Is the NKJV a good version of the bible?

[TCassidy]

Erasmus had no Alexandrian texts to use because only a handful had been discovered at that time, and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the two oldest and considered by far the best, were not available.

Although it is true that Erasmus did not have any Alexandrian manuscripts in his possession he certainly had access to Alexandrian readings. "A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected readings from it (Vaticanus), as proof of its superiority to the received Greek text." (Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts" Frederic Kenyon, Eyre and Spottiswoode, Her Majesty's Printers, London, 1896, page 133.) Erasmus was given 365 readings from Vaticanus by Spanish Priest Juan Sepulveda.

I'm not sure what you are saying. The further back you do, the more extreme percentage-wise the critical texts are in the majority. There are about 217 MSS and MSS fragments of the papyri and uncials from the 6th century and earlier. Miniscules did not come on the scene until the 9th century, and were not dominant until the 11th century. That is why I said that I do not give much stock to anything before the 10th century... actually, mainly the 9th century and earlier. Now 364 of all Greek MSS are from the 9th century and earlier, and if we include the 10th century, that number rises to 536.

Hort postulated a 4th century recension to explain the rapid decline of the Alexandrian textform and the rapid rise of the Byzantine by the 6th century.

Perhaps you were assuming that the Byzantine textform is only represented by minuscules. However, of you will check the great letter uncials you will note that many of them are Byzantine. A (5th century) is Byzantine in the Gospels, E is Byzantine except for portions of Luke, F, G, H, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, U, V, W, Y, Gamma, Pie, Sigma, Phi, and Omega are all primarily Byzantine.

As to dismissing "anything before the 10th century" don't you mean "after the 10th century?"

Now of those over 500 Greek MSS, how many are Byzantine? The oldest Byzantine MSS come from around the 7th century, though a few papyri fragments were found as early as the 5th century. There are over 200 MSS before the 7th century and earlier, and only a handful are of the Byzantine family.

Even Hort only went so far as to claim the absence of "distinctively Byzantine" readings from manuscripts, versions, and Church Fathers before the mid-fourth century. Of course, that was proven wrong by Harry A. Sturz, in his book, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), pp. 137-230, wherein he points out the discovery of over 150 distinctly Byzantine readings all dating prior to 350AD (the date of Aleph and B).

Personally, I would love to see a popular English NT out there based on the majority text alone.

I had hoped the English Majority Text Version (now published by Jay Green as The Modern King James Version) would gain a substantial foothold but it appears that Green lacks the resources to promote the version.

 

[TCassidy]

Question for you textual scholars.

Was the KJV purely based on the TR of the time? I have read that the translators used a variety of Greek, Latin, and English, and other sources in their work.

No. The KJV is a revision of the Bishops' Bible which was based on Tyndale. The line of descent goes something like this. Tyndale used Erasmus's 1522 TR which included input from the Latin Vulgate. The KJV committees used the Bishops' Bible which was based on the Great Bible which was based on Tyndale, but corrected using both the Geneva Bible and Beza's 1565 TR. The KJV translators used Stephen's 1550 TR and Beza's 1598 TR to modify the readings of the Bishops' Bible. But remember, starting in 1546 with Stephen's first edition of the TR the Complutensian Polyglot of Jimenez was also used for input as was Codex Bezae, and Beza's editions were modified using Codex Claromontantus, the Syriac (Peshitta) and Arabic versions.

So it can only be said that the KJV is based on an eclectic textual background not following any one source, even any one TR. That is why Scrivener compiled his TR in 1894 to show the source of the various readings found in the KJV.

 

[Faith alone]

Although it is true that Erasmus did not have any Alexandrian manuscripts in his possession he certainly had access to Alexandrian readings. "A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected readings from it (Vaticanus), as proof of its superiority to the received Greek text." (Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts" Frederic Kenyon, Eyre and Spottiswoode, Her Majesty's Printers, London, 1896, page 133.) Erasmus was given 365 readings from Vaticanus by Spanish Priest Juan Sepulveda.Hort postulated a 4th century recension to explain the rapid decline of the Alexandrian textform and the rapid rise of the Byzantine by the 6th century.

Yes, but those were after he had published the 1st 4 of his 5 editions of the textus receptus. (Erasmus had 5 editions: 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527 & 1535) So for only his 5th edition was he able to consider those readings, and he probably was very hesitant to modify his Greek NT that much after 4 previous editions were so well received. And the textus receptus is essentially the 3rd edition - released in 1522.

Yes, the question about why the Alexandrian MSS did not flourish later is a good one. We know that the dry, hot climate served to help preserve them in Egypt. Of course scholars have claimed that there was a purge of certain MSS - trying to keep just one type in use - some say by an emperor and others a Pope. They have claimed that as far back as Constantine.

Hodges argues that a larger recent number of MSS indicates, in general, an older origin. That makes sense, but it does assume that man's hand did not get involved in intenionally copying certain MSS in great amounts later or in purging others as well. So without any definite knowledge one way or another in that respect, the most significant thing is the age of the MSS.

Now if the Byzantine MSS were in the majority throughout all centuries, then that would be a very strong argument indeed, though the Alexandrian MSS had older ones. We would simply say that the reason the CT has the oldest MSS isdue to the climate and their not being used aas much. But the issue is that as you go back in time the Alexandrian MSS become the strong majority. Those who hold to the priority of the MT need to address that issue.

Perhaps you were assuming that the Byzantine textform is only represented by minuscules. However, of you will check the great letter uncials you will note that many of them are Byzantine. A (5th century) is Byzantine in the Gospels, E is Byzantine except for portions of Luke, F, G, H, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, U, V, W, Y, Gamma, Pie, Sigma, Phi, and Omega are all primarily Byzantine.

No, I did assume that it was 98% miniscules, but the older ones were uncials (all caps) of course. But that doesn't change the fact that the Alexandrian texts far outnumbered the Byzantine text as you go back in time. And only A is really old - and just covers the gospels. But remember, I am not discounting the Byzantine family of MSS. I think I've made that very clear earlier.

As to dismissing "anything before the 10th century" don't you mean "after the 10th century?" FA - Yes, of course.

Even Hort only went so far as to claim the absence of "distinctively Byzantine" readings from manuscripts, versions, and Church Fathers before the mid-fourth century. Of course, that was proven wrong by Harry A. Sturz, in his book, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), pp. 137-230, wherein he points out the discovery of over 150 distinctly Byzantine readings all dating prior to 350AD (the date of Aleph and B).

Those "readings" were not Greek NT MSS or portions of MSS though. But they serve to show that the Byzantine Greek style is not as recent as Westcott & Hort thought, I agree. And I really like Sturz. I do think that he puts too much emphasis on the Western text though. It is essentially a subset of the Byzantine textform.

And of course there is an abundance of Alexandrian MSS portions dating before 325 - 350AD. Aleph and B are complete NT MSS - the oldest by far that we have of any family.

I had hoped the English Majority Text Version (now published by Jay Green as The Modern King James Version) would gain a substantial foothold but it appears that Green lacks the resources to promote the version.

Yes, I'm familiar with it, but it's just a revision of the KJV. Why not a completely new translation based on the MT, such as the WEB?

I've enjoyed this conversation.

Thx,

FA

 

[Askjo]

Ronald G. Nugent said:

The KJV and New King James Version (NKJV) are largely based upon a 1551 edition of the TR. 2

[Emphasis added to the only part that pertains to the discussion at hand.]
http://www.allnations.org.au/kjv03.htm

Notice the 2 at the end? That refers to the footnote which Askjo quoted... and which has NOTHING to do with the subject at hand.

Deliberate subterfuge. Strike three.

Ronald G. Nugent is incorrect because the NKJV is based on the 1881 Scrivener Greek text according to TCassidy. However I referred his footnote to Strouse's point because Strouse is right. Then TCassidy is wrong.

 

[Ed Edwards]

This page (quote above):

http://www.allnations.org.au/kjv03.htm

says: //2 Although the TR and the Majority Text are similar, they are not identical. The TR differs from the Majority Text in over 1,800 places.

//Copyright © Ronald G. Nugent 2006 //

Are these 1800 places 1800 of the 2000 places where the
nKJV doesn't follow the TR?
are are these 1800 places where the nKJV
followes the Received Texts
and the KJVs follow the Majority Texts? raying:

 

[Faith alone]

Ed,

Yes, I think it was Pickering who counted the differences between them and came up with a littleover 1800... 1836 comes to mind.

Now the NKJV follows the TR - period. It does not follow the majority text or the Alexandrian text.

This was merely a statement comparing the TR with the majority text, in general. It has nothing to do with either the KJV or the NKJV. It's talking about the textus receptus Greek MS which Erasmus compiled and comparing it with the entire list of all of the 3500 or more majority text family Greek manuscripts. It means that the TR is not "majority" over 1800 times in the NT. It means that the TR has perhaps over 1800 errors in trying to represent the majority text.

FA

 

[Ed Edwards]

Yes, the nKJV is a good Bible Translation

THE DOUBT-PRODUCING MARGIN OF THE
NEW KING JAMES VERSION

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/nkjvdoubt.htm

This article smashes my Bible, THE NEW KING
JAMES VERSION, (nKJV) for being honest
and noting in Translator Footnotes that there are
original language witnesses other than
the Receivied Texts. But even the KJV 1611 Edition
shows the pluralness of 'Received Texts'.
The nKJV chooses the Received Texts frequently
where the KJVs also used the Received Texts
(and not other witnesses).

 

[Faith alone]

Ed,

There are lots of such articles out there produced by King-James-only advocates. But the NKJV always follows the textus receptus, though it notes what the Alexandrian text (the NU as it puts it) says and also what the Byzantine text (MT - majority text as it puts it) says.

THE DOUBT-PRODUCING MARGIN OF THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/nkjvdoubt.htm

This article smashes my Bible, THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION, (nKJV) for being honest and noting in Translator Footnotes that there are original language witnesses other than the Receivied Texts. But even the KJV 1611 Edition shows the pluralness of 'Received Texts'. The NKJV chooses the Received Texts frequently where the KJVs also used the Received Texts (and not other witnesses).

 

[Askjo]

But the NKJV always follows the textus receptus, though it notes what the Alexandrian text (the NU as it puts it) says and also what the Byzantine text (MT - majority text as it puts it) says.

I disagree with your quotation (see the bold and undeline). The Greek text on Matthew 15:5 said:

υμεις δε λεγετε ος αν ειπη τω πατρι η τη μητρι δωρον ο εαν εξ εμου ωφεληθης και ου μη τιμηση τον πατερα αυτου η την μητερα αυτου

Please show me a word, "God" on this Greek TR. Where?

I did not see "God" there, but the NKJV added "God" without the Greek TR. This contradicts with your quotation above.

 

[Bro Tony]

I disagree with your quotation (see the bold and undeline). The Greek text on Matthew 15:5 said:

υμεις δε λεγετε ος αν ειπη τω πατρι η τη μητρι δωρον ο εαν εξ εμου ωφεληθης και ου μη τιμηση τον πατερα αυτου η την μητερα αυτου

Please show me a word, "God" on this Greek TR. Where?

I did not see "God" there, but the NKJV added "God" without the Greek TR. This contradicts with your quotation above.

Here we see the continuation of the double standard ie." its wrong when the NKJV adds to the greek text, but its not wrong when the KJV does"

Bro Tony

 

[Phil310]

Askjo wrote: I did not see "God" there, but the NKJV added "God" without the Greek TR.

The NKJV used italics there - no addition.

Phil310:love2:

 

[TCassidy]

What Askjo failed to say is that the NKJV places "to God" in italics to indicate it was a word added by the translators for the sake of clarity. If putting such italicized words in for clarity renders a version "corrupt" then they KJV is "corrupt" in the 384 places the KJV New Testament adds italicized words. I wonder why Askjo keeps attacking the KJV like that? Does he hate the KJV?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Here is the easiest of all to understand:

Matthew 15:4-5 (THE MESSAGE):
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]4 God clearly says, 'Respect your father and mother,'
and, 'Anyone denouncing father or mother should be killed.'
5 But you weasel around that by saying,
'Whoever wants to, can say to father and mother,
What I owed to you I've given to God.'

Shame on you, blind guides
[/FONT]

 

[Faith alone]

I'm susprised no one has mentioned the many places where the KJV "added" God in the form of "God forbid." THEOS is not there in the Greek. The NKJV usually has there "certainly not!"

The Greek is MH GENOITO - it is a Greek expression meaning literally, "may it not be." But it is very emphatic. It's something like our, "no way!" So I would not fault the KJV for this, though THEOS ("God") is not there, because this is simply translation of idiomatic language. (It's used in the OT and NT - don't know what the Hebrew is being translated.)

