Five Questions regarding the New King James Version
By Jeffrey T. Riddle
“Why don’t you just use the New King James Version (NKJV)?” This is a question that has been posed to me more than once by those who know of my arguments in favor of the traditional received text of the Bible (Hebrew Masoretic Text in the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus in the New Testament) and my preference is for the King James Version (KJV) as a translation. Those who pose the “Why not the NKJV?” question are usually quick to point out that it too is generally based on the traditional text. In the New Testament, for example, it includes passages omitted or relegated to brackets in most modern translations, like the traditional ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), the Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53—8:11), the Ethiopian’s confession (Acts 8:37), and the three heavenly witnesses (1 John 5:7). Why not use a translation like the NKJV based on the traditional text but written in a modern style?
There was a time, in fact, when I did use the NKJV in my preaching ministry. I had grown up using the KJV, but began using modern translations in my university, seminary, and early ministry days, until I increasingly discovered problems with their underlying modern critical text. I switched to the NKJV and used it for a couple of years before eventually making a final return over a decade ago back to the classic KJV from which I had started.1
Why did I leave the NKJV? I did so because I encountered difficulties at several points with its translation and editorial philosophy. Here is a summary of at least five of the significant challenges I encountered with the NKJV:
First: Capitalization of divine pronouns?
As with many modern evangelical translations, the NKJV capitalizes divine pronouns (e.g., when “he” refers to God, it is written as, “He”). When I first encountered the NKJV this was a pious convention that I appreciated. It is even a convention that I sometimes use in my personal devotional writing. Is it appropriate, however, to use this convention in a translation of the Bible itself?
One initial argument against this practice is that it simply does not generally appear in the earliest handwritten manuscripts of the Biblical text. More importantly, the capitalization of pronouns often imposes an interpretation upon the text by the translator that might be best left to the reader. To put it plainly, there are places where it is not always clear whether a pronoun in a Biblical passage is referring to God or to a mere man. To capitalize or not capitalize, then, is not merely a translational decision but also an interpretive decision.
One place where this problem emerges is in the translation of the Psalms. Many of the Psalms are multi-faceted, especially the Messianic Psalms. On one hand, they address the historical circumstances of David. On the other hand, they prophesy about the Son of David, the Lord Jesus Christ. The NKJV’s translation of Psalm 22:21 reads, “You have answered Me.” In its translation of Psalm 69:21, however, it reads, “They also gave me gall for my food.” Why is it “Me” in Psalm 22:21, but “me” in Psalm 69:21? Is Psalm 22 the voice of Christ, but Psalm 69 the voice of David only? In truth, both Psalms are the voice of David and the voice of Christ. The capitalization of pronouns, however, can confuse the reader about this matter.
Aside from the Messianic Psalms this problem emerges in other places also. One notorious example may be found in the NKJV rendering of 2 Thessalonians 2:7, “For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way” (NKJV). One will notice that the capitalized pronoun “He” appears twice. The translation offers the interpretation that there will be a divine agent (i.e., the Holy Spirit) and not a human agent which will restrain the “man of sin” or “son of perdition” (v. 3) and then this agent will be taken out of the way. A plain sense reading of the text does not exclude the possibility, however, that this restraint will be accomplished by means of a human rather than a divine agent. In the end it is best to render the pronouns with a lower case “he,” allowing for either possibility. This is the way it is rendered in the KJV of 2 Thessalonians 2:7, “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.”
Second: The use of quotation marks for direct speech?
Another translation issue for the NKJV and other modern English translations is the use of quotation marks to indicate a record of direct speech. Quotation marks do not appear in the extant handwritten Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible. The earliest Protestant translations of the Bible, like the KJV, also do not make use of quotation marks to set apart direct speech. In this manner they convey, according to formal correspondence, the text as it appears in the original language manuscripts and printed editions.
