King James Version
Only
Notes from A Cult Studies Perspective
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, © 2002
Some time ago I subscribed to
an extreme KJVO list as part of my ongoing research for a course on the Cults
that I teach at CUTS (supplemented with materials from published sources). Following are some notes on the subject. I would appreciate any feedback, since I will
be using these notes as part of course, and perhaps later for other purposes as
well. I should also note here that I am
interacting primarily with the extreme position: there are more moderate
advocates, which I mention by way of contrast below.
The extreme King James Version Only (KJO, KJVO often known as Ruckmanite,
after Peter Ruckman, one of the modern exponents) position is primarily an
irrational, non-biblically mandated fideistic
position. If queried about his position, the KJO advocate will often retreat to the
“it’s an issue of faith” argument. Now,
many things are a matter of “faith,” but the precise nature of that faith is
determined and limited by the Scriptures.
The kind of faith which the KJO advocate maintains in the King James
Version is in fact quite different from the type of faith which Scripture
demands for belief in Christ, or the work of Christ, or practically any other
content which functions as the object of the word group (both nouns and verbs)
translated by the English word. This KJO
faith, in fact, amounts to a redefinition of the term.
Is the KJO movement a cult or cultic in its nature? In the extreme aspects of the movement, I am
afraid that it shows definite cultic symptoms.
Among these symptoms:
Below, I have interacted with a
typical article which defends the KJO position.
The original is marked by >><< typical in email quotations;
my comments are interspersed in italics. This is not meant as an exhaustive
critique, but merely as a sample of some of the thinking together with possible
rejoinders.
Is the KJV "Inspired Scripture"?
>>Often it is stated that the King James Bible can't be "inspired scripture" because copies and translations can't be "inspired" - only the "originals" are inspired. Even some supposed KJV advocates will only go so far as to claim that the KJV is "preserved", but not inspired. Of course, others claim neither preservation, nor inspiration for the Authorized Bible. <<
This is type of approach by the
extreme KJVO advocates is typical of the position. It essentially misrepresents the views of
both opponents to the position and adherents who are less extreme. One should always be aware of those who use
the techniques of propaganda to support their position.
>> Let's look at what the word of God says about inspiration and preservation: <<
Excellent idea. An
actual examination of Scripture in context and an analysis of the assumptions
that the KJVO brings to the text will certainly reveal the poverty of the
position.
>>2 Tim
"Scripture" is what God gave by "inspiration". The question is "What is the scripture?"
A copy or a translation CAN indeed be "inspired scripture". Just look at the previous verse:
2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
It was what Timothy had since childhood. It was not the "original manuscripts", but it was "inspired scripture". <<
What the writer of this article fails
to realize is that this is actually an argument against his position.
1.
First, the
passage is being used to prove too much.
At best, it can only be proved that God preserves his word in
“copies.” It says nothing about translations.
2.
This is
certainly not a promise that God will preserve his word in any one manuscript
or translation – in fact, no such promise is given anywhere in Scripture. It does not speak to the mode of either
inspiration or preservation, i.e. the details of how God actually kept his
promise. Those details can only be
determined from historical review.
3.
That
historical review will reveal that all ancient manuscripts have errors, i.e.,
that no two ancient manuscripts agree with each other. The assumption that the KJVO offers is that,
therefore, God must have miraculously preserved his word in one manuscript line
and one translation. However, my
contention is that that assumption is not provable from any Scripture, but an
external theological imposition.
>>Acts
Did they steal the "scriptures" from Timothy? No, obviously scriptures, which are inspired by definition, can be pure copies. <<
Picking up on a thought above,
Scripture itself has no problem with citing translations or using text types
from different manuscript traditions. It
is clear, e.g., from reading the NT citation of OT texts that the NT writers
feel free to cite the LXX (the KJVO position that the LXX was created after the
NT has no support at all), offer their own translations, or cite from text
types no longer extant (the practical issues involved in determining the
difference between the last two are quite well known). This in itself should indicate that God’s
view of inspiration, translation and preservation differs from the view of the KJVO’s.
Let’s call the KJVO theory
“mechanistic.” God must have done it one
way: The KJVO way.
