It's incredible that you guys can see those changes from "child" to "servant",
To accuse the NKJV of copying the Jehovah Witnesses' Version as some KJV-only advocates do when the NKJV translators did not copy it or even consult it would be slanderous. To accuse the NKJV translators of taking away the Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ is ridiculous. The Greek word
pais in these verses was used for both
child or
servant with the meaning determined by the context. Greek has a different word for "son"--
huios. The KJV itself translated this Greek word
pais as "servant" 10 times, "child" 7 times, and "son" 3 times.
James D. Price explained that the real reason for this choice of rendering in the book of Acts in the NKJV is that the translators thought that in this context Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD (
False Witness, p. 25). This first-hand statement from a NKJV translator refutes Riplinger’s false accusation that the reason for the NKJV’s rendering was a lexicon. Does love for the KJV justify such false and seemingly malicious attacks on other translations?
This same Greek word found at Acts 4:27 and 30 was also used of Jesus at Matthew 12:18a where it was translated "servant" in the KJV. However, it was translated "child" in Wycliffe's, 1534 Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' Bibles and as "son" in 1526 Tyndale's. Why is this difference important in Acts 4:27 and 30 but unimportant in Matthew 12:18? Would a consistent application of inconsistent, unjust KJV-only reasoning attack the KJV for referring to the Messiah as a servant in the book of Isaiah?
The Companion Bible [KJV] has this note for "child" at Acts 4:27: "child=servant, Greek
pais, as in v. 25" (p. 1585). The 1657 English edition of
The Dutch Annotations has the following note for "thy holy child Jesus" at Acts 4:27: "or servant, minister, See Acts 3:13, 26, see also Matthew 8:6 compared with Luke 7:2 and here verse 25." Concerning Acts 3:13, A. T. Robertson noted: "This phrase occurs in Isaiah 42:1; 52:13 about the Messiah except the name 'Jesus' which Peter adds" (
Word Pictures, III, p. 43). Concerning Acts 3:13 in his 1851 commentary as edited by Alvah Hovey in the American Baptist Publication Society's
American Commentary on the N. T., Horatio Hackett (1808-1875) wrote: "
pais, not son=
huios, but servant=Heb.
ebhedh, which was one of the prophetic appellations of the Messiah, especially in the second part of Isaiah. (See Matt. 12:18, as compared with Isa. 42:1). The term occurs again in this sense in v. 26; 4:27, 30" (pp. 59-60). Concerning Acts 4:27, John Gill noted: "Unless the word should rather be rendered
servant, as it is in verse 25 and which is a character that belongs to Christ, and is often given him as Mediator, who, as such, is God's righteous servant" (
Exposition, VIII, p. 176).
It is incredible that KJV-only advocates cannot see their use of double standards or unjust divers measures.
