V2N7-DTL

You are viewing a back issue of Darkness to Light Christian email newsletter.

Subscribe to receive future issues. Click here to view additional back issues.

Darkness to Light - Vol. II, No.7

Darkness to Light
Volume II, Number 7
2004

Presented by Darkness to Light Web site
Director: Gary F. Zeolla

You are currently registered to receive the Darkness to Light. This newsletter is published about once a month. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter, please reply to this email with "Remove DTL" in the subject line.

Why I Like the NKJV

Part Two

By Gary F. Zeolla

Part One of this article looked at the translation principle and readability of the New King James Version (NKJV). This second half of this article will discuss two additional reasons I like the NKJV.

Greek Text Type

There are three different published Greek texts that are used to translate the New Testament from: the Textus Receptus (TR), the Critical Text (CT), and the Majority Text (MT).

Historically, the TR is the oldest of these. It was first complied in the 1500's using about 20 different Greek manuscripts. These manuscripts reflected what is known as the Byzantine text type. Byzantine refers to the eastern part of the former Roman Empire.

The next Greek text to be published was the CT in the early 1800's. It was based mainly on a handful of the then newly discovered Alexandrian (Western) manuscripts. These tended to be of a much earlier date than the Byzantine texts used to compile the TR.

The MT is the newest of the three Greek texts. There are now some 5000 discovered Greek manuscripts. Not all of these have been collated, but of those that have been, the MT, as its name implies, is based on the readings found in the majority of these manuscripts. Since most of these manuscripts reflect a Byzantine text type, the MT is closer to the TR than to the CT.

In other words, when there are differences between these Greek texts, the MT more often than not agrees with the TR against the CT. But there are times, when the MT and CT agree against the TR and times when all three texts disagree.

But it should be noted that the vast majority of the time, all three Greek texts agree. So there is no question here as to the overall reliability of the New Testament text in general. For the bulk of the New Testament, there really is no question as to what the correct reading is. And when there are differences, most of the time they are very minor. In fact, a majority of the differences are so minor that they wouldn't even show up in translation.

However, there are times when there are significant differences between the Greek texts. And in most such cases, the MT and TR agree but differ from the CT. So the main debate is between the MT/TR versus the CT. And it is because of these important differences that this complex issue has generated many heated arguments between advocates of the different Greek texts.

Personally, I prefer the MT to the other two. It is for that reason that I used the MT to translate my own Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament (ALT) from. Meanwhile, the NKJV is based on the TR while most other modern-day versions are based on the CT. Given that the MT and TR are more closely aligned than the MT and CT, this is another reason I like the NKJV over most other modern versions.

Overview of Textual Arguments

The issues surrounding the debate between the different Greek texts can get rather complicated. I discuss each point in detail in my book *Differences Between Bible Versions. So here, I will simply summarize the reasons I prefer the MT to the CT and refer the reader to my book for the details.

1. A far greater number of manuscripts support the MT versus the CT.

2. This numerical superiority of MT manuscripts could represent God's "providential preservation" of the MT manuscripts.

3. The numerical superiority of MT manuscripts also could represent that the scribes who copied the manuscripts considered these manuscripts to be the most reliable and thus used them rather than ones representing the CT.

4. The CT manuscripts tend to be of an earlier date than the MT manuscripts. But this could simply represent the fact that they did not wear-out due to them not being used much since they were know to be unreliable.

5. Manuscripts supporting the CT have been found mainly in one area of the former Roman Empire (i.e. the western part), while manuscripts supporting the MT have been found throughout the former Roman Empire.

6. The areas in which the CT were found are know to have been populated with Gnostics and other early Christian heretics. And from the writings of the early Church Fathers, we know that such heretics were in the habit of purposely producing corrupt texts.

7. Although most MT manuscripts are of a later date, earlier manuscripts support many unique MT readings.

8. The two supposedly "most reliable" CT texts (aleph and beta) differ significantly from each other. Both texts also have many "corrections" on them from later scribes indicating further that the scribes did not consider them reliable.

9. The "transcriptional probabilities" standards CT scholars use to determine their text are very subjective in nature.

10. Although the primarily consideration in determining the correct reading by MT scholars is which reading has the greatest number of manuscripts supporting it, many other standards are also used, especially when the manuscripts are nearly evenly split between readings. So it is not a single approach method.

As for the MT versus the TR, when there are differences it is generally because the reading found in the TR is not found in the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts that have been discovered and collated since the TR was developed. So the MT simply has overwhelming greater textual support than the TR reading.

