I guess this shouldn’t be too much of a surprise. The Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism refutes Thomas Holland, a King James Onlyist. But the fact that a scholarly journal took the time to interact with Holland’s attempts at scholarship is actually quite surprising. But I’m very glad they did.

Jan Krans, lecturer in NT at VU University in Amsterdam, is an expert on Erasmus’ translation work. He has written a book with the intriguing title Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament (Brill, 2006) (the book is available online through archive.org). So Krans knows what he is talking about as he discusses Holland’s claim that Erasmus really didn’t translate the last six verses of Revelation directly from the Latin into Greek.

Here is the abstract of Krans’ article:

With Thomas Holland’s lengthy discussion of a reading in Rev 22:19 as an example, this article shows how Holland’s way of doing New Testament textual criticism falls short on all academic standards. With respect to the main issue, Erasmus’ retranslation of the final verses of Revelation, Holland fails to properly find, address and evaluate both primary and secondary sources.

Krans systematically dismantles Holland’s reasoning and exposes his lack of careful scholarship. For anyone who is familiar with King James Onlyism, this paper will be an insightful read. Those who claim perfection for the Textus Receptus have to grapple with the last six verses of Revelation, and the many errors introduced to the text by Erasmus that have never been corrected.

I share a bit more about this paper over at my team blog, KJVOnlyDebate.com. But you’ll want to read the article for yourself. I’m interested in anyone’s thoughts on this. Please interact in the comments.