Nkjv

[novcncy]

I was at an ordination council the other night, and of course that wonderful gem of a topic regarding Bible translation came up, as it always does.

The candidate stated as a fact that the NKJV is based on Alexandrian manuscripts as it source texts, which is simply incorrect.

My problem is that no one corrected him. If someone thinks that the KJV is the best translation, that is certainly a defendable position. What I do not understand is resorting to blatant lies and perpetuating falsehoods with regards in an effort to discredit other translations, and then men who know better, but have the same end position, turn their heads and allow this falsehood to be perpetuated. Where is the integrity with regards to this issue?

Please, let's try not to have this thread locked within thirty seconds. Let's try to discuss these issues logically instead of resorting to flames and immaturity. (I'm not optimistic) The crux of the post is "Why are blatant falsehoods overlooked when they support a translation position?" Why do fundamental Baptists as a community refuse to drop traditionalism as a sole-source justification for ANY position? Don't we owe it to ourselves, the lost and dying world, and most importantly, our Lord, to honestly and transparantly engage issues such as this with no other agenda than obedience to and service to our God?

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

The candidate stated as a fact that the NKJV is based on Alexandrian manuscripts as it source texts, which is simply incorrect.

I have had people tell me that the NKJV is based off the Minority Text as well. I had to show them that it isn't "missing" any passages. The NKJV is based off the Textus Receptus just like the KJV. NASB, ESV and NIV are based off the Minority Text.

 

[BereanTodd]

I have had people tell me that the NKJV is based off the Minority Text as well. I had to show them that it isn't "missing" any passages. The NKJV is based off the Textus Receptus just like the KJV. NASB, ESV and NIV are based off the Minority Text.

That is somewhat wrong also. The NKJV is based off of majority text (MT), but not just, or only TR manuscripts. That is a common error is to think that you have only TR and "Alexandrian" or "minority". There are MT manuscripts that have come up in the last several centuries that are not a part of the TR.

 

[Seeker of the Truth]

Why don't we just learn Greek and Hebrew and read the real writings?

 

[BereanTodd]

Why don't we just learn Greek and Hebrew and read the real writings?

It's actually a good thing to do. I allready have a little Greek, and am taking more in the fall, and I will eventually master Hebrew, though it will be a year or two before I start working on it.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

That is somewhat wrong also. The NKJV is based off of majority text (MT), but not just, or only TR manuscripts. That is a common error is to think that you have only TR and "Alexandrian" or "minority". There are MT manuscripts that have come up in the last several centuries that are not a part of the TR.

Actually the NKJV is not based off the Majority Text. The EMTV is based off the Majority Text as are a couple of other translations out there. One quick way to tell is to look up 1 John 5:7. There is a clear difference between the majority of manuscripts out there and what is in the Textus Receptus.

KJV - 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

NKJV - 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

EMTV - 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness:

NASB - 1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify:

TR Greek - 1 John 5:7 οτιτρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω πατηρ λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν

MT Greek - 1 John 5:7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες

CT Greek - 1 John 5:7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες

 

[novcncy]

Thanks for the posts on the thread. I have another thought for your consideration.

It is ironic that many arguments put forth by the Romanist church in its attempt to quell the reformation, particularly with regards to the issue of translations and printing of the scriptures into common vernacular, are the very same arguments offered by contemporary "fundamentalists" (in actuality, a sub-group of fundamentalists which are hyper-traditionalists) to support an ideology which views ONLY the KJV as a legitimate English translation. In practice, this segment of fundamentalism is saying "Trust your leadership to authoritatively tell you what the scripture means." (or, as the Romanist church put it, "Trust your priest to authoritatively tell you what the Vulgate means...")

If I have lucidly stated this observation, then it will follow that this argument is in actuality not for mutual acceptance of accurate translations in contemporary vernacular of the appropriate source texts. Rather, it informs of a mandate for an insistence on propogation of the scriptures to men in their common language.

I could go on, but don't want to write a book here! To share the catalyst of this process in my heart, it began with such an useless thing as a British literature class I took last summer, and that only for a degree plan. I was reading a common Shakespearian play, and was amazed at the quantity of marginal notes, particularly with regards to passages I judged to be straighforward. Then I realized that my ease with the passages was not due to superior intellect or brilliance or any other such self-inflating reason, but simply to my having heard, read, and used the King James translation of the scriptures for most of my life. The two vernaculars are very similar. That is not so for the average American, and so the marginal notes are quite necessary for him to comprehend portions of Shakespeare. Should we need marginal notes for our Bibles? Should one need a college degree or thirty years of exposure to an archaic and almost completely dead vernacular to understand the scripture? Maybe so to Shakespeare, Beowulf, and Canterbury Tales, but must we really cloud the simplicity of scripture with the imposition of traditionalist and highly specialized vernacular? I suggest that a great deal of the doctrinal confusion amongst believers today stems from the struggle with the vernacular of the King James translation. (Take, for example, Acts 2:38) If that is correct, it is a shame. Fortunately, a new day can rise within fundamentalism. It is possible to take a fundamental view of the scriptures (absolute inflexibility on the baseline texts), and not insist on an archaic vernacular (in translation). By insisting on King James english, particularly in the last twenty or so years, have well-meaning fundamentalists been limiting the impact of God's word on the hearts of men? That's not a very good testimony, to say the least.

