In the reading of most KJV Only works, one comes across a predominant theme. Westcott and Hort were the influential leaders needed to push the church at large to reject the TR. The discovery of Sinaiticus likewise is seen as a primary cause of the acceptance of new critical texts. Westcott and Hort are branded as ultra liberal, and the whole idea of textual criticism with its new critical text is tied to the influence of liberal scholars and rationalistic thinking. In short, the whole church was hoodwinked by liberals, and convinced by the finding of buried manuscripts. And thus, it is assumed that without the influence of Westcott and Hort (and other liberal scholars), and without the discovery of new manuscripts, the TR would still reign supreme.

This view offers its own contra-assertions. It claims that if we had faith in God and His promises to preserve His Word, then we should still hold fast to the TR. God would not use manuscripts hidden for 1000 years+ to correct the Bible. Since liberalism is clearly “anti-God/anti-faith”, we must avoid the man-centered rationalism which produced textual criticism and the critical text. Westcott and Hort treated the manuscripts like secular writings, ignoring God’s preservation of Scripture. This then, invalidates all of their work.

This line of thought is very convincing. Many believers are easily convinced to jump on the great “conspiracy theory” bandwagon. For some, Alexandrian texts get linked to heterodox theology, text corrupters start appearing behind every bush in history, and then even the editors and scholars creating conservative modern versions today are turned into Christ-despising, blasphemers. Others avoid the more sensational claims but accept the generally assumed truth that liberalism and new manuscripts produced the widespread acceptance of the modern critical texts we see today.

Here, then is where I ask my question: “Fact or Fiction?”

Without the Influence of Westcott & Hort and the Discovery of New MSS the TR Would Still Reign Supreme: Fact or Fiction?

In evaluating this claim let us consider four important points.

1) The crucial contributions of conservative scholars to the field of textual criticism

Here let me quote a few paragraphs from Douglas Kutilek’s review of David Sorenson’s book Touch Not the Unclean Thing. [This review is in my opinion, one of the best overviews of the KJV Only issue–it is very enlightening yet succinct.]

…there is, to the contrary, a solid stream of devote, God-fearing, Bible-believing and Bible-defending men who have been at the heart of the rise and propagation of the critical texts (I mention only some of the more important). Early on, Theodore de Beza (1519-1605), successor and biographer of Calvin, set about collecting and recording variant readings from Greek manuscripts (as Stephanus had done before him); the collection and classification of such variants was an essential preliminary to the work of correcting the TR. Later, John Mill (1645-1707) spent 30 years rigorously examining Greek manuscripts, compiling detailed lists of variant readings in these manuscripts. He published, just before his death, an edition of the NT with a critical apparatus listing 30,000 variants he had discovered (all this was necessary groundwork to revising the TR on the basis of genuine evidence). His Greek text was highly prized and long-used by scholars, including Burgon, because of its very extensive listing of variants.

Later, Sir Richard Bentley (1662-1742), acclaimed as one of the two or three greatest classical scholars of all time and a staunch opponent of 17th and 18th century English atheists and deists, was among the first to propose a revised Greek text, based on his extensive knowledge of NT Greek and Latin manuscripts. Of this project, only a sample of Revelation was ever completed.

On the Continent, Johann Bengel (1687-1751), the famous Bible commentator, a man conservative in doctrine and noted for his consistent Christian piety, undertook the study of Greek NT manuscripts and their variant readings first of all to settle in his own mind the issue of the effect if any such variants might have on the doctrinal content of the NT (for his conclusion, see the quote below). Bengel was the first to identify two major groupings of manuscripts (what today we call Byzantine and Alexandrian), and due in part to his extensive list of principles of textual criticism, he is the acknowledged father of modern textual criticism.

