THE New

A Critique by Malcolm H. Watts

5508 Watts booklet cover.indd 3 15/5/08 11:39:49 New King JamesQXP6.qxd 15/5/08 11:51 am Page 1

THE New King James VERSION

A Critique

by Malcolm H. Watts New King JamesQXP6.qxd 15/5/08 11:51 am Page 2

ISBN 978 1 86228 357 2

© 2008 Trinitarian Society Tyndale House, Dorset Road, London, SW19 3NN, UK Registered Charity: England 233082, Scotland SC038379

12M/05/08 New King JamesQXP6.qxd 15/5/08 11:51 am Page 1

The New King James Version: A Critique

Malcolm H. Watts

When this new translation of the However, there are serious Bible was published in the USA in problems with the NKJV.3 1982, the publishers, Thomas Nelson, stated that their aim The was ‘to produce an updated English Version that follows the It is made clear in the ‘Preface’4 sentence structure of the 1611 that in translating the Old Authorized Version (AV) as closely Testament of the NKJV reference as possible…to transfer the was made to the (the Elizabethan word forms into Greek translation of the Old twentieth century English’.1 The Testament, c. 200 BC), the Latin ‘Preface’ to the New King James Vulgate (a Latin translation Version (hereinafter NKJV) stated undertaken by Jerome in AD 383), that the Old Testament would various ancient versions be a translation of the Hebrew (presumably including such as the and the New Aramaic Targums, dating from the Testament would be a translation Persian period, and the Syriac of the Greek Received Text, Version, approximately AD 60), and the same Texts used by the AV the (Hebrew texts translators in 1611.2 This from pre-Christian and early appeared to be a major Christian times, discovered in improvement on many previous 1947). translations such as the New International Version, which is not There is evidence for use of based on the Received Text but is these sources in the margins of widely used in Evangelical circles. the Old Testament. For example, 1 New King JamesQXP6.qxd 15/5/08 11:51 am Page 2

The New King James Version

Genesis 4.8 has this note in the read ‘stand in awe, and sin not’, margin: ‘Samaritan Pentateuch, but this is changed in the NKJV Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate to ‘be angry, and do not sin’. add “Let us go out to the field”’; This seems to be both Deuteronomy 32.8 has as a note inaccurate and inappropriate on ‘the children of Israel’ the (the Hebrew word means following: ‘Septuagint, Dead Sea ‘trembling’), and appears to Scrolls angels of God; Symmachus follow the Septuagint and Latin [a revision of the Septuagint, Vulgate. approximately AD 180], Old Latin [exhibiting a pre-Vulgate text] sons ■ Obadiah 12 has wrkn {wyb (byom of God’; Job 22.25 has ‘The nacro) ‘the day that he became ancient versions suggest defense; a stranger’, which is changed to Hebrew reads gold as in verse 24’. ‘the day of his captivity’ – despite a marginal note stating The danger of such inclusions in that this is ‘Literally on the day the margin is that the reader is he became a foreigner’ – which given the option of either taking loses the idea of estrangement, the correct Masoretic reading or of ruins the obvious climax deviating from it, following some throughout the verse, and once non-Masoretic textual variant. This again appears to follow the Latin is surely undermining to the Vulgate. verbally inspired and Providentially preserved Word of God. Although accuracy is claimed for the NKJV, there are numerous Old Furthermore, there are cases where Testament renderings which are such readings have become part of simply erroneous or, at the very the text itself. For example: least, most misleading. We note the following: ■ In 1 Chronicles 6.28, yn$w (Vashni), the name of Samuel’s ■ Leviticus 19.16 – ‘blood’ ({d, firstborn son, is changed to Joel dam) is changed to ‘life’, missing after the Septuagint, Syriac and the whole point of the verse that Arabic. He appears to have been ‘tale-bearing’ breeds strife and called both names (see verse 33 often leads to the shedding of and 1 Samuel 8.2), but there is ‘blood’ (see .9). no textual justification for the other name being included here. ■ Deuteronomy 27.26 – omission of ‘to do them’ (although the ■ Psalm 4.4 has w)+xt-l)w wzgr words are in the Hebrew: tw&(l (rigzu val-techetau) which should {tw), lasot otam), which 2 New King JamesQXP6.qxd 15/5/08 11:51 am Page 3