Let’s call the theory supported by the
actual Scriptural and historical evidence “dynamic”— God can and does work
through a variety of means to inspire, translate and preserve his word. In other words, in accordance with other ways
in which God works, he actually uses his created means to accomplish his
purposes, and does not “run roughshod” over them.
>>Acts 8:32 & 35 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
Did the Ethiopian had the original autograph of Isaiah? Not a chance. <<
Agreed, but as noted above, this does
not support the KJVO mechanistic theory.
It only supports that theory if one had predetermined that “this is the
only way God could have done it.”
>>Exo 32:19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.
Uh oh! There go the "originals". Even the replacement "original" tablets were not scripture. Moses COPIED (maybe translated) them into the Pentateuch. The 10 Commandments in the "original" were a third-generation copy. Then in the "original" New Testament, Jesus and Paul quoted and translated them! Their words, when referring to the Commandments in the "original" NT, were fourth-generation translations of copies, but still "inspired scripture". <<
In the dynamic theory of inspiration
and preservation, any Scripture which comes from the hand of a human author may
be inspired by the sovereign action of God’s Spirit. The inspiration of a text may only be
determined “ex post facto” from what we actually have, not from theoretical
supposition. This means that the Ten
Commandments as given by Moses, or as recorded by him in Scripture, are fully
Scripture, not “copies” in some sense.
>>Prov 25:1 These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of
Hezekiah king of
Jer 36:32 Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to
Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote
therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of
NT quotes of OT passages are Greek translations of Hebrew. Nearly EVERY WORD spoken by Jesus (Aramaic or Hebrew) was translated into Greek. <<
Certainly, but that factoid does
nothing to support the thesis of the KJVO’s. God’s word is immediately inspired by the Spirit, and that includes the translations included in that
word. The promise cannot be proven to
cover translations of the inspired word already given, which would amount to
providing (in principle) a new canon.
>> What exactly is it that is preserved? Logically it is the inspiration of scripture that is preserved. <<
This is an unclear statement. Does the writer mean that the theological
concept of inspiration is what is preserved?
Or that the Scriptures are preserved inviolate with the very same words
in which they were given? Logically, let
me note that inspiration and preservation are two different, albeit related,
subjects. If translations may be
immediately inspired, however, note that there is no necessity whatsoever for
“preservation” in any form – God may simply re-inspire translators when the
time comes. If, however, the original
words in which God gave his word are important, then preservation is necessary.
>>Psalm 12:6 The
words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them
from this generation for ever. (7's P. 69-70) <<
Of course, it has been proven by many
different writers that this is not a promise to preserve God’s word, but God’s
people. Both the Hebrew grammar and the
balanced parallel clauses of the Hebrew poetry strongly indicate this. Ironically, it was almost certainly this
attempt to preserve the structure of the original which led the KJV translators
to write an ambiguous translation at this point. The original AV1611 note on this passage
indicates, however, that the translators did understand the correct pronominal
reference.
>>Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
<<
Again, it cannot be demonstrated that
this is a promise for the KJV, or even of any
particular manuscript line for the Hebrew.
The passage does not reference mode, only the fact of preservation.
>>Matt 24:35 & Luke 21:33 Heaven and
earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. <<
This statement of Jesus refers in part
to the writing of the NT, and not to the KJV or any other line of texts or
translations.
>>1 Pet
The "originals" are gone! If God was talking about them, He FAILED (or LIED)! <<
Rather, God has not preserved his word
according to the writer’s expectations.
This reminds me of the way in which the coming of the Messiah was
perceived in the years just preceding the first advent. Everybody had expectations about the Messiah,
but Jesus fulfilled none of them.
Rather, he came as the incarnate Logos, God the Son…
>> The scripture cannot be the "winnowed sum of all the texts", because they differ. We must have something 100% certain to stand on as authoritative from God. Otherwise, we do not know for certain what parts are accurate and what parts are errors. We'd have no absolute authority beyond our own opinion. <<
This is an assumption that needs itself to be proved, not asserted. It was several centuries before the church
was sure what books of the Bible belonged in the canon, and yet God preserved
the church through those centuries. Even
as late as medieval times, it was not common for any one church to have all the
Scriptures available, and yet God still saw fit to preserve his church. The true basis for the life of the church is
not any one copy of God’s word perfectly preserved, but the fact that God
speaks even through imperfect copies to lead his people to himself.
