The Role of the Church in King James Version Onlyism

I have been following a rather interesting discussion on the KJV Only issue over at Sharper Iron. Since the key KJVO arguer is my former pastor Kent Brandenburg, the discussion originally picqued my interest. It is one of his first discussions over at Sharper Iron and it is a heated one. The discussion does not really pick up heat and intensity until he posts on pg. 5, I believe. The debate is worth checking out because it highlights some of the strengths and weaknesses on both sides of the debate.

Pastor Brandenburg’s main thesis, and the main point of the book he edited on the topic (Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture) can be summarized as follows. (The Scripture passages listed are the ones he refers to in the blog, more are mentioned in the book, I believe.)

  1. God has promised to preserve every word of Scripture perfectly. (Matt. 5:17-19; Matt. 4:4; Matt. 24:35; Isaiah 59:21; Ps. 12:6-7; 1 Pet. 1:23-25; and also the perfect passive form of the words “It is written” throughout the NT)
  2. God has promised that these words will be available to His people. (Dt. 30:11-14; Matt. 4:4; Jn. 12:48; 2 Pet. 3:2; Jude 17; and Is. 59:21)
  3. God has ordained local New Testament (Baptistic) churches be the means by which He preserves His words through their reception, recognition, and propagation of them. (The Hebrew words natsar and shamar and the Greek word tareo; Jn. 17:8; 1 Cor. 6 [church invested with judgment authority]; Jn. 16:13)

Believing in these three points, however, does not automatically make one a KJVO-ist. Many people believe that all of God’s words have been preserved in the totality of the manuscript evidence. They would also contend that God’s Word has generally been available wherever His people have been found (although it may not always be available in the vernacular language). The fact that God uses churches to help preserve His words is agreed on in the sense of canonization, and probably realized in the prevention of clearly heretical readings or obviously spurious readings (for instance Marcion’s canon). Most conservative Bible believers have not agreed with a strict local church only theology, and so they would look to the universal church and how they received and helped propagate God’s Word. In fact today, most churches allow varying English translations, and it has been a rare event in history for churches and denominations to forbid the use of other translations or the comparing of texts and variants. So these 3 points do not necessarily demand a KJVO position.

Now Brandenburg and other KJVO-ists have a particular purpose or spin for each of these points as it relates to the KJV only issue. Point 1 is what lets them hold to an all-or-nothing mentality in regards to Bible versions. If you do not hold to the KJV you are not holding to the Bible (although most do not take this as far as Ruckmanites do, or as far as some who insist people can only be saved from the KJV). Point 2 is what allows them to write off any other text except the TR. All other texts are later than the TR and so were not available before 1881 (Westcott and Hort’s first widely accepted critical text). This also allows them to discount the readings of papyrii or MSS like Sinaiticus only recently discovered. Point 3 is what further authenticates and validates the choice of the TR against any claims that it is a poor representative of the Byzantine Text family. The churches used the KJV and it was based on the TR, therefore the TR must be God’s preserved Word.

Let me restate that this interpretation/application of these 3 points does not necessarily follow an acceptance of them. Most who say God preserved every word in the totality of the manuscripts (another application of point 1) affirm that there is really much consensus between the versions and texts. They point out that really only about 1-2% of the text is disputed, and of that significant differences are rare and do not affect the overall theology of the Scriptures. On point 2, we can note that this position cuts both ways. The Byzantine texts were not universally available–in all locales until the 1600s. They were not dominant until the late 900s. And even though they rose to prominence as far as numbers, the readings of the other text families did not die out. They were known and studied all throughout the period. The similarities the TR has with the Vulgate and the huge demand for more and more TR editions helped ensure that texts popularity. But Calvin, Luther, Wesley, and many another conservative leader or scholar adopted some of the non-Byzantine readings. Even the KJV marginal notes mention variant readings, and Erasmus’ notes on his original TR editions clearly question many readings he maintained in the text.

Point 3 is where I would like to center the rest of this post on. This point centers on the role of the church in KJVO-ism. Brandenburg and others use this point to find extra authentication for their position. Since the churches used the KJV for 350 years and since they used the TR then this settles the issue. Any other text was not authenticated and is trying to restore the text, when in fact the churches received the text (textus receptus) already. Also, this point is used to specify which form of the TR is to be viewed as the best (usually called perfect). Since the church accepted the KJV and used it, they then verified the form of the TR which was its basis. This form was later put together in one Greek text (since they used more than one Greek text for the KJV) by Scrivener in 1894.