In the mid-19th century, two men stood head and shoulders above the rest as examiners of manuscripts and collectors of variant reading, and had a profound impact on the content and direction of the textual criticism of the NT. I speak of Samuel P. Tregelles (1813-1875) and Constantin Tischendorf (1815-1874), both of whom published revised Greek texts which differ markedly from the TRbut agree substantially with the text later published by Westcott and Hort. Tregelles was raised a Quaker but as an adult was long associated with the Plymouth Brethren. His contribution to Christian scholarship was immense and his theological orthodoxy is beyond quibble or dispute (let the carping critic examine Tregelles’ note under the word “almah” in his translation of Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, and then fall into embarrassed silence). As for Tischendorf, while my exposure to him and his writings is much more limited, I have never read a word about him or by him that suggested that he was anything other than conservative and orthodox in theology. [1]

2) Bible translations produced by conservative scholars before 1881.

Before the release of Westcott and Hort’s influential Greek Text (1881), at least two conservative Bibles were produced which departed from the TR in hundreds of places. The American Bible Union (predominantly Baptists) published its New Testament in English in 1865[2]. According to Kevin Bauder, this version “antedated the introduction of theological liberalism into the United States” and the “orthodox credentials of its supporters and translators are beyond question”[3]. This version even had an influence on the 1881 Revised Version, as the translators often referred to this version while doing their translation work[4]. It also differed from the TR in hundreds of places [5]. J.N. Darby, a leader in the conservative Brethren movement, produced his own Bible version in 1872. He also departed from the TR in many places [6]. These versions illustrate that Westcott and Hort were not the only influence in moving away from the critical text, and they serve to show that the conservative realm of orthodox theology had no qualms about replacing or improving the KJV by means of the critical text current in their time.

3) The widespread acceptance of new critical texts by conservative church leaders.

The following quote from Kutilek’s article mentioned above serves to illustrate the widespread acceptance of critical texts both before and after 1881 by conservative church leaders:

It should be pointed out that conservative scholars and well-read pastors among Baptists (as was also true among conservative Presbyterians, Methodists, and others) in the 19th and 20th centuries rather consistently accepted the revised, critical texts as more faithful representations of the NT originals than the TR. Among these: H. B. Hackett, Thomas Armitage, John Broadus, J. P. Boyce, B. H. Carroll, A. T. Robertson, Charles Spurgeon, and many, many others (see my unpublished Th.M. thesis at Central Baptist Seminary, Plymouth, Minnesota, The Text and Translation of the Bible: Nineteenth Century American Baptist Views.) Are we to suppose that all these devote and faithful and informed men were somehow complete ignoramuses on the text issue (which was a big issue in their day and received very extensive publicity), that somehow they were gullibly sucked into dreadful apostasy and unbelief, that none of them was wise enough to even suspect the truth, which has only now been brought to our attention…. [7]

4) The widespread dissatisfaction with the KJV before 1850.

One Bible Only? edited by Kevin Bauder and Roy Beacham, reproduces a speech given by Thomas Armitage on the occasion of the founding of the American Baptist Union in 1950. The Union was founded specifically to ensure that a new version of the English Bible could be pursued. They published their NT in 1865 as mentioned above. Let me provide a revealing quote from Thomas Armitage justifying the need for a new version of the English Bible.

…let us labor…to procure…such a translation of the Word of God as will give one sense, and but one, and that so clearly, as to enable the unlettered to understand the Word of God, without the use of note, or comment, or gloss, or of the living teacher, where the Spirit has designed no inexplicable mystery, to which we must submissively bow….That our commonly received version of the English Scriptures does this, we cannot confidently declare. If we can, why the dissatisfaction with it which has always existed in the minds of the most godly and learned men, from the time it was given? Why the number of new translations, in part or in whole, by such men as Thomson, Scarlet, Wakefield, Dickinson, Wesley, Webster, A. Clark, Campbell, Macknight, Stewart, Doddridge, Lowth, Barnes, and multitudes of others? Why the piles of Comments, Notes, Essays, and Exegeses, either accompanying these translations or going forth alone, treating of the errors of this version, and seeking to remove them? And from whence has all this dissatisfaction arisen?[8]

Armitage goes on to quote from several scholars from the past hundred years suggesting various ways the KJV needs improvement. And it is not merely a translational improvement, as textual corrections are also recommended. From this evidence it is clear that there was much in motion already to lead to a widely accepted revision of the KJV; and this, totally apart from the influence of Westcott and Hort and new manuscript discoveries made after 1850.

