Mining the Archives: The Role of the Church in King James Version Onlyism


From time to time, I’ll be mining the archives around here. I’m digging up my blog’s best posts from the past. I hope these reruns will still serve my readers.

Today’s post was originally published March 17, 2006.

This post is long but covers this issue well. I have taken the liberty of slightly editing the original post and shortening it here for the re-post.


The main point of  the book that may be the best theological defense of KJV-onlyism — Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture edited by Kent Brandenburg — can be summarized as follows.

  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 [editor’s note: the idea that the Bible does not teach that there is a “universal church” but that God works through local churches only], 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.

The proponents of KJV-onlyism seem to  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.

The third point centers on the role of the church in KJVO-ism, and is what I intend to focus the rest of this post on. This point at first glance, appears to give authentication to the KJV-only 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. [Editor’s note: I would now add that the political climate of England during and after its civil war was a boon to the KJV since the Geneva Bible’s notes were considered treasonous.] 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 some 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, some might counter 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 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, 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.

Commentary Roundup: “1-2 Chronicles (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary Series)” by Mark Boda

Commentary Roundup posts are a series of short reviews or overviews of Bible commentaries. I’m working my way through a variety of commentaries, new and old, and hope to highlight helpful resources for my readers.

Book Details:
• Author: Mark J. Boda
• Series Editor: Philip W. Comfort
• Publisher: Tyndale House Publishers (2010)
• Format: hardback
• Page Count: 442
• ISBN#: 9780842334310
• List Price: $29.99
• Rating: Recommended

Series Description:
The Cornerstone Biblical Commentary provides students, pastors, and laypeople with up-to-date, evangelical scholarship on the Old and New Testaments. It’s designed to equip pastors and Christian leaders with exegetical and theological knowledge to better understand and apply God’s word by presenting the message of each passage as well as an overview of other issues surrounding the text.

Structure:
The Cornerstone Biblical Commentary brings together a wealth of scholarship in a clearly presented and highly accessible format. Each larger section of text gets its own introductory section. Then each textual unit, usually of a chapter or two in length, gets its own separate treatment. The full text from the New Living Translation opens the section, then footnotes to the text, and detailed notes follow. The commentary section is next and covers sources used by the Chronicler, the structure and content of the section – which is where the primary exegesis happens, and then a concluding section titled “significance” where the author brings home the main themes from the text.

Features:
A detailed introduction to the books of Chronicles opens the work, and enumerates the setting, author, date, and audience. The canonicity and textual history of Chronicles are detailed, and literary and theological concerns are addressed. Space is also devoted to the major themes of the books of Chronicles, of which the author finds covenant relationship, an emphasis on renewing the present through remembering the past, and the prophetic office as key. And while the Chronicler emphasizes Judah’s history, he repeatedly refers to “all Israel,” Boda sees in this a concern for the fulfillment of a truly united Israel “comprised of inhabitants from both north and south united around the Temple, King, and Jerusalem” (p. 18). And intriguingly, he argues that “The omission of the history of the northern kingdom throughout the account is not intended as a slight against these tribes, but rather is used to play down the schism and to include them in ‘all Israel'” (p. 18). The introduction also includes a detailed outline of the books of Chronicles.

Other features of the commentary include a proprietary numbering system from Tyndale for the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words – similar to Strong’s numbers, but coded to other reference works from Tyndale. Some numbers are also provided that key to Zondervan resources as well. A detailed list is also provided of key textual witnesses to 1 and 2 Chronicles, and the Old and New Testaments as a whole. Also included is an extensive explanation of the transliteration and numbering system employed in the commentary. Throughout the volume, charts, maps, chiastic structures, and timelines are provided, but all in black and white. The commentary makes thorough use of end notes after every section and introduction, as well. This allows it to remain highly technical but also more accessible to the average reader.

Excerpt:
The books of Chronicles are full of lists and genealogies, and the technical bent of this commentary proves helpful in catpuring what is being communicated theologically by the Chronicler. The following excerpt captures well the attention to detail shown by the author of this commentary. It also illustrates how helpful this commentary is for exegesis.

David’s Commission of the Military (27:1-15). With chapter 27 the Chronicler leaves behind the enumeration of the Levitical families, moving to the “secular” leadership of his kingdom. He begins with the military (27:1-15), then moves to the tribes (27:16-22), and finally, after a short note on the census, concludes with the property managers (27:25-31) and royal advisers (27:32-34).