 

[Seeker of the Truth]

It's actually a good thing to do. I allready have a little Greek, and am taking more in the fall, and I will eventually master Hebrew, though it will be a year or two before I start working on it.

That's also my plan after I graduate.

 

[FallingWaters]

I was at an ordination council the other night, and of course that wonderful gem of a topic regarding Bible translation came up, as it always does.

The candidate stated as a fact that the NKJV is based on Alexandrian manuscripts as it source texts, which is simply incorrect.

My problem is that no one corrected him. ...

Maybe nobody there knew the statement was wrong.
Maybe correcting somebody publicly would have been improper.
Why didn't YOU say something?

 

[Vambram]

From the Preface of the New King James Version



The New Testament Text

There is more manuscript support for the New Testament than for any other body of ancient literature. Over five thousand Greek, eight thousand Latin, and many more manuscripts in other languages attest the integrity of the New Testament. There is only one basic New Testament used by Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox, by conservatives and liberals. Minor variations in hand copying have appeared through the centuries, before mechanical printing began about A.D. 1450.

Some variations exist in the spelling of Greek words, in word order, and in similar details. These ordinarily do not show up in translation and do not affect the sense of the text in any way.

Other manuscript differences such as omission or inclusion of a word or a clause, and two paragraphs in the Gospels, should not overshadow the overwhelming degree of agreement which exists among the ancient records. Bible readers may be assured that the most important differences in English New Testaments of today are due, not to manuscript divergence, but to the way in which translators view the task of translation: How literally should the text be rendered? How does the translator view the matter of biblical inspiration? Does the translator adopt a paraphrase when a literal rendering would be quite clear and more to the point? The New King James Version follows the historic precedent of the Authorized Version in maintaining a literal approach to translation, except where the idiom of the original language cannot be translated directly into our tongue.

The King James New Testament was based on the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches, first published in 1516, and later called the Textus Receptus or Received Text. Although based on the relatively few available manuscripts, these were representative of many more which existed at the time but only became known later. In the late nineteenth century, B. Westcott and F. Hort taught that this text had been officially edited by the fourth-century church, but a total lack of historical evidence for this event has forced a revision of the theory. It is now widely held that the Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament.

Since the 1880s most contemporary translations of the New Testament have relied upon a relatively few manuscripts discovered chiefly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Such translations depend primarily on two manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, because of their greater age. The Greek text obtained by using these sources and the related papyri (our most ancient manuscripts) is known as the Alexandrian Text. However, some scholars have grounds for doubting the faithfulness of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, since they often disagree with one another, and Sinaiticus exhibits excessive omission.

A third viewpoint of New Testament scholarship holds that the best text is based on the consensus of the majority of existing Greek manuscripts. This text is called the Majority Text. Most of these manuscripts are in substantial agreement. Even though many are late, and none is earlier than the fifth century, usually their readings are verified by papyri, ancient versions, quotations from the early church fathers, or a combination of these. The Majority Text is similar to the Textus Receptus, but it corrects those readings which have little or no support in the Greek manuscript tradition.

Today, scholars agree that the science of New Testament textual criticism is in a state of flux. Very few scholars still favor the Textus Receptus as such, and then often for its historical prestige as the text of Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, and the King James Version. For about a century most have followed a Critical Text (so called because it is edited according to specific principles of textual criticism) which depends heavily upon the Alexandrian type of text. More recently many have abandoned this Critical Text (which is quite similar to the one edited by Wescott and Hort) for one that is more eclectic. Finally, a small but growing number of scholars prefer the Majority Text, which is close to the traditional text except in the Revelation.

In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes. Although these variations are duly indicated in the footnotes of the present edition, it is most important to emphasize that fully eighty-five percent of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text.

 

[Ave Maria]

The New King James Version uses both the minority and majority texts doesn't it?

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

The New King James Version uses both the minority and majority texts doesn't it?

Actually it's not based off either. It's based off the Textus Receptus as I mentioned and showed by quoting a verse using the 3 types of Greek text. The Majority Text is what the majority of Greek manuscripts say when taken as a whole. The Textus Receptus are the Greek manuscripts Erasmus put together in 1516. The Minority/Critical Text is mainly based on 2 older manuscripts from the Egypt area. There are a few more manuscripts then just the 2 in the Minority group but those 2 often override any others if they don't agree.

 

[FallingWaters]

From the Preface of the New King James Version
...

The King James New Testament was based on the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches, first published in 1516, and later called the Textus Receptus or Received Text. ... It is now widely held that the Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament.

... The Majority Text is similar to the Textus Receptus, but it corrects those readings which have little or no support in the Greek manuscript tradition.