5) The conclusions of textual criticism before the discovery of Sinaiticus or the publication of Vaticanus.

This last consideration is very striking. I refer you to a link which quotes Tregelles, a principle textual critic of the 1800s, who gives his opinion as to what the proper reading should be in a few key places. While the article is written before the discovery of Sinaiticus and the publication of Vaticanus, Tregelles comes to the same conclusions as the modern text in such passages as 1 John 5:7, 1 Tim. 3:16, John 1:18, and 1 Pet. 3:15. Michael Marlowe (the one who has posted this article) introduces it with the following remarks:

The following chapter was written by Samuel P. Tregelles, an eminent scholar of the text of the New Testament, who wrote this chapter before Tischendorf discovered the famous codex Sinaiticus, before the librarians of the Vatican had made codex Vaticanus fully accessible to scholars, before Westcott and Hort began their studies, and before the discovery of any of the papyrus manuscripts which figure so prominently in recent study. Yet it is remarkable to observe how Tregelles usually arrives at the same conclusions as later critical editors. This goes to show that in general the conclusions of recent editors do not depend upon a small number of recently-discovered manuscripts, nor upon any theory of recensions as developed by Westcott and Hort.Indeed, as Tregelles shows, these conclusions were anciently held by fathers of the church.[9]

On the basis of the above considerations, I believe that without the influence of Westcott and Hort, and apart from the discovery of Sinaiticus and other new MSS and papyrii, we still would have a Greek text today that is substantially different from the TR. And thus, I believe the idea expressed above concerning the indispensable influence of Westcott and Hort along with the modern MSS discoveries is more fiction than fact.

Note: The idea I have addressed with this article is a general feel one gets from the KJV Only works. I am not sure if any of them make specific claims as to whether the modern text today would be so bad without Westcott and Hort or Sinaiticus’ influence. The general tenor of many KJV Only works does give the impressions stated in this article. The author has read well over 1500 pages of KJV Only literature and is convinced this is the case. Regardless of whether specific KJV Onlyists do not make the claims I infer they make, the facts presented here apply forcefully to the KJV Only controversy. And the facts stated here are not well known or addressed in the popular KJV Only works out there.

———————————————————————-

Footnotes

[1] Quoted from “A Review of Touch Not the Unclean Thingby David Sorenson” by Doug Kutilek, online article accessed 8/23/06: http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_review_touch_not_the_unclean_thing.htm.

[2] Apparently there had been earlier revisions or installments of the revision. Thomas Armitage, the Baptist historian, states “the final revision of the New Testament…was published in 1865”. Quoted from A History of the Baptists, by Thomas Armitage, online article covering the section “The American Baptists”, sub section “17. Bible Translation and Bible Societies”, accessed 8/23/06 http://www.reformedreader.org/history/armitage/ch17.htm.

[3] One Bible Only?: Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bibleedited by Kevin T. Bauder and Roy E. Beacham (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2001): Appendix D, pg. 218.

[4] Proof of this assertion is found in this quote from Thomas Armitage: “The Bible Union’s New Testament was published nearly six years before the Canterbury revision was begun, and nearly seventeen years before it was given to the world. Although Dr. Trench had pronounced the ‘installments’ of the American Bible Union’s New Testament ‘not very encouraging,’ yet the greatest care was had to supply the English translators with that version. During the ten and a half years consumed in their work, they met in the Jerusalem Chamber at Westminster each month for ten months of every year, each meeting lasting four days, each day from eleven o’clock to six; and the Bible Union’s New Testament lay on their table all that time, being most carefully consulted before changes from the common version were agreed upon. One of the best scholars in the corps of English revisers said to the writer: ‘We never make an important change without consulting the Union’s version. Its changes are more numerous than ours, but four out of five changes are in exact harmony with it, and I am mortified to say that the pride of English scholarship will not allow us to give due credit to that superior version for its aid.’ This was before the Canterbury version was completed, but when it was finished it was found that the changes in sense from the common version were more numerous than those of the Union’s version, and that the renderings in that version are verbatim in hundreds of cases with those of the Union’s version.” from A History of the Baptists by Thomas Armitage (see above bibliographical info).

