“The Only Consistency Is the KJV”: Steele’s Accusation Stated Fairly

Part I: What Does TBS Actually Teach? · Article 1 of 3

Stephen Steele’s accusation against the Trinitarian Bible Society is not merely that TBS prefers the Authorized Version. Nor is it merely that the Society publishes a Greek edition assembled in the nineteenth century. His charge is that these visible facts disclose a concealed order of authority: although TBS speaks of the preserved Greek text, its practical standard is the English Bible of 1611.

Steele states the conclusion without reserve. Scrivener’s edition is, he says, a “reverse-engineered Greek text” based upon the choices of the KJV.¹ TBS appeals to the numerical strength of the manuscripts when that strength favors Mark 16:9–20, but defends minority or presently unattested readings when those readings stand in the Authorized Version. He therefore concludes that “the only consistency is to the KJV.”² In his final article the judgment becomes categorical: “The Greek manuscripts do not matter to the TBS.”³

That is a grave public accusation. It would place TBS within the defining error of KJV-Onlyism: subjecting the inspired-language text to an English translation. Before answering it, however, the argument should be stated in its strongest form.

Steele’s Case

Steele’s case has four connected parts.

First, the Authorized Version was not translated from one printed Greek New Testament whose every reading can be named. Its translators consulted several editions and sometimes retained inherited English wording that did not correspond exactly to Beza’s 1598 text. Scrivener consequently worked backward from the English translation and the printed editions available to its translators in order to represent the Greek basis of the AV in a single volume. That unified printed configuration did not exist in 1611.⁴

Second, TBS regularly republishes Scrivener without the historical apparatus for which his edition was made. Scrivener prepared the volume as a companion to the Revised Version. Its heavier type, footnotes, and appendix recorded differences between the Greek presumed to underlie the AV and the readings adopted by the Revisers. A reader holding only the present TBS text may not know that purpose or see the editorial record.⁵

Third, TBS sometimes appeals to the weight of manuscript numbers. A 2026 TBS presentation on Mark’s ending observes that approximately 99 percent of surviving Greek manuscripts contain Mark 16:9–20.⁶ Steele answers that the Society does not adopt a numerical-majority reading at every disputed place. He points to readings in Mark 15:3, Ephesians 3:9, and Revelation where the Scrivener text agrees with the AV but not with the surviving numerical majority. If 99 percent establishes one reading, he asks, why does a far smaller number—or no presently known Greek copy—suffice elsewhere?

Fourth, Steele argues that the pattern has one common cause. When the majority agrees with the KJV, TBS invokes the majority. When the majority does not agree, TBS invokes providential reception, printed editions, versions, or internal considerations. In Steele’s judgment, those changing arguments are not different applications of a larger method. They are devices for protecting a predetermined English result.

The argument may therefore be expressed as a syllogism:

1. TBS defends the Greek configuration represented by the Authorized Version even when a local numerical majority points elsewhere.
2. TBS’s defense of that configuration is caused by its prior commitment to the Authorized Version.
3. Therefore the Authorized Version, rather than the Greek text, is TBS’s controlling authority.

The first proposition describes a visible correlation. The second assigns its cause. The conclusion depends upon both.

What Steele Has Shown

Several facts in this case must be conceded.

Scrivener did use the Authorized Version as evidence. He could not identify the translators’ underlying Greek choices without comparing their English with the Greek editions that might have been before them. In that limited historical sense, he reasoned backward from a translation to its antecedent textual basis.

The exact Scrivener configuration was also new as a single printed edition. No responsible defense should pretend that the translators opened a copy of “Scrivener 1881” in 1604. They drew upon earlier Greek editions; Scrivener later gathered the readings represented by their choices into one text.

TBS’s Mark 16 materials can also be imprecise. Modern critical editions and most modern English versions physically print verses 9–20. To say without qualification that they “omit” the passage invites an avoidable factual objection. Bracketing and editorial rejection are serious matters, but they are not the same thing as typographical absence.

Nor may the 99-percent figure be treated as a complete textual rule unless one is willing to follow that rule elsewhere. A bare count cannot be decisive in one place and irrelevant in the next merely because the desired result has changed. TBS and other Received Text advocates must explain what work the number is doing in the argument.

Finally, particular Received Text readings can be historically weak. Erasmus’s first edition of Revelation was hasty and error-ridden. Its last six verses were supplied from Latin because his Greek exemplar was defective at the end. Some wording in the mature printed tradition has no presently identified extant Greek witness. A doctrine of providential preservation does not grant permission to deny these facts.

These concessions are not damage control. They are duties of truth. A defense that cannot acknowledge an opponent’s valid evidence has already surrendered the moral ground from which it means to correct him.

What Steele Has Not Yet Shown

The decisive proposition in Steele’s argument remains unproved. Agreement with the KJV does not by itself establish authority derived from the KJV.

