and of the manuscripts was partial and slovenly” (History of the Textual Criticism, p. 57). Marvin Vincent wrote: “The body of manuscript evidence amassed by the Stephens were imperfectly collated in the edition of 1550. Though the authorities stand in the margin, the text is perpetually at variance with the majority of them, and in 119 places, with all of them. No fixed principles regulated the occasional applications of the manuscript readings to the construction of the text” (pp. 63-64). Richard Porson (1759-1808) asserted that “Stephen’s margin is full of mistakes in the readings and numbers of the MSS” (Gentlemen’s Magazine, May, 1789, p. 386; Letters, p. 55). Richard Porson maintained that Stephens “has favored us with only a part of the various readings, (probably less than half) and has frequently set down a reading as from one manuscript which belonged to another” (Letters, pp. 88-89). Charles Hudson reported that the “various readings collated by his son” . . . “are known to be given very inaccurately” (Greek and English Concordance, p. xiv).

Is the textual apparatus in the 1550 Stephanus TR edition honeycombed with errors?

Do KJV-only advocates and TR-only advocates deal adequately with these pertinent facts that the collating of the few Greek NT manuscripts that are the basis for the TR editions was incomplete, imperfect, or slipshod, which could suggest the possibility that some of the TR textual criticism decisions may not have been soundly made?

 

The NKJV as good as it is has a few issues.

KJV Luke 1:35, And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

NKJV Luke 1:35, And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

. . . born will . . . is missing . . . born of you will . . . and MT NU foot note omitting of you

 

Your accusations are bogus. The NKJV does not essentially install a second version as you falsely allege. You continue to bear false witness against the NKJV translators. There are even editions of the NKJV that have been printed without the textual notes. I have a copy of one.

Some of these marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the KJV are the same-type textual marginal notes or footnotes that KJV-only advocates claim to be harmful to the faith. The presence of one such textual note in the 1611 KJV or in any other editions of the KJV would condemn the KJV-only view for its inconsistency, hypocrisy, or unjust divers measures when it strongly blasts the NKJV and other translations for the same-type notes.

The makers of the KJV disagree with your incorrect opinions concerning marginal notes. In the 1611 preface, this is stated: “doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.”

The 1611 preface also noted that “diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

According to the large number of marginal notes in the 1611 edition, its makers must have found many places where they considered the text not to be so clear in its meaning. The makers of the KJV gave many more word-for-word, literal renderings in their marginal notes, and they also offered many acceptable, alternative renderings. In some marginal notes, they provided examples of where they gave no English word/rendering for an original-language word of Scripture in their underlying texts.

These marginal notes clearly contradict any suggestion that all their translation decisions should be considered certain and unquestionable. The marginal notes could also raise doubt concerning some of their textual criticism decisions. The 1611 preface noted: “They that are wise, had rather have their judgment at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.”

 

You fail to apply your assertion and question consistently and justly including to the KJV and to its makers.

Are you saying that the makers of the KJV cannot be trusted when they could not make up their mind what God really said?

The 1611 edition had thousands of acceptable alternative renderings and literal renderings of original-language words.

 

Your presumptive accusation is misleading and not true.

Providing the textual readings of the Critical Text is not the same thing as casting doubt.

In the 1611 preface, this is stated: “doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.”

 

No. Not the purpose. Rather demonstrate most of the KJV readings are the superior readings.

 

You seem to display a fear of the presenting of all the facts--the truth.

God does not give believers a spirit of fear of the truth as you seem to advocate.

The Scriptures do not teach that presenting facts harms or undermines sound faith in God. According to the Scriptures, God does not give believers a spirit of fear or the spirit of bondage to fear (2 Tim. 1:7, Rom. 8:15). God gives a sound mind (2 Tim. 1:7) so that believers who accept and believe sound Bible doctrine should not be harmed by truth. Believers are not led by the Spirit of truth to fear truth (Rom. 8:14-15).

 

It's a difference of the Textus Receptus. The NKJV is faithful to the Textus Receptus, the KJV follows the Latin Bible.

Luke 1:35. Omit "of thee" after "born." S E G Lm T Tr A W WH NA HF versus B Lt, AV

Stephens and Elzevir Textus receptus does not have the words "of thee". Beza's Textus Receptus has the words.
Collation of Received text readings

Also most English Reformation Bibles do not have the extra words.

Interlinear Bible: Luke 1:35 - Textus Receptus Bibles

Matthew's Bible 1537
And the aungell aunswered and sayd vnto her: The holye ghoste shall come vnto the, and the power of the hyest shall ouer shadowe the. Therfore also that holye thynge whiche shall be borne shalbe called the sonne of God.


Tyndale Bible 1534
And the angell answered and sayd vnto her: The holy goost shall come apon the and the power of the hyest shall over shaddowe the. Therfore also that holy thinge which shalbe borne shalbe called the sonne of god


The Great Bible 1539
And the angell answered, & sayde vnto her. The holy goost shall come vpon the, and the power of the hyest shall ouer shaddowe the. Therfore also that holy thynge which shalbe borne, shalbe called the sonne of God

Bishops Bible 1568
And the Angel aunswered, & saide vnto her: The holy ghost shall come vpon thee, & the power of the hyest shall ouershadowe thee. Therefore also that holy thyng whiche shalbe borne, shalbe called the sonne of God.

 

Textus Receptus (Beza 1598)
και αποκριθεις ο αγγελος ειπεν αυτη πνευμα αγιον επελευσεται επι σε και δυναμις υψιστου επισκιασει σοι διο και το γεννωμενον εκ σου αγιον κληθησεται υιος θεου

Textus Receptus (Stephanus 1550)
και αποκριθεις ο αγγελος ειπεν αυτη πνευμα αγιον επελευσεται επι σε και δυναμις υψιστου επισκιασει σοι διο και το γεννωμενον αγιον κληθησεται υιος θεου

Interlinear Bible: Luke 1:35 - Textus Receptus Bibles

Textus Receptus (Scrivener 1894)
και αποκριθεις ο αγγελος ειπεν αυτη πνευμα αγιον επελευσεται επι σε και δυναμις υψιστου επισκιασει σοι διο και το γεννωμενον εκ σου αγιον κληθησεται υιος θεου

Textus Receptus (Elzevir 1624)
και αποκριθεις ο αγγελος ειπεν αυτη πνευμα αγιον επελευσεται επι σε και δυναμις υψιστου επισκιασει σοι διο και το γεννωμενον αγιον κληθησεται υιος θεου

 

Two issues. The on going KJV text and the identity actual New Testament reading. In Luke 1:35 they are not the same. Or why bother with the M NU footnotes.

 

You throw Hebrew with the Greek. And you confuse translation issues with textual issues. These are different issues.