>>Prov 30:5 EVERY WORD of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Deut 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
Matt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God.
John
Excellent passages,
which confirm why it is necessary for the church to continue to exercise
diligence to ensure that the text which we have truly is the text as it was
given to the writers.
>> Which "Bible" is the one in which "EVERY WORD" can be claimed? The Greek? There are 5000 Greek portions? The Majority Text? Which one? The Textus Receptus? Which one? The MT and TR are reasonably "accurate" and agreeable, but not identical. Most "reliable" are the TR texts. They are what the King James was translated from, but even they are not absolute. There are at least six TR texts Erasmus, Stephanus, Elzevir, Colineaus, Beza, Scrivener. There are several editions of each, about two dozen total. They are very close, but not identical, ("ass" & "son" interchanged, among other differences). <<
Again, the writer here imposes
criteria on the Scriptures which God himself does not apply. God saw fit to preserve his word in many
different manuscripts. Who are you, O
man, to argue with God?
>>Could be that one of them is the pure scripture in Greek, or could be they came from the pure Greek which is no longer extant. Perhaps the pure Greek is somewhere with the "originals"?
There are two lines of Bible texts, one good
(
KING'S Lineage: Very little dispute on OT Masoretic. Disparity is in the Greek.
Acts 6:9 Then there arose certain of the
synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of
Acts 27:6 And there the centurion found a ship
of
This is nice – taking a historical
reference and reading it allegorically.
Augustine would be proud!
>>Acts 28:11 And
after three months we departed in a ship of
Luke’s inclusion of this detail seems
to be to underscore the historical detail of his account, and not to suggest
any negative reference to
Of course, this is not all that the
Scripture says about
Isa 19:18 In that day shall five cities in the
land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one
shall be called, The city of destruction. Isa 19:19 In that day shall there be an altar to the LORD
in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the
border thereof to the LORD. Isa 19:20 And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD
of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the
oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a
great one, and he shall deliver them. Isa 19:21 And the LORD shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians
shall know the LORD in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they
shall vow a vow unto the LORD, and perform [it]. Isa
Now, lest anyone think that this is
simply a prophecy for the millennial age and therefore doesn’t apply, note that
during the NT era it is God’s will for the church to go out and preach the
Gospel in every nation (Matt 28:18-20, Acts 1:8). During the “church age” every nation is equal
before God, and every nation is equally redeemable in his sight as he
allows. The passages which the writer
quotes do not have prophetic value, but are historical references (note that
they are all from Acts, which is mostly historical, not prophetic). In fact, the Alexandrian church was not even
established during the historical period covered by Acts, and no Scripture may
be cited which prophetically speaks of it.
>>Adamantius Origen's
heretical allegorical school was in
How ironic that the writer would
complain of this when he has treated his passages in Acts as allegorical!
>>The principle Alexandrian texts are spurious at best, Satanic perversions at worst. Vaticanus
was found stuffed in the
Let’s try alternative interpretations
of the facts, which are at the very least as provable as the writer’s here:
1.
Vaticanus was laid
aside not because it was corrupt, but because it was highly valued and but
nearly worn out. I have several old
Bibles in a similar condition. Are they
in storage because they are corrupt, worthless copies? No, precisely the opposite.
2.
God, in his
divine sovereignty, raised up Count von Tischendorf
to rescue the Codex Sinaiticus, which “Catholic”
monks were destroying, themselves under Satanic influence…
3.
The original
KJV contained the Apocrypha. So what?
>> ALL English versions, except ONE (you get ONE guess which ONE), use Alexandrian texts. Even ones that claim TR, use Alex. when changing. Nkjv also uses Kittle's Samaritan OT. <<
All the writer has done is asserted
that since the Alexandrian texts are different from the Antiochan,
therefore they are bad. Not one shred of
actual proof has been given…
Let me here simply
note that the writer has not proven that the Majority Text, or even the Textus Receptus, actually
descends from manuscripts copied at