The fundamental problem with claiming a “perfect Bible underlying the KJV” lies in conflating different levels of authority that even historical defenders of the Textus Receptus carefully distinguished.
The original inspiration applies specifically to the autographs—the actual manuscripts written by biblical authors—not to any translation.[1] While the Scriptures were originally written under divine guidance, this doesn’t mean a continued miracle preserved them from transcription errors; manuscripts differ from one another, and where readings vary, only one can be correct. Preservation occurred through God’s providence rather than miraculous intervention.[1]
Critically, even Dean Burgon—often misquoted by KJV-only advocates—explicitly stated he did not claim perfection for the Textus Receptus and acknowledged it needed correction.[1] Burgon called for skillful revision of the Textus Receptus in multiple places, not merely fine-tuning.[2] No translation is absolutely without error, given the infirmities of human copyists and translators.[1]
The claim also ignores textual reality. No printed Receptus Greek edition agrees 100% with the aggregate Byzantine manuscript tradition, though they approximate it around 98%.[3] This means the underlying Greek text itself contains variations—it cannot simultaneously be “perfect” and contain multiple variant readings.
The position ultimately requires treating the Textus Receptus as having received a level of divine preservation that even Burgon explicitly rejected, stating no one should suppose copyists were protected against all error or prevented from adulterating manuscripts.[1] This goes beyond what the historical evidence supports or what classical evangelical scholars defending biblical inerrancy actually claimed.
[2] Rod Mattoon, Treasures from Numbers, Treasures from Scripture Series (Springfield, IL: Rod Mattoon, 2004), 513.
[3] Stephen’s 1550 Textus Receptus: With Morphology (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2002). [See here.]
No comments:
Post a Comment