King James Only movement

The King James Only movement asserts 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, largely members of evangelical, conservative holiness movement, traditional High Church Anglican, and Baptist churches, believe that the KJV is the greatest English translation ever produced, needing no further improvements, and they also believe that all other English translations which were produced after the KJV are corrupt.

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

These assertions are generally based upon a preference for the Byzantine text-type or the Textus Receptus and 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 are based.

Variations

Christian apologist James White has divided the King James Only movement into five main classifications:[1]

Church sign indicating that the congregation claims to use the Authorized King James Version of 1611

"I Like the KJV Best" – Although White lists this point of view as a subdivision of the KJVO group, this is disputed by some. This group simply regards the KJV as a very good translation and prefers it over other translations because the church which it attends uses it, has always used it, or prefers its style.
"The Textual Argument" – This group believes that the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual base is more accurate than the alternative texts used by newer translations. Many in this group might accept a modern Bible version based on the same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts which are used in the KJV. White claims that Zane C. Hodges was a member of this group.[2] Hodges considered that the Majority Text "corrects" the Received Text.
"Textus Receptus Only"/"Received Text Only" – This group holds the position that the traditional Greek texts represented in the Textus Receptus were supernaturally (or providentially) preserved and that other Greek manuscripts not used in this compilation may be flawed. The KJV is viewed as an exemplary English translation that is based on this Greek grouping of Bible manuscripts put together by Desiderius Erasmus, but it is also believed that other translations based on these texts have the potential to be of equal quality. The views of the Trinitarian Bible Society fit into this TRO division. The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe that the Authorized Version (KJV) is a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language.[3] The Society believes this text is superior to the texts used by the United Bible Societies and other Bible publishers, which use texts that incorporate as their basis a relatively few manuscripts from the 4th century, and some going back to the early 2nd century.[4] Technically, because of its Greek textual base, this "Textus Receptus only" position is NOT a variety of "KJV Onlyism" and should not be referred to as such.
"The Inspired KJV Group" – This faction believes that the KJV itself was divinely inspired. They view the translation to be an English preservation of the very words of God and that they are as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts found in its underlying texts. Often this group excludes other English versions based on the same manuscripts, claiming that the KJV is the only English Bible sanctioned by God and should never be changed.
"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 languages, Hebrew and Greek, can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch advocate of this view.[5]

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.[6]

Although not expressly "King James Only", The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recommends the Latter-day Saint edition of the King James Version of the Bible.[7]

History

Benjamin G. Wilkinson (1872–1968), a Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, 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.[8]

Gail Riplinger (born 1947) has also addressed the issue of differences in current editions of the King James Bible in some detail.[9] 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".[10]

Jack Chick (1924–2016), a fundamentalist Christian who was best known for his comic tracts, advocated a King James Only position.[11] 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.[12]

Joey Faust, a Baptist pastor and researcher, is the author of The Word: God Will Keep It: The 400 Year History of the King James Bible Only Movement which documents a number of KJV Only proponents throughout history.

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."[13]

Textus Receptus vs Alexandrian Text

B.G. Wilkinson of Washington Missionary College writes in his book Truth Triumphant:[14]

The Protestant denominations are built upon that manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called Textus Receptus, or the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch and other languages. During the dark ages the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church. It was restored to Christendom by the labours of that great scholar Erasmus. It is altogether too little known that the real editor of the Received Text was Lucian. None of Lucian's enemies fails to credit him with this work. Neither Lucian nor Erasmus, but rather the apostles, wrote the Greek New Testament. However, Lucian's day was an age of apostasy when a flood of depravations was systematically attempting to devastate both the Bible manuscripts and Bible theology. Origen, of the Alexandrian college, made his editions and commentaries of the Bible a secure retreat for all errors, and deformed them with philosophical speculations introducing casuistry and lying.

John William Burgon opposed what he called the "two irresponsible scholars of the University of Cambridge" (Brooke Foss Westcott and Professor Fenton John Anthony Hort) and their revised Greek Text.[15]

Herman C. Hoskier:

the text printed by Westcott and Hort has been accepted as "the true text", and grammars, works on the synoptic problem, works on higher criticism, and others have been grounded on this text.[16]

J. H. Greenlee of Asbury Theological Seminary:

The textual theories of W–H [Westcott & Hort] underlies virtually all subsequent work in NT textual criticism.[17]

D. A. Carson:

The theories of Westcott and Hort ... [are] almost universally accepted today. ... Subsequent textual critical work [since 1881] accepted the theories of Westcott and Hort. The vast majority of evangelical scholars hold that the basic textual theories of Westcott and Hort were right and the church stands greatly in their debt.[18]

Wilbur N. Pickering:

The two most popular manual editions of the text today, Nestles-Aland and U.B.S. (United Bible Society) really vary little from the W–H [Westcott & Hort] text.[19]

Prominent KJV Only promoters

gollark: Perhaps I should add osmarksdecentralizedchatoid™ to my list of never to be completed projects.

gollark: Maybe Matrix would be better as IRC + end to end encrypted chatrooms + identity servers, yes.

gollark: Their personality simulation servers are just personality-simulated on our personality simulation servers.

gollark: I believe it because it's true, yes.

References

White 1995, pp. 1–4.
White 1995, p. 5.
Watts, Malcolm H. (2007). "The Accuracy of the Authorised Version" (PDF). Quarterly Record. Trinitarian Bible Society. 578 (1): 8. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 July 2011. Retrieved 3 March 2008.
"The Text of the Bible used", Principles, The Trinitarian Bible Society.
White 1995.
Wilson, Douglas. "Hearers of the Word". Credenda/Agenda. 10 (1). Archived from the original on 27 September 2007. Retrieved 1 July 2008.
"400 Years of the King James Bible – ensign". ChurchofJesusChrist.org. Retrieved 15 June 2018.
Westcott and Hort, The New Testament In The Original Greek (New York: 1882).
Riplinger, Gail A. "Settings of the King James Bible" (PDF). Our KJV.
New age vers. (book review), Answers
"FAQ's Concerning Bible Versions". Chick.com. Retrieved 2 December 2013.
"A Critique of the King James Only Movement", James R. White, chapter in Translation that openeth the window: reflections on the history and legacy of the King James Bible. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. 2009. pp. 200–201. ISBN 1-58983-356-2.
Manual of the Bible Missionary Church, Inc. Bible Missionary Church. 2015. p. 138.
Wilkinson B.G., Truth Triumphant: The Church in the Wilderness, Hartland Publications, (Rapidan, Virginia, 2004), p. 50.
Book review of John William Burgon's The Revision Revised. Review by J. H. Thayer, found in The Andover Review, Volume 1 (1884), page 458
Herman C. Hoskier, Codex B and Its Allies – a Study and an Indictment, (1914), Vol I, p. 468
J. H. Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, (1964), p. 78
D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, (1979), p. 75
Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text (1980), p. 42.

Bibliography

Hudson, Gary; Kutilek, Doug (Summer 1990), "The Great 'Which Bible?' Fraud", Baptist Biblical Heritage, KJV only, I (2): 1, 3–6.
White, James (1995), The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?, Minneapolis: Bethany House, p. 248, ISBN 1-55661-575-2, OCLC 32051411.