Is the NKJV a good version of the bible?

[EdSutton]

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?

Interesting! I would have thought there would be more italicized words than 384 places, which I assume you have counted.

Ed

 

[Faith alone]

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.

TCassidy,

Well then, I guess I didn't make myself clear. Here's what I said:

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 in 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.

1 - I know it is a colloquialism - guess you didn't realize that's what I meant by idiomatic.

2 - I was not criticizing either the KJV or the NKJV with that post.

3 - My point was not about "words added for clarity" - I didn't use those words nor did I comment about clarity at all. I talked about impact and idiomatic language.

4 - My point was simply that translation is not just a science but an art, and we need to allow some flexibility to translators in doing their jobs.

5 - My other point was that "God forbid" was a good expression in the 17th century of the impact that MH GENOITO had in 1st century Greek to its readers. But it was likely to be misunderstood more today. Today a better impactful, expression of the idiomatic (colloquialism) would be perhaps "Certainly not!" - which most modern translators used.

6 - The only suggestion I had for the 17th century KJV expression was that an exclamation point was needed in "God forbid."

I posted that to make a few points. Translation is not more accurate by simply "translating" word-for word. No one does that. The KJV did not do that. Often when someone is critical of some translation, such as the NKJV or the NIV, they say that they "left out" this or that word. Well, if it wasn't a matter of a difference in the Greek manuscripts used, then it was instead often a matter of striving for accuracy in impact, not "leaving out" something.

Now "God forbid" is certainly more paraphrastic than "Certainly not!" (NKJV) or "May it never be!" (NASB) regardless of whe nthey were translated. So for those criticizing the NKJV for being too free in its revision of the KJV, here was an example of where it became less paraphrastic and more formal equivalent.

I was not being critical of the KJV. I was merely bringing up something for discussion. We cannot simply ignore how things have changed in nearly 400 years and assume that when the NKJV changed some words and expressions that it was doing something which made the message less accurate. To say so simply shows ignorance of the translation process.

Thx,

FA

 

[TCassidy]

<Sigh> Once again, my point is/was that there is a big difference between a colloquial translation and words added for the sake of clarity. You cannot compare the "God" in "God forbid" in the KJV, which is a colloquialism, to the NKJV adding "to God" in italics. Entirely different discussion.

 

[Faith alone]

<Sigh> Once again, my point is/was that there is a big difference between a colloquial translation and words added for the sake of clarity. You cannot compare the "God" in "God forbid" in the KJV, which is a colloquialism, to the NKJV adding "to God" in italics. Entirely different discussion.

I don't see it. The words added, "to God," which granted are not in either the NU or the TR Greek, are merely clarifying what was happening here. "Corban" meant, "This money I should be giving to you, my parents, in accordance with the law to support you in your old age is 'corban' - 'given to God - to the temple service.' instead" That is what the phrase meant in Aramaic. The translators were trying to clarify the meaning by adding something in italics. Now this only happens here in Matthew 15:5, but the KJV has "God forbid" 24 times.

Let's look at what the KJV has in Matthew 15:5... " But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;"
(Italics added for emphasis by me - the KJV did not add them)

Now do you think that anyone not already acquainted with this Jewish practice would have even a clue with "it is a gift?" The fact is that the reader will misunderstand what is meant by "It is a gift" in this context. Given to whom?! You mean that I can give away anything I am supposed to give to you to anyone and it doesn't matter if I simply say, "It is a gift"? It's kinda like translating "that's hot!" in English directly into some other language. The meaning will be misunderstood, and to leave it that way is actually not as accurate. Translation is not simply translating each of the words in order with no regard of the intended meaning. And the intended meaning here was clearly that what the person would have given to his parents was, instead, given to God - to the temple service. (And a singificantly smaller amount than would have been given over the course of the parents' lives.) That is what it means. It does not mean simply given to anyone as the KJV says. So as I see it, by leaving it untranslated and simply repeating the meaning of the individual words without considering carefully enough the interactive of those words and the syntax and contextual meaning by the KJV translators (actually - Tyndale) has given us something which does not as accurately communicate the meaning as the NKJV has done. The HCSB translated it as, "a gift committed to the temple." The NIV has, "is a gift devoted to God." The NKJV was more conservative and by placing the words "to God" in italics has made it clear to even the casual reader that the words are not literally translating the Greek, yet they help clarify the accurate, intended meaning.

