Recently, I heard someone repeating one of these inaccuracies while proposing that the KJV is the "only Bible in the English language for the English speaking people." In the process of making his point he completely misrepresented the facts about one of the oldest known Greek manuscripts discovered by Constantin Von Tischendorf and called the Codex Sinaiticus. Because this manuscript significantly predates the Textus Receptus, which is the foundational Greek text for the “KJV Only” position, advocates for this position often seek to diminish the importance of this monumental find. You can Google the story about the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus and see the facts for yourself. But, following is a portion of Tischendorf's own account of finding this magnificent document.
“It was in April, 1844, that I embarked at Leghorn for Egypt. The desire which I felt to discover some precious remains of any manuscripts, more especially Biblical, of a date which would carry us back to the early times of Christianity, was realized beyond my expectations. It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the Convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my researches. In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen. The authorities of the convent allowed me to possess myself of a third of these parchments, or about forty-three sheets, all the more readily as they were destined for the fire. But I could not get them to yield up possession of the remainder. The too lively satisfaction which I had displayed had aroused their suspicions as to the value of this manuscript. I transcribed a page of the text of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and enjoined on the monks to take religious care of all such remains which might fall in their way.”
As you can see, Tischendorf in no way disparaged his find as being inconsequential or the discovery of an inferior Greek manuscript filled with errors. Quite the contrary! He saw it as the greatest discovery of his lifetime. Furthermore, the monks were not burning parts of this manuscript because it had no value, but because they didn’t know its value. It wasn’t even the New Testament that was being burned, it was parts of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) that were slated for the fire. In addition, not all of what was being burned was from the Septuagint, but apparently included other documents that most evangelical scholars don’t consider part of the biblical canon anyway. And, as we’ll discover in a moment, most of the Codex that Tischendorf so desperately wanted to see was “wrapped in a red cloth” and stored away in the “corner of [a] room” at the Convent of St. Catherine.
Becasue Tischendorf saw only a small portion of this extremely valuable manuscript on his first visit to Sinai, he returned fifteen years later to find all of the treasured Codex Sinaiticus. Listen to his delight upon discovering this ancient treasure with the entire New Testament intact.
“On the afternoon of this day I was taking a walk with the steward of the convent in the neighbourhood, and as we returned, towards sunset, he begged me to take some refreshment with him in his cell. Scarcely had he entered the room, when, resuming our former subject of conversation, he said: ‘And I, too, have read a Septuagint’--i.e. a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy. And so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas. Full of joy, which this time I had the self-command to conceal from the steward and the rest of the community, I asked, as if in a careless way, for permission to take the manuscript into my sleeping chamber to look over it more at leisure. There by myself I could give way to the transport of joy which I felt. I knew that I held in my hand the most precious Biblical treasure in existence--a document whose age and importance exceeded that of all the manuscripts which I had ever examined during twenty years' study of the subject. I cannot now, I confess, recall all the emotions which I felt in that exciting moment with such a diamond in my possession. Though my lamp was dim, and the night cold, I sat down at once to transcribe the Epistle of Barnabas. For two centuries search has been made in vain for the original Greek of the first part of this Epistle, which has only been known through a very faulty Latin translation. And yet this letter, from the end of the second down to the beginning of the fourth century, had an extensive authority, since many Christians assigned to it and to the Pastor of Hermas a place side by side with the inspired writings of the New Testament. This was the very reason why these two writings were both thus bound up with the Sinaitic Bible, the transcription of which is to be referred to the first half of the fourth century, and about the time of the first Christian emperor.”
What could possibly be the justification for a person mischaracterizing and misrepresenting the discovery of one of the greatest treasures of all manuscript history? Have we reached a place where defending a tenuous position is more important than reporting historical facts accurately (people wouldn’t stand for this being done with American history)? Are some too ashamed or too proud to admit that they might have been wrong about the facts? If you want my opinion, I think most “KJV Only” advocates merely parrot what other misinformed people have told them, thus perpetuating the inaccuracies. It doesn’t matter how many times you tell an inaccurate story it is still inaccurate, even if people believe that what you are telling them is accurate. What you then have is little more than collective ignorance about the most important single document in the history of mankind...the Bible.
Here’s where the “logic” really meets the road. Until “KJV Only” advocates can produce a SINGLE, IDENTIFIABLE, and PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE manuscript that PERFECTLY REPRESENTS the originals penned by the authors so that we can compare all manuscript evidence to this original, the “KJV Only” position logically falls apart. History is indisputable in showing that God’s Word has been preserved in thousands of manuscripts which must be meticulously compared by textual scholars to bring us as close as possible to the original autographs penned by the authors of scripture. No two extant manuscripts match any other manuscript exactly and hence the need for this kind of careful textual analysis (i.e., textual criticism) to discover what the originals actually said. The extremely small amount of uncertainty in textual criticism (estimated to be less than 2% of the total text) does not affect any doctrine or core belief of the Christian faith. Even the highly revered (by “KJV only” advocates) Textus Receptus was derived using textual criticism employed by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza. So using this scientific approach to reveal the original biblical text does not, therefore, threaten the doctrine of inspiration and infallibility of the Bible. The real threat to scripture comes through people who are so bent on proving an unsupportable and illogical position that they are even willing to “spin” and/or misrepresent historical data in order to support their spurious point of view.
It’s time to stop arguing against modern Bible translations in an effort to have everyone return to Elizabethan English used in a cultural setting long past. There is no such thing as a “King James Bible,” as some “KJV Only” proponents boldly assert. It is and has always been known as the “King James VERSION,” meaning it is one of many translations (versions) of the Bible that have been made available to Christians through the ages. Use one/several of the translations available in your local Christian bookstore and/or on your electronic devices and let them enhance your understanding of God’s Word...it will foster a deeper walk with Jesus Christ in your life.
