the new king james version: a critique but it is not what has been written in the hebrew. daniel...

$: The New King James Version: A Critique but it is not what has been written in the Hebrew. Daniel 8.21 – \lm (melek), ‘king’ is arbitrarily and inconsistently (cf. 7.17) changed$
THENew King JamesVERSION

A Critiqueby Malcolm H. Watts

5508 Watts booklet cover.indd 3 15/5/08 11:39:49

THENew King JamesVERSION

A Critiqueby Malcolm H. Watts

New King JamesQXP6.qxd 15/5/08 11:51 am Page 1

ISBN 978 1 86228 357 2

© 2008 Trinitarian Bible SocietyTyndale House, Dorset Road, London, SW19 3NN, UK

Registered Charity: England 233082, Scotland SC038379

12M/05/08


When this new translation of theBible was published in the USA in1982, the publishers, ThomasNelson, stated that their aim was ‘to produce an updated English Version that follows thesentence structure of the 1611Authorized Version (AV) as closelyas possible…to transfer theElizabethan word forms intotwentieth century English’.1 The‘Preface’ to the New King JamesVersion (hereinafter NKJV) statedthat the Old Testament would be a translation of the HebrewMasoretic Text and the NewTestament would be a translation of the Greek Received Text, the same Texts used by the AVtranslators in 1611.2 This appeared to be a majorimprovement on many previoustranslations such as the NewInternational Version, which is notbased on the Received Text but iswidely used in Evangelical circles.

However, there are seriousproblems with the NKJV.3

The Old Testament

It is made clear in the ‘Preface’4

that in translating the OldTestament of the NKJV referencewas made to the Septuagint (theGreek translation of the OldTestament, c. 200 BC), the LatinVulgate (a Latin translationundertaken by Jerome in AD 383),various ancient versions(presumably including such as theAramaic Targums, dating from thePersian period, and the SyriacVersion, approximately AD 60), andthe Dead Sea Scrolls (Hebrew textsfrom pre-Christian and earlyChristian times, discovered in1947).

There is evidence for use of these sources in the margins of the Old Testament. For example,

1

The New King JamesVersion: A Critique

Malcolm H. Watts


Genesis 4.8 has this note in themargin: ‘Samaritan Pentateuch,Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgateadd “Let us go out to the field”’;Deuteronomy 32.8 has as a noteon ‘the children of Israel’ thefollowing: ‘Septuagint, Dead SeaScrolls angels of God; Symmachus[a revision of the Septuagint,approximately AD 180], Old Latin[exhibiting a pre-Vulgate text] sons

of God’; Job 22.25 has ‘Theancient versions suggest defense;Hebrew reads gold as in verse 24’.

The danger of such inclusions inthe margin is that the reader isgiven the option of either takingthe correct Masoretic reading or ofdeviating from it, following somenon-Masoretic textual variant. Thisis surely undermining to theverbally inspired and Providentiallypreserved Word of God.

Furthermore, there are cases wheresuch readings have become part ofthe text itself. For example:

■ In 1 Chronicles 6.28, yn$w(Vashni), the name of Samuel’sfirstborn son, is changed to Joelafter the Septuagint, Syriac andArabic. He appears to have beencalled both names (see verse 33and 1 Samuel 8.2), but there isno textual justification for theother name being included here.

■ Psalm 4.4 has w)+xt-l)w wzgr(rigzu val-techetau) which should

read ‘stand in awe, and sin not’,but this is changed in the NKJVto ‘be angry, and do not sin’.This seems to be bothinaccurate and inappropriate(the Hebrew word means‘trembling’), and appears tofollow the Septuagint and LatinVulgate.

■ Obadiah 12 has wrkn {wyb (byom

nacro) ‘the day that he becamea stranger’, which is changed to‘the day of his captivity’ –despite a marginal note statingthat this is ‘Literally on the day

he became a foreigner’ – whichloses the idea of estrangement,ruins the obvious climaxthroughout the verse, and onceagain appears to follow the LatinVulgate.

Although accuracy is claimed forthe NKJV, there are numerous OldTestament renderings which aresimply erroneous or, at the veryleast, most misleading. We notethe following:

■ Leviticus 19.16 – ‘blood’ ({d,dam) is changed to ‘life’, missingthe whole point of the verse that‘tale-bearing’ breeds strife andoften leads to the shedding of‘blood’ (see Ezekiel 22.9).