A Critique

removes the proper sense of the translated ‘Vindicate me’, a verse. rendering which goes beyond the meaning of the original. The ■ 1 Samuel 16.14 – change of word means no more than ‘do h(r-xwr (ruach-raah, ‘an evil justice in my case’ or ‘on my spirit’) to ‘a distressing spirit’ behalf’ without necessarily (also changed in verse 23 and presupposing a favourable 19.9). outcome.

■ 1 Samuel 25.8 – bw+ {wy (yom ■ Psalm 45.13 – ‘The king’s tob, ‘ a good day’), is translated daughter is all glorious within’ ‘a feast day’, which implies (hmynp \lm-tb hdwbk-lk, kal- without any warrant that this was kbudah bat-melek pnimah) is one of the regular feasts of changed to ‘the royal daughter is Israel; it may mean no more all glorious within the palace’; than ‘a happy day’ or ‘a day of although added in italics, the rejoicing’. words ‘the palace’ are a totally unwarranted and unnecessary ■ .3 – ‘the God of my addition. rock’ (rwc, tsur) is wrongly rendered ‘the God of my ■ Psalm 110.3 – ‘Thy people shall strength’. be willing’ is changed to ‘Your people shall be volunteers’, a ■ Psalm 30.4 – instead of ‘the most unhappy translation, remembrance of his holiness’, particularly as the Hebrew (tbdn, the NKJV has ‘the remembrance ndabot) literally reads, ‘Thy of His holy name’, which is not a people shall be willingnesses’. translation but an interpretation since the Hebrew has ‘holiness’ ■ Psalm 113.7 – ‘the dunghill’ ($dq, qadosh; see also 97.12). (tp$)m, meashpot) from which men are raised, is improperly ■ Psalm 33.15 – ‘He fashioneth and weakly translated ‘the ash their hearts alike’ is changed to heap’, missing the point that ‘He fashions their hearts men are sunk in moral individually’, but the Hebrew degradation (see also 1 Samuel (dxy, yachad) means that all 2.8). alike are made by Him. ■ .11 – ‘the ■ Psalm 43.1 – ‘Judge me, O God’, masters of assemblies’ (literally, in the sense of ‘do justice for ‘masters of gatherings’ – yl(b me’ (yn+p$, shaphteni), is twps), baale asupot), is feebly 3 New King JamesQXP6.qxd 15/5/08 11:51 am Page 4