And something needs to be very clear here. When you do not make the intended meaning clear in translation, you are not being more accurate. The KJV changed the order of words and even phrases in nearly every single verse in the NT. It did not do so to the degree of many modern translations, but the point remains that it is simply not more literal to simply translate words individually. Do we need to look at what the Holy Spirit did in translating the Hebrew into the Greek NT in over 250 quotes? Here's what the KJKV should have done otherwise with the verse in question, Matthew 15:6 if it kept strictly the word order and word meanings, ignoring context and syntax...

Greek word order - But you say, "Whoever might say to the father or the mother, 'a gift from me which you might have benefited'"

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]KJV - But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,'

No, "his" is not there in the Greek. The NASB italicized it to make it clear. "Otherwise" is not there either. Did the KJV add words here? of course not. And obviously such a word-for-word translation is not really translating. So why isolate what the NKJV did here to clarify what would otherwise be similar nonsense? The NKJV did not add "otherwise." Fact: both translations added words for clarity.
[/FONT]
Now as I said earlier, I have no problem with what the KJV did in translating μὴ γένοιτο (MH GENOITO) as "God forbid," and I do not. It is an idiomatic expression trying to give the same impact in 16th and 17th century English as μὴ γένοιτο (MH GENOITO) had in 1st century Koine Greek. But the fact remains that the KJV could have been more accurate by not expressing it as an expression asking God to prevent something from happening when that is not what it means. I personally just like to give translators more freedom in trying to capture the meaning and impact. But it could have been expressed differently even then and carried much of the impact without implying that this was a cry out to God - which it was not.

How can you consider adding "to God" in italics to make it clear that the words are not present literally, but are added for clarity, with adding "God" and "forbid" where are simply not there for the purpose of making clear the impactfulness of what was said? Can't have an issue with one and not the other. In both instances, something that simply was not there in the Greek was added to clarify the intended impact.


But this thread is about the NKJV - not the KJV. And the fact remains that what I said, about which you disagreed, was true...

Faith alone
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

This was not a matter of following the Alexandrian Greek text rather than the textus receptus. Neither of them have THEOS in the text. This had nothing to do with the Greek text being followed, and it is true that the NKJV always follows the textus receptus rather than the Alexandrian text or even the majority text. The NKJV indicated when the NU (Alexandrian text) has something different, and when the MT does as well. The KJV was translated when they had no clue about what the majority of the Byzantine texts said, nor the Alexandrian texts either. So how could they add such notes or indications to the text or margins? They only had one Greek MSS for the gospels and only one Greek MSS for Paul's letters as well.

If you want to look at instances in which the KJV did not follow the TR very accurately, we can certainly find several examples of that, I think you know, so that isn't the issue here. What is the issue, and regarding the NKJV is neither an accurate nor is it a fair accusation: KJVOers often claim that the NKJV does not follow the TR faithfully. That is simply not true and it is a distortion of the plain truth to say such a thing. To try to find some obscure place in which something was added in italics for clarity to say that the NKJV there is not following the TR is ridiculous! You may not like what the NKJV did there, and someone else may not, for essentially the same reason, like what the KJV did with μὴ γένοιτο (MH GENOITO) in translating it as "God forbid."

But it is a fact that the NKJV follows the TR as much as the KJV does.

All I was trying to do was make sure that such a hollow claim about the NKJV not following the textus receptus was understood by lurkers to be inaccurate.

Now TCassidy, I like the KJV, and I am not one out to try to shoot it down. But I hate what KJVOers have done which dishonors God's Word by making claims that are neither accurate nor reasonable regarding other translations. That cannot please God. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. I hate it when anyone puts down any translation unfairly, even when done in ignorance.

I do not personally care much for the NIV, though I am warming up to it more and more as KJVOers continue to find new and creative ways to put it down , and I will often defend it when it is defamed unfairly or in ignorance - because I love God's Word.

I used the KJV for many years, and later the NKJV for many years as well. My personal preference these days, for accuracy, is the NASB, though in general I now prefer the HCSB as a general purpose Bible - FYI.

