By the Rev. Craig Dennison, Deputation Speaker

The preface to the 1982 edition of the New King James Version (NKJV) calls it the most recent revision of the Authorised (King James) Version (AV), and says it ‘is a continuation of the labours of the earlier translators’. The NKJV also claims to use a translation principle known as ‘complete equivalence’. In other words, the translators say they have used a literal translation approach like that used in the Authorised (King James) Version, translating ‘word for word’. The NKJV preface also says that the Greek text used for the New Testament is the one that was followed by the King James translators.¹ All of this seems to encourage the general assumption that the New King James Version (NKJV) is as faithful and accurate as the Authorised (King James) Version, just ‘newer’. This article will test these claims so that the reader can assess them for themselves and make a decision whether the NKJV really is a successor to the AV, or whether this is misleading and it is actually another translation.

Does the NKJV adhere fully to the Greek Received Text?

The NKJV claims to follow the Received Text (Textus Receptus) and not the Critical Greek Text. If we test this claim with a few examples, it becomes clear that are many differences from the Received Text by alteration, addition, or omission. Here are some examples where the Critical Text has influenced the NKJV; sometimes it is claimed that these are more translational than textual choices, but this is not the case in the following examples.

Luke 1.35

AV: ‘that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God’
NKJV: ‘that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God’

The NKJV leaves out ‘of thee’ ‘ἐκ σοῦ’; this is a phrase found in the Received Text but omitted from the Critical Text. Leaving this untranslated could not reasonably be argued to be a translational choice.

Colossians 3.17

AV: ‘giving thanks to God and the Father by him’
NKJV: ‘giving thanks to God the Father through Him’

The NKJV leaves out ‘καὶ’ (and) in keeping with the Critical Text, there is no reason this ‘καὶ’ should be omitted in translation if the NKJV translators were indeed looking at the Received Text. The Received Text has to be translated, ‘to God and the Father’.

2 John 7

AV: ‘For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh’
NKJV: ‘For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh’

The NKJV changes ‘entered into’ to ‘gone out into’, which follows the Critical Text reading Ὅτι πολλοὶ πλάνοι ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸν κόσμον’. The NKJV implies they have left the church, but this is not the reading of the Received Text ‘ὅτι πολλοὶ πλάνοι εἰσῆλθόν εἰς τὸν κόσμον’. The NKJV’s ‘gone out into the world’ is a correct translation of the Critical Text’s ‘ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸν κόσμον’. However, ‘εἰσῆλθόν εἰς τὸν κόσμον’ of the Received Text must be translated as ‘entered into the world’. The difference is in the preposition prefixed to the verb ‘ηλθον’ (‘to go’): ἐξ = out, εἰσ = in. There is no way that ‘εἰσῆλθόν εἰς τὸν κόσμον’ could be translated ‘gone out into the world’.

Jude 19

AV: ‘These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit’
NKJV: ‘These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit’

The NKJV follows the Critical Text in omitting ‘ἑαυτούς’ (themselves). There is no translational reason that could justify passing over this Greek word, ‘ἑαυτούς’ (themselves).  

Revelation 6.11

AV: ‘And white robes were given unto every one of them’
NKJV: ‘Then a white robe was given to each of them’

The NKJV changes from the plural ‘white robes’ (στολαὶ λευκαὶ) to the singular ‘a white robe’ (στολὴ λευκὴ) which is the reading of the Critical Text. If the NKJV translators were looking at the Received Text with the plural, ‘στολαὶ λευκαί’ (white robes), they would not have translated it as the singular ‘white robe’.

The NKJV makes over five hundred references in the margins to the Majority Greek Text—a text closer to the Received Text but still differing in many respects. The NKJV also gives even more references to the Critical Text. It gives marginal notes suggesting, and even implying, that there is confusion and uncertainty as to what the Word of God is.²

The publishers provided the following explanation regarding the marginal notes: ‘It was the editors’ conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. They also recognised that it was easier for the average reader to delete something he or she felt was not properly in the text, than to insert a word of phrase which had been left out by the revisers’.³

Unwittingly, the publishers of this comment do three things. Firstly, they invite the reader to dismiss God’s Word based on their ‘feelings’. Secondly, they undermine the authority of the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text ( Textus Receptus) as the providentially preserved Word of God. Thirdly, they demonstrate they are not as committed to the underlying texts of the AV as they claimed in the preface to the original NKJV.

While the NKJV claims to follow the Received Text, we have seen that the reality is very different and there are instances where the Critical Greek Text has been used. There are many differences from the Received Text by alteration, addition, or omission, and there are some clear examples where the Critical Text has influenced the NKJV. While it is sometimes claimed that these are translational rather than textual choices, we have also seen that this is not the case.

Malcolm H. Watts notes this concerning the NKJV. ‘This translation, with its credence given to the marginal reference, has the appearance of a most subtle attempt to discredit both the Received Text and the Authorised Version … In many ways the NKJV is far more dangerous than the modern translations which have openly abandoned the Received Text’.⁴

Does the NKJV adhere fully to the Hebrew Masoretic Text?

The NKJV claims to follow the AV but in relation to the Old Testament it uses a different text; the Hebrew Text used for the Old Testament is the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblica Hebraica, while that used for the AV is the Bomberg Hebrew Old Testament, first printed in 1524. How can the NKJV be a ‘continuation’ of the AV if it used a different Hebrew Old Testament, a text which was not even available when the AV was first published?⁵ It is also said that ancient versions and the Dead Sea Scrolls were consulted. In the margins, the NKJV also makes numerous references to the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and ‘Various ancient versions’. Translations should not correct the original Hebrew and Greek but rather should reflect them. Here are two examples of marginal notes found in the NKJV:

Genesis 4.8 has the marginal note ‘Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate’.

The marginal notes in Deuteronomy 32.8 give alternative readings for the phrase ‘the children of Israel’. It reads ‘Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls ‘angels of God’; Symmachus [a revision of the Septuagint, approximately AD 180], Old Latin [exhibiting a pre-Vulgate text] ‘sons of God’.

In some instances, alternate readings have been brought into the text to replace the Hebrew Masoretic Text; the following are some examples. 

In Psalm 4.4 the AV reads ‘Stand in awe, and sin not’ while the NKJV reads ‘Be angry, and do not sin’. The Hebrew verb זַרָ means ‘to tremble’, and this is the most common translation. The NKJV follows the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate reading rather than the Hebrew Masoretic when it translates this verb ‘be angry’.

In 1 Chronicles 25.3 Shimei is included as one of the sons of Jeduthun in the NKJV, but is not included in the AV or the Hebrew Masoretic. This reading is from the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew, and not the Hebrew itself.

Does the NKJV fully adhere to formal equivalence?

The AV is translated via formal equivalence, meaning that the translation follows word for word the original languages of Scripture as closely as possible. The NKJV claims to use a translation principle known as ‘complete equivalence’, ’which seeks to preserve all of the information in the text’. However, in many places they are found to be using a method known as ‘Dynamic Equivalence’, even though they claim to reject it.

‘Dynamic Equivalence’ is the principle of translation that attempts to recreate on the reader the effect the Biblical language texts had on the original recipients, without being bound literally to reproduce the words as nearly as possible. The translator then assumes the role of interpreter, to determine the thought intended in the original. This often results in an interpretative paraphrase that has little or no relationship to the original language text. While all translations may need to employ dynamic equivalence to a limited extent, we oppose the extensive and unnecessary use of this method of translation, as we believe that every Word of God is inspired. Here is a small sample of where this is found in the NKJV.

Jeremiah 1.17

AV: ‘gird up thy loins’
NKJV: ‘prepare yourself’

This is more than translation; it is the translators trying to interpret the text.

2 Corinthians 7.2

AV: ‘Receive us; we have wronged no man’
NKJV: ‘Open your hearts to us. We have wronged no one’

The simple phrase has been unnecessarily altered.

Psalm 94.19

AV: ‘In the multitude of my thoughts within me’
NKJV: ‘In the multitude of my anxieties within me’

The Hebrew word is literally ‘thoughts’ and should be translated so, but the NKJV translators are including their interpretation in the translation.

Proverbs 4.18

AV: ‘But the path of the just is as the shining light’
NKJV: ‘But the path of the just is like the shining sun’

The Hebrew ‘a light of brightness’ is rendered in the NKJV as ‘sun’.

Does the NKJV clearly show supplied words?

The AV uses italics to show words which have been added to give the sense in the English; these are called supplied words. Meanwhile, the NKJV has italics for supplied words but also uses a strikingly similar oblique type for Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, causing confusion for the reader. Further difficulties also arise when the NKJV adds words but does not put them in italics. One example is below.

Mark 9.18

AV: ‘And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth’
NKJV: ‘And wherever it seizes him, it throws him down; he foams at the mouth’

The NKJV adds the words ‘at the mouth’ but does not put them in italics, causing the reader to assume they are in the original texts. 

Does the NKJV maintain accuracy of translation?

Is accuracy of translation improved in the NKJV, compared to the AV? Here are several test cases:

Psalm 30.4

AV: ‘the remembrance of his holiness’
NKJV: ‘the remembrance of His holy name’

This is not a translation but an interpretation since the Hebrew Masoretic has the word ‘holiness’.

Zechariah 9.17

AV: ‘For how great is his goodness, and how great is his beauty!’
NKJV: ‘For how great is its goodness And how great its beauty!’

This is a passage that is prophetic of Christ and ‘his goodness’ is changed to ‘its goodness’. In the margin the NKJV offers the alternative ‘his’.

Revelation 19.8

AV: ‘for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints’
NKJV: ‘for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints’

The Greek reads ‘righteousnesses’. This verse speaks plainly of the imputed righteousness of Christ to His people. The NKJV replace this vital doctrine with the good works of the saints.

If the NKJV was a sincere update of the AV, it would continue with the orthodoxy of the AV and reject the influence of other translations. Here are two examples of the NKJV following the NIV readings. 

Matthew 26.45

AV: ‘Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest:’
NKJV: ‘Then He came to His disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? … ’”

The NKJV follows the New International Version (NIV) in making the statement of Christ a question, rather than an imperative. The Received Text and the Critical Texts make no distinction, meaning that it is a deliberate translation decision.

Luke 12.49

AV: ‘I am come to send fi re on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?’
NKJV: ‘I came to send fi re on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!’

Again, the NKJV follows the NIV reading in making a question a definitive statement.

Does the NKJV adhere to accurate pronouns?

Many languages of the world make the distinction between the singular and the plural. The Biblical languages also make this distinction. Therefore, in order to have a faithful and accurate translation in English, we must also make this distinction.

One of the claims against the AV is that it uses ‘Old English’ terminology such as words like ‘thee’. However, this is not true; particularly with ‘thee’ it uses accurate English that is able to address clearly the singular and the plural. There are many thousands of instances of personal pronouns in a vast quantity of verses in the AV which differentiate between the singular and the plural, using words such as thee and you. 

Luke 22.31–32

AV: ‘Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee’
NKJV: ‘Simon Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you’

In the AV it is clear that Satan has desired to have all the disciples (you), but the Lord Jesus Christ has prayed specifically for Peter (thee). This important distinction is lost in the NKJV.

John 3.7

AV: ‘Marvel not that I say unto thee, Ye must be born again’
NKJV: ‘Do not marvel that I said unto you, “You must be born again”’

The Lord Jesus Christ addresses Nicodemus with the singular ‘thee’ but makes the application to all people with the plural ‘ye’. This is not conveyed in the NKJV. 

Does the NKJV maintain theological accuracy?

The NKJV claims to maintain the ‘doctrinal and theological terms’ used in the AV.⁶ This is not the case in relation to some very key terms.