■ Deuteronomy 27.26 – omissionof ‘to do them’ (although thewords are in the Hebrew: tw&(l{tw), lasot otam), which

The New King James Version

2


removes the proper sense of theverse.

■ 1 Samuel 16.14 – change ofh(r-xwr (ruach-raah, ‘an evilspirit’) to ‘a distressing spirit’(also changed in verse 23 and19.9).

■ 1 Samuel 25.8 – bw+ {wy (yom

tob, ‘ a good day’), is translated‘a feast day’, which implieswithout any warrant that this wasone of the regular feasts ofIsrael; it may mean no morethan ‘a happy day’ or ‘a day ofrejoicing’.

■ 2 Samuel 22.3 – ‘the God of myrock’ (rwc, tsur) is wronglyrendered ‘the God of mystrength’.

■ Psalm 30.4 – instead of ‘theremembrance of his holiness’,the NKJV has ‘the remembranceof His holy name’, which is not atranslation but an interpretationsince the Hebrew has ‘holiness’($dq, qadosh; see also 97.12).

■ Psalm 33.15 – ‘He fashioneththeir hearts alike’ is changed to‘He fashions their heartsindividually’, but the Hebrew(dxy, yachad) means that allalike are made by Him.

■ Psalm 43.1 – ‘Judge me, O God’,in the sense of ‘do justice forme’ (yn+p$, shaphteni), is

translated ‘Vindicate me’, arendering which goes beyond themeaning of the original. Theword means no more than ‘dojustice in my case’ or ‘on mybehalf’ without necessarilypresupposing a favourableoutcome.

■ Psalm 45.13 – ‘The king’sdaughter is all glorious within’(hmynp \lm-tb hdwbk-lk, kal-

kbudah bat-melek pnimah) ischanged to ‘the royal daughter isall glorious within the palace’;although added in italics, thewords ‘the palace’ are a totallyunwarranted and unnecessaryaddition.

■ Psalm 110.3 – ‘Thy people shall

be willing’ is changed to ‘Yourpeople shall be volunteers’, amost unhappy translation,particularly as the Hebrew (tbdn,ndabot) literally reads, ‘Thypeople shall be willingnesses’.

■ Psalm 113.7 – ‘the dunghill’(tp$)m, meashpot) from whichmen are raised, is improperlyand weakly translated ‘the ashheap’, missing the point thatmen are sunk in moraldegradation (see also 1 Samuel2.8).

■ Ecclesiastes 12.11 – ‘themasters of assemblies’ (literally,‘masters of gatherings’ – yl(btwps), baale asupot), is feebly

A Critique

3


translated ‘the words ofscholars’ (although they admit ina footnote that this is ‘Literallymasters of the assemblies’),thus losing the idea of‘ministers’ who are convenersand instructors of congregations.

■ Isaiah 1.27 – ‘converts’ ischanged to ‘penitents’, but theHebrew word (bw$, shub) iscommonly used to mean return,and in this passage it means‘her [Zion’s] returners’.

■ Isaiah 7.16 – ‘abhorrest’ ischanged to ‘dread’, whereasproperly the word (jq, qats)means ‘loathe’, originallyassociated with the feeling ofnausea.

■ Isaiah 14.9 – ‘Hell from beneathis moved for thee’ is changed to‘Hell from beneath is excitedabout you’, but the idea (zgr,ragaz) is that the spirits of thelost are ‘roused’ and not just alittle ‘surprised’ to see the Kingof Babylon descending to thatregion.

■ Isaiah 61.3 – ‘To appoint untothem that mourn’ is changed to‘To console those who mourn’,but the Hebrew word ({y&, sim)certainly requires ‘set’, ‘appoint’,‘supply’ or ‘give’.

■ Jeremiah 1.17 – ‘Gird up thyloins’ (\yntm rz)t ht)w, vatah

tezor matneka) is changed to‘prepare yourself’, which is adeparture from the original andan example of dynamicequivalence.

