I know that the hard theological differences between the Textus Receptus (i.e. “King James”) and modern critical versions of the Greek New Testament are basically nil, but when you get down into the details, there are a lot of little differences. Here’s one:
| Jude 1:22-23 | |
|---|---|
| NKJ | ESV |
| And on some have compassion, making a distinction; but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire,hating even the garment defiled by the flesh. | And have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh. |
The differences are there, even if they are subtle. So no matter what your preacher or your professor tells you about the superiority of the modern translations, I think there’s some benefit to preserving the text that 500 years of English readers have understood. The TR is also the text that Greek speaking Christians have used for 1500 years, and possibly nearly 2000.
And yet, I’m becoming persuaded that the NKJV, regardless of the quality of the original text that it is based on, is just not as good a translation as some of the newer versions, like the ESV and HCSV. So here’s what I want: a new English translation based on the Textus Receptus for the New Testament, and (just to stir things up a bit), based on the Septuagint for the Old Testament. After all, the Septuagint was the version of the OT that Jesus and the apostles used. No seriously, it was. We usually translate the OT from he Masoretic Hebrew, because it’s in Hebrew, and therefore more authentic to the original Hebrew text. But all the quotes in the NT are from the Septuagint. I figure, since I’m already wishing, I might as well shoot for the moon and ask for a Bible that’s internally consistent, so that my New Testament quotes actually match their Old Testament references.
However, I have a suspicion that the market for such a Bible is pretty thin. If I ever want to see such thing, I might have to make it myself.
neumatikos 