A few thoughts on the TR and the KJV

Brothers and Sisters, may I gently share a few thoughts on the TR and the KJV?

I appreciate your desire to uphold the Word of God and your reverence for the King James Version. I share that same reverence for Scripture as the inspired, inerrant Word of God. But I believe some clarification is needed, especially regarding the Textus Receptus and the perfection of the KJV.

---

1. The TR Was Revised Multiple Times — Which One Is Perfect?

The Textus Receptus was not a single, unchanging Greek text. It was revised several times by different editors:

• Erasmus published five editions (1516–1535), with significant changes between them.
• Stephanus produced four editions (1546–1551).
• Beza followed with at least ten editions (1565–1611).
• The Elzevir brothers produced the 1624 edition, which popularized the term Textus Receptus.

👉 Question: If the TR is the "perfect" text, then which edition is perfect? They do not agree completely with each other, even in Greek wording. So to say “the TR is perfect” raises the question — which TR?

---

2. Yes, They Were Practising Textual Criticism — Just of a Pre-Scientific Kind

What Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza did was essentially textual criticism:

• They compared different Greek manuscripts,
• Made judgments on variant readings,
• Sometimes even translated Latin readings back into Greek (Erasmus, famously, in the ending of Revelation).

This is, in essence, what textual criticism does today — compare manuscripts to discern the most likely original reading.

👉 So the TR itself was the product of textual criticism. If textual criticism is wrong in principle, then the TR cannot be trusted either, since it came from the same process.

---

3. The KJV Is a Faithful Translation — But Not a Perfect One

The KJV is a beautiful and historic translation. But it is not inspired — only the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek autographs are. A few key facts:

• The KJV translators themselves said they were not making a perfect Bible but building upon former translations (see the Preface to the Readers).
• There are translation choices in the KJV that reflect limited manuscript access and 17th-century language (e.g., unicorns, Easter in Acts 12:4).
• Modern discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and earlier Greek manuscripts, were unknown to the KJV translators.

👉 If the KJV were perfect, there would be no need for correction or revision — but the KJV itself has undergone multiple editions and spelling standardizations since 1611.

---

4. Why Then Reject Modern Textual Criticism?

If the early Reformers and scholars used the best available manuscripts in their day and applied critical judgment, why should we reject careful, God-honoring scholarship today that does the same — but with far more data and manuscripts?

We do not reject the printing press because it is new. Likewise, we should not reject careful scholarship simply because it comes later.

---

5. Final Appeal: Trust God's Providence, Not Human Traditions

God has preserved His Word — not in a single English translation, but in the full body of faithful manuscript evidence and translations. The gospel has gone out powerfully in many versions — not just the KJV. We honor the KJV, but we do not idolize it.

“The Word of God is not bound” (2 Tim 2:9), and it is not confined to one version or tradition.

Bottom of Form