■ Lamentations 5.10 – The word‘black’ (rmk, kamar) in thesentence ‘our skin was black likean oven’, is rendered ‘hot’, anunhelpful substitution. TheHebrew word, although not thecommon word for black, conveysthe idea of growing hot andbeing scorched. In the change,the NKJV loses the idea behindthe word, of being scorched sothat the skin shows the effect ofthe exposure to the heat.

■ Ezekiel 5.17 – ‘evil [h(r, raah,‘bad’] beasts’ becomes ‘wild’, ameaning which it never has inthe Hebrew.

■ Ezekiel 9.10,11 – ‘I willrecompense their way’ ischanged to ‘I will recompensetheir deeds’, but the Hebrewword (\rd, derek) means ‘way’and is singular. Also, in verse 11‘reported the matter’ (rbd by$m,meshib dabar) is rendered‘reported back’, with the wordindicating ‘matter’ omitted.

■ Ezekiel 16.46 – l)m& (semol),‘left hand’, and }ymy (yamin),‘right hand’ are rendered ‘north’and ‘south’ respectively, whichmay well be what is to be


4


understood, but it is not whathas been written in the Hebrew.

■ Daniel 8.21 – \lm (melek),‘king’ is arbitrarily andinconsistently (cf. 7.17) changedto ‘kingdom’, but ‘king’ hereappears to be used in a dynasticsense even as later in the verseit is used in a personal sense.

These comprise only a sample ofthe erroneous and defectivetranslations in the NKJV as far asthe Old Testament is concerned,but they are surely enough to warn– and indeed to alarm – sincerebelievers who desire to read andstudy a true and accurate versionof the Holy Scriptures.

The New Testament

In further reading of the NKJV’s‘Preface’, written by its principalEditor, Dr A. L. Farstad, it becomesclear that he himself is not happywith the Received Text and actuallyendorses the so-called MajorityText. He writes elsewhere, ‘Today,scholars agree that the NewTestament textual criticism is in astate of flux. Very few scholarsfavor the Received Text as such,and then often for its historicalprestige as the text used by Luther,Calvin, Tyndale and the AV. Forabout a century most have followeda Critical Text…which dependsheavily upon the Alexandrian typeof text. More recently many have

abandoned this Critical Text…forone that is more eclectic. Finally asmall number of scholars prefer theMajority Text which is close to theReceived Text except in theRevelation’.5

The so-called Majority Text, editedby Zane Hodges and (the same)Arthur Farstad of Dallas TheologicalSeminary, was published in 1982.In the ‘Preface’ it is stated that thistext is only of a provisional nature,implying that no-one can be sureyet that we actually have the entireWord of God, and also that theWord we do have may need to beamended in the future when moreof the extant manuscripts havebeen collated and examined. Toquote the exact words of Hodgesand Farstad: ‘It should therefore bekept in mind that the present work,The Greek New Testament

According to the Majority Text, isboth preliminary and provisional. It represents a first step…’.6 Yeteven as it is, this Majority Textcontains nearly 1,900 changes tothe Received Text, including theomission of such Scriptures asMatthew 27.35; Acts 8.37; 9.5,6;10.6b; and 1 John 5.7.

It is no surprise therefore to findthat in the marginal references ofthe NKJV New Testament there areapproximately five hundredreferences to variant readings fromthe Majority Text, and a far highernumber from the Critical Text. By

A Critique

5


their very existence these variantreadings cast doubt on the verywords of Holy Scripture and uponthe doctrine of Divine Inspirationand Preservation. Furthermore, theintegrity and accuracy of theReceived Text, and by implicationthe Authorised Version itself, ishereby very seriously undermined.Dr James Price, the executiveeditor of the Old Testament sectionof the NKJV, admitted in an e-mailin April 1996, ‘I am not a TRadvocate. I happen to believe thatGod has preserved the autographictext in the whole body of evidencethat He has preserved, not merelythrough the textual decisions of acommittee of fallible men based ona handful of late manuscripts. Themodern Critical Texts like NA26/27[Nestles] and UBS [United BibleSocieties] provide a list of thevariations that have entered themanuscript traditions, and theyprovide the evidence that supportsthe different variants. In theapparatus they have left nothingout, the evidence is there. Theapparatus indicates where possibleadditions, omissions, andalterations have occurred… I amnot at war with the conservativemodern versions [such as the NewInternational Version and the NewAmerican Standard Version (sic)]’.7

