Understanding the Core Dispute: Textus Receptus, KJV, and Verbal Plenary Preservation
Jeffrey Khoo's stance is rooted in a specific view of bibliology, often termed "King James Onlyism" or a strong form of "TR-onlyism." This position claims that the Textus Receptus, and by extension the KJV translation, is providentially preserved to be perfect and without error in every jot and tittle.
• Textus Receptus (TR): This is a family of printed Greek New Testaments that formed the basis for many early modern translations, including the King James Version (KJV). The earliest editions were primarily based on a limited number of late Byzantine manuscripts.
• King James Version (KJV): A monumental translation of the Bible into English, first published in 1611. It has had an immense impact on the English-speaking world.
• Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI): The orthodox Christian doctrine that the Holy Spirit inspired the biblical authors in such a way that every word (verbal) and every part (plenary) of the original autographs was God-breathed and without error.
• Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP): This term is often used by proponents of TR-onlyism to extend the concept of inspiration to preservation, arguing that God has providentially preserved a perfect text (usually identified as the TR) throughout history, such that it is identical to the original autographs. This differs from the broader evangelical understanding of preservation, which holds that God has preserved His Word accurately through the multitude of extant manuscripts, allowing for the reconstruction of the original text with high confidence.
1. Theological and Historical Foundations: Addressing Claims of "Perfect" Underlying Texts
The assertion that the Textus Receptus (TR) underlying the KJV is "perfect" and without error conflicts with both historical evidence and orthodox Protestant theology.
• Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF 1646) Chapter 1, Section 8, which states:
• "The Old Testament in Hebrew... and the New Testament in Greek... being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical..."
• While this affirms the providential preservation of Scripture, the Confession does not claim perfection for any one printed Greek text (e.g., TR), nor does it identify the KJV or any version as the preserved text. Instead, the emphasis is on the original language texts being preserved sufficiently to serve as authoritative Scripture.
• Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF 1646) 1.8, explicitly refers to the original languages (Hebrew and Greek), not translations like the KJV. To claim perfection for the TR—a Greek compilation from the 16th century—misrepresents the Confession’s intent. The framers of the WCF (1646) used the TR because it was the standard text of their era, not because they believed it was inerrant.
• It does not state that any existing manuscript or translation is perfect without error.
• Crucially, it advocates translation into "the common language of every nation," recognizing that the original tongues are not known to all. This directly supports the need for and validity of modern translations.
• Therefore, Jeffrey Khoo from Far Eastern Bible College is misinterpreting and misapplying the WCF. The WCF speaks to the preservation of the original biblical truth and authority, not the impeccability of a particular textual tradition.
• Scholars such as Dr. Richard Muller (Calvin Theological Seminary) note that the WCF’s context implies a general preservation sufficient for doctrine, not a word-perfect identicality of any particular manuscript tradition.
2. Dean Burgon’s Oath and Its Limitations:
John William Burgon (1813-1888) was a prominent Anglican textual critic who vehemently defended the Traditional/Byzantine text type against the critical text emerging from scholars like Westcott and Hort. While Burgon was a brilliant and devout scholar, his views on textual criticism, while historically significant, are not universally accepted among contemporary textual critics.
• John William Burgon defended the Byzantine text-type (basis of the TR) but never claimed the TR itself was perfect. His polemics against modern textual criticism reflect a pre-archaeological era. Discoveries like the Codex Sinaiticus (1844) and Codex Vaticanus (19th-century accessibility) predate Burgon’s work and reveal older textual traditions that challenge the TR’s supremacy.
• He was critical of both TR and the Westcott-Hort text and called for a new, careful collation of manuscripts—a goal better fulfilled by today’s NA28/UBS5.
• Requiring people to take an "oath" to a particular textual view is an alarming practice. It smacks of dogmatism, suppresses critical thinking, and is antithetical to sound academic and theological inquiry. True education encourages rigorous examination, not unquestioning adherence. This practice fosters a cultic environment rather than a scholarly one.
• Matthew 5:33-37 (Jesus on oaths), James 5:12 (James on oaths). While these primarily refer to personal vows, the spirit of the warning cautions against binding oneself or others with unnecessary and potentially divisive oaths that elevate human traditions above clear biblical teaching or sound reasoning. Forcing people to swear allegiance to a specific textual theory is a form of spiritual abuse and undermines Christian liberty (Galatians 5:1).
3. Biblical View of Preservation:
Scripture affirms God’s preservation of His Word (Psalm 12:6–7; Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 24:35), but this does not equate to a specific manuscript family or translation.
• These verses do not specify the mode of preservation in terms of a single, unblemished manuscript tradition throughout history. Rather, they speak to the enduring truth and authority of God's Word. God has providentially preserved His message and truth through the transmission process, allowing for the reconstruction of the original text with a very high degree of certainty, despite scribal variations. The overwhelming majority of textual variants are minor (e.g., spelling, word order) and do not affect any major doctrine.
• The New Testament itself quotes the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation of the Old Testament that differs from the Hebrew Masoretic Text (e.g., Acts 7:14 vs. Genesis 46:27; Hebrews 1:6 vs. Deuteronomy 32:43 LXX). If the apostles trusted the LXX despite its variations, we ought not to absolutize a single textual tradition.
