I have been wondering something about the history of the KJV versus modern versions situation, if anyone knows some details about it or can refer me to an article that covers it that I've missed.

That is, as I understand it, back when Westcott and Hort did their new "translation" in the 19th century they had originally told people they were merely going to update the King James, correct? Then they pulled a fast one, so to speak, and introduced this other set of Greek manuscripts and did their new translation from that instead of using the manuscripts the KJV had been based on. Also correct?

What I'd like to know is to what extent the people who first used their new version thought it was just an updating of the Authorized Version and did not understand that it was based on a different set of manuscripts? OR at least didn't understand just HOW different the different sets are from each other?

I'm asking because I have the impression that this whole story was not well known at first, maybe even until rather recently (a few decades?) and that many or most church leaders at first had accepted the new versions as just new translations of the same Greek texts, and I think some even today may still have that impression.

I guess the question could also be framed: When did the KJV-only position get started -- or get going in earnest -- to combat the claims of the new versions?

Anybody know about the timing of all this?

Thanks.