Loading AI tools
Bible translation (KJV) advocacy groups From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The King James Only movement (also known as King James Onlyism or KJV Onlyism) asserts the belief that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is superior to all other English translations of the Bible. Adherents of the King James Only movement, mostly members of certain Conservative Anabaptist, traditionalist Anglo-Catholic, Conservative Holiness Methodist and Independent Baptist churches, believe that the King James Version has been providentially preserved to be a perfect translation of the Bible into English, and they also generally believe that all other English translations of the Bible which were published after the KJV was published to be corrupt.
These assertions are generally based upon a preference for the Textus Receptus (which is mainly based on the Byzantine text-type, with some influences from other text-types)[1][2] and they are also based upon a distrust of the Alexandrian text-type or the critical texts of Nestle-Aland, and Westcott-Hort, on which the majority of twentieth- and twenty-first-century translations of the Bible are based. Sometimes these beliefs are also based on the view that the King James translation itself was inspired by God.
Christian apologist James White has divided the King James Only movement into five main classifications:[3]
These classifications are not mutually exclusive, nor are they a comprehensive summary describing 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.[9]
The Textus Receptus and the King James Version were defended by John William Burgon (1813 – 1888) in his The Revision Revised (1881) and also by Edward Miller in A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (1886). Burgon supported his arguments with the opinion that the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi were older than the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus; and also that the Peshitta translation into Syriac (which supports the Byzantine Text) originated in the 2nd century. Miller's arguments in favour of readings in the Textus Receptus were of the same kind.[10] However, despite defending the Authorised Version and the Textus Receptus, both Burgon and Miller believed that although the Textus Receptus was to be preferred to the Alexandrian Text, it still required to be corrected in certain readings against the manuscript tradition of the Byzantine text (thus advocating the Byzantine priority theory).[11] In that judgement, they are criticised by Edward F. Hills, who argues that the principle that God provides truth through scriptural revelation also must imply that God must ensure a preserved transmission of the correct revealed text, continuing into the Reformation era of biblical translation and printing. For Hills, the task of biblical scholarship is to identify the particular line of preserved transmission through which God is acting; a line that he sees in the specific succession of manuscript copying, textual correction and printing, which culminated in the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible. Hills argues that the principle of providentially-preserved transmission guarantees that the printed Textus Receptus must be the closest text to the Greek autographs and so he rejects readings in the Byzantine Majority Text where they are not maintained in the Textus Receptus. He goes so far as to conclude that Erasmus must have been providentially guided when he introduced Latin Vulgate readings into his Greek text;[12] and even argues for the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum.[13] As to the relationship of the King James Bible to the Textus Receptus, Hills argued that the King James Version is not merely a translation of the Textus Receptus, but an independent variety of the Textus Receptus tradition.[14]
Another known defender of the King James Only movement was Benjamin G. Wilkinson (1872–1968), a Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, who wrote Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) in which he asserted that some of the new versions of the Bible came from manuscripts with corruptions introduced into the Septuagint by Origen and manuscripts with deletions and changes from corrupted Alexandrian text. He criticized Westcott and Hort, believing they intentionally rejected the use of the Textus Receptus and made changes to the text used in translation using their revised Greek text based mainly on the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.[15] Gail Riplinger (born 1947) has also addressed the issue of differences in current editions of the King James Bible in some detail.[16] A lengthy critical review of her book New Age Bible Versions, originally published in Cornerstone magazine in 1994, authored by Bob and Gretchen Passantino of Answers in Action, described the book as "erroneous, sensationalistic, misrepresentative, inaccurate, and logically indefensible".[17] King James Onlyism has been taught by many famous earlier Independent Baptists such as Jack Hyles (1926 – 2001), who argued that the King James Version has preserved the word of God perfectly.[18][19] Another Independent Baptist, Jack Chick (1924–2016), who was best known for his comic tracts, advocated a King James Only position.[20] His comic Sabotage portrayed a Christian whose faith was shipwrecked by the rejection of the King James Version as the Word of God, only to be rescued by another character's defense of the King James Version.[21] During this time, a more radical form of King James Onlyism was also developed by the Independent Baptist minister Peter Ruckman (1921 – 2016), who argued that the KJV is "new revelation", superior to the original Hebrew and Greek. [8] However, in stark contrast, John R Rice (1895 – 1980), despite being an independent Baptist, in his critique of Peter Ruckman's radical form of King James Onlyism argued that the King James Version (although preferable to the American Standard Version) is not still perfect.[22]
King James Onlyism is today most common in conservative Independent Baptist churches,[23] however, it is not exclusive to them. The Church Polity of the Dunkard Brethren Church, a Conservative Anabaptist denomination in the Schwarzenau Brethren tradition, states: "To aid in Scripture memorization among our members and our children, to help avoid confusion and to promote sound doctrine in our services, the Authorized King James Version of the Bible shall be used in our Sunday School, Bible Study, and church services. Exceptions may be made where languages other than English are necessary."[24] The Apostolic Christian Church, a Conservative Anabaptist denomination, uses the King James Version of the Bible.[25]
The Southern Methodist Church holds the King James Version of the Bible to be a "trustworthy standard to preach from the pulpit."[26] The 2015 Manual of the Bible Missionary Church, a Methodist denomination in the conservative holiness movement, states: "We wholeheartedly endorse the use of the Authorized Version (King James Version) of the Bible as the final authority in our English-speaking churches and schools. We also go on record as being opposed to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, The Living Bible, the New English Translation of the Bible, the Reader's Digest Condensed Version, the New International Version and the public use of other modern versions."[27] The Immanuel Missionary Church likewise enjoins use of the King James Version of the Bible.[28][29] The King James Version of the Bible is used exclusively by the Apostolic Faith Church, a Holiness Pentecostal denomination.[30] Agapé Boarding School in Missouri endorsed the King James Only position. One student said that when he first arrived at the school, he was strip-searched and his Bible was thrown in the trash because it was not a KJV.[31] Among others, the exclusive use of the King James Version is also endorsed by the Florida Bible College of Tampa (which has been a major institution to promote Free Grace theology),[32][33] writing on their statement: "Although we do not believe the translators of the Authorized King James Bible were inspired, we do believe that the Authorized King James Version, based upon the Textus Receptus, is the best translation. Therefore, the Authorized King James Bible shall be the Bible used by Florida Bible College of Tampa."[34]
Some readers prefer the KJV because it is in the public domain in most countries[35] (with the UK being a notable exception). This allows them to freely copy any amount of the translation without worrying about royalties or copyright.
Other promoters of the KJV Only movement include the following organizations and individuals:
James White has thoroughly researched the background and sources of the Bible as we have it today, and he points out the serious weaknesses of the KJV Only position, a view seemingly based more on faulty, unprovable assumptions than on solid evidence.[8]
One of the saddest signs of legalistic Christianity is the tenacious defense of the KJV as the only legitimate English-language translation. Almost as sad is that countless hours of scholars' and pastors' time must be diverted from the larger priorities of God's kingdom to point out the numerous historical, logical, and factual errors of KJV Onlyism — even though these errors have been repeatedly exposed in the past. Nevertheless, the job must be done, and James White does it masterfully in this book.[8]
The King James Only controversy is essentially a conspiracy theory that claims that all modern translations of Scripture are based on tainted manuscripts and that their translators are driven by a liberal Protestant or Roman Catholic (or even one-world government) agenda.[56]
— Trevin Wax
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
