Dr. Helen Smith passed out the Sunday School folders for coloring by her 1940s primary class. Tow-headed Arthur, recently transferred from a Yonkers Sunday School to this little class meeting in Washington’s Georgetown area, was thrilled. The cover featured an outline picture of King Solomon, sitting on a pier, watching his cargo being unloaded from his ships of Tarshish: ivory, apes, and peacocks. Peacocks! Great for a crayola kid. Think of how many colors you could use!
Little did young Arthur realize that decades later he would help “unload” the peacocks from Solomon’s cargo once and for all. You see, the Hebrew word1 translated peacocks is now known to refer to animals of the simian variety—baboons (NIV) or monkeys (NKJV). Accuracy demands we keep up with the latest findings—at least where they’re certain.
In this respect Lord Chesterfield’s lines are appropriate:
“Be not the first by whom the new is tried,
Nor yet the last to lay the old aside.”
It is possible for Bible scholars and translators to accept too readily the findings (and sometimes mere theories!) in the learned journals. Just because it’s new doesn’t mean it’s necessarily true.
The other extreme is perhaps just as bad—being the last to lay aside a rendering that has been generally shown to be incorrect.
The NKJV, as usual, has taken a balanced but conservative position, somewhere between these extremes.
In our previous chapter we traced the general process by which the King James Version became the New King James Version.
In this, our final chapter on accuracy, we would like to review briefly some of the finishing touches that went into the new version, both before and after the NKJV was published.
As mentioned before, archaeology and the study of languages cognate to Hebrew have revealed the true meanings of a number of Hebrew and fewer Greek words—words that were previously translated by good guessing from the context. Unfortunately, when the mystery word is a noun describing an unknown object, the context often is not a safe guide.
Besides the peacock/monkey illustration, we will present some interesting examples of other problem words.
Old Testament Examples
We have chosen three sample revisions from the many that could be cited from the Hebrew Old Testament.
The son of a very strict minister from one of the smaller Baptist denominations was explaining why he had not followed his father’s teachings. He said that the Bible had contradictions, such as allowing capital punishment (which he opposed) and yet the sixth commandment said, “Thou shalt not kill.” I explained to him that Hebrew had two separate verbs2 here, and that the commandment literally means, “You shall not murder,” quite a different thing from executions by the recognized government after due process of law. Actually, this change in the NKJV is not a new find. The Douai Bible said centuries ago, “Thou shalt do no murder,” a very good translation for its time. But the change in the King James tradition was long overdue and very important.
This verse shows how not knowing a little technical term can obscure the meaning of a text. It also illustrates other archaic expressions that no longer mean much except to experts in seventeenth-century usage.
The “linen yarn” of the KJV does not even seem to be a very good guess in the context of horse trading. We now know that Keveh was a place noted for horse-breeding.
New Testament Examples
Contention, Strife/Selfish Ambition—Philippians 1:16; cf. 2:3
The Greek word eritheia was once thought to be related to eris, “strife,” and translated accordingly. Both words appear in lists of sins in 2 Corinthians 12:20 and Galatians 5:20, which of course gives it little or no “context,” but does suggest that they would not both mean “strife” or “contention.”
The contexts of both Philippians 1:16 and of 2:3 favor a meaning like “selfish ambition”:
The older rendering cannot be said to be definitely wrong, but the newer one is better, especially in context.4
Taxed, Taxing/Registered, Census—Luke 2:1, 2
Every Christmas Eve our family would read Luke 2 by the light of the Christmas tree. Doubtless millions of other families have a similar tradition. For this reason it is hard to change even a word of the Christmas story, so deeply is it imbedded in our hearts. Yet in the very first two verses there are two words in the KJV that are not quite correct:
Joseph, Mary, and the rest of the Roman Empire were not going up to be taxed—not yet at least! They were going because their names had to be registered in a census. A government cannot tax the people unless it has first recorded them on its tax rolls. As devout Jews submissive to the authorities, Joseph and Mary heeded the decree—and thereby unknowingly fulfilled Micah 5:2 by going all the way to Bethlehem.
The Definite Article
English, unlike Latin which lacks it, has a full use of the definite article the, similar to Greek usage. The Greek article is more sophisticated and varied in its usage no doubt, but frequently the two languages match. This is an area where the King James needed some improvement. There are places where the Greek has the definite article and the English would be clearer with it as well. Romans 5:15 is an example:
The definite article makes the translation precisely accurate.
An area where English does not match Greek is in the so-called “generic use of the article.” This means that when talking about a category, such as types of animals, people, or things, Greek uses the article and English tends not to. This is shown in Matthew 8:20:
It is more idiomatic not to use an article in English in such a situation, since for us the article tends to point out specific objects, not classes.
The Consistency Check
It is well known that the King James translators were fond of translating the same Greek word several different ways in one passage for literary variety. They also would sometimes translate different Greek or Hebrew words with the same English word. If all of these were to be computerized so that the same Greek word was always translated the same way, it would not be the King James tradition. Neither would it be good English style!
However, most careful students of the Scriptures felt that the 1611 “learned men” overdid the variety motif. For this reason a detailed and laborious “consistency check” was performed, using the fine Greek-English Concordance of the Mennonite scholar, J. B. Smith. This volume presents the KJV translations of Greek words in chart form. The New King James is much more consistent than the Old, but without going overboard on changes.
For example, in parallel passages, if a certain word was translated “garment” in one Gospel, “vesture” in another, “raiment” in a third, and “clothing” in a fourth, the two archaic words would be changed to the same word as one of the others. There would then be two, not four, translations of this word.
On the other side of the coin, in John 13, two very different Greek verbs are both translated “wash” in the KJV.5 Here the symbolic argument of the footwashing versus the complete bath is lost in the older version. “Bathe” is the correct rendering for the body, “wash” for the feet.
Juggling Potatoes
A sergeant assigned a buck private to sort potatoes as his “K.P.” (Kitchen Police) duty.
“Put the big potatoes in one pile and the small ones in another pile.”
Coming back some time later, the sergeant was angry to see that the private couldn’t even carry out so simple an order. There were not two, but three stacks of potatoes.
“Hey, what’s the big idea, Sonny? What is that third pile all about?”
“Oh, Sarge,” the private explained brightly, “those are the potatoes that were too little to put in the pile of big potatoes and too big to put in the pile of little ones!”
In working on the New King James Version we had a similar problem: “borderline potatoes.” It would have actually been easier and less work to start a new translation from scratch. Then we would only have had to deal with two clear-cut issues: the original text and modern usage. Juggling two “potatoes” is not so hard. However, a careful revision has a third item to juggle: those borderline readings of the older version that were slightly old but probably still have some mileage.
Clearly archaic, obsolete, or even vulgar expressions were no problem. They had to go!
The Nashville Convocation
For some strange reason, no matter how many people of all walks of life read and interact with typescripts, only after a Bible is actually published do certain little problems surface. The RSV and the NIV—not to mention the original KJV—shared this same experience.6
Because this is so, after the NKJV had been in print for about two years, Mr. Moore called a convocation of Christian leaders as well as a group of translators to Nashville.
On August 13th and 14th of 1984, the convocation was held at the beautiful Opryland Hotel.
Two distinguished new translators were invited to join the original teams—Dr. James Borland of Liberty University and Professor Zane C. Hodges, then of Dallas Theological Seminary. Although Hodges was not a translator of any New Testament book, I consulted him on several knotty problems during the days of editing the New Testament.
The participants in the larger group included several men and women whose names are household words in their own disciplines, and some who are well known in Christian circles generally.
Dr. Charles C. Ryrie7 gave a fascinating lecture on the Geneva Bible as an example of which aspects of a version make for wide popularity.
