The KJV Only Controversy: A Reasonable Conclusion

Suppose a person claims that the Nestle-Aland Greek manuscript is best, while another claims the Majority Text is best, while yet another upholds the Textus Receptus. Or maybe something else? Or some peculiar variation among them?

For the average Christian who weighs these competing claims and wants to discern the truth of the matter, he is going to be thrown into the highly technical and exceedingly complicated field of textual criticism. Such an endeavor will plunge him headlong into history, ancient languages, and scholarly literature accumulated from a wide array of viewpoints. The amount of material to be carefully explored is daunting.

For the average man this is highly impractical, if not functionally impossible.

So when the KJV-Only advocate decries the impropriety of modern translations (or older ones for that matter), claiming that they are all inferior to the KJV, what does he expect the average man to do? Just accept their claim by faith?

But, of course, why should he accept the claim of the KJV-Only advocate over all the others who likewise claim theirs is best? Why not just accept the Nestle-Aland viewpoint by faith? Or the Majority Text? The decision to trust one over another must surely rest on something more than a blind leap of faith.

This brings us back around to the aforementioned problem of expertise. A cursory investigation into the subject is not sufficient to competently adjudicate the matter. It’s too complicated.

This means, practically speaking, that the average man must resort to some other determining factor when considering the subject; perhaps a generalization that can be drawn from a number of largely indisputable facts.

So what might those be? Surely the following observations would be fair to cite:

We don’t have the autographs.
A great many people copied the Scriptures over the centuries.
As a result there is an amazing wealth of material.
There are a large number of copyist errors; and as a result many textual variants.
Many of these errors are unintentional. Some are intentional.
A large number of these textual variants are minor in nature.
A significant percentage of these errors are fairly discernible and can be dismissed.
Translating one language into another is both an art and a science permitting a viable range of variance.

Now when the average man considers these basic facts, it would seem that the wisest course of action would be to recognize the reality of textual variants and our inability to know with perfect certainty which reading is absolutely correct; and as such, favor multiple conservative translations, especially those that enumerate with footnotes other readings from viable variants.

This would seem to be the most reasonable conclusion based upon the obvious facts of history.

Incoming Retort

Naturally, the KJV-Only advocate will not feel overly sanguine about this conclusion. Therefore, it might be good to add on one or two additional thoughts.

One: Only with the clearest possible evidence, conquering all serious doubts, should the average man accept, in contradistinction to these basic facts, the claim that the KJV is somehow an inspired translation, free from all error. This grand claim surely requires clear evidence. But it is precisely here where the assertion is seen as little more than an assertion, being unable to marshal anything substantive by way of evidence.

It is not enough for the advocate of the KJV to note how beautifully rendered the KJV is, or how useful it is for memorization, or how fruitful it has been over the years, etc. None of these can hope to substantiate their grand claim. It simply doesn’t follow. There must be compelling evidence that directly substantiates the claim. Not non-sequiturs masquerading as proof.

Given a simple judgment of the facts, it is evident that the translators of the KJV did not believe they produced an inspired translation. See “The Translators to the Reader.” Moreover, not only were there multiple revisions of the KJV document, with a recognition of variants, but a cursory investigation into Erasmus’ editions reveals a process entirely natural and parallel to what would be expected, given normal processes. Add to this a fairly broad assemblage of questionable, if not dubious textual choices, along with a considerable evolution of English terminology, and a continual KJV revisionary process, as well as an admittedly inferior collection of manuscripts to that of what we have today, and it should be plain to any fair-minded person that the KJV-Only claim is without warrant.

Two: The KJV-Only advocate will typically decry this conclusion, saying, “We need a single, sure word from God, otherwise the sheep will be woefully confused.”

But here it must be stressed that the facts of history are the facts of history. Regardless of how we feel, the science of textual criticism is a complicated, technical field. As such, glossing over the realities of the transmission of the bible is to merely engage in a cover-up of the facts. Life is confusing. And the transmission of the text of Scripture is no exception. It is quite messy at times. So while hiding that reality from the sheep may provide a measure of comfort for them, as ignorance is sometimes bliss, there are plenty of people who will gladly show them the facts of history, and plenty of unbelievers who will happily challenge the veracity of God’s Word along textual critical lines. Ever meet a Muslim? Or listen to Bart Ehrman? Or meet an orthodox Jew?

Additionally, it ought to be observed, even granting the claims of KJV-Onlyism, that for hundreds and hundreds of years the sheep were facing perplexing, challenging questions concerning the authenticity of the Bibles they possessed, or heard read. Just think of all the people who could not say, as per the claims of KJV-Onlyism, “I have a sure Word from God!”

Many a saint had far less than what we have today. Are we really prepared to say that they did not have a sure Word from God for over fifteen hundred years?

Instead of swallowing that bitter pill, perhaps it would be better to adjust one’s KJV-Only presuppositions.

So again, at the end of the day, when contemplating the matter with an unbiased, faithful disposition, the most reasonable conclusion is to recognize the reality of textual variants, recognize our humble estate, and consult several solid English translations when studying doctrine; and eschew the conspiratorial machinations of fringe, if not cult-like thinkers.
——————-
A couple other resources: