King James Onlyism (Jesus, translation, choice, America, mission)

[Trey of Diamonds]

Greetings,

I just joined and I thought I would jump right in with a debate topic. I would like to hear what folks have to say about King James Onlyism. That is the Christian faction that believe the King James version of the Bible is the only inerrant word of God. I wrote an essay on the two sources for biblical translations, the Textus Receptus and the Alexandrian that touches on the subject and I will share it with you in the next post as an intro and to give my opinion on the subject.

[Trey of Diamonds]

Textus Receptus vs. the Alexandrian Text
By Trey Wickwire

A Historical Timeline.
In the early years of the third century a man named Origen, in the city of Alexandria, started a text critical study of the Old Testament. It was his belief that the Word of God was not being accurately reproduced by the scribes of the day. Due to a dispute between Origen and the local Bishop at Alexandria, Origen moved to Caserea to complete his work. His Greek text of the Old Testament was extensively consulted by patristic scholars until its destruction in the seventh century during the Islamic conquest of the Near East. There is no evidence that Origen ever worked on the New Testament.

At sometime during the fourth century two codices of the New Testament were written in Alexandria. The first by a man named Vaticanus and the second by Sinatiticus. These two codices and a number of lesser-known manuscripts are what we today call the Alexandrian Text. At some point in time these two codices were lost and nothing is known of them until they resurfaced many centuries later.

In the year 1448, the original codex written by Vaticanus was rediscovered by the Catholic church and placed in the library at the Vatican. It was unavailable to scholars until late in the 19th century.

In the year 1514, in Antioch, a New Testament Greek translation called the Complutensian Polyglot was printed. However it would not be published until the year 1520. This came to the attention of one Desiderius Eramus. Eramus, a Roman Catholic, saw an opportunity to beat the Polyglot’s publication. With the help of John Frobed of Basle they did just that and published Eramus’ Greek and Latin translation of the New Testament in February of 1516.

The first edition of Erasmus’s work was pushed through so fast that it had thousands of typographical errors. Some of these he corrected in subsequent editions. Each edition met with huge success and many were sold. His success brought about several new Greek texts, most of which were based on his.

In the year 1550, Robert Stephanus (Estienne) published a new edition of Eramus’ work. It was in Stephanus’ fourth edition that he added the verse numbers that all modern editions use.

In the year 1565, a Protestant reformer named Theodore de Beza put out his own edition. It was Beza’s edition that the King James translators chose to use for their translation of the Bible into English.

In the year 1604, King James I of England authorized the translating of the Bible into English so the common man might better understand the Word of God. Fifty four men were nominated to work on the translation. They were organized into groups, each with an assigned portion of the Bible to translate.

By now the Greek manuscripts at Antioch had come to be called the Textus Receptus or Received Text. The Textus Receptus represented hundred of editions of Greek and Latin manuscripts from Antioch. From these editions, King James’ translators chose to use Beza’s edition for their work. On occasion they did refer to the Stephanus edition instead.

In the year 1611, The King James translators published the first edition of their work, calling it the Authorized Version. The Authorized Version quickly became the Bible of choice in western Europe and the Americas, eclipsing all other versions.

In the year 1859 the original codex written by Sinaiticus was discovered by the Catholic church and placed in the library at the Vatican. It too was not made available to scholars until late in the 19th Century.

In the year 1881, Westcott and Holt published a new translation of the New Testament using the Alexandrian Text of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codices. The Westcott and Holt translation highlights the differences between the Alexandrian Text and the Textus Receptus.

Since Westcott and Holt published their edition many other editions have followed, such as the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New Living Translation and the Revised Standard Version. These and other editions all rely heavily on the Westcott and Holt translation of the Alexandrian Text rather than the King James translation of the Textus Receptus.

In the year 1956, scholars publish a new translation of the Alexandrian Text in the French language called the Bible de Jerusalem. In 1966 the English edition of the Jerusalem Bible was first published. This was the last known translation of the ancient text.

A faith divided.
Today there is a division between the faithful on which of these translations is truly the Word of God and which has been altered. On one side is a group whose members say they believe in the “King James Only”, coining the phrase “King James Onlyism”. This group believes that the King James Version or the Authorized Version is the only inerrant Word of God in existence today. Anyone who does not believe that the King James Version is the Inerrant Word of God is considered guilty of Apostasy.

Members of the opposing view believe that the older manuscripts of the Alexandrian Text are more accurate and that, due to the nature of translation between languages, it is not possible to have an inerrant Word of God.

Each of these groups refers to evidence to support their case. The King James Only crowd claim that the Alexandrian Text was tainted by the work of Origen because of his loose translation methods. However, there is no evidence to show that Origen actually worked on a New Testament translation. His work on the Old Testament is well documented and it is believed that if he had worked on the New Testament it would have been equally documented.

The King James Only crowd also uses “The Law of First Mention” as evidence. This so called law states that because the first and most other references to Egypt in the Bible are negative then God views Egypt negatively, and thus nothing positive can come out of Egypt.

Now casting a critical eye towards Egypt because of past deeds may be justified, but to say that nothing good can come from these people because of the sins of the past is counter to everything that Christianity teaches. Christ died on the cross for man’s sins and nowhere does it say that Egyptians are not included.