Now I only posted what I did earlier because I wanted to have the NKJV evaluated fairly. You may not prefer it to the KJV, or you may not like it at all. I got no problem with that.

Now this dog would just as soon go back to sleep here and discuss more interesting topics. And you know what they say...

FA

 

[Ed Edwards]

Thank you, Faith Alone -- Good Post! :applause:

 

[Faith alone]

Thank you, Faith Alone -- Good Post! :applause:

Welcome. I can understand someone preferring their KJV. I do not understand the King James Only mentality that refuses to acknowledge the flaws in the KJV and focuses unreasonable on issues with all other translations such that it is not the original texts, such as the textus receptus, which are the authority but the "English" of the KJV itself. It's just not logical, and very dangerous.

Thx,

FA

 

[Trotter]

Is the NKJV a good version of the bible?

Any legitimate version that is read and used is a good version in my book. "Legitimate" being an actual translation, not something put together to further an agenda, cult, whatever.

I do not understand the King James Only mentality that refuses to acknowledge the flaws in the KJV and focuses unreasonable on issues with all other translations such that it is not the original texts, such as the textus receptus, which are the authority but the "English" of the KJV itself. It's just not logical, and very dangerous.

Very, very dangerous.

No, I'm not trying to bash KJVOs (like they need any help with that). This applies to any person or group who try to elevate the work of man/men to this level. Nahushtan comes to mind...

 

[Faith alone]

Trotter,Yes, that's really the issue - elevating the work of men above the work of the Spirit. And those doing so aren't aware of it of course and would be offended that we think this is what is happening.

We each are unique and have diverse ways of expressing ourselves to God and for God to reveal Himself to us. Hence it is not surprising that there are so many different translations out there with such a range of style which have a degree of popularity.

Any Bible which a believer (or unbeliever) will actually read (and is legitimate, as you defined it) is a good thing in my book. Hence though I feel that The Message is verging on a commentary, yet I know some people who are reading it and who would not read other translations and I praise God for that. Praise God for the Bibles He uses to impact people's lives. So I am very hesitant to be openly critical of any translation. I'd just as soon keep it to myself. Sometimes I have to express certain opinions regarding the KJV which come across as a bit critical of it for today's world, yet I really hate to do so. That only happens in trying to defend some modern translations which were compared to the KJV. The KJV is a good translation. So is the NKJV. If someone prefers the KJV over the NKJV - got no issue with that at all.

I imagine that some people wonder, "How in the world does God use Faith Alone?" Yet He does - go figure. It's the same way with translations. Anyone who has been involved in translating anything from one language into another knows that there's always more than one legitimate way of expressing something in the target language which accurately expresses the source language. The beautiful thing about translations is that God takes His written, inerrant, infallible Word and uses fallible men to create something which touches lives. Is it perfect? No - only the original can be said to be perfect. Is it inspired? No, only the original can be said to be inspired - according to God's Word. But does God use it in a way that is amazing? Incredibly. That's why my philosophy is to strive to have more tolerance for the various manners in which God's Word has been translated. God knows what He's doing.

There are some who insist on their KJV, and if they are digging into God's Word then I think that's great. But when translations becomes an issue that is divisive then I have to ask myself, "Who's behind that?"

Thx,

FA

 

[Trotter]

Amen, and Amen. Very well put.

 

[TCassidy]

I don't see it.

That seems patently obvious! I will try one more time than just give up.

You cannot compare the NKJV adding "to God" to the KJV's idiomatic translation of "me genito" as "God forbid." One is the adding of the words "to God" for the sake of clarification and the other is bringing a cultural idiom from one language and translating it into a well know cultural idiom in the receptor language that uses different words but means substantially the same.

 

[John of Japan]

That seems patently obvious! I will try one more time than just give up.

You cannot compare the NKJV adding "to God" to the KJV's idiomatic translation of "me genito" as "God forbid." One is the adding of the words "to God" for the sake of clarification and the other is bringing a cultural idiom from one language and translating it into a well know cultural idiom in the receptor language that uses different words but means substantially the same.

TCassidy is entirely right. They are two separate translation issues. Anyone who has bilingual experience (or perhaps beginning Greek?:thumbs: ), let alone Dr. Cassidy's wide linguistic experience, should be able to see this.

