Why I don't use the NKJV

From an article emailed to me from Academia.com - Five points that convinced this author to put down his NKJV and pick up his KJV again.

I'll post the points but you may want to read the short paper - you might be able to view it on the link below,
(or search the title using your browser).

Jeffrey T. Riddle, "Five Questions Regarding the New King James Version," in Bible League Quarterly, No. 498 (July-September, 2024): 27-35. [link]​

The author asks the question: “Why don’t you just use the New King James Version (NKJV)?"

First: Capitalization of divine pronouns

The NKJV capitalizes divine pronouns; the KJV doesn't.​

Second: The use of quotation marks for direct speech

The NKJV uses quotation marks to indicate a record of direct speech, the KJV doesn't.​

Third: Editorial devices for poetic passages

The NKJV uses editorial devices to indicate passages which the translators take to be poetic in form or even poetic citations within the text; the KJV puts all the text in a block format, even in places like the Psalms.​

Fourth: Editorial paratextual interpretive material

The NKJV uses paratextual interpretive material such as paragraph or section headings and interpretive directions that might be confused with the text itself.​

Fifth: Extensive notes on textual criticism

The NKJV adds extensive notes on textual criticism cited in a central column alongside the text.
​

I thought his responses were unique.
Personally, I generally consider these criticisms as strengths of a translation.
I also question his integrity, he apparently is unwilling to closely examine the translation he now prefers.

Rob

 

Riddle may be a Textus Receptus Onlyist. Meaning he is not totally sane nor an expert. Although I don't own a NKJV, those reasons sounded like good reasons to use one.

 

So he would rather read something that is written in archaic language that contains words that are not used in the present day.

From that list I am hard pressed to see what the problem is.

 

For people not in the UK, it might be helpful to know that the Bible League is an organization that holds to the Authorized (King James) version as the best translation of the bible into English. Their website says, "The Bible League unashamedly holding to the view that the Authorised Version is the most accurate and faithful English Bible translation available today."

 

• Early Greek manuscripts of the NT were written in capital letters with no spaces between the words and no punctuation.
• Abbreviations of the sacred names were commonly used.
• Later centuries began separating the words and began using a cursive script. Most of the manuscripts we have today are of these later “reformatted” types.
• The early KJV added paragraphs and extensive chapter titles (as well as artistic letterheads) to assist readers to interpret what they were reading.
• Even the numbering of chapters and verses are additions to the original text. They were not present when originally written. There are some current versions that limit theses interruptions in the text.
• The translators of the KJV provided text critical notes when they thought the text might be disputed. Since their selection of manuscripts was quite limited, these notes were also limited.

Rob

 

The author of the article does make a good point about the need to update modern versions regularly.

If only the author also applied this common sense idea to the KJV as well.

We often look at updating a version as a necessary evil related to the rapid shifts in our spoken language, and this may be so.
But particularly with the proliferation of notes in our Bibles, especially textual notes, updating becomes a necessity.

Rob

 

Almost all Bibles are bad about textual notes. They are picked haphazardly, and are way to few in number. The NKJV was better than all other Bibles in that regard, but still fell short. The best New Testament for Textual Notes is "The Text-Critical English New Testament".

 

Can't edit my post above. But would like to add to the above.

More textual notes are better than less.

 

Good or not. This practice is a transitor imposed interpretation. I generally like it. It does need two forms, which at this time no translation has.

Quotation marks are a matter of interpretation. Not all quotes are exactly what was said. Many are not.

A matter of translation Interpretation.

An issue.

This is a reason to use the NKJV.

 

It's a rare version that does not do this.
In fact, simply dividing the verses into separate lines is interpretive.

Check out the 1611 KJV - it supplies page headings and chapter headings.
And in the Song of Songs that the author of the article mentions, the KJV enforces an allegorical interpretation of the book.

 

I think I had a paperback version a long time ago. Don't have it anymore. I thought the translation to free. Not literal enough if I remember correctly. Thank you for bringing it up!

 

In brief the NET Bible is liberal/modernist. Both in translation and notes.

 

There are a few editions of the KJV that either capitalize divine pronouns or that use quotation marks.

Genesis 1:3 [editions that used quotation marks]

God said, ‘Let there be light’ [2005, 2011 Cambridge] (2006 PENG)

God said, “Let there be light” (1968 Oxford) (1784 Piguenit) (1897 MacKail)

God said, Let there be light (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]


Genesis 1:26 [editions with capitalization of pronouns used for God or Deity]

Let Us (CB) (KJRLB) (2002, 2010 KJVER)

Let us (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Genesis 1:26 [capitalization of pronouns used for Deity]

in Our image (CB) (KJRLB) (2002, 2010 KJVER)

in our image (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]


The 1611 edition of the KJV and many other KJV editions had interpretive content or chapter headings, including some that were incorrect.