There are many claims that Alexandria was a source of Heresy because scholars there denied the deity of Christ. However there is evidence that the same view was held in Antioch. In Antioch the church stated that Mary gave birth to a human, not to God. This is definitely counter to the deity of Christ and negates the argument.

The King James Only crowd have several litmus tests for Biblical Translations. One of the most popular is the verse 1 John 5:7. Following is the text from both the Textus Receptus and the Alexandrian Text.

1 John 5:7 Textus Receptus (KJV)
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1 John 5:7 Alexandrian (NJB)
7 So there are three witnesses,

The Alexandrian clearly leaves out the Holy Trinity. But is this an omission or does the Textus Receptus add to the Word of God? Frederick H. A. Scrivener, a very respected Biblical Scholar, claims that the origin of 1 John 5:7 is a marginal note which found its way into the text of some Latin copies. Here is a direct quote from Scrivener:

“On the whole, therefore, we need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss of ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.”

The omission and addition issue is an exercise in text comparison. There are several sites on the Internet that can show biblical verses side by side so that comparisons can be made. Both the Textus Receptus and the Alexandrian Text include phrases that are not in the other. This argument truly proves nothing one way or the other, except that the documents are different.

There is no conclusive scholarly or scientific evidence as to which text is more accurate or whether there is an inerrant Word of God. The question must be answered by the faith of the individual.

[MaddLlama]

If the KJV was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me!




I am of course only joking

[Trey of Diamonds]

Damn, posted this thread in the wrong debat forum. If the moderator reads this could you move this thread over to the Biblical Debates forum?

Hi MaddLlama!

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

I am of course only joking

... you almost had me!

[YamiB.]

I don't trust the KJV. I prefer some of the newer editions that seems to be much more scholarly legitimate.

[Trey of Diamonds]

I never enjoyed reading the KJV because of the language but I do think that it was a faithful translation. In other words, the translators did their best to make the translation accurate.

My favorite now is the Jeruslam Bible because it is a literal translation into modern language from the oldest available texts.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Trey of Diamonds

I never enjoyed reading the KJV because of the language but I do think that it was a faithful translation. In other words, the translators did their best to make the translation accurate.

My favorite now is the Jeruslam Bible because it is a literal translation into modern language from the oldest available texts.

The New Jerusalem Bible (1985)

Henry Wansbrough, ed., The New Jerusalem Bible. New York; London: Doubleday; Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985. ISBN: 0385142641

The New Jerusalem Bible is a revision of the Jerusalem Bible (1966). The revision seems to have been motivated chiefly by a desire to make the version more accurate. A number of reviewers had pointed out loose renderings which would cause problems for those who would use the version for close study, as it was intended to be used. There was also another consideration: The 1966 Jerusalem Bible was based upon the French Bible de Jérusalem (1961) prepared by the faculty of the Dominican Biblical School in Jerusalem; but in 1973 the French Bible was revised, and so for this reason it was felt that a corresponding revision of the English version was in order.

Henry Wansbrough of Ampleforth Abbey, York, was appointed chief editor for the revision. The preface mentions "Professor Kenneth Grayston and Canon Douglas Webster" as being especially worthy of notice in connection with this work.

The revision of the voluminous notes and introductions of the version simply follows the new French edition, and they represent the opinions of secular critical scholars. Skeptical views on the authenticity of various books, on the truthfulness of the biblical narratives, and even on the inspiration of the teachings of the Bible, are presented as if they were uncontroversial.

The translation is generally made more literal. In some places, however, the revision is less accurate than its predecessor. This is due mainly to the occasional changes made so as to avoid the linguistic "preference for the masculine." Apparently, the editors were under some pressure to revise the text according to the new principles of inclusive language. But changes of this type in the New Jerusalem Bible are very few compared to the severely neutered Bible versions which appeared in the 1990's.

The original Jerusalem Bible (1966) had been criticized for "undisciplined and capricious" treatment of the Old Testament, especially in matters of textual criticism. (1) Some problems of this kind have been corrected in the New Jerusalem Bible, but many remain. This seems to be a characteristic of modern Roman Catholic scholarship in general -- a weakness for speculative reconstructions of the text of the Old Testament, and for novelties in Hebrew philology. The result is that the reader cannot trust the translation to represent a scholarly consensus in matters of detail, and it must be compared with other, less adventurous Bible versions, when used for close study.

A "Reader's Edition" of the New Jerusalem Bible with abridged introductions and notes (ISBN: 0385248334) was issued in 1990.

The New Jerusalem Bible has become the most widely used Roman Catholic Bible outside of the United States. American Catholics prefer the New American Bible published by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. [ source ]

[Booko]

********* MOD POST *********

Thread moved from General Debates to Biblical Debates.

[Scuba Pete]

Invariably, those who hold to the "Inspired Version" doctrine, fail to give the Holy Spirit and God credit for changing our hearts.

Originally Posted by Trey

There is no conclusive scholarly or scientific evidence as to which text is more accurate or whether there is an inerrant Word of God. The question must be answered by the faith of the individual.

This was exceptionally insigthful.