The KJVO position depends on a certain handling of historical and textual evidence. This belief that the church received the KJV and thus authenticated the TR is making a historical judgment. It is not something Scripture directly states (“the TR is where the preserved words are”). I contend that this historical judgment is flawed and full of huge assumptions. Let me first list the assumptions and then explain them briefly.

  1. That the church’s use of the KJV/TR is a positive textual choice.
  2. That the church’s choice to use the KJV/TR was a unanimous and definitive choice.
  3. That the choices of English Christians are more important than those of others.
  4. That some differences between TR editions or between the KJV and the Masoretic Text are okay and do not negate the availability of every word, yet the differences between the TR and other non-TR texts do deny the availability of every word.
  5. That we can assume whatever we need to, historically, since we can trust totally in the church’s choice of text on every individual reading.

In the history of the English Bible, gradually the KJV replaced the Geneva Bible as the Bible of choice for the church. Why? It became apparent that it was a better translation than the Geneva. There were virtually no other major English translations attempted and consequently the church just used what it had. Is this a positive choice or a default choice? The use of the TR also was due to its being the only commercially available text. Stephanus’ editions of it became very popular because of his list of textual variants. Presumably a text based on a different Greek family would have been popular as well, but remember this era was still the renaissance of Greek literature. MSS were being discovered, and facts were being compiled concerning the history of the transmission of the Greek text. The Believing church understandably preferred Greek to the Latin Vulgate which was sanctioned by the Roman church, viewed as antiChrist by most Protestants. But beside the fact that only the TR/KJV was available, stop and ask yourself this question. Does using the best available translation necessarily mean you affirm each and every textual decision it made with regard to textual variants? As I mentioned above, church leaders and scholars did not uniformly accept each reading but often it was the conservative scholars and pastors, even, who dutifully compiled the lists of textual variants and favored many of the same decisions reached by the editors of the modern critical text (see this article as an example of this with regards to Tregelles’ defense of several significant variant readings before the discovery of Sinaiticus).

I have spoken a little in regards to assumption 2 above already. But let me note that John Wesley offered several thousand corrections to the TR, and Martin Luther never accepted 1 Jn. 5:7 (excluding it from his translation which was accepted by his followers). Calvin, Beza, Erasmus–they all preferred various textual variants (or even emendations) over and against the TR. Now Brandenburg would exclude everyone mentioned here and focus only on Baptists. Yet the fact that Baptists attempted correcting the TR in their own translations in the 1800s (which was when Bible Committes and Unions were beginning to form due to a renewed interest in missions) and the fact that Baptists accepted and used the RV and ASV would argue that they had not unanimously viewed the KJV as perfect.

With regard to assumption 3, Brandenburg would say that most Baptists were English so that is why English choices are so important. I contend that the Dutch Estates General Version was as revered by the Dutch Christians and it was also solidly based on the TR (Elzevir’s 1633 edition). It seems to be snobbery either for English or for Baptists which would exclude the texts and versions held by other languages. In fact, it is interesting to note that the English held to a priority of the 1550 Stephanus’ 3rd edition, whereas the Europeans held to a priority of the 1633 Elzevir’s–neither of these are Beza’s 1598 which most closely resembles Scrivener’s 1894.

Assumption 4 is a sticking point for KJVO-ists. And they know it. If Beza’s 1598 can differ from Scrivener’s 1894 apx. 190 times, how can you tell which one is perfect? Did the churches accept the 1611 readings of the KJV or the 1769 readings of the KJV (which is essentially your modern KJV). There are differences beyond just spelling and orthography–I think it stands at around 400 differences (by a KJVO-ist’s count). If we assume that we do not need all the inspired words in one document in order for them to be available, we have conceeded the entire premise of the preservation in the totality of the manuscripts view. If the average John in 1600 was dependent on comparing a few English versions and trying to keep abreast with different Greek editions of the TR in order to really have each word that was inspired available to him, how is this any different from the average Joe today? In light of allowing for differences between TR editions, how authoritative can we view the fact that the churches used the KJV. How does that establish which textual readings are correct? If we say only the exact choices of the KJV translators are to be received, how were the churches who used the Geneva Bible before the creation of the KJV to know which readings to choose?

