An evaluation of the TR (and/or KJV) Only position's presuppositions

The presuppositions of the TR Only position, which for the most part match up with those of the KJV Only position seem to be as follows: (1) That the Bible’s passages on the preservation of Scripture require a “perfect” Bible, anything less makes God a liar and is thus a perversion of Scripture. (2) That the definition of “perfect” envisioned by this viewpoint can allow for no textual criticism, no revisions, no corrections of the text.  {Some of the KJV Only would add “no variants” to this list}(3) That other than the original autographs, this “perfect” example of Scripture exists only in the TR (or KJV). 

Let us for a moment assume each proposition to be true and see what the results would be. (1) If the passages of Scripture about preservation require a “perfect” Bible, they do not in any way indicate which text that would be.  Since it must be available in every generation, it must have first existed in the Hebrew manuscripts (aside from the Dead Sea Scrolls, all of which were lost prior to the Middle Ages), then in the Greek manuscripts, although it could only be in one text type, but without the original autographs there is no basis for choosing one and only one text type as the “perfect” text when the only thing we have to compare them to is each other. (2) If no textual criticism is to be allowed, and how can it be when the text is “perfect”, there is no ability to answer the clear evidence of a text which changed over time, with additions and corrections, throughout its history (NT in particular given the wealth of manuscripts we have of it).  If the text was already “perfect” and needed to remain “perfect” each and every generation, it could not change, at all, not even a single word.  Yet that is not the history of the manuscripts.  By comparing one generation of them to another, in any text type, this becomes clear, copyists made mistakes, both intentional and accidental that became accepted (for at least a time, by an unsuspecting Church).  But if God’s power and veracity stands or falls based upon an unchanging text, the only possible explanation is to ignore history and evidence and claim that the text must be taken on faith no matter what (that’s Sam Gipp’s stated position, any fault in the KJV, even typographical mistakes of the printer, are to be ignored and the result taken on faith). (3)  Who is the authority, Scripture is certainly silent about which future text will be the “perfect” one and which will be the corrupted ones, that determines that the TR, and only the TR (and hence the KJV) are to be deemed perfect over and against the Byzantine text, the Alexandrian, the Majority (which will always represent the Byzantine as the number of those manuscripts is such a clear majority), or the Eclectic blending of all sources?  Who designated Erasmus as the final authority on the preservation of Scripture, who sanctified his work and declared it without error?  Keep in mind, that Erasmus himself made significant changes to his printed editions with each new one, as did Stephanus and Beza after him.

In the end, I see no compelling reason to belief that we MUST believe any of those suppositions, if a TR Only (or KJV Only) advocate wishes to tweak them somewhat, fine, but the primary issues remain.  The Scriptures do promise preservation, but are silent as to how that will occur and by what agency, The text tradition does include many variants, all of them do, there are no perfect manuscript traditions, even within Erasmus’ exceedingly limited number of manuscripts representing one text tradition, there were variants that he had to sort out by doing textual criticism.  Lastly, the only way that the TR, and only the TR, can be elevated to such a status is an appeal to tradition or authority, both of which were supposed to be rejected by the Reformers, to resurrect them now would be a disservice to the ideals of men like Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin.

Jerome, Erasmus, the KJV, and the Wycliffe Bible Translators

The science/art of translation work will always lead to controversial decisions when the material in question is the Bible.  This isn’t new, not by a long shot.  When Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (so called because it was “vulgar”, like the way common people spoke in his day) was first read in St. Augustine’s parish the people rioted.  They had previously used the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the O.T.’s Hebrew, and didn’t want anything new.  In what seems ridiculous to us today, the people’s objection centered around Jerome’s more accurate translation of the plant that shaded Jonah from the gourd that the LXX had rendered it, to the caster-oil plant of the Vulgate.  Who cares which plant shaded Jonah?  This incident illustrates how seriously Bible translations can be taken by the people they are intended to help.

            Fast forward 1,300 years to Erasmus’ work on a Greek NT (basically returning the text in the West to its original language).  Erasmus was criticized heavily by his contemporaries when he made changes to Jerome’s now nearly sacred Latin Vulgate to the extent that he changed one important text (I John 5:7-9) to reflect the Vulgate’s reading even though it was not in any of the Greek texts that he was working with.  The Vulgate, received with skepticism at first, had become too loved to correct.

            The King James Bible followed this same pattern.  It was not preferred over the Geneva Bible for over forty years, but eventually became the primary Bible of the English speaking world.  When modern scholarship and archaeological discoveries enabled experts to correct some of the errors found in Erasmus’ Greek NT (he only had 7 of the now 5700+ manuscripts that we have to consult), the resulting modern translations came under fire by lovers of the KJV for daring to challenge their beloved text.  Even though genuine errors that had resulted from copyists’ errors were being corrected involving the 2% of the text that needed to be fixed (the other 98% was not affected, even with only 7 manuscripts, Erasmus’ work had been extraordinary), the ardent supports of the KJV were not willing to consider that a new translation of their 400 year old Bible was needed.

            The recent controversy involving Wycliffe Bible Translators regarding the use of “Allah” in Muslim countries for God, and how to best translate the familial relationship between God the Father and God the Son when our understanding of it is difficult to put into the receiving language’s cultural context, illustrates the same passion for Bible translations that plagued Jerome, Erasmus, and the teams that produced the NASB, NIV, ESV, and all the rest.

            I have no problem with those who raise well informed objections to any part of the translation process, from the Greek/Hebrew text being used, to the translation theory behind the words chosen in the new language.  Such conversations can be a useful part of the process.  What I do not accept, and will not have any patience with, is the use of personal attacks used against these men and women whose lives are in service to the Church, such that they are accused of being under Satanic influence simply because somebody doesn’t like their choices in the translation process.  How ridiculous is it for Christians to accuse other Christians of evil simply because they can’t agree on how best to convey the Word of God to the lost?  It would be laughable if this joke wasn’t so serious.  Jerome wasn’t evil when he brought the “vulgar” Bible to the people in a language they could understand, neither was Erasmus when he sought to return to the original Greek as a basis for translation work into new vernacular languages.  The modern Bible translators had no nefarious plans when they updated the text behind the KJV and corrected the minor errors that were found, and neither are the Wycliffe Bible Translators tools of Satan simply because they’re trying to bring Jesus Christ to Muslim lands.  Stop the invective, stop the pronouncements of doom from on high; it sounds ridiculous and only shows that the person making it cares more about being right in their own mind than they do about the work of the Gospel.  Informed and knowledgeable Christians can, and will, disagree about translational issues, but they cannot treat those they disagree with like enemies and lob at them baseless accusations no more accurate than a politician’s TV ad; the only one laughing at this sad joke when they do, is the person they’ve accused their opponent of serving.