There are of course natural indicators in many cases within the text which convey to the reader when direct speech is recorded. This can usually be understood without quotation marks. One example of this is seen in the KJV translation of John 8:12:
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
We know by context and without quotation marks that the words after “saying” are the words of the Lord. In this same verse, however, the NKJV uses quotation marks to indicate the direct speech of Christ:
Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”
Though this seems to work fairly well in places like John 8:12, there are other places in the Bible where it is less clear as to where a quotation begins and ends. In such places the placement of words in quotation marks represents not merely a translation but also an explicit interpretation of the text with which all readers might not agree.
One example of such a place where ambiguity exists comes in a statement by John the Baptist starting at John 3:27. Clearly the words of John the Baptist are being cited, since the passages begins, “John answered and said….” Where, however, does the quotation of John the Baptist’s words end? The NKJV has an opening quotation mark at v. 27 and a closing quotation mark at the end of v. 36. It, therefore, assumes that John the Baptist’s utterance begun in v. 27 extends to the end of v. 36. Not everyone, however, would agree with this interpretation. The RSV and ESV translations, for example, have a closing quotation mark after v. 30. Some, in particular, would especially see the closing statement in v. 36 not as a continuation of John the Baptist’s words but as a direct comment by John the Apostle and Evangelist to the reader:
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him (John 3:36 KJV).
The fact that the KJV does not make use of quotation marks leaves interpretation open to the reader in his study and to the preacher in the pulpit.
Third: Editorial devices for poetic passages?
Still another issue one encounters in the NKJV and in other modern versions is the use of editorial devices to indicate passages which the translators take to be poetic in form or even poetic citations within the text.
One example of this is found in the NKJV rendering of 2 Timothy 3:16 which reads:
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believe on in the world,
Received up in glory.
On one hand, one can commend the NKJV for following the traditional text in rendering the phrase “God was manifested in the flesh” rather than changing the word “God” to the pronoun “he,” as in modern translations based on the modern critical text. Compare the ESV, which reads, “He was manifested in the flesh.” On the other hand, however, questions might be raised about the attempt to set apart a section of the text as poetry, with each line indented as if it were a new poetic stanza.
The KJV puts all the text in a block format, even in places like the Psalms. So, at 1 Timothy 3:16 it reads:
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Such a layout best reflects how this passage appears in the extant handwritten witnesses to the New Testament. There are no explicit indications in the words of the text itself that this passage was originally composed as poetry.
The decision to print part of this verse in a poetic style in the NKJV represents an interpretation by the translators. This decision was probably influenced by various modern historical critical theories, popular in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and influenced by source criticism, suggesting that there are places in the New Testament where authors were implicitly quoting from various sources. Some might suggest, for example, that the part of 1 Timothy 3:16 set apart as poetry was taken from an early Christian creedal statement or a hymn. This, however, is not made explicit anywhere in the text, and this passage might just as well be an original, inspired, didactic prose composition by the Apostle Paul. It is best, therefore, simply to leave it in a standard block format.
Fourth: Editorial paratextual interpretive material?
Yet one more facet of some modern translations, including the NKJV, worthy of critical scrutiny, is the imposition of paratextual interpretive material. This includes paragraph or section headings. It also includes interpretive directions added by the translator that might be confused with the text itself.
A notorious example of this is found in the NKJV’s layout for the Song of Solomon, where the translators have laid out the text as something like a dramatic script with the imposition of editorial section headings, which do not appear in the original Hebrew, supposedly identifying the various speakers. These editorial labels introduce various sections as being spoken by “THE SHULAMITE” or “THE BELOVED” or “THE DAUGHTERS OF JERUSALEM” etc. Other than the fact that these “stage directions” are placed in all capital letters and in a smaller font, the reader is never explicitly told that these are uninspired editorial additions which are not part of the actual original text of this book. Clearly, this imposes a particular interpretation of the text with which not all readers might agree. Furthermore, it is likely to confuse the immature reader who is unable to discern between what is it the original inspired text of the Bible and what are the uninspired paratextual additions.