The fifth assumption seems especially egregious. It amounts to a blind trust in one’s historical application of Biblical beliefs. A blind trust in a particular interpretation which is not textually demanded. KJVO-ists basically have a “history-is-unkowable” trump card. They gladly marshall the historical fact that Sinaiticus was only recently unburied as a prime argument against the critical texts, yet they say history-is-unkowable when asked concerning texts like Rev. 16:5. The history we have strongly suggests that Beza conjecturally emended the text to read “shalt be” instead of “Holy One”–so says even KJVO defender E.F. Hills (see his Defending the King James Bible, pg. 208). Yet KJVO-ists like Brandenburg can glibly say since we cannot know infallibly that Beza did not have textual support back then, we can gladly assume he did, even though no support (at all in any language) exists today! When history (and facts) say the Greek texts did not contain a reading (as in Acts 9:5-6, Rev. 22:19, or 1 Jn. 5:7–and many others) KJVO-ists can allow for preservation through the Latin translation of the Greek (even though this would make such preservation unavailable to Greek speakers in the Byzantine Empire), as Hills does. When we speak of superiority of texts, KJVO-ists trumpet the majority of Greek texts favoring their text. Yet in many of the examples mentioned above, if just one Greek text or Hebrew text can be marshalled in favor of a reading, they feel that they have successfully defended their position! This assumption is wonderful for them. They can speak out of both sides of their mouth at the same time!

In conclusion, I think I have demonstrated that the church’s acceptance of the KJV by no means infallibly argues for the KJVO position. In fact, the KJVO-ists are glad to allow for a period of formation for their text. After the invention of printing, around 100 or more years are allowed for the development of their text. Yet the fact that the church decided to use that newly available text somehow closes the door to its development. Todays critical texts are in the same line as that text. Much of the preliminary work which allows for their existence today was done immediately after the formation of the TR during the development and refinement of textual criticism methods. The churches today, including the majority of Baptist churches, have accepted the modern versions, just as Charles Spurgeon and the church leaders at the beginning of the modern versions era did. There was no once-for-all acceptance or determinative choice of the TR as the perfect text.

I have no problem allowing the Bible to guide my textual choices. Yet I stand with the majority of God’s people in affirming that the Bible does not specify where its preserved words are to be found. It does not specify how they will be preserved–in other words in one text or in one family, in one book, or in the totality of every copy. KJVO-ists commendably let the Bible’s principles guide their textual choices, but they foolishly refuse to acknowledge that much of their application and decisions made as a result of their presuppositions are not clearly demanded from the text. A few KJVO defenders do acknowledge this (see Thomas Cassidy’s comments in that Sharper Iron thread). But most exalt their application and handling of historical/factual evidences to the level of Scripture and anathematize (practically) all who hold to any alternative veiw.


∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

18 thoughts on “The Role of the Church in King James Version Onlyism

  1. Good synopsis of the issues. The KJV only’ers certainly do have some problems with their reasoning. I often think of something I was reading, where an extreme KJV only guy wrote (I will paraphrase) that ‘anybody who has knowledge of the issues regarding KJV-onlyism, and still reads a version different than the KJ, is not a Christian.’ I have often wondered what would happen if, and may it not happen, some day the government disallowed Bibles, and as such rounded them all up. What if some KJV-only person could only get an NIV to read? Would they read it? What would they do?

    Rob

  2. Rob,

    Thanks for the comments. Having been on the other side of the fence, I can say everything appears so clear to them. Their position is not demanded from Scripture but they feel like it is! It is difficult to reason with them. I hope this post might help some of them see daylight.

  3. Hey all,

    Check out this response I put together to Brandenburg’s response to my first post over at Sharper Iron on the thread I link to in this post.

    It includes some more discussion of errors in the TR and KJV which present difficulties for the every word available in one book viewpoint.

  4. Hey Bob! I am always interested in heaering perspective on Fundamentalism. I especially enjoyed the dialogue on Sharper Iron. Bob bloggin on sharper iron. I was overjoyed=)

    God bless!

    Mathew S.

  5. I believe the KJV is the PERFECT word of God. When the Lord said that WE…MUST live by EVERY word of God, then we must. We have it in the KJV. Thus, the silly branding name used by apostate James White of “King James Onlyism!”
    God bless his word and words!