[5] For Love of the Bible: The Battle for the King James Version and the Received Text from 1800 to Present by David Cloud (Oak Harbor, WA: Way of Life Literature, 1997, 3rd edition.) pg. 80.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Quoted from “A Review of Touch Not the Unclean Thingby David Sorenson” by Doug Kutilek.

[8] One Bible Only?, Appendix D, pg. 221-222.

[9] Quoted from “Notes on Some Passages of Dogmatic Importance” by Samuel P. Tregelles, edited by Michael Marlowe, online article accessed 8/23/06: http://www.bible-researcher.com/dogma.html

Sharper Iron recently posted a fascinating article on the KJV Only debate. It is a  treatment of Acts 19:20 in light of KJV Onlyism (of the TR Only variety). Doug Kutilek made the important point that the KJV departs from all editions of the TR to read “word of God” with the Vulgate instead of “word of Lord” in this verse. The modern Majority Text and the Critical Text both agree with the TR on this reading, as well.

While the article was profusely documented, it made one fatal mistake. It used “lemmings” to describe KJV Onlyists who mindlessly follow D.A. Waite, David Cloud and others. This was a big mistake, as reading the ensuing discussion demonstrates! I am not defending the use of that word necessarily: it can definitely be understood as an insult. But I think it unfortunate that such a  molehill  became  the mountain which stopped any fruitful discussion of the  article’s main point.  

Eventually the thread was closed with a good explanation and defense by Jason Janz. I respect his decision to close the thread, but the problem Kutilek pointed out in his article had not been answered by the KJV Onlyists. Kent Brandenburg had promised to come back with an answer. And now he can’t. With all threads on the KJV issue closed at Sharper Iron right now, it is unlikely he will be given opportunity.  

So, let me discuss what Pastor Brandenburg’s answer most likely is. I have discussed this issue with him and others at his church and I believe I have a good feel for  his answer.  

He would say something like this:

Using “God” instead of “Lord” amounts to a dynamic equivalent translation. There are some of these in the KJV but not many. In fact both the LXX and the New Testament sometimes use the word “God” to translate the Hebrew equivalent of “Lord”. Thus there is more than sufficient precedent for this translation.

I do not think that explanation cuts it. And here’s why.

Brandenburg and most TR onlyists believe that God has perfectly preserved His Word. For the New Testament the TR is the avenue of that preservation. Now the reason it is the TR is because that is what the church used. Which TR? Glad you asked! Since the KJV was universally used by the English church and respected by others so much and for so long, we use the form of the TR that the KJV translators used. Scrivener has providentially given us that very form in his TR edition from the late 1800s. Case closed.

But here is where Acts 19:20 becomes sticky. If we are to determine which TR to use on the basis of the KJV, and then the KJV arbitrarily goes with “God” instead of “Lord”, are not we to assume that the correct reading of the TR should be “God” not “Lord”? All the stuff about a precedent for using “God” instead of “Lord” doesn’t become practice for the KJV translators. They translate “God” when they find “God” in the Greek and “Lord”…”Lord”, almost without exception. So why in Acts 19:20 is it okay to now follow some great precedent?

The fact is Acts 19:20 throws a cog into the wheels of the TR only machine. And Acts 19:20 is not alone. Ruth 3:15 is another sticky situation. The KJV 1611 ends the verse as follows: “and he went into the city”. Yet the modern KJV (1769 and later editions) has “and she went into the city”. The Hebrew Masoretic Text has “he” while its qere reading (the marginal reading) has “she“.