Fifth: Extensive notes on textual criticism?
One aspect widely praised by many readers of the NKJV is its use of extensive notes on textual criticism cited in a central column alongside the text. This was very attractive to me personally during the time I made use of the NKJV, since I was working out my own understanding of the text of Scripture. In the New Testament, the NKJV generally follows the Textus Receptus. Notes are included in the translation to indicate places where the modern critical text handbooks (abbreviated as “NU” for the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies editions) and the so-called Majority Text (abbreviated as “M”) diverge from the Textus Receptus. At the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:13, which is included in the NKJV’s text proper with no brackets, it includes a marginal note that says, “NU omits the rest of v. 13.”
Many, again, suggest they find these textual notes to be immensely helpful. I once did also, but I have since changed my mind for two reasons.
First, I recognized that while I, as a pastor and scholar, found some help in these notes, other ordinary readers in the pews of the church might be distracted, confused, or even discouraged by them. This was especially brought to my attention by my friend Howie Jones in an article he wrote titled “Perspectives from the Pew.”2 In that article, he describes a time when he was unsettled by hearing a textual variant addressed from the pulpit (it might just as well have come from reading a textual note in a modern Bible). Jones describes how this experience raised questions in his mind about the authority of the Bible, “How could I be certain that the Bible version I used, or a new Bible version promoted by a publisher, was authentic?”3 In my friend’s case this led him to a firm commitment to the Reformation Text, but one wonders if others might be hurt rather than helped by the promiscuous sharing of such information.
Second, further study of the textual notes within the NKJV led to the realization that many of these textual notes are outdated, incomplete, and, at times, even misleading. The NKJV was published by Thomas Nelson in 1982. On one hand, one might say that it has been to Thomas Nelson’s credit that the NKJV, unlike many other modern translations (e.g., NASB, NIV, ESV), has not undergone numerous updates and revisions since first published. On the other hand, this means that the textual notes in the NKJV are now more than forty years old. This also means that some important information shared in those notes is significantly outdated, not only with respect to the cataloguing of new information about manuscripts but also with respect to seismic shifts that have taken place in post-modern textual criticism, especially with the development and application of the so-called Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM).4
Here are a few examples. We begin with the note that appears in the NKJV regarding the Woman Taken in Adultery passage at John 7:53—8:11. The NKJV note at John 7:53 reads:
NU brackets 7:53 through 8:11 as not in the original text. They are present in over 900 mss. of John.
There are several difficulties with this entry. First, the information is now outdated. In the last forty years of the study of the extant witnesses, six hundred more Greek manuscripts have been found which contain this passage. By present counts, the passage appears in 1,502 continuous text Greek manuscripts of John. Aside from this update, there is also another significant problem with this entry. It tells the reader that the passage appears in “over 900” manuscripts of John, but it does not tell the reader in how many manuscripts this passage is lacking. The reader, thus, has no basis for comparison. For all the uninformed reader knows, it might be present in “over 900” but missing in thousands! A note ostensibly meant to engender confidence in this passage’s authenticity might, in fact, among some, only engender doubt. In fact, according to the most recent information, this passage is present in c. 85% of extant manuscripts and missing in only c. 15%. Of course, the brief note also cannot adequately discuss the quality of these manuscripts, the evidence from the patristic writers, and the reasons some early scribes might have suppressed this passage.5 Given such limits one might rightly question this note’s overall helpfulness.
A second example can be found at the NKJV note found at Romans 13:9 after the phrase, “You shall not bear false witness.” The note reads:
NU omits You shall not bear false witness.
This note is accurate in that the modern critical text (NU) does indeed omit this commandment from the list found in Romans 13:9. This information is also, however, incomplete since two of the most significant modern printed editions of the so-called Majority Text (Farstad-Hodges; and Robinson-Pierpont) also omit this phrase, based on their interpretation of the internal evidence, despite the fact that it appears in the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts. A more accurate version of this note might read, “NU and M omit You shall not bear false witness, although this phrase appears in the majority of extant witnesses.”