    1. I used to be just like you my friend. I will tell you one the first things that got me out of KJVonlyism. Go look up Ecclesiastes 3:11. The KJV says that GOd has set the world in our heart. If you will look up the Hebrew translated world there it is not correct. It should be translated eternity instead of world. The NKJV is an example of a translation that got it right. Just food for thought

  6. Jonathan,

    I respect your belief. However you make this whole issue seem too simple. It in fact is not. Even KJV only people write long books and work through many different details and points in coming to their positions.

    How, may I ask, do we just assume that “we have it in the KJV”? Does this mean that the Geneva Bible didn’t have it, since it differs in many, many words from the KJV? And what about the fact that the KJV differs from all known Greek and Hebrew texts/manuscripts in some places, and that it differs from the TR and the Hebrew Masoretic Text in places. Which guide is infallible? Which are the “every words”?

  7. let us not forget about the purpose of the Word of God…. to grow in relationship and worship of a Creator All-Powerful God. If NIV or KJV or XYZ accomplishes the relationship of God and His people through the “rescue” story of Christ… then God is working… and we aren’t. People get in the way.

    🙂

    mikehuckabeenews.com
    eblack44

  8. Despite the preponderance of “crackpots” who also happen to use the KJV (Authorised Version to give it its proper name), we are wrong if we assume that all “crackpots” are “KJV-only”. I am concerned that “KJV-only” has become a perjorative for many Reformed people, i.e. there is something sub-standard about a Christian or a Pastor who chooses to read and preach only from the time-honored Authorised Version. I happen to believe that taken in its entirety the KJV actually is the best translation available in the English language. I am not ashamed of that position, and I do believe it can be defended. But n a wider point: what about those churches or Christians that are “NIV-only”, or “ESV-only”, or whatever version they happen to feel is the best at that point in history? Why do folks like you never feel it necessary to lampoon those, or subject them to ridicule? Can it really be a good thing to encourage 10 or 12 different versions to be employed in a church service by those attending? Or is it best to all leave our Bibles at home? Is it really desirable to change the version we use (in church and at home) every 10-15 years, depending on what Nelson or Zondervan publishers decide might be good for the Christian community? Does anyone seriously believe that the plethora of different Bibles issued in the past 30 years has been either helpful or desirable? Just saying…

    1. Stephen,

      Some do deride the KJV and KJV Onlyism incessantly. I try not to. A flippant use of many translations is not wise. But many translations do help us understand the meaning of the original language better and so they do help us.

      Thanks for stopping by and speaking your mind. Hope to see you around.

      In Christ,

      Bob

  9. I don’t believe all KJV-only people are “crackpots”. I did encounter a person at lunch recently who asked what I was reading and I told him “my Bible”. He then asked what translation it was and I said it was the NIV. As I started to tell him I have many traslations including the King James, He sneered at me and rushed off. But when someone tells me I am not a Christian because I don’t read the 1611(which one?), or the 1917 Scofield then I might question their salvation. By the way, I own a 1917 Scofield and a 1967 Scofield, but of course some KJV-only tell me the 1967 edition is a work of the devil. My favorites are the NASB and the NKJV, though the one I would not ever give away is my 1967 because it was my first Bible that I bought in 1975. I know that I am saved by Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Christ alone. It is sad that some “brothers and sisters” spend so much of their Christian life sneering at fellow believers over the issue of KJV-only when Paul exhorts us in Ephesians to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. But, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head-Christ-from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does it share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love” (Eph. 4:3,4:15-16). If someone wants to read only the KJV, that is great, but please do no tell others they are not saved because they do not hold your position. Only God truly knows the heart of every person and I sincerely believe that He is grieved when His children fight over something that should be a minor issue. Proclaiming God’s truth about Jesus Christ and bearing fruit that edifys others and helps them come to a saving knowledge of Christ is much more important. To God be the glory, not to the KJV or any other translation, only to Him!
    By the way, my pastor teaches out of the NIV, but many of us bring other translations to refer to during the sermon and we do no call ourselves a “NIV-only” church and we don’t tell anyone what translation to bring to services. But we do promote Love, Unity, and to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.(2Peter 3:18)

  10. So much division! THE KJV was the text on which Christianity thrived for 300 years. Since the introduction of all New English Versions, around 1960, there has been nothing but argument. Makes one wonder, doesn’t it.

Comments are closed.