...

... because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes. Although these variations are duly indicated in the footnotes of the present edition, it is most important to emphasize that fully eighty-five percent of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text.

The New King James is based on the Textus Receptus which is similar to the Majority Text.

I have the NKJV and I like the fact that the variant Majority and Critical readings are noted in the footnotes.

It's important to note that no doctrine of Christianity is endangered by the variations in text.

 

[BigNorsk]

Well the NKJV is in part based on an Alexandrian manuscript as it the KJV. Revelation in both comes from a single Alexandrian family manuscript which was missing the last page.

So the ending of Revelation in both the KJV and the NKJV is not based on any Greek, but is a back translation from Latin, even there the Latin manuscript used contained scribal errors. There is at least one more passage in the KJV based completely on Latin copies, I haven't checked if the NKJV reproduces it, I wouldn't think so since it is even missing from the so called Textus Receptus.

I was wondering a couple of things. Have Baptists accepted the Roman Catholic teaching of apostolic succession and created a special class of Christians which hold the power of ordination? That's what these ordination councils sounded like. Don't Baptists recognize that the church, not the ecclessia have the power to call? That the calling to ministry is between the minister and the congregation and the ordination is simply done in recognition of the pastor's calling and is not the actual calling?

Secondly, I would think the only time that Bible translations would come up in the area of ordination is I would think that someone who believed and taught that only one translation is perfect would not be a good choice for a pastor.

Marv

 

[Vambram]

The New King James is based on the Textus Receptus which is similar to the Majority Text.

I have the NKJV and I like the fact that the variant Majority and Critical readings are noted in the footnotes.

It's important to note that no doctrine of Christianity is endangered by the variations in text.

Exactly. Those are my thoughts and beliefs about this, as well.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I have the NKJV and I like the fact that the variant Majority and Critical readings are noted in the footnotes.

That is one of the reasons the NKJV is my favorite translation.

 

[novcncy]

Well the NKJV is in part based on an Alexandrian manuscript as it the KJV. Revelation in both comes from a single Alexandrian family manuscript which was missing the last page.

So the ending of Revelation in both the KJV and the NKJV is not based on any Greek, but is a back translation from Latin, even there the Latin manuscript used contained scribal errors. There is at least one more passage in the KJV based completely on Latin copies, I haven't checked if the NKJV reproduces it, I wouldn't think so since it is even missing from the so called Textus Receptus.

I was wondering a couple of things. Have Baptists accepted the Roman Catholic teaching of apostolic succession and created a special class of Christians which hold the power of ordination? That's what these ordination councils sounded like. Don't Baptists recognize that the church, not the ecclessia have the power to call? That the calling to ministry is between the minister and the congregation and the ordination is simply done in recognition of the pastor's calling and is not the actual calling?

Secondly, I would think the only time that Bible translations would come up in the area of ordination is I would think that someone who believed and taught that only one translation is perfect would not be a good choice for a pastor.

Marv

Hi Marv,

You bring up lots of good points.

WRT to the ordination council, at least in my church, it is a period where the church examines the person at the scheduled time. It is open to all members of the church. Once the council is finished examining the candidate, they take a vote on whether or not the candidate should be ordained as an elder/bishop/pastor...(not trying to get into ecclesiology or polity here. They're related, but not really the point right now) That vote of recommendation then goes before the church as a service, again for a vote (which typically seems a formailty. I have never seen an ordination council's decision even questioned) and at that point, the candidate is "ordained" by laying on of the hands of the elders and prayer.

But your concern about the whole distinction between clergy and laity is one which we need to make certain we abstain from making.

I agree with you on your last point of the compatibility between a "one-version ONLY" viewpoint and the pastorate. I think you need a standard version to help with unity and integration, but to summarily dismiss ALL other versions is ignorant, hasty, and foolish.

PS What did you mean by "ecclesia"?

 

[justMark]

Correct me if I am wrong, but John MacArthur preaches from the NASB and the MacArthur Study Bible uses the NKJV. If there was a huge difference, I don't think he would so freely use both.

 

[novcncy]

Correct me if I am wrong, but John MacArthur preaches from the NASB and the MacArthur Study Bible uses the NKJV. If there was a huge difference, I don't think he would so freely use both.

They are mostly the same, but there ARE differences in the source text, some which affect doctrinal positions.

I found a great Bible that has four translations, the NKJV, and three from the critical text, ESV, NLT, and the Message (not truly a translation, but a paraphrase) The ESV is more of a formal equivalence translation while the NLT is a dynamic equivelance translation. All three translations contain footnotes regarding other text types and the differences. The Bible is called The Essential Evangelical Study Bible, or something similar to that. It has no study notes, and little (if any) cross references. About the only notes in the thing are with regards to text types. If you're interested, check it out.

 

[FallingWaters]

They are mostly the same, but there ARE differences in the source text, some which affect doctrinal positions.

In the writings of Bible scholars, I have always read that there are
no doctrinal positions affected by the differences in the source texts.