Jump to content

King James Only movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mdoc7 (talk | contribs) at 06:24, 16 February 2012 (→History: better wording). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The First Page of the Book of Genesis in the 1611 printing of the KJV

The "King James Only movement" advocates the superiority of the Authorized King James Version (KJV) of the Protestant Bible.

The date of the birth of the King James Only doctrine is not known, but the earliest known point of origin for the concept of King James Onlyism is probably in the 1930's, beginning in some fundamentalist churches.[1] The movement itself began to be formed years later, probably after David Otis Fuller's book, Which Bible?, was published in 1970. The sect came to be known for its exclusivity for the King James Bible, specifically the KJV "Pure Cambridge Edition" Bible. Church historian and apologist James R. White states that the phrases "KJV Only" and "KJV Onlyism" are not "insulting" or "inaccurate."[2] However, KJV proponent D. A. Waite states the term is a "smear word."[3][4]

Variations

James White has divided the King James Only movement into five main classifications:[5]

  • "I Like the KJV Best" - Although White lists this group as a division of the KJVO group, this division does not believe that the KJV is the only acceptable version that so characterizes the beliefs and doctrines of the movement, thus disqualifying them from the classification as "King James Only". This group simply prefers the KJV over other translations because their church uses it, because they have always used it, or because they like its style.
  • "The Textual Argument" - This group believes that the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual bases are the most accurate. These conclude that the KJV is based on better manuscripts. Many in this group may accept a modern version based on the same manuscripts as the KJV. White claims Zane C. Hodges is a good example of this group.[6] However, Hodges would consider that the Majority Text "corrects" the Received Text as seen, for example, in the Majority Text textual apparatus of the New King James Version. The Trinitarian Bible Society would fit in this division; but "the Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorized Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language,"[7] and "the Society believes this text is superior to the texts used by the United Bible Societies and other Bible publishers, which texts have as their basis a relatively few seriously defective manuscripts from the 4th century and which have been compiled using 20th century rationalistic principles of scholarship."[8]
  • "Received Text Only" - Here, the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts are believed to be supernaturally (or providentially) preserved. The KJV is believed to be an exemplary translation, but it is also believed that other translations based on these texts have the potential to be equally good.
  • "The Inspired KJV Group" - This faction believes that the KJV itself was divinely inspired. They see the translation to be preserved by God and as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts found in its underlying texts. Sometimes this group will even exclude other language versions based on the same manuscripts, claiming that the KJV is the only Bible.
  • "The KJV As New Revelation" - This group claims that the KJV is a "new revelation" or "advanced revelation" from God, and it should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original-language Hebrew and Greek can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch advocate of this view.

These latter two views have also been referred to as "double inspiration".[9]

These classifications are not mutually exclusive nor is it a comprehensive summary of those who prefer the KJV. Douglas Wilson, for instance, argues that the KJV (or, in his preferred terminology, the Authorized Version) is superior because of its manuscript tradition, its translational philosophy (with updates to the language being regularly necessary), and its ecclesiastical authority, having been created by the church and authorized for use in the church.[10] The KJV's wide availability, popularity and public domain status also come into play on top of or apart from any theological preference.

History

The history of the King James Version Only (hereafter KJVO) movement can best be described by a genealogical outline of writers whose books have not only given birth to the movement but also influenced their doctrines. Dr. James D. Price's book, published in 2006, gives the same information in a summary.[11]