The New King James Version

translated ‘the words of tezor matneka) is changed to scholars’ (although they admit in ‘prepare yourself’, which is a a footnote that this is ‘Literally departure from the original and masters of the assemblies’), an example of dynamic thus losing the idea of equivalence. ‘ministers’ who are conveners and instructors of congregations. ■ .10 – The word ‘black’ (rmk, kamar) in the ■ .27 – ‘converts’ is sentence ‘our skin was black like changed to ‘penitents’, but the an oven’, is rendered ‘hot’, an Hebrew word (bw$, shub) is unhelpful substitution. The commonly used to mean return, Hebrew word, although not the and in this passage it means common word for black, conveys ‘her [Zion’s] returners’. the idea of growing hot and being scorched. In the change, ■ .16 – ‘abhorrest’ is the NKJV loses the idea behind changed to ‘dread’, whereas the word, of being scorched so properly the word (jq, qats) that the skin shows the effect of means ‘loathe’, originally the exposure to the heat. associated with the feeling of nausea. ■ .17 – ‘evil [h(r, raah, ‘bad’] beasts’ becomes ‘wild’, a ■ Isaiah 14.9 – ‘Hell from beneath meaning which it never has in is moved for thee’ is changed to the Hebrew. ‘Hell from beneath is excited about you’, but the idea (zgr, ■ .10,11 – ‘I will ragaz) is that the spirits of the recompense their way’ is lost are ‘roused’ and not just a changed to ‘I will recompense little ‘surprised’ to see the King their deeds’, but the Hebrew of Babylon descending to that word (\rd, derek) means ‘way’ region. and is singular. Also, in verse 11 ‘reported the matter’ (rbd by$m, ■ .3 – ‘To appoint unto meshib dabar) is rendered them that mourn’ is changed to ‘reported back’, with the word ‘To console those who mourn’, indicating ‘matter’ omitted. but the Hebrew word ({y&, sim) certainly requires ‘set’, ‘appoint’, ■ Ezekiel 16.46 – l)m& (semol), ‘supply’ or ‘give’. ‘left hand’, and }ymy (yamin), ‘right hand’ are rendered ‘north’ ■ .17 – ‘Gird up thy and ‘south’ respectively, which loins’ (\yntm rz)t ht)w, vatah may well be what is to be 4 New King JamesQXP6.qxd 15/5/08 11:51 am Page 5

A Critique

understood, but it is not what abandoned this Critical Text…for has been written in the Hebrew. one that is more eclectic. Finally a small number of scholars prefer the ■ Daniel 8.21 – \lm (melek), Majority Text which is close to the ‘king’ is arbitrarily and Received Text except in the inconsistently (cf. 7.17) changed Revelation’.5 to ‘kingdom’, but ‘king’ here appears to be used in a dynastic The so-called Majority Text, edited sense even as later in the verse by Zane Hodges and (the same) it is used in a personal sense. Arthur Farstad of Dallas Theological Seminary, was published in 1982. These comprise only a sample of In the ‘Preface’ it is stated that this the erroneous and defective text is only of a provisional nature, translations in the NKJV as far as implying that no-one can be sure the Old Testament is concerned, yet that we actually have the entire but they are surely enough to warn Word of God, and also that the – and indeed to alarm – sincere Word we do have may need to be believers who desire to read and amended in the future when more study a true and accurate version of the extant manuscripts have of the Holy Scriptures. been collated and examined. To quote the exact words of Hodges The and Farstad: ‘It should therefore be kept in mind that the present work, In further reading of the NKJV’s The Greek New Testament ‘Preface’, written by its principal According to the Majority Text, is Editor, Dr A. L. Farstad, it becomes both preliminary and provisional. clear that he himself is not happy It represents a first step…’.6 Yet with the Received Text and actually even as it is, this Majority Text endorses the so-called Majority contains nearly 1,900 changes to Text. He writes elsewhere, ‘Today, the Received Text, including the scholars agree that the New omission of such Scriptures as Testament is in a Matthew 27.35; Acts 8.37; 9.5,6; state of flux. Very few scholars 10.6b; and 1 .7. favor the Received Text as such, and then often for its historical It is no surprise therefore to find prestige as the text used by Luther, that in the marginal references of Calvin, Tyndale and the AV. For the NKJV New Testament there are about a century most have followed approximately five hundred a Critical Text…which depends references to variant readings from heavily upon the Alexandrian type the Majority Text, and a far higher of text. More recently many have number from the Critical Text. By 5 New King JamesQXP6.qxd 15/5/08 11:51 am Page 6

