What is the Difference Between the "King
James Only" and Majority Text Position
by Frank Carmical
Secretary of the Majority Text Society
An issue that inevitably comes up in many
discussions about the Majority Text is the "King James Only"
position. Many advocates of the Critical Text often characterize
those who hold to the Majority Text as being "King James
Only." This comparison is incorrect, and therefore, these
two very different positions need to be clearly distinguished.
Distinguishing the "King James Only" from the Majority
Text position is the purpose of this article.
First, it's important to define our terms.
The Majority Text [MT] view is that the most reliable form of
the New Testament [NT] text is found in the vast majority of nearly
5,000 Greek [Gk] manuscripts [mss] that agree with each other
in most textual readings and that show wide geographic distribution
across Asia Minor and Europe the very areas where the NT mss were
originally sent. Frequency of use that wore out the most ancient
copies, and poor climatic conditions may explain why so few ancient
mss of the MT survive today (although MT reading can be found
in ancient papyri).
The Critical Text [CT] is also known as the
Westcott-Hort text. Produced in the 1880's, the Westcott-Hort
text is essentially reproduced in most modern Gk NT texts, such
as those by United Bible Societies and Nestle-Aland.
The major difference between the MT and KJO positions
is found in their divergent views of the doctrines of
revelation and inspiration.
|
The CT is based on a small minority of Gk
mss, mainly from Egypt and thought by CT advocates to be superior
because these mss are older than most MT mss. However, MT proponents
believe these Alexandrian mss show a high degree of unreliability
because they disagree with each other thousands of times, no NT
autographs seem to have ever been sent originally to Egypt or
circulated widely, and the dry climate of Egypt, as well as lack
of use, may explain how these older mss came to be preserved.
The King James Version [KJV], finished in
1611, was based on the Textus Receptus [TR], a Gk NT text compiled
by Erasmus in 1516. The TR is a close cousin of the MT containing
many of the same textual readings as the MT (the one book where
the TR differs significantly in places from the MT is the book
of Revelation, which interestingly is also the NT book where many
texts show agreement between the MT and the CT against the TR!).
It is because the TR is very close to the MT in so much of the
NT that proponents of the CT often fail to distinguish between
the two and use the same arguments to dismiss both the TR and
the MT. By extension, they also dismiss the KJV because it was
based on the TR in the NT.
The "King James Only" [KJO] position
gets its name, not from those who love and use the KJV (which
includes many Majority Text Society officers and members!), but
from those who believe the KJV is the only Bible that should be
used. Most KJO proponents hold that God inspired the translators
of the KJV to produce a translation that is inerrant, superceding
all other English Bible translations and even replacing the need
for Hebrew and Gk mss of the Bible.1
Unfortunately,
many KJO advocates do not realize that no one today uses the KJV
of 1611 and that because of thousands of editorial changes in
the KJV over a period of 400 years, a kind of "textual criticism"
must be done even to determine which modern KJV is closest to
the original "autograph" editions!2
To be fair, both the MT and KJO positions
share some things in common. In addition to the similarities noted
above, both are minority positions within NT studies and both
use some of the same arguments to point out flaws in the CT (such
as the observation that the Egyptian mss behind the CT show signs
of heavy scribal editing). However, the difference between the
MT and the KJO positions is greater than any similarity.
The major difference between the MT and KJO
positions is found in their divergent views of the doctrines of
revelation and inspiration. On the one hand, the MT position holds
(along with other evangelical CT advocates) that with the completion
of the NT canon, God's revelation ceased and that God's inspiration
of the original autographs of Scripture, penned by Biblical authors,
stopped with the close of the NT canon. This is the position of
historic, evangelical, Protestant Christianity.
In the final analysis, the difference between the MT and
KJO positions can be seen by the answer to a simple question:
What is the Word of God?
|
On the other hand, the KJO position has a
view of progressive revelation and post-canonical inspiration
that allows for a series of inspired translations, culminating
in the KJV. Most proponents of the KJO position would posit the
close of "canonical inspiration" with the completion
of the KJV in 1611.3
Lamentably, this view of progressive
revelation and post-canonical inspiration is similar to that held
by Roman Catholicism (when the pope makes pronouncements ex cathedra),
extremist Charismatic groups (who claim God has given new revelation
to them), and cults, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses (The New
World Translation) and Mormons (The Book of Mormon).
The practical application of this difference
in doctrine is that MT advocates appeal to ancient Gk mss and
use the tools of NT scholarship just like scholars holding the
CT position. On the other hand, most KJO proponents reject any
use of Gk mss or NT scholarly tools and only appeal to their modern
revisions of the KJV.
In the final analysis, the difference between the
MT and KJO positions can be seen by the answer to a simple question:
What is the Word of God?
The KJO position answers that the KJV itself is
God's Word, inspired and inerrant.
The MT position answers (like the evangelical CT
position) that God inspired the Biblical writers to record and
compose the original autographs of Scripture, which were inerrant.
To the degree that any ancient manuscript copied those autographs
faithfully, then that manuscript is God's Word. And to the degree
to which any Bible translation (ancient or modern) accurately
and faithfully translates those mss, then that translation is
God's Word.
It is a commitment to this very principle of finding
the closest approximation of the autographs of Scripture that
explains why the Majority Text Society exists and why so many
of its members study and promote the MT in order to defend the
majority of NT mss that best represent the autographs, and thus,
best represent God's inerrant Word today.
Endnotes
1)
James R. White, The King James Only Controversy (Minneapolis:
Bethany House Publishers, 1995), pgs 1-7.
2)
Many KJO proponents do not know that the original 1611 Authorized
Version [AV] was never officially authorized by the Church of
England or any other church and that the AV was not a new translation,
but a revision of previous translations such as the Tyndale, Coverdale,
Matthew, Great, Bishops', and Geneva Bibles. The 1611 AV contained
thousands of words with different spellings from the same English
words in KJV's used today (every word beginning in modern KJV's
with a "J" began with an "I" in the 1611 edition
and every use of "S" in a modern KJV was represented
by an "F" in the 1611 AV). Many errors in printing occurred
in the first printings of the KJV ("she" for "he"
in Ruth 3:15 and "printers" for "princes"
in Ps 119:161). A number of 1611 AV features are no longer printed
in modern KJV's, such as a complete Apocrypha, an 11-page preface
defending the AV against its many detractors, more than 4,500
marginal notes, and more than 5,200 cross references. In the 1611
preface, the translators emphasized the importance of their marginal
notes with alternate translations and different word choices because
of the variety of ways Hebrew and Gk words could be translated.
The translators admitted that their choice of words in the AV
could have been done differently and even gave thousands of examples
of alternative translations they could have used! See Erroll F.
Rhodes and Liana Lupas, The Translators to the Reader: The Original
Preface to the KJV of 1611 Revisited (NY: American Bible Society,
1997) pgs 1-7.
3)
White, ibid.