Now is the 17th century "God forbid" was a way of saying, "May that not come to pass!" By using the idiomatic English (at the time) "God forbid" the KJV translators captured the intensity. Of course, the credit really belongs to Tyndale, who translated it as such - the KJV revised Tyndale's work. But the reason I mention this is because today "God forbid" is not used idiomatically the same as it was 400 years ago. The only improvement I would see for the KJV was an exclamation point... certainly needs one there. Similarly, there are other idiomatic expressions which would work well today but would not have worked or would have been nonsense 400 years ago.

So we need to give those translators some grace in the decisions they make. Translation is not simply a science, it's an art as well, and the KJV and the NKJV both did well in this instance. Incidentally, almost everyone now has "Certainly not!" The NASB has "May it never be!" That is the most literal, but since we never talk that way today, I don't think the impact is as great.

FA

 

[TCassidy]

I'm susprised no one has mentioned the many places where the KJV "added" God in the form of "God forbid." THEOS is not there in the Greek.

I am not certain the issues are the same. "God forbid" is an example of dynamic equivalence in the KJV that uses a well known cultural colloquialism to translate a Hebraic (translated into Greek) cultural colloquialism.

In the case noted above there is no colloquialism involved, just words added to insure the reader knows that the gift in question was a gift given to God and not to somebody else.

 

[Faith alone]

I'm susprised no one has mentioned the many places where the KJV "added" God in the form of "God forbid." THEOS is not there in the Greek.

I am not certain the issues are the same. "God forbid" is an example of dynamic equivalence in the KJV that uses a well known cultural colloquialism to translate a Hebraic (translated into Greek) cultural colloquialism.

In the case noted above there is no colloquialism involved, just words added to insure the reader knows that the gift in question was a gift given to God and not to somebody else.

TCassidy,

I sure wish you had read my entire post instead of just taking this portion out of context.

FA

 

[Askjo]

I'm susprised no one has mentioned the many places where the KJV "added" God in the form of "God forbid." THEOS is not there in the Greek. The NKJV usually has there "certainly not!"

The Greek is MH GENOITO - it is a Greek expression meaning literally, "may it not be." But it is very emphatic. It's something like our, "no way!" So I would not fault the KJV for this, though THEOS ("God") is not there, because this is simply translation of idiomatic language. (It's used in the OT and NT - don't know what the Hebrew is being translated.)

Now is the 17th century "God forbid" was a way of saying, "May that not come to pass!" By using the idiomatic English (at the time) "God forbid" the KJV translators captured the intensity. Of course, the credit really belongs to Tyndale, who translated it as such - the KJV revised Tyndale's work. But the reason I mention this is because today "God forbid" is not used idiomatically the same as it was 400 years ago. The only improvement I would see for the KJV was an exclamation point... certainly needs one there. Similarly, there are other idiomatic expressions which would work well today but would not have worked or would have been nonsense 400 years ago.

So we need to give those translators some grace in the decisions they make. Translation is not simply a science, it's an art as well, and the KJV and the NKJV both did well in this instance. Incidentally, almost everyone now has "Certainly not!" The NASB has "May it never be!" That is the most literal, but since we never talk that way today, I don't think the impact is as great.

FA

The definition of "God forbid" is found in the Oxford dictionary. Get that dictionary. This dictionary agrees with the KJV. The KJV is correct to translate it.

 

[TCassidy]

TCassidy,

I sure wish you had read my entire post instead of just taking this portion out of context.

FA

I did read your entire post and my comment was in context of the entire post. There is a difference between a colloquialism and words added for clarity.

 

[Trotter]

The definition of "God forbid" is found in the Oxford dictionary. Get that dictionary. This dictionary agrees with the KJV. The KJV is correct to translate it.

But the Oxford dictionary is not a bible, nor does the vast majority of the people reading a KJV have access to one. Besides, the Oxford was basically written from the KJV, so OF COURSE it will agree.

The fact of the matter is that the KJV added what was not in the manuscripts, no matter what a dictionary lists as the definition of the idiom.

There's no way around it, Askjo. "God forbid" is not what the manuscripts (any of them) say, yet that is what is in the King James.

Care to answer ?

 

[EdSutton]

The definition of "God forbid" is found in the Oxford dictionary. Get that dictionary. This dictionary agrees with the KJV. The KJV is correct to translate it.

:sleep: :sleep:

Ed