Dr Price is suggesting here that theReceived Text depends ‘on ahandful of late Greek manuscripts’.This is misleading, to say the very

least. Frederick Nolan, in hisInquiry into the Integrity of the

Greek Vulgate or Received Text,comments as follows: ‘With respectto Manuscripts, it is indisputablethat he [Erasmus] was acquaintedwith every variety which is known tous; having distributed them intotwo principal classes, one whichcorresponds with theComplutensian edition, the otherwith the Vatican manuscript [seeErasmus’s Preface to the New

Testament, 1546]. And he hasspecified the positive grounds onwhich he received the one andrejected the other’.8 It is knownthat Erasmus collated and studiedmany manuscripts, observingthousands of variant readingsincluding such as were found inVaticanus (Codex B); and a friendcalled Bombasius, we are told,researched that for him. Certainlyin his various editions of the GreekNew Testament, his notes revealthat he was familiar with practicallyall the important variant readingsknown to modern scholarsincluding Mark 16.9–20, Luke22.43,44 and John 7.53–8.11.

Some Textual Critics, after B. F.Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, refer to‘families’ of New Testamentmanuscripts. This again ismisleading, as it is impossible toascertain with any certainty theancestors of manuscripts or toprove the exact relationship whichone manuscript has to another. But


6


the particular device of referring to‘families’ enabled Westcott andHort to dismiss the Traditional orReceived Text, supported by 90% ofthe Greek manuscripts, as a meredescendant of an exceedinglycorrupt ancestor! It is thereforemuch better to refer to ‘text-types’.The major text-types are: theTraditional (Byzantine) text-typeemanating from the AsiaMinor/Greece area where Paulfounded a number of churches(and called Byzantine because itwas the recognised Greek textthroughout the Byzantine period,AD 312–1453), and theAlexandrian text-type, associatedwith Alexandria and proceedingfrom Egypt. The Byzantine text-typehas the overwhelming support ofthe Greek manuscripts (over 95%of the more than five thousandGreek manuscripts in existence);and naturally these have mostimpressive agreement amongthemselves. It is in this text-typethat the Traditional Text hassurvived, which was published inthe 16th and 17th centuries byErasmus, Stephanus, Beza and theElzevirs (Bonaventure andAbraham). In the ‘Preface’ to theElzevirs’ second edition (1633)reference is made to the ‘text…now received by all’ (textum…nunc

ab omnibus receptum), fromwhence arose the designation‘Textus Receptus’ or ‘ReceivedText’. It is a text of this type whichunderlies the Authorised Version.

All of the existing New TestamentGreek manuscripts are copies(apographs). None of the originalwritings of the Apostles(autographs) have survived. TheByzantine group of manuscripts aremostly, but by no means entirely,later copies. But some 4th-centurymanuscripts of the Alexandriangroup have come to public noticesince the publication of theReceived Text in the 16th and 17thcenturies. These are CodexVaticanus (from the Vatican library)and Codex Sinaiticus (discovered inSt. Catherine’s Monastery onMount Sinai in 1859). Thesemanuscripts differ radically fromthe Traditional or Received Text. It is estimated that there are about six thousand differences.These include numerousomissions, sometimes of entireverses (e.g., Matthew 12.47,18.11; Luke 17.36; Acts 28.29;Romans 15.24), and often evenmore than this (e.g., Matthew16.2,3; Mark 9.44,46; John5.3,4; Acts 24.6–8). Notoriousamong these, of course, are thelast twelve verses of the Gospel ofMark and John 8.1–11. Evenbetween themselves, theseAlexandrian manuscripts show noagreement or consistency. H. C.Hoskier, after meticulously carefulresearch, noted that in the fourGospels alone there were no lessthan three thousand differencesbetween Codex Vaticanus andCodex Sinaiticus.