The New King James Version

their very existence these variant least. Frederick Nolan, in his readings cast doubt on the very Inquiry into the Integrity of the words of Holy Scripture and upon Greek Vulgate or Received Text, the doctrine of Divine Inspiration comments as follows: ‘With respect and Preservation. Furthermore, the to Manuscripts, it is indisputable integrity and accuracy of the that he [Erasmus] was acquainted Received Text, and by implication with every variety which is known to the Authorised Version itself, is us; having distributed them into hereby very seriously undermined. two principal classes, one which Dr James Price, the executive corresponds with the editor of the Old Testament section Complutensian edition, the other of the NKJV, admitted in an e-mail with the Vatican manuscript [see in April 1996, ‘I am not a TR Erasmus’s Preface to the New advocate. I happen to believe that Testament, 1546]. And he has God has preserved the autographic specified the positive grounds on text in the whole body of evidence which he received the one and that He has preserved, not merely rejected the other’.8 It is known through the textual decisions of a that Erasmus collated and studied committee of fallible men based on many manuscripts, observing a handful of late manuscripts. The thousands of variant readings modern Critical Texts like NA26/27 including such as were found in [Nestles] and UBS [United Bible Vaticanus (Codex B); and a friend Societies] provide a list of the called Bombasius, we are told, variations that have entered the researched that for him. Certainly manuscript traditions, and they in his various editions of the Greek provide the evidence that supports New Testament, his notes reveal the different variants. In the that he was familiar with practically apparatus they have left nothing all the important variant readings out, the evidence is there. The known to modern scholars apparatus indicates where possible including Mark 16.9–20, Luke additions, omissions, and 22.43,44 and .53–8.11. alterations have occurred… I am not at war with the conservative Some Textual Critics, after B. F. modern versions [such as the New Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, refer to International Version and the New ‘families’ of New Testament American Standard Version (sic)]’.7 manuscripts. This again is misleading, as it is impossible to Dr Price is suggesting here that the ascertain with any certainty the Received Text depends ‘on a ancestors of manuscripts or to handful of late Greek manuscripts’. prove the exact relationship which This is misleading, to say the very one manuscript has to another. But 6 New King JamesQXP6.qxd 15/5/08 11:51 am Page 7

A Critique

the particular device of referring to All of the existing New Testament ‘families’ enabled Westcott and Greek manuscripts are copies Hort to dismiss the Traditional or (apographs). None of the original Received Text, supported by 90% of writings of the Apostles the Greek manuscripts, as a mere (autographs) have survived. The descendant of an exceedingly Byzantine group of manuscripts are corrupt ancestor! It is therefore mostly, but by no means entirely, much better to refer to ‘text-types’. later copies. But some 4th-century The major text-types are: the manuscripts of the Alexandrian Traditional (Byzantine) text-type group have come to public notice emanating from the Asia since the publication of the Minor/Greece area where Paul Received Text in the 16th and 17th founded a number of churches centuries. These are Codex (and called Byzantine because it Vaticanus (from the Vatican library) was the recognised Greek text and Codex Sinaiticus (discovered in throughout the Byzantine period, St. Catherine’s Monastery on AD 312–1453), and the Mount Sinai in 1859). These Alexandrian text-type, associated manuscripts differ radically from with Alexandria and proceeding the Traditional or Received Text. from Egypt. The Byzantine text-type It is estimated that there are has the overwhelming support of about six thousand differences. the Greek manuscripts (over 95% These include numerous of the more than five thousand omissions, sometimes of entire Greek manuscripts in existence); verses (e.g., Matthew 12.47, and naturally these have most 18.11; .36; Acts 28.29; impressive agreement among .24), and often even themselves. It is in this text-type more than this (e.g., Matthew that the Traditional Text has 16.2,3; Mark 9.44,46; John survived, which was published in 5.3,4; Acts 24.6–8). Notorious the 16th and 17th centuries by among these, of course, are the Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Elzevirs (Bonaventure and Mark and .1–11. Even Abraham). In the ‘Preface’ to the between themselves, these Elzevirs’ second edition (1633) Alexandrian manuscripts show no reference is made to the ‘text… agreement or consistency. H. C. now received by all’ (textum…nunc Hoskier, after meticulously careful ab omnibus receptum), from research, noted that in the four whence arose the designation Gospels alone there were no less ‘’ or ‘Received than three thousand differences Text’. It is a text of this type which between Codex Vaticanus and underlies the Authorised Version. Codex Sinaiticus. 7 New King JamesQXP6.qxd 15/5/08 11:51 am Page 8

