The following appertains to two posts that I wrote related to a claim made by Mark Ward in a blog post about the NKJV not deviating from the same underlying Greek text as the KJV (here and here). I gave him a list of fifteen. In a new post, he said none of them are legitimate examples, so I looked at his (and two assistants) arguments, and here is my conclusion about what they wrote.
*Asterick meaning that I don’t accept the argument.
1. In Matthew 22:10—Don’t mind giving this one, although a pattern starts to emerge where the text is different and the translation favors the critical text, but it is said to be a translational decision by those who might hope to cover for the “no deviation” claim.
*2. In Luke 1:35—The translators followed the critical text, but said they were making a translation decision, not following the critical text.
*3. In Luke 5:7—Matthew 6:5 is a different usage of “tois,” which is used as a relative pronoun in Luke 5:7. That relative pronoun isn’t in the CT or the NKJV.
*4. Luke 6:9—The issue here is that the TR uses the plural for “Sabbath days” and the CT doesn’t, which is why the KJV translates the plural “Sabbath days.” The NKJV deviates here. I could follow the argument about other places of the plural translated like a singular except there is a deviation here, making this obvious.
5. John 10:12—This is not a good example by me, so I defer here.
6. John 19:10—This is not a good example by me, so I defer here.
7. Acts 15:23—I defer here.
8. Acts 17:14—I defer here.
*9. Acts 19:9—The NKJV translation matches the CT and deviates. This reads as obvious.
*10. Acts 19:39—The NKJV uses only “other” as “further,” which is following the CT, as opposed to the clear translation of “concerning other matters,” which one can plainly read is the TR.
*11. Romans 14:9—What is very interesting about this refutation is that there is a double “kai” later in the same verse translated as both-and in the NKJV, so Ward and his group have this one wrong. If they really were relying on contemporary English, they would have done it both times. It could not have been grammatical.
*12. Colossians 3:17—This one stands.
*13. Jude 1:3—This one stands.
*14. Jude 1:19—Both the ESV and NKJV have the same translation because they both follow the CT, and you won’t see “themselves” (eautou), as in the KJV. It also changes the meaning as some of these others do.
*15. Isaiah 9:3—the King James translators did not rely on the Qere reading, so it’s different. I had to tell the truth.
I appreciate the service of Mark Ward and his two other assistants in eliminating five of my bad examples, and I believe leaving ten of them. They are saying that none of those are left. However, I believe there is more than the above. I said that I stopped at fifteen, because I think there are more than this, so here we go again
1. 2 Corinthians 3:14—the NKJV departs from the TR to the CT with the TR (ho) and the CT (hoti), so the NKJV translates the conjuction, “because,” and the KJV translates the relative pronoun, “which.”
2. Philippians 2:9—the CT has the article (to) before “name,” “the name,” and the TR has no article, “a name,” and the NKJV reflects this deviation.
3. Revelation 6:11—the KJV follows the TR and the NKJV follows the critical text in the plural “robes” in the KJV and the singular “robe” in the NKJV. The Greek word in the TR is plural and in the CT it is singular.
4. 2 Corinthians 4:14—the NKJV says “with Jesus” following the CT (sun) and the KJV says “by Jesus” following the TR (dia).
5. 2 John 1:7—the NKJV says “have gone out into the world” following the CT (exelthon) instead of “are entered into the world” (eiselthon) in the TR and KJV.
Alright, me and my assistants, well, just me, have added five more, while watching the 49ers preseason game. I’m stopping at adding five more. That doesn’t mean there are only five more. I’m saying these are deviations. Mark Ward asserts that he has debunked all fifteen of the former, and I’m saying he’s overturned five of the original fifteen. I thank him for eliminating the five for me. Good work. Here are five more before victory is claimed, conspiracy theories reasserted, etc.
2 comments:
Given his tendencies toward hyperbole (such as making an equivalence between supporting abortion, committing adultery, and being KJV-only) and his unwillingness to discuss the textual issue in general, I personally hesitate to give too much attention to Mark Ward, just as I do toward his KJV-inspiration counterparts (Ruckman, Riplinger, et al) and their hyperbole. I think Ward's claim about the NKJV is rather disingenuous, especially given the inclusion of CT footnotes throughout the standard NKJV translation (Can you even get an NKJV without the footnotes? I think not).
Lest I am immediately impugned with conspiracy theorizing, I will not assign motive to the NKJV translators here, but I will note that the NKJV has all the appearances of a translation that seeks to move someone from the KJV, not to another faithful translation based on the TR, but in fact to the Critical Text and its fruit. The preface itself gives the reader an uncritical introduction to and a taste of the CT and then helpfully undermines the TR with dozens of brief footnotes that say things like, "NU-Text and M-Text omit...", "NU-Text reads...", "NU-Text omits...", or "Only four or five or five very late manuscripts contain these words..." The NKJV translators themselves acknowledge they approached this with the idea that "By giving a clearly defined set of variants the New King James Version benefits readers of all textual persuasions." (italics mine) They state that their purpose in this is to avoid making value judgments on the variants. The reality is that in presenting all the CT variants as uncritically as they do, they are in fact making value judgments by presenting the CT readings...uncritically.
But let's be honest here. The goal of the NKJV is not so much to update the KJV. The goal is to draw those who hold to the KJV (or to the TR underlying it) from the TR to the CT, MT, or Multiple Version Only position. And truthfully, that is Mark Ward's goal as well. He just won't be honest about it, an irony that can't be missed with his refusal to discuss the textual issue with anyone who doesn't see it his way because of the TR-position red herrings obstructing his view.
James,
Nothing rings false here. I would think that churches that go to the NKJV are doing so to move from the KJV. It's the middle position between KJV and then a modern, critical text version. Every church I've seen do it, which isn't necessarily a large sample size, was compromising in a bunch of other areas and it was a move to pander. However, on the very narrow subject of "did it deviate," the answer is yes. But that can't be accepted, I guess. Even when you do produce the list, it can't be accepted even after the first charge was "no list," now the bar is raised and then raised and then raised. That isn't honest.
Post a Comment