A Critique

7


But since 1881 when, under thebaleful influence of Westcott andHort, the Revised Version of theBible was published, theAlexandrian have been preferred tothe Byzantine manuscripts chieflybecause of their date, the viewbeing that the oldest manuscriptsare likely to be the most accurate.But this is a completemisconception, since accurate andapproved copies would have beenmuch in use and therefore wouldsoon have become worn out – adamp climate not helping topreserve them as the arid climateof Egypt did with respect to theAlexandrian manuscripts. The goodcopies needed themselves to becopied and the evidence is that agreat many copies were made inlater centuries, a large number ofwhich still exist today. It followsthat, contrary to the footnotes inmost modern versions, the ‘oldest’are not at all likely to be the ‘best’but could well be the ‘worst’. Why?Because, recognised as defective,they were rejected and thereforelittle used.

Versions of the Bible since 1881have been mainly based on thesefew early manuscripts. At first sightthe NKJV appears to be anexception; yet while using theReceived Text, it contains in itsmarginal references variantreadings from these defectiveAlexandrian manuscripts. Whenexamined, these marginal readings

are seen to cast doubt on suchfundamental doctrines as theEternal Generation of the Son, theUnion of Christ’s Deity andHumanity, the Incarnation, theBlood Atonement, and the EternalConscious Punishment of theWicked in Hell (e.g., John 1.18 –‘the only begotten Son’ becomes‘the only begotten God’; 1 Corinthians 15.47 – omission of‘the Lord’; 1 Timothy 3.16 – ‘God’changed to ‘Who’; Colossians 1.14– ‘through his blood’ is left out;Mark 9.46 – omission of ‘Wheretheir worm dieth not, and the fire isnot quenched’). Here is a clearcase of what the Scripture refers toin Ecclesiastes: ‘Dead flies causethe ointment of the apothecary tosend forth a stinking savour: so

doth a little folly him that is inreputation for wisdom and honour’(10.1).

Even more serious is the fact thatin the actual text of the NKJV NewTestament there are a great manydepartures from the Received Text,where Critical Text readings haveapparently been preferred andfollowed or other unwarrantedchanges have been made. This is amatter of gravest concern. Here aresome examples:

■ John 10.6 – omission of the firstinstance of au©toij (autois),‘unto them’ (AV: ‘This parablespake Jesus unto them’; NKJV:‘Jesus used this illustration’).


8


Autois is in all the Greek texts,both TR and Critical, and there isnot even a textual variantindicated in the Critical editions;why the NKJV omits it is unclear.

■ Acts 15.23 – The NKJV omitstade (tade), ‘after this manner’,as does the Critical Text.

■ Acts 19.39 – The NKJV changesfrom the TR’s peri e¨terwn (peri

heteron), ‘concerning othermatters’ to ‘any other inquiry’.The Critical Text has peraiterw(peraitero, ‘further’). The NKJVreading is not just a change fromplural to singular but appears tobe based upon the use of theentirely different expression seenin the Critical Text.

■ Acts 27.14 – The NKJV omitskat © au©thj (kat’ autes),‘against it’; kat autes is in boththe TR and the Critical Text.Again one is left to wonder whythe NKJV omits it.

■ 2 Corinthians 4.14 – The NKJVchanges dia I©hsou (dia Iesou),‘by Jesus’, to sun I©hsou (sun

Iesou), ‘with Jesus’, in keepingwith the Critical Text reading – avery misleading change.

■ 2 John 7 – The NKJV changesfrom ei©shlqon (eiselthon),‘entered into’, to e©chlqon(exelthon), ‘gone out into’, theCritical Text reading.

■ Revelation 6.11 – The NKJVchanges from the plural stolaileukai (stolai leukai, ‘whiterobes’), to the singular stolhleukh (stole leuke) ‘a whiterobe’, which is the Critical Textreading.

In addition, there are some seriousfaults in the translation:

■ Matthew 15.32 – nhsteij(nesteis), ‘fasting’, is rendered‘hungry’, losing the point that, inattending upon our Lord’sministry, the people had chosento go without food (also changedin Mark 8.3).

■ Matthew 22.10 – o¨ gamoj (ho

gamos), ‘the wedding’, ischanged to ‘the wedding hall’.Although hall appears in italics in the NKJV, it is an unnecessaryaddition unsupported by theTextus Receptus.

■ Luke 11.34 – a¨plouj(haplous), ‘single’, in the clause‘thine eye is single’, wronglybecomes ‘good’, the truereference being to an eye thatdoes not see double (alsochanged in Matthew 6.22);

■ Luke 11.54 – the words e©k toustomatoj au©tou (ek tou

stomatos autou), ‘out of hismouth’ are changed to ‘He might say’, which does nottranslate the Greek.

