Textus Receptus, Majority Text, Byzantine Onlyists & Fake Fence Sitters

January 2003

WOLF ONLYISTS IN CONTEMPORARY VERSION SHEEPS CLOTHING

WOLF GROUP #1:

THE FAKE AND PHONY FENCE SITTERS

In the Bible versions debate, there are the 'fence sitters' groups, the ones who try to compromise or take the middle ground.

Before I discuss this any further, I want to verify that there are legitimate fence-sitters in the versions debate; I am not denying that. There are those who can honestly say,

"I prefer the KJV but am not KJV Only,"

"I prefer the Byzantine manuscript family (or the Textus Receptus or Majority Text), but I do not regard the other biblical manuscripts (or the Critical Texts) as not being God's word also," or,

"I prefer 'xyz' version, but I do not claim 'xyz' version alone to be the 'word of God.'"

The other group, the ones who claim to be fence-sitters but are really not, usually make the same claims: "I prefer the KJV but am not KJV Only," or "I prefer the Textus Receptus / Majority Text but am not a TR or MT Onlyist."

Some of them will tell you that they will sometimes consult 'xyz' version, but they ultimately believe that the KJV (or NKJV, NASB, or whatever version) is really "the best."

I also see this particular claim made by those who try to pass themselves off as 'moderate' KJV Onlyists. They will tell you, "I sometimes use a contemporary version as well as the KJV," or, "I have no problem with a person using a contemporary version in private, but in public, only the KJV should be used."

Of course, when this group of fence-sitters says, "I think that version 'xyz' is 'the best,'" and so forth, what they really mean is the same thing that traditional KJV Onlyists do: only their 'xyz' version is completely and utterly trustworthy, pure, and above suspicion.

WOLF GROUP #2:

"I CLAIM NOT TO BE KJV ONLY, BUT MY ARGUMENTS & VIEWS SHOW OTHERWISE"

In my estimation, some of these fence-sitters are actually "closet" KJV Onlyists, or at the very least, Textus Receptus- or Majority Text- onlyists, who are (understandably) embarrassed to be thought of as a KJV Onlyist (or anything even remotely resembling one).

Over the years, I have witnessed people at Bible version discussion boards who make all the same arguments as a typical KJV Onlyist but then feign being deeply offended when referred to as a KJV Onlyist.

If the evidence could truly reveal a difference between those offended and the KJV Only camp, I'd be more than happy to stop using the "KJV Only" label on them.

These "offended" individuals may not agree with mainstream KJV Onlyists on every point, and may even come across as being intellectual with a good grasp of manuscript and textual issues, but they still parrot many or all of the popular KJV Only arguments, and you know the old adage: 'if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, it's a duck.'

Perhaps their wish to be distanced from the "KJV Onlyist" moniker has to do with not wanting to be associated with the rude and crude "Ruckmanite" variety of KJV Onlyism.

I still fail to see how the "KJV Onlyist" label is inaccurate for these indviduals, though. While they may not behave as outlandishly as their Ruckmanite counterparts, they still cling to many of the same tenets.

WOLF GROUP #3:

"I CLAIM TO PREFER THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS OR BYZANTINE MANUSCRIPTS, SO I CANNOT POSSIBLY BE THOUGHT OF AS A KJV ONLYIST"

If you prefer the Textus Receptus, Byzantine manuscripts, or Majority Text, can you be considered a KJV Onlyist?

Yes, you can.

You have simply removed the process back one step (if you are gung-ho for the Textus Receptus or the Majority Text) or back two steps (if you are adamant that only the Byzantine manuscript family is accurate or trustworthy).

The "Byzantine manuscript- only," "Received Text-" (or "TR- text"), or "Majority Text" onlyism views are the same in outcome and practice as the KJV- Only view. Further, in many cases, all these positions serve to bolster a KJV Only view.

One will sometimes find a KJV Onlyist attempting to defend his or her view by quoting the published works of "Byzantine manuscript- ," "Received Text- ," or "Majority Text- " onlyists.

Let's face it: there are not many Bible versions these days that are based upon the TR/Byzantine manuscripts; I've heard that a MT based version may be in the works, but that currently, there is none. Essentially, then, you are limited to the KJV or NKJV.

I do recognize, of course, that it is possible to be in favor of the Majority Text over the Critical Text, for instance, and not be a KJV Onlyist. But remember we are talking about insincere fence sitters and wolves in sheeps clothing here.