 

[DeclareHim]

I hate to jump in late but I would have to say the NKJV is an excellent translation. I use the ESV/NKJV/HCSB in that order and all three are excellent versions of Holy Scripture.

 

[Faith alone]

That seems patently obvious! I will try one more time than just give up.

You cannot compare the NKJV adding "to God" to the KJV's idiomatic translation of "me genito" as "God forbid." One is the adding of the words "to God" for the sake of clarification and the other is bringing a cultural idiom from one language and translating it into a well know cultural idiom in the receptor language that uses different words but means substantially the same.

TCassidy,

Please, just go back and read my post. I answered this clearly. They both are idiomatic. I showed a word-for-word translation of the Greek and it is apparent that the Greek involved in both instances is highly idiomatic.

BOTH ARE IDIOMATIC. If you disagree, then please explain how the KJV translation of Matthew 15:5 is not idiomatic...

Greek word order - But you say, "Whoever might say to the father or the mother, 'a gift from me which you might have been benefited'"

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]KJV - But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,'

No, "his" is not there in the Greek. The NASB italicized it to make it clear. "Otherwise" is not there either. Did the KJV add words here? of course not. And obviously such a word-for-word translation is not really translating. So why isolate what the NKJV did here to clarify what would otherwise be similar nonsense? The NKJV did not add "otherwise." Fact: both translations added words for clarity. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
It does not say, "Whatever help you might have otherwise have received from me." Does that express the idiomatic meaning? Yes, somewhat. But the underlined word is simply not in the Greek nor is it implied explicitly. "Help" is part of the gloss of WFELEW. "Might have" expresses the subjuctive mood fine. But "otherwise" is not there. The KJV translation is idiomatic as is the HCSB or the NKJV. It is necessary IOT accurately communicate meaning here.

Some texts can be translated with a fairly high degree of accuracy in a formal equivalent manner. But not true for these two texts.

Now "God forbid" assumes that the person is asking God to intervene so that something will not happen. Granted it is idomatic, but it is not such an accurate translation of the Greek - even in those days. I personally have no big issue with it because the impact is brought forth, which so often is lacking when translators try to be careful about meaning... then lose some of the impact or create an impact not intended. But "God forbid" is highly paraphrastic and highly idiomatic. Check out all other translations and no one else uses anything like it or nearly as free as the KJV did.

When the NKJV added (in italics) "to God" it merely made the intended idiomatic meaning more clear than the KJV which did not include it. That's what needs to be done with idiomatic language. Was the NKJV more idiomatic there than the KJV? Yes, it was. But in several places in the NT (and OT) the KJV was much more idiomatic and free than the NKJV was regarding the phrase "God forbid." I assume the reason the NKJV changed how the KJV handled the term [/FONT]μὴ γένοιτο (MH GENOITO) [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] was because the KJV's translation was too free and lost some meaning, though it captured the impact beautifully.

The correct meaning of the cultural description in Matthew 15:5, as has been discussed already, was the idea of giving it to God for the temple ministry. That meaning is critically important to understand what is going on there, and the KJV does not communicate it as clearly there as the NKJV did. Does that idea come across in the KJV at all? No, it does not. Therefore some intended meaning from the culture was lost in translation. It's an instance in which by not being idiomatic enough - too "word-for-word" - that some meaning was lost in the transfer. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] Without "to God" or something there the actual inspired meaning is lost.
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
So yes, we can compare those two instances. In each instance one was more literal and the otehr more idiomatic. Personally, I have argued that the manner in which the NKJV handled both was IMO more accurate. But that's just my opinion.

Now please let's both try to deal respectfully with one another.We do not need to agree with each other - don't think that's gonna happen, but we do need to be respectful in our responses.

TCassidy, I originally posted about [/FONT]μὴ γένοιτο (MH GENOITO) being translated by the KJV as "God forbid" not to criticize the KJV, but simply to show that your example of "to God" being added was not related to my earlier claim that the NKJV does its best to follow the textus receptus carefully. It does not follow the Alexandrian text nor the majority text, in general, in any instances of which I am aware. "Adding" the phrase "to God" had nothing to do with the Greek text being followed. That was my point. It is not an example of not following the textus receptus, since all families of Greek text agree for this text. No, it is an example of the NKJV idiomatically translating an expression which is very diffiuclt to understand otherwise. You may not like that they did it. Fine. I have already expressed my opinion that it is actually more accurate than the KJV in this text. But your assessment that the NKJV did not follow the textus receptus there is not the case.