Because this chapter, as part of the unit of chapters 23-27, stands out as the only one unconcerned with sacred personnel, some have suggested it was a later addition. However, although the Chronicler’s focus has been on the commissioning and organization of the sacred orders due to his concern for the Temple, the royal secular infrastructure of the kingdom is also important for sustaining the Temple worship. In addition, in the discussion of 23:1-2 it is noted that the term “summoned” (‘asap [TH622, ZH665]) in 23:2 is a literary signal from the Chronicler that summarizes the content of chapters 23-27. There David is depicted as assembling “all the leaders of Israel” (kol-sare yisra’el), a term that is distinguished in the list from “the priests and Levites.” Thus, it is now in chapter 27 that the Chronicler presents the “leaders” of Israel, with the term “leader” (sar [TH8269, ZH8569]) used seven times in the chapter (27:1, 2, 5, 8, 22, 31, 34). Finally, the national assembly that David convenes in chapters 28-29 is comprised of the very groups introduced in chapter 27. Thus, chapter 27 is not only appropriate in a work focused on the Temple but is expected both by the introduction to chapters 23-27 and also the introduction to chapters 28-29.

The first section of chapter 27 focuses on the organization of the army. The term “list” here (mispar [TH4557, ZH5031]) is the one used regularly throughout chapters 23-27 for “numbering” (23:3, 24, 27, 31; 25:1, 7; 27:1). It is also the term used in 21:5 when Joab presents the results of the census to David, an event reflected in 27:23-24, where again the term appears twice. The initial list of personnel in 27:1 appears to reflect organization of groups through a chain of command, moving from the Israelites to “heads of the fathers” (not reflected in NLT) to generals and captains (lit., “[the leaders of] thousands and hundreds”) to their officers. The role of this chain of command was to supervise the army divisions, and they did this under the authority of the king. This is an important development in the sociology of Israel, signaling that the army was no longer linked to tribal chieftains and tribal authority but rather to a centralized royal figure and that military affairs would no longer be conducted ad hoc but would be directed by a standing army.

These army divisions are identified as those who “went in and went out” (habba’ah wehayyotse’th [TH935/3318, ZH995/3655]; NLT, “on duty”), a phrase related to the ancient “changing of the guard,” which is illustrated in 2 Kings 11:9 and 2 Chronicles 23:8. These latter passages identify the Sabbath as the time of the changing of the Levitical guard; they distinguished between “men reporting for duty that Sabbath” and “those who were going off duty [on the Sabbath],” a process dependent on an act of dismissal (“Jehoiada the priest did not let anyone go home after their shift ended,” 2 Chr 23:8). The specific duties of these troops is not made clear, although it obviously would have entailed battle in times of war, and in times of peace, as Japhet (1993:469) notes, “These reserves would be given the duty of guarding the kindom’s borders, doing police service and maintaining order in conquered territories, manning strongholds and castles, attending to the weapons and equipment–chariots, horses, etc.” For the royal army in chapter 27, the cycle was monthly rather than weekly, a fact reinforced by the list in 27:2-15. Although the list is based on the principle of 12 units, it is interesting that the division is not based on the 12 tribes, further evidence of the social transformation under David’s reign. The number 12, however, also bolsters the Chronicler’s presentation of this perfect kingdom and echoes the earlier divisions in chapters 24-26, which were based on the number 24. However, the fact that it is only half the number may privilege the role and organization of the sacred orders. (pg. 204-205)

Evaluation:
This commentary over and again proves faithful to a high view of Scripture. Yet it is also extremely helpful in sorting out the technical details in the text and catching the underlying theological vision of the Chronicler. Some of my readers may not be aware of how very different the books of Chronicles are from the books of Kings, and this commentary helps underscore and interpret these differences as being loaded with theological import rather than evidence against the divine inspiration of both groups of books. The material is presented in a clear way and remains accessible to a wide variety of readers. I recommend this book for anyone who desires to study the books of Chronicles. I’m confident that it will prove helpful and steer you right.

About the Author:
Mark J. Boda (Ph.D., University of Cambridge) has authored numerous articles and books in addition to editing several collections of scholarly essays on various topics related to the Old Testament and Christian Theology. He taught for nine years at Canadian Theological Seminary before joining McMaster Divinity College in 2003. Mark enjoys mentoring students and teaches with enthusiasm about the Old Testament and its continued relevance to the Christian life today.

Where to Buy:
  • Westminster Bookstore
  • Amazon
  • Christianbook.com
  • Direct from Tyndale

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by Tyndale House Publishers. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

More Info on the Discovery of the 1st Century MSS Fragment of Mark

Recently, Dr. Dan Wallace made news about the discovery of what is possibly the earliest NT MSS fragment ever found. I gave details on the find here.

Well, Dr. Wallace was recently interviewed by Hugh Hewitt on his radio show about the discovery and gave additional details. We now know the MSS contains part of one papyrus leaf, written on both sides. From the sound of it, it is most of one leaf so several verses but not much more. It was also found in Egypt — all seven of these MSS finds were found there. Dr. Wallace will also be on of the authors of the book that will publish all seven papyri fragments in early 2013.