A third example regards the “three heavenly witnesses” passage at 1 John 5:7-8. The NKJV includes the passage but adds this note at v. 7:
NU, M omit the words from in heaven (v. 7) through on earth (v. 8). Only 4 or 5 very late mss. contain these words in Greek.
There are at least two difficulties with this entry. First, thirty years after this note was written we can now report there are at least ten extant Greek witnesses for this passage, double the 1982 NKJV numbers.6 Second, the mention of the manuscripts which contain this passage being “very late” might mislead the reader into thinking that the manuscripts which omit it are all “very early.” In reality, there are actually very few early extant manuscripts that provide any testimony to 1 John. There are only two extant papyri, the earliest kind of textual evidence, of any size, from the book of 1 John: Papyrus 9 (dated to the third century) and Papyrus 174 (dated to the seventh century). Both of these are fragmentary and neither contain 1 John 5:7-8, so the papyri evidence provides no evidence either for or against this passage.7 One should take note that the editors of the NKJV were generally sympathetic to the so-called Majority Text. Even though they used the Textus Receptus in their translation of the New Testament, a slight bias against the Textus Receptus can sometimes be perceived in the textual notes.
Many more examples from the NKJV textual notes might be listed, but these should suffice to help the reader understand that the textual notes in the NKJV are in many cases outdated, incomplete, and even, at times, misleading.
Conclusion:
“Why don’t you just use the New King James Version (NKJV)?” I hope by this point the reader will understand at least five significant questions that might be raised regarding the translational and editorial perspectives found within the NKJV. These questions and others should bring one pause before uncritically abandoning the classic Protestant English translation of the Bible and embracing this or any other modern translation. In the end, I returned to the King James (Authorised) Version as my translation of preference for use both in my personal devotional reading of Holy Scripture and in my public ministry.
In a National Bible Rally held at the Royal Albert Hall in London on October 24, 1961 to mark the three hundred and fiftieth year of the King James Version’s publication, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones exhorted,
What we need, therefore, is not to replace the Authorised Version…. We need rather to teach and to train people up to the standard and the language and the dignity and the glory of the old Authorised Version.8
That exhortation seems as timely, wise, and reasonable now as it did then.
Jeffrey T. Riddle, Pastor, Christ Reformed Baptist Church, Louisa, Virginia.
[Our readers may like to know that, God willing, Dr Riddle will be the preacher at the Salisbury Conference this year, 4-6 October. Details are on Emmanuel Church website: https://www.salisburyemmanuel.org.uk/meetings/salisbury-conference Ed.]
Footnotes
1 For my personal reflections on Bible usage, see Jeffrey T. Riddle, “Train Up a Child, in Jeffrey T. Riddle and Christian M. McShaffrey, Eds., Why I Preach from the Received Text (Winter Springs, FL: The Greater Heritage, 2022): 195-203.
2 Howie W. Owen Jones, “Perspectives from the Pew,” in Jeffrey T. Riddle and Christian M. McShaffrey, Eds., Why I Preach from the Received Text (Winter Springs, FL: The Greater Heritage, 2022): 117-124.
3 Jones, “Perspectives,” 218.
4 See Jeffrey T. Riddle, “The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method: The Newest ‘New’ Method.,” in Quarterly Record, Issue No. 635 (April-June, 2021): 12-19.
5 For a defense of the authenticity of this passage and citations for the information shared above, see Jeffrey T. Riddle, Why John 7:53—8:11 is in the Bible (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 2023).
6 For a survey of this evidence, see Juann Hernández, “The Comma Johanneum: A Relic in the Textual Tradition,” Early Christianity 11 (2020): 60-70.
7 See J. K. Elliott, “The Early Text of the Catholic Epistles,” in Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger, Eds., The Early Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, 2014): 204-224.
8 D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, How Can We See a Return to the Bible? (Kept Pure Press, 2024): 15.