King James Only movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.62.173.11 (talk) at 19:18, 7 February 2006 (→‎External links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For other uses of King James Version, see King James Version (disambiguation).

You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|November 2005|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.

See technical note on viewing the Hebrew characters in this Article.
The First Page of the Book of Genesis in the 1611 printing of the KJV

The King-James-Only Movement is a position usually within Protestant fundamentalist Christianity of English-speaking countries, which rejects all modern translations of the Bible, accepting only the King James Version (KJV), also known as the Authorized Version (AV). The nickname "King-James-Only" apparently originated within a popular book by American church historian and apologist James R. White (b. 1962) published in 1995 entitled The King James Only Controversy. 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" and "inaccurate" term in King James Only Controversy, p. 248.)

The KJV and modern versions use different Greek Texts

The King-James-Only position is most prevalent within the fundamentalist and Independent Baptist branch of the Baptist movement in Christianity. The rejection of modern translations is based in part on the different original-language texts which were used as source material for the different translations of the Bible. In regards to the New Testament, most modern translations are mainly translated from the Alexandrian manuscripts, primarily represented by the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and some other 50-odd minority texts. The King James Version originates from the Textus Receptus, otherwise known as the Received Text, which is a representative of the Byzantine text-type (but not identical with the "Majority Text" as that term is currently used).

The KJV and modern versions use different Hebrew texts

To a lesser, but also significant, extent, there is also a corresponding division in regard to the texts used to translate the Old Testament, between the traditional ben Chayyim text, represented by the KJV, and the ben Asher text (Biblia Hebraica (BHK) & Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS)), represented by most modern translations. The differences between these Hebrew texts rarely affect the meaning. However, most modern Christian (though not Jewish) translations often deviate from the Hebrew, giving a meaning based on other sources such as the Septuagint or Dead Sea Scrolls or sometimes just scholarly conjecture; very often, they base these deviations on the footnotes to BHS.

The New King James Version has a mixed approach; it follows the Textus receptus in the New Testament but BHS in the Old Testament.

The King-James-Only movement supports the name "Jehovah"

The spelling of the Tetragrammaton and related words in the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Bible, showing that YHWH was not given the exact same vowel points (shown in red) as Adonai. (Click on image to enlarge.)

The Ben Chayyim Hebrew text, which was the underlying Hebrew text of the Old Testament of the KJV, includes the Tetragrammaton in the form "יְהֹוָה" ( i.e. Hebrew word #3068 in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible ) 6518 times. The consonants of this divine name are ancient, but diacritics indicating the pronunciation of Hebrew vowel sounds were not invented until much later, in medieval times. Most modern scholars hold the view that the vowel points of the spelling "יְהֹוָה" (which would seem to indicate a pronunciation "Yehowah", Latin "Jehovah", if taken literally) are not the correct vowel points of God's name — and that they were actually never intended to be such, but were instead a masoretic Q're perpetuum, or implicit textual note to indicate that the letters YHWH should be pronounced out loud as "Adonai" when reading the text (something later misunderstood by early Christian Hebraists). And in fact, many Hebrew Biblical manuscripts (and the BHS scholarly printed edition) have "יְהוָה" (without the diacritic for the "o" vowel), and in certain cases the consonantal letters YHWH are given different vowel points to indicate that they should then be pronounced out loud as "Elohim." Therefore most scholars do not consider that the name of Israel's God can be correctly transcribed as "Jehovah."

However, some KJV-only Christians place great emphasis on the fact that the vowel points of Jehovah and Adonay are not precisely the same (Adonai having a hatef-patah diacritic in its first syllable, not a simple shewa), and take this as an indication that "Jehovah" is the actual name of God. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains the discrepancy in these terms: "The use of a simple shewa in the first syllable of Jehovah, instead of the compound shewa in the corresponding syllable of Adonai and Elohim, is required by the rules of Hebrew grammar governing the use of shewa." [1] The KJV-only Christians question this claim (also found in other reference works, such as the old Jewish Encyclopedia), noting that when YHWH is found adjacent to the actual word Adonai in the Masoretic text, the Masoretes placed a compound shewa (the hatef-segol vowel diacritic of the first syllable of the intended pronunciation Elohim) under the first letter of YHWH (as seen in the illustration). Thus there is an apparent discrepancy between the case of YHWH next to Adonai (where a compound shewa is not simplified) and the most common orthography of YHWH (where simplification of a compound shewa has to be posited in order to maintain the explanation that the vowel points of this form were taken from Adonai). KJV-only Christians point to this discrepancy in arguing that "יְהֹוָה" must have the actual vowel points of God's name.

