Christianity: Details about 'New King James Version'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Home
|
The New King James Version (NKJV) is a modern Bible translation, published by Thomas Nelson, Inc. The Anglicized edition was originally known as the Revised Authorised Version, but the NKJV title is now used universally. The NKJV New Testament was printed in 1979 and the complete Bible in 1982. The aim of its translators was to update the vocabulary and grammar of the King James Version, while preserving the classic style and beauty of the 1611 version. Although it uses substantially the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the original KJV, it indicates where other manuscripts differ. The New King James Version is a revision of the King James Version that does not make any alterations on the basis of the Greek New Testament or Hebrew Old Testament texts established by modern scholarship, but adheres to the readings presumed to underlie the King James Version. The revisers have also sought to follow the principles of translation used in the original King James Version, which the NKJV revisers call "complete equivalence" in contrast to "dynamic equivalence." The NKJV translation project, which was conceived by Arthur Farstad, was inaugurated in 1975 with two meetings (Nashville and Chicago) of 68 interested persons, most of them prominent Baptists but also including some conservative Presbyterians. The men who were invited to these meetings prepared the guidelines for the NKJV. The task of updating the English of the KJV involved significant changes in word order, grammar, vocabulary, and spelling. One of the most significant features of the NKJV was its abandonment of the second person pronouns “thou,” “ye,” “thy,” and “thine.” Verb forms were also modernized in the NKJV (for example, "speaks" rather than "speaketh"). One major criticism of the NKJV is that it is rendered in a language that no one has ever really spoken. By maintaining much of the Elizabethan structure and syntax of the KJV (an intentional effect on the part of the revisers, who intended for a reader to be able to follow along in one version as the other version is read aloud), the NKJV at times has been accused of putting modern words into archaic orders. Unlike the English Revised and American Standard Versions, which sought to take advantage of modern scholarship but left the overall text worded in archaic Elizabethan language, the NKJV sounds neither Elizabethan nor particularly modern. A second major criticism involves the fact that it is based, as noted above, solely upon the ancient texts available during the time of King James and not on earlier manuscripts and documents which have since been discovered. Since these manuscripts, most of which reflect an Alexandrian text-type, are argued by most of today's scholars to be more reliable, the NKJV's adherence to the Textus Receptus seems to many to violate the spirit of open scholarship and open inquiry, and to ascribe a level of perfection to the documents available to the 17th century scholars that they would have not claimed for them. (Regarding this point see David Dewey, A User's Guide to Bible Translations, pp. 162-3, where he quotes strong criticism of the NKJV's textual basis by Steven Sheeley and Robert Nash.) NKJV supporters note that alternative readings based on other texts do appear as footnotes, though this is unlikely to placate those who feel that the "Johannine Comma" (at 1 John 5:7), for example, is not a legitimate portion of scripture and should not be treated as such. Adherents of the so-called "King-James-Only Movement," on the other hand, see the New King James Version as something less than a true successor to the 1611 version. Such supporters argue that, because the NKJV makes scores of changes to the meaning of the 1611 translators, it is not a simple "updating" but actually constitutes a new version. To take just one example, Acts 17:22, in which Paul in the KJV calls the men of Athens "too superstitious," is changed in the NKJV to have the apostle call them "very religious," consistent with the rendering of most contemporary versions. Because of this, staunch supporters of the 1611 version do not feel that the NKJV is an acceptable substitute. One example of a criticism along these lines is provided by . At the same time, many churches and evangelical groups have embraced the NKJV as an acceptable compromise between the original KJV and a Bible with more contemporary wording. See also
Online text of the NKJV
Further reading
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||