A Critique

9


■ Luke 22.53 – ou©k e©ceteinatetaj xeiraj e©p’ e©me (ouk

exeteinate tas cheiras ep’ eme),‘ye stretched forth no handsagainst me’, becomes ‘you didnot try to seize me’ which is farfrom a literal translation.

■ Acts 18.6 – a©ntitassomenwnde au©twn (antitassomenon de

auton), ‘opposed themselves’,that is, set themselves in theway to prevent the apostlepreaching, is translated‘opposed him’.

■ 2 Corinthians 7.2 – xwrhsateh¨maj (choresate hemas),‘receive us’, is rendered ‘openyour hearts to us’, as in theRevised Version; this is anexample of dynamic equivalence.

■ 2 Corinthians 11.29 – ou©k e©gwpuroumai (ouk ego puroumai),‘I burn not’, is translated ‘I donot burn with indignation’, whichis yet another case ofinterpretation rather thantranslation (the verb can beotherwise understood to mean‘burn with desire’ or, perhaps,and preferably, ‘burn with pain’).

■ Galatians 5.4 – the AV has‘Christ is become of no effectunto you’. In the NKJV, this isrendered ‘You have becomeestranged from Christ’. The verbkatargew (katargeo) literallymeans to render or make

useless, or unprofitable, the ideabeing that those who soughtjustification by the law weresevered from Christ and thebenefits of His death. The NKJVunjustifiably imports the conceptof a breakdown in the personalrelationship with Christ, in placeof the forfeiture of savingbenefit.

■ Philippians 3.8 – the thingsformerly relied upon which arenow reckoned but skubala(skubala), ‘dung’ or ‘muck’,become merely ‘rubbish’ in theNKJV. However, the Greek wordappears to be derived from oneproperly meaning humanexcrement, and thus conveysmore literally something of theapostle’s present estimate of,and aversion to, his Jewish legalprivileges when considered aground of justification (as ismade clear in the AV).

■ 1 Timothy 6.5 – nomizontwnporismon ei©nai thn eu©sebeian(nomizonton porismon einai ten

eusebeian), literally ‘supposingthat gain is godliness’, isrendered by the NKJV: ‘whosuppose that godliness is ameans of gain’. Admittedly, inGreek it is possible to reversethe order of words when they areconnected by a form of the verb‘to be’, thus ‘godliness is gain’just might be acceptable.However, regarding the words ‘a


10


means of’, as indicated by theNKJV’s use of italics and itsomission of these words in thefollowing verse, the inclusion ofthem here is invalid.

■ Hebrews 3.16 – in the NKJV isthe mistranslation of a©ll’ ou©pantej (all’ ou pantes),‘howbeit not all’, to ‘indeed, was

it not all’, thereby suggesting therebellion of all the Israelites,whereas the truth was thatJoshua and Caleb did not rebel.

■ Revelation 2.22 – ‘sick’ is added to klinhn (klinen), ‘bed’,making it ‘sickbed’.

■ Revelation 16.16 – kaisunhgagen au©touj (kai

sunegagen autous), ‘And hegathered them together’, ischanged to ‘And they gatheredthem together’, effectivelyremoving (without anymanuscript support) God’ssovereign action, and apparentlyattributing the action tounspecified malign forces.

It is therefore simply not true tosay that the NKJV is faithful to theReceived Text, nor is it true to saythat it is a more accuratetranslation.

Headings

Mention could be made – andperhaps should be made – of the

chapter and section headings inthe NKJV, which are really veryinferior to those found in ourAuthorised Version. Take the Songof Solomon, for example. The textis arbitrarily divided. To cite justone instance of this, half of 1.4 issaid to have been spoken by ‘theShulamite’ (identified in a marginalnote as ‘a Palestinian youngwoman’) and the other half by ‘theDaughters of Jerusalem’.Furthermore, the apportioning ofthe words to particular charactersis novel and, we believe, highlyquestionable. Is it really theShulamite who says, ‘I am the roseof Sharon, and the lily of thevalleys’ in 2.1? It is not, accordingto the almost unanimous view ofReformed commentators who givea spiritual interpretation to thisSong. We believe that theseheadings can only serve tomislead.

