Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

1 John 5:7-8

King James Version (KJV)

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

retained as:

New King James Version (NKJV)

7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.


English Standard Version (ESV)

7 For there are three that testify:

8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

The Johannine Comma is widely considered as inauthentic. I'm curious as to why this was retained in the NJKV?

share|improve this question
I could not help but notice one thing regarding 1st John 5: 7 & 8: In Bible translations where the Trinity clause has been omitted ("and these three are one"), it takes BOTH verses (7 & 8) to form a complete sentence. Nowhere else in all the Bible have I yet been able to find another example of that. And that makes me skeptical! – user5785 Aug 25 '14 at 23:55
up vote 12 down vote accepted

Probably for continuity.

The translation philosophy of the NKJV version was to essentially follow the original King James Version but update the language.

They did realize that there was textual discrepencies. That particular passage included words found in later Greek editions of the text but not in earlier editions.

Regarding textual discrepancies of the NKJV, Arthur L. Farstad, the Executive Editor of the NKJV version addressed some of these concerns stating:

"None of the three [textual] traditions on every page of the New Testament ... is labeled 'best' or 'most reliable.' The reader is permitted to make up his or her own mind about the correct reading."



They knew about it, but left it the way it was in order to maintain the original translation as much as possible.

share|improve this answer
Ugh. This is such a terrible translation decision. I enjoy reading and listening to the NKJV, but this choice makes me want to throw my copies away. The footnote on this particular passage reads: "1 John 5:8 NU-Text and M-Text omit the words from in heaven (verse 7) through on earth (verse 8). Only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek." – Jon Ericson Oct 6 '11 at 19:26
Admittedly, it's not ideal, but they weren't trying to "fix" the authorized version, but rather they were just trying to make it more understandable. I think this comes from the desire to preserve the KJV as much as possible for the love of the old, poetic phrasing. I agree it is a bit annoying, but it's not like the trinity is solely based on this verse. – Richard Oct 6 '11 at 19:32
Its is ideal because the point is for people who want to stick with the KJV but in more readable form. People who want a translation of the latest Nestle-Aland are going to be using something else anyway. And big time Nestle-Aland elitists would turn their nose at anything that still has the letters "KJV" in it, so obviously the NKJV is not targeted at them. What's lamentable is that the NKJV didn't stick closer to the KJV in the OT, particularly Psalms. – david brainerd Aug 7 '14 at 3:27

protected by Community Jan 12 '15 at 2:39

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.