  • Jasper James Ray, a business manager, missionary and Bible teacher, wrote a booklet entitled God Wrote Only One Bible (1955). It was nearly identical to Wilkerson's Our Authorized Bible Vindicated book without note or acknowledgement to Wilkerson's authorship.[14] The result was a continued propagation of Wilkerson's misstatements and inaccuracies with the misconception of a separate confirmation of Wilkerson's ideas.[15]
  • Regular Baptist pastor David Otis Fuller (1903-1988) edited a book entitled Which Bible? published in 1970. It is an anthology by authors such as Robert Dick Wilson (1856-1930), Zane Clark Hodges (1932-2008) and others, who distinctly reject the "Textus Receptus only" / "KJV-Only" viewpoint and whose writings actually give some information refuting some of the extremes of the KJVO movement.[16] This book is singularly responsible for [the birth of] the "King James only" / "Textus Receptus only" controversial viewpoint that gained wide acceptance among KJV-Only believers.[17] Almost half of the book is dedicated to the ten out of sixteen chapters from Wilkinson's Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.[18]
  • Peter Sturges Ruckman (1921- ), a Baptist preacher, wrote many books: a series of uniformly bound books that are claimed to be commentaries on various Bible books, topical books on Bible-related subjects and books related to Bible text and translation issues. At least some of his books are characterized by harsh criticism of almost everyone involved in textual criticism, such as Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851-1921), Archibald Thomas Robertson (1863-1934), Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892) with the likes of Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918), Adolph Hitler (1889-1945) and Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878-1969). The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence (1970) is among them. Ruckman was influenced by J. J. Ray's God Wrote Only One Bible, and Ruckman's The Bible Babel (1964) is nearly identical to Ray's 1955 book.[19] Some supporters of the KJVO movement reject Ruckman's position that the King James Version Bible is superior to existing Hebrew and Greek manuscripts,[20] and they also criticize Ruckman because "his writings are so acerbic, so offensive and mean-spirited that the entire movement has become identified with his kind of confrontational attitude."[21]
  • Edward F. Hills (1912-1981), who wrote Believing Bible Study (1967) and King James Version Defended (1956, 1973) and wrote a chapter on Dean John William Burgon in Fuller's Which Bible?, did not advocate the inerrancy of the King James Version nor the Origenian origin of the Septuagint. However, Hills’ works are commonly cited to give support to the KJVO's position, even though Hills never supported such KJVO positions. Hills’ writings have been taken to task in slanting the public opinion toward the KJVO stance proffered by the movement, as well as against other Bible versions.[22]

The KJVO movement as it stands today is inspired by Wilkinson, Ray, Fuller and Ruckman. As the movement progressed from one generation to the next, it became more radicalized and extreme.[23]

Criticism

Some KJVO advocates claim that the KJV is the only version of the Bible that is not under copyright and thus is superior. This is not the case, as the Authorized Version of 1611 has a copyright notice on its New Testament title page. The Latin words used in conveying the copyright are Cum Privilegio, which literally mean "with privilege" or "right"; that is, with the right of reproduction retained, or, in a word, "copyrighted."[24] In fact, for years even before 1611 AD, Bibles have always had the Cum Privilegio notation.[25] The earliest that can be estimated in which a literary work did not have a copyright notice was earlier than 1516 AD, which is when Erasmus' Greek text in its first edition was published under copyright. The translations of Tyndale and Coverdale were not copyrighted upon publication, when Bible publication in England was an illegal act.[26]

Dean John William Burgon, an authority on manuscripts, wrote the famous The Revision Revised in 1883. In it, though Burgon did not mention Psalms 12:6-7 as the KJVO-alleged prooftext for the preservation of Scripture, he did say, "The provision, then, which the Divine Author of Scripture is found to have made for the preservation in its integrity of His written Word, is of peculiarly varied and highly complex description. First,--By causing that a vast multiplication of Copies should be required all down through the ages,--beginning at the earliest period, and continuing in an ever-increasing ratio until the actual invention of Printing,--He provided the most effectual security imaginable against fraud",[27] thus making reference to the divine providence of Scripture translations; yet, not necessarily is it a fulfillment of the promise of divine preservation of infallible Scripture alleged by the KJVO movement. In fact, Burgon also said: "Nay, who will venture to deny that those [spurious] codices [ Aleph, B C and D ] are indebted for their preservation solely to the circumstance, that they were long since recognized as the depositories of Readings which rendered them utterly untrustworthy?"[28] The presence of corrupted manuscripts (and hence, corrupted Bibles based on them) would stunt KJVO's doctrine of divine infallible preservation of Scripture.

