King James Only movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from King-James-Only movement)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article's introduction may be too long for its overall length. Please help by moving some material from it into the body of the article. For more information please read the layout guide and Wikipedia's lead section guidelines. (June 2013)
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: poor grammar, poor referencing, poor formatting, poor understandability, poor bias. Please help improve this article if you can. (November 2012)
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. Use of the term is itself disputed, for instance theologian and apologist James R. White states that the phrases "KJV Only" and "KJV Onlyism" are not "insulting" or "inaccurate."[1] However, KJV proponent D. A. Waite states the term is a "smear word."[2][3]

The significance of the King James only movement is that its members claim that the King James version of the Bible is the greatest English translation ever penned, needing no further enhancements. Previous to the completion of the King James version, a series of other English Bibles were created in succession gradually improving the quality of English translation. It is believed by many that this version of the Bible has more greatly influenced the positive direction of Christianity than any other English Bible ever created. Even today, the Authorized Version is still considered an outstanding translation of the Greek and Hebrew Bible texts into English.

Many Christians and Protestant church leaders will use no other translation of the English Bible for their individual studies and public preaching. The major reason for many moving away from this translation to other newer translations is the outdated readability of the 400-year-old English text contained in this version of the Bible. Since languages naturally evolve, English being no exception, over time, older translations become more difficult to understand as the current day speech of that language progressively evolves and becomes more different from the older, written text. Opponents of the King James Only movement propose that it is this natural evolution of language which demands that eventually a Bible translation will need to be replaced by a newer version.

Some supporters of the King James only movement state that with a little extra effort, one can understand the older Elizabethan text contained in the King James version and that the effort is worth the reward; others argue that it is the agency of the Holy Spirit which enables the reader to understand Scripture. Some movement members think that the King James version of the Bible received a special anointing from God during the translation process, and therefore should not be casually set aside in favor of a newer translation. A percentage of movement members believe that unholy hands have been laid on the Bible, corrupting the word of God in the newer translations by using controversial Greek texts as source documents for the translations. Moreover, movement-supporters state that internal errors found in newer English translations render those texts invalid as inspired and preserved Holy Scripture; they therefore attest that the King James Bible contains no errors of any kind, further supporting its preserved status. It should be noted that the majority of the controversy regarding English translation issues center around the New Testament, not the Old Testament.

The date of the birth of the King James Only doctrine is disputed, although a case has been made for the concept of "King James Onlyism" having begun in some fundamentalist churches in the 1930s.[4]

The radicalization of the movement has led to a more stringent definition which refers to the "King James Bible" rather than the King James (or authorized) "version". Thus, instead of the abbreviation “KJV”, members of the movement use “KJB” (this subtlety has created two variations of the movement: "preserved" and "inspired"). Further divisions within the movement separate those who draw on Greek and Hebrew Lexicons, Concordances and other external sources to improve understanding of the meanings of "King James Language" words from those who hold that the King James Bible contains within its text all the definitions required to understand word meanings. This latter group believes that no other word definition sources are acceptable. In Joey Faust's 2011 book, The Word: God Will Keep It, Faust cites diverse quotations going back to the mid-1600s. His book asserts that the movement is not new but has become more vocal as the new Bible versions have grown in popularity. The movement itself increased in strength years later, perhaps after David Otis Fuller's book, Which Bible?, was published in 1970. The movement focused on exclusive use of the King James Bible, specifically the KJV "Pure Cambridge Edition."

Contents

Variations[edit]

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

Church sign indicating that the congregation uses the Authorized King James Version of 1611, although it is more likely they use the 1769 revision. See the statement at top right in the blue background.
  • "I Like the KJV Best" – Although White lists this point of view as an aspect of the KJVO group, this is disputed by others. This group simply regards the KJV as a very good translation and prefers it over other translations because the church they attend uses it, has always used it or prefers its style.
  • "The Textual Argument" – This group believes that the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual bases are more accurate than the alternate texts used by newer translations. Many in this group might accept a modern version based on the same manuscripts as the KJV. White claims Zane C. Hodges is a member of this group.[6] However, Hodges considers 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 fits in this division, but "the Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorized Version (KJV) 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 of equal quality.
  • "The Inspired KJV Group" – This faction believes that the KJV itself was divinely inspired. They view 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 English Bible sanctioned by God.
  • "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.

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

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.[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[edit]

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]

Benjamin G. Wilkinson (1872–1968), a staunch Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, wrote Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) in which he attacked the Westcott-Hort Greek text and expressed strong opposition to the English Revised Version New Testament (ERV, 1881).[12] He was the first to apply Psalms 12:6-7 to the King James Bible, claiming that the reference is a prooftext for divine preservation of the Scriptures.[13]

Jasper James Ray (1894–1985), a business manager, missionary and Bible teacher, wrote a booklet entitled God Wrote Only One Bible (1955). It was nearly identical to Wilkinson's Our Authorized Bible Vindicated book without note or acknowledgement to Wilkinson's authorship.[14] The result was a continued propagation of Wilkinson's statements but with the misconception of a separate, corroborating affirmation of Wilkinson'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, however, 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–present), 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) 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, 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.[22]

Among secularists[edit]

A number of works have been published about the King James Version

The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who identifies himself as a "cultural Christian" as well as a practicing atheist, has often spoken in praise of the superior poetic language of the King James Version, its vitality as an influential source on modern English language and literature, and advocates literacy in the King James Version.[23]

See also[edit]

Portal icon Christianity portal

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ 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. 
  2. ^ Waite, Donald (2007-02-03). "King James Only As Slander #1". 
  3. ^ Waite, Donald (2007-02-06). "King James Only As Slander #2". 
  4. ^ Price, James D., King James Onlyism: A New Sect, p. 1
  5. ^ White, James (1995). The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?. Minneapolis: Bethany House. pp. 1–4. ISBN 1-55661-575-2. OCLC 32051411. 
  6. ^ White, James (1995). The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?. Minneapolis: Bethany House. p. 5. ISBN 1-55661-575-2. OCLC 32051411. 
  7. ^ Watts, Malcolm H. (2007). "The Accuracy of the Authorised Version" (PDF). Quarterly Record (Trinitarian Bible Society) 578 (1): 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 0-9791147-0-5. 
  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 "Wilkinson 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. ^ The relationship of Ray's booklet to Wilkinson’s text 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. ^ Richard Dawkins. "Why I want all our children to read the King James Bible". 

Further reading[edit]

  • Anderson, Robert (1903). The Bible and modern criticism. ASIN B00069Y39O. 
  • Ankerberg, John; John Weldon (2003). The Facts on the King James Only Debate. Eugene, Or.: Harvest House. ISBN 0-7369-1111-1. 
  • Beacham, Roy E.; Kevin T. Bauder (2001). One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications. ISBN 0-8254-2048-2. 
  • Carson, D.A. (1978). The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House. ISBN 0-8010-2427-7. 
  • Comfort, Phillip W. (2000). Essential Guide to Bible Versions. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers. ISBN 0-8423-3484-X. 
  • Dewey, David (2005). A User's Guide To Bible Translations: Making The Most Of Different Versions. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-3273-4. 
  • Macgregor, Alan J (2004). Three Modern Versions: A Critical Assessment of the NIV, ESV and NKJV. Salisbury, Wiltshire, England: Bible League. ISBN 0-904435-87-3. 
  • 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 1-84030-015-9. 
  • Ryken, Leland (2002). The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books. ISBN 1-58134-464-3. 

External links[edit]

Pro King James Only

Anti King James Only

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_James_Only_movement&oldid=560367152"