The New King James Version

But since 1881 when, under the are seen to cast doubt on such baleful influence of Westcott and fundamental doctrines as the Hort, the of the Eternal Generation of the Son, the Bible was published, the Union of Christ’s Deity and Alexandrian have been preferred to Humanity, the Incarnation, the the Byzantine manuscripts chiefly Blood Atonement, and the Eternal because of their date, the view Conscious Punishment of the being that the oldest manuscripts Wicked in Hell (e.g., .18 – are likely to be the most accurate. ‘the only begotten Son’ becomes But this is a complete ‘the only begotten God’; misconception, since accurate and 1 Corinthians 15.47 – omission of approved copies would have been ‘the Lord’; 1 Timothy 3.16 – ‘God’ much in use and therefore would changed to ‘Who’; .14 soon have become worn out – a – ‘through his blood’ is left out; damp climate not helping to Mark 9.46 – omission of ‘Where preserve them as the arid climate their worm dieth not, and the fire is of Egypt did with respect to the not quenched’). Here is a clear Alexandrian manuscripts. The good case of what the Scripture refers to copies needed themselves to be in Ecclesiastes: ‘Dead flies cause copied and the evidence is that a the ointment of the apothecary to great many copies were made in send forth a stinking savour: so later centuries, a large number of doth a little folly him that is in which still exist today. It follows reputation for wisdom and honour’ that, contrary to the footnotes in (10.1). most modern versions, the ‘oldest’ are not at all likely to be the ‘best’ Even more serious is the fact that but could well be the ‘worst’. Why? in the actual text of the NKJV New Because, recognised as defective, Testament there are a great many they were rejected and therefore departures from the Received Text, little used. where Critical Text readings have apparently been preferred and Versions of the Bible since 1881 followed or other unwarranted have been mainly based on these changes have been made. This is a few early manuscripts. At first sight matter of gravest concern. Here are the NKJV appears to be an some examples: exception; yet while using the Received Text, it contains in its ■ John 10.6 – omission of the first marginal references variant instance of au©toij (autois), readings from these defective ‘unto them’ (AV: ‘This parable Alexandrian manuscripts. When spake Jesus unto them’; NKJV: examined, these marginal readings ‘Jesus used this illustration’). 8 New King JamesQXP6.qxd 15/5/08 11:51 am Page 9

A Critique

Autois is in all the Greek texts, ■ Revelation 6.11 – The NKJV both TR and Critical, and there is changes from the plural stolai not even a textual variant leukai (stolai leukai, ‘white indicated in the Critical editions; robes’), to the singular stolh why the NKJV omits it is unclear. leukh (stole leuke) ‘a white robe’, which is the Critical Text ■ Acts 15.23 – The NKJV omits reading. tade (tade), ‘after this manner’, as does the Critical Text. In addition, there are some serious faults in the translation: ■ Acts 19.39 – The NKJV changes from the TR’s peri e¨terwn (peri ■ Matthew 15.32 – nhsteij heteron), ‘concerning other (nesteis), ‘fasting’, is rendered matters’ to ‘any other inquiry’. ‘hungry’, losing the point that, in The Critical Text has peraiterw attending upon our Lord’s (peraitero, ‘further’). The NKJV ministry, the people had chosen reading is not just a change from to go without food (also changed plural to singular but appears to in Mark 8.3). be based upon the use of the entirely different expression seen ■ Matthew 22.10 – o¨ gamoj (ho in the Critical Text. gamos), ‘the wedding’, is changed to ‘the wedding hall’. ■ Acts 27.14 – The NKJV omits Although hall appears in italics kat © au©thj (kat’ autes), in the NKJV, it is an unnecessary ‘against it’; kat autes is in both addition unsupported by the the TR and the Critical Text. Textus Receptus. Again one is left to wonder why the NKJV omits it. ■ Luke 11.34 – a¨plouj (haplous), ‘single’, in the clause ■ 2 Corinthians 4.14 – The NKJV ‘thine eye is single’, wrongly changes dia I©hsou (dia Iesou), becomes ‘good’, the true ‘by Jesus’, to sun I©hsou (sun reference being to an eye that Iesou), ‘with Jesus’, in keeping does not see double (also with the Critical Text reading – a changed in Matthew 6.22); very misleading change. ■ Luke 11.54 – the words e©k tou ■ 2 John 7 – The NKJV changes stomatoj au©tou (ek tou from ei©shlqon (eiselthon), stomatos autou), ‘out of his ‘entered into’, to e©chlqon mouth’ are changed to ‘He (exelthon), ‘gone out into’, the might say’, which does not Critical Text reading. translate the Greek. 9 New King JamesQXP6.qxd 15/5/08 11:51 am Page 10

