The KJV translators did not believe the King James Version or the Textus Receptus was perfect

The KJV translators did not believe the King James Version or the Textus Receptus was perfect—a claim often misrepresented by modern King James-only advocates.

The KJV Translators’ Actual Position

The translators based their work on the Textus Receptus tradition but deliberately incorporated additional manuscripts, using not only the current edition of the Textus Receptus but also the best additional manuscripts they could acquire.[1] This methodological choice reveals they viewed the TR as improvable rather than infallible. Immediately after the 1611 publication, revisions began—the King James Version was revised more than a dozen times, with thousands of changes made over the following century and a half.[1] The revision process ceased not because the KJV was considered perfect, but rather because textual finds and advances in understanding ancient Greek and Hebrew necessitated not further revision, but a new translation.[1]

Dean Burgon’s Testimony

Dean Burgon, a 19th-century Anglican scholar frequently quoted by KJV-only advocates, explicitly contradicted their position. King James Only advocates quote Burgon frequently to defend their position that the KJV is the only translation and the Textus Receptus manuscripts were superior, yet Burgon did not believe this at all—he did not believe the KJV was a perfect translation.[2] Burgon stated that the Textus Receptus “is without authority to bind, nay, that it calls for skillful revision in every part,” calling not for fine-tuning but for revision.[2] Most tellingly, Burgon explicitly disclaimed belief in an infallible Textus Receptus, writing that “we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text” and that “the Textus Receptus needs correction.”[2]

The Modern KJV-Only Movement

The original KJV base text relied on a relatively small number of manuscripts, and certain peculiarities entered the translation, including additional verses and textual errors that were discovered and removed from modern translations—spawning an entire King James–only movement within American Protestantism, bolstered by elaborate conspiracy theories.[1]

The historical evidence demonstrates that neither the KJV translators nor the scholars they consulted believed in translation or textual perfection.

[1] Stephen De Young, The Whole Counsel of God: An Introduction to Your Bible (Ancient Faith, 2022), 92–93.
[2] Rod Mattoon, Treasures from Philippians, Treasures from Scripture Series (Springfield, IL: Rod Mattoon, 2004), 295.