Note that "Jehovah" actually occurs only seven times in the KJV translation, and three of these occurrences are in placenames.

Variations within the King-James-Only movement

There are variations within the King-James-Only Movement. The late American evangelist John R. Rice (1895-1980), who published The Sword of the Lord, believed that only the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts should be considered inspired Scripture. He taught that translations from those texts, when done in good faith, are useful as Scripture, but he expressed a preference toward the King James Version for artistic 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 and is superior to the original-language Greek and Hebrew texts. Most King-James-Only advocates hold to a position somewhere between those two extremes; White himself distinguished between five divisions in his book:

  • "I Like the KJV Best." This division is represented by individuals who simply prefer the KJV over other translations;
  • "The Textual Argument." Individuals here believe the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual basis are the most accurate;
  • "Received Text Only." Here, the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts are believed to be supernaturally-preserved. The KJV is believed to be a translation exemplar, but it is also believed that other translations based on these texts have the potential to be equally good;
  • "The Inspired KJV Group." Individuals in this group believe that the KJV itself was supernaturally inspired;
  • "The KJV As New Revelation" This group of individuals would believe that the KJV is a "new revelation" from God, and can and 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.

There are even those that claim, as White says on p. 6:

"that the KJV was written in eternity, and that Abraham and Moses and the prophets all read the 1611 KJV, including the New Testament. These individuals believe that Hebrew is actually English... Such groups are, for obvious reasons, very small."

Origins of the King-James-Only movement

The origins of the King-James-Only Movement can be traced back to the publication of the Revised Version (RV). The original commission of the RV intended it as an update to the archaic language of the KJV. The updaters surpassed that goal, eventually re-translating thousands of words and passages. In the New Testament, they often translated a different Greek text, to conform with the theories of British churchmen and scholars Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort and their Alexandrian text. Public outcry against the RV was not few and far between at the time, with opponents preaching fidelity to the KJV. A prominent critic, churchman John William Burgon wrote several books and articles criticising the RV; his books (notably The Revision Revised) are still being reprinted and his arguments often cited by KJV supporters.

Later, publication of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible in 1952, issued by the National Council of Churches (NCC), reignited the same debate. 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. Textually, one significant 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 de-emphasized their allusions to Christ. Critics charged that the NCC, in issuing the RSV, deliberately intended to discredit doctrines such as the virgin birth. As a result, fundamentalists and conservative Christians largely rejected the RSV; nevertheless, for three decades it became the most widely used Bible translation within the mainline and liberal Protestant denominations.

More modern translations published

At the same time, many conservative and evangelical Christian groups began producing their own modern Bible translations, including the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version. Most evangelicals who were wary of the RSV readily accepted these other new translations, but many fundamentalists did not.

Those who rejected the modern translations began to advocate the ideas held by the King James Only Movement, such as the belief that the Received Text is superior to the Alexandrian manuscripts, and that Codex Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus have been corrupted by Gnostics.

The New King James Version

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. Although the NKJV is based upon the Textus Receptus of the New Testament, its Old Testament basis strays from the KJV model, relying upon the ben Asher BHS text instead of the ben Chayyim. Additionally, 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.

Within broader evangelical circles, the King James Only belief is controversial and is widely rejected. Most evangelical scholars believe 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 therefore supposedly more accurate manuscripts. Most scholars who support biblical inerrancy believe this applies only to the original manuscripts (c.f. 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.

Other denominations which hold the King-James-Only position

Besides Independent Baptists, there are a number of other denominations which hold, in 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 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.

The Apocrypha

One of the ironies of the King-James-Only position is that holders of this position generally reject a substantial proportion of the KJV, namely the so-called Apocrypha. Despite some reservations about its status (expressed in Article 6 of the Anglican Thirty-nine Articles), it was part of all the early editions, and has always been included in the copy given to the King or Queen of the United Kingdom during the coronation ceremony.

Problematic Verses

The most popular verses that highlight the controversy, are:

  • Any verse with the name "Jesus", since the 'J' glyph was not used in the KJV 1611 Edition.
  • Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
    • The word Passover (#3957 pascha) is translated as Easter, in contradistinction to Matt 26:2.
  • Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
    • The word "day" is not found in the Greek in this verse.
    • Of the 69 times "Sabbath" (#4521 sabbaton) is translated, this is one of the 9 times it has been translated as "week."
[Acts 20 (Greek Interlinear Bible)]
  • Heb 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
    • The word "Joshua" (#2424 Iesous) is translated as "Jesus."
  • Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
    • The word "Sabbath" (#4521) is dropped entirely.