Wallace continues to consider this a truly monumental manuscript find, as the following snippet from the full interview makes clear:

HH: Wow. Now in terms of, for the lay audience, Professor Daniel Wallace, the significance of this work when it appears, how would you grade it, with an A being a Dead Sea Scroll sort of significance, and you know, flunking, it just doesn’t matter?

DW: I would grade it at least an A, maybe an A+.

HH: And will the rest of the scholarly world agree with you on that assessment, do you think?

DW: I think that when they understand the ramifications of the entire nature of this manuscript that I’m not at liberty to mention, yes. They’re going to understand. At least those that will accept that date. Since the manuscript doesn’t have a date stamp on it, it says it was done this year, there are always going to be dissenters. But to do the work of paleography takes thousands and thousands of hours of research to do one.

I’m not sure the discovery will prove to be the equal of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I’m cautiously optimistic that it will prove to be very consequential.

I also got an update from Matthew Hamilton who I quoted in my earlier post on this. From his information and that of Wallace from this interview, the following looks to be the list of the 7 manuscripts. Many of these would be the earliest textual witness we have of that Biblical book, if the dates hold true.

  1. 2nd century homily (sermon) on Hebrews 11
  2. 2nd century frg. with I Corinthians 8-10
  3. 2nd century frg. with Matthew
  4. 2nd century frg. with Romans 9-10
  5. 2nd century frg. from Hebrews, one side contains 9:19-22
  6. 2nd century frg. with Luke
  7. 1st century frg. [part of one leaf] with Mark

For more details read the entire transcript of the Hewitt – Wallace interview, and keep an eye on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog.

Earliest NT Manuscript Discovered???

Over on my team blog, KJVOnlyDebate.com, my friend Damien Garofalo shared the news of the possible discovery of a 1st Century NT manuscript of the Gospel of Mark. There isn’t much information on this as of yet, but here’s what I know so far.

Dr. Daniel Wallace spilled the beans in a recent debate with Bart Ehrman that there has now been discovered a papyrus fragment of Mark that has been dated to the 1st Century. This would make the manuscript earlier than P52, a manuscript fragment of the Gospel of John dated to A.D. 125. The publication of the new manuscript fragment, and any additional details about its discovery, will not be available until next year, unfortunately. There are indications, however, that the fragment appears to be part of the Green collection, which claims to include “one of the world’s largest holdings of unpublished biblical and classical papyri.” More details on that collection, here.

At Sheffield Biblical Studies blog, I found the following tidbit with more details about the new discoveries.

From what I’ve been able to glean there are now in the Green Collection 7 unpublished NT papyri:

  1. 2nd century frg. with Hebrews 1
  2. 2nd century frg. with I Corinthians 8-10
  3. 2nd century frg. with Matthew
  4. 2nd century frg. with Romans 8-9
  5. 2nd century frg. with part of a Pauline Epistle, from what I know it is from Hebrews
  6. 2nd century frg. with Luke
  7. 1st century frg. with Mark

As for where these manuscripts have been found, there is no official word, but the following tidbit about the director of the Green collection may have the answer:

Carroll also developed a method to extract writings reused in the infrastructure of mummy coverings while preserving the decorative external features. This groundbreaking research has uncovered some of the earliest-known ancient Greek writings.

I was able to learn that the technical term for this is cartonnage (papyrii and other linens and fabric that was molded into funeral masks for Egyptian mummies). So the assumption is that most of these fragments may have been found through Carroll’s innovative method of extracting papyrii from cartonnage. And as Matthew Hamilton mentioned over in the comments at Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, this could have important ramifications for the ability to date the papyrii with precision.

…if other NT papyri in the Green Collection were recovered from cartonnage, then perhaps also the fragment of Mark. Unlike papyri like P52, a papyrus fragment found in cartonnage has at least 2 elements of context:

Firstly the other papyri in the cartonnage may indicate a date range – if they all appear to be 2nd century then a 1st century date for a NT frg. would be odd, and conversely, if they all appear to be 1st century then a 2nd century date for a NT frg. would be odd. But if they come from a wide range then the context is much weaker

Secondly, if the cartonnage is dated by style or other features to the late 1st century then any of the papyri that make up the cartonnage MUST predate the late 1st century.

Unfortunately Daniel Wallace’s information does not make it clear if the fragment of Mark was from cartonnage like the fragment of Romans, or if it was a loose fragment.

We will have to wait for more information on this, but even if these fragments are quite small, they still (if the early dates hold) stand as added testimony to the authenticity of the New Testament.

I should note in passing, that with the size of the fragment, it is almost surely not going to contain profound new insight of lasting text-critical value. The dream-scenario that Paul Maier writes about in The Constantine Codex of a textual discovery that forever settles the question of Mark’s ending, remains fiction, for now.

See my recent update which corrects some of the details speculated on in this post.