THE New King James VERSION 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 Bible 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 Old Testament 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 Septuagint (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 Masoretic Text 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 Dead Sea Scrolls (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 Ezekiel 22.9). 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 ■ 2 Samuel 22.3 – ‘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$)m, meashpot) from which men are raised, is improperly ■ Psalm 33.15 – ‘He fashioneth and weakly translated ‘the ash their hearts alike’ is changed to heap’, missing the point that ‘He fashions their hearts men are sunk in moral individually’, but the Hebrew degradation (see also 1 Samuel (dxy, yachad) means that all 2.8). alike are made by Him. ■ Ecclesiastes 12.11 – ‘the ■ Psalm 43.1 – ‘Judge me, O God’, masters of assemblies’ (literally, in the sense of ‘do justice for ‘masters of gatherings’ – yl(b me’ (yn+p$, 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. ■ Lamentations 5.10 – The word ‘black’ (rmk, kamar) in the ■ Isaiah 1.27 – ‘converts’ is sentence ‘our skin was black like changed to ‘penitents’, but the an oven’, is rendered ‘hot’, an Hebrew word (bw$, shub) is unhelpful substitution. The commonly used to mean return, Hebrew word, although not the and in this passage it means common word for black, conveys ‘her [Zion’s] returners’. the idea of growing hot and being scorched. In the change, ■ Isaiah 7.16 – ‘abhorrest’ is the NKJV loses the idea behind changed to ‘dread’, whereas the word, of being scorched so properly the word (jq, qats) that the skin shows the effect of means ‘loathe’, originally the exposure to the heat. associated with the feeling of nausea. ■ Ezekiel 5.17 – ‘evil [h(r, raah, ‘bad’] beasts’ becomes ‘wild’, a ■ Isaiah 14.9 – ‘Hell from beneath meaning which it never has in is moved for thee’ is changed to the Hebrew. ‘Hell from beneath is excited about you’, but the idea (zgr, ■ Ezekiel 9.10,11 – ‘I will ragaz) is that the spirits of the recompense their way’ is lost are ‘roused’ and not just a changed to ‘I will recompense little ‘surprised’ to see the King their deeds’, but the Hebrew of Babylon descending to that word (\rd, derek) means ‘way’ region. and is singular. Also, in verse 11 ‘reported the matter’ (rbd by$m, ■ Isaiah 61.3 – ‘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’ ■ Jeremiah 1.17 – ‘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.