I needed to say something on that because a common KJVO ploy is to claim that even the NKJV does nto follow the TR. That is nottrue. It is not fair to say such a thing. Such a claim cannot be defended. THAT was my point.

If you wish to go down that path, then we can take any chapter in the NT and find numerous examples in which the KJV did not translate carefully enough from the textus receptus, just as the same can be done for the NKJV. They were translated by human beings. Humans make mistakes. But God uses it. Neither tranlation is perfect. Translation is an art, not merely a science in which we take certain words in one language and plug in certain other words in the target language. If you want that, get an interlinear.

Now I think we've been beating on a horse that's been dead for some time.

Thx for your patience TCassidy. I do not mean to be frustrating, but I think we're ignoring the point - your claim that the NKJV did not follow the TR in Matthew 15:5.

FA
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]


[/FONT]

 

[Faith alone]

I hate to jump in late but I would have to say the NKJV is an excellent translation. I use the ESV/NKJV/HCSB in that order and all three are excellent versions of Holy Scripture.

DeclareHim,

I like them all as well. Can't go wrong with any of them. My personal favorite is the HCSB, though the ESV is a moderate revision of the RSV, but well done. If anyone is looking for a good NKJV study Bible, may I suggest the Nelson NKJV Study Bible with Earl Radmacher as the editor? Best on the market IMHO.

FA

 

[Faith alone]

TCassidy is entirely right. They are two separate translation issues. Anyone who has bilingual experience (or perhaps beginning Greek?:thumbs: ), let alone Dr. Cassidy's wide linguistic experience, should be able to see this.

Beginning Greek is probably not enough to recognize what is happening in the idioms we've been discussing. I have tried to demonstrate that both issues are examples of idiomatic translation. If you disagree - that's fine, but perhaps you'd like to explain why.

Personally, I do not see how someone with a Greek background would be arguing with me about this. They may not agree with me regarding which instance was more idiomatic, or some other aspect, but that they are both idiomatic is clear. But I'm open to reason.

Now I personally do appreciate that Dr. Cassidy refused to sign a statement authored by DA Waite - a hard-core KJVOer - because of what he felt were not biblical views of God's preservation and translation theory. Let me make that clear. My issue with what he has posted here is that he is trying to say that the NKJV does not follow the TR. It does, and I believe if push came to shove that he would agree with me on this. Perhaps he feels that the NKJV did not translate as carefully as the KJV has from the TR. I can appreciate that view. But I have a hard time with so many things that DA Waite has published. (The Flesch-Kincaid reading level of the KJV is not lower than the NIV, for example. That is due to mis-using Word Perfect and M/S Word's tools. I have used a free download from the Inet called "ReadMe" to analyze several chapters and came up with far different results than Dr. Waite published. Also, the F-K method looks only at average word length and the number of words per sentence. That is simply not enough to determine readability.)

Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction - a Fresh Look at Bible Inspiration, Preservation, and Translation by Thomas Cassidy sounds like an interesting book to read. Perhaps I'll get a copy.

But I do not agree with his view that the KJV (in English) is inspired and inerrant itself. Are there any professional textual critics who believe that? Such a conclusion can only be derived since the Bible cannot talk about the KJV or any other translation, obviously. It is the original language manuscripts from which all English translations were derived which are both inspired and inerrant. Also Psalms 12:7 has been mis-applied so often. It does not talk about preservation of God's Word in general there.

Personally, I feel that the NKJV committee did a fine job of not only replacing archaic and no longer used language from the KJV, but it was more dynamic equivalent where it felt it was necessary IOT gain accuracy. (I really like the HCSB and the RSV philosophy of translation - essentially "as literal [or accurate] as possible; as free as necessary.")