Suppose a church receives a particular Greek textual tradition as providentially preserved and believes that the Authorized Version faithfully translates it. The church’s Greek edition and its preferred English Bible will ordinarily agree. That agreement is exactly what its doctrine predicts. One cannot infer merely from the correlation which member of the pair is controlling the other.

The same problem appears in the phrase “reverse-engineered.” The phrase can describe a direction of investigation: Scrivener began with the AV, compared earlier printed Greek editions, and identified the readings that accounted for its English. But it can also insinuate a direction of authority: English wording produced Greek wording. Those are different claims.

Historical reconstruction may proceed:

Authorized Version → comparison with earlier Greek editions → identification of the translators’ Greek choices.

---

1. Stephen Steele, “Unpicking a Misleading Meme on Mark 16 (Part 1),” Gentle Reformation, June 23, 2026, https://gentlereformation.com/2026/06/23/unpicking-a-misleading-meme-on-mark-16-part-1/. ↩
2. Stephen Steele, “Unpicking a Misleading Meme on Mark 16 (Part 2),” Gentle Reformation, June 24, 2026, https://gentlereformation.com/2026/06/24/unpicking-a-misleading-meme-on-mark-16-part-2/. ↩
3. Stephen Steele, “Conclusions: The TBS, the Textus Receptus, and Franz Delitzsch,” Gentle Reformation, June 29, 2026, https://gentlereformation.com/2026/06/29/conclusions-the-tbs-the-textus-receptus-and-franz-delitzsch/. ↩
4. F. H. A. Scrivener, preface to The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1881), reproduced at https://kjbhistory.com/the-preface-to-the-greek-tr-of-f-h-a-scrivener/. ↩
5. Scrivener, preface. The historical purpose and original apparatus are also surveyed in Tim Berg, “The Preface to the Greek TR of F. H. A. Scrivener,” King James Bible History, https://kjbhistory.com/the-preface-to-the-greek-tr-of-f-h-a-scrivener/. ↩
6. Trinitarian Bible Society, “Mark 16.9–20,” Quarterly Record, 2026, no. 1, <a href="https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles.org/resource/collection/01C074CC-748F-4C67-86AC-A9926A25241A/TBSQR2026-1Webpages.pdf”>https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles.org/resource/collection/01C074CC-748F-4C67-86AC-A9926A25241A/TBSQR2026-1Webpages.pdf. ↩

Textual authority may still proceed:

Greek text → printed Greek edition → faithful English translation.

---

1. Stephen Steele, “Unpicking a Misleading Meme on Mark 16 (Part 1),” Gentle Reformation, June 23, 2026, https://gentlereformation.com/2026/06/23/unpicking-a-misleading-meme-on-mark-16-part-1/. ↩
2. Stephen Steele, “Unpicking a Misleading Meme on Mark 16 (Part 2),” Gentle Reformation, June 24, 2026, https://gentlereformation.com/2026/06/24/unpicking-a-misleading-meme-on-mark-16-part-2/. ↩
3. Stephen Steele, “Conclusions: The TBS, the Textus Receptus, and Franz Delitzsch,” Gentle Reformation, June 29, 2026, https://gentlereformation.com/2026/06/29/conclusions-the-tbs-the-textus-receptus-and-franz-delitzsch/. ↩
4. F. H. A. Scrivener, preface to The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1881), reproduced at https://kjbhistory.com/the-preface-to-the-greek-tr-of-f-h-a-scrivener/. ↩
5. Scrivener, preface. The historical purpose and original apparatus are also surveyed in Tim Berg, “The Preface to the Greek TR of F. H. A. Scrivener,” King James Bible History, https://kjbhistory.com/the-preface-to-the-greek-tr-of-f-h-a-scrivener/. ↩
6. Trinitarian Bible Society, “Mark 16.9–20,” Quarterly Record, 2026, no. 1, <a href="https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles.org/resource/collection/01C074CC-748F-4C67-86AC-A9926A25241A/TBSQR2026-1Webpages.pdf”>https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles.org/resource/collection/01C074CC-748F-4C67-86AC-A9926A25241A/TBSQR2026-1Webpages.pdf. ↩

The first line tells us how an editor recovered a historical configuration. It does not, without further evidence, reverse the second line.

Steele must therefore answer three questions.

First, what does TBS formally identify as its final court of appeal? An accusation about a society’s real doctrine cannot bypass its governing doctrinal statement. If that statement expressly denies translation supremacy, Steele may argue that practice contradicts doctrine; he may not write as though the denial does not exist.

Second, do the constituent readings in Scrivener’s edition possess antecedent Greek authority, or did Scrivener manufacture them from English? A unified edition may be historically later than its components. The date of the container does not establish the date or source of every reading it contains.

Third, can each disputed reading be explained only by deference to the KJV? To establish motive from outcome, Steele must exclude the other stated grounds: a prior printed Greek edition, ecclesiastical reception, versional or patristic testimony, internal coherence, or an editor’s report of a manuscript no longer extant. Some of those grounds may fail. Their failure must be demonstrated at the particular locus.