Now when the churches accepted the KJV and thus that exact form of Greek/Hebrew text, did they accept the “he” or the “she”. “She” is not even in the margin of the KJV 1611. Some TR onlyists go with the MT and the original 1611 reading, while others go with the modern form of the KJV and affirm the qere reading of “she”. But this case illustrates the problem of deciding which TR to use on the basis of the KJV’s readings. Which KJV is to be accepted, and which group of churches (those before 1769 or after) are to be followed when deciding which TR to use? This problem is an Achilles’ heel in my view, I have discussed it in more length earlier here.

Other examples of such a problem where the KJV does not use the text that is accepted today as perfect, include Ps. 22:16 (Hebrew MT reads “like a lion” rather than “they pierced”), Job 13:15, Is. 10:32, Lam. 3:26, Jer. 3:9, Micah 1:10, Ia. 13:15, Gal. 4:15, Eph. 6:24,  Phil. 2:21, 2 Tim. 1:18, 1 Pet. 2:13 among many others.

---

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

This post marks the beginning of a new series on my blog: KJV Only: Fact or Fiction? The series will highlight a number of KJV Only claims which are simply inaccurate. I will try to post weekly on this topic for the next few months if possible. Also, if anyone has any suggestions or questions for this series, feel free to give them to us all in the comments or you can email me.

So, without further ado, let us get to this week’s topic:

Majority Rules!

The KJV Onlyists claim that since the text underlying the KJV is based on the majority of the manuscripts, then the KJV is to be favored. This claim carries a lot of weight in the textual debate. Many an unsuspecting person is absorbed by the KJV Only movement upon hearing this “fact”. But let us ask the question: Fact or Fiction? Does majority rule in this case?

When KJV onlyists emphasize the “fact” that the KJV is based on the majority of the manuscripts, they usually ignore three vitally important considerations. We will look at each of these considerations and then find ourselves in a better position to answer our question.

Majority of Greek texts versus the TR

KJV onlyists assume that the Greek Textus Receptus (TR), which the King James is based on, represents the majority of the Greek Manuscripts. This is not accurate. The TR was actually based on seven Greek manuscripts as well as Erasmus’ copious textual notes on the Greek text [1]. Most KJV onlyists use the “pie-in-the-sky”, wishful thinking view at this point, glibly assuming that the TR in fact really does represent the best of the majority of the manuscripts and that Erasmus’ textual notes and considerable knowledge of the Greek text offsets the use of only seven manuscripts. This hopeful hypothesis is made all the more doubtful by the consideration that Erasmus had not planned on producing his Greek text at the time he did: he was pressured to produce the text in a very short time by his printer. This forced him to use the locally available manuscripts rather than others he may have preferred to use [2]. Incredibly high demand forced subsequent editions to be produced by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzevirs, and others without any wholesale revision of the text. Small revisions and corrections were made here and there, but printers’ errors and other errors introduced in Erasmus’ first Greek text remain in the TR down to this day [3].

Besides the documented history of Erasmus’ production of the TR, another fact flies in the face of the claim that the TR/KJV was based on the majority of the manuscripts. While most KJV onlyists assume that “majority text” is shorthand for the TR, it in fact is not. In 1982 the first edition of the printed Majority Text was published, edited by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad. Other editions have followed as well as a competing  Majority Text edited by Pierpont and Robinson (1991). These texts are based on the collation work done so far on the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts. These texts contain over 1,800 differences from the TR [4]. Now it is true this number is less than the estimated 5,600+ differences between the Westcott & Hort 1881 text [5] which is very similar to the critical text editions used today (UBS 4th edition, Nestle-Aland 27th edition). Yet the amount of differences between the TR and the Majority Text reveal that the majority of the Greek manuscripts do not in any sense unequivocally support the TR. In many places they do support the KJV over and against modern versions, but in many other places they do not. In fact, in many of the differences between the TR and the modern critical text, the Majority Text actually supports the critical text and modern versions against the TR.

