Have you seen the chart below? It has been circulating on the internet and across social media for some time now. Many of you may have noticed that a lot of my posts tackle issues related to King James Version (KJV) Onlyism. This issue is particularly close to my heart, as I grew up in a denomination that staunchly advocated this viewpoint. I spent decades in an Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) church, a sub-denomination I was deeply ingrained in from a young age. I was once a fervent supporter of KJV Onlyism myself. However, I broke away from what I now see as a mix of half-truths, misconceptions, and outright falsehoods perpetuated by my former denomination. That is why when I pursued graduate studies in theology, a significant portion of my research has been devoted to addressing the errors of the very doctrines that I once fiercely defended—doctrines that my former church still clings to so please bear with me and forgive my zeal and the strong language I sometimes use when writing about KJV Onlyism and other beliefs I once held as these issues are deeply personal to me.
This chart exemplifies the kind of half-truths and outright falsehoods that were propagated by my IFB church. Below, I outline a total of 16 errors, categorized into four groups as presented in this chart, and explain why you should be cautious about believing and spreading these claims.
FIRST CATEGORY OF ERRORS – Misrepresentation of Textual families and Manuscripts
Error#1 – The chart simplifies the diversity of textual traditions by presenting only two text families. In reality, there are at least four major textual families: Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean. The omission of the Western and Caesarean families overlooks significant variations in the New Testament manuscripts that are critical for understanding the full scope of textual variation.
Error#2 – It fails to account for Latin manuscripts, which largely support a text similar to the modern critical text and outnumber Greek manuscripts by nearly three to one. It also claims that about 99% of manuscripts support the Byzantine text, but this ignores the temporal and geographical concentration of these manuscripts, primarily from the 9th to 14th centuries within the Byzantine Empire. This lack of geographic and temporal diversity in manuscript evidence is crucial and undermines the claim of a majority text support.
Error#3 – The chart erroneously classifies the Vulgate as Alexandrian and ignores that the Textus Receptus and the King James Version incorporate readings from the Vulgate. Additionally, while it points out the inclusion of the Apocrypha in Vaticanus, it fails to mention that the original 1611 KJV also included the Apocrypha.
Error #4 – It does not address the crossover of readings between the “Traditional” and “Alexandrian” lines, where texts from each line show evidence of readings typically associated with the other. This omission simplifies the textual history and fails to reflect the complex interaction between text types across different manuscripts and regions.
Error #5 – The assertion that the Majority Text was the predominant form from the earliest times is challenged by evidence showing it did not become the majority until the ninth century. Furthermore, no early Byzantine-type manuscripts are found among the papyri of the second and third centuries so far, suggesting that the representation of the Byzantine text in the chart may not accurately reflect the historical prevalence and accuracy of the original text.
SECONDARY CATEGORY OF ERRORS – Chronological and Factual Inaccuracies
Error#1 – It asserts the “Traditional Text Line” as containing the “Original NT manuscripts” without substantiation, presenting an a priori assumption of authenticity. Conversely, the “Alexandrian Text Line” is shown starting from 200 A.D. without explanation for its origin or development. This lack of foundational context for the Alexandrian manuscripts undermines the chart’s credibility and suggests a biased portrayal favoring the Byzantine tradition.
Error #2 – It inaccurately dates the Peshitta to 150 A.D., while scholarly consensus places its composition after 420 A.D. Additionally, the Peshitta aligns with critical texts rather than the Textus Receptus (TR) in several key passages, including John 1:18, 1 Timothy 3:16, and the omission of passages like John 7:53-8:11. This misrepresentation impacts the perceived reliability of the Peshitta as supporting the TR.
Error #3 – The chart ends with the 1611 edition of the KJV, neglecting subsequent revisions, notably the significant 1769 revision. It also misrepresents the NKJV by placing it in the Alexandrian column for its footnotes, ignoring that the original KJV also used footnotes extensively to note textual variations, a practice its translators defended.
Error #4 – It perpetuates the common misconception that conflates the Majority Text with the Textus Receptus as reflecting the original text of the New Testament. This issue is significant because it affects how the transmission lines are presented, promoting an oversimplified view of textual history. Although the Majority Text reflects a form found in many manuscripts, it is distinct from the Textus Receptus and includes variations supported by fewer or no Greek manuscripts. This nuance is typically overlooked in summaries that promote a direct lineage to the “Original NT manuscripts.”
