Is the NKJV translated from the Textus Receptus?

Lets do a couple of basic definitions first.

What do you mean by the TR?

Do you mean in the generally accepted generic sense or in the strictest sense?

 

The last paragraph of the NKJV preface says:

 

As defined somewhere:

*************************************

Textus Receptus (Latin: "Received Text") is the name given to the first Greek
A native or inhabitant of GreeceGreek text of the New Testament
The collection of books of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline and other Epistles, and Revelation; composed soon after Christ's death; the second half of the Christian BibleNew Testament that was printed with movable type not found for this subjectmovable type. It was compiled by Desiderius Erasmus
Dutch humanist and theologian who was the leading Renaissance scholar of northern Europe; although his criticisms of the Church led to the Reformation, he opposed violence and condemned Martin Luther (1466-1536)Desiderius Erasmus for his translation of the Bible
The sacred writings of the Christian religionsBible into Latin, and later used as the basis for the translation of the New Testament
The collection of books of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline and other Epistles, and Revelation; composed soon after Christ's death; the second half of the Christian BibleNew Testament in the King James Version of the Bible
The sacred writings of the Christian religionsBible. This is the text that was in use by the Eastern Orthodox Church in Erasmus' time (c. 1500). The Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine
A native or inhabitant of Byzantium or of the Byzantine EmpireByzantine text.

Erasmus' original 1519 edition of the Greek New Testament was prepared in haste, and typographical errors abounded in the text as published. Additionally, the selection of manuscripts available to Erasmus was quite limited, being confined to a few late medieval texts most modern scholars consider to be of dubious veracity. Erasmus was often forced to make his own interpretations—back-translating from the Vulgate
The Latin edition of the Bible translated from Hebrew and Greek mainly by St. Jerome at the end of the 4th century; as revised in 1592 it was adopted as the official text for the Roman Catholic ChurchVulgate at best and fully fabricating material at worst.

With the exception of the second edition of the text, no subsequent works were based on the first edition. With the third edition (1522) the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7) not found for this subjectComma Johanneum saw inclusion, in response to Trinitarian Adherent of TrinitarianismTrinitarian pressures from the contemporary Church—a circumstance subject to great debate even today.

Popular demand for "complete" Greek versions of the Bible led to a flurry of authorized and unauthorized editions in the early 16th century not found for this subject16th century; the name "Textus Receptus" can refer to any of these, or any Greek edition printed from 1519 to c. 1650. The name itself derives from the publisher's preface to a 1633 edition, containing the phrase "textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum", roughly translated as "thus you have the text now received by all".
***********************************

 

In the preface of my copy of the New King James Bible (Pg. vi) a description is made of the "Textus Receptus or Received Text, of the New Testament" without giving it a human name (Stephanus, Scrivener) and then claims "the New King James New Testament has been based on this Received Text".

As of yet and as far as I know, no one has sued them for fraud.

HankD

 

http://www.newkingjamesversion.com/about/

If you have video/sound listen to Dr. Cocoris explanation concerning the "Traditional Text".

I believe that they have made a composite of the eclectic texts which fly under the banner of "Byzantine" and would probably most resemble Scrivener's TR as someone has suggested.

HankD

 

HankD said:

In the preface of my copy of the New King James Bible (Pg. vi) a description is made of the "Textus Receptus or Received Text, of the New Testament" without giving it a human name (Stephanus, Scrivener) and then claims "the New King James New Testament has been based on this Received Text".

The NKJV's preface does identify specifically which edition of the TR was used for the New Testament. Unfortunately I don't have a copy handy to check, and if it's online (I can't find it), then it's buried under all the KJVers' Web pages calling the NIV a "counterfeit."

Phillip asked:

This is the one that was reverse engineered after the fact, is that right RSR?

If I understand your question correctly, you're thinking of the original "Textus Receptus" edition published by the Elzevir brothers in Leyden, in 1633.

 

I do have a copy (Nelson, 1982) and I can't find it. I posted what it says under The New Testament Text on pages v-vi of the Preface.

One small clue is that it speaks of "the latter nineteenth century" concerning some theories of "some scholars" (plural theirs) which might include a reference to Scrivener but doesn't name him.

I'll put forth the challenge:

Can someone, anyone, find the specific edition of the TR the NKJV translation committee used for the source document of the NKJV NT?

Here is the website:

http://www.newkingjamesversion.com/

HankD

 

I recall seeing an first edition NKJV a couple of years ago that stated,the NT was translated from Scrivener's text that included W&H variants(that explains much).

 

Amen Anti-Alex

Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

You rabid,ludicrous sectarian guy, you!!!!

 

Have the first edition NKJV in front of me:

On the Alexandrian texts:
However, in spite of their age, some scholars have reason to doubt their faithfulness to the authographs, since they often disagree with one another and show other signs of unreliability.

On the traditional texts:
...The New King James Version New Testament has been based on this Received Text, thus perpetuating the tradition begun by William Tyndale in 1525 and continued by the 1611 translators in rendering the Authorised Version.

On footnotes:
At important places where the Majority Text or the Alexandrian Texts differs from the Received Text, the varients are recorded in footnotes.

The Holy Bible, New King James Version
Copyright 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Nashville, Tennessee - page vii

Not a word about Scrivner.

Either these guys are bold faced liars - or the question is anwered.

[ March 13, 2005, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Based on the fact that (1) Farstad was the NKJV NT editor, and (2) that the Hodges-Farstad text was used to supply the M-notes in the NKJV, it would thus seem very likely that (3) the Oxford 1825 TR was used as the basis for translating the NKJV, since (4) that is the specific TR version used for comparison within the footnotes of the Hodges-Farstad Majority Greek Text edition, and (5) for many many years was "the" TR printed and sold by Dallas Seminary for student use.