I've Shelved My NKJV. Maybe You Should, Too?
I've shelved my NKJV Bible this week; you might want to think about your Bible translation, too.
After being challenged at seminary, I recently took a closer look at the translation of my Bible. For years I've used the NKJV as my primary study and preaching translation; I grew up hearing it in church and at home. But during my seminary visit, I was challenged through the course content and the Holy Spirit to reconsider using a single translation so heavily.
Now let me say first, there is nothing 'wrong' with the NKJV version. It is going to get us all where we need to go in God (the Gospel is still the Gospel in there). There is unlikely to be any significant doctrinal differences between it and any other translation. But because I can't read Greek (maybe I should learn — another topic for another day), I want a translation that is as close to the original greek as we have today. I thought that was the NKJV.
Consider two things I learned about Bible translations:
1. Translations fall into three categories Word for Word (Formal Equivalence), Thought for Thought (Functional Equivalence) and Free (Paraphrase)
2. Our many good translations today sit on a spectrum between these goals. See the below diagram.
When translators have functional equivalence as their primary goal (which is an admirable goal); they are required to make conclusions about what the original texts means to us today. Translating for functional equivalence is an essential service because languages, like English, are always evolving. What said something 50 years ago, let alone 100s of years ago, can easily mean something completely different today. The same is true of idioms. So for people to be able to easily understand what the Bible is saying thought for thought translations are helpful. The NIV is an excellent choice in this regard, though some will disagree with that.
Generally, though, what can be helpful for thoughtful leaders is to select a few translations for study, and to select something that balances these two goals for a main study/church Bible. However, I tend to lean towards a literal word for word translations. Partly because I grew up on one (KJV/NKJV) and partly because I want to know what was said directly to the original audience, and then I want to use all the fantastic tools we have today to understand how that fits with us today.
Now the NKJV (the part you've been waiting for) looks to meet that goal when you look at the diagram, but it gets tricky. The NKJV was mainly based on the KJV, and I was unaware that the KJV was translated by basically one person (Erasmus). He used manuscripts of the Bible that are relatively young. In the more than 400 years since it was translated, new manuscripts, which are 1000 years older, have been found. That means we have manuscripts which were written closer to the time of the Bible.
The NKJV, published in 1982, is unique in that it is not a translation of the older manuscripts, it is an update on the early English of the KJV. The work of updating was not done lightly and took time and a great deal of effort on the part of 130 scholars. However, I prefer to read a translation that is the most current up-to-date scholarship and the oldest manuscripts we have. That is not the KJV or NKJV. You should know, though, that reading these texts is an excellent choice if it is an informed one; I was uninformed. The Greek called 'Textus Receptus' form the foundation for translating the KJV and in turn the NKJV. The Textus Receptus, established on the Byzantine Text, is more commonly called the Majority Text. These New Testament manuscripts are the most plentiful — we have many of them — and they seem consistent across the ones found. Some people believe that the number of manuscripts is more important than age. It's a valid position to have.
For me, though, older wins out — what can I say, I'm a vintage kinda guy.
So my choice is now the ESV. It is the most recent translation based on the oldest manuscripts. Not only that, but it also leverages the most recent scholarship we posses about interpretation, Greek, translation, history, etc. There are some things I don't prefer about the ESV chief among them — it uses mostly male pronouns — but it footnotes where it could use both male and female pronouns; so all is not lost. Some people suspect it of being bias towards Reform Theology — I'm not concerned about that.
A close second choice for me on the word for word end is the NASB — but I found the language too outdated. An accurate word for word translation is vital in our time because we have so many (free) tools available to personally study the Bible. There has never been a time in history with more access to the scriptures and the materials that support studying scripture. That said we are reading the Bible less in Canada (Just 14% of Canadians read the Bible at least once a month as of 2014; down 14% from the previous decade—click here for the study ).
So whatever translation gets you reading, embrace it — read it, and listen to it.
In my Bible stack (which understandably bothers my family because they are everywhere all of the time) I have the NRSV and the NIV from the thought for thought section, and then for a paraphrase, I use the NLT. My choices from these categories have to do with the scholarly rigour from which they developed.
John Wesley contended that the scripture is a "means of grace" for us. That means when we read scripture with an open heart, think about it critically, and in community the Holy Spirit can impart grace. This enables us to live the holy and empowered life God intends. Wesley also suggested if there was doubt as to meaning one whose consult with those more experienced in the Lord than oneself; I'm thankful there are many people in my life more knowledgeable and more experienced I can lean on.
Some good resources:
Article: Reading The Bible With Your Whole Self
Article: 3 Tips for Better Bible Reading