Pronouns

Another aspect of the NKJV is theabandonment of the use of thesingular second person pronouns‘thee’, ‘thou’ and ‘thine’ inpreference for the more modernambiguous ‘you’ and ‘your’. Thefact is that the former were not incommon use in 1611, at the timeof the translation of the AuthorisedVersion. As early as the end of the13th century, ‘you’ and ‘your’ hadreplaced them. But the AVtranslators were classical scholars

A Critique

11


and accuracy was uppermost intheir minds; thus they retained theuse of the singular pronouns whenthe original language texts requiredit. The use of ‘you’ and ‘your’ in theNKJV conceals the differencebetween the singular and plural inthe second person pronouns of theclassical languages. This is seen inthe following verses:

■ Matthew 26.64 – ‘Jesus saithunto him, Thou [the High Priestalone] hast said: nevertheless Isay unto you [the peoplelistening and all others],Hereafter shall ye see the Son ofman sitting on the right hand ofpower, and coming in the cloudsof heaven’.

■ Luke 22.31,32 – ‘Satan hathdesired to have you [all thedisciples], that he may sift you

as wheat: but I have prayed forthee [Peter], that thy faith failnot’.

■ John 3.7 – ‘Marvel not that Isaid unto thee [Nicodemus], Ye[men and women generally]must be born again’.

There are in fact 14,500 uses ofsuch pronouns in 10,500 verses ofthe Authorised Version. It cannotbe said too strongly that ‘thee’,‘thou’ and ‘thine’ are actuallyaccording to Biblical usage, basedon the style of the Hebrew andGreek Scriptures, and have been

used in the English-speaking worldas a means of expressingreverence to God, particularly inprayer and praise. In this age offamiliarity and lack of respect, theuse of ‘you’ and ‘your’ in relation tothe Most High God can indicate alack of reverence. To a spirituallydiscerning ear, there is a vastdifference between ‘Thou art theChrist, the Son of the living God,’and ‘You are the Christ…’ (Matthew16.16) – and this is not just apreference for the older word.

Greek Texts

The question must be asked, ‘Hasthe Lord permitted His church tohave an inaccurate Bible over allthese centuries until the fairlyrecent discoveries of certain earlyCodices?’ As already observed, itwould appear that these earlymanuscripts have survived becausethey have not been much used. Itis likely that they were judgedinaccurate and defective, probablybecause they had been tamperedwith to suit the tenets of someheretical sect. Thus it is clear thatGod, in His special and mysteriousProvidence, has preserved the HolyScriptures through the vast majorityof manuscripts (mostly of theByzantine school), copied andrecopied carefully over manycenturies, yet bearing a solidagreement and consistency onewith another. That there areconsiderable and important


12


differences between the few earlyAlexandrian Codices and the greatmajority of the Byzantine school ofmanuscripts is not in question, norwould anyone disagree that thesedifferences have been incorporatedinto the printed Greek texts fromwhich they are taken. Indeed, theAlexandrian-based Critical Textsand the Byzantine-based TextusReceptus differ in a number ofsignificant passages.

The translators of the NKJV, whileassuring their readers that theyhave translated from the ReceivedText, at the same time give in theirmarginal references and sometimesin the text itself equal credence toa Greek text which is whollydifferent from it. Once the positionof the editors of this NKJVtranslation is known, it wouldappear that they have used theReceived Text only as a means ofpaving the way for a substitution ofthe Authorised Version which wouldinvolve the introduction of theirmarginal variants into the main textof Scripture.

This translation, with its credencegiven to the marginal references,has the appearance of a mostsubtle attempt to discredit both the Received Text and theAuthorised Version. The AV hasbeen made such a blessing formany centuries, not only in ourown country but throughout theEnglish-speaking world. In many

ways the NKJV is far moredangerous than the moderntranslations which have openlyabandoned the Received Text infavour of texts built on the corruptAlexandrian manuscripts.