• Furthermore, no two ancient manuscripts are identical. Scribes, being human, occasionally make unintentional errors.
4. Evidence of Textual Variants and the Necessity of Critical Scholarship
The notion of a "perfect" TR ignores well-documented textual variants and historical realities:
• The TR itself is a compiled text. Erasmus' 1516 edition, the basis of the TR, was hastily compiled from a handful of late Byzantine manuscripts, one of which was incomplete and required reverse-translation from Latin back into Greek (e.g., Revelation 22:16–21). These facts disprove the notion that the TR is a perfectly preserved text.
• Erasmus himself acknowledged textual issues. His Greek NT was corrected several times over the years (e.g., by Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevirs), which demonstrates that the TR was not a static, unchanging text.
• The Problem with a "Perfect" TR is that those various editions of the Textus Receptus (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir) themselves differ from each other. If the TR is perfect, which edition is the "perfect" one? This internal inconsistency undermines the claim of absolute perfection.
• Revelation 16:5 in Beza’s TR edition reads "O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be," a reading not found in any Greek manuscript and based only on conjecture.
• Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7–8). This Trinitarian formula (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”) is absent from all Greek manuscripts prior to the 15th century. Erasmus included it in the TR under pressure, despite its questionable authenticity. Modern translations omit it (e.g., NIV, ESV), aligning with older manuscripts.
• Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11. These passages are absent from early manuscripts (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) and are likely later additions. The KJV includes them because Erasmus relied on later Byzantine manuscripts.
• Differences in the Septuagint vs. Masoretic Text. For example, Genesis 5:25–27 in the Masoretic Text states Methuselah died at 969 years, but the LXX adds 100 years, creating a chronological conflict. The New Testament authors, however, freely used both traditions (e.g., Matthew 1:7–8 vs. 1 Chronicles 3:10–12).
• Proverbs 21:8. The Hebrew reads, “The way of a guilty man is crooked,” while the LXX translates, “The way of a man in his guilt is not pure.” Such variations show even ancient translators recognized textual ambiguities.
5. The Value of Modern Translations
The acceptance of modern Bible translations is not a compromise of faith but an embrace of linguistic and textual scholarship that aids in understanding God's Word more accurately.
Modern translations (e.g., ESV, NASB, CSB) rely on older, more reliable manuscripts and employ rigorous scholarship:
Contemporary scholarship, including the Nestle-Aland (NA28) and United Bible Societies (UBS5) Greek New Testaments, draws on over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, including early papyri from the 2nd and 3rd centuries (e.g., P52, P46, P75). These represent older and more diverse manuscript evidence than the TR.
• For example, 1 John 5:7–8 in the KJV includes the "Johannine Comma," absent in nearly all Greek manuscripts except a few very late ones. It was inserted into the text likely due to theological motivations, not original authorship.
• Modern translations avoid archaic language (e.g., KJV’s “thee/thou”) and clarify ambiguities. For example, the KJV’s “charity” (1 Corinthians 13) is rendered “love” (ἀγάπη) in modern versions, aligning with contemporary understanding.
• Jesus criticized those who elevated tradition over Scripture (Mark 7:8–9). Rigid adherence to the KJV risks similar legalism.
• Scripture itself recognizes the fallibility of human transmission:
• Jeremiah 8:8 – “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.”
• Proverbs 30:5–6 – “Every word of God proves true... Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar.”
• These verses uphold the divine origin and trustworthiness of God’s Word but also warn against human manipulation and error, reinforcing the need for careful textual study.
• Modern translations like the ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB are based on critical editions of the Greek NT that reflect a broader manuscript base and older readings than the TR.
• They use teams of scholars from diverse theological traditions, ensuring checks and balances. Translations undergo rigorous peer review and are based on the best available evidence, not theological bias.
• Modern translations aim to communicate the inspired message faithfully in today’s language. The apostle Paul modeled contextual adaptation for communication (1 Corinthians 9:22–23).
While there are textual variations, no essential Christian doctrine is jeopardized by these differences. The core message of salvation through Christ, the nature of God, the person and work of Jesus, and the call to discipleship remain constant across all reliable manuscript traditions and translations.
6. Conclusion
The church’s foundation is Christ, not a translation (1 Corinthians 3:11). While the KJV is a venerable translation, bibliolatry (worship of the Bible) displaces reverence for God Himself. As Augustine wrote: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” Pursue truth with humility, trusting that “the Lord knows those who are His” (2 Timothy 2:19).
The doctrine of inspiration (VPI of the autographs) is essential. The precise textual tradition (TR vs. critical text) or the superiority of one translation over another (KJV vs. modern versions) are secondary issues. While they are important and warrant study, they should not be church-dividing.
God’s Word is indeed inspired and preserved—but not in a single, flawless manuscript or edition. God’s providence operates through human fallibility, not apart from it. The obsession with a “perfect text” often stems more from fear and tradition than Scripture.
“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.” (Isaiah 40:8) God’s Word remains true and powerful, even when human copies have minor variations. Embracing the reality of textual history deepens—not weakens—our confidence in God’s sovereign preservation.
We must reiterate the church's commitment to the verbal plenary inspiration of the original autographs and the sufficient and authoritative nature of God's Word in all matters of faith and practice. Emphasize that the message of the Bible has been providentially preserved.