King James Only movement
The King James Only movement asserts that the King James Version of the Bible is superior to all other English translations of the Bible. Adherents of the movement, mostly certain Conservative Anabaptist, traditionalist Anglo-Catholic, Conservative Holiness Methodist, Primitive Baptist and Independent Baptist churches, believe that this text has been providentially preserved as a perfect translation of the Bible into English, or at least is the best translation of the Bible in English.
Most radical factions argue that the King James translation itself was divinely inspired, superseding the original Greek itself or that the King James translation was preserved while the other manuscripts became corrupted. However, other factions who follow the view of Edward Hills maintain that the KJV is not merely a translation of the Greek text, but an independent edition of the Textus Receptus in its own right, faithfully rendered in English and representing the most accurate expression of the Textus Receptus tradition. Others prefer the KJV simply because it is in the public domain in most countries, which allows them to freely copy any amount of the translation without worrying about royalties or copyright.
Variations
has divided the King James Only movement into five main classifications:- "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 they attend uses it, has always used it, or prefers its style, or the individual person uses it, or 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. However, Hodges considered that the Majority Text "corrects" the Received Text, and this view is generally distinguished from the views of the Textus Receptus advocates.
- "Textus Receptus Only"/"Received Text Only" – This group holds the position that the traditional Greek texts represented in the Textus Receptus were supernaturally 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 is a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language. 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.
- "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. White believes most KJV-Onlyists would belong to this group.
- "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, have been corrected by the KJV and that the KJV should be followed if it differs from them. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch advocate of this view.
History
Early views
Controversy surrounding the Textus Receptus already occurred in the early 18th century, as John Mill collated textual variants from 82 Greek manuscripts. In his Novum Testamentum Graecum, cum lectionibus variantibus MSS he reprinted the unchanged text of the Editio Regia, but in the index he enumerated 30,000 textual variants. After Mill published his edition, Daniel Whitby criticized his work, stating that the text of the New Testament had never been corrupted and he effectively equated the autographs with the Textus Receptus. He regarded the 30,000 variants in Mill’s edition as a threat to Holy Scripture and called for the defense of the Textus Receptus against these variants. Among some Reformed theologians, the Masoretic text was often treated as the Old Testament equivalent of the Greek Textus Receptus, applying the doctrine of providential preservation to these texts. Francis Turretin and Johannes Heidegger argued so far as to make the affirmation of such belief a matter of Reformed orthodoxy. However, this view was rejected by other Reformed theologians such as Richard Baxter, who clearly distinguished the autographa and its copies, and unlike Francis Turretin and John Owen, he did not argue that God's word had to be preserved within one tradition of manuscripts.The exclusive use of the King James Version is recorded in a statement made by the Tennessee Association of Baptists in 1817, stating "We believe that any person, either in a public or private capacity who would adhere to, or propagate any alteration of the New Testament contrary to that already translated by order of King James the 1st, that is now in common use, ought not to be encouraged but agreeable to the Apostles words to mark such and have no fellowship with them".
Some contentious Textus Receptus variants such as the Johannine Comma were also explicitly defended by authors such as Matthew Henry, John Gill, and John Brown, whose arguments influenced modern Textus Receptus primacist authors.
Background
The Textus Receptus and the King James Version were defended by John William Burgon in his The Revision Revised and also by Edward Miller in A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. 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 originated in the 2nd century. Miller's arguments in favour of readings in the Textus Receptus were of the same kind. 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.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; and even argues for the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum. 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. The view of the supremacy of the Textus Receptus was also defended by the Lutheran Theodore Letis, but rather on grounds of the authority of the institutional church.
Another known defender of the King James Only movement was Benjamin G. Wilkinson, a Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, who wrote Our Authorized Bible Vindicated 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. Gail Riplinger has also addressed the issue of differences in current editions of the King James Bible in some detail. 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". King James Onlyism has been taught by many earlier Independent Baptists such as Jack Hyles, who argued that the King James Version has preserved the word of God perfectly. Another Independent Baptist, Jack Chick, who was best known for his comic tracts, advocated a King James Only position. 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.
During this time, a more radical form of King James Onlyism emerged through the teachings of Independent Baptist minister Peter Ruckman. Unlike more moderate King James advocates, Ruckman advanced the idea that the 1611 King James Version actually constituted a form of "new revelation" from God. He maintained that the KJV was superior even to the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, claiming that where the underlying texts included any unclarities, the English of the King James Bible could correct or clarify them. In his view, the KJV had been more than divinely preserved, but rather improved from the originals and was thus not only inerrant but also surpassing the original autographs themselves in accuracy. This position began to be named "Ruckmanism", due to the association with his teaching. However, in stark contrast, John R. Rice, despite being an independent Baptist, in his critique of Peter Ruckman's radical form of King James Onlyism argued that the King James Version is still not perfect. This view has also been rejected by modern King James Only advocates such as David W. Cloud, arguing that while God has providentially preserved the Bible in the King James Version, inspiration applied only to the autographs.