Other well-known Christians at the convocation included Dr. Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ, Dr. Jack Wyrtzen, evangelist and head of Word of Life, and Dr. Charles Stanley, at that time President of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Although Dr. Thomas Zimmerman, General Overseer of the Assemblies of God, was unable to attend, Mrs. Juleen Turnage, the Secretary of Information, came to represent him and their denomination. She made very valuable contributions to the discussion. Other women who contributed their wisdom were author and lecturer Mrs. Jill Briscoe, and Evelyn Christenson, President of United Prayer Ministries, whose book What Happens When Women Pray? has been very popular.
The entire list of delegates, all outstanding people in their own right, will be found in Appendix D.
In consultation with the Christian leaders, the primary goal of the Translation Committee was to improve the NKJV with enhancements of English vocabulary and style, smoother use of connectives, and more consistency between parallel passages.
The Finished Product: Selected Comparisons
A very wise old Anglo-Saxon saying is, “The proof of the pudding is in the tasting.” This applies to Bible Versions as well as puddings. The quality of accuracy and the character of the New King James Version may be appreciated by sampling the dual passages presented below. Underlining is added to highlight key revisions. Several more passages illustrating literary beauty will be found in the second main section of our book.
This passage illustrates those texts that needed very little change. However, verse 15 does contain a most interesting example of a word (prevent) that has almost done a complete 180-degree change in meaning. A person reading the KJV would likely get a totally false picture of what Paul meant.
The changes in the interest of accuracy here are papyrus for paper (verse 7), hooks for angle, and replacing the very odd translation “fish“ in verse 10 with soul, the usual translation of the Hebrew word. Here the KJV was following the Vulgate.
Pastors is Latin for shepherds, but in English the word today suggests a local church situation. Other words that needed updating are brutish, bruit, and the non-existent dragons!
I call this “the most expensive verse in the NKJV.” No underlining is used because nearly all of both verses would have to be underlined to show the clarifications. Eight of us spent all morning in the Williamsburg Room of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary working on this one verse to make it comprehensible. Architecture without blueprints is very difficult! An attorney friend of mine likes the KJV rendering because, as he put it, “It’s mystical.” He admitted, however, that he had absolutely no idea what it means!
This exciting shipwreck chapter is full of nautical terms. Unfortunately, most of them in the KJV are no longer used. The changes are many and necessary. We have underscored them in both texts to facilitate comparison.
Use of Italics
Most lovers of the King James Bible know that the italicized words denote language that is not in the original Greek or Hebrew, but which is supplied by the translators to complete the sense of an English sentence. These words have always been a problem to editors because it is often hard to determine whether certain words should be considered as part of a word in the original or italicized as a supplied word. Most places, however, are clear.
In 1979, when the New Testament was published in the New King James Version, the editors and publisher agreed to do away with italics for two reasons. First was the problem mentioned above as to exactly which words should be italicized. A second problem is that today italics usually mean emphasis (or a foreign word). Occasionally, even preachers will not know the KJV tradition and emphasize the very words that have no specific words behind them in the original!
On this issue the public spoke out in no uncertain terms: “Restore the italics!” Many people feel safer with a translation if they are able to tell where the words have been added.
Two other small items of accuracy regarding italics: First, italics have been used more consistently in the New King James Version to reflect the structure and meaning of the original text. Also, some italicized words that were formerly in the King James Bible are omitted in the New King James because they are no longer needed to complete the English sense.
This chapter illustrates the minute but severe language problems that confront translation committees, particularly when revising a centuries-old English Bible. The best of both worlds—the ancient and the modern—must be maintained.
Notes
1. The word tukkîîm occurs only in 1 Kings 10:22 and the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 9:21. Koehler-Baumgartner list “Affe/ape” as a translation in Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, p. 1028.
2. “Kill” is qātal and “murder” is rātzah.
3. NKJV note: “About two-thirds shekel weight.”
4. See Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 309.
5. “Wash” is niptō and “bathe” is louō.
6. For example, the RSV vacillated between consecrate and sanctify in John 17 in early printings.
7. Dr. Ryrie, former Chairman of the Department of Systematic Theology at Dallas Seminary, has authored a host of widely-read books. The Ryrie Study Bible is available in the NKJV (Moody Press).