אבנימ

The author addresses a serious issue for our churches today that is actually causing harm and division among God’s people, namely the King James Only movement. By way of addressing this issue, hereafter “KJV-only,” the author provides the reader with an accessible introduction to the basic principles of textual criticism, the academic discipline which endeavors to establish the original text of Scripture. In the context of the issues addressed in this book, the reader comes to understand that textual criticism is not merely an obscure and impractical branch of scholarship, but rather that it is vitally important to our common Christian faith.

At the outset the author clarifies what he means by KVJ-only-ism, and what he is, and is not, specifically seeking to refute. He delineates the full range of belief among those who may be classified within the KJV-only camp. First there are those prefer the KJV to other versions because it is what they grew up with, or because of the beauty of its language, or for other reasons of personal preference. Second are those who hold that the Hebrew and Greek texts behind the KJV are superior to the modern critical texts. Third are those who claim that the Textus Receptus, the text behind the KJV, was supernaturally preserved, or even inspired by God. Fourth are those who affirm that the KJV translation itself is inspired by God, and therefore inerrant. Fifth and finally is the group who claims that not only is the KJV inspired by God and therefore authoritative, but that wherever it differs from the Greek and Hebrew texts, it is actually new revelation, and should be used to correct the original Greek and Hebrew texts. It is to the third, fourth and fifth groups, and those who have been troubled by them, that the author addresses his arguments.

Much of the impetus behind the KJV-only movement arises from entirely predictable human emotional reactions. We humans are creatures of habit, and therefore will tend to be suspicious of anything novel, especially when it seems to be supplanting something time-honored and viewed as sacred. Since generations of Christians have embraced the KJV as their Bible, it tends often to be perceived as an integral part of our faith, and hence when some upstart “new and improved” translation comes along, there is a visceral reaction against it, as something that is threatening the faith of our fathers. The history of the church shows that this phenomenon with translations of Scripture has repeated itself from the earliest days of the Church. The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX), was the source for Old Testament translation until Jerome translated from the original Hebrew in the 5th century. When he did so, there were the same kinds of objections that are heard today from the KJV-only camp, because certain passages were so dissimilar to the time-honored and revered Septuagint. Nevertheless, Jerome’s Vulgate proceeded to become the Church’s standard for the next millennium. What was viewed at first as a radical departure, in time became the norm. Again, in the 16th century Erasmus broke new ground in Bible translation when he completed the Greek text which became known as the Textus Receptus, which would later become the basis of the KJV. Again there were the same outcries, because it departed from the time-honored Vulgate. But again, the new and radical text of Erasmus eventually became the accepted standard for the next 400 years. The irony is evident, namely that arguments which KJV-only advocates propound against new versions today are the same ones that were voiced against their own cherished Textus Receptus centuries ago.

With this historical perspective, the author instructs the reader as to the main features of the current Bible translation battlefield. First, there are the differing translational methodologies of formal equivalence vs. dynamic equivalence. The former seeks to the render the original text as precisely and literally as possible from the original tongue: lexically, syntactically and grammatically. The latter seeks to understand the meaning and intent of the author in the original language, and then render into the target language the author’s meaning in the most understandable way possible to the reader, without being bound by the linguistic structures of the original tongue. There are pros and cons to each approach, but it is evident that the dynamic equivalence method is inherently more subjective and hence fraught with more peril.

Having demonstrated in the KJV-only controversy the practical relevance of textual criticism, the author gives a quick but useful survey of its main points. He outlines the basic facts and principles of which many believers today are unaware, e.g. the original tongues of Scripture, the lack of verses, spaces and punctuation in the original texts, the four major families of New Testament manuscripts, the multiplicity of variant readings and how they arose, the most commonly made scribal errors, et al. Through this presentation the reader is shown that textual criticism is fairly close to an exact science, and that in most cases by following the logical principles of that science, one can confidently determine the original text. In the context of this book, this demonstration is intended to show that the KJV-only claims of a broad conspiracy by “liberal” scholars to undermine God’s Word are wholly unfounded.

KJV-only advocates often belittle the science textual criticism, knowledge of the original languages, and scholarship in general, claiming that we are thereby “judging the Word of God.” Nevertheless Erasmus, the creator of the Textus Receptus was an exceptionally gifted scholar, and he used the same methods of textual criticism that modern scholars use today. The major difference between him and modern scholars is that he had far fewer and far poorer texts with which to do his work. There were in fact some portions of the New Testament for which he had no Greek text, and so he resorted to using the Vulgate and translating it “back” into Greek. The KJV-only advocate dismisses the mention of variant readings in modern translations as undermining the authority of God’s Word. Yet not only do Erasmus’s notes for the Textus Receptus include discussions of variant readings just like the modern critical texts, the Authorized Version of 1611 itself had over 6000 such notes printed in its margins. Moreover, though some insist that the AV of 1611 is divinely inspired, there have been many revisions of the KJV since it was first printed, and the KJV of today is quite different from the first edition.

It is therefore not surprising to learn that much of the polemic published by KJV-only advocates is laden with illogical and circular argumentation, misrepresentation of opponents’ statements, and even what must honestly be called puerile ad hominem invective. Notable among the literature of this sort are the works of Dr. Peter Ruckman and Mrs. Gail Riplinger. The author painstakingly goes through example after example to illustrate the absurdity of their “evidence,” with the result that the intelligent and fair-minded reader will shake his head in disbelief at how any credence could be given to their writings. But rather than responding in kind, the author goes through their arguments and addresses them on their merits. The objections to the newer translations such as the NASB, the NIV et al. are often made on the basis of their deviation from the KJV, not on whether they are true to the Greek and Hebrew texts. Thus the KJV-only advocates engage in classic circular reasoning, proving what they assert by their a priori assumption: the KJV is the infallible standard, newer translations deviate from it, hence they violate the infallible standard. Through the multitude of examples cited in which the KJV text is presented side by side with a modern translation and compared with the original languages, it is demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no grand conspiracy to subvert the essential truths of the faith by the modern translations, as many KJV-only advocates affirm. Indeed, in not a few cases the modern translation cited is shown to be stronger on the deity of Christ, the sacrificial blood atonement, or other cardinal doctrines than the KJV.

The remainder of the book is mainly taken up with an analysis of the actual textual differences between the Textus Receptus and the modern critical texts. With this the reader is taken a bit further into the actual practice of textual criticism, applying its rules to specific textual issues, studying variant readings, understanding how they arose, and why in the end a particular reading was taken. In every case the conclusion is the same. Good-faith scholarship has been applied, and readings have been selected on the basis of their merit according to the verified principles of textual criticism, not because of any hidden agenda or conspiracy.

At the end of the day we do well to remember our Lord’s words: “You shall know them by their fruits.” Like the Pharisees of all ages, many of the most strident KJV-only advocates like Ruckman and Riplinger, claim for themselves the high ground in defending God’s truth. But they are in fact guilty of slandering good men, bearing false witness against their brothers in Christ, being accusers of the brethren, causing division in churches, and undermining the saints’ confidence in God’s Word as that which has been providentially preserved for His people. These are not the works of God, but of the devil.