THIRD CATEGORY OF ERRORS – Biases and alleged theological influences
Error #1 – There is no evidence that the Waldensian Bible was based on the Traditional Text. Historical evidence suggests it was translated from the Latin Vulgate, contradicting claims that it was derived from the TR. This is still an ongoing debate among scholars but is misrepresented in the chart as already something that is resolved and an established fact which strengthens the argument that whas is presented in the charge is certainly in furtherance of a biased narrative.
Error#2 – It describes Westcott and Hort as apostate without acknowledging similar criticisms that could be applied to Erasmus, who remained within the Roman Catholic Church until he died. This logical fallacy and selective critique demonstrates shows the chart’s bias in how scholarly contributions are represented. I have written elsewhere about the issues by the KJV Only camp against Wescott and Hort in the article entitled “ “Debunking KJV Only myths: On 1 Cor 13:3 and Wescott & Hort”
Error #3 – The chart lacks sufficient historico-theological support for its claims. It presents a skewed narrative by selecting and emphasizing certain historical points that support its biased perspective, while omitting significant scholarly research and consensus that might contradict its assertions. This selective presentation does not account for the broad and diverse theological discussions that have shaped the understanding of New Testament texts, thereby misrepresenting the evolution of these texts in both theological and academic contexts.
Error #4 – Certain theological premises, specifically their own skewed understanding of the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture has led to the bias of the proponents of the Majority Text towards dismissing earlier manuscripts that are fewer in number but potentially closer to the original texts. This approach fails to address the complexity of textual preservation and how it impacts the evaluation of different textual families. By endorsing a singular view of preservation aligned with the Byzantine text, important contributions from early papyri and other critical manuscripts to modern textual criticism are discredited.
FOURTH CATEGORY OF ERRORS – Methodological flaws, logical fallacies and scholarly consensus
Error#1: It uses the disagreement between Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus to argue their unreliability. However, where these manuscripts agree, they provide strong evidence for an ancient text type predating both manuscripts, which is a significant point for textual scholars.
Error #2 – Overall the chart commits logical fallacies by presenting complex issues through oversimplified binaries, such as the labeling of entire textual families as either “pure” or “corrupt.” This reductionist approach undermines the nuanced study required in textual criticism, ignoring the complexity and variability found within the manuscript traditions. By reducing these intricate relationships to simple good versus bad narratives, the chart fails to provide a fair or accurate representation of textual history.
Error #3 – Modern textual criticism does not mechanically follow any single manuscript or group, contrary to the chart’s method of promoting the Byzantine text almost to the exclusion of other text types. The scholarly approach is much more nuanced, considering a variety of evidence, including internal consistency and historical context, which the chart fails to convey.
To conclude, while the chart in question attempts to provide an overview of the transmission of New Testament manuscripts, it ultimately falls short in delivering a balanced and historically accurate representation. The errors I have pointed to above highlight the need for a more nuanced understanding of textual criticism. As I have pointed out, the complexities of manuscript traditions cannot be reduced to simple binaries of ‘pure’ versus ‘corrupt’. It is essential for theology students, historians, lay readers, and everyday Christians alike to approach such materials, especially those alleged evidences presented by the KJV Only camp, with critical thinking.
For those of us who have navigated our way out of narrowly defined doctrinal positions, like KJV Onlyism, it is our responsibility to foster discussions that are informed by comprehensive research and a respectful consideration of diverse perspectives. By challenging the inaccuracies and embracing a more informed approach to textual studies, we contribute to a more robust theological understanding that respects the depth and diversity of scriptural scholarship. Let us move forward not only with zeal but with a commitment to integrity in how we handle the texts that form such a foundational part of our faith and heritage.
Hi ! my name is Zigfred Diaz. Thanks for visiting my personal blog ! Never miss a post from this blog. Subscribe to my full feeds for free. Click here to subscribe to zdiaz.com by Email
You may also want to visit my other blogs. Click here to learn more about great travel ideas.
Leave a Reply