Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007 An Examination of the NEW KING JAMES VERSION PART 1 by A. Hembd, MACS Reformation International Theological Seminary A consultant to the Society HIS article is the first part of a review The intention is to clarify the 1611 of the New King James Version of the translation by the use of current TBible. In this review, we examine the words, grammar, idioms, and original language texts of Scripture which sentence structure so that this the New King James uses for its translation, edition of the King James Version the alternate readings from the Nestle- will speak to the individual reader in Aland/UBS critical Greek text and the a clear and accurate manner. The Hodges-Farstad majority Greek text which it intention is not to take from or alter supplies in its footnotes, and the actual the basic communication of the 1611 translation work itself. Is the New King edition but to transfer the James a mere update of the Authorised Elizabethan word forms into (King James) Version, or is it a new twentieth century English.1 translation? Thus we see that Thomas Nelson initially In a statement of purpose for the New proposed a mere language update of the King James Version, the Thomas Nelson Authorised Version (though this certainly Publishing Company set forth this aim, was not the result, as shall become obvious). among others: The preface to the New King James to produce an updated English Version tells us that the NKJV translates the Version that follows the sentence Old Testament from the Hebrew Masoretic structure of the 1611 Authorized Text, as did the Authorised Version. It also Version as closely as possible. As tells us that the NKJV uses the Textus much of the original King James Receptus in the Greek for its New Testament Version as possible will be preserved. translation.2 9 Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly Record Relatively speaking, the New King James impact of the changes made by the NKJV is Version is better than the other modern heightened when one considers the versions because its actual text is not based inclusion of the readings of the Nestle- on the modern critical Greek text. Yet we Aland/UBS text in the NKJV margin. These must also state firmly that we do not deem marginal readings make potential doctrinal it a faithful translation. Indeed, we cannot impacts upon key doctrines such as the recommend it at all. We must to the incarnation of Christ and His eternal contrary note its following grave defects: Godhead, as we shall itemise. In the New Testament, the NKJV presents We now consider the New King James a textual apparatus, alongside its translation, Version translators’ equivocal and with readings from the Nestle-Aland critical duplicitous commitment to the Textus Greek text, the text from which the New Receptus of the Greek. We quote the International Version, the New American following from David Cloud’s Web site Standard Bible, the Revised Standard article entitled What about the New King Version and the vast majority of modern James Version? It should be noted that we do versions are translated. The textual apparatus not personally endorse all that Mr Cloud also includes variant readings from the so- has to say concerning the Providential called Byzantine majority text which is an preservation of the text. Nonetheless, we edition of the Greek text edited by must take note of what he relates below Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad (Dr Farstad concerning the executive editor of the Old was also the editor of the New King James Testament of the NKJV, and how that editor Version). The presentation of these views the Received Text of the New variant readings would make it appear Testament: that the Textus Receptus is not reliable, and that therefore, by implication, the We have corresponded with the Authorised Version, which used the executive editor of the Old Testament Textus Receptus in Greek for its New portion of the NKJV, Dr James Price. Testament translation, is itself suspect. In April of 1996 he admitted to me that he is not committed to the Instead of staying as close to the text of Received Text and that he supports the Authorised Version as possible, as the the modern critical text in general: guidelines originally stated, the New King James translators made many unnecessary ‘I am not a TR advocate. I happen translational changes and mostly for the to believe that God has preserved the worse, as we shall demonstrate. Contrary to autographic text in the whole body of what the original purpose was stated to be, evidence that He has preserved, not the NKJV is a new translation, not a mere merely through the textual decisions language update. Not only that, the of a committee of fallible men based translation changes impact key doctrines of on a handful of late manuscripts. The the Scripture, such as the eternal modern critical texts like NA26/27 punishment of the lost in hell. The doctrinal [Nestle-Aland] and UBS [United 10 Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007 Bible Societies] provide a list of the For about a century most have variations that have entered the followed a Critical Text (so called manuscript traditions, and they because it is edited according to provide the evidence that supports specific principles of textual the different variants. In the criticism) which depends heavily apparatus they have left nothing out, upon the Alexandrian type of text. the evidence is there. The apparatus More recently many have abandoned indicates where possible additions, this Critical Text (which is quite omissions, and alterations have similar to the one edited by Westcott occurred… I am not at war with the and Hort) for one that is more conservative modern versions [such eclectic. Finally, a small but growing as the New International Version and number of scholars prefer the the New American Standard majority text, which is close to the Version]’. (James Price, e-mail to traditional text except in the David Cloud, April 30, 1996).3 Revelation.5 So there you have it. The executive editor Thus, we see that Dr Farstad deprecates of the Old Testament of the New King James the Textus Receptus. New Testament textual Version does not advocate the Greek Textus criticism is in a state of flux, he tells us; the Receptus at all; he is an advocate of the old is no longer good, he implies. Very few Nestle-Aland critical Greek text, by his own scholars still favour that old-fashioned Textus admission. Not only that, the principal Receptus, which was once universally editor overall of the New King James recognised by the Church as the Version, Arthur L. Farstad, was also co- Providentially preserved and pure text of all principal editor, along with Zane Hodges, of ages, and which once held universal sway as the Hodges-Farstad majority text, a Greek the Byzantine text for 1,400 years, the last text that makes nearly 1,900 changes to nearly five hundred years as the printed the Textus Receptus.4 No wonder the Textus Receptus.6 But no, we must now set editors of the New King James wish to aside that old-fashioned text; we must turn present us with their textual apparatus of instead to the Greek texts favoured by the alternate Greek readings; they do not believe real scholars: either to the critical text, in the Textus Receptus, they advocate other which is favoured by most, or to the new so- Greek texts! Says Dr Farstad in his preface called Byzantine majority text which is to the New King James: favoured by an increasing minority of scholars. Thus, the editors of the NKJV will Today, scholars agree that the science now do us a great favour by setting forth to of New Testament textual criticism is us these better readings in the margin, these in a state of flux. Very few scholars better readings which they have given in still favor the Textus Receptus as English in the margin, these better readings such, and then often for its historical which overthrow and undermine the prestige as the text of Luther, Calvin, authority of the translation from the Textus Tyndale, and the King James Version. Receptus we see in the main body of the text. 11 Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly Record What we have just said is no especially from his work Codex B and its overstatement, but is a necessary Allies,7 as well as from other sources. We consequence of what Dr Farstad has said. shall demonstrate that the Egyptian or Apparently the Textus Receptus is no longer Alexandrian text was corrupted by the to be regarded as the Providentially following things, among others: (1) it was preserved Greek text because it was corrupted by the superimposition of Coptic compiled by a ‘committee of fallible men’ (i.e., Egyptian) spellings, grammatical using ‘a few late manuscripts’, as Dr Price structures, and word order upon the text; has told us. If, as we are told by Dr Farstad (2) it was corrupted in many places by the (who was co-editor of the Hodges-Farstad re-editing of the Apostolic Greek text to majority Greek text which is at major make it match the Coptic (Egyptian) text; variance with the Textus Receptus in over (3) it was corrupted by the critical work of 1,000 places), that scholars today hold for the early Church Father Origen and his the most part to either the critical text or followers, who often critically amended the the majority text and therefore those texts text according to their mystical/allegorical are better than the Textus Receptus, then interpretations of passages of Scripture; and one of those texts and a translation finally, (4) it was corrupted by heretics in made from one of those texts should be Egypt who emasculated the text in key places.