The New King James Version

■ Luke 22.53 – ou©k e©ceteinate useless, or unprofitable, the idea taj xeiraj e©p’ e©me (ouk being that those who sought exeteinate tas cheiras ep’ eme), justification by the law were ‘ye stretched forth no hands severed from Christ and the against me’, becomes ‘you did benefits of His . The NKJV not try to seize me’ which is far unjustifiably imports the concept from a literal translation. of a breakdown in the personal relationship with Christ, in place ■ Acts 18.6 – a©ntitassomenwn of the forfeiture of saving de au©twn (antitassomenon de benefit. auton), ‘opposed themselves’, that is, set themselves in the ■ Philippians 3.8 – the things way to prevent the apostle formerly relied upon which are preaching, is translated now reckoned but skubala ‘opposed him’. (skubala), ‘dung’ or ‘muck’, become merely ‘rubbish’ in the ■ 2 Corinthians 7.2 – xwrhsate NKJV. However, the Greek word h¨maj (choresate hemas), appears to be derived from one ‘receive us’, is rendered ‘open properly meaning human your hearts to us’, as in the excrement, and thus conveys Revised Version; this is an more literally something of the example of dynamic equivalence. apostle’s present estimate of, and aversion to, his Jewish legal ■ 2 Corinthians 11.29 – ou©k e©gw privileges when considered a puroumai (ouk ego puroumai), ground of justification (as is ‘I burn not’, is translated ‘I do made clear in the AV). not burn with indignation’, which is yet another case of ■ 1 Timothy 6.5 – nomizontwn interpretation rather than porismon ei©nai thn eu©sebeian translation (the verb can be (nomizonton porismon einai ten otherwise understood to mean eusebeian), literally ‘supposing ‘burn with desire’ or, perhaps, that gain is godliness’, is and preferably, ‘burn with pain’). rendered by the NKJV: ‘who suppose that godliness is a ■ Galatians 5.4 – the AV has means of gain’. Admittedly, in ‘Christ is become of no effect Greek it is possible to reverse unto you’. In the NKJV, this is the order of words when they are rendered ‘You have become connected by a form of the verb estranged from Christ’. The verb ‘to be’, thus ‘godliness is gain’ katargew (katargeo) literally just might be acceptable. means to render or make However, regarding the words ‘a 10 New King JamesQXP6.qxd 15/5/08 11:51 am Page 11