Young People

We believe it is exceedinglysimplistic and dangerous to putthis new version into the hands ofyoung people on the grounds thatit is easier to understand. Inreading it, they will not have anaccurate translation of God’s Wordand the marginal notes will tendonly to raise doubts in their mindsregarding the variant readings. Theplea some make, that they are onlytrying to make the Bible easier toread, is altogether inadmissible. Itis essential that we pass on toothers – especially to our youngpeople – the pure Word of God,without any unfaithful and spuriousadditions. If we do not, suggestingthat they might use the NKJV,those young people on reachingadulthood will almost certainlyretain the use of this new versionwith which they have becomefamiliar. The pressure will then beon our churches to adopt the Biblewhich many in the congregationseem to prefer. The AuthorisedVersion could then, quite easily, bereplaced.

Before such a time, anyendorsement among us of the

A Critique

13


NKJV will bring various otherproblems and evils. For example,once people begin to use a versionwhich uses ‘you’ and ‘your’ inaddressing God, it is only a matterof time before they lapse into thispractice in public prayer, and thendissatisfaction will be found withthe praise book because it retainsthe Scriptural and traditionalusage. If, in naivety, we toleratethis new version, it is not difficultto foresee the time when thecharacter of the testimony in ourchurches will radically change –and change for the worse. May ourgracious God prevent this from everhappening.

Conclusion

For our part, we reject the NewKing James Version and we do notbelieve it should be used in ourchurches. The Authorised Versionis far superior, and while notperfect it remains the best andmost accurate English translationof God’s Holy Word. Our prayer andhope is that those who have beendeceived into thinking that the NewKing James Version represents adecided improvement and whohave therefore introduced it intopublic worship, will realise thatthey have made a dreadful mistakeand so restore to their churchesthe Authorised Version. As for thechurches which continue to usethe Authorised Version, we trustthat it will remain in the hearts of

their people and in their homes.We also trust that it will remain inthe pulpits and pews of ourchurches.

May the Lord be pleased to blessand own our precious and belovedAuthorised Version, to the good ofour souls, the souls of our children,and the souls of our children’schildren.

Endnotes

1. Arthur L. Farstad, The New King

James Version: in the Great

Tradition (Nashville, TN, USA:Thomas Nelson, 1989), p. 34.

2. Holy Bible: New King James

Version (Nashville, TN, USA:Thomas Nelson, 1982), pp. vi–vii.

3. It should be noted that editionsof the New King James Versiondiffer without note depending uponthe year and country in which theywere published. For example, theBritish editions, normally called theRevised Authorised Version (whichare no longer published), do notcapitalise pronouns referring toDeity.

4. NKJV, p. vi.

5. Ibid., p. vii.

6. Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L.Farstad, The Greek New Testament

According to the Majority Text


14


(Nashville, TN, USA: ThomasNelson Publishers, 1982), p. x.

7. James Price, e-mail to DavidCloud, April 30, 1996 in The Bible

Version Question/Answer Database

(Port Huron, MI, USA: Way of LifeLiterature, 2005), pp. 369–70.

8. Frederick Nolan, An Inquiry into

the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate,

or Received Text of the New

Testament (London, England: F. C. and J. Rivington, 1815), pp. 413–414.

A Critique

15


To publish and distribute the Holy

Scriptures throughout the world in many

languages.

To promote Bible translations which are

accurate and trustworthy, conforming

to the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old

Testament, and the Greek Textus Receptus

of the New Testament, upon which texts

the English Authorised Version is based.

To be instrumental in bringing light and

life, through the Gospel of Christ, to those

who are lost in sin and in the darkness of

false religion and unbelief.

To uphold the doctrines of reformed

Christianity, bearing witness to the equal

and eternal deity of God the Father, God

the Son and God the Holy Spirit, One God

in three Persons.

To uphold the Bible as the inspired,

inerrant Word of God.

For the Glory of God and the Increase of

His Kingdom through the circulation of

Protestant or uncorrupted versions of the

Word of God.

The aims of the Society

Product Code: A123

Tyndale House, Dorset Road,London, SW19 3NN, England

e-mail: [email protected]

9 781862 283572

ISBN 978 1 86228 357 2

Registered Charity Number 233082 (England) and SC038379 (Scotland)

5508 Watts booklet cover.indd 2 15/5/08 11:39:47

the new king james version: a critique but it is not what has been written in the hebrew. daniel...

Documents