KJV only? Modern versions? Majority text? Textual Positions explained

Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus

 This post is not argumentative, instead I will show the different positions taken by Christians on the issue of textual criticism. 

Critical text

This is the most popular position today, the Critical text is sometimes called "eclectic", as it tries to reconstruct the original text from multiple different textual traditions, however mainly using the Alexandrian tradition (thus also sometimes called the "Alexandrian position"). The chief resources used by the Critical text advocates are the Codex Siniaticus (325ad+), the Codex Vaticanus (300-325ad) and different fragments of the Bible that are of similar age. 

Critical text advocates sometimes may use the Byzantine majority, the Codex Bezae, Codex Alexandrinus, the Vulgate, the Peshitta and others secondarily.

Byzantine priority

The Byzantine priority uses a critical framework (which uses the manuscript evidence as primary), yet differs from the Critical text largely. The Byzantine priority position often argues that large variants are unlikely to get into the majority of the manuscripts, as it would be rare for scribes to make such revision to scripture, while still being decentralized. The Byzantine priority position puts less emphasis on the mere age of the manuscript, yet often does make use of the oldest Byzantine texts we have: Peshitta (origin 200ad, earliest manuscript 400ad), Codex Alexandrinus (400ad), Gothic (383ad), Ephraemi Rescriptus (400ad), quotations from Chrysostom (347-407ad) and quotations from Asterius (341ad).

One could say that the Byzantine position is "in between" the Critical text and the KJV/Textus Receptus movement. The Byzantine text is highly similar to the Receptus and the King James, yet primarily argues from manuscript evidence.

Textus Receptus only/King James Only 

The Textus Receptus and King James Only positions reject the critical framework, both positions are theologically motivated. The positions argue that God has directly preserved the bible to the smallest letter directly. The KJV and Textus Receptus onlyists may argue from manuscript evidence secondarily, yet they are not the final judge on which variant is true. 

The Textus Receptus and the King James version read very close to the Byzantine text, however the Byzantine text differs in the book of Revelation, where the Receptus is close to the Latin text. The Textus Receptus also includes the Johannine comma, which is denied by both Byzantine and Critical text advocates. 

Other positions

These are rarer positions some take:
Western priority

The western text is not well attested to, our best witness being the Codex Bezae. Most scholars agree that the western text is one of the least accurate texts known.

Latin Vulgate priority

Some Sedevacantists argue that Jerome had access to manuscripts that are way more reliable than anything we can gather today.

Peshitta priority

The Peshitta is a Byzantine text, however those who argue for Peshitta priority, argue that it is the original Aramaic, and that it was the Greek Byzantine text translated out of the Aramaic, instead of the other way around. This is a fringe position outside the Assyrian churches.