When the King James Version was first published, it was vehemently attacked by the scholarly but vociferous Dr. Hugh Broughton. Similarly, with the publication of the Revised Version in the 1880’s, some have defended the King James Version (KJV, or AV) as the only real Bible in existence—Dean John Wm. Burgon, and the more moderate Frederick H.A. Scrivener, leading the way. Some today insist: 1. The Massoretic (Hebrew) Text, together with its vowel points, were written by Moses and preserved in copies to this day; 2. The New Testament Greek text was preserved in some remote place and somehow found its way to Desiderius Erasmus in time for his Greek New Testament (four editions: 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527); 3. The translators of the Hebrew and Greek were divinely inspired to create in English the only true Bible today; 4. Any other Bible translation is of Satan. However:

1. Today the Dead Sea Scrolls from two thousand years ago come in three text types of approximately equal numbers of manuscripts: a. Virtually a Massoretic Text (e.g., 1QIsaᵇ, 4QIsaᶠ, MasPsᵇ); b. Agreeing more with the Greek Septuagint (e.g., 4QSamᵃ); c. Somewhat free texts deviating from the Massoretic and from all versions (e.g., 1QIsaᵃ). None of these manuscripts contains the vowel points. The KJV follows the versions in Ps. 22:16, “…they pierced my hands and my feet,” rather than the Massoretic (verse 17), “…Like a lion they are at my hands and my feet.”
2.  Approximately a hundred Greek New Testament manuscripts and fragments are now known, which are older than the oldest exemplar of the Textus Receptus (TR), Q (026) of the 5th century. That is far too many to accept Burgon’s hypothesis that א, A, B, C, etc., were preserved only because they were too defective to be used. (Moreover, their early correctors did not change them into TR texts.) Erasmus’ Greek manuscripts were missing the last six verses of Revelation; so he translated the Latin back into the Greek! One may ask, Which of the fifteen editions of Textus Receptus is the true edition? or is it the sixteenth—the Majority Text? (In Revelation, there appear to be two “Majority Texts:” the Koine, designated Mᴷ; and a later text with Andreas’ commentary, designated Mᴬ) No single manuscript anywhere has the text of any edition of Textus Receptus or of the Majority Text. The deliberate falsification of one text in TR is well documented (1 John 5:7-8).³ So the evidence for the miraculous preservation of TR from apostolic times is evidently to be found only in the imaginations of the theory’s advocates. Some insist Origen in the third century is responsible for creating the text of early manuscripts. Indeed, Origen did say most manuscripts of his time read “Gadarenes” in Matt. 8:28 and “Bethany” in John 1:28, and he recommended changing them to “Gergesenes” and “Beth-Abara” respectively. But it is the critical texts that read the former, while the King James Version reads the latter. Thus, it is Textus Receptus and the King James Version that have been influenced by Origen, and not the critical texts.
3. If the King James Version were the only true Bible, then French, Germans, Spanish, Romanians, Chinese, etc., would never have had a true Bible. And the whole world would have been fifteen centuries without a true Bible. To claim inspiration for the fifty or so translators, employed by the church-state and undoubtedly not baptized as adults, is far more than the translators claimed for themselves.⁴ And again, one may ask, Which King James Version? The 1611 edition? or the 1614 edition with over 400 changes? or perhaps the 1762 edition of Thomas Paris (mostly changes in orthography), or the 1769 edition of Benjamin Blaney with over 75,000 changes (mostly in diction) – the one commonly in print today? And why was not Tyndale so inspired (seeing he also translated from the TR text)? or Coverdale, or the Protestant translators of the Geneva Bible? The King James Version is literarily the most excellent translation of the Bible in any language, commonly exceeding that of the original languages, but sometimes at the expense of accuracy. For example, in Matt. 27:44, The thieves also… “cast the same in his teeth” preserves neither of the two Greek words translated “reproached him” in some of the diaglott translations. Nor in Acts 12:4 is there reasonable justification for translating “pascha” (Passover) to be “Easter,” which then had been a heathen feast.
4. Because the first three assumptions are in error, we should do our best to conform our Bibles to the best available Hebrew and Greek texts, and to translate them objectively.

C. Tischendorf, C.R. Gregory, E. Nestle, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, K. Aland and others have issued critical editions of the Greek New Testament, which enables one to also correct English and other Bible versions from most of the alterations of centuries of copying—particularly if one reads Greek. Tischendorf’s Tauchnitz edition of the New Testament (1869) and the Variorum Bible (1893) attempted to make corrections known to the English-reading world, each with a critical apparatus of a few selected manuscripts.

On an accompanying pages we present an abbreviated list of interpolations and other corrections. Many have found it helpful to strike out these interpolations in their own Bible translations, so that when they read the sacred Word they will not be reading thoughts that have been injected into it by man.

To take proper notice of these spurious passages which were added through the centuries is not in the category of “higher criticism”. It is simply using sanctified common sense, with the aid of concordances and old manuscripts now available, to discover as nearly as possible the purity of God’s inspired Word (often called “lower criticism”, or “textual criticism”). Higher criticism, on the contrary, is a deliberate decision on the part of the worldly-wise that the historical records of the Bible, its prophecies and its miracles, are but legendary, and at best allegorical tales by which lessons in morality and righteousness are taught. God’s inspired word is better.

³ Erasmus’ first two editions did not add the Three Heavenly Witness- es clause (“Comma Johanneium”) in I John 5:7-8, which had already been added into the later Latin Vulgate manuscripts. His rivals, the Computensian Polyglott editors at Alcala, Spain, accused him of falsifying the Bible and extracted from him a concession to include the clause in his third edition if even one Greek manuscript could be located containing it. The ink was scarcely dry when the Alcala editors brought Ms. 61 to him. Reluctantly, he therefore added the interpola- tion in his third edition. Robert Stephanus (Estienne) added it in his four editions (1546-1551), as did the Elzevirs in their seven editions (1624-1678). Thus is the sordid history of Textus Receptus.

⁴ David Bercot quotes the KJV-1611 Preface, explaining its 760 mar- ginal notes: “Just as it is a fault of unbelief to doubt those things which are evident, so also to determine such things as the spirit of God has left questionable, even in the judgment of the judicious, can be no less than presumption… Likewise, to note the diversity of meaning in the margin where the text is not so clear, is indeed good; in fact, it is necessary.”