Matthew 11.23

AV: ‘And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell’
NKJV: ‘And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades’

The Greek word is Hades and it can be translated in this way. But what is Hades? Even scholars like Richard Lenski and William Hendriksen who favour the Critical Text agree this word used here means ‘hell’. Like the NIV, the NKJV appears reluctant to use the word hell, and instead employs the word hades, as if to disguise the full meaning of the word from the reader. The AV uses the word ‘hell’ fifty-four times and the NKJV uses it thirty-five times. Nineteen times the word is downgraded to a weaker term.

Romans 1.28

AV: ‘God gave them over to a reprobate mind’
NKJV: ‘God gave them over to a debased mind’

The AV uses the word ‘reprobate’ seven times. This is a deeply profound theological term with repeated usage throughout church history. There are no occurrences in the NKJV.

Matthew 21.32

AV: ‘ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.’
NKJV: ‘and when you saw it, you did not afterward relent and believe him.’

The word ‘repent’ is changed in total forty-four times in the NKJV. Furthermore, every reference to the word ‘Sodomite’ is removed from the Old Testament. It is replaced in the NKJV with ‘perverted one’. 

Conclusion

We acknowledge that the problems of the NKJV are not as numerous or as serious as those found in English versions which are translated exclusively from the Critical Text, such as the NIV and ESV. We must also be honest and say there are occasions when the NKJV updates words and phrases that are found in the AV so they can be understood more readily by the modern reader. Yet there are evident serious flaws in the NKJV. Jack P. Lewis in his book The English Bible: From KJV to NIV made the following conclusion regarding the readability of the NKJV, ‘The NKJV is neither the KJV nor is it in the language of the twentieth-century common man’.⁷

Dr Henry Morris, who was on the North America Overview Committee of the NKJV makes a powerful argument regarding it: ‘I believe it is probably the best of the modern translations. Even so, after trying to use it and endorse it, I finally went back to the ‘old’ King James, convinced that it is still the best, in terms of poetic majesty, spiritual power, and over-all clarity and reliability’. ⁸ In our assessment of this translation we ask the question: Is the NKJV an update and revision of the AV, or is it another translation? The answer is that it is a completely different translation. It claims to be a successor to the AV but it is rather attempting to ride on the coattails of the AV to gain acceptance with those who are committed to the traditional Received Text. To that extent, it is actually a misleading translation.

As Christians, we should have a zeal and a passion for the ‘purity of Scripture’. If we do, I have no doubt it will lead us to dismiss the NKJV and appreciate with heartfelt gratitude the AV as the most faithful and accurate translation available today.⁹

Endnotes

^1. Holy Bible: New King James Version (Nashville, TN, USA: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Preface.

^2. The original executive editor of the NKJV, Arthur Farstad, was a Majority Text proponent. At about the same time as the NKJV was created, he collaborated with Z. C. Hodges and others to produce The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text (Nashville, USA: Thomas Nelson, 1982). The team of translators working on the NKJV did not favour the Greek Received Text. Some were for the Majority Text and some (possibly most) were for the Critical Text. None were Received Text proponents. At least seven of them also worked on the NIV. The preface makes various references that undermine confidence in the Received Text.

^3. Why the NKJV? (n.c.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, n.d.), p.10.

^4. M. H. Watts, The New King James Version: A Critique (London, UK: TBS, 2008), p.13.

^5. It is true that the translators say in the preface to the NKJV that they referred to the Bomberg edition, but it was not their base text. Preface, vii.

^6. NKJV 1982 Preface, p. v.

^7. J. P. Lewis, The English Bible: From KJV to NIV. A History and Evaluation (Michigan, USA: Baker Book House, 1981), p.331.

^8. H. M. Morris, A Creationist Defence of the King James Bible, wholesomewords.org/pdf/defense. pdf, accessed 11 April 2024.

^9. Those who wish to explore the issues further: The New King James Version: A Critique tbsbibles.org/TheNewKingJamesVersion.