KJV-Only Versus Erasmus

It is ironic. The great scholar Erasmus is famous in history for bringing together the Greek text which would (several editions later) become known as the Textus Receptus, the basis for the KJV. The more I learn about Erasmus, however, the more I am convinced that, living today, he would be the most ardent opponent of the KJV-Only movement.

In his own work, Erasmus made the scandalous decision to prefer the older Greek manuscripts over the newer Latin ones. He faced serious criticism on account of this decision, and the modern reader will be able to see, if he is willing, the parallels in criticism provided by modern KJV-Only advocates.

To criticize the sacred Vulgate, to presume to improve upon St. Jerome, this was indeed to be an iconoclast. In March 1515 a sudden stimulus towards publication was given by a famous Swiss publisher, John Proben, who invited him to Basle to prepare a Greek New Testament upon the very lines on which he was working. Erasmus set off from England at once. Even on his way he had to meet criticisms of his project. His satirical Praise of Folly had already caused trouble enough. What would come next? An Open Letter from Martin Dorpius of the University of Louvain met him as he travelled:

What matters it whether you believe or not that the Greek books are more accurate than the Latin ones; whether or not greater care was taken to preserve the sacred books in all their integrity by the Greeks than by the Latins;-by the Greeks, forsooth, amongst whom the Christian religion was very often almost overthrown, and who affirmed that none of the Gospels were free from errors, excepting the one gospel of John. What matters all this when, to say nothing of anything else, the Church has continued throughout the inviolate spouse of Christ? . . . What if it be contended that the sense, as rendered by the Latin version, differs in truth from the Greek text? Then, indeed, adieu to the Greek. I adhere to the Latin because I cannot bring my mind to believe that the Greek are more correct than the Latin codices.'

Erasmus could not accept any such forced good-bye. For him it was not adieu to the Greek, but welcome. He did not want to go part of the way back to the original New Testament but all the way.

How is it that Jerome, Augustine, and Ambrose all cite a text which differs from the Vulgate? How is it that Jerome finds fault with and corrects many readings which we find in the Vulgate? What can you make of all this concurrent evidence-when the Greek versions differ from the Vulgate, when Jerome cites the text, according the Greek versions, when the oldest Latin versions do the same, when this reading suits the sense much better than that of the Vulgate-will you, treating all this with contempt, follow a version corrupted by some copyist? . . . In doing so you follow in the steps of those vulgar divines who are accustomed to attribute ecclesiastical authority to whatever in any way creeps into general use . . . I had rather be a common mechanic than the best of their number.

[1]

---

1

H.G.G. Herklots.
How Our Bible Came To Us.
Oxford University Press, New York, 1957