The ABS’s Committee on Versions suggested that some of the chapter headings in the 1611 KJV needed to be changed ‘for their falseness” and others for other reasons (Turner, Statements, p. 22). John Eadie maintained that some of the chapter headings in the 1611 KJV were “manifestly wrong” (English Bible, II, p. 286). John Eadie also asserted that “some of them, instead of being a brief index, are a commentary, which is occasionally doubtful, and at other times wrong” (Ibid.). Eadie observed: “The headings of the Song of Solomon are a continuous commentary, Christ and the church being prefixed to every chapter” (Ibid.).

Some chapter or content headings in the 1611 edition include the following examples. “The meat offering of the herd” was the heading for Leviticus 3:1 in the 1611 edition. Before 1 Samuel 16, the 1611 KJV had: “Samuel sent by God, under pretence of a sacrifice.” The 1611 KJV had a heading that mentioned a “muster of eleven thousand fighting men” before 2 Samuel 24 that would later be corrected to “thirteen hundred thousand.” The first heading for Exodus 33 stated: “The Lord refuseth to go as he had promised with the people.” For Numbers 14:11, the heading is the following: “God threatneth them.” For 1 Corinthians 5:10, the 1611 heading is “heinous offenders are to be shamed & avoided.” The heading for 1 Corinthians chapter 10 was “[1] The sacraments of the Jews, [6] are types of ours.“ “Appoint the office of Deaconship to seven chosen men” was the content heading for Acts 6:3. For Acts 7:44, the heading is the following: “And that all outward ceremonies were ordained according to the heavenly pattern, to last but for a time.” Before 1 John 4, this was stated: “He warneth them not to believe all teachers, who boast of the spirit, but to try them by the rules of the Catholic faith.” “The last and general resurrection” was the content heading for Revelation 20:12. The actual chapter or content headings in the 1611 demonstrate that the KJV was not “without note or comment.”

The 1611 edition of the KJV had some textual criticism marginal notes.

A 1869 edition of the KJV’s N. T. had hundreds of textual marginal notes from Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus. F. H. A. Scrivener noted that 4,111 of the 6,637 marginal notes in the Old Testament of the 1611 "express the more literal meaning of the original Hebrew or Chaldee" and "2156 give alternative renderings (indicated by the word 'Or' prefixed to them) which in the opinion of the Translators are not very less probable than those in the text" (Authorized Edition, p. 41). He also pointed out that 67 marginal notes in the 1611 O. T. "refer to various readings of the original, in 31 of which the marginal variation (technically called Keri) of the Masoretic revisers of the Hebrew is set in competition with the reading in the text" (Ibid.). Scrivener maintained that in the N. T. of the 1611 that 37 marginal notes relate to various readings (p. 56). He also listed those 37 notes (pp. 58-59) [Matt. 1:11, Matt. 7:14, Matt. 9:26, Matt. 24:31, Matt. 26:26, Mark 9:16, Luke 2:38, Luke 10:22, Luke 17:36, John 18:13, Acts 13:18, Acts 25:6, Rom 5:17, Rom. 7:6, Rom. 8:11, 1 Cor. 15:31, 2 Cor. 13:4, Gal. 4:15, Gal. 4:17, Eph. 6:9, 1 Tim. 4:15, Heb. 4:2, Heb. 9:2, Heb. 11:4, James 2:18, 1 Pet. 1:4, 1 Pet. 2:21, 2 Pet. 2:2, 2 Pet. 2:11, 2 Pet. 2:18, 2 John 8, Rev. 3:14, Rev. 6:8, Rev. 13:1, Rev. 13:5, Rev. 14:13, Rev. 17:5]. The 1762 Cambridge edition added 15 more textual marginal notes (p. 59). The 1769 Oxford edition is said to have added at least one more. KJV defender Edward F. Hills also confirmed that 37 of the KJV’s N. T. marginal notes give variant readings (KJV Defended, p. 216). Hills acknowledged that 16 more textual N. T. marginal notes were added in the 1700’s (Believing Bible Study, p. 206).

 

1611 KJV - arguments about the authorship of the book of Hebrews finally settled.

 

Sorry, but how does the heading used by the AV/KJV translators (but not inspired by God) finally settle the question?

 

It is difficult to communicate sarcasm in a forum

For those that consider the KJV the ultimate translation this presents a bit of a problem - but as you said. It’s simply a heading and easily dismissed.
But the author of the article mentioned in the opening post brought up the weakness of the NKJV’s extra-biblical additions as a reason to return to the KJV.

Rob

 

Sorry for not recognising your sarcasm.