Yet, it may be pointed out that the promise of divine preservation still occurs because they do have the unadulterated Scriptures. KJVO advocates claim that the KJV is the crowning achievement of seven (or eight) good pre-KJV versions, misapplying Psalms 12:6,7. Rick Norris asked in his book, The Unbound Scriptures, "If this line of good Bibles gives any valid evidence for the KJV-only view, all the Bibles must be inspired and inerrant like they claim the KJV is. Otherwise, if any error (errancy) or corruption enters their line, how does that prove the KJVO claim that an inerrant KJV must result?"[29]

Further, Burgon states "...That by a perpetual miracle, Sacred Manuscripts would be protected all down the ages against depraving influences of whatever sort,--was not to have been expected; certainly, was never promised."[30] If the original autographs no longer exist (and indeed are lost) and only copies are extant, how can this false doctrine be maintained that Psalms 12:6-7 is a prooftext for divine infallible preservation of Scripture?

Burgon criticized five of the oldest Greek manuscript which Brooke Foss Westcott and F. J. A. Hort relied upon for the translation of the English Revised Version (ERV). Burgon claimed that three codices, "א" (Aleph), "B" and "D" are "three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant."[31] "Each of those codices [ Aleph, B and D ]," he wrote, "clearly exhibits a fabricated text,--is the result of arbitrary and reckless recension."[32] The two previously venerated of these codices, א and B, he likens to the "two false witnesses",[33] probably with sarcastic reference to Matthew 26:60.

The proper understanding of Psalms 12:7 is that, according to the Hebrew parallelism and grammatical gender (which the English lacks), the antecedents of verse 7 point to the "poor" and "needy" in verse 5, not to verse 6. The English construction does not immediately bear this out; this is seen and understood only by the Hebrew construction and grammatical gender. Nevertheless, a careful study the surrounding context of verses 5, 6, 7 in English, as well as word usage in the Psalms chapters, will reveal that the antecedent of verse 7 is indeed verse 5 of Psalms 12.[34] The conclusion, then, is drawn in that the divine preservation is towards the saints who are being persecuted, as the context indeed bears out. If anything is to be attributed to the words of God in Scripture, it is that "...thou [God] hath magnified thy word above all thy name" (Psalms 138:2b). God never promised that the Scriptures in Bibles will be kept pure and preserved through the ages.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Price, James D., King James Onlyism: A New Sect, p. 1
  2. ^ White, James (1995). The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?. Minneapolis: Bethany House. p. 248. ISBN 1556615752. OCLC 32051411.
  3. ^ Waite, Donald (2007-02-03). "King James Only As Slander #1". {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
  4. ^ Waite, Donald (2007-02-06). "King James Only As Slander #2". {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
  5. ^ White, James (1995). The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?. Minneapolis: Bethany House. pp. 1–4. ISBN 1556615752. OCLC 32051411.
  6. ^ White, James (1995). The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?. Minneapolis: Bethany House. p. 5. ISBN 1556615752. OCLC 32051411.
  7. ^ Watts, Malcolm H. (2007). "The Accuracy of the Authorised Version" (PDF). Quarterly Record. 578 (1). Trinitarian Bible Society: 8.
  8. ^ "The Text of the Bible used by the Trinitarian Bible Society", from Principles <http://trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/principles.asp>
  9. ^ Price, James D. (2006). King James Onlyism: A New Sect. James D. Price Publisher. p. 279. ISBN 0979114705.
  10. ^ Wilson, Douglas. "Hearers of the Word". Credenda/Agenda. 10 (1). Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  11. ^ Price, James D., King James Onlyism: A New Sect, p. 4
  12. ^ The Unlearned Men: The True Genealogy and Genesis of King-James-Version-Onlyism, second paragraph, or search on "All writers who embrace" phrase.
  13. ^ The Unlearned Men: The True Genealogy and Genesis of King-James-Version-Onlyism, 2nd paragraph, or search on "Wilkerson was the first" phrase.