But for those looking for something closer to the KJV, there is the KJV-21. But this thread is about the NKJV - not the King James Only controversy. Perhaps a new thread should be started on that if that is what people want to discuss. Personally, I like the NKJV. Is the KJV more FE than the NKJV? Yes. But some prefer something a bit more DE. And the NKJV is clearly a very FE type translation/revision.

Thx,

FA

 

[TCassidy]

Personally, I do not see how someone with a Greek background would be arguing with me about this.

Could it possibly be because you are wrong! Duh!

 

[Faith alone]

Could it possibly be because you are wrong! Duh!

You are now just being rude. I have taken 3 years of NT Greek, and it is my opinion that the average 1st year baby-Greek student does not understand about idiomatic translation enough to deal with these two issues.

Now I must say, you may have a doctorate... but you do not act or talk like one! Is your response here the professional way to treat someone with whom your disagree? Is it Christ-centered?

Our opinions on this particular question do not really matter. But I would like you to address your claim that initiated all this discussion - that the NKJV does not follow the textus receptus. And if my Greek analysis earlier was wrong in some way, then please point out my flaws (respectfully, if you please, and if you desire the Lord to use what you are posting to honor Himself) specifically in some detail.

It is easy to simply belittle someone. Please be specific and address the points made. This dog is now wide awake. Let's not talk in generalities.

FA

 

[TCassidy]

But I would like you to address your claim that initiated all this discussion - that the NKJV does not follow the textus receptus.

<Sigh> I never claimed the NKJV doesn't follow the TR. I said that the addition of "to God" in italics in the NKJV is a different thing altogether than the idiomatic translation "God forbid" in the KJV.

 

[John of Japan]

Beginning Greek is probably not enough to recognize what is happening in the idioms we've been discussing. I have tried to demonstrate that both issues are examples of idiomatic translation. If you disagree - that's fine, but perhaps you'd like to explain why.

Personally, I do not see how someone with a Greek background would be arguing with me about this. They may not agree with me regarding which instance was more idiomatic, or some other aspect, but that they are both idiomatic is clear. But I'm open to reason.

No offense, but perhaps you don't quite understand what an idiom is. Let me help. It is "Any expression peculiar to a language, conveying a distinct meaning, not necessarily explicable by, occasionally even contrary to, the general accepted grammatical rules." (From Dictionary of Linguistics, by Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, p. 95.)

Me genoito is clearly an idiom by this definition. However, the original of Matt. 15:5 is one simple word, dwron, meaning "a gift." A single word cannot be an idiom, of course. Now you say that the translation is idiomatic. Here is another definition: "Idiomatic usage: use of a word or expression with a meaning of its own, often contrary to the principles of grammar or logic" (ibid, p. 96).

There is nothing in the KJV or NKJV renderings that is idiomatic. In this case, no matter what, in English (or Japanese, or many other languages) you must add words for clarity, at a minimum the words "It is," as with the KJV. The NKJV has added "to God." This phrase is not an idiom in any of the languages I've studied.

Personally, I feel that the NKJV committee did a fine job of not only replacing archaic and no longer used language from the KJV, but it was more dynamic equivalent where it felt it was necessary IOT gain accuracy. (I really like the HCSB and the RSV philosophy of translation - essentially "as literal [or accurate] as possible; as free as necessary.")

Thx,

FA

I don't believe that the NKJV was being dynamically equivalent here. Adding words for clarity has also been done since Cicero. Nida did not invent it. The stated methodology of the NKJV was "Complete Equivalence," not DE. See the book by Dr. James Price to learn the difference: Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation.

IMO more words would have to be added to this to make it a DE rendering. For example, Williams has: "Everything I have that might be used for helping you, is devoted to God." Beck has: "I'm giving God anything by which I might help you."

 

[John of Japan]

Me genoito is clearly an idiom by this definition. However, the original of Matt. 15:5 is one simple word, dwron, meaning "a gift." A single word cannot be an idiom, of course.

I disagree with myself! :tongue3:

After I wrote this I went down to spend some quality time with my wife watching a DVD. And I said to myself, "Duh! Of course a single word can be an idiom!" And I thought of several in Japanese, one of which is a similar idiom in Chinese.

Having said that, dwron is not an idiom. It means literally, "gift," and that is the usage in this passage, though it is a somewhat special usage. :type: