Is the NKJV a good version of the bible?

Words by BruceB, Bolding by EdE:
//I am using a different translation each year to read through
and be my primary Bible that year. I have already used the HCSB
and the NLT, this year is the NIV, next year will be either the NASB
or the ESV. So far I have not read one single thing that
changed my theological positions or caused me to question
the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Use any respected
translation and you will discover the same.//

Amen, Brother BruceB - Preach it!

 

I don't get it. I am NOT your run of the mill KJVO guy, but why would that statement be such a good thing? Why would the standard be basically, "I don't mind reading a text if it doesn't change me?" I don't get it? That's the only litmus we have? "If the Bible I am using doesn't make me an apostate or an infidel, it's ok"?

 

PrimePower7: //I don't get it.//

This is obvious. You muse have missed three years ago
when I was saying:
The Basic Axiom of Ed on Bibles:
The study of multiple English Versions enhanses the
study of the Bible and our Belief in God.
Corrolary: One Versionism stifles the Holy Spirt.

You must have missed two years ago when I showed
that all the great Christian Schisims of the 19th
Century (1801-1900) were over misunderstandings of
the KJVs: Christian Science, Mormonism, Adventism,
etc. Corrolary: there were no great Schisims in the
20th century: no nKJVism, NIVism, ASVism, etc.

You must have missed last year when I was
making out a list of all the MISUNDERSTOOD KJVs
verses that CHANGE DOCTRINE.

So yes, i can see you wouldn't get it.

It is beyond the scope of this Forum to discuss
the Doctrine of ____ (how we know what we know).

 

Well, seeing how the first church, even Jesus himself didn't use the source text as the KJV OT, how do you feel about that?

 

When I was in Bible college, I "proved" both sides of the salvational security issue using the KJV. (Not to mention muddying up the waters with a seim-secure side.) I still prefer it, but it's the work of men, and as such, it's imperfect.

 

Ed, I guess I did miss it. I wasn't on here three years ago, two years ago or one year ago. What's more, I haven't saved everything you have said in the last year. Thanks for clearing stuff up, though.

Sounds to me from the last three posts that you folks actually believe the KJ confuses some doctrine. Is this what you're saying?

 

Here we go again! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Ed

 

Well, if we are counting words, its really not fair for us to compare greek to english. If that's what we are comparing, then there are precious few (easily counted on one's fingers that carry over from the TR to the KJV)

Do you mean to say that there are 800 words in the NKJV that were translated differently from the KJV?

The issue is translation, and word counting really doesn't prove anything as things in one language can be said in fewer or greater words than in other languages.

 

My previous post was not to pick on Askjo or anyone else, but merely to point out that I think I've seen this debate before a few times. Personally, any can use any version they choose. I chose the NKJV, 'cause it was the the Scofield available at the bookstore on sale that day for half price, and I could not replace my stolen wide margin New Scofield at any price. Basically, I like it fairly well. And the print was such that I could read it without glasses, then. Too bad, I have to have them now.

Ed

 

David Cloud said:

Bible Research said:

You see, “Farstad” on 2 quotations above. The TR and the MT are not same texts. The KJV followed the TR; the NKJV followed the MT.

Ronald G. Nugent said:

You are wrong. Strouse is right.

 

With all due respect to all, Dr. Art Farstad went to be with the Lord a couple of years ago at the relatively young age of 62, so cannot defend himself, anymore.

Ed

 

FYI, what I listed about the MSS that Erasmus used is from AT Robertson's Greek Word Picture - I assumed those MSS #s are correct, though I know that there have been more than one MS numbering system in use.

Anyway, we do know that after Erasmus' first 2 editions of his Greek text (TR) he was given a MSS which contained the Johannine Comma (probably 61, as you say) - which is an early 16th century MSS which dates after his first release in 1516. We do not KNOW that it was "made to order," but more than one scholar has said so, including Wallace, Robertson and Metzger, that I know of.

We are fairly certain that miniscule 61 was created AFTER Erasmus' first two editions of his Greek manuscript came out... and that is mighty suspicious. (Carbon dating is very reliable for dates that recent.) Personally, I think any MSS later than the 10th century is of little value. Erasmus had three in the 12th century, and two in the 15th century. m1 was dated in the 12th century (which contained most of the NT except Revelation); m2 was dated in the 15th century (gospels alone); m2ap (gospels alone) in the 13th century; m4ap in the 15th century (Acts & epistles); and m1r in the 12th century (most of Revelation).

