Evaluating the NKJV and NASB

Evaluating the NKJV & the NASB

Evaluating the New King James Version

The NKJV was published in 1982 by Thomas Nelson Publishers (Nashville).

As with the other modern versions, The New King James Version has used the best Old and New Testament manuscripts available for their translation. The NKJV has attempted to remain quite close to the KJV but where the new manuscript evidence differed, the NKJV now follows the superior evidence with explanations given. In the New Testament, the NKJV has remained based upon the Textus Receptus and included notations in the margins where the Majority Text or Alexandrian Text differ.

The NKJV "follows the historic precedent of the Authorized Version in maintaining a literal approach to translation, except where the idiom of the original language cannot be translated directly into our tongue." Thus, for the Bible student, the NKJV is one of the best (if not the best) version for doing mechanical layouts, and serious study. It generally does an excellent job of keeping the sentence structure and verb tenses accurate.

In terms of readability, the NKJV has both advantages and disadvantages. In many places, it is quite an easy modern English translation to read. However, there are some places where it is so closely translated that it is awkward in English.

Evaluating the New American Standard Bible

Purposes
In the Foreword, The Lockman Foundation set forth The Fourfold Aim of the NASB translation.
1. These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
2. They shall be grammatically correct.
3. They shall be understandable.
4. They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him: therefore no work will ever be personalized.

Advantages

Textually the NASB is based on the best manuscripts. The Hebrew text is based mostly on Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica as well as the work from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The New Testament closely follows the 26th edition of Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece.

In reading the Foreword, there are very detailed explanations of how the translators handled various verb tenses and other linguistic features. In this respect, they have tried to remain quite close to the grammar of the original (much closer than the NIV).

The NASB employs some idioms, but is not nearly as idiomatic as the NIV. Where an idiom or dynamic equivalent has been used, the NASB also includes a notation as to what the actual original indicated. It seems to me to be one of the best (if not the best) translation in terms of finding a good medium between idioms and maintaining good grammatical accuracy.

Disadvantages

At least in the Updated NASB there are very few textual notes. Unlike the NIV where references to possible textual differences are at least made mention of, the NASB has infrequent textual references, especially on some of the key passages (eg. Romans 5:1).

There are a few places where the word-translation is quite unique – especially in comparison to other modern versions (eg. 1 Corinthians 6:9).