Purpose of This Page
The goal of this page is to critically examine both the KJV-Only and KJV-Preferred positions from a textual and historical perspective. Rather than favoring a single translation, it focuses on analyzing manuscript evidence, textual traditions, and translation accuracy based on their claims and arguments, without theological bias. By addressing common misconceptions and evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each view, this page encourages a more informed and objective understanding of how the Bible has been preserved and transmitted throughout history.
1. A Review of Burgon and Textual Criticism
This page examines John William Burgon’s defense of the Byzantine text and his rejection of early Alexandrian manuscripts. Burgon argued for the providential preservation of the “Traditional Text,” a view that influenced KJV-Only and KJV-Preferred positions. However, his reliance on theological assumptions over textual evidence has been widely challenged.
Daniel B. Wallace’s critique of The Majority Text Theory provides a scholarly counterpoint, questioning the assumption that the most copied text is the most accurate. He highlights the importance of early manuscripts, demonstrating that the Byzantine text reflects later developments rather than the original wording. This review encourages a balanced approach, prioritizing manuscript evidence over theological tradition.
You must be logged in to post a comment.