A Critique

means of’, as indicated by the chapter and section headings in NKJV’s use of italics and its the NKJV, which are really very omission of these words in the inferior to those found in our following verse, the inclusion of Authorised Version. Take the Song them here is invalid. of Solomon, for example. The text is arbitrarily divided. To cite just ■ Hebrews 3.16 – in the NKJV is one instance of this, half of 1.4 is the mistranslation of a©ll’ ou© said to have been spoken by ‘the pantej (all’ ou pantes), Shulamite’ (identified in a marginal ‘howbeit not all’, to ‘indeed, was note as ‘a Palestinian young it not all’, thereby suggesting the woman’) and the other half by ‘the rebellion of all the Israelites, Daughters of Jerusalem’. whereas the truth was that Furthermore, the apportioning of Joshua and Caleb did not rebel. the words to particular characters is novel and, we believe, highly ■ Revelation 2.22 – ‘sick’ is questionable. Is it really the added to klinhn (klinen), ‘bed’, Shulamite who says, ‘I am the rose making it ‘sickbed’. of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys’ in 2.1? It is not, according ■ .16 – kai to the almost unanimous view of sunhgagen au©touj (kai Reformed commentators who give sunegagen autous), ‘And he a spiritual interpretation to this gathered them together’, is Song. We believe that these changed to ‘And they gathered headings can only serve to them together’, effectively mislead. removing (without any manuscript support) God’s Pronouns sovereign action, and apparently attributing the action to Another aspect of the NKJV is the unspecified malign forces. abandonment of the use of the singular second person pronouns It is therefore simply not true to ‘thee’, ‘thou’ and ‘thine’ in say that the NKJV is faithful to the preference for the more modern Received Text, nor is it true to say ambiguous ‘you’ and ‘your’. The that it is a more accurate fact is that the former were not in translation. common use in 1611, at the time of the translation of the Authorised Headings Version. As early as the end of the 13th century, ‘you’ and ‘your’ had Mention could be made – and replaced them. But the AV perhaps should be made – of the translators were classical scholars 11 New King JamesQXP6.qxd 15/5/08 11:51 am Page 12

The New King James Version

and accuracy was uppermost in used in the English-speaking world their minds; thus they retained the as a means of expressing use of the singular pronouns when reverence to God, particularly in the original language texts required prayer and praise. In this age of it. The use of ‘you’ and ‘your’ in the familiarity and lack of respect, the NKJV conceals the difference use of ‘you’ and ‘your’ in relation to between the singular and plural in the Most High God can indicate a the second person pronouns of the lack of reverence. To a spiritually classical languages. This is seen in discerning ear, there is a vast the following verses: difference between ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ ■ .64 – ‘Jesus saith and ‘You are the Christ…’ (Matthew unto him, Thou [the High Priest 16.16) – and this is not just a alone] hast said: nevertheless I preference for the older word. say unto you [the people listening and all others], Greek Texts Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of The question must be asked, ‘Has power, and coming in the clouds the Lord permitted His church to of heaven’. have an inaccurate Bible over all these centuries until the fairly ■ Luke 22.31,32 – ‘Satan hath recent discoveries of certain early desired to have you [all the Codices?’ As already observed, it disciples], that he may sift you would appear that these early as wheat: but I have prayed for manuscripts have survived because thee [Peter], that thy faith fail they have not been much used. It not’. is likely that they were judged inaccurate and defective, probably ■ .7 – ‘Marvel not that I because they had been tampered said unto thee [Nicodemus], Ye with to suit the tenets of some [men and women generally] heretical sect. Thus it is clear that must be born again’. God, in His special and mysterious Providence, has preserved the Holy There are in fact 14,500 uses of Scriptures through the vast majority such pronouns in 10,500 verses of of manuscripts (mostly of the the Authorised Version. It cannot Byzantine school), copied and be said too strongly that ‘thee’, recopied carefully over many ‘thou’ and ‘thine’ are actually centuries, yet bearing a solid according to Biblical usage, based agreement and consistency one on the style of the Hebrew and with another. That there are Greek Scriptures, and have been considerable and important 12 New King JamesQXP6.qxd 15/5/08 11:51 am Page 13