Scrivener says that Erasmus used m1 and m4ap rarely, so if true then in the gospels, Acts and the epistles Erasmus relied heavily upon either m2 (the gospels) or m2ap (Acts and the epistles) - 1 MSS only for each portions of the entire NT. And he only had one MSS for Revelation, which was not complete (1r). Later, after his 1st two editions went to press, he was given 61 - dated after those editions, so I do not know about you, but I do not trust that MSS at all.

Now people have debated about the MSS that Erasmus used, but we do know that none of the MSS that Erasmus had to work with were very old.

Now for what it's worth, m1 may be Caesarian, but most textual critics only recognize the Byzantine, Alexandrian and some the Western as well. Regardless, the Caesarian is certainly not of the Alexandrian text form. But this doesn't really matter. Erasmus had no Alexandrian texts to use because only a handful had been discovered at that time, and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the two oldest and considered by far the best, were not available. Erasmus endeavored to make the best composite MSS he could - with the tools at his disposal. I am not trying to criticize Erasmus, though many say that he was under tremendous financial pressure to get his Greek MS compiled first. (It would be a financial windfall for whoever did it first, and that probably affected the quality of his work.) Erasmus was a top-notch scholar. My point is simply that he did not have the MSS available at the time that we do now.

??? I'm not sure what you are saying. The further back you do, the more extreme percentage-wise the critical texts are in the majority. There are about 217 MSS and MSS fragments of the papyri and uncials from the 6th century and earlier. Miniscules did not come on the scene until the 9th century, and were not dominant until the 11th century. That is why I said that I do not give much stock to anything before the 10th century... actually, mainly the 9th century and earlier. Now 364 of all Greek MSS are from the 9th century and earlier, and if we include the 10th century, that number rises to 536.

Now of those over 500 Greek MSS, how many are Byzantine? The oldest Byzantine MSS come from around the 7th century, though a few papyri fragments were found as early as the 5th century. There are over 200 MSS before the 7th century and earlier, and only a handful are of the Byzantine family.

Well, I was quoting Robertson, who referred to 34, which is a 10th century miniscule. I believe that different numbering systems are used. If we follow Kurt Aland's it would be miniscule 61, as you say, which is the MS given to Erasmus which contained the JC. It is interesting that this MS is Byzantine in nature, except for Revelation. (Though Revelation is often hard to categorize as to family.)

No, I did not miss that point at all. I have no problem with acknowledging that Erasmus' work represented the Byzantine textual family. Was it a very good representative of that family, which is comprised of over 3000 MSS? No, it is not. There are over 1800 differences between the majority text of Hodges/Farstad and the TR. (I believe Pickering counted something like 1836 differences. I have also heard that there are over 1500 differences... don't remember the source for that one.) That was my point, which apparently I did not make very clear.

My point is that Erasmus could not have compiled a very good representative of the MT with only 6 or 7 MSS to work with - none of which was one of the even relatively old Byzantine MSS.


Now, I don't know if we are side-tracking this thread, which was supposed to focus on the NKJV. Also, I personally am a fan of the NKJV, so I do not like being found on the side of those criticizing it. The NKJV and the KJV both used Beza's revision of Erasmus 3rd edition of his Greek test, which later came to be referred to as textus receptus. I do think the NKJV would have been much better served to have been based on the majority text MSS available in the early 1980s when it was in committee. Personally, I would love to see a popular English NT out there based on the majority text alone. The WEB is one such MT Bible (a MT revision of the ASV-1901), but it is not in print (though I have a couple hard-copy editions of it from Michael Johnson which came out in 2000). I don't think that he is printing them, anymore. (You can get a copy of the NT Proverbs and Psalms or just the NT.) You can find it at www.ebible.org

When I made that post to which you responded I was merely agreeing that we should not place the TR up on a pedistle when it was developed from such a poor representative of the MT.

I have no issue of those who are fans of the majority text. I am concerned that many place the TR above the majority text family, in general. That makes no sense.

BTW, the NKJV did not follow the Majority text. I knew Art Farstad and Zane Hodges. (Hodges well, Farstad only in passing) I once asked Farstad at a Grace Evangelical Society conference in the Dallas/Fort Worth area why they did not follow the majority text in the NKJV (he was the editor) since he and Hodges had developed their first edition of their The Greek NT According to the MT already. He said that the concensus of those working on the NKJV was that it would be better received if it was based on the TR, but there was much heated discussion on that point.

Also, FYI Farstad had been working on his Logos21 new translation which was based solely on the majority text. He did not have many resoruces at hand, so though he started in 1985 or so, it still was not finished past the rough draft stage in 98 (NT). But when the NIVI came out and there was a very strong reaction to it, the SBC commissioned him to start from his Logos21 and develop a Bible which would fit somewhere between the NIV and the NASB in terms of formal equivalency and readability.

Unfortunately Farstad went to be with the Lord in 1998... they converted the NT into a critical text translation - also unfortunately. The name of that Bible? The Holman Christian Standard Bible. Farstad spent all those years working on a new majority text NT, and it was converted to the CT. Too bad. (Not that I think that the MT family is superior to the Ct family, but I would like to see at least one Bible whose NT was based on the majority text... the NKJV is based on the TR - close, but no cigar.)

FA

 

Amazing how we all lose track of time. Dr. Farstad has been with the Lord almost eight years now, but I did not realize it had been anywhere near that long, thinking it was in the last three or four at most, hence my use of the common phrase "a couple of years". My apologies to all.

Ed

 

Ed,

No biggie. I remember that date because the NIVI came out in 1998 and the SBC commissioned Art for what would later be called the HCSB that year. Ourchurch used his Logos21 edition of the gospel of John for evangelizm. Unfortunately, he went to be with the Lord. (Unfortunately? - he's with the Lord. :tongue3: ) But what I remember of him was that he was quite humble and very approachable.

I guess the only way to support the contention that the NKJV is based on the MT is to show places in the NT which are based on the MT instead of the TR. I do not know of any exceptions...


FA

 

Question for you textual scholars.

Was the KJV purely based on the TR of the time? I have read that the translators used a variety of Greek, Latin, and English, and other sources in their work.

 

Strike one.

Very nebulous, no citation of source. Strike two.

Funny how your quote is out of context. It is actually a footnote to this passage:

[Emphasis added to the only part that pertains to the discussion at hand.]
http://www.allnations.org.au/kjv03.htm

Notice the 2 at the end? That refers to the footnote which Askjo quoted... and which has NOTHING to do with the subject at hand.

Deliberate subterfuge. Strike three.

 

I don't know about that. But I don't think we should ignore the fact the the KJV NT was not a fresh translation, but a revision of the Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible and others. They often considered the English of other Bibles, according to their preface. Also, according to the preface the translators did not hesitate to consider other languages, as you suggested, but to what degree we can only speculate.

But what is interesting to me is that it appears that they did not always even consider the TR verse by verse... it was a revision - an attempt to make " a good Bible better and many Bibles..." something like that.

FA

 

I'm by no means a textual scholar, but I do know that from all I have read it seems that the NKJV translators used basically the same textual basis and same philosophy of translation as the KJV translators did three and a half centuries earlier. This is why I use the KJV and the NKJV.

Is this a fair assesment of the two translations?

 

It seems to be IMO. :thumbs: But of course, they worked nearly 400 years apart in time... so it's kinda hard to compare them. :tongue3:


Personally, though, I consider the Alexandrian text to be superior to the Byzantine text - because it is much older, though IMO we should not ignore any textual family - of the older MSS. (9th century and earlier, say.) A textual critic by the name of Sturz takes the approach that we should consider all of the MSS available, including the majority text, the Alexandrian text and the Western text. (Many consider the Western family of MSS to be a subset of the Byzantine family.) He basically wants us to compare the 3 families, and 2 out of 3 wins, or something like that. I'm not sure what result that would give us, but it would certainly be much closer to the Byzantine text. I'm not sure what would be the best way to do it, but I like the concept.

I don't like it that those who support the MT ignore completely the CT and vice-versa. Seems like some professional pride is entering in.

FA

 

The problem is not the KJVs. The problem is the people who mis-read
the KJVs. I"m sure in 200 years the NIV can be mis-read (if the Lord
Tarries).