Jump to content

King James Only movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.59.116.197 (talk) at 00:32, 5 September 2005 (If the COG Mountain Assembly is big enough to list, so is the PRC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The so-called King-James-Only Movement is a position within Protestant fundamentalist Christianity of English-speaking countries, which rejects all modern translations of the Bible, and accepts only the King James Version (KJV). The nickname "King-James-Only" appears to have originated with a popular book by American church historian and apologist James R. White (born 1962) published in 1995 entitled The King James Only Controversy, but it should be noted that this name and the claim that such advocacy of the KJV constitutes a "movement" have been hotly contested by some. (White himself addresses the idea that the term "KJV Only" may be an "insulting" or "inaccurate" term in King James Only Controversy, p. 248.)

This position is most prevalent within the Independent Baptist (fundamentalist) branch of the Baptist movement. The rejection is based in part on the different texts which were used as source material for the different translations of the New Testament. Most modern translations are translated mainly from the Alexandrian manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and also of the other minority texts numbered around 50, while the King James Version was translated from the Textus Receptus, or Received Text, which is Byzantine text-type (but not identical with the "Majority Text" as that term is used currently). To some extent, doubts are also expressed about the texts used to translate the Old Testament, in particular the Biblia Hebraica and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, and the variant readings in their footnotes are condemned.

There are variations within the King-James-Only Movement. For example, the late John R. Rice, who published The Sword of the Lord, took a position that only the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are inspired scripture, and that all translations of those done in good faith are useful as scripture, but he expressed a preference toward the King James Version for aesthetic reasons. On the other extreme can be found the teachings of the controversial Baptist preacher Peter Ruckman, who believes that the King James translation constitutes an "advanced revelation" from God which is superior to even the oldest existing Greek and Hebrew texts. It is said that most King-James-Only advocates hold to a position somewhere between those two extremes; indeed, White makes five divisions of "King-James-Only" groups in his book. But it is observable that such classifications as White's and those of other critics of this belief are endlessly debatable; for example, a person who, in the manner of Rice, simply prefers the KJV but feels that it contains errors that are subject to correction would logically not fall under the classification established by White's book, which is meant to critique those who hold to the King James Version as the best translation or only perfect translation of the Scriptures into English.

The roots of the King-James-Only Movement are sometimes traced to the controversy over the publication of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible in 1952, which was issued by the National Council of Churches (NCC). Many fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals believed that the NCC was a hotbed of liberal theology or modernism and were suspicious of the new translation. Accusations of Communist and Vatican influence within the NCC were brought up (it being the time of the Second Red Scare and McCarthyism), and fundamentalists largely rejected the RSV, although for three decades it became the most widely used Bible translation within the mainline and liberal Protestant denominations. One particular criticism of the RSV centered on the decision made by the translators to translate a number of Old Testament prophecies, which some scholars believed referred to the coming of Christ, in a manner which did not necessarily imply any connection to Christ. As a result, critics charged that the NCC, in issuing the RSV, had deliberately set out to discredit doctrines such as the virgin birth.

At the same time, many conservative and evangelical Christian groups began producing their own modern Bible translations, including the New American Standard Bible, the Good News Translation, and the New International Version. Most evangelicals who were wary of the RSV readily accepted these other new translations, but some fundamentalists did not. (It is worth remarking that many concerns formerly written off by modern versions advocates as mere "KJV Only" obstinacy [see White, passim] have now begun to emerge from other quarters of conservative and evangelical Christianity; for example, one writer who opines that "The English-speaking world has not been brought closer to the ideal translation with the proliferation of modern translations. Readers are less sure than ever of what the original text actually says" is Leland Ryken, a professor of English at Wheaton College who served as a literary stylist for the English Standard Version and therefore hardly a "KJV Only" author [Ryken, The Word of God in English, p. 63].)

Those who rejected all modern translations began to advocate the ideas which are held by the King James Only Movement, such as their belief that the Received Text is superior to the Alexandrian manuscripts, and that Codex Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus have been corrupted by Gnostics. (However, it should be pointed out that these ideas are not entirely the invention of "KJV Only" authors, being strongly foreshadowed in the works of 19th century English churchman Dean John William Burgon, who vigorously opposed the English Revised Version. Although Burgon did believe that there were some KJV errors, many of the positions taken by today's KJV defenders can be traced to Burgon's arguments in The Revision Revised and other writings against the textual philosophies that guided the Revised Version translators--arguments that significantly predated the struggles mentioned above involving the RSV. )

The King-James-Only Movement became one of the core beliefs within the growing Independent Fundamental branch of Baptists. Even the use of only the texts available in the early 1600s for the main body of the work fails to satisfy the supporters of the King-James-Only Movement, who see the New King James Version (1982) as something less than a true successor to the 1611 version. Some such supporters argue that, because the New King James Version makes scores of changes to the meaning of the 1611 translators, it is not a simple "updating" but actually constitutes a new version; at the same time, the inclusion of verses found solely in the Textus Receptus (such as 1 John 5:7) in the NKJV may make this attempt at revision less than palatable to many advocates of modern versions. (Regarding this latter point see David Dewey, A User's Guide to Bible Translations, pp. 162-3, where he quotes strong criticism of the NKJV's textual basis by Steven Sheeley and Robert Nash.)

Within broader evangelical circles, the King James Only belief is controversial and is widely rejected. Most evangelical scholars hold that the Textus Receptus manuscripts which the KJV was translated from contain a number of errors, and that the modern translations are translated from the earliest and supposedly more accurate manuscript evidence which we currently have. Most scholars who support biblical inerrancy believe this applies only to the original manuscripts, e.g. the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. However, there is substantial agreement between most of the Majority Text of the Greek New Testament and the Textus Receptus, and the NKJV preface testifies that there are reputable scholars who feel that the Majority Text is defensible, even if they do not support the particular form it has taken in the Textus Receptus.

Besides Independent Baptists, there are a number of other denominations which hold, to varying degrees, to a King James Only position. These include the Church of God of the Mountain Assembly, the Protestant Reformed Church (and other very conservative Reformed bodies), and some (but not all) of the more conservative denominations from the Anglican Communion tradition which collectively refer to themselves as the Continuing Anglican movement. Outside the U.S., the very small Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland has a King James Only position.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_James_Only_movement&oldid=22583369"