B. B. Warfield and Verbal Plenary Preservation

If B. B. Warfield (1851–1921) were alive today, it is highly unlikely he would argue for the "perfection" of the Textus Receptus (TR) or endorse a "KJV-Only" position. Here’s why:

1. Warfield’s Commitment to Textual Criticism

Warfield was a staunch advocate of textual criticism—the scholarly study of biblical manuscripts to reconstruct the original text. He recognized that the Textus Receptus (the Greek New Testament text underlying the KJV) was based on late medieval manuscripts and contained errors. He praised advancements in textual scholarship, such as the discovery of older manuscripts (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus), which revealed earlier and more reliable readings. Warfield would likely support modern critical editions (e.g., NA28, UBS5) over the TR, as they reflect older and more diverse manuscript evidence.

2. Warfield’s View of Inerrancy

Warfield defended biblical inerrancy, but he restricted this to the original autographs (the first manuscripts penned by biblical authors). He did not extend inerrancy to later copies, translations, or printed editions like the TR or KJV. For Warfield, the goal of textual criticism was to approximate the original text as closely as possible, which modern scholarship achieves better than the TR.

3. Warfield’s Stance on Bible Translations

Appreciation for the KJV: Warfield respected the KJV as a monumental achievement for its time, but he did not view it as uniquely inspired or final. He supported revisions of the KJV (e.g., the Revised Version of 1881) to incorporate newer manuscript discoveries.

Openness to Modern Translations: Warfield would likely endorse contemporary translations (e.g., ESV, NASB) based on critical Greek texts, as they align with his commitment to accuracy and scholarly rigor.

4. Opposition to "KJV-Only" Ideology

The "KJV-Only" movement (which asserts the KJV’s superiority or exclusive legitimacy) emerged largely after Warfield’s death and is rooted in anti-critical fundamentalism. Warfield, however, was a critical scholar who valued academic engagement. He would reject the KJV-Only position as:

1. Theologically unsound: Elevating a translation to "perfection" contradicts his distinction between the original inerrant autographs and fallible copies/translations.
2. Historically naive: The KJV relies on the TR, which Warfield knew was imperfect and outdated compared to older manuscripts available today.
3. Anti-intellectual: Warfield saw textual criticism as a means to honor Scripture’s integrity, not undermine it.

5. Warfield’s Modern Analogue

Warfield’s closest modern counterparts are scholars like D. A. Carson or Michael Kruger, who affirm inerrancy while embracing textual criticism and modern translations. He would likely align with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978), which upholds the original manuscripts’ authority without idolizing any translation.

Conclusion

B. B. Warfield would not endorse the perfection of the Textus Receptus or a KJV-Only stance. Instead, he would champion:

1. The use of critical Greek/Hebrew texts to approximate the original autographs.
2. Modern translations that reflect advances in textual scholarship.
3. A distinction between the inerrancy of the originals and the fallibility of all copies and translations.

His approach balances reverence for Scripture’s divine inspiration with intellectual humility—a stance incompatible with KJV-Onlyism’s rigid traditionalism.