Textual Footnotes

Given that there are three different Greek texts used to translate the New Testament from, many modern-day versions include textual footnotes to indicate these differences. However, sometimes these footnotes can be rather misleading. For instance, a footnote in a CT based version might say that "some manuscripts" have an alternative reading. The alternative reading is usually a MT reading. But rather than just "some manuscripts" having the reading, the vast majority of the manuscripts actually have the alternative (MT) reading.

But that is why I like the NKJV's practice. The NKJV simply indicates when there are differences between the TR it is based on the MT and CT without any further comment. For the CT, the NKJV uses the abbreviation NU, which refers to "Nestle-Aland/ United Bible Societies. These are the two main organizations that publish a CT-type of Greek text.

Now some supporters of the MT or TR do not like the practice of footnoting textual variants. They say it gives too much "credence" to the CT. But personally, I have always found it helpful. This is especially so when I am in church or a Bible study. When the leader of the service or study reads from his/ her Bible and it differs from mine, having the textual footnotes lets me know why this is so, if it is due to a translation difference or a textual difference.

In fact, I liked the NKJV's practice so much that I copied it for my ALT. But I did make a couple of changes. First, I simply used the abbreviation CT for the Critical Text. And second, rather than footnotes, I placed the textual variants in a separate appendix in the back of the Bible. That way, those who do not like the footnotes could more easily ignore them, but they would still be readily accessible for those like myself who do like them.

For the forthcoming (in the Fall of 2004) second edition of the ALT, the textual variants appendix will include a list of the "Most Important Textual Variants." To give the reader an idea of the importance of knowing about such variants, below are the entries for First Corinthians. A careful reading will show that a couple of the differences seen in 1Corinthians 11:23-36 quoted in part one of this article between the ALT and NKJV versus the NLT were actually due to textual variants and not translation differences. And if one keeps reading in the same chapter, a couple of more textual variants show up.

2:4   MT/ TR: human - CT: omits

6:20 MT/ TR: and in your* spirit, which are God's. - CT: omits

10:28 MT/ TR: "for the earth [is] the Lord's, and its fullness." - CT: omits

11:24 MT/ TR: Take, eat - CT: omits

          MT/ TR: being broken - CT: omits

11:29 MT/ TR: unworthily - CT: omits

          MT/ TR: of the Lord - CT: omits

15:55 MT/ TR: sting? O realm of the dead, where [is] your victory? - CT: victory? Death, where [is] your sting?

16:24 MT: Jesus. So be it! - TR: Jesus. So be it! To [the] Corinthians first was written from Philippi through Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus and Timothy. - CT: Jesus.

Conclusion

Formal equivalency translation principle, a high degree of readability, a good Greek text base, and the use of textual variants footnotes. These are four of the reasons I like the NKJV. It is an accurate rendering of a good Greek text that is easy enough to read for the average person. And the textual footnotes provide helpful information to those who are interested.

My book Differences Between Bible Versions goes into much greater detail on each of these four points. For details, see the Preview page.

ReferenceS:
Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament of the Holy Bible: Second Edition. Copyright © 2004 by Gary F. Zeolla of Darkness to Light ministry (www.zeolla.org/christian).
New King James Version. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.

ALT-2 Update

I received the gallery back from my publisher Author House for the second edition of the Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament. I have proofread the entire text once already, but I am planning on proofing it one more time just to be sure there are no typos. And I must say, it looks very good. Converting the text from a verse paragraph to a normal paragraph format was a good move. It makes the text so much easier to read.

And if I can say so myself, even more than other Bible books, I would say the Book of Acts reads better in the new ALT than in any other version I have read it in. It just seems that the excitement of the book comes through better in the ALT than in other versions. So be sure to read Acts when the second edition comes out.

The gallery arrived shortly before I had to leave for my powerlifting contest the second week of July. And it took a while to get caught up on things when I got back. So I got behind in proofing the gallery. And with wanting to read through it a second time, there will be a further delay in getting it back to my publisher. But hopefully, I'll finish it by the end of July. And if I do, the schedule should still be on target for it to be published in the fall if this year. And it looks like both the paperback and hardback versions will be a little less expensive than the first edition.

Differences Between Bible Versions
Discusses translation principles, Greek text-types, and KJV Onlyism.
Advocates a literal or formal equivalence translation method.
Advocates the use of the Textus Receptus or Majority Greek Text for translating the New Testament.
Over thirty Bible versions are compared and evaluated.

Also by Gary F. Zeolla:
Fitness for One and All Web site and FitTips for One and All newsletter.
Helping people to attain their health, fitness, and performance goals.

7/16/04