See also

The Pro Arguments

The principal arguments for KJV only are:

  • only the KJV is translated from the true original text
  • modern translations explicitly try to change the theology, for example:
  1. The Deity of Jesus Christ is attacked in various places in all of the modern versions (see Gen 22:8, Mic 5:2, 1Tim 3:16, Heb 1:8), despite the identification with antichrist in 1Jn 4:3 for making such denial, and likewise references to worshipping Jesus Christ (Luke 24:52);
  2. The Trinity is attacked. Most modern versions delete 1Jn 5:7 and then split either v6 or v8 to make a counterfeit v7.;
  3. The virgin birth is attacked, by altering Isa 7:14, despite its quotation in Matt 1:23;
  4. The doctrine of a literal fiery burning hell is attacked, by changing the word 'hell' to words such as 'depths', 'grave', 'hades', etc. The NIV for example also deletes quotations of Jesus Christ in Mark 9:44 and Mark 9:46, Where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.;
  5. The divine promise for the preservation of scripture is attacked by replacing Psa 12:7, mostly in the form of changing them (KJV) to us (modern);
  6. The salvation of the repentant thief is attacked by removing Lord from Luke 23:42;
  7. The first Gentile salvation recorded in scripture, the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-39), is attacked by most modern versions deleting all of Acts 8:37, his saving testimony, which also sets the Biblical requirement for Believer's Baptism, ...If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest...;
  8. The salvation of St. Paul is attacked, by altering Acts 9:6;
  9. The blood atonement of Jesus Christ is attacked in several places, one example being the removal of through his blood from Col 1:14;
  10. Salvation as a one time, permenently settled event in the life of any believer is attacked by inserting the word being into 1Cor 1:18;
  11. The ascencion of Jesus Christ is attacked by removing and carried up into heaven from Luke 24:51, despite Luke's own reference to the ending of his Gospel in Acts 1:2;
  12. Salvation as a prerequisite for being in heaven is attacked by removing of them which are saved from Rev 21:24, a book which in itself contains an explicit warning against adding unto or taking away from its text (Rev 22:18-19).
  • A dynamic translation distorts the message of the original. Only a very literal translation such as the KJV could be considered faithful to the original documents.
  • The translators and publishers of modern translators are ignoring the God's own warnings against changing the Bible, for example:
Revelation 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Indeed, this is often supposed to be deliberate on the part of translators and publishers, "I would like to think these worldly publishing companies are just ignorant to the seriousness of what they are doing. However in some cases I'm sure that these deceptive maneuvers are being done with fore thought. In other words they are aware of the warning labels but choose to ignore them. They have hardened their hearts against the standard text of the Holy Bible." [2]

External links

NOTE: some of the following materials may contain derogatory comments against Roman Catholics and other Christian groups.

The con arguments

The arguments against the KJV only position are:

  • Since the original publication of the KJV, many new source documents, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls have been discovered, and a lot of other archeological research has been done in the last 400 years which improves our understanding of the original text, each of which aid enormously in making a better translation. To dismiss such additional source documents and research does a large disservice to the aims of a translation which is as good as it can possibly be.
  • Any argument about translation should be based on discussion of the original text. It is not good translation to work backwards from an assumed theology to a translation. The translation should be based on the text and not the theology. For example, when statements such as "The NKJV removes the word 'hell' 23 times!" are made to somehow prove that the KJV is a more accurate translation, this is an argument based on theology, not on translation. In all scholarly modern translations, translators choose to use words which seem to best translate the original, even if that does not fit with anybodys theology nor support anybodys particular viewpoint. To attack any translation as somehow bad because it changes the message taught by the KJV is to elevate the KJV above the source documents in terms of reliability.
  • Literal translations and translations with archaic language actually make the translation harder for people to understand, not easier. It is desirable that translations are as easy to understand as necessary. The Bible is not some sort of magic charm in which the actual individual words have effect, but it is rather the message within it which is important, and so less literal translations can be very useful. Additionally it could be noted that the language of the 1611 edition was already becoming outdated even at the time it was printed. The weakness of changing speech usage leading to obscurity of meaning is a continuous problem, creating a strong argument against one fixed translation for all time for the "common people" to read. Strictly literal translation of the words of Scripture can even be plainly misleading. For example, "the wicked will not stand in the judgment" might be interpreted as proving that evil people actually would not be judged.
  • The KJV Only position also assumes that there is one definitive KJV, when in fact there were many editions and revisions. What most Christians call the "KJV" today is not the KJV of 1611. The removal of the Apocrypha from these editions is just one of many changes that have occured over the years. So if there is only one true translation, one would have to know which of these KJV editions is the correct one. The original KJV not only included the Apocrypha (and calendars suggesting readings of the Apocrypha for the year along with the other books of the Bible) but also footnotes that indicated textual variants. The KJV Only position does not take these textual variants into account either.
  • Some KJV Only advocates argue that new translations cannot be trusted because of the "faulty" doctrinal beliefs of the modern translators. However, the KJV translation was put together by the followers of the Anglican Church of 1611 who more than likely held the Anglican theology of that period.
  • If the KJV translators were literally inspired by God in the 17th century, why is God powerless to inspire later translators? There need not be a contradiction here if we believe God can inspire writers to make the speech easier to understand for modern audiences and account for printer errors made after the inspired translation. However the issue of inspired translation is problematic since logically an all-powerful God concerned with creating a perfect text could inspire everyone along the way, including and down to the individual reading the text and prevent them from error in understanding it (which gets into issues of revelation and free will). Finally this line of thought also asks why God would only preserve God's inspired text from the 17th century on (a small fraction of Christian history). Would it not be more reasonable to assume that the general sense of the text is unaffected and that translations are periodically a practical necessity to keep the text understandable to each new generation across the centuries and millennia of history?
  • On the side of those believing in modern translations, both as translators and publishers, there are men and women as equally believing in God and all the doctrines which Christianity strongly teaches as on the side of KJV. To suggest that somehow those on the side of modern translations are somehow less commited to the doctrines of the Bible is simply false.
  • If theology "uniquelly" taught by the KJV determines how we ought to translate the Bible, this suggests that there is a higher authority than Scripture for teaching revelation, which contradicts the widely held Protestant doctrine of "Scripture Alone." Most KJV-Only Christians claim to uphold this doctrine yet do not see the contradiction.
  • The suggestion that modern translators are somehow adding to scripture or changing scripture as the Bible expressly forbids is false. A modern translator believes whole heartedly that the original scriptures (the source documents) must not be added to or changed, but that the translator has the freedom to try and translate those documents in the best way possible. The modern-day translator is simply seeking to bring the Bible message to people in words they can understand. The presence of textual variants in the original KJV could also be accused of "adding to scripture" along this same line of thinking, thus the accusation would prove too much.
  • The KJV-Only position of viewing a particular English translation as the only correct one is illogical in the context of the many languages in the world. For example, are the French supposed to read the KJV? Only the original Greek and Hebrew documents are the valid basis, and all translations into all languages can be judged as better or worse according to different generally-applicable criteria.
  • The KJV-Only position is actually harmful to God's purposes of making known the Bible to all the world, since it actually makes it harder for people to understand, it therefore makes it harder for people to enter the Kingdom of God. It is fine if an individual is able to understand the KJV, but is it really God's desire that those who do not find it easy to read should be hindered from finding God? The apostle Paul was passionate about making the gospel known to people in whatever way possible, for example 1 Corinthians 9:22 (KJV) Paul says, "I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some". Shouldn't translators today be still wanting to make the message of God clear to people?

External links

Bibliography

  • Beacham, Roy E. & Bauder, Kevin T., 2001. One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible ISBN 0-8254-2048-2
  • Carson, D., 1978. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism ISBN 0-801-02427-7
  • White, James, 1995. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? ISBN 1-556-61575-2
  • Ankerberg, J. & Weldon, J., 2003. The Facts on the King James Only Debate ISBN 0-736-91111-1, a book written by well-known Christian apologists.
Related Concerns
  • The Revision Revised by John William Burgon ISBN 1888328010
  • The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark ISBN 1589600142
  • Which Version by Philip Mauro ASIN B0006RY3UA
  • The Bible & Modern Criticism by R.A. Anderson ASIN B00069Y39O
  • Ryken, Leland, 2002. The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation ISBN 1581344643
  • Dewey, David, 2004. A User's Guide to Bible Translations ISBN 0830832734
  • Which Bible? 5th Edition, by David Otis Fuller, D.D. ISBN 082542612X

Technical note

The Hebrew characters in this article may be displayed in some browsers at a size too small for clarity; printing the article out, or cutting-and-pasting text from the web-browser into a word processor and increasing the font size, may help.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_James_Only_movement&oldid=38650346"