TBS Is Not Every TR Advocate

Steele’s language also moves too easily between different subjects. “The TBS,” “TR defenders,” “the KJV/TR movement,” and individual advocates are not interchangeable.

Edward F. Hills, for example, expressly preferred “the Greek text underlying the King James Version” when editions of the Received Text differed.⁷ One may defend or criticize his providential argument. It does not follow that every institution publishing Scrivener has adopted every part of Hills’s reasoning. Likewise, a sermon, social-media post, or poorly worded booklet by a TBS speaker may expose a real inconsistency without rewriting the Society’s formal doctrine.

This distinction does not immunize TBS from criticism. An organization can contradict its own standards in practice. Repeated practical contradiction may reveal more than an isolated error. But the charge must be proved in the proper order:

1. State the governing doctrine.
2. Identify the practice alleged to contradict it.
3. establish the contradiction at the exact point.
4. Show why the contradiction is systematic rather than local.

Steele begins principally with steps two and four. The missing first step distorts everything that follows.

The Burden of the Accusation

The question in this opening article is not whether every TBS claim is correct. It is whether Steele has yet proved his central accusation.

He has identified evidence worthy of examination. He is right that Scrivener reconstructed a single Greek edition by comparing the AV with earlier editions. He is right that the 99-percent argument cannot silently become an absolute rule and then disappear. He is right to demand corrections where TBS has misstated Erasmus or described modern editions carelessly. He is right that several Revelation readings require candid historical treatment.

But he moves from those facts to a causal conclusion: TBS protects readings because they stand in the KJV. That conclusion cannot be established merely by repeating the correlation. It requires direct engagement with TBS’s stated hierarchy of authority and with the particular evidence at every disputed reading.

The preliminary verdict is therefore limited but firm:

Steele has stated a case that deserves an answer. He has not yet proved that the Authorized Version is TBS’s final authority. To do that, he must show that the Society’s practice contradicts its published doctrine and that deference to the English translation—not reception of a Greek textual tradition—is the cause of the disputed decisions.

---

1. Stephen Steele, “Unpicking a Misleading Meme on Mark 16 (Part 1),” Gentle Reformation, June 23, 2026, https://gentlereformation.com/2026/06/23/unpicking-a-misleading-meme-on-mark-16-part-1/. ↩
2. Stephen Steele, “Unpicking a Misleading Meme on Mark 16 (Part 2),” Gentle Reformation, June 24, 2026, https://gentlereformation.com/2026/06/24/unpicking-a-misleading-meme-on-mark-16-part-2/. ↩
3. Stephen Steele, “Conclusions: The TBS, the Textus Receptus, and Franz Delitzsch,” Gentle Reformation, June 29, 2026, https://gentlereformation.com/2026/06/29/conclusions-the-tbs-the-textus-receptus-and-franz-delitzsch/. ↩
4. F. H. A. Scrivener, preface to The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1881), reproduced at https://kjbhistory.com/the-preface-to-the-greek-tr-of-f-h-a-scrivener/. ↩
5. Scrivener, preface. The historical purpose and original apparatus are also surveyed in Tim Berg, “The Preface to the Greek TR of F. H. A. Scrivener,” King James Bible History, https://kjbhistory.com/the-preface-to-the-greek-tr-of-f-h-a-scrivener/. ↩
6. Trinitarian Bible Society, “Mark 16.9–20,” Quarterly Record, 2026, no. 1, <a href="https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles.org/resource/collection/01C074CC-748F-4C67-86AC-A9926A25241A/TBSQR2026-1Webpages.pdf”>https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles.org/resource/collection/01C074CC-748F-4C67-86AC-A9926A25241A/TBSQR2026-1Webpages.pdf. ↩
7. Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 4th ed. (Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1984), 223–24, https://ia601502.us.archive.org/0/items/TheKingJamesVersionDefended/TheKingJamesVersionDefended.pdf. ↩

The next article turns to the document Steele’s trilogy never squarely answers: TBS’s formal Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture.

Notes

Bibliography

Berg, Tim. “The Preface to the Greek TR of F. H. A. Scrivener.” King James Bible History.

Hills, Edward F. The King James Version Defended. 4th ed. Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1984.

Scrivener, F. H. A. The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1881.

Steele, Stephen. “Conclusions: The TBS, the Textus Receptus, and Franz Delitzsch.” Gentle Reformation. June 29, 2026.

———. “Unpicking a Misleading Meme on Mark 16 (Part 1).” Gentle Reformation. June 23, 2026.

———. “Unpicking a Misleading Meme on Mark 16 (Part 2).” Gentle Reformation. June 24, 2026.

Trinitarian Bible Society. “Mark 16.9–20.” Quarterly Record. 2026, no. 1.