  14. ^ The Unlearned Men: The True Genealogy and Genesis of King-James-Version-Onlyism, 3rd paragraph, or search on "when J. J. Ray" phrase.
  15. ^ Ray's plagiarism is documented in Gary Hudson's article, "The Real Eye Opener," Baptist Biblical Heritage, Vol. II, No. 1, Spring, 1991.
  16. ^ The Great Which Bible Fraud, 10th paragraph, or search on "The book Fuller edited" phrase
  17. ^ The Great Which Bible Fraud, first sentence
  18. ^ The Great Which Bible Fraud, 2nd paragraph, or search on "But the overwhelmingly longest" phrase
  19. ^ The Unlearned Men: The True Genealogy and Genesis of King-James-Version-Onlyism, 11th and 12th paragraph, or search on "Also in the third generation" phrase
  20. ^ James White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995), 1-4.
  21. ^ White, 109. Sam Schnaiter and Ron Tagliapietra, Bible Preservation and the Providence of God (Xlibris, 2002), 364.
  22. ^ The Unlearned Men: The True Genealogy and Genesis of King-James-Version-Onlyism, 13th paragraph, or search on "A word needs to be said" phrase
  23. ^ The Unlearned Men: The True Genealogy and Genesis of King-James-Version-Onlyism, first sentence in the third-to-last paragraph, or search on "From Wilkerson in the first" phrase
  24. ^ The KJV is a Copyrighted Translation, 10th paragraph, or search on "Granting, yea, requiring" phrase
  25. ^ The KJV is a Copyrighted Translation, 11th paragraph, or search on "This copyright on the" phrase. An example title page with the Cum Privilegio stamp on it, dated "Anno. 1581": Cum Priuilegio Regiae Maiestatis
  26. ^ The KJV is a Copyrighted Translation, 21st & 22nd paragraphs, or search on "And, we note, though" phrase
  27. ^ Burgon, Dean John William, The Revision Revised, Centennial Edition, 1883-1983, p. 8, bottom paragraph of the page.
  28. ^ Burgon, Dean John William, The Revision Revised, Centennial Edition, 1883-1983, p. 30, in the middle paragraph of the page.
  29. ^ Butler, Fred, in his book review of The Unbound Scriptures, Fred Butler's book review, 7th paragraph, or search on "If this line of good Bibles" phrase
  30. ^ Burgon, Dean John William, The Revision Revised, Centennial Edition, 1883-1983, p. 335, third line.
  31. ^ Burgon, Dean John William, The Revision Revised, Centennial Edition, 1883-1983, p. 16, line 5. Also The Depravity of Manuscripts "א", "B" and "D", under Section III., Article I--The New Greek Text, item 6.
  32. ^ Burgon, Dean John William, The Revision Revised, Centennial Edition, 1883-1983, p. 248, last two lines.
  33. ^ Burgon, Dean John William, The Revision Revised, Centennial Edition, 1883-1983, p. 319, last 5 lines. Also Previous Veneration of the Vatican ("B") and the Sinai ("א") Greek Manuscripts, under Section IV., Article III--Westscott & Hort's New Textual Theory, item 22.
  34. ^ Why Psalm 12:6,7 is not a Promise of the Infallible Preservation of Scripture, search on and see the headings "Grammar: The Verbs “Keep” and “Preserve” of Verse 7" and the next one following, "Context"

Further reading

  • Anderson, Robert (1903). The Bible and modern criticism. ASIN B00069Y39O.
  • Ankerberg, John (2003). The Facts on the King James Only Debate. Eugene, Or.: Harvest House. ISBN 0736911111. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Beacham, Roy E. (2001). One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications. ISBN 0825420482. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Carson, D.A. (1978). The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House. ISBN 0801024277.
  • Comfort, Phillip W. (2000). Essential Guide to Bible Versions. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers. ISBN 084233484X.
  • Dewey, David (2005). A User's Guide To Bible Translations: Making The Most Of Different Versions. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0830832734.
  • Macgregor, Alan J (2004). Three Modern Versions: A Critical Assessment of the NIV, ESV and NKJV. Salisbury, Wiltshire, England: Bible League. ISBN 0904435873.
  • Mauro, Philip (1924). Which version?: Authorized or revised?. Boston: Hamilton Brothers. Retrieved 2008-07-23.
  • Paisley, Ian R. K (1997). My Plea for the Old Sword. Emerald House Group. ISBN 1840300159.
  • Ryken, Leland (2002). The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books. ISBN 1581344643.

Pro King James Only

Anti King James Only

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_James_Only_movement&oldid=477139728"