A Critique

differences between the few early ways the NKJV is far more Alexandrian Codices and the great dangerous than the modern majority of the Byzantine school of translations which have openly manuscripts is not in question, nor abandoned the Received Text in would anyone disagree that these favour of texts built on the corrupt differences have been incorporated Alexandrian manuscripts. into the printed Greek texts from which they are taken. Indeed, the Young People Alexandrian-based Critical Texts and the Byzantine-based Textus We believe it is exceedingly Receptus differ in a number of simplistic and dangerous to put significant passages. this new version into the hands of young people on the grounds that The translators of the NKJV, while it is easier to understand. In assuring their readers that they reading it, they will not have an have translated from the Received accurate translation of God’s Word Text, at the same time give in their and the marginal notes will tend marginal references and sometimes only to raise doubts in their minds in the text itself equal credence to regarding the variant readings. The a Greek text which is wholly plea some make, that they are only different from it. Once the position trying to make the Bible easier to of the editors of this NKJV read, is altogether inadmissible. It translation is known, it would is essential that we pass on to appear that they have used the others – especially to our young Received Text only as a means of people – the pure Word of God, paving the way for a substitution of without any unfaithful and spurious the Authorised Version which would additions. If we do not, suggesting involve the introduction of their that they might use the NKJV, marginal variants into the main text those young people on reaching of Scripture. adulthood will almost certainly retain the use of this new version This translation, with its credence with which they have become given to the marginal references, familiar. The pressure will then be has the appearance of a most on our churches to adopt the Bible subtle attempt to discredit both which many in the congregation the Received Text and the seem to prefer. The Authorised Authorised Version. The AV has Version could then, quite easily, be been made such a blessing for replaced. many centuries, not only in our own country but throughout the Before such a time, any English-speaking world. In many endorsement among us of the 13 New King JamesQXP6.qxd 15/5/08 11:51 am Page 14

The New King James Version

NKJV will bring various other their people and in their homes. problems and evils. For example, We also trust that it will remain in once people begin to use a version the pulpits and pews of our which uses ‘you’ and ‘your’ in churches. addressing God, it is only a matter of time before they lapse into this May the Lord be pleased to bless practice in public prayer, and then and own our precious and beloved dissatisfaction will be found with Authorised Version, to the good of the praise book because it retains our souls, the souls of our children, the Scriptural and traditional and the souls of our children’s usage. If, in naivety, we tolerate children. this new version, it is not difficult to foresee the time when the Endnotes character of the testimony in our churches will radically change – 1. Arthur L. Farstad, The New King and change for the worse. May our James Version: in the Great gracious God prevent this from ever Tradition (Nashville, TN, USA: happening. Thomas Nelson, 1989), p. 34.

Conclusion 2. Holy Bible: New King James Version (Nashville, TN, USA: For our part, we reject the New Thomas Nelson, 1982), pp. vi–vii. King James Version and we do not believe it should be used in our 3. It should be noted that editions churches. The Authorised Version of the New King James Version is far superior, and while not differ without note depending upon perfect it remains the best and the year and country in which they most accurate English translation were published. For example, the of God’s Holy Word. Our prayer and British editions, normally called the hope is that those who have been Revised Authorised Version (which deceived into thinking that the New are no longer published), do not King James Version represents a capitalise pronouns referring to decided improvement and who Deity. have therefore introduced it into public worship, will realise that 4. NKJV, p. vi. they have made a dreadful mistake and so restore to their churches 5. Ibid., p. vii. the Authorised Version. As for the churches which continue to use 6. Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. the Authorised Version, we trust Farstad, The Greek New Testament that it will remain in the hearts of According to the Majority Text 14 New King JamesQXP6.qxd 15/5/08 11:51 am Page 15

A Critique

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

7. James Price, e-mail to David Cloud, April 30, 1996 in The Bible Version Question/Answer Database (Port Huron, MI, USA: Way of Life Literature, 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.

15 The aims of the Society

To publish and distribute the Holy Scriptures throughout the world in many languages.

To promote 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 , bearing 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.

Product Code: A123

ISBN 978 1 86228 357 2 Tyndale House, Dorset Road, London, SW19 3NN, England e-mail: [email protected] www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org

Registered Charity Number 233082 (England) and SC038379 (Scotland) 9 781862 283572

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