In passing, I want to just list some important texts contained in the TR which are not contained in the Majority Text. 1 John 5:7, Acts 9:5-6, Acts 8:37, Rev. 22:19 “book of life” are just a few of many instances where the Majority of Greek manuscripts do not support the TR reading.

Majority of all texts and versions

When KJV onlyists say majority they are referring to the majority of the 5,600 or so Greek manuscripts. Yet KJV onlyists will also claim that God used the Latin textual tradition to preserve important textual readings such as 1 John 5:7 and those readings noted above (for instance E.F. Hills claims this, among many others). That being said, should not the entirety of ancient versions of the New Testament be included in any discussions of “the majority”? There are over 10,000 Latin manuscripts of the Vulgate, for instance, and the Vulgate’s text is closer to the modern critical text than the TR [6]. If we include just the Latin manuscripts, we find the majority of all the manuscripts do not support the KJV! For most other ancient languages, the majority of textual witnesses supports the critical text.

Geographical and Chronological Majority

Finally we must consider geographical and chronological concerns. Chronologically, it was not until the 9th century or later that a majority of Greek manuscripts supported the TR [7]. The vast majority of earlier manuscripts support the readings of the modern critical text.

Geographically, the KJV only’s “majority” comes from one basic locale: Syria/Asia Minor area. This is the area that spoke Greek the longest and was controlled by the Greek Orthodox church (which as we know is not Biblically orthodox on the means of salvation and other very important points). After every other area stopped speaking Greek, a great majority of the manuscripts found in this one locale are seen to be very similar. The great unanimity of these manuscripts might very well come from the fact that most of these manuscripts are from the same area and were produced by the same church authority. So that a majority of manuscripts from one locale and a relatively later time frame support the KJV/TR is not really that convincing.

In contrast, a majority of texts from widespread regions (Italy, North Africa, Palestine, and other regions) and across several chronological periods support the modern critical text.

Conclusion

In light of the above considerations, the TR is clearly not based on a majority of the textual witnesses. A majority of Greek manuscripts definitely do not rule! Any claims made by KJV onlyists that the TR is supported by the majority of the witnesses must be filtered through the lens of these considerations. There is more than meets the eye in regard to this claim. Fact or fiction? There is definitely more fiction than fact with regard to this claim.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

Footnotes

[1] See “Erasmus and the Textus Receptus“, pg. 45ff. by Dr. William Combs (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal: 1 Spring 1996).

[2] Ibid, pg. 41-45.

[3] Ibid, pg. 46-47. See also, “Errors in the King James Version?“, pg. 155-157 by Dr. William Combs (DBSJ 4 Fall 1999).

[4] 1,838 is Dr. Dan Wallace’s actual count of differences, see “Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text“, online article by Dr. Dan Wallace (the sentence in the text just before footnote 27).

[5] 5,604 is Dr. D.A. Waite’s actual count, see Defending the King James Bible, pg. 41 (1999 edition, published by Bible for Today Press: Collingswood, N.J.).

[6] 8,000 Vulate manuscripts: see “Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text“, online article by Dr. Dan Wallace (the paragraph in the text just before footnote 76); over 10,000 Latin NT manuscripts total: see “Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism“, online article by Dr. Dan Wallace (the sentences in the text just before footnote 28).

[7] See “Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text“, online article by Dr. Dan Wallace (sentences in the text just before footnotes 74 and 75).

For Further Research

See my KJV Only Debate Resource Center, which contains the best of the best of online resources on this issue.

Note: This post was originally entitled “The KJV Is Based on the Majority of the Manuscripts: Fact or Fiction?” I changed the name to be more precise in what I am pointing out here. In fact, a majority of Greek Manuscripts do support the